Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- The one-track mind
- Heckling, mocking and debating
- Why must I like Anwar?
- I speak for God, konon
- The value of a Muslim oath
- Irritated by beliefs
- So what is our foreign policy?
- Preaching to the preacher
- God, as opposed to religion
- Why are Malays so otak sempit?
- The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
| Posted: 12 Mar 2013 01:44 PM PDT
And that is the most important criteria to get Malaysian citizenship. And that is why many foreigners have been given Malaysian citizenship. So I don't know why many of you grumble and complain about the 'Projek IC' in Sabah. Maybe one million people have been given ICs. But then these people are exactly like you -- ignorant people who have no ability to think beyond the one-track. So why should they not be given Malaysian citizenship when they possess the brain of a Malaysian? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin After living in the East Coast of West Malaysia for 20 years from 1974-1994, and after interacting with the local 'natives' of Terengganu and Kelantan, you tend to develop a pretty good idea as to how their mind works. Terengganu and Kelantan is predominantly Malay-Muslim with some areas comprising of 70%-90% farmers and fishermen. The people there are actually very nice and friendly although many of them harbour the wrong impression of the non-Malays/non-Muslims, mainly due to ignorance. For example, they ('they' not necessarily meaning everyone but some: the degree or percentage not known, though, since I have not conducted any poll) think that the Chinese can live as husband and wife, although they may not be legally married, mainly because Chinese do not have any religion and hence, according to Chinese 'norms', this is not an immoral thing. My wife, Marina, was shocked when one day a kampong woman told her this. Marina had to tell her that the Chinese, just like the Malays, do have a concept of morality and most of what is considered immoral for Malays is also immoral for Chinese. And this kampong woman was actually quite surprised that the Chinese, too, have moral values. They also think that the Chinese businessmen and shopkeepers cheat due to the same reason -- meaning that the Chinese do not have any religion and hence they do not have any concept of heaven and hell where you later pay for the bad things that you do (or get rewarded for the good things that you do). This means it is in the Chinese character to be dishonest since they are not accountable for their actions in the Afterlife. I suppose the manner in how you treat people from another community depends on how you perceive them and what you think of them. Hence if you think that the Chinese are 'immoral' and 'dishonest' only because they do not have any religion to guide them regarding right and wrong, then you accept the fact that you cannot expect the Chinese to be 'good' people but then you should not blame them also since they do not have the advantage of a religion to help guide them. And this is the problem with how these people think. They think that morality and honesty are not part of the Chinese character not because the Chinese are bad people but because, to the Chinese, these concepts do not exist due to the absence of religion. Can you see what ignorance can do to you? Part of the blame must certainly go to that person who is ignorant because it is your duty to get educated. However, the Chinese too need to also make themselves understood. And that is why I always write articles about the Malays and Islam. I feel many non-Malays/non-Muslims have misconceptions about the Malays and Islam mainly because they don't bother to find out (just like the Malays do not bother to find out about the non-Malays/non-Muslims). One more thing about the Malays is that they believe very strongly in bomoh (witch doctors), black magic, good genies (jin), bad genies, evil spirits, tangkal (lucky charms), etc. Tangkal are supposed to make you invincible and bullets, knives, etc., would not be able to penetrate your body. Maznah Ismail a.k.a. Mona Fendi (picture above) was supposed to be a specialist in tangkal that gives you invincibility. Unfortunately for her client, though, Pahang State Assemblyman Datuk Mazlan Idris, it did not work and when they conducted the test, the parang (machete) went deep into his skull and killed him (it was supposed to have bounced off his skull without leaving a scratch). It seems some of those Filipino Muslim soldiers who infiltrated Sabah recently and who were shot dead had tangkal on their bodies as well -- although they did not quite work (since they were shot dead). Not quite an endorsement for those bomoh who manufactured those tangkal for the Filipino Muslim army. On some of those dead soldiers the tangkal was found between their legs. Maybe this was to make sure that they don't get their balls shot off. Actually, Chinese, Indians and 'others' also believe in bomoh, tangkal, jin, black magic, and so on. When P.I. Balasubramanian suffered his heart attack a few days ago, they said that 'First Lady' Rosmah Mansor had used black magic on him. Hence he was supposed to be suffering from an attack of black magic. I am not sure whether they thought so before they discovered what was really wrong with him or whether they meant that the heart attack was due to black magic. But don't laugh. As funny as it may sound, many people of all races do believe in such things. In fact, when Malays from Terengganu and Kelantan get sick the first thing that comes to mind is that someone must have employed a bomoh to put a spell on you. And they will go to their own bomoh for treatment. I have known of cases where someone had aches and pains and went to a bomoh for treatment -- who confirmed the aches and pains was because some bad bomoh had put a spell on you. After many months or even years of treatment, the aches and pains would still not go away (and after paying the bomoh a tidy sum of money over all that time). One day you can't bear the pain any longer and you go to a 'proper' doctor. The doctor then tells you that you are suffering from cancer. However, you should have done something about it earlier. Now it is too late and because of that you will be dead within six months, most likely over the next two months or so. The bottom line is, if you had gone to the doctor instead of a bomoh you might have been saved. Now, because you wasted your time with the bomoh, it is too late and because of that you are going to die. Sounds stupid does it not? But this is the way they think. They have a one-track mind. And this is because they are quite ignorant so they are incapable of thinking outside this one-track. Hence if anything goes wrong it can only be because of one thing -- black magic and the work of an evil bomoh. Many if not most Malaysians have this same mentality. They too are ignorant and have a one-track mind. When something happens they can only think of one reason for this. They are incapable of imagining any other reason other than just this one reason. For example, if someone disagrees with you or has a different opinion from you then this can only be due to one reason -- and that one reason is that that person has been bought. Your brain is not capable of imagining that there could actually be another reason for this. This is the same mindset as those who think that if your body has aches and pains then it must be because a bomoh has put a spell on you. I suppose we can't expect everyone to have analytical skills and to have the ability to think beyond the one-track. If you are sick then it can only because of a bomoh using black magic. If someone disagrees with you then it can only be because he/she has been bought. And that is the most important criteria to get Malaysian citizenship. And that is why many foreigners have been given Malaysian citizenship. So I don't know why many of you grumble and complain about the 'Projek IC' in Sabah. Maybe one million people have been given ICs. But then these people are exactly like you -- ignorant people who have no ability to think beyond the one-track. So why should they not be given Malaysian citizenship when they possess the brain of a Malaysian? |
| Heckling, mocking and debating Posted: 10 Mar 2013 04:10 PM PDT
I detest hecklers. And that is what a few readers who comment in Malaysia Today are, hecklers. But they imagine themselves as philosophers who are making wise comments that are going to help change entire humankind for the better. And that is why of late I have been putting down these hecklers with my own responses to their silly heckling comments. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin There are people who do not understand the difference between heckling, mocking and debating. I suppose these are the types of people who also do not understand the difference between making love, screwing and raping. To these people, brutally grabbing a female and ravaging her against her will comes under the category of 'making love'. Absolutely no class! Manners of country bumpkins! But then I suppose we can't blame them. These people did not receive an education at good schools like the Malay College Kuala Kangsar (MCKK) or the Victoria Institution (VI) -- both schools that I went to. Many of them were schooled in obscure small towns that still had bucket latrines up to the 1960s or 1970s, or in kampong schools or vernacular/mother-tongue hole-in-the-wall schools. You can take the village idiot out of the village but you can't take the village mentality out of the village idiot, as the saying goes. Hence you can send them to school but that does not necessarily mean they will receive an education. Education is not just about going to school. After all even monkeys can be taught tricks and then sent into space after being taught these tricks. Hence you may have gone to school but whether you are still a monkey is yet to be seen. I detest hecklers. And that is what a few readers who comment in Malaysia Today are, hecklers. But they imagine themselves as philosophers who are making wise comments that are going to help change entire humankind for the better. And that is why of late I have been putting down these hecklers with my own responses to their silly heckling comments. I remember an incident that happened about 30 years ago back in the early 1980s. Tan Sri Tan Kay Hock, the Chairman of Johan Holdings Berhad and George Kent (M) Bhd, took me (and our wives) for dinner at The Paddock in the (old) Kuala Lumpur Hilton. There was a comedian on stage and he was pretty good. But we could not hear what the comedian was saying because there were two Malay chaps pissed-drunk at the table behind us who were heckling him. I noticed the manager, escorted by a security guard, going up to them to request them to tone down a bit because everyone was staring at them and were clearly quite upset with the disturbance. But these two pissed-drunk Malay chaps continued heckling the comedian until it came to a stage that he became quite flustered and did not know how to continue with his routine. That was when I stood up and walked over to the table of these two very drunk hecklers and told them to shut the fuck up. The manager and security guard knew that the whole thing was about to turn ugly but before they could separate us one of the Malay chaps stood up and made a move towards me. In that type of situation there is more room for talk. I punched the chap and he fell back into his chair quite stunned. For the rest of the night he remained very quiet and just 'enjoyed' the show. I think he must have been 'boiling' because after a while he came over to my table and demanded to know why I had punched him. The manager quickly grabbed him and pulled him back to his table before I could rearrange his face. Well, okay, that was 30 years ago and I was still in my early 30s and hence quite darah panas (hot headed). Nevertheless, although I am not so fist-of-fury any longer, as I used to be, I still have zero tolerance for hecklers. A few years ago (before the 2008 GE) I attended a debate between Umno Youth and PKR Youth at the PWTC. The Umno Youth and Puteri Umno members in the audience were very well behaved. The PKR Youth members, however, were heckling the Umno Youth debaters every time they stood up to debate. The Umno Youth and Puteri Umno members did not do the same to the PKR Youth debaters when they stood up to debate. They Umno boys and girls behaved well and they allowed the PKR Youth debaters to say their piece without any interruptions. And even as the PKR Youth members heckled the Umno Youth debaters the Umno Youth debaters still smiled and continued in a civil manner without showing any signs of irritation. The PKR Youth hecklers were sitting in the row right behind me (I was sitting next to Cikgu Bad so he can confirm this incident) so I could not hear the debate due to all the commotion. I turned to the PKR Youth chaps and told them to shut up and show some respect to the debaters. They kept quiet for a while and then continued heckling. I got so fed up I walked out of the hall although I wished I could just punch these hecklers in their faces. Looking back now, I should have punched them in their faces because these people have now all joined Umno and are amongst the greatest critics of Pakatan Rakyat. And if I had known they would one day leave the opposition to join Umno I might have whacked them in the face to shut them up. Anyway, as I said, Malaysia Today, too, has its share of hecklers who do not address, rebut or reply to the points in the article or report. They totally ignore the issues and instead just heckle. And these are the people I respond to with my sarcastic comments. It is not so much bringing myself down to their level but more to give them a taste of their own medicine. After all, I too can be nasty and post racist comments as well as they can. But the most important thing, though, is that I put my name to my comments while they heckle under false identities without revealing who they are. And this is because they have not been properly educated and brought up like I have. I mean, they may have gone to school but they still demonstrate the mentality of their forefathers from the new villages, fishing villages, padi-fields, rubber estates, tin mines, and so on. You can bring the descendants of people from the new villages, fishing villages, padi-fields, rubber estates and tin mines out of the new villages, fishing villages, padi-fields, rubber estates and tin mines, but you can never remove the new village, fishing village, padi-field, rubber estate and tin mine mentality from their brain. Do I sound pompous? I hope so because I intended it to be so. |
| Posted: 09 Mar 2013 04:02 PM PST
I know some of you like or maybe even love Anwar. I have no problems with that. But just because you like or love Anwar that does not mean I too must do so. And just because I do not like or love the same people that you do this does give you the right to vilify, disparage, mock and curse me. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin There are people who are of the opinion that if I am a reformist, if I am loyal to the cause, if I really wish to see change, then I should love Anwar Ibrahim and sing his praises. If I do not love Anwar, then I am not a reformist, I am not loyal to the cause, and I do not wish to see change. Well, you have probably figured this out by now (and if you haven't then you are dumber than I thought) but I do not love Anwar Ibrahim. But that does not mean I hate him either. Not loving does not necessarily translate to hate. For example, I do not love Britney Spears's music. But that does not mean I hate her music either. In fact, I rather like her slower numbers such as 'I'm Not A Girl, Not Yet A Woman', 'Born To Make You Happy', 'Don't Let Me Be The Last To Know', 'From The Bottom Of My Broken Heart', and so on. However, I would not regard her music as 'to die for', unlike Emile Sandé's song 'Clown', which I play every day, a few times a day. Now that is a song 'to die for' that gives me goose pimples (in fact, I'm listening to that song even as we speak). My 'displeasure' with Anwar, if I may be permitted to call it that, started around August 2004. I was then the Director of the Free Anwar Campaign, which I headed for roughly five years of the six years that Anwar was in jail. And I funded it from my own pocket except for the RM1,000 that Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail gave me in 2000 and the RM2,000 that Anwar's brother, Rosli, gave me in 2002. That was all: RM3,000 in total from Anwar's family. But that was not an issue. I was not doing all this for money anyway. Then, in August 2004, one of Anwar's lawyers, Pawanchik Merican, spoke to me to ask me how much I was receiving every month to run the Free Anwar Campaign. I replied that other than the RM3,000 I had received thus far, I was not receiving any money and that the cost to run the Free Anwar Campaign came from my own pocket. Pawanchik was very upset when I told him this. He knew I was travelling all over the country campaigning not only for Anwar but also against the Internal Security Act. And he also knew that Anwar's people had raised a few million Ringgit in the name of the Free Anwar campaign. Hence he thought that the money actually went into financing the Free Anwar Campaign. Pawanchik then informed me that he had visited Anwar in the Sungai Buloh Prison and had told Anwar about this but Anwar did not respond. He just kept quiet. Pawanchik then advised me to close down the Free Anwar Campaign to stop Anwar's people from using it to raise money. I told Pawanchik I would only close down the Free Anwar Campaign once Anwar is free from prison and not a day earlier. Pawanchik replied that Anwar is going to remain in prison for at least another six years. So am I prepared to keep running the Free Anwar Campaign for another six years? I told Pawanchik that Anwar was going to be released in another few weeks, after which I will then close down the Free Anwar Campaign. Pawanchik laughed and said that none of Anwar's many lawyers believed that he would be free in another few weeks. They were very confident that Anwar would spend no less than ten years in jail in total, maybe even 12 years. I then wrote an article that Anwar would see freedom on 2nd September 2004 and one of Anwar's lawyers came to see me at my home in Sungai Buloh to scold me. And this lawyer told me that he is scolding me on Anwar's behalf because my article that Anwar would be freed on 2nd September 2004 is a lie and not true at all. Anyway, I was right and Anwar and his lawyers were wrong. Anwar was freed on 2nd September 2004 as I had written. On that same day I put the Free Anwar Campaign to sleep and began to focus on Malaysia Today fulltime, which I had launched two weeks earlier on Friday, 13th August 2004. On that day, 2nd September 2004, Anwar's lawyer (the one who had come to my house to scold me) phoned me and said that Anwar wanted to see me. I told him to go to hell. The next day, 3rd September 2004, Anwar's brother, Rosli (the chap who had given me RM2,000) phoned me and, again, told me that Anwar wanted to see me. And, again, I told him to go to hell. On the third day, 4th September 2004, Dato' Kamarul Bahrin Abbas (the current MP for Teluk Kemang) phoned me and pleaded with me to come and see Anwar. Dato' told me that Anwar was leaving for Germany that same night and he wanted to see me before he leaves. I told Dato' that Anwar can leave for Germany and maybe I will see him when he returns. Dato' said Anwar wanted to see me before he leaves. I felt bad because I have great respect for Dato' Kamarul, who was my boss in the party newspaper, Berita Keadilan, later changed to Seruan Keadilan. I asked my wife, Marina, what I should do and she replied that if I wanted to go and see Anwar then I will have walk there because she was not going to drive me. Finally Marina agreed to drive me as long as she can wait outside the house and not have to go into the house to also see Anwar. I went to see Anwar that 4th September 2004 not because he wanted to see me but because I segan with Dato' Kamarul. Dato' Kamarul, in fact, was waiting outside the house when we arrived and he escorted me into Anwar's bedroom. Anwar's first words to me were, "Allah, anak Raja ni, susah sungguh nak panggil datang jumpa." I replied, "Why do you want to see me? After all you are not happy with me." So you see, as early as back in August 2004 when I launched Malaysia Today and Anwar was spending his last fortnight in prison I had already 'washed my hands' of him. And I made that very clear by refusing to go and see him even when his lawyer and brother phoned me. I relented on the third day only because I wanted to 'give face' to Dato' Kamarul because I segan with him, my boss in the party newspaper. When I segan with someone I will give him/her face even if I am not happy doing what they request from me. Hence I 'stayed' with Anwar not because I love Anwar but for the sake of Dato' Kamarul who I have great respect for. In the 2008 general election, I campaigned for DAP, but not for Pakatan Rakyat. I declined all the invitations to speak at the PAS and PKR rallies/ceramah. I told them I would only speak at the DAP rallies. And I did, all the way to Penang. Then they approached me and asked me to speak at Nurul Izzah's ceramah. At first I said 'no'. No PKR ceramahs. Then a friend pleaded with me to help Nurul. Because of this friend who I also segan, an Indian chap, I relented and said that only at Nurul's ceramah, but not at the other PKR ceramah -- exclusive for Nurul Izzah only. And until today I still support Nurul and even helped raise money for her (which I did last year). I know some of you like or maybe even love Anwar. I have no problems with that. But just because you like or love Anwar that does not mean I too must do so. And just because I do not like or love the same people that you do this does give you the right to vilify, disparage, mock and curse me. I love Tok Guru Abdul Hadi Awang and Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat. When I meet them I kiss their hands to demonstrate my love for them. Many of you, however, do not like these two PAS leaders. Some of you, in fact, hate them. But I do not vilify, disparage, mock and curse you because you do no like them or you hate them. I like Karpal Singh. In fact, I have great respect for Karpal and his sons, Gobind in particular. Many of you do not like Karpal. Some of you even hate him and feel he should just retire and keep his mouth shut. But I do not vilify, disparage, mock and curse you because you do no like Karpal or you hate him. I know some of you do not like Dato' Kamarul, the only person in Malaysia who can get me to go and see Anwar. But I do not vilify, disparage, mock and curse you because you do not like Dato' Kamarul or you hate him. In fact, I even know that some of you are going to sabotage Dato' Kamarul in the coming general election to make sure he loses his seat. But I still do not vilify, disparage, mock and curse you. So, no, I have not 'turned' of late, as some of you allege. I already 'turned' -- if you wish to use that word -- back in August 2004 when I first launched Malaysia Today. Nothing has changed. In spite of that I still went to Penang to campaign and ceramah for Anwar during the 2008 Permatang Pauh by-election (and he did not even thank me for that). And when Anwar went to London a few times I travelled down to London to meet him at my own expense. And let me share a secret with you. The more you vilify, disparage, mock and curse me because I do not love Anwar the more I am going to write articles and exposés uncomplimentary to Anwar just to teach you a lesson. Nobody tells me whom I can and cannot love or like. And I will keep whacking until you get this through your thick head. And if you do not like that, tough, that is your problem, not mine.
|
| Posted: 08 Mar 2013 08:22 PM PST
"The Shi'ite influence from Iran exists here and there are attempts to spread it among the community. This represents a major problem not only to the education system but also the Muslim community, so I want immediate action to be taken to prevent the spread of such teachings," said Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Thorough study to identify, curb Shi'ite teachings: DPM (Bernama) - The government will carry out a thorough study to identify Islamic religious teachers involved in the Shi'ite teachings to curb such activities so that Muslims in the country are not misled by such teachings. Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said such a study needed to be carried out at several levels instead of just making presumptions. "This includes studying the character of the teachers (involved in Shi'ite teachings), their methods of teaching, social activities and their involvement in such teachings. If they are really involved, they would be advised," he said. He said this at the Northern Zone Conference of Islamic Religious Teachers, Ministry of Education at Universiti Sains Malaysia, here today which was attended by about 2,300 religious teachers. Muhyiddin, who is also the Education Minister, said this when responding to a question from a religious teacher from Kedah who wanted the government to take action on the growing incidence of religious teachers involved in Shi'ite teachings. He said immediate action must also be taken as the Shi'ite teachings were contradictory to Islamic teachings in this country and could not be accepted particularly as they involved religious teachers. He expressed concern if the Shi'ite teachings spread to students through lessons in school and the community because religious teachers had great influence in the society. "The Shi'ite influence from Iran exists here and there are attempts to spread it among the community. This represents a major problem not only to the education system but also the Muslim community, so I want immediate action to be taken to prevent the spread of such teachings," he said. Meanwhile in his speech, Muhyiddin said the Barisan Nasional (BN) government implemented numerous measures in empowering Islam including in the Islamic religious education system in schools, the creation of an international Islamic university and the implementation of Islamic banking and finance which had been recognised as the best in the world. "All forms of progress and development implemented by the BN government are in line with the requirements of Islam as had been stated, 'Balanced Life in the Present World and Hereafter'," he said. He said that it would not be able to implement policies pertaining to Islam if Malaysia did not have a government or administration that was committed to empowering and preserving the sanctity of the Islamic religion. "Islamic education as the federal religion does not necessarily guarantee the implementation of Islamic policies if there is no commitment or determination on the part of the government that does not see the need for the sanctity of the Islamic religion to be preserved and the growth of Islam." Muhyiddin said the federal government had given emphasis on raising the quality of Islamic teaching as it was important for the Muslims in Malaysia. **************************************** I shudder when Malays foam at the mouth and scream about Al Qur'an, Al Hadith, Al Sunnah and Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah (Sunni, for short). Then they will say that a good Sunni will follow the teachings of Imam Ghazali and Imam Shafiee. Then they will conclude by saying that the Shi'ite are not true Muslims, they are deviant Muslims -- in fact, you should not even consider them Muslims at all -- and Malaysians who follow the teachings Shi'ite must be arrested and sent for religious rehabilitation. And, in the past, many followers of Shi'ite teachings -- some of them lecturers and professors of various Malaysian universities -- have been arrested for this 'crime'. So, today, those Malays who follow Shi'ite teachings do so secretly to avoid arrest. They go 'underground' and become 'closet' followers of Shi'ism. This is just like England of the 1500s when Catholics would also go underground and practice Catholicism secretly. If not they would be arrested, their property confiscated, and they would be tortured and then when they are half-dead would be burned alive at the stake like witches and warlocks. 100 years later, England went through a Civil War and one of the various reasons being that Charles I was suspected of being a Catholic sympathiser. The Puritans led by Oliver Cromwell wanted to eradicate the anti-Christ and heretic Catholics from English soil. They even banned Christmas and removed statues and crucifixes from churches, symbols of popish believes and papist religious deviation. Today, Malaysia is going through what England went through 400-500 years ago. And Catholicism is replaced with Shi'ism. But in Malaysia they only arrest you and send you for religious rehabilitation. They do not burn you alive at the stake -- after being tortured an inch from death -- like they used to do in England four-five centuries ago. I wonder why. Do you know that the two famous imams of Sunni Islam -- Imam Ghazali and Imam Shafiee -- were students of Shi'ite scholars? And do you also know that the Hadith -- that the Sunnis say are compulsory to follow -- was written by Persians and not by scholars from Mekah and/or Medina. In fact, during the time of the four Caliphs of Medina, they banned Hadith. Omar was so outraged by false Hadith that he would flog anyone who wrote these Hadith. Strange or not? We reject the Persian version of Islam but we follow the Hadith and Imams of Persia. I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of this. Does he know that the so-called ulama' (religious scholars) have been hiding this fact from us. And because 99% of Malays are ignorant of Islam, they do not know this. It is like the Protestants or Anglicans rejecting popish teachings and then they go and celebrate pagan Christmas every 25th December. Strange or not? It looks like both Christians and Muslims are equally weird. Then they say that the Christians and Muslims follow the Abrahamic faith. But Abraham is the father of Judaism. Should not Christians and Muslims then be Jews? Strange! Very strange indeed! They say this is called blind faith. I think it is more like blind rather than faith. And these people think they are all going to heaven and the rest of us are going to hell. Strange! Very strange indeed! And do you know that Hudud is Jewish law. And the Christians allege that Jesus abrogated the Jewish law of Hudud while the Muslims claim it is Islamic law. Strange! Very strange indeed! |
| Posted: 07 Mar 2013 03:56 PM PST
The Malays/Muslims have just reduced the value of a Muslim oath to zero value. Can we any longer trust Malays/Muslims when they swear an oath in the name of Allah while holding a Qur'an? No wonder Malays/Muslims swear an oath of office and as soon as they are in office they resort to corruption and abuse of power and violate the trust the people have put in them. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin This is the photograph that Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail showed during the press conference that she held regarding Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan's sodomy allegation against Anwar Ibrahim. When the press asked Wan Azizah where she got the photograph from, she pointed to me standing at the back of the hall and told the reports to ask Raja Petra. The reporters then rushed up to me to ask me my comments and I just smiled and responded with a 'no comment'. I just love keeping some things a mystery – such as from where I got that photograph.
At first Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's office denied the photograph and also denied that Saiful had ever been to meet the Prime Minister. Later, when I said that I have evidence that Saiful did visit Najib's office, they did a U-turn and admitted that he did go to Najibs office after all but merely to discuss a scholarship. Hence allow me to gloat by saying that Malaysia Today broke the story first and even revealed the photograph.
But that is not the point of my article today. What I really want to talk about is that Malays (meaning Muslims as well) pride themselves on the sanctity of the Qur'an and the value of an oath of a Muslim. In fact, in Surah An Nur (chapter 24) of the Qur'an, it stresses that in any allegation involving sexual misconduct (where the sentence is stoning to death just like the old Jewish laws) your oath can determine whether a person is put to death or is spared death. In other words, another person's oath can result in you being put to death (by many people throwing stones at you) and/or your oath can spare you the terrible fate of being put to death (by many people throwing stones at you). So an oath is not a light thing. It is the difference between life and death.
And this is what Saiful had done -- he had taken an oath -- and also what Najib had done regarding his alleged involvement with Altantuya Shaariibuu -- he had also taken an oath that he had never met her or even knows her. Today, Malaysians have learned that an oath of a Muslim has no value after all. An oath of a Muslim -- even when taken with a Qur'an over his/her head -- is as valuable as Japanese 'banana money'. After this can we ever accept the oath of a Malay/Muslim? It appears like the oath of a Muslim, the most sacred word that a Muslim can ever give, is not worth the paper it is written on (pun intended).
The Malays/Muslims need to ponder on this. If from now on the non-Muslims mock a Muslim who swears in the name of Allah regarding this, that or the other, the Malays/Muslims should not feel offended and start making police reports that so-and-so has insulted Islam and threaten bloodshed and all that bullshit. The Malays/Muslims have just reduced the value of a Muslim oath to zero value. Can we any longer trust Malays/Muslims when they swear an oath in the name of Allah while holding a Qur'an? No wonder Malays/Muslims swear an oath of office and as soon as they are in office they resort to corruption and abuse of power and violate the trust the people have put in them. In short, Malays/Muslims cannot be trusted because the sacred oath of a Malay/Muslim is totally worthless. And a human whose sacred oath is worthless is lower than an animal. Are Muslims lower than animals then? Yes, and trust me, after writing this article I have just closed the door to ever returning to Malaysia never mind whether Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional wins the coming general election. **************************************** P.S.: By the way, I am inviting volunteers from both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat to become sub-editors of Malaysia Today -- at least for now until the coming general election. Your job will be to update/publish news items or articles every day, say about half a dozen or so a day per person. The reason I am inviting volunteers from both sides of the political divide is so that we can get balanced reporting and views. Definitely the pro-Barisan people will publish pro-government items while the pro-Pakatan people will publish anti-government items. (You have absolute autonomy and can also write your own articles if you want to). I will need you to verify your identity and political affiliation, of course, and if you respond fast enough maybe we can arrange a face-to-face meeting some time next week in a secret location in the Malaysian jungle to get the ball rolling. (So be prepared to 'disappear' for a whole day next week). If you want Malaysia Today to be more balanced then this is your opportunity to do that. I am prepared to turn Malaysia Today into a 'public-owned' Blog and allow you to determine what gets published in Malaysia Today. Then you have no reason to say that Malaysia Today is biased. We want to be as balanced as we can but then you must help make this possible. Any takers? You can contact me at petra_kamarudin@airpost.net |
| Posted: 06 Mar 2013 06:58 PM PST
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once said that Malaysia is not ready to become a full democracy. Malaysia can only be a 'guided' democracy, as what Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore said. This means the people cannot be allowed to think, do and say whatever they like. Malaysians must be guided as to what they can think, do and say. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Some people believe that Muhammad is the final Prophet of God and that the only authentic holy book, the Qur'an, was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (which is the miracle of Prophet Muhammad) through Gabriel and that Muhammad flew up to God's Kingdom to receive the decree that humankind must pray five times a day (and where Muhammad also met Abraham, Moses and Jesus). Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Some people believe that Jesus was of a virgin birth and is the Son of God and that he died for the sins of humankind and came back to life three days later and that if we accept Jesus as the saviour then our soul will be saved. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Some people believe that the Jews are God's chosen people who were led out of slavery by Moses who parted the Red Sea to allow them to escape the Pharaoh and that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments for all humankind to follow plus God gave humankind His laws of Hudud. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Some people believe that you can ignore or mistreat your parents and put them in old folks' homes when they become senile and a burden and then you go to their graves to pray when they die plus you must choose the graveyard properly for good luck and positive fung shui. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Some people believe that you should build statues and place shrines around trees and treat them as Gods and pray to them and that if you are bad you will be reincarnated as a pig or a dog but if you are good you will be reincarnated as a handsome/beautiful Bollywood movie star. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Nevertheless, however silly these beliefs may seem, most people are prepared to live and let live and allow you these beliefs without scolding, cursing, vilifying or disparaging you and will not call you stupid for believing these silly things. They are, after all, your beliefs and you are entitled to those beliefs even though these beliefs may sound insane. Then, on top of that, there are people who believe that Malaysia is ready for a change of government and that the present government has ruled for too damn long and corruption, abuse of power, racism, an erosion of your fundamental liberties, etc., is so rampant and blatant because of that. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Then, on top of that, there are people who believe that it is futile to change governments because the new government we choose will be just as bad as the old government and that history has proven that countries that changed governments did not see any positive change and it was merely business as usual or old wine in a new bottle. Many more people, however, think that this is all utter bullshit and probably the imagination of a demented person. Nevertheless, while you may think that whether you change governments or you retain the present government is a matter of opinion and personal choice, most people will refuse to allow you this freedom of opinion and personal choice and they are not prepared to live and let live and allow you this belief without scolding, cursing, vilifying or disparaging you and call you stupid for believing these silly things. Isn't it strange? When it comes to religion, most people think you are silly for having these silly beliefs but they will keep silent and allow you to continue being silly. When it comes to politics, however, most people think you are silly for having these silly beliefs but they will not keep silent and allow you to continue being silly. In fact, religion is more irrational than politics. Nothing in religion can be proven and all religions work on the basis of the supernatural. Politics, however, can at least be argued supported by historical evidence. But while you are allowed your religious beliefs they will not allow you your political beliefs. They will scold, curse, vilify or disparage you if you take an opposite political stand but they do not do the same when you take an opposite religious stand. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad once said that Malaysia is not ready to become a full democracy. Malaysia can only be a 'guided' democracy, as what Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore said. This means the people cannot be allowed to think, do and say whatever they like. Malaysians must be guided as to what they can think, do and say. When Dr Mahathir first said this I was flabbergasted. I thought that Dr Mahathir had become a raving lunatic and was talking absolute nonsense. What do you mean by 'guided' democracy? Isn't that like being slightly pregnant? Either you are or you are not. Over time, however, I began to understand the 'logic' in that most illogical statement, in particular over the last five years since 2008. Of late we have been seeing the evil side of Malaysians. And the conduct of Malaysians over these last five years has proven that Malaysians can't be trusted with absolute democracy. It is like giving a child a box of matches. Mostly likely the whole house will be burned to the ground. The Malays say, macam bagi bunga ke beruk, or, as the English would say: casting pearls before pigs. "Never give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs. Otherwise, they will trample them with their feet and then turn around and attack you." (Matthew 7:6). |
| So what is our foreign policy? Posted: 05 Mar 2013 04:45 PM PST
Israel did not create itself. Israel was created by the colonial powers that also engineered the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. And the Sykes–Picot Agreement plus the Balfour Declaration were what made Israel possible. And these countries not only created Israel but they propped it up as well and are still doing so. So why are we still friends with them when they are the culprits behind the problem we are facing called Israel? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin 'Did PM know US consultants are Israel supporters?' (Malaysiakini) - Is Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak's administration aware that the US consultants it hired to attack political rival Anwar Ibrahim are ardent supporters of the Israeli regime, asks PKR. PKR communications director Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad said Najib must answer many questions pertaining to the engagement of former United States president George W Bush's speechwriter Joshua Trevino and other American bloggers, through Apco Worldwide and FBC Media, at the expense of taxpayers. FBC Media and Apco are agencies hired by the Malaysian government to spruce up its image internationally. "Is the government aware that many of the consultants hired are staunch and avid supporters of Israel, to the detriment of the Palestinians?" were among the questions Nik Nazmi posed in a statement today. The same right-wing writers hired by the BN-led government, said Nik Nazmi, are also anti-Islam and have been criticising the Muslim Brotherhood and Muslims in the US. He also wants the PM to explain why and how much more of the rakyat's money has been spent for propaganda, who else have been hired and who did the recruiting and coordination of the campaign, which are mainly slander attacks against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. He claimed that Trevino was behind the site Malaysiamatters.com, which carried articles aimed at discrediting Anwar to international audiences. Pakatan had intended to ask the question in Parliament, said the PKR leader, though as it was clear that there will be no Parliament sitting convened, he said the onus is on Najib. "We hope the PM will answer," said Nik Nazmi during a press conference in Petaling Jaya today. ***************************************** Some background to the Israel issue On 16th May 1916, Britain and France concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement, which proposed to divide the Middle East between them into spheres of influence, with "Palestine" as an international enclave. The Sykes-Picot Agreement did not call for Arab sovereignty, but for the "suzerainty of an Arab chief" and "an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other allies, and the representatives of the Sherif of Mecca." Under the terms of that agreement, the Zionist Organisation needed to secure an agreement along the lines of the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement with the Sherif of Mecca. On 2nd November 1917, the Balfour Declaration, a letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild, made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922. In that letter, Balfour promised British support for the Zionist programme of establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This pledge of support was made without consulting the indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinian people. And it was made before British troops had even conquered the land. Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right – to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish immigration to Britain. Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed the declaration. And yet, just two years earlier, Britain had committed herself to assisting the Arab nations in achieving their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Arab fighters all over the region, including thousands of Palestinians, fought for their freedom, allowing Britain to establish her mandate in Palestine. From that moment, Palestine became the victim of colonial conspiracies. The Balfour Declaration helped to encourage Zionist immigration into Palestine and away from America and Western Europe. Simultaneously, Britain suppressed Palestinian nationalism, which was exemplified by its crushing of the Arab revolt of 1936-1939 and the denial of the right of the Palestinian people to express their will through their own representation. In fact, Britain suppressed Palestinian political representation through a policy of systematic denial of Palestinian political rights. ***************************************** Okay, from the Malaysiakini report above, it appears like Pakatan Rakyat's -- or at least PKR's -- foreign policy is that anyone who is pro-Israel or is opposed to the 'Palestinian cause' must be treated as an enemy of Malaysia. What happens if I were to publicly express an anti-Hamas or a pro-Israel stance? Would that also make me an enemy of the country? Israel is a 100-year old story. Sabah became part of Malaysia in 1963. So it is a 50-year old story. If the Muslims from the Philippines do not have any legal right in claiming Sabah as their territory because it is an 'old story', what legal right do Muslims from the Middle East have in claiming Israel (or the occupied lands) as their territory when it is an even older story? (And remember, the British created Sabah just like they did Israel). Malaysia supports the Muslim claim over Israel because Malaysia is a Muslim country and Muslims are 'officially' anti-Jews. Hence we take the Muslim side against the Jews. Okay, say Dr Jeffrey Gapari Kitingan's 'Christian' STAR were to kick out the 'Muslim' Umno government in the coming general election, would we now take the side of the Muslims from the Philippines regarding their claim over Sabah? For the sake of Islam we take the Muslim side against the Jews. For the sake of Islam will we also take the Muslim side (although from the Philippines) against the Christians (although from Malaysia)? In the Middle East we are 'guided' by religion. Will we also be guided by religion if the Umno 'Muslim' government of Sabah gets kicked out? We, especially the opposition, must be very careful when we express our foreign policy. Just because some Americans happen to be Jews (and Jews who support Israel) we cannot use that as the justification to declare them the enemy of Malaysia. That can also be interpreted as taking a pro-Hamas stance. And that would mean we do not regard Hamas as a terrorist group even though women and children are blown up with bombs. We now call the Muslim 'intruders' from the Philippines terrorists and criminals. This is what Malaysia and the Philippines announced today. Are those Muslims who are fighting the Palestinian cause also terrorists and criminals? In that case what business does the government and opposition have in dealing with them? Aren't we dealing with terrorists and criminals? It is not wrong, of course, in taking a stand, even in an issue involving foreign policy. But we need to be clear and consistent in the reasons why we take such a stand. And those justifications must apply in all cases, not apply in one case but not in another. If it is wrong for the Malaysian government to deal with Jews from America known to be pro-Israel, then it is also wrong to deal with others who are pro-Israel as well. Israel did not create itself. Israel was created by the colonial powers that also engineered the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. And the Sykes–Picot Agreement plus the Balfour Declaration were what made Israel possible. And these countries not only created Israel but they propped it up as well and are still doing so. So why are we still friends with them when they are the culprits behind the problem we are facing called Israel? It is strange how we choose our friends and enemies. We apply certain reasons as to why someone is our enemy and then sidestep that same reason in those we want as our friends. So let me get this straight. Anyone who is pro-Israel is our enemy, even those American citizens -- some who happen to be Jews. I suppose then almost every country in Europe must now become our enemy and Malaysians should be asked to leave the UK, France, etc., immediately. |
| Posted: 23 Feb 2013 05:40 PM PST
Let me put it this way. Say for 35 years a Christian Evangelist knocks on your door every weekend to talk to you about Christ. And every weekend you curse that Christian and tell him to fuck off and then slam the door in his face. Sometimes you even let loose your dog on him and a couple of times he was actually bitten by your dog. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Amid mounting criticisms against Pas spiritual leader Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat for describing recipients of 1Malaysia People's Aid (BR1M) as 'chickens and cattle', the party's information chief said the remarks were merely metaphors. Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Mat said Nik Aziz's remarks should not be taken literally as they were merely a kiasan (metaphor). "I hope readers should not take the remarks literally. He (Nik Aziz) was only trying to convey that giving out knowledge is more important than giving money as an aid," he said. Using the Malay proverb 'umpama melepaskan anjing tersepit' (literally translated "to release a trapped dog" which means to help someone who is bound to be ungrateful), as an example, Tuan Ibrahim said the phrase did not equate a person to a dog. ******************************************** This is certainly a breath of fresh air. I was of the opinion that opposition people do not understand idioms, metaphors, similes, expressions, sayings, proverbs, maxims, axioms, adages, etc. This was when Tun Dr Mahathir talked about the devil you know and then everyone jumped and clapped with glee and said that Dr Mahathir admitted that Umno is a devil. Locking the barn door after the horse has bolted, crying over spilt milk, a stitch in time saves nine, look before you leap, and so on, are not about horses, milk, sewing and jumping over hedges. These proverbs mean it is no use taking action after the event, regretting an action after the damage is done, taking action early can prevent more damage, and you need to contemplate your actions beforehand, respectively. Anyway, it is good that opposition people are not bodoh-sombong but merely bodoh-sepat. Bodoh-sombong means bodoh tak boleh diajar while bodoh-sepat means pura-pura bodoh tapi sebenarynya cerdik. We need cerdik Malaysians, especially Malaysians cerdik enough to fool you into thinking that they are stupid because if I can make you think I am stupid that means I am cleverer than you. One reader commented that I am sometimes very brutal or abrasive in my comments-in-reply to comments posted by Malaysia Today readers. That is certainly true. I get very abrasive when readers post comments or questions to an issue that I have already replied to so many times before. It is apparent that their comment is not sincere. After explaining a certain issue in a very cheong hei manner, sometimes running into three or four pages, they still post comments or questions about the same thing that has already been addressed in the past, not once but many times. I mean, how many times do you want me to address that same issue? When I, yet again, reply to what you say, you will say that my article is boring and that I am repeating the same thing over and over again and that I do not have modal baru. But it is you who are raising a matter that has already been settled. So what do you expect me to do? Just delete your comment and then have you scream "Hypocrite! No freedom of speech! Why delete my comment?" Anyway, one comment that I usually reply to in a very brutal manner is the '55 years of BN is enough! It is time for change! Vote ABU! Kick BN out!' rhetoric. I just can't stand those who post such comments. First of all it is because it is empty rhetoric. Secondly it is because so many people have already posted that comment so you are merely parroting the same thing countless times. But most important of all, thirdly, it is because you are attempting to preach to the preacher. And that is most sickening of all. Let me put it this way. Say for 35 years a Christian Evangelist knocks on your door every weekend to talk to you about Christ. And every weekend you curse that Christian and tell him to fuck off and then slam the door in his face. Sometimes you even let loose your dog on him and a couple of times he was actually bitten by your dog. Nevertheless, this Evangelist still very patiently keeps visiting you to try to convince you that your salvation is through Christ and you, as usual, curse him and tell him to go fuck his Christ. Finally, however, after 35 years, you convert to Christianity and the Evangelist praises the Lord that finally you have seen the light and have accepted Christ as your saviour. Not long after you become a Christian, you suddenly turn into a fanatic. You scream that it is time for a new Christian crusade to be launched so that the infidel non-Christians can be exterminated and erased from the face of this earth. You say that Hitler who was a Christian was right in trying to exterminate the Jews who had killed Christ. Your only regret is that only 6 million Jews were killed. You only wished Hitler had succeeded in ridding the world of all the Jews. Then you go to the Evangelist's house and knock on his door and start preaching Christianity to him. You shout and scream and call the Evangelist a coward for not taking up arms against the infidel non-Christians. The Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on, should be bombed, you argue. No non-Christians should be left alive. The Evangelist does not agree and you accuse him of selling out. You allege that he has been bought. You vilify him and disparage him and call him a friend of Satan. After months of haranguing and cursing, one day the Evangelist can take it no more he slaps your face and says that you are a disgrace to Christianity. I feel just like that Evangelist. For 35 years I tried preaching to you. And each time you cursed me and chased me away and even set your dog on me. I was in fact bitten quite badly a few times. You called me all sorts of nasty names. You laughed at me. You even declared me a lunatic. Then, one day, after 35 years since the 1970s, you suddenly saw the light. In 2008 you converted. And after you converted you started cursing me and said that I am a traitor to the cause. Now you try to preach to me. You tell me what is good and what is bad. You forgot that for 35 years you acted like a bastard. Suddenly you are the chosen one and Christ came to you in your dream. You tell me about all the bad things that are going on. You refuse to admit that things are so bad mainly because you allowed them to become bad. I remember, back in the mid-1990s, what the DAP Chinese supporters said to me in the late MGG Pillai's online forum, Sang Kancil. I remember how they ganged up on me and cursed me. I remember the nasty things they said to me. I remember being chased out of that forum and eventually I felt so hurt I did leave. I remember what happened in 1999 when I launched Kini (in Bahasa Malaysia) and The Malaysian (in English). And today these are the same people who are claiming the moral high ground and with self-righteousness are trying to teach me what for 35 years I had tried to teach them and which they rejected. Isn't life strange? |
| Posted: 22 Feb 2013 05:42 PM PST
Okay, back to the issue of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was said to be just 6 years old or 9 years old or whatever. Of the many stories in Islam this appears to be the single most-favourite story that non-Muslims will raise to mock the Prophet and call him a paedophile, child rapist, pervert, criminal who would be sent to jail if he did that today, and so on. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Agnostic (noun) 1. A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause and that the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. 2. A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. 3. A person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic. ************************************************** One or two readers posted comments today saying that my articles are boring or have become quite stale of late. That may be true. Education can sometimes be boring when you do not want to get educated or you feel you already know enough and do not need further education. I do not think that I already know everything. I admit that there is still much I need to learn. And that was the reason why I signed up at Oxford University's Department of Continuing Education in 2011 plus I attended a few lectures in Oxford last year. I am currently on my third module and will be submitting my essay at the end of March. Anyway, let me bore you, yet again, with another stale article. This article is not about God or about religion but I have titled it 'God, as opposed to religion' and I am going to make many references to God and religion. Most simple-minded people -- and that would probably be more than half the readers of Malaysia Today -- think that the world is divided into those who believe in God (theists) and those who do not believe in God (atheists). They do not realise that there is a third group -- neither theist nor atheist -- who sit in between those two. And this group is called agnostics. You can read the definition of agnostic at the top. Before I go into the main thrust of my article, allow me, as usual, to digress -- in my normal cheong hei manner -- and address some of the comments posted in Malaysia Today over the last few weeks. This is merely a digression to make a short story long and is still not what I really want to talk about today. One reader raised the issue of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha and said that this was what is reported in the Hadith. Now, let's say I make certain references to the life of Jesus. And, let's also say, Christians disagree with my view and argue that my statement contradicts Christian beliefs. Then, say, I 'prove' to you that I am correct while you are wrong with quotes from the Gospel. You then ask me from which Gospel I am making this reference and I quote the Gospel of Barnabas. You then argue that the Gospel of Barnabas may contain some remnants of earlier apocryphal works but it has never been canonised although it is about the same length as the four canonical gospels put together. I then counter by saying that the 'Gospel according to Barnabas' is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works: the 6th-century Latin Decretum Gelasianumas well as the 7th-century Greek List of the Sixty Books. Hence it is authentic. Okay, so what is my point here? Simple, my point is that I am telling you what a Christian should believe. You are a Christian while I am not. Yet I am telling you what is the correct Christianity and what is wrong Christianity. Should not you, a Christian, know better what you want to believe and do not want to believe? Who am I, a non-Christian, to teach you what is correct Christianity? I would never presume to know Christianity better than you, a practicing Christian. And I would never attempt to teach you what is correct Christianity and what is wrong Christianity. Non-Muslims, however, presume they know Islam better than Muslims themselves and then will preach what is right Islam and what is wrong Islam. Okay, back to the issue of Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was said to be just 6 years old or 9 years old or whatever. Of the many stories in Islam this appears to be the single most-favourite story that non-Muslims will raise to mock the Prophet and call him a paedophile, child rapist, pervert, criminal who would be sent to jail if he did that today, and so on. Allow me to digress, yet again. Back in those days, and even up to 'modern' times, 'political marriages' were very common, even in the more 'civilised' Europe. Most political marriages would be between leaders or rulers to unite the different political factions or powers. Leaders or rulers did not marry for love. They married to strengthen their position and to gain political allies or to prevent other powers from turning enemy (once you are related by marriage you become friends). Even in England and France the sons and daughters of Kings were married off to each other when they were still children. However, they would not be allowed to live as husband and wife until they reach the age of puberty, which could be 10 or 11. Hence they would have to live apart for a few years until then. And 'adulthood' would be when you reach puberty. In fact, at 13 you went to war and died for your country and at 19, if you were still single, you would be considered too old to get married. At 30 you would be an old man or woman. Anyway, that was a mere digression. I am not trying to play the role of Muslim apologist here. I am bringing to your attention that the value system and traditions/customs in those days were different from today. Christians killed Jews in those days. Catholics killed Protestants and Protestants killed Catholics in those days. Hell, the English Parliament even banned Christmas and ordered shops to stay open on 25th December, less than 400 years ago, because Christmas was considered a pagan festival and not the day to mark the birth of Christ. And, 1,000 years before that banning of Christmas, Prophet Muhammad was said to have entered into a political alliance with the most powerful warlord of Mekah by marrying his underage daughter. But that is not really what I want to argue today. What I do want to argue is: where did this story come from? Is it in the Qur'an? No! It is from the Hadith. So, you argue, since it is from the Hadith, then it must be true and hence Prophet Muhammad was a paedophile. Okay, let us rewind a bit. You are quoting from the Hadith and you are telling me that this is what my Hadith says and since I am a Muslim I must believe in this Hadith. Now hold on a minute. Are all Christians Catholics? Aren't there many denominations of Christianity? Hence why do you assume that all Muslims believe in the same thing? You do not even bother to ask me what denomination Muslim I am and you shove down my throat your interpretation of Islam as if there is only one denomination of Islam. Can I insist that you believe in the Gospel of Barnabas and then pass judgment on you because you have 'deviated' from the teachings of Barnabas? Not all Muslims believe in the Hadith. These people are normally unfairly called the anti-Hadith group. Actually they are not anti-Hadith as much as they hold to the Qur'an as God's true word and believe that all other 'holy books' other than the Qur'an are superfluous. Then there are those who believe in some of the Hadith but not all of them. Further to that, there are those who believe in a different set of Hadith. Hence, on the issue of Hadith alone, there are so many different denominations of Muslims. So, when you quote the Hadith to a Muslim without knowing his of her position on Hadith, it is like quoting Barnabas to a Christian and assume that since he or she is a Christian then she or she must believe in Barnabas. So far we are talking about Muslims and Christians. For sure Muslims and Christians are theists. And they believe not only in God but also in the religion of God (which means they are religionists as well). But what happens if you believe in God (or at least in some higher power that created us) but not in the religion of God? Then you would be an agnostic. You are neither Muslim nor Christian. The arguments are normally between Muslims and Christians (even here in Malaysia Today). But you fail to see that there is a third group, a Third Force if you wish and if that can help you better understand the issue. And this third group thinks that both the Muslims and Christians are equally wrong. Yes, there is a God. But there is no religion. God is the destination you wish to arrive at. Religion is merely one of those vehicles you use to arrive at that destination called God. Okay, enough with all that religion bullshit. After three pages of talking cock let me get to the punch line. And the punch line is: there are two 'religions' called Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat quarrelling over whose 'God' is the true God, whose 'Prophet' is the genuine Prophet, and whose 'Holy Book' is the authentic Holy Book. I then declare that I am not a religionist but an agnostic. And while I acknowledge the existence of God, I do not accept that religions came from God. I think that religions are manmade. And then both sides of the religious divide call me a kafir, infidel, nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever, doubter, heretic, apostate, heathen, pagan, and whatnot. They tell me that the only way to reach God is through their religion. And both sides claim that their religion is true while the other is false. Nevertheless, while I still want God, I do not want corrupt religions where their followers do the opposite of what they say. Hence if you think that I am a kafir, infidel, nonbeliever, unbeliever, disbeliever, doubter, heretic, apostate, heathen, pagan, and whatnot; so be it. Lakum dinakum waliyadin (to you be your religion and to me my religion): Qur'an, Surah Al-Kafirun, 109:6 (Now, I bet most of you will be debating religion instead of the last five paragraphs of this article, which is the point I am really driving at).
|
| Why are Malays so otak sempit? Posted: 19 Feb 2013 04:12 PM PST
The film's 52-year-old writer, Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. "Islam is a cancer, period," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie." NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Do you remember last year the brouhaha the Malays (meaning also Muslims) made about the movie that Jew produced insulting Prophet Muhammad? And earlier we had the brouhaha about the threat by the pastor to burn the Qur'an. There were many comments posted in Malaysia Today regarding the stupidity and backwardness of the Malays in protesting such a non-event -- and quite rightly so. The Malays give the impression that they are so otak sempit (small-minded). In this day and age of globalisation, the borderless Internet, and the information revolution, you really can't stop people from exercising their freedom of opinion and expression. And we have to learn to live with this without screaming and foaming at the mouth every time someone says something we do not like. If, for example, a Malay were to produce a movie that the non-Malays do not like, do you think the non-Malays will scream and foam at the mouth? Or, say, a Malay threatens to burn the Bible? Do you think the non-Malays would take any notice of that threat? The Malays have to learn to be like the non-Malay Malaysians and not rant and rave every time you do not like what someone says. And this was what Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad lamented about when he said that the Malays are too emotional and feudalistic and should be more pragmatic like the Chinese. And Dr Mahathir is right. The Malays are too emotional, unlike the Chinese and Indians. Will you ever find non-Malays cursing and screaming about a movie? If they don't like the movie they will just not watch it. Simple! Why get so upset? This, the Malays have to learn to do if they do not want to be accused of being small-minded. And if you threaten to, say, burn the Bible, the non-Malays would not get upset. After all, it is just a book, like the Qur'an. Ignorant people have been burning books for thousands of years and life still goes on. And if the Bible, just like the Qur'an, is God's book, then surely God can take care of His own book. Does he need us mere mortals to help protect His book? When we say that the Malays are otak sempit they get angry. But how not to call the Malays otak sempit when they get so emotional and upset about a mere movie and a book? ************************************************* Israeli Citizen Living in California Behind Film Insulting Islam An Israeli filmmaker, Sam Bacile, based in California went into hiding after a YouTube trailer of his movie attacking Islam's Prophet Muhammad sparked violent demonstrations in many Muslim cities around the world including Egypt and Libya where the US ambassador to and three American members of his staff were killed. The release of the film coincided with the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington during which he leveled what The Wall Street Journal said the "sharpest attacks in years by an Israeli leader against Washington, over differences on how to address Iran's nuclear program," Speaking to The Wall Street Journal by phone Tuesday from an undisclosed location, writer and director Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the 56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement condemning the religion. According to the Wall Street Journal, "tensions had so escalated that President Barack Obama spent an hour on the phone with the Israeli leader in a hastily arranged call hours after both governments said the White House wouldn't agree to an Israeli request for a meeting between the two leaders at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York this month." Protesters angered over Bacile's film opened fire on and burned down the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. Four Americans were killed Tuesday night including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The film's 52-year-old writer, Bacile, said that he wanted to showcase his view of Islam as a hateful religion. "Islam is a cancer, period," he said in a telephone interview from his home. "The movie is a political movie. It's not a religious movie." Bacile said he raised $5 million from about 100 Jewish donors, whom he declined to identify. Working with about 60 actors and 45 crew members, he said he made the two-hour movie in three months last year in California. The film has been promoted by Terry Jones, the Florida pastor whose burning of Qurans previously sparked deadly riots around the world. He said he was planning to show the trailer for Mr. Bacile's movie to his congregation. |
| The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter Posted: 16 Feb 2013 06:03 PM PST
And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter's 'market' was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the 'market' to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," said Sir Winston Churchill. In fact, there is another quote from Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the forms of government that have been tried from time to time." While we are on the subject of quotes from Churchill, you may want to read what more he said. "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." "Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." Anyway, those are but a fraction of sayings from Sir Winston Churchill to brighten up your Sunday evening (or Sunday morning here in the UK). But that is not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the issue of Haron Din being scolded, cursed, vilified and disparaged because of the stand he has taken regarding the use of the Allah word in the Bible. For both Muslims as well as Christians, they need to understand the boundaries of decent discourse and when does that discourse exceed the boundary and falls into the category of indecency. And this is why I have titled today's article "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." The average voter, meaning the majority of Malaysia Today's readers, have absolutely no idea what democracy means. Democracy means Haron Din has a right to his view and so do you. And democracy does not mean if you differ in view you have the right to attack the other person verbally, or worse, physically. For example, we can disagree on whether Malaysia should remain a Secular Constitutional Monarchy or be changed into a Secular Republic or, as some are proposing, a Theocratic Constitutional Monarchy or an Islamic Republic. At the end of the day, we all have different views and different choices. And that is why there are so many religions and sects of these many religions in existence plus, of course, agnostics and atheists. This is because we have differing views about religion and God and about the way to 'reach' God -- and whether God even exists or not in the first place and if He does then in what form. However, although we may disagree on theological issues, this does not mean since Malaysia is a democracy that gives me the right to disparage someone who has a different view from me. It just means we have different views and we should respect each other's views. I have read comments from readers who say that Muslims are stupid for not wanting to eat pork because pork is so delicious. You know that pork is taboo to Muslims so why the need to goad Muslims with such comments? Have you read any comments from Muslims saying that Hindus are stupid for not wanting to eat beef because beef is so delicious? If Muslims do not want to eat pork (or Hindus do not want to eat beef) then let it be. Learn to respect the taboos of each religion. I am sure you do not like it when I say that Chinese are stupid for getting upset with Ibrahim Ali when he gave white colour angpau for Chinese New Year. If white angpau are meant for funerals and are taboo for Chinese New Year then we respect that tradition. Saying that Chinese are stupid for believing such silly superstition is provocative and will certainly trigger bad-will. In fact, did you know that pork was actually taboo to the early Christians as well (who were not yet called 'Christians' but 'followers of the Jesus Movement')? No, I am not talking about the Christian doctrine or dogma here. I am talking about history. And if you study in greater detail the history of the Apostles (not what the Bible says but what the historians say) then you would know what I am talking about. For the benefit of the non-Christians, in particular the Muslims, the majority who have never studied Christian history, the 12 Apostles are as follows: 1. Simon Peter (brother of Andrew). 2. James (son of Zebedee and older brother of John) also called "James the Greater". 3. John (son of Zebedee and brother of James). 4. Andrew (brother of Simon Peter). 5. Philip of Bethsaida. 6. Thomas (Didymus). 7. Bartholomew (Nathaniel). 8. Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum. 9. James (son of Alphaeus) also called "James the Lesser". 10. Simon the Zealot (the Canaanite). 11. Thaddaeus-Judas (Lebbaeus), brother of James the Lesser and brother of Matthew (Levi) of Capernaum. 12. Judas Iscariot. The Roman Catholic Church puts a great deal of emphasis on (Simon) Peter and claims that Jesus said he would build his church on him. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." (Matthew 16:18). In fact, (St.) Peter is considered the First Pope of the Catholic Church. Hence Peter is regarded as one of the most important Apostles of Christianity. The second most important Apostle, however, is not one of the other 11 but Paul. Paul was a strong anti-Jesus Movement Jewish zealot who made it his mission to destroy this movement. In fact, it is said that he was there to witness the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr (and it is also said that Paul held Stephen's cloak while Stephen was being stoned to death). Paul was instrumental in arresting and torturing those who had strayed from true Judaism by following the false teachings of the Jesus Movement. One day, while travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus on his mission to hunt down and kill Christians, Paul 'saw' Jesus in the form of a mirage. Paul was immediately blinded but, three days later, his sight was restored by Ananias of Damascus. This 'miracle' prompted Paul to become a follower of the Jesus Movement. However, while Peter and the other disciples focused their missionary work just on fellow Jews, Paul felt that Christianity should be for all, not only for Jews. So Paul started preaching Christianity to the gentiles and pagans. And to attract non-Jews to Christianity there should be a certain relaxing of the rules, so to speak. Hence the need for circumcision and the banning of eating pork, as an example, which are a Jewish tradition and therefore also the tradition of the early Christians, should be reviewed. By Paul's reckoning, non-Jew Christians should be exempted from circumcision and should be allowed to eat pork. And this is where Peter and Paul disagreed. Basically, Peter's 'market' was fellow Jews so the old Jewish traditions must be maintained. Paul, however, wanted to expand the 'market' to non-Jews. So the old traditions of the Jews should be discarded. And instead of circumcision, those non-Jews (who were therefore not circumcised) should be baptised when they leave their old religion to become Christians. Of course, there were more non-Jews than there were Jews. Hence, understandably, Paul's movement expanded faster than Peter's. Furthermore, while Peter focused on small Jewish communities, Paul travelled to the bigger non-Jewish cities where there were more people and therefore more potential converts. And because Paul's version of Christianity, so to speak, was more 'liberal' (for want of a better word) compared to Peter's (which retained the strict Jewish taboos and traditions) more people followed Paul than Peter. The 'headquarters' of the Church of England is St Paul's Cathedral in London, founded in 604, around the time that Islam was founded. The 'headquarters' of the Roman Catholic Church, however, is St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, founded in 319 by the Emperor Constantine. Now, can you figure out why that is so (make your own conclusion on this)? This is, of course, my analysis of the early development of Christianity and based on historical accounts and not based on what the Bible says. So I can expect many Christians to disagree with my analysis. And they have every right to do so (as do many Malays/Muslims also disagree with my historical analysis of the early development of Islam -- and the reason why many of my Malay/Muslim friends are no longer my friends: because they disagree with me). Nevertheless, since we are talking about democracy and the right of non-Muslims to comment on Islam, I, too, exercise my democratic right to offer my analysis regarding the early development of Christianity. That is how democracy works, unfortunately. So, my conclusion to this is: if you are a follower of Peter, then pork should be haram for you (plus you should be circumcised) while, if you are a follower of Paul, then pork should be halal (and you only need to be baptised). So be very careful before you whack the Muslims and call them stupid for refusing to eat 'delicious pork'. |
| 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 | |
