Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- B-D, the new G-D of 'Truth'
- Malaysia’s strong economy and new politics
- Resolving contradictions within Pakatan Rakyat
- The Church & Allah
- DAP Protestors Caught Eating During Hunger Protest!
- Could Malaysia elect an Islamist prime minister?
- Now, who are the Arab wannabes?
- Siapa politician terima RM8 juta dari Deepak?
- May 13: Official Version Vs Declassified Documents Version
| Posted: 02 Jan 2013 08:30 PM PST RPK tells us this in his guest column at Free Malaysia Today, in an article titled Standards of evidence. RPK wrote: Beliefs, in particular religious beliefs, are called faiths — religious faith. The reason they are called religious faiths is because you need to believe based on faith, not based on evidence. Faith, in a way, can be described as the word to explain lack of evidence. Hence, whenever you fail to prove your beliefs with supporting evidence you classify it under faith. And you can get away with whatever beliefs that lack evidence by calling it faith. It would be considered quite acceptable. [...] ... because faith does not need proof. And I will just have to take your word for it and believe that without question. And they tell me that slavery has been abolished. Actually religion is slavery.
Joining him on the topic of 'faith' but in a separate article has been Adelyn Yeoh, an undergraduate student in Mount Holyoke College, USA, who also writes for CEKU at http://www.ceku.org. Her article poignantly titled Leaving god informed us: Faith is the act of believing and religion is the institution through which faith sometimes operates through. Faith can operate without religion. [...] There were numerous things that did not sit right with me; things that did not seem just or fair, despite what religion claimed. Teachers would often use God as their trump card to get students to do their bidding. [...]
... Religion is used as an additional divisive tool, not just by politicians but also by the average Joe. Overeager evangelical actions carried out by the average person working in the name of faith, despite having good intentions, often upset other parties. The reason for this is often because the evangelist has a presupposed notion of superiority. I too posted my views more than a month ago in Faith & salvation, a kaytee special wakakaka on the subject of 'leaps of faith', those of gi-normous Grand Canyon-ish dimensions as required particularly by the Abrahamic religions and those of teeny weeny longkang-size lompat for Buddhist and Jainist beliefs, ...
... while the tricky Chinese (non Abrahamic) religionists have their even more trickier religions, tap-dancing around the issue of faith, wakakaka. From the above discussions, I think we have four words to consider in religions (except those tricky Chinese religions), faith, evidence, logic, truth - or indeed, the absence of the latter three. Whatever, if any blame needs to be apportioned, well, let's blame it on those ancient Egyptians. Note I stated 'ancient' Egyptians, not the current Egyptians who are Arabs. The ancient Egyptians were not Arabs. An aside, once I had toyed around with a series of posts questioning mainstream biblical narrations, titled 'who was Abrahim?'. I went up to 21 posts but wearied of the amount of reading and cross referencing I had to do, decided to switch to and focus on socio-politics in this blog. But if you like to read them, provided you won't be offended by the liberal discussions of Old Testament biblical characters, you will find all 21 posts filed in Back to Abraham soon! (which I may, that is, return to finish/complete the series)
Anyway, why should we blame those ancient Egyptians for the issue of faith versus evidence (proof), logic or truth in religions? That's because the Hebrews (supposedly the patriarch Abraham) started the Abrahamic religions, with the Hebrews-Israelites-Judeans-Jews inheriting from the ancient Egyptians four things (4 only since we're into stuff of 4 like the above-mentioned faith, evidence, logic, truth), which were: (a) circumcision - yes, the royalty in ancient Egypt started this, not the Hebrews;
(b) a matriarchal lineage - the Pharaoh's daughter inherits the throne of ancient Egypt which was why the royal brother incestuously married the royal sister in order to keep the kingdom under his rule, as did daddy Pharaoh. Whether they did you-know-what has never been specifically mentioned. The Hebrews,-Israelites-Judeans-Jews followed/follow the ancient Egyptian system, thus orthodox Judaism practises matrilineal descent for more than 2000 years, where anyone with a Jewish mother has irrevocable Jewish status, regardless of whether mum has converted to another religion. Despite it being under orthodox Judaism, the lineage was obviously more of a racial rather than a religious consideration. Some reforms occurred in the early 1980's to include patrilineal descent, but by 1986, the Conservative Movement's Rabbinical Assembly rejected patrilineal descent and even warned that any rabbi who does so would be expelled from the Rabbinical Assembly. Maybe one of the 'lost 10 tribes of Israel' migrated to and took up residence in Negeri Sembilan (or perhaps Padang)? wakakaka.
(c) monotheism - again yes, it was the heretic Pharaoh, Akhenaten (formerly Amenhotep IV) who was the first person to worship only one creator god, way way before the Hebrews knew about YVWH. Pharaoh Akhenaten was called 'heretic' because in polytheistic ancient Egypt, one was considered a heretic for crazily worshipping only one god, wakakaka;
(d) while the general scholarly position thus far has been that the Hebrew script came from the Phoenicians, some have asserted that it was from the ancient Egyptians, who possessed three types of scripts, namely hieroglyphs, hieratic and demotic. Whichever, the ancient Egyptian script doesn't have vowels which the Hebrew Torah (bible) seems to follow, where a striking example would be the Tetragrammaton YVWH.
The story has it that when Moses was instructed by his god to see the Pharaoh, he asked who should he say sent him? His god then revealed his name as Yahweh. But the Jews didn't want to take the name of their god in vain, so they refused to say aloud Yahweh, but instead Adonai (Lord). Subsequently when the Jews introduced vowels into their script, they used those from the Adonai word, a, o and again a, in YVWH, giving them Yahowah (Jehovah). The Torah remains vowel-less.
Thus the Hebraic vowel-less script for god sometimes is seen in English as G-D, probably the work of Hebrew wannabes.
... which brings us to my post title of B-D. Okay lah, I am t'ng k'oui (chong hei), meandering like a lazy willow & bamboo-lined Karnafuli* river across the Plains of Chitchat-tagong (no, not the one in Bangladesh), wakakaka. * polite mispronunciation, wakakaka Now, what does B-D stand for or tell us? Firstly, we may assume that the vowel-less letters has god-like qualities because of their resemblance to the Hebraical G-D. Please have a bit of faith here lah, wakakaka;
Secondly, remember that having faith obviates the need for evidence, proof, logic etc, including the truth, wakakaka; Thirdly, B-D has assumed a disproportionate significance in the politics of Malaysia right at this moment and we should pay heed to it; Fourthly (the final of our four thingy's), sceptical kaytee as usual wishes to examine the political evangelism that's promoting the new 'god' B-D, wakakaka. Okay, let's start off with the D of B-D where D, placed second, is more recent that B. D = Deepak or Deepak Jaikishan, the carpet bagger seller who was once a figure meeting up covertly and furtively with B = Balasubramaniam, and allegedly also doing various 'odd jobs' for Rosmah and Najib, and at times variously Rosmah's toy boy, godson, best friend, confidante, aide, Mr Fix-it, gifts giver, confidential-private majordomo, etc.
| ||||||||||||||
| Malaysia’s strong economy and new politics Posted: 31 Dec 2012 03:17 PM PST Malaysia's quarterly growth rates have been fairly impressive: 4.9 per cent, 5.4 per cent and 5.2 per cent respectively in the first three quarters. The economy needs just 4.1 per cent growth in the fourth quarter of 2012 to garner 5.0 per cent growth for the year as a whole. So all indications are that Malaysia's GDP growth will slightly exceed the government's target of 5.0 per cent growth in 2012. The main growth drivers are domestic consumption and investment, both private and public. Construction and services have been the fastest growing sectors in 2012. It is noteworthy that inflation has become increasingly tame, decelerating from 2.7 per cent in January to 1.3 per cent in October 2012. The inflation rate for the full year in 2012 is projected to settle at 1.7 per cent. The unemployment situation has been somewhat steady, in the region of 3.0–3.3 per cent. The banking sector stayed healthy and well capitalised with a net impaired loans ratio of just 1.4 per cent. The central bank has kept its overnight policy rate at 3.0 per cent in the face of ample liquidity. Malaysia continues to register a current account surplus in its balance of payments, although the size of its surplus has been diminishing. International reserves at the end of September stood at US$135.6 billion, providing a retained import cover for 9.4 months, which is more than comfortable. The Malaysian fiscal story, however, is unflattering, as the country has been continuously running budget deficits since 1998. With elections around the corner, government subsidies and cash handouts have been flying in the face of fiscal discipline, with no attempts made to address much-needed tax reforms that would reduce the current overdependence on oil and gas, which accounts for roughly 40 per cent of government revenue. Government revenue has failed to grow in tandem with GDP growth in recent times, with the ratio of revenue to GDP falling from 33 per cent in 2007 to 24 per cent of GDP in 2011 and to an estimated 22 per cent of GDP in 2012. All this may have an adverse effect on the country's international credit ratings, and hence the need to rein in sovereign debt. Government debt has ballooned to MYR 502.4 billion (US$164.6 billion) in the third quarter of 2012, breaching the self-imposed debt ceiling of 55 per cent of GDP. The debt ceiling was raised from 40 per cent to 45 per cent of GDP in April 2008 and lifted further to 55 per cent in July 2009. Malaysia's debt-to-revenue ratio of about 250 per cent is close to Italy's 260 per cent. The near-term outlook for the Malaysian economy is very much dependent on the economic performance of its major trading partners. Export market diversification efforts currently underway may help reduce Malaysia's vulnerability to external impacts but cannot lessen its exposure to the external world. Likewise, a dynamic domestic economy can contribute to greater resilience but cannot be a substitute for the more lucrative external sector, given the relatively small size of the domestic market. GDP growth in 2013 is forecast to be in the region of 5.5 per cent.
| ||||||||||||||
| Resolving contradictions within Pakatan Rakyat Posted: 31 Dec 2012 02:55 PM PST Similarly, within the Pakatan Rakyat or PR, there are loyal supporters, but sharp contradictions too. I do not wish to touch on the religious issue. This is not because I am scared to wonder into the unknown. On the contrary, too much is "known" simply by going through the mainstream media (MSM) and on ever more frequent occasions, the non MSM too. Instead, I am venturing into a hidden area – and yet not so hidden after all. Take the issue of two leaders of Perak DAP, with the exposure of the unsustainable and untenable Kelantan lands and logging deals. It is most unfortunate that the DAP leaders could only use the supposed "legality" of the deals as an excuse to justify the inexcusable. History has taught us that when a fundamental principle is breached, no amount of justification is tenable, unless they want to take the voters as fools. Time tested principles mean just that – they have withstood the challenge of time. So with the principle that business and politics must not mix, there is no "BUT", unless you want to project your ridiculous self as holier than others. It should have been unacceptable – period – because as political leaders, you cannot justify yourselves being involved in business, least of all the dirty logging business, even if the forest monoculture is repackaged as "replanting". After all, the DAP is on record as the most vocal opponents, and rightly so, during the UMNO/BN-dominated political era. The DAP took the most highly principled stance against BN's crony capitalism. So PAS and DAP really have exposed the contradiction between the principle that they once championed, and the murky world of the logging business. But do not be mistaken: I am no holier than they in what I am writing. I merely point out how PAS, DAP and the PR as a whole will need to answer for its actions, as a political pact. Let me be more specific now. On just one day, 28th December 2012, the mainstream and non-mainstream media reported something very much symbolic of the evils strangling Malaysia – our treatment of the original inhabitants of Malaya and Borneo. Malaysiakini, and The Star online, reported on the plight of Orang Asli in Malaya in regards to self-determination and survival. We used to be able to pinpoint government disrespect and disregard of the "first people" of Malaya and Borneo as being firmly in the BN domain – but this can no longer be exclusive to the BN. After all, we know that in Kedah and Kelantan at least, under the PR government, the disrespect and disregard shown to the "first people" are similar to those practised by the BN. How else can we interpret the condescending and pathetic views of the Kelantan Exco, in having the cheek to highlight – in a sickening fashion – that the Orang Asli refused to work for "RM300 to RM500" per month, condemning them for being "choosy"? This was pitiful at best, and at worst, it was downright characteristic of a BN-type mentality. This BN-aping is a more accurate interpretation of such attitudes towards the original inhabitants of the peninsula. If such is the attitude of the existing PR in government, then Borneo natives have the legitimate right to question what life would be like if the PR formed governments in the two Borneo states. After all, to those in the two states who are in the know, it is an open secret that a few "elite" native members of the PR are questioning the extent to which PR has been supporting land rights in the two Borneo states, as reflected in the number of court cases brought by Native Customary Rights (NCR) landowners. These PR "native leaders" are worried that when the PR takes over as governments in the two Borneo states, they might find judicial obstacles in their efforts to replace BN cronies in exploiting the rights of native land owners. How can we differentiate them from the BN, when the principle states that what are the fundamental land rights of people must be respected, irrespective of which coalition forms the government? It is no longer a matter of "natives" versus "non-natives", a fake division cynically propagated by those political opportunists trying to revive "Dayakism", or lately "Borneoism", to trap the masses with emotive means. It is not difficult to dissect such opportunism by the elites to review how the Dayaks or the Borneo elite native leaders who, when they were previously within the BN, were marginalising and dispossessing the very people they are now championing as being oppressed. It is a simple matter to observe how many of the present day "champions" of Dayak rights or Borneo rights are the very same people who were very much involved in plundering the two resource-rich states for themselves as members of the BN in the past. As far as the facts are available, the plundering in those days, and the corruption now, are targeted against the same people, the marginalised native landowners.
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: 31 Dec 2012 04:15 AM PST I am again not surprised that many have missed the point, evidenced by remarks like: (a) So, based on this simple etymological track, the used of ANY word/name to describe a Superbeing that the follower used was/is Highly localised. It should not be monopolised, just like some local Muslims like to dictate! (b) Will you be happy if I forbid you from using certain words because I find it offensive? Who am I to impose this on you? If I forbid you to call your wife, your brother or sister with an alternative name because I find it offensive with their current names which you been calling them all these years. Will you be glad? Please think through. None of above had been what I proposed in my previous post on subject matter.
Just to refresh your memories (and a bloody lack of reading skills, wakakaka) I wrote: While I believe on principle there ought not to be a monopolistic use of any word or words, I can understand the Muslim community's worries about the Church's obdurate intention to use this word, especially more so when I know it's obligatory, nay, a sacred duty of the Church and Christians to be 'missionary' (evangelistic). Yes, I'm afraid on a personal basis, kaytee isn't all that supportive of the Church's insistence on using the Allah word to represent/indicate/describe their Christian God in the Malay language. Given the experts' etymological and historical clarifications on the Allah word, I am in no doubt that Father Lawrence Andrew is on strong legal grounds to use it ... and indeed we know that the court has supported his stand. But I have always believed that religion is about faith and morality and not legality or for that matter, political approval. Thus I find it unfortunate that the Father Andrew and the Catholic Herald had taken the issue to the courts. Surely on a matter of religious faith and knowledge, there are numerous other names of God it could have use beside Allah. I view its arguments for the use of Allah as seemingly based on obduracy and legality rather than any plausible unavoidable reason. The reason why I have not (still am not) been sympathetic with the Church, I had already expressed as follows:
let us also not forget that Christianity and indeed Islam as well are both evangelistic missionary religions with an obligation on the faithful to convert the so-called pagans, for altruistic reasons of course. So, what is the meaning of 'missionary' and 'evangelistic'? In their adjectival forms, the dictionary has these to say, respectively: Missionary = reflecting or prompted by the desire to persuade or convert others.
Evangelistic seeking to evangelize; striving to convert sinners (where sinners mean all not within the Faith). Dictionary also defines the word evangelize as 'to convert to Christianity', and where we can also substitute the word Christianity with Islam. Thus, both Christianity and Islam require their respective followers to evangelize. In my post I had written: I dare say those Dutch Christian missionaries were out to convert the Indonesian pagans (Muslim and others) into Christianity with whatever it took, and would have found the use of the word Allah as a convenient substitute for the Christian God in persuading the native Muslims that the conversion to Christianity would be nothing more than a seamless worship to the same Allah, albeit with some minor adjustments to the rituals. Thus the argument that the 16th Century Dutch had been doing this or that during dictatorial colonial circumstances would today be just not good enough for the Church to persist along that line.
Leaving aside the legal aspect, where I had already accepted that Father Lawrence Andrew is on very strong grounds, my post points out the several areas and factors where I have found the stand of the local Catholic Church and Father Lawrence Andrew quite disturbing. Thus I asked and continue to ask again: Really, I have to ask again of Father Lawrence Andrew and the Church: "What is really your goal in obdurately pursuing the use of the word Allah to refer to the Christian God in a Malay-language newsletter and Bible when so many other names of your Christian God, with even better biblical pedigree, remain available?" If the aim of the Church is to spread the word of God, why not use Tuhan or Elohim or a multitude of other Hebraic names available from its source, the Tanakh. Why insist on the Allah word when everyone in Malaysia, especially Peninsula Malaysia knows that Allah is familiarly (automatically) visualized and known as the God of Islam.
Thus I quoted Friedrich Nietzsche who reminded us: "Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal." Isn't the goal of the Church to spread the word of its Christian God, which can be done without using the word Allah because Elohim and Yahweh and Tuhan are available? Why has the Church represented by the person of Father Lawrence Andrew remain stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, namely, to use the Allah word in their Catholic Newsletter, the Herald, and the Bahasa version of the Bible, al Kitab? Without too much hubris I believe I have successfully challenged every position Father Andrew and the Church had presented as to why the Allah word is essential and cannot be substituted, but some comments here as well as at RPK's Malaysia-Today have totally ignored my points, and continue to come up with comments equally as obdurate as Father Andrew's or as if they haven't read my post at all (which has been why I mentioned some readers' 'lack of reading skills' wakakaka).
In other words, my post questions the sincerity of the Church's insistence in using the Allah word, which I do not support because of the likelihood of confusion over whose (Islamic or Christian) god is Allah. The ensuing confusion would not be unlike a dangerous sampan in a very turbulent evangelistic sea. Now, my dear friend Ong Kian Ming wrote a piece in Malaysiakini titled Allah row - what's the name of the game? Much as I (platonically, wakakaka) love Kian Ming (and I am not joking, he's a great guy) I am not persuaded by his article. He argued that as Yahwah is already translated into Tuhan, then Elohim (if also translated into Tuhan) following the Yahweh word would result in Tuhan … Tuhan, giving us a double or repetitive Tuhan which won't make sense or provide cohesive reading for the mentioned passage.
He provided the example of Exodus 29:46, which (KJV) states: And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God. Kian Ming provided the NIV (1984) version which doesn't make much difference to KJV for his arguments and the point I intend to make. But let's use his NIV 1984 version which states: They will know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them out of Egypt so that I might dwell among them. I am the LORD their God. He argued that a Bahasa translation minus the use of the Allah word would give us: "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah TUHAN, Tuhan (rather than Allah) mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tingal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah TUHAN Tuhan mereka." But in that translation, Kian Ming has become just like Father Lawrence - though as his matey, I believe Kian Ming has been sincere - in believing that both Yahweh and Elohim must both be translated into Tuhan.
Thus, according to his arguments, if we are to avoid the awkward Tuhan Tuhan translation, we require both the Tuhan and Allah words, so as to show each as a different word in that passage. But my point is why must Elohim be translated from Hebrew into Arabic (Allah)? Why not retain the Elohim word as is in al Kitab instead of translating into Arabic and then daringly claim Allah is a Malay word. If one can claim the Arabic Allah is a Malay word, why not claim and use the Hebraic Yahweh and/or Elohim as also Malay words.
Thus the Bahasa translation of Exodus 29:46 should read as follows (two forms): (a) "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah TUHAN, Elohim mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tinggal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah TUHAN Elohim mereka" or (b) "Mereka akan tahu bahawa Akulah Yahweh, Tuhan mereka yang telah membawa mereka kelaur dari Mesir, supaya Aku dapat tingal bersama-sama mereka. Akulah Yahweh Tuhan mereka" I personally prefer the second. And don't forget, we also have Adonai, El Elyon, El Shddai, El Olam, etc. Sorry, Kian Ming, as a matey I regret I can't even say 'good try' because your arguments have been based on the totally incorrect premise that the Allah word is a Bahasa word when it's patently not – it is as Middle-Eastern (Arabic) as much as are Yahweh and Elohim (Hebrew).
Now, what about my idol Karpal Singh's comments in Malaysiakini's that Karpal rises to Guan Eng's defence over 'Allah' row which reported: DAP national chairperson Karpal Singh has risen to the defence of the party's secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's Christmas day call for Christians to be allowed to use the term 'Allah', stating that it was not intended to hurt Muslim sensitivities. He explained that Lim's call was meant for Christians in Sabah and Sarawak where the word has been in use for generations. I think that's fair enough, though if we have already published a Malay edition of the al Kitab which uses Elohim instead of Allah, why not use it to acquaint Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians on the Elohim and/or Yahweh word(s). Why have a further division of Peninsula from the Eastern States even in al Kitab? It is surprising, therefore, that Penang Umno secretary Azhar Ibrahim has publicly come out with a scathing attack on the Penang chief minister that what he had said in his Christmas message should not hurt the feelings of Muslims, he said in a statement yesterday.
| ||||||||||||||
| DAP Protestors Caught Eating During Hunger Protest! Posted: 30 Dec 2012 02:59 PM PST Eighteen of these so-called protestors vowed to the world that they would starve for 100 hours starting from Thurs, Dec 27, 8pm but they have been caught having their meals at a nearby hotel! They would have most likely ate merrily earlier but an alert reporter from a news portal MYNEWSHUB caught them sneaking off to the Swiss Hotel after entering the 63 hours of purported fasting. When the press were present, they acted like they were drained of energy and tired but the minute the photographers went off, one by one, they also disappeared – for their makan! The absence of these protestors had aroused the suspicions of the reporter, who quietly followed these protestors, mostly DAP members, to the hotel nearby. He recorded pictures of these protestors having their meals with family members and supporters.
| ||||||||||||||
| Could Malaysia elect an Islamist prime minister? Posted: 29 Dec 2012 01:41 PM PST PAS, which ranked third for the number of parliamentary seats won at the federal-level general election of March 2008, will be aiming to gain more parliamentary seats at the coming polls. Discussion at the general assembly was directed toward that goal. That PAS would want to expand on its gains at the next general election is understandable, considering that the party — which was formed in 1951 — is the oldest opposition party in the country. In 2008, however, PAS joined the Pakatan Rakyat coalition, which also comprises the People's Justice Party (PKR) and Democratic Action Party (DAP). The coalition is headed by Anwar Ibrahim, leader of the much smaller PKR, who is touted to be prime minister of any future Pakatan government. An interesting development at the general assembly was the idea that PAS' president, Abdul Hadi Awang, should instead be the preferred candidate for prime minister if the Pakatan Rakyat coalition were to defeat the ruling Barisan Nasional government. This was met by strong approval by delegates at the general assembly, and signalled a shift in PAS' posturing within the opposition coalition. Thus far, PAS has been willing to take the backseat in Pakatan's campaign for power on the assumption that Anwar would be the most likely candidate for prime minister. This stance was developed on the grounds that he is best positioned to bridge the differences between the Malay-Muslim-dominated PAS and the Malaysian-Chinese-dominated DAP. The prospect of an Islamist prime minister, in the form of Abdul Hadi Awang, is a possibility that has never been seriously contemplated until now (although a similar proposal was raised at the 2008 PAS general assembly). Just why PAS members were keen to propose their leader as the next prime minister is an interesting question, coming as it does so close to the general election. Firstly, there is the question of whether PAS' membership of the Pakatan Rakyat coalition has cost PAS some of its votes and support from its traditional Malay-Muslim vote bank. Over the past five years the coalition has had to address issues ranging from environmental politics to the welfare state, which have not traditionally been the party's focus. Some PAS members feel the party has veered off its Islamist path by its engagement with other issues. This was reflected in criticism by PAS' youth wing that the party's newspaper, Harakah, ought to serve the interests of the party first and foremost rather than focusing on broader concerns. Secondly, there is the question of simple arithmetic: if PAS was and remains the biggest party in the PAS-PKR-DAP coalition, then why should the leader come from one of the smaller parties? PAS members may feel that as the oldest and biggest party in the coalition they should have the right to lead Pakatan and any government formed in its name. However, this is all contingent upon PAS winning its share of 40 parliamentary seats at the election. Some PAS leaders have confided that while party members may be enthusiastic about an Islamist prime minister, the rest of the country may not be as excited by the prospect. This view is supported by UMNO leaders like Saifuddin Abdullah, who noted that 'PAS has so far campaigned on things like the welfare state, and the DAP keeps saying that Anwar is their choice for prime minister. To have a PAS leader as prime minister is another matter'.
| ||||||||||||||
| Now, who are the Arab wannabes? Posted: 28 Dec 2012 03:45 PM PST And let's not forget the political element as well as the Allah word also serves those with an agenda, a political agenda. It had been the Catholic Herald's insistence on using Allah as the Bahasa (Malay language) equivalent of God in the al Kitab which had started the name-calling (wakakaka) brouhaha three years ago.
Now, just a wee review of the various aspects of the name-calling (wakakaka) tussle: Legally, High Court Judge Lau Bee Lan had ruled as unconstitutional the Malaysian government's ban of the use of Allah as the Bahasa equivalent of the word God in the Catholic Herald. I believe the government (then with Syed Hamid as the Home Minister) had indicated it would appeal. I am not sure where that appeal currently stands? On the etymological front, a number of academicians including Muslims have traced its usage to pre Islamic era, and explained that both Arab Muslims and Christians refer to their respective gods as Allah. Of course we shouldn't challenge the finding of their highly qualified clarifications, but nonetheless I have something to comment on the etymological aspect of the Allah word shortly.
Historically, it has been agreed that Dutch Christian missionaries sometime in the 16th Century translated the Bible into the Indonesian language by using the word Allah for God. Why those Dutch missionaries did so has not been questioned nor discussed much but that they had used Allah has been deemed by the Catholic Herald as a precedent which must continue to be accepted even today. I'll also come to this soon. Politically, of the two Malay-Muslim parties, UMNO said-says 'no', PAS said 'it's alright' but something new has just cropped up, where PAS has now changed its mind about the word Allah as the equivalent of God in the Malay language version of the Bible. Yes, PAS has just said 'no' as well (to add to UMNO's 'nay'), showing its lamentable character in the same way as had been indicated by its recently disintegrated 'promise' wakakaka that non-Muslims won't be affected by Islamic laws (and/or municipality rules based on Islamic moral values).
PAS' lack of reliability in its belakang pusing (volte face) from its promise has been a classic case of the Malay idiom cakap ta'serupa bikin. No mate, you can't trust any politician, even and especially those from a religious party, be it Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Taoist, Bahāʾīs or Ayah Pin-ish, etc, wakakaka. But let's leave out this troubling though not unexpected side of PAS vis-à-vis non-Muslims in this post, where we can then discuss the topic in a future post. This post is about the use of the word Allah as the Bahasa (Malay language) equivalent of God in the Bible.
And I'll be frank that I will undoubtedly hurt many of my Christian friends as I did 3 years ago when this topic first flared up. While I believe on principle there ought not to be a monopolistic use of any word or words, I can understand the Muslim community's worries about the Church's obdurate intention to use this word, especially more so when I know it's obligatory, nay, a sacred duty of the Church and Christians to be 'missionary' (evangelistic). Yes, I'm afraid on a personal basis, kaytee isn't all that supportive of the Church's insistence on using the Allah word to represent/indicate/describe their Christian God in the Malay language. Perhaps let me declare my religious affiliations so that you can be clear where I am coming from (or going to, wakakaka).
I was born to very staunch Buddhist parents. My late dad and his mum were devoted Theravada Buddhists whilst my late mum was Mahayana Buddhist, not that they knew the difference between those schools of Buddhism. Once I attempted to explain to my mum (when she was alive) about the schools' doctrinal differences but I gave up when I saw the annoyed look on her face, wakakaka. Both my granddads were non-practising Taoists-Confucianists, which may explain why I'm an atheist, wakakaka. Anyway, I am neither Christian nor Muslim.
Okay, let's consider the etymological angle of the Allah word first. Yes, I'm confident of the accuracy of those who have traced the Allah word and its usage to pre Islamic era, and who have also explained that both Arab Muslims and Christians refer to their respective gods as Allah. Yup, I, you, we have all heard the several arguments that Allah is an Arabic word meaning god and not necessarily that of the God of Islam only ... yadda yadda yadda ... and therefore Christians have every right to employ this Allah word because of the word's genericalness. Notwithstanding its etymological certification, let me tell you what I think of the pro arguments. First of all, my caustic remarks wakakaka do not apply to all, but only those who feel my sarcasm, wakakaka.
I am not surprised by the hypocrisy of some of those who advocate this argument, that because Allah is a generic Arabic word for god (not necessarily that of Islam,) the Church and Christians in Malaysia have the right to use it as the Bahasa translation of God. They are/were hypocritical because: (a) these very 'some' people have been those who have been at laughing (as well as sneering) at the orthodox Malay Muslims (or if you like, Muslim Malays) for wanting to be Arabs or to be Arab-ized rather than just being Muslims, from and in the way they dress in Middle-Eastern desert garb instead of our Malaysian tropical baju or sarung kebaya, etc, or resort to Arabic words when Malay equivalents are available, etc etc. * Incidentally I'm also one who laughs at Arab wannabes, wakakaka.
Now, aren't these Christians and their supporters, in arguing for the use of the generic Arabic word Allah as the Bahasa equivalent of God, themselves also Arab wannabes? (b) hey man, aren't we talking about a Bahasa word for God? Why then invoke an Arabic word? If they don't like the word Tuhan because the Church argued that in some instances, the word Tuhan (God) does not convey the required meaning in a biblical passage, why not a Hebrew word then, when after all, Judaism and Christianity share the same God, rather than the one Muslims believe in (yes, this is debatable too)?
Just as an aside, I wonder what's the Bahasa word for Father in the Malay language al Kitab? Would it be 'Ab or Ayah? Please let me know! Look, there are so many names for the Hebrew-Christian God, such as YVWH (Yahweh or, Jehovah), Elohim, Adonai, as well as the following (with their English meanings): Adonai-Jehovah - The Lord our Sovereign El-Elyon -- The Lord Most High El-Olam - The Everlasting God El-Shaddai - The God Who is Sufficient for the Needs of His People Jehovah-Elohim - The Eternal Creator Jehovah-Jireh - The Lord our Provider Jehovah-Nissi - The Lord our Banner Jehovah-Ropheka - The Lord our Healer Jehovah-Shalom - The Lord our Peace Jehovah-Tsidkenu - The Lord our Righteousness Jehovah-Mekaddishkem - The Lord our Sanctifier Jehovah-Sabaoth - The Lord of Hosts Jehovah-Shammah - The Lord is Present Jehovah-Rohi - The Lord our Shepherd Jehovah-Hoseenu - The Lord our Maker Jehovah-Eloheenu - The Lord our God And many many more exists.
Will this range of Godly names in Hebrew satisfy the Church's requirement that in some instances, the word Tuhan does not adequately convey the required meaning in a biblical passage? C'mon, tell me why the Church must use the Arabic word for God and not the Hebrew equivalent? [Just leave the historical angle aside for a while as I'll be coming to it soon]. Let's see what the Tanakh (Jewish bible) says in Genesis 1:1? "In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth ...". Now, tell me, doesn't that indicate to us, in fact indisputably, what is God's name? So why won't the Church use Elohim?
Just as a double check, let's look at the English Bible [King James Version] of the same passage, where it confirms that "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth ... " Thus, on top of Tuhan for God, we have the Hebraic Elohim for God, that is, if the Church doesn't like the word Tuhan. And as I have shown above, there are many more alternatives for God or God's names. In Hebrew (not Aramaic), some have argued that the word Elohim is plural, but as per the Tanakh it is considered as a singular noun and indeed uses the verb for such. It is meant to signal the single God of Israel, but you know what, it is actually ideal for the Christian concept of God as a Trinity, Three yet One. Velly gnam gnam one lah!
Let us now turn our attention on the man who started it all, Father Lawrence Andrew of the Catholic Church and the editor of the Catholic Herald. Given the experts' etymological and historical clarifications on the Allah word, I am in no doubt that Father Lawrence Andrew is on strong legal grounds to use it ... and indeed we know that the court has supported his stand. But I have always believed that religion is about faith and morality and not legality or for that matter, political approval. Thus I find it unfortunate that the Father Andrew and the Catholic Herald had taken the issue to the courts. Surely on a matter of religious faith and knowledge, there are numerous other names of God it could have use beside Allah. I view its arguments for the use of Allah as seemingly based on obduracy and legality rather than any plausible unavoidable reason.
| ||||||||||||||
| Siapa politician terima RM8 juta dari Deepak? Posted: 28 Dec 2012 03:34 PM PST Perkara didedahkan hari ini dalam satu kenyataan berhubung status syarikatnya itu yang dipaksa dijual kepada sebuah agensi Kementerian Pertahanan.
| ||||||||||||||
| May 13: Official Version Vs Declassified Documents Version Posted: 27 Dec 2012 06:06 AM PST Reading the Malaysiakini report dated Oct 12, 07 entitled 'Malay capitalists' not behind May 13′ I can't help but wonder how the powers-that-be took great pains to rebut the allegations and accusations that the riots were planned by Malay capitalists as concluded by Suaram's director Dr Kua Kia Soong's in his bookMay 13 – Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969. In fact the Utusan Group has republished first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's book, May 13: Before and After and its obvious that the publication of this book was to dispel Dr. Kua's conclusions. However this book 'Before and After' was written by Tunku shortly after the May 13 incident and what was never reveal was Tunku's statement from his residence in Penang, 1972, what Asiaweek's M.G.G Pillai had alleged in the 17 February 1978 issue of that magazine and Tunku's interview with Asiaweek, published on 10 May 1985. The writer wishes to present all three articles here, one by Malaysiakini at attempts to potray Tunku's book 'Before and After' as official facts and excerpts from an article written by Fan Yew Teng, former DAP Acting SG entitled 'Some UMNO Myths Young Malaysians Should Know About' and Tunku's statement in 1972 for readers to make an informed conclusion. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 'Malay capitalists' not behind May 13′Oct 12, 07 Utusan Group has republished first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's May 13: Before and After book to rebut the allegations and accusations that the riots were planned by Malay capitalists. It is obvious that the publication of this book was to dispel conclusions found in Suaram director Dr Kua Kia Soong's May 13 – Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969. In his book, Kua (right) said the May 13 incident was a coup d'etat against Tunku by Malay capitalists surfacing that at time to grab power from the old aristocrats to execute a new Malay agenda. He drew his conclusions based on a three-month research into various sets of foreign dispatches and confidential reports from that time – which were declassified recently by the Public Records Office in London after 30 years. However, the official version by the government states that the riots were caused by predominantly Chinese opposition supporters who provoked the Alliance party by celebrating their election victory by parading on the streets.
The reason for the republication of Tunku's book was noted clearly in the foreword written by academician Prof Dr Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud who is based in the history, politics and strategy department under Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's social science and humanities faculty. He said the republication was timely "in light of recent attempts by parties who were trying to twist the facts and cause confusion over the bloody May 13 riots." 'Cause of the tragedy' He wrote: "In mid-May, a book about May 13 was published. However, the approach used clearly rejected the belief that the riots were caused by the socio-economic imbalances between the races in the country. "Instead, the writer presented a new thesis that the Malay capitalists let by Tun Abdul Razak tried to topple Tunku as the cause of the riots." However, Nik Anuar did not expressly acknowledge that the aforesaid book was the book written by Kua but the references were clear. The academician elaborated that despite it being difficult to discover the real motive for that book, there is a current trend to besmirch the country's past leaders including, Abdul Razak, Harun Idris, Mohamad Ghazali Shafie and security officers. He said the approach was clearly prejudiced – and if not refuted – would lend credence to the Malay capitalist takeover claim. Hence, Nik Anuar said the publication of Tunku's book would satiate all allegations against national leaders especially those directed at Abdul Razak. In the 195-page book, Tunku summarised that the racial riot was the work of extremists and communists. According to him, these two group of people have been attempting to start riots even before independence. Power struggle Based on this, Nik Anuar ruled out the role of the Malay capitalists because Tunku has never viewed the incident as a move to seize power. He did note that Tunku (left) admitted that the bloody incident was due to a few Umno members who were not happy that he remained as PM.. "But their dissatisfaction did not cause the riots itself. This has been explained by Tunku in Chapters 15 and 16 of the book," Nik Anuar stated. He added that Tunku's book should be read and studied by the people especially the youths "so that they would not be caught in the accusations of parties trying to twist facts and defame leaders that have sacrificed for their race, religion and country." "Tunku's book is based on documents procured from the Royal Malaysian Police. This different from the book published before this that are based on diplomatic and foreign journalist sources that are not reliable," Nik Anuar wrote.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan