Sabtu, 24 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


A game of chance

Posted: 24 Nov 2012 01:23 AM PST

Hence, since we are the ones who are going to pay for this mistake, should we not be the ones to decide what is true and what is false? Hence, also, should we not be allowed to decide what we wish to believe in since at the end of the day we are the ones who will suffer the consequences?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let's say, before your parents got married, your father was a Muslim and your mother a Christian. Then, when they got married, your mother converted to Islam and a year later you were born. What religion do you think you would be following now?

Let's say, before your parents got married, your father was a Christian and your mother a Muslim. Then, when they got married, your mother converted to Christianity and a year later you were born. What religion do you think you would be following now?

Let's say both your father and mother were Christians. Then, after they got married, they went to Tibet for their honeymoon where they visited a monastery. They were so impressed with how the Buddhist monks lived their lives that your parents converted to Buddhism. One year later you were born. What religion do you think you would be following now?

Today, there is more than a 99% chance you would be following the religion of your parents. There would be less than a 1% chance you would leave the religion of your parents to follow a new religion.

So are you 100% absolutely sure the religion you are following today is the correct religion? It is 'correct' only because you have been brought up in the religion of your parents. What if your parents never cared much for any religion and brought you up in an environment where there was no religion. Would you not probably be an atheist today?

How many of you have pondered on this question? Are you not what you are or who you are because of your parents? What if your parents had made a mistake and left the 'true' religion they were born into to embrace a 'false' religion? The religion you were brought up in would now become the 'true' religion while the earlier religion that your parents abandoned would be the 'false' religion.

Hence which is 'true' and which is 'false'? Is 'true' the new religion of your parents that you were brought up in or their old religion which they abandoned?

Hence, also, is true and false subjective and merely an opinion based on what you have been raised to believe? Or is true and false real and tangible?

Today we fight and argue about what we perceive as true and false. We uphold what we believe to be true and oppose what we believe to be false. However, if our parents had 'changed course' some time in their life by abandoning their old religion in favour of a new one, and they had exposed us to what they believe to be true, then our interpretation of true and false would be what we have been taught to believe to be true and false.

So are we really fighting for the truth or are we fighting for what we have been taught to believe to be true? And are we really confident that God has blessed us with the truth or has Satan misled us into believing that we are following the truth when actually we are following something false?

I suppose one day we will all know the answer to that question. But we will first have to die to get the answer to that question. In the meantime, while we are still alive, we want as many people as possible to follow us down this path of the truth.

But what happens if we are not on the path of truth and we end up leading others down a false path? While we will pay for this error of our ways, are we also going to pay for the error of the others we misled down this same false path? Or will each person pay for their own errors even if that error was made because others misled us?

Yes, there are those who would like to force their beliefs upon us and compel us to follow what they believe to be the right path. But if that so-called right path is actually the wrong path then we who followed them down this wrong path would end up paying for this mistake.

Hence, since we are the ones who are going to pay for this mistake, should we not be the ones to decide what is true and what is false? Hence, also, should we not be allowed to decide what we wish to believe in since at the end of the day we are the ones who will suffer the consequences?

 

The Q&A with Free Malaysia Today

Posted: 21 Nov 2012 03:22 PM PST

FMT makes it sound like I am attacking Haris Ibrahim. Actually I am not, so maybe the full text of my Q&A can better explain what I said. FMT asked me three questions and I responded accordingly, not as an attack but to explain what happened. Everything I say should not be seen as an attack or even a criticism.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Q: First off, it is implied that you're on Dr Mahathir's payroll. Would you say this is true?

A: First of all, it is, of course, not true. Have you not read what Matthias Chang said about me? Matthias is Dr Mahathir's man. What Matthias wrote about me would certainly not have been done to someone who is on Dr Mahathir's payroll. That was a most hard-hitting and damaging piece that Matthias wrote about me.

Furthermore, the government deleted my name on the land title of my house in Bukit Rahman Putra in Sungai Buloh. My daughter, Raja Suraya, who owns 75% of that house, was forced to buy back that 25% share of mine, which the government had confiscated.

Finally, the amount my daughter had to pay came to about RM300,000, legal fees and taxes included. On top of that, the government hit my daughter for property gains tax even though we had bought that house 18 years ago in 1994 and therefore there should be no tax. My daughter had to take a loan from MBF to settle that amount.

Further to that, my Malaysian passport expired three years ago in September 2009. I have checked and have been told that the government will not renew my passport or that of my wife.

I started Malaysia Today in 2004. I began associating with Dr Mahathir in 2006. All this is on record. All you need to do is to check on the Internet to find records of this. So how can Dr Mahathir be behind Malaysia Today when I began associating with him two years later and even then only when he started attacking Pak Lah.

Q: I was told that you appear to be rather racist as of late. What would you say to this?

A: I have been a 'racist' since the very beginning. For many years, long before 2011, I would attack the Malays, the Muslims, the religious department, the ulama' (religious scholars), the Sultans, etc.

I was arrested in 2004, soon after Malaysia Today was launched, for attacking the Sultans -- although they never charged me in the end. I was arrested a few more times for 'attacking Islam'. Finally, they detained me in 2008 because there were so many 'insulting Islam' police reports made against me.

And that was what my Detention Order stated (which worked in my favour because that was one of the arguments my lawyers raised to get my detention declared illegal).

Only lately, since 2011, did I add the non-Malays to my list of 'targets'. But that does not mean I have stopped attacking the Malays, the Muslims, the religious department, the ulama' (religious scholars), the Sultans, etc. It is just that now the non-Malays are guilty of what Umno is doing. Hence, just like Umno, they too need to be criticised.

Why was I not considered a racist before? Why only now am I considered a racist? When I attack the Malays, the Muslims, the religious department, the ulama' (religious scholars), the Sultans, etc., I am a freedom fighter. When the non-Malays are included in my attacks I suddenly become a racist.

Q: Have you been in contact with Haris recently? Have the both of you cut ties, or is this just a tiff?

A: I have my views and Haris has his. We have always had differing views from the beginning. Once, when Haris was representing me in court, I shouted to the judge that I was sacking my lawyers because I did not agree with their opinion regarding bail.

On another occasion, I refused bail and walked off to the lockup. Haris disagreed with this and he and my wife spent an hour trying to get me to change my mind. Finally, because of my wife's tears and Haris's pleading, I relented and accepted bail.

When MCLM was first launched, it was supposed to be just a civil liberties movement. I asked Haris to head it but at first he did not want to. Later he agreed. Then Haris wanted to use MCLM as a platform to 'outsource' 30 potential Member of Parliament candidates for Pakatan Rakyat.

I felt MCLM should not be political but I nevertheless went along with him since this was his project.

Then MCLM was accused of wanting to engage BN-PR in three-corner fights. This public perception of three-corner fights is what hurt MCLM and we got accused of being a Trojan horse, etc.

These videos can tell you more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxWC1eGf72Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhplZz64vv4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YCihOL5XQU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UkBKyC2v_w

You can see from those videos above that many things Haris said up to a year ago is what I am still saying today, although Haris no longer says these things.

There were many things I did not agree with, such as Haris's quarrel with the late Tunku Vic in Chiengmai. But I held my peace and backed him in spite of the fact I did not quite agree with his approach.

It appears, though, he is not returning that same courtesy that I extended to him.

Haris is angry with me for what he says is my act of undermining ABU. He has his views on what ABU should be, as do I. However, while I respect his views, he does not respect mine. He expects me to agree to his view with no conditions attached.

Maybe this will explain what my views on ABU are:

http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/52875-there-is-change-and-there-is-change

 

Isn’t it better not to have a religion?

Posted: 19 Nov 2012 06:39 PM PST

But what a shame indeed! Because Sia Ka Tian refuses to follow Muhammad, the Muslims say he is going to hell, and because Sia Ka Tian refuses to follow Jesus, the Christians say he is going to hell, although he did something not many of the two billion Muslims and Christians would have done -- return RM3 million that he found accidentally left in his taxi.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Singapore cabbie returns US$900,000 to Thai couple

(AFP) - SINGAPORE: A Singaporean taxi driver has been heralded as a hero after he returned Sg$1.1 million (US$900,000) in cash to a vacationing Thai couple who left the money in his cab.

Sia Ka Tian, 70, was shocked to find the money in a black paper bag on the back seat on Monday after he dropped the couple off at a shopping centre.

"When I saw the money, I thought, trouble is here. I was sure there was at least $200,000 in the bag," the Straits Times quoted the 31-year veteran in the taxi business as saying.

But when he brought the money to transport company ComfortDelGro's lost-and-found office, his stunned colleagues counted Sg$1.1 million in thousand-dollar bills.

"The money is unimportant to me. It doesn't belong to me, so how can I use it?" he told the newspaper.

The Thai couple reported the loss to the transport company and Sia was waiting for them when they arrived to claim the money.

The report did not say what the couple were doing with that large sum.

The driver received an undisclosed cash reward from the grateful couple, whose names have been withheld, and the company also plans to give him an award for good service.

"Finding one million dollars in cash is not an everyday affair and in fact, we wonder how many people would have possibly been tempted" to pocket it, company spokeswoman Tammy Tan told AFP.

"We are immensely proud of him and are glad that the passengers recovered their money.'

It was the second most valuable item returned by a cabbie working for the company. In 2009, another taxi driver returned fives kilos of gold bars worth Sg$377,000.

***************************************

His name is Sia Ka Tian and he works as a taxi driver in Singapore. I assume he is not a proud Muslim because his name is not Muhammad Sia bin Abdullah. I also assume he is not a proud Christian because his name is not Alexander Sia. Judging by his name, he must be a pagan idol-worshipper whom both the Muslims and Christians say is going to end up in hell for 'not believing in the truth'.

Sia Ka Tian discovered about RM3 million accidentally left in his taxi and he went and returned the money to the rightful owner. Not many of the two billion or so Muslims and Christians would have done this. In fact, you are more likely to be robbed or cheated, or your pocket picked or bag snatched, in one of the Muslim or Christian countries.

You face more risk of becoming the victim of crooks when praying in front of the Ka'bah in Mekah or at the Vatican in Rome. Some people have even been stabbed and killed during a purse-cutting crime gone wrong at these two 'holy' sites.

But what a shame indeed! Because Sia Ka Tian refuses to follow Muhammad, the Muslims say he is going to hell, and because Sia Ka Tian refuses to follow Jesus, the Christians say he is going to hell, although he did something not many of the two billion Muslims and Christians would have done -- return RM3 million that he found accidentally left in his taxi.

Sia Ka Tian did exactly what Islam and Christianity says people must do. But Sia Ka Tian is neither Muslim nor Christian. Hence what he did does not count. He will still not earn a place in paradise and instead will be sent to hell because he refuses to follow Prophet Muhammad or Jesus Christ.

You should listen to how the Muslims and Christians talk. If you listen to them talk you will know what you need to do to avoid hell and to get into paradise. But that is all they do -- they talk. They don't really practice what they say. People who practice what the Muslims and Christians say are people like Sia Ka Tian who did the proper Muslim-Christian thing. Nevertheless, he is still going to end up in hell.

It is nice to be able to follow a religion where you can talk without having to practice what you preach and still get to go to heaven while others like Sia Ka Tian who do the right thing get sent to hell.

Hidup Islam! Hidup Christianity! Hidup Munafiq! Mampus kafir!

 

It is not really ABU after all

Posted: 19 Nov 2012 05:08 PM PST

As much as the Abu-screamers and Pakatan Fan Club (PFC) members say that all they want is to see change after 55 years of an Umno-led government, this is not really true. It is not just about change at all. It is about change with certain terms and conditions attached that are favourable to certain personal interests of the so-called propagators of change.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Not too long ago I wrote a satire about a Muslim ordering food in a Chinese restaurant. The chap starts off by telling the waiter he is a Muslim and hence he does not eat pork. Okay, anything but pork, replies the waiter. So try the chicken.

Ah, hold on, but the chicken must be halal, the customer reminds the waiter. Has the chicken been properly slaughtered? No, it has not, so it is not halal. Okay, why not order the fish instead? The fish is definitely halal.

Ah, yes, but how are you going to cook the fish? Will you be cooking it in the same pots and pans that you cook the non-halal food? But of course, the restaurant has only one kitchen.

Oh, in that case he cannot order the fish as well. Oh well, he might as well just order the raw vegetables then. That would be the safest.

Okay, says the waiter, so it is not just anything but pork. It is also anything but chicken that is not halal. It is also anything but fish that is cooked in the same pots and pans as the non-halal food.

In short, it is not anything but pork. It is nothing except just vegetables. So why say anything but pork when you mean it must be more than just anything but pork?

And the last few days have been very entertaining for me to prove that it is not anything but pork. In this case we are, of course, talking about anything but Umno or ABU.

As much as the Abu-screamers and Pakatan Fan Club (PFC) members say that all they want is to see change after 55 years of an Umno-led government, this is not really true. It is not just about change at all. It is about change with certain terms and conditions attached that are favourable to certain personal interests of the so-called propagators of change.

I am all for change. After all, I have been speaking about change for 35 years since 1977 when many of you were still breast-feeding (and some of the childish comments posted in Malaysia Today indicate that some of you may still be breast-feeding). What I am not for is hidden agendas and using change as the camouflage to conceal this hidden agenda.

All we want is change. All we want is ABU or anything but Umno. Okay, I can buy that. We just want change. We just do not want Umno to run the country any longer. We will accept anything expect Umno.

Okay, say the opposition wins 120 seats in Parliament (which means Barisan Nasional would have won only 102 seats) and 60 of those seats are won by PAS, as they hope and plan to do (which means DAP and PKR combined won the balance 60). Then, say, from the 60 that DAP and PKR win, DAP wins 32 and PKR 28. This would mean PAS would nominate the Prime Minister from Pakatan Rakyat and PAS wants Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang to become the Prime Minister.

Oh, but Hadi Awang is not acceptable. It must be Anwar Ibrahim and only Anwar Ibrahim who becomes the Prime Minister. PAS leaders are not suitable or good enough. They are not intelligent enough. They can't even speak English the Winston Churchill way. PAS leaders are more suited for the kampong, not for the international stage. PAS leaders will never be able to run the country. They can't even run the state properly.

So that means it is not ABU then. It is anything but Umno plus anything but PAS leaders as Prime Minister.

Okay, say PAS wins 60 seats in Parliament and from the 28 PKR seats, 15 of them are Muslim candidates. Then the 60 PAS Members of Parliament, the 15 PKR Members of Parliament, and, say, another 50 Umno Members of Parliament unite to propose the implementation of Hudud. Since the total comes to 125 that gives them a majority in Parliament. Can we accept that since we say we respect the majority view?

No way can we accept Hudud even if the majority votes in favour of it. Those are barbaric laws from the Dark Ages. Those are stupid beliefs of people who are living in the past. Malaysia is a Secular country so we want to retain the Secular system. No way can we accept an Islamic State or the implementation of that part of the Sharia called Hudud.

So that means it is not ABU then. It is anything but Umno, anything but PAS leaders as Prime Minister, anything but Islamic State, plus anything but Hudud.

If we manage to kick out the Umno-led government and Pakatan Rakyat takes over the federal government can we agree to a standardised education system with only Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction? This would mean vernacular schools or mother-tongue education will be abolished.

No way we can agree to that.

So that means it is not ABU then. It is anything but Umno, anything but PAS leaders as Prime Minister, anything but Islamic State, anything but Hudud, plus anything but the standardisation of the education system.

And the list goes on -- Article 153, the New Economic Policy, race-based quotas, etc. All these, too, are not accepted alongside Umno, PAS leaders as Prime Minister, an Islamic State, Hudud, the standardisation of the education system, and much more.

So it is not really that simple after all. This is not just about ABU or anything but Umno. This is not about change and about seeing the end of 55 years of an Umno-led government. This is about many other things as well which we do not want.

So why lie to the voters? You actually want a package deal and the package includes many other things -- including allowing Muslims the freedom to leave Islam to become Christians or whatever if they want to. You even treat apostasy as part of the ABU campaign. And don't deny it because I have been reading the so many comments that you posted.

Just be honest with what you are seeking. You are not just seeking change. You are not just seeking the end of the 55-year-old Umno-led government. You have many, many things up your sleeve. And all we need to do is to propose Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang as Prime Minister to see you reveal your true intentions. And do you honestly believe that the Malay voters, in particular those from the Malay heartland, will go along with this?

As Tan Seng Giaw said: dream on.

Let me share a little secret with you. Many Malays also do not support the idea of an Islamic State or the implementation of Hudud. If they did then the predominantly Malay voters from Terengganu would not have given the state back to Umno in 2004 and again in 2008. In fact, PAS almost lost Kelantan as well in 2004.

What the Malays resent, however, is to see the non-Malays whack Islam. Even those Malays who do not pray or fast and/or who drink and/or gamble cannot tahan to see the non-Malays whack Islam. And many of these people will vote Umno not because they support Umno but because they are pissed with the way the Pakatan Rakyat supporters vilify Islam.

So Islam is outdated, is it? Islam is from the Dark Ages, is it? Islam is silly, is it? Well, you may be partly right about the mindset of some (or even many) of the Muslims. I too have been whacking the Muslims for a long time in case you have not noticed.

But the Muslims are not the only ones like this. All those who believe in God and who follow a religion are the same. This stupidity is not exclusive to Muslims. Even the very highly educated and extremely intelligence Christians believe in stupid things -- like Virgin Mary appearing on hospital windows.

In the first place, did Virgin Mary even exist or is she a myth like King Arthur? And how do they know what Virgin Mary looks like? Did anyone see her photograph to know that the image on the hospital window is that of Virgin Mary? How do they know it is not the image of Maid Marian, Robin Hood's girlfriend?

So don't be too quick in whacking Muslims and in calling them all sorts of nasty names. First of all, that is going to result in Pakatan Rakyat losing the Muslim support. Secondly, what you think of Muslims I too think of Christians who believe in silly things. The Bible says there is only one God and then you go and pray to another God called Mary.

*****************************************

The window pane with a purported image of the Virgin Mary was today removed from a hospital in Subang Jaya and handed over to the Catholic Church, as was previously agreed.

"Sime Darby Medical Centre Subang Jaya (SDMC SJ) has removed and handed over two window panes from the North Tower of the hospital complex to the Catholic Church.

"One of the panes has on it marks that some claim resemble artistic depictions of Mary, the Mother of Jesus," the Sime Darby Group said in a statement today.

Last Tuesday, the hospital had agreed to give to the Catholic Church several glass window panes from its building that has been drawing devout Catholics and curious visitors after word of the apparition's appearance spread.

It was also said that the glass panel will be moved to the Marian Church of Our Lady Lourdes in Klang.

"The removal of the window panes was carried out by professionals with due care, safety and caution exercised throughout the process, which started at 10am and ended without incident at 11.35am," Sime Darby Group said.

According to the company, leaders and parishioners of the Subang Jaya Catholic church were present at the hospital during the removal of the panes.

A hospital official confirmed that the glass panels have already been safely delivered to the Marian Church of Our Lady Lourdes in Klang.

"Yes, they have already opened it and displayed it," the official told The Malaysian Insider, saying that the panels were delivered around noon today.

In the same statement by the Sime Darby Group, the hospital thanked its patients and staff for their "patience", as well as the Catholic Church and enforcement authorities for their "support and kind understanding".

"SDMC SJ would like to thank its patients and their families, residents in the vicinity of the hospital and all its staff for their patience over the last two weeks.

"SDMC SJ would also like to thank the Church, the Royal Malaysian Police, Rela officers and the public for their support and kind understanding during this period," it said.

The image had last week continued to attract a crowd to the hospital eager to catch a glimpse of the image before it was moved, with many of them praying and singing hymns as well as lighting candles.

The image, said to be that of the Virgin Mary whom Catholics revere as the Mother of God, was reported to have first been spotted two weeks ago and has been captured on camera and reproduced on social media including Facebook where it went viral.

This is believed to be the first reported sighting of an image of the Virgin Mary in Malaysia. The phenomenon has been reported elsewhere around the world.

Some witnesses have also said they could make out a second image forming on another glass pane below the vertical row housing the apparition of Mary.

According to them, the second image resembled Jesus Christ on the crucifix.

The Catholic Church said it will withhold comment until the image has been tested and verified by theologians and church authorities, a process that will take time.

 

The ugly side of the Chinese

Posted: 18 Nov 2012 05:37 PM PST

The Malaysian police know I live in Manchester. Malaysians in the UK know I live in Manchester. Malaysians in Australia, New Zealand, the US, China, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc., know I live in Manchester. The Malaysian High Commission in London and the British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur know I live in Manchester. Only Victor Lim alone thinks I live in Dr Mahathir's apartment in London. He knows that but he does not know what the address is or whether Dr Mahathir really does own an apartment in London.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The right to choose

Lim Sue Goan, Sin Chew Daily

The most valuable part of a democratic and pluralistic society is the right to choose. Everyone can choose to support anything they think is right.

The United Chinese School Committees Association of Malaysia (Dong Zong) rally scheduled on November 25 with the objective to pressure the government is a choice of struggle. The United Chinese School Teachers Association (Jiao Zong) and the Federation of Chinese Associations of Malaysia (Hua Zong) have the right not to participate and choose to correct the unreasonable content in the National Education Blueprint preliminary report through communication and follow-up.

Similar to anti-environment movements, some people chose to take part in the 300km Kuantan-KL Green Walk. Their persistence and perseverance has won respect and admiration.

In politics, people also have the right to choose whether to change the government, strengthen the two-party-system or maintain the status quo.

Changing the government is an ideal and it can hardly become a reality if only a small number of people are supporting it. Therefore, the ruling and alternative coalitions must convey their political programmes and policies to the public through various platforms, including mass assemblies and annual general assemblies to fight for more support.

To me, the Pakatan Rakyat's performance has not yet reached my personal demand. However, as I believe that democracy requires checks and balances, I support the two-party system. If the majority supports the two-party system, it is possible to bring a major change.

In a democratic country, everyone has the right to choose based on his/her own judgement and cognitive thinking. Therefore, it is not necessary for others to be so nervous or intimidate them into changing their stand.

Many people are confused about the meaning of democracy due to the intense political struggle. Some people are excessively fanatical to the extent of slandering and labelling those who have made a different choice.

French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Who can still remember the words? Many people have instead lost their magnanimity and tolerance and attack whoever say something unpleasant. Democracy should never be like this.

All people make mistakes, regardless of how just they claimed themselves are. Calling themselves just does not mean that they cannot be criticised and corrected.

The BN has indeed made many mistakes and there is much room for improvement. Similarly, the Pakatan Rakyat state governments also have many inadequacies in governance. Being overly emotional has caused everyone unable to see the reality clearly.

Back to the Dong Zong rally, it is a peaceful civil demonstration and it is not necessary to label it as an "anti-government" movement. Adopting the path of dialogue to fight is not "heinous crime" either. Why can't the Chinese organisations work together to achieve the same goal since all of them are serving the Chinese community? Without tolerance and the sense of balance, it could end up following the path of politics, namely people categorise those who are not called friends as enemies.

Most Chinese affairs are of voluntary or conscience nature. If it evolves into a life-and-death game, the Chinese community will first collapse before the winner of the political game is decided.

Life was boring and monotonic in the past when people were not granted the right to choose. It is good to have choice. But choices also bring us confusion and distress.

As the general election is approaching, people become more and more impetuous. We must first calm down to avoid being diverted by "choices".

********************************************

The day Najib outfoxed all Malaysians…

Victor Lim, Free Malaysia Today

Now, wasn't it Daim who predicted that five states would fall prior to the 2008 political tsunami? And it was correct – Kedah, Penang, Perak, Selangor and Kelantan.

And who and where this prediction was first publicised? Raja Petra Kamarudin's (RPK's) Malaysia-Today (MT) news portal.

Malaysians who have been following RPK's writings were shocked, when after the 2008 general election, he began associating himself with Mahathir – meeting his sifu (master) in his Petronas twin-tower office.

Many could not understand or believe how RPK, who was so vocal against BN-Umno and one of the pioneers of the Free Anwar Reformasi Movement, could make such an about turn.

Many MT readers are still puzzled and cannot believe what was happening and why RPK's writings started to slant towards Umno.

However, RPK's slant is now cautiously back to the Opposition, championing the need to change? What's going on? Simple! The cyber mercenary writer is financially backed by Mahathir and Daim.

In 2008, Mahathir and Daim's common political pest was Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. So, RPK's mission was to destabilise and erode support for Umno and Abdullah. It worked wonderfully, and as they say, the rest is history.

Now, Mahathir and Daim's common political enemy is Najib. And do you now see the similar strategic political attacks from Mahathir and RPK?

If you still don't believe that Mahathir and Daim are RPK's sponsors, then you give me the answers to the following questions:

*     RPK was the one who came up with the damning statutory declaration that implicated Najib and his wife, Rosmah, in the murder of Mongolian interpreter Altantuya Shaariibuu and the link to the Scorpene submarines' graft allegations. Why?

*    RPK was picked up by police and then charged. But after he was released on bail, how the hell did such a high profile political figure leave the country undetected?

*    Who had the power and influence to facilitate his (RPK's) migration? This was what I posted about RPK on Sept 10, 2012.

Talk is spreading like wild fire in Malaysia that the famous or infamous cyber operator, depending on which side of the political divide you stand, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, or more popularly referred to as RPK, is residing in an apartment in London belonging to the racist former prime minister Mahathir Mohamed.

RPK can feel free to clarify or attack me as we believe in freedom of speech and democracy, don't we?

********************************************

When the issue favours the Chinese cause, they will scream democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, the right to choose, agree to disagree, and so on. However, if it does not favour the Chinese cause, they will scream you are a turncoat, traitor, Trojan horse, frog, mole, you have been bought, and much more.

That is the ugly side of the Chinese. Freedom means freedom to agree with me, not freedom to disagree with me.

To people like Victor Lim, if you say or write anything that is perceived as pro-government, then this means you have been paid to do so. What about those who say or write something perceived as pro-opposition? Does this not also mean you have been paid to do so?

No! It does not. That just means you are noble. Those who support the opposition are noble. And if you do not support the opposition that can only mean one thing -- you support the government. It is like religion. Either you are a Muslim or you are a Christian. And if you are not a Christian then you must surely be a Muslim. That is the only logical explanation.

To Victor Lim, your very action of not supporting the opposition is 'evidence' you have been paid. Using that same yardstick as 'proof of guilt', we will have to assume that Victor Lim is also a paid writer and his master must surely be Tian Chua. Can we, therefore, accept whatever Victor Lim says as the truth? Paid writers like Victor Lim would definitely lie through their teeth.

Victor Lim says he believes in democracy and freedom of speech. But when I exercise my democratic right of freedom of speech he vilifies me. The Malays call this bikin tak serupa cakap. Is this a Chinese cultural thing or what? Is this the best the so-called 5,000 years of Chinese 'civilisation' can produce? You appear puzzled as to why very few Malays trust the Chinese. Well, that's because the Malays know that bikin tak serupa cakap type of people just cannot be trusted.

Probably 50 or more Malaysians have come to my house in Manchester, many of them Malaysians from Malaysia. Tan Sri Sanusi Junid, Zaid Ibrahim, Mat Sabu, Saari Sungib, and many more have all been to my house -- some even spent the night at my house.

There are many more Malaysians from London, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Reading, Scotland -- in fact, from almost every city in the UK -- who have visited me in Manchester. Yet Victor Lim says: Raja Petra Kamaruddin, or more popularly referred to as RPK, is residing in an apartment in London belonging to the racist former prime minister Mahathir Mohamed.

And he can't even get the spelling of my name right. It is Raja Petra Kamarudin and not Raja Petra Kamaruddin. And what Free Anwar Reformasi Movement is Victor Lim talking about? Clearly Victor Lim tembak only. There is so such movement called Free Anwar Reformasi Movement. This is a fabrication by Victor Lim.

Anyway, what is the address of Dr Mahathir's apartment? Does Dr Mahathir even own an apartment in London in the first place? And when did I move in to that apartment?

So you see, Victor Lim is bullshitting because I have never lived in London (at least not since 1956), never mind in whose apartment in London. I have been living in Manchester since the day I arrived. In fact, my family has been living in Manchester for 11 years now, since 2001, eight years before I came over.

The Malaysian police know I live in Manchester. Malaysians in the UK know I live in Manchester. Malaysians in Australia, New Zealand, the US, China, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc., know I live in Manchester. The Malaysian High Commission in London and the British High Commission in Kuala Lumpur know I live in Manchester. Only Victor Lim alone thinks I live in Dr Mahathir's apartment in London. He knows that but he does not know what the address is or whether Dr Mahathir really does own an apartment in London.

Can you see how they lie? And to these types of people lying comes under the category of freedom of speech. But if you were to reply to that lie, that is not considered freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means they can say things about you but you can't say things about them.

Budaya apa ni? Budaya 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation ke?

Victor Lim also said: Malaysians who have been following RPK's writings were shocked, when after the 2008 general election, he began associating himself with Mahathir – meeting his sifu (master) in his Petronas twin-tower office.

That is another lie. I started 'associating' with Dr Mahathir back in 2006 when Malaysia Today organised a dialogue session with the ex-Prime Minister in the Kelab Century Paradise on 24th June 2006. (I even uploaded the video recordings onto the Internet). And you can read the text of Dr Mahathir's speech here: http://kasitarukaje.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/teks-ucapan-tun-dr-mahathir-mohamad.html

In fact, in the 2006 PKR annual general assembly in Penang, Azmin Ali whacked me in his speech. And Anwar Ibrahim sat there on stage smirking like the cat that had swallowed the canary as Azmin Ali whacked me for 'bersekongkong dengan Dr Mahathir Mohamed'.

Hence, if you want to accuse me of 'collaborating' with Dr Mahathir then this collaboration started more than six years ago and two years before the 2008 general election. And if I had collaborated with Dr Mahathir more than six years ago and two years before the 2008 general election, how can I be a turncoat? A turncoat is someone who changes sides. I never changed sides after the 2008 general election. I have been with Dr Mahathir since two years BEFORE the 2008 general election.

And do you know what? Many PAS and DAP leaders -- and many of them top leaders at that, too -- also attended that 24th June 2006 dialogue with Dr Mahathir. Even the ex-PKR Deputy President turned up. So what have you got to say about all those PAS, DAP and PKR leaders who attended that dialogue with Dr Mahathir organised by Malaysia Today at the Kelab Century Paradise on 24th June 2006?

In the Kota Bharu dialogue the following month, the Kelantan Menteri Besar, Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat, attended the session and shared the stage with Dr Mahathir. He also attended the dinner in honour of Dr Mahathir that same night. Nik Aziz felt he needed to play host to the ex-Prime Minister since he (Nik Aziz) is, after, all the Menteri Besar of Kelantan.

Maybe the Pakatan Rakyat supporters should learn how to tell the truth for once. You accuse Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, NST, The Star, TV3, RTM, etc. of lying. But what difference are the opposition supporters? You are as blatant in your lying as the people you accuse of lying.

And why do you not respond, point-by-point, to the issues I have raised? I have been raising many issues since the mid-1990s -- ever since I first started writing for Harakah in 1997 and I first launched my own website in 1994. What I am saying now is what I have been saying for the last 18 years. What am I saying now that I did not say back in the 1990s?

If I am wrong then rebut me with what you think is the truth. But you don't do that. Instead of replying, you just hurl allegations against me and totally ignore what I say. And the only 'rebuttal' thus far is just a plain denial. Denial is no defence. If it is then Najib Tun Razak never met Altantuya Shaariibuu since he has denied meeting her.

In short, you know what I say is correct and you know there is no way you can rebut what I say. Hence you ignore what I say and do not reply to it and instead make all sorts of allegations, which are very far from the truth.

This is just like those Umno blogs that say I live in London and that one day I was so drunk I fell into a monsoon drain. Many kampong-minded Umno supporters who have never been to London and do not know that the UK does not have a monsoon season and London does not have monsoon drains will, of course, believe this story.

These opposition diehards are just the reverse of the same coin called Umno. They are all cut from the same cloth. Their doctrine is: you are free to agree with me but God help you if you say something that I don't like.

Oh, by the way, take a look at the picture below. Today, some people in PAS are saying that they want Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang instead of Anwar Ibrahim to be the Prime Minister of Malaysia if Pakatan Rakyat wins the next general election. I already 'said' this four years ago. And if you can't interpret what that picture means then you are dumber than I thought.

 

The NATO syndrome

Posted: 15 Nov 2012 05:47 PM PST

If we really want to show the compassionate side of Islam then the proper thing to do would have been to investigate the reason why that soldier stole. If it is true that he stole because he is too poor to feed his daughter, then instead of jailing him he should have been put on welfare and every month the religious authorities give him money to feed his daughter.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Ex-soldier jailed 3 months for stealing RM22 milk

(Bernama) - A former soldier was sentenced to three months' jail by the magistrate's court here today for stealing a packet of milk worth RM21.99 from a supermarket last Tuesday.

Senior Assistant Registrar Jesseca Damis handed down the sentence on Mohd Sobir Kashim after he pleaded guilty to the charge.

She ordered Mohd Sobir to serve the sentence from today.

Mohd Sobir, 32, was charged with stealing a packet of Anlene Gold milk at the Jaya Gading Supermarket in Semambu near here at 2.15pm last November 13.

In her judgment, Jesseca said the offence committed by Mohd Sobir was serious although the amount involved was small.

"You are a former soldier and should not have committed an offence like this," she added.

Earlier in mitigation, Mohd Sobir, from Padang Serai, Kedah, said he stole the packet of milk so that he could sell it to get money to buy food for his daughter.

************************************************

Two days ago, His Highness the Sultan of Selangor spoke up regarding Islam. Yesterday it was the turn of His Highness the Sultan of Pahang. Today, Their Highnesses the Sultan of Terengganu and the Raja of Perlis spoke up.

That makes four with five more to go.

Their Highnesses want only those 'qualified' to do so to speak on Islam. Those non-qualified should not do so, titah (decree of a royal nature) Their Highnesses. And 'qualified' here means you must possess a piece of paper with your name on it.

I have never been one to follow royal decrees. When my uncle and aunty were summoned for an audience before His Highness and were ordered to instruct me to apologise regarding what I said about His Highness the Sultan of Perak, I did the opposite. I whacked even harder.

Then I was told to comply with this royal decree or else get disowned by my family. And my family would inset notices in the mainstream newspapers to announce to the world about my 'eviction' from the family.

My response to that was to 'disown' my family by going into self-imposed exile. Hence before my family can sack me, I sack my family first. And I swore I would never ever step foot in Selangor again.

So I will have no choice but to live and die by that oath.

Will I ever go back to Malaysia? many people ask me. I doubt it. Like it or not, I have already burned my bridges and I do not want to become another Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Rais Yatim, Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, Ibrahim Ali, etc. who also burned their bridges and swore that if they died and got reborn they would still never rejoin Umno -- and then went and rejoined Umno.

I would like to be like Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussein Onn who held on to their principles. They never rejoined Umno and died outside Umno even though both were once Prime Ministers of Malaysia.

So, the more Their Highnesses say don't talk about Islam, the more I want to talk about it -- because I never listen to royal decrees. But I am not going to talk about the Qur'an or whether Muslims should or should not be allowed to leave Islam. Instead, I want to talk about the story (above) regarding the soldier who was jailed three months for stealing a packet of milk.

Theft is theft (or shoplifting is shoplifting) and under the law you are punished for that crime even if the amount you stole is a mere ten cents (that is if anything in Malaysia can still be found priced at ten cents). That is how the law works.

But that is not how it works in Islam and I do remember people saying that Malaysia is an Islamic country (according to Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to be exact) and that Islam is the religion of the Federation (according to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia) and so on.

Okay, so we have some ambiguity here. Malaysia is not an Islamic State. Malaysia is not a Secular State either. Malaysia is a Westminster Parliamentary Democracy with Islam as the religion of the nation where the laws are passed by Parliament but certain laws passed by God will affect only the Muslims while non-Muslims are spared God's commands.

Does that sound confusing? I hope so because that was the intention!

Anyway, that Malay soldier, who I assume is also Muslim, stole a packet of milk, and what appears to be a non-Muslim judge punished him with three months jail.

Now, in Islam, the soldier should have been asked why he stole that packet of milk. And this is what the news report said: Mohd Sobir, from Padang Serai, Kedah, said he stole the packet of milk so that he could sell it to get money to buy food for his daughter.

Once that soldier makes this declaration, the judge should have summoned the Kedah Religious Department, which comes under the PAS-led Kedah State Government, to go to court to explain why a soldier who has served his country at a great risk to his life should be in a situation where he has to steal something worth RM22 to feed his daughter.

The religious authorities collect millions of Ringgit every year from Malaysians. And some of that money is supposed to be used to help the poor, weak, old, sick, crippled, homeless, destitute, orphans, widows, unfortunate, etc. So what happened to all that money, which by now must come to billions?

If the Kedah Religious Department did not help this soldier who is too poor to feed his daughter, and hence had to steal to feed his daughter, then the Kedah Religious Department should be chided and the judge should order them to look after the financial welfare of the soldier.

If the Kedah Religious Department still fails to look after the welfare of the soldier and he has to continue to steal to feed his daughter, then the Director of the Kedah Religious Department should be sent to jail instead.

If you steal out of greed then you pay for that crime. But if you steal out of necessity then the authorities must be punished instead. That is how Hudud works, although Malaysia does not implement Hudud.

Okay, Malaysia does not implement Hudud. But Malaysia does implement the tithe collection system (zakat and fitrah), which is compulsory for Muslims and they can be arrested if they do not pay this tithe.

It is nice to see Their Highnesses making statements upholding Islam. But Malaysia seems to be suffering from the NATO syndrome, a.k.a. no action, talk only.

If we really want to show the compassionate side of Islam then the proper thing to do would have been to investigate the reason why that soldier stole. If it is true that he stole because he is too poor to feed his daughter, then instead of jailing him he should have been put on welfare and every month the religious authorities give him money to feed his daughter.

That is what they would do in a 'kafir' country like Britain, which is not an Islamic country but more Islamic than Malaysia.

Yes, every year we celebrate 'heroes day' to remember all those so many soldiers who died for their country. Then we send the not yet dead soldier to jail because he had to steal to feed his daughter. We honour the dead and jail the living. Only dead people are heroes. Living people are a burden to the country.

And then we scream that this is Islam and that we should uphold Islam and that those who speak against Islam should be punished and all that crap. Islam is not about talking. Islam is about acting. And we expect soldiers to die for us so that we can have a good life and when they can't feed their children we send them to jail.

How can I not cry when I write this article? Am I getting too emotional in my old age or am I the only Muslim who has a heart? Maybe I am getting too old and that's why I cry a lot.

Oh, by the way, the nine Rulers are Colonels-in-Chief of the various branches of the Armed Forces while His Majesty the Agong is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

I hope Their Highnesses are ashamed with themselves. And that is all I want to say about that particular matter.

And don't you wankers ever try to suggest that the Malays get all sorts of benefits while the non-Malays are oppressed -- not while we still have Malays who cannot even feed their children, especially Malays who risk their lives so that the non-Malays can have a peaceful and prosperous county to live in.

 

The devil’s advocate: just for the heck of it

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 06:46 AM PST

Hence the argument that Biblical records are evidence is a fallacy. The so-called records are 'modern' and were created centuries after the event. How, therefore, can we claim that they are accurate or authentic records when there exists a gap of so many centuries.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The physical evidence in the real world shows that the earth is young, probably a few thousand years old as Biblical chronology shows. The so-called 'scientific' evidence that the earth is several billions of earth old is based on assumptions and has no hard physical evidence. -- upsidedown119

********************************************

'upsidedown119' has been flooding Malaysia Today with comments, in particular in his or her debates with 'Lord Jim'. I thought I would join the fray just for the heck of it and play the devil's advocate. 'upsidedown119' posted the comment above in response to my article Keeping the faith. Maybe I can respond to that response.

Religionists always use the argument that science cannot prove this or prove that. Hence claims by scientists cannot be accepted as fact or evidence. Religion, however, can prove all its claims because it has Biblical records to support these claims.

Most times science is based on observations, sometimes with experiments thrown in. From these observations, scientists make assumptions and come to conclusions. At the end of the day it is all just that -- observations and assumptions, and conclusions based on these observations and assumptions.

Hence science is still not really conclusive. It is what at that point of time they think it means. There have been occasions later on, it could even be centuries later, when scientists come out with new findings based on new observations and they deduce that earlier observations and assumptions, and the conclusions resulting from them, were wrong.

In other words, nothing is permanently conclusive. It is only conclusive at that point of time. That could change later when new findings emerge. Science is always searching and researching for new evidence to either prove earlier findings correct or to prove them wrong.

In the old days, say 2,000 years ago, there was no technology called carbon dating. Hence the only source of reference as to how old the earth is was Biblical records. Today there are many ways to date archaeological discoveries. And, through modern technology, archaeological discoveries of what appear to be human remains have shown that they are hundreds of millions or even billions of years old.

Let us assume that science and technology is wrong and wherever science is in conflict with Biblical records we reject science in favour of Biblical records. This is well and fine. But then we would have to question the accuracy and authenticity of Biblical records.

Biblical records of, say, 3,500 years ago, must be authenticated through the same process that science proves other things. In other words, can we carbon date these Biblical records and prove that they are 3,500 years old?

The oldest Hebrew manuscript (not complete text) is about 200 BCE -- that is 200 years before the birth of Jesus Christ. That means there is a 'gap' of roughly 1,000 years or more from the time of the event till the time of the records.

The oldest complete Greek text is dated more than 300 years after Christ. And Greek was not the language that Christ spoke. Hence there is no Aramaic record from the time of Christ. In other words, this is a 'translation', but a translation of what? There is no original text in Aramaic.

This means we must take everything at 'face value' based on accepting the word of the creator of the document, as the legal fraternity would say. And this would also mean at least 300 years have passed from the time of the event till the record of the event.

What happened in those 'missing' 300 years?

Between 1946 and 1956, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls are written in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Nabataean, mostly on parchment, but some written on papyrus and bronze. These manuscripts have been dated between 408 BCE to 318 AD.

Around 40% of the Scrolls comprise of Biblical records but then they are in Hebrew, not Aramaic. Hence the evidence is still not conclusive. There are no Aramaic Biblical records from the time of Christ amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. And there are certainly no Biblical records from 1,000-1,500 BCE, what we refer to as The Old Testament.

Hence the argument that Biblical records are evidence is a fallacy. The so-called records are 'modern' and were created centuries after the event. How, therefore, can we claim that they are accurate or authentic records when there exists a gap of so many centuries.

Human memory is fallible. What happened hundreds of years ago when all those people involved in the event have already died and when stories of the event were passed down by word of mouth over centuries will invariably be distorted and exaggerated. Even stories regarding Robin Hood are questionable even though that was supposed to have been less than 1,000 years ago.

The earliest official written records in England were created about 1,000 years ago during the reign of King William the Conqueror. Before that there were no official records other than those created by the church and even then mostly regarding the palace and the royal family.

King Arthur was supposed to have lived around the late 5th and early 6th centuries. However, till today, they still do not know the location of Camelot and whether Camelot and Arthur really did exist or is a mere myth.

We can trace the history of England to about 55 BCE. And this is only because the Romans came to England at that time and they maintained records. Before 55 BCE England more or less did not exist, so to speak, from the records point of view. Around 410 AD the Romans left England but by then Christianity had come to England -- around 100 years before that. So the church 'took over' when the Romans left.

So England's historical records can be accurately traced back to about the time of Christ. Nevertheless, while there are records from this era, there are no records of an Aramaic Bible. Many records from the time of Christ are available except records of an Aramaic Bible. The earliest Bible is in Greek and dated about 300 years after Christ.

Hence, in short, nothing is conclusive. Hence, also, we cannot argue that one type of evidence outweighs another. If we want to accept Christianity based on evidence then there are none. Christianity must be accepted based on faith, not based on evidence.

And faith is the word to describe lack of evidence.

 

Keeping the faith

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 08:11 PM PST

Yes, religionists need miracles. They need a sign from God. And these miracles and signs help strengthen our faith. And faith is what religion is all about. We see signs and miracles everywhere. We can even see them when they are not there. That is how strong faith can be.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia church gets window with Virgin Mary image

(AP) - A Malaysian church is taking possession of a hospital window that has attracted hundreds of people who believe it bears an image of the Virgin Mary.

Prayerful crowds of Roman Catholics have gathered outside the Sime Darby Medical Center in a suburb near Kuala Lumpur since last weekend after an image believed to resemble the Virgin Mary was spotted on the hospital's seventh-floor window.

Rev. Simon Labrooy of the suburb's Church of St Thomas More says he met with hospital officials and agreed the crowd situation could affect medical emergency services.

He said in a statement late Monday that the hospital glass panel would be moved to a church and tested by theologians and religious authorities.

Christians comprise nearly 10 percent of Muslim-majority Malaysia's population.

*****************************************

First Map Produced of Universe 11 Billion Years Ago

(Reuter) - An international team of astronomers has produced the first map of the universe as it was 11 billion years ago, filling a gap between the Big Bang and the rapid expansion that followed.

The study, published in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, shows the universe went through a phase roughly three billion years after the Big Bang when expansion actually started to slow, before the force of so-called 'dark energy' kicked in and sent galaxies accelerating away from each other.

Much is known about the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang from studies of its afterglow in the cosmic background radiation, and its accelerating expansion over several billion years can be seen with a look at the way distant galaxies are moving.

"Only now are we finally seeing its adolescence... just before it underwent a growth spurt," said Mat Pieri at the University of Portsmouth in Britain, one of the authors of the study.

Little is known about dark energy, and its counterpart dark matter, but astronomers argue the force must exist to account for the speed at which the universe is expanding. Together, dark energy and dark matter are believed to make up about 96 percent of the universe.

The new study supports the theory that dark energy was somehow created as the universe expanded, by detailing a period when gravity was winning the tussle and slowing the expansion.

"If we think of the universe as a roller coaster, then today we are rushing downhill, gaining speed as we go," said Pieri. "Our new measurement tells us about the time when the universe was climbing the hill – still being slowed by gravity."

The map, the work of 63 scientists from nine countries, was compiled using a novel technique for studying the intense light from 50,000 distant quasars as it passes through clouds of hydrogen in space on its way to Earth.

They produce a picture of the ancient universe in same way thousands of flashlight beams would light up a bank of fog.

"The quasars are back-lights," Pieri told Reuters, and the way the gas in front of them absorbs some of the light allows astronomers to get a detailed picture of these distant clouds of gas known as the intergalactic medium.

The study is the first fruit from a five-year project started in 2009. The team, from the third Sloan Digital Sky Survey, expect to expand the survey with light from about 160,000 quasars by the end of the project.

"We're essentially measuring the shadows cast by gas along a series of lines, each billions of light-years long," said Will Percival, a cosmology professor the University of Portsmouth.

"The tricky part is combining all those one-dimensional maps. The problem is like trying to recognize an object from a picture that's been painted on the quills of a porcupine," he said.

*****************************************

Religion works on the basis of faith. That is why religions are called 'faiths'. And, to keep the faith, we need miracles. Every prophet had his miracle(s). And the Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad's miracle was/is the Qur'an.

To those not schooled in Islam, Prophet Muhammad was said to be illiterate. He could neither read nor write. Hence he could not have written the Qur'an himself. Hence, also, the Qur'an must have come from God, through, the Muslims believe, the Angel Gabriel.

That is the Muslim belief. And the faith that the Qur'an came from God, and hence Prophet Muhammad is a true Prophet of God (proven by the existence of the Qur'an), makes a Muslim a Muslim and keeps a Muslim a Muslim.

Without this miracle of Muhammad, meaning the Qur'an, Islam would not exist and in that same spirit Muslims would not exist.

The miracle of Muhammad ended with the revelation of the last verse of the Qur'an. However, from time to time, new miracles need to emerge to strengthen the Muslim faith. For example, in the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami, the entire Aceh disappeared except for just the mosque (see picture below).

Muslims hail that as a miracle. This, said the Muslims, is a sign from God. The fact that all other buildings were built from timber while only the mosque was built from concrete (and hence could resist the Tsunami) was not a consideration. The fact that only the mosque remained standing is what is considered the miracle and the sign from God.

Some Malaysian Muslims also said that the 2004 Tsunami that hit the island of Phuket in Thailand is also a sign from God. Phuket is a 'sin city', they say. Hence God punished Phuket because of the sins perpetuated in that town/island.

(You must visit the Banana disco in Phuket where all the delicious lady boys hang out).

But then only 8,000 or so people were killed in Thailand for their 'sins'. And almost 170,000 people were killed in Indonesia, 31,000 in Bandar Aceh alone. If God was punishing Phuket for its sins, why take 31,000 devout Muslims from Aceh and more than 100,000 others from other parts of Indonesia, many who were devout Muslims?

So what is God's message here when He punishes 8,000 'sinners' and then kills another quarter of a million non-sinners in the process, many of them innocent women and children?

Yes, religionists need miracles. They need a sign from God. And these miracles and signs help strengthen our faith. And faith is what religion is all about. We see signs and miracles everywhere. We can even see them when they are not there. That is how strong faith can be.

The Holy Books guide us in our faith. The Holy Books say that humankind has existed for 6,500 years ever since earth was first created and Adam and Eve walked the face of this earth.

Now the stupid and ignorant scientists say that earth has existed for billions of years. They are wrong. Satan is deceiving them. They are trying to mislead us. How can they say something contrary to what the Holy Books say?

 

Why apostasy is good for Islam

Posted: 12 Nov 2012 07:03 PM PST

I suppose one way to solve the serious AIDS and drug problem amongst the Malays-Muslims would be to allow them to leave Islam. Once all these people have left Islam then the high incidence of AIDS and drugs amongst the Malays-Muslims would also end because these people would no longer be Muslims but would be ex-Muslims. (And, according to the Constitution, you must be Muslim to be Malay -- so ex-Muslims would also be ex-Malays).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"Call to reject Muslim leaders who do not uphold Islam," said The Borneo Post. Bernama, on the other hand, said, "At Islamic meet, Jakim hopes to slow Muslim AIDS spread". You can read both news reports below.

I remember Tan Sri Sanusi Junid, the one-time Menteri Besar of Kedah, saying that the highest incidence of AIDS is amongst the fishermen community. He also said that the state with the highest incidence of AIDS is Kelantan.

Sanusi was then the Minister of Agriculture when he said that (in a gathering at the MCOBA building) and what he really meant was that the highest incidence of AIDS is amongst the Malays-Muslims, and the poorer segment of society on top of that.

It was roughly 25 years ago when Sanusi said that. Apparently, after 25 years, Malaysia still faces the problem of Malays-Muslims having the highest incidence of AIDS.

According to the authorities, not only is AIDS the highest amongst Malays-Muslims (estimated at 70%), but it is highest amongst drug addicts (90%) as well. Hence it is drugs (the sharing of needles) and not sex that is the main cause of AIDS -- although in many cases it can be both because drug addicts also become 'sex workers' to earn money to finance their very expensive drug addiction.

Someone once told me (I don't know whether this is true or not) that the highest divorce rate is also amongst the Malays-Muslims. This could be true because it is easier for Muslims than non-Muslims to divorce. The husband just needs to utter the words "I divorce you" and the divorce is complete.

Of course, the wife can always go to the Shariah Court to lodge a complaint. But anyone who has ever dealt with the Shariah Courts will tell you that these courts are male-friendly and female-unfriendly. Hence expect the wife to not receive justice.

And I speak from personal experience because many of my lady friends who were divorced by just these three words were subjected to that injustice. (Yes, I do have many divorced lady friends). I must say I felt strongly for these women (but not in the way you think, though) who were manipulated by the system and mocked by their husbands who abandoned them without any income.

Back in the 1970s, I used to frequent the bars in Kuala Terengganu and Kota Bharu. (Well, I never said I am an angel, did I?). Of course, that was when I was in my 20s and before I became a Born Again Muslim.

Most of the bargirls I spoke to all had one story to tell. They got married in their teens. They now have children. And their husband had abandoned them and had 'disappeared'.

These girls (many in the 20s and even some in their late teens) have no education or qualification. Hence they need to work as bargirls to earn a living and feed their child/children.

By why do they need to live such immoral lives? What are the Shariah Courts doing about their plight? Nothing, of course, and many of these abandoned girls/women indicated that they would be happy to become my second, third or fourth wife (or even my mistress) for just a couple of hundreds of Ringgit a month 'allowance'.

Yes, for a mere RM1,000 a month, I could have supported three additional wives (at least back in the 1970s). However, when you are married to a Thai (like me), never try that. Thailand has the most number of 'Bobbitt' cases in the entire world. (And if you don't know what 'Bobbitt cases' mean, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Lorena_Bobbitt. Charles…this part is meant for you, mate).

Anyway, this piece is not meant as a Malay-Muslim bashing exercise. What I wish to highlight is regarding the serious social problems faced by the Malays-Muslims, which the government has known about for more than three decades and which it can't seem to solve.

I used to joke that the way to solve the high divorce rate amongst Malays-Muslims would be to not force them to get married. Let them just live together, and then when they separate they just separate. If they are not married then their separation would not be called divorce. Hence the high divorce rate amongst the Malays-Muslims would end.

I suppose one way to solve the serious AIDS and drug problem amongst the Malays-Muslims would be to allow them to leave Islam. Once all these people have left Islam then the high incidence of AIDS and drugs amongst the Malays-Muslims would also end because these people would no longer be Muslims but would be ex-Muslims. (And, according to the Constitution, you must be Muslim to be Malay -- so ex-Muslims would also be ex-Malays).

Anyway, jokes aside -- because this is certainly no joking matter -- we have a serious problem. Or rather, we have a serious problem amongst the Malays-Muslims whether it is divorce, AIDS, drugs, or whatever. And it is an old problem since the 1970s that looks like it can never be solved.

So why are these religious people and the religious authorities talking about this person or that person saying the wrong thing and getting all hot and bothered about it?

Okay, so someone said there is no compulsion in religion and Muslims are free to leave Islam if they wish to. Do you think by stopping people from saying there is no compulsion in religion and Muslims are free to leave Islam if they wish to this will make Muslims better Muslims?

Who cares about how many people become Muslims or how many leave Islam? This is not a numbers game. This is not a contest to see who can beat the other in number of 'followers'? Should not the focus be on the quality of Muslims rather than the quantity?

I am not so concerned about how many Muslims there are in Malaysia. I am more concerned about what type of Muslim these people are. Currently, when we talk about corruption, abuse of power, divorce, drugs, AIDS, or whatever other social ills you can think of, it appears that the majority of the transgressors are Malays-Muslims.

Aren't the Malays-Muslims ashamed of this? Then, when the non-Malays/non-Muslims point out that the Malays-Muslims are highly immoral, the Malays-Muslims get angry. They say you are insulting them. They say you are cabaring them. They threaten you with 'May 13'.

The mindset of the Islamists is becoming very ridiculous. They focus on form rather than function. They worry about whether the woman is too sexy or is indecently dressed. The fact that the woman keeps her tudong on but lifts up her baju kurung for a quickie in the pantry is of no concern to these Islamists.

So you want everyone to dress like Mother Teresa. Does that solve our social problems?

The Johor Wanita Umno head, Datuk Sharifah Azizah Syed Zain, wants us to reject Muslim leaders who do not uphold Islam. What does she mean by 'do not uphold Islam'? Not a single Muslim leader upholds Islam in the real sense of the word. So that would mean not a single Muslim leader should get our support and must be rejected, even those from the opposition.

Of course, what Sharifah Azizah meant is that we must reject Muslim leaders who propagate freedom of religion. This is the only act of not upholding Islam as far as Sharifah Azizah is concerned.

And this is why the Malays-Muslims can never progress. They have a very narrow worldview. Not upholding Islam just means freedom of religion. All other social ills, sins and crimes are not included. Those do not come under the ambit of 'not upholding Islam'.

Mampuslah Melayu kalau macam ni!

************************************************

Call to reject Muslim leaders who do not uphold Islam

(The Borneo Post) - The confusing statement made by Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar on religious freedom should be an eye-opener for the people to reject leaders who failed to protect the sanctity of Islam, said two Wanita Umno leaders.

Johor Wanita Umno head Datuk Sharifah Azizah Syed Zain said such a statement should not be made by a Muslim leader as it could be misinterpreted, especially by the young people.

She said stern action should be taken against the Lembah Pantai member of parliament to serve as a lesson to her not to attempt to misuse Islamic teachings for politics.

"She seems to be desperate to win (in the coming general election) to the extent of exploiting religion.

"I hope this will open the people's eyes to reject such a leader," she told Bernama.

On Nov 3, a pro-opposition news portal had quoted Nurul Izzah as saying that the people should not be compelled to adopt a particular religion, and that this should also apply to Malays.

"When you ask me, there is no compulsion in religion … how can anyone say sorry, this (religious freedom) only applies to non-Malays, it has to apply equally," she was quoted as saying when speaking at a forum on "Islamic State: Which version; Who's responsibility?" in Subang Jaya on the same day.

Sharifah Azizah said she did not believe that Nurul Izzah had unintentionally made the statement.

"She made the statement to show that she is not an Islamic fanatic, supports lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), rights to religious freedom," she said.

She also questioned the action by Nurul Izzah in suing the mainstream media, instead of the pro-opposition news portal which posted her controversial statement.

Wanita Umno religious bureau chairman Datin Paduka Mesrah Selamat said a Muslim leader, regardless of the party he/she represented, who failed to uphold Islam was not qualified to lead and should be rejected by the people.

She said Nurul Izzah's statement could have an impact, especially on Muslim youths.

Meanwhile, an organisation called Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Pembela Islam (Pembela) described Nurul Izzah's statement as irresponsible and disrespectful, and urged an investigation be conducted by the relevant authorities.

This controversy, if not stopped, can give a wrong perception of Islam, it said in a press statement issued here yesterday.

In a related development, Cheras Umno leader Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee said he did not rule out the possibility that the spread of liberalism and pluralism in Malaysia was supported by enemies of Islam from outside the country.

He said the enemies of Islam never ceased with their efforts to erode the faith of the Muslims and cause a split among them, and this situation was exploited by those with vested political interest in the country.

"Nurul Izzah's statement on religious freedom has made the enemies of Islam happy. It can give a bad implication to Muslims," he added.

Syed Ali said the relevant authorities, including the Selangor Religious Council and the National Fatwa Council, should investigate and address the issue

************************************************

At Islamic meet, Jakim hopes to slow Muslim AIDS spread

(Bernama) - It is hoped that the best guideline and resolution to tackle HIV/AIDS can be produced by the three-day 2012 International Islamic Conference and HIV/AIDS from Monday, here.

Malaysian Islamic Development Department (JAKIM) said, the conference would also explain efforts by Muslim leaders, Islamic social activists and numerous parties to tackle HIV/AIDS.

"The conference will enable Islamic scholars, scientists and researchers to discuss issues of HIV/AIDS among Muslims and share experiences and studies," according to Jakim in a statement today.

The conference was organised by Jakim in cooperation with the Health Ministry, Malaysian Aids Council, Ihtimam Foundation and Malaysian Aids Foundation.

It would be attended by 300 participants from government agencies, local and foreign non-government organisations and universities.

Jakim said, the conference would also promote the Islamic approach in tackling the HIV/AIDS problem, as found in the Islamic and HIV/AIDS Manual.

"Currently, Malaysia is the only country with a manual on Islam and HIV/AIDS resulting from close cooperation between Jakim and the Health Ministry".

Four topics of discussion would be tabled: 'Strategy To Prevent HIV/AIDS In Malaysia', 'Addressing HIV/AIDS Epidemic: Analysis of Best Practice', 'Role Played By Malaysian Government & NGO' and 'Social Research On HIV/AIDS'.

Among local presenters were Johor Islamic Religious Council Adviser Datuk Noh Gadut, Malaysian Islamic Doctors Association president Prof Dr Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, Malaysian Aids Council president Dr Raj Karim and Malaysian Aids Foundation chairman Prof Dr Adeeba Kamarulzaman.

Meanwhile, the foreign presenters were from Uganda, Australia and Qatar.

 

Stemming the incoherence of misguided Muslim pundits’: my response

Posted: 11 Nov 2012 06:31 PM PST

Truth, error, good, bad, etc. are not absolutes. There are no 'facts' when we talk about truth, error, good, bad, etc., in religion. They are all relative and subject to time and place. And what is good/bad in religion may not be good/bad from society's point of view. And what is good/bad from society's point of view, yesterday, may not be good/bad from society's point of view today.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It is truly shameful that the affairs of Muslims were being discussed without the guidance of scholars of Islām possessing true and correct knowledge of the religion.

How can one even be sure that they are speaking earnestly and truthfully on behalf of Islām?

Furthermore, a non-Muslim making ignorant statements about Islām may be excused on the basis of not himself being a Muslim and of being obstinate. Yet, a greater cause for concern is when a ignorant Muslim makes ambivalent declarations about the nature of Islām as a religion.

In fact, this betrays a categorical confusion on her part because from the Muslim understanding, Islām is the true revealed religion, and the affirmation of this fact has consequences both in this world and in the hereafter.

The religion of Islām requires both belief (imān) and submission (islām) from its believers. Both are not identical, but they are mutually inseparable and indispensable, which means that one cannot do without the other.

Those who argue along the lines of half-baked understanding of the Qur'ānic verse often do not even bother to read the second part of the verse that makes clear the distinction between Truth and error. There is no sense in holding on to that verse if this distinction is only mentioned in briefly or outrightly dismissed without equally serious consideration. The religion of Islām makes clear its claim to Truth, and this is why its content is cognitive to the human mind.

A person who is presented with a choice between what is good and what is bad and proceeds to choose the bad is not exercising real freedom. In truth, the person is trapped within his own ignorance, thus unable to make the right choice in choosing for the better, and in doing so, has committed a grave injustice to his or her own self and others.

If we allow the promissory note for such literal interpretation of the verse devoid of scholarly consensus and right guidance, then there would be nothing left to prevent the likes of fanatics, demagogues and even militant extremists from appropriating Islām in order to justify atrocities and perpetuate even further injustices.

READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER HERE:

http://www.malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/letterssurat/52703-stemming-the-incoherence-of-misguided-muslim-pundits

**********************************************

Those are some of the extracts from the letter that Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil, Muhammad Syukri Rosli and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal sent to Malaysia Today, and which we published today.

I suspect many of you were quite lost by the language used and could not quite make out what the authors were trying to say -- other than that only Muslim scholars should talk about Islam and that Islam is the true religion while all others are false.

Nevertheless, maybe I can respond to some of the salient points raised in that letter. And I am addressing my response to Muhammad Husni Mohd Amin, Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil, Muhammad Syukri Rosli and Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal.

When we debate an issue or argue a point, we must be very clear in our mind as to the intended audience. The audience, on the other hand, must be very clear as to what 'platform' we are standing on in presenting our arguments.

From your arguments, it is clear that you are speaking as Islamists and your audience is meant to be fellow Muslims. You do not care about the views of the non-Muslims. You are giving your views on Islam from the perspective of a Muslim and meant for the ears of Muslims.

In that case, those not of the Islamic faith will never accept what you say. What you say has nothing to do with the non-Muslims. You, a Muslim, talks about Islam, from the perspective of Islam, meant for a Muslim audience.

You have crafted your letter as if you are presenting facts. No doubt, to Muslims, you are definitely presenting facts. To the non-Muslims, however, what you say are not facts. These are merely opinions. And non-Muslims, for sure, will have a different opinion to you.

For example, to the Christians, Jesus is the Son of God, humankind was born with sins, and Jesus died on the cross for our sins. Hence if we accept Jesus we would be saved.

This is an indisputable fact to most Christians.

To Muslims, however, this is not a fact. In fact, Muslims may even consider this a lie. Hence non-Muslims would not regard this Christian doctrine as fact but merely an opinion (and a misguided one at that, too, Muslims will argue). Therefore, being an opinion, and an opinion that Muslims do not agree with, the Christian doctrine could be right or could be wrong (and certainly wrong from the Islamic perspective).

Hence, when you talk to a multi-cultural audience, you need to understand the proper way in doing so. For example, instead of stating 'facts', it would help if you say things like 'according to the Muslim belief', etc. Then we would be implying that this is what I, as a Muslim, believe, but I am not suggesting that you, too, believe what I believe.

Now, in that letter, are you discussing a matter of theology, philosophy, a legal issue, the Federal Constitution, issue of human rights and civil liberties, or what? From my reading of the letter, you are discussing theology, and Islamic theology in particular.

Would Muslims be interested in hearing someone talk about Hinduism or Christianity from the theological aspect? And would Muslims be convinced by these arguments and accept them as the truth?

This is the flaw in most arguments presented by Muslims. You have your beliefs and you present your beliefs as facts and you expect others to also accept them as facts. And when they cannot, you get upset and start screaming that these people have insulted Islam and therefore action should be taken against these people.

Maybe we can look at this issue not from the perspective of theology, in particular Islamic theology. Then, and only then, can we talk to a multi-cultural audience, which I suspect is what you are trying to do since you sent your letter to Malaysia Today.

You spoke about truth and error. You also spoke about good and bad. Now, I am going to address my comments not just to Muslims but also to religionists in general.

Truth, error, good, bad, etc. are not absolutes. There are no 'facts' when we talk about truth, error, good, bad, etc., in religion. They are all relative and subject to time and place. And what is good/bad in religion may not be good/bad from society's point of view. And what is good/bad from society's point of view, yesterday, may not be good/bad from society's point of view today.

In other words, 'good' and 'bad' constantly changes. It changes according to the period. It changes according to the region. And it changes according to the society you live in.

For example, 100 years or so ago, any woman wearing a miniskirt in England would be vilified and maybe even accosted. Today, a woman can walk around town practically in her panties and nothing will happen. So what was bad 100 years ago in England is no longer bad.

Now, if a woman walks around town in a miniskirt in Saudia Arabia, she would be arrested and flogged. In Malaysia, she will not be arrested and flogged. However, if she walks around Kota Bharu in her panties she will, for sure, be in trouble.

Hence is wearing a miniskirt (or just your panties) good or bad? It depends on what period you live in and where you live.

So how can good and bad be taken as absolutes? Good and bad will change across time and across borders. Hence, when you argue about what you consider as good and bad, that is merely your opinion and that does not make it a fact or mean you are right.

Let me give you another example. Marrying off your daughter who already has her period (say at age 11) to a boy who has reached puberty (say age 12) is allowed in Islam. Since it is allowed in Islam then it must be good. But would society also regard that as 'good' just because Islam does not forbid it and therefore it is considered good?

Would you marry off your 11-year-old daughter to a man of, say, 45 (a millionaire Datuk)? There is nothing wrong with that. And since it is not wrong then it is good. However, you would probably not consider it 'good' although it is allowed in religion.

Let me take another example, this time regarding slavery.

Islam has never outlawed slavery. Muslims are allowed to own slaves and you can even have sex with your slaves. This is perfectly legal in Islam. But if I were to offer you some slaves to buy -- and pretty ones who have been 'well-trained' in how to please their master in bed on top of that -- would you consider that 'good'? How can it not be good when Islam allows it?

The slave trade saw about 11 million Africans captured and sold. And many of these slavers were actually Muslim Arabs. The Arabs were still trading in slaves long after the west had outlawed slavery. Society had by then considered slavery as bad when the Arab Muslims slavers were still doing a roaring business in selling captured Africans.

To have an intelligent and intellectual discourse with decorum and civility is not easy in Malaysia Today. Many of the readers are crude and brash and do not understand how to be polite. Malaysia Today readers regard name-calling and mocking as debating. That is the problem we face in trying to build bridges between the different communities in Malaysia.

I have given up trying to civilise Malaysia Today readers. So now I talk exactly like how they talk. And, of course, they do not like it one bit. What they fail to realise is that when they talk like that others do not like it as well. But I will continue to give them a taste of their own medicine until they 'vomit blood'.

Nevertheless, I welcome such letters and I hope you will continue sending them to Malaysia Today. The only thing is do not expect intelligent or intellectual responses to such letters. But in the spirit or dakwah do not let that discourage you.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved