Gong Xi Fa Chai

huuwaah...it has been quite a while i check on my own blog. It needs serious updating to do.

I think i'll do it soon after all this economic crisis over. Am not talking about the global economic crisis here....but personal economic crisis.....hu,hu,hu

Damn....too many mistakes, wrong moves and bad choices.

Need to be stress free before i start cloning my thoughts again.

Btw, listen to this music by Eric Johnson. The sound and melody is very therapeutic - sort of calming effect to your mind. A good way to de-stress. Very effective. It works for me.



Need to brag a bit here; back in the mid 90's - I used to jam the tune by myself with my MIDI gear backing me up - it got me into some sort of 'in trance' mode. And during that state of mind, i felt like i could do the guitar riff note by note. I thought i played better than Eric Johnson himself. ....huhu...really love that feeling.

Anyway wish all Gong Xi Fa Chai. Thanks for visiting this blog.

Never Insult the People!

Uzumaki Naruto

Emotion is a chemical state of the brain. When emotion is running high, it is this chemical in the brain that inhibits one’s higher cognitive capabilities. This will then hamper our capability of rational thoughts – a situation whereby mental processes are being clouded by our uncontrollable emotions or prejudice.

There’s no doubt that during an election fever, due to its intense nature, some people would get emotionally charged up as the level of adrenalin flow in their bloodstreams shoots up. Thus it would be very crucial for the participants (especially the big guns and heavyweights) from all political parties to maintain their ‘sane emotional level’ so that they are able to remain rational lest they make fatal mistake in their strategy, decisions and/or actions that would cost them their votes.

For this coming 12^th GE, the wobbly grouping of oppositions, have again (as usual) set their ultimate objective to break the formidable BN 2/3 majority. No matter how far-fetched their goal may seem to be, this time they’ve pact together by endorsing the declaration made by few individuals which then claimed to be the ‘People’s Declaration’. It may seem as a desperate move, but at least they are trying.

Each of them has come up with separate slogans and/or promises i.e. welfare state, to reduce oil price, release ISA detainees etc. But in order for them to deliver that promises, they must first win 2/3 majority and form a government.

Unfortunately, the funny part is they themselves know that it is impossible for them to form a government on their own considering the number of Parliamentary seats each of them is contesting. Basically, what they are doing is that they are making empty promises. Beyond doubt, they are truly brilliant in scheming up with such cheap ploy.

However, they must not forget that underestimating the people’s intelligence is an insult to the people.

Politic of Hate

In the case of DAP; in trying to wrestle Penang, they have sinisterly siren-up their war cry - ‘A vote for BN is a vote for UMNO’.

After a short while, Lim Guan Eng came with this statement:

"The DAP is even willing to support Gerakan in the state assembly to ensure the Penang Chief Minister's post does not fall to Umno,"

http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/3099/37/

It may seem as a creatively crafted strategy (probably by their Central Policy and Strategic Planning Commission), however this sinister tactic is sending out a not so rosy but rather ‘racy’ message with ominous racial undertone.

What if PAS were to come with a statement such as; ‘PAS is willing to support UMNO in the state assembly to ensure the Penang Chief Minister’s post does not fall to Gerakan’.

Would it not be a chauvinistic statement that propagates hate and racial prejudice?

An organisation who claimed to be championing equality among races and against racial politic and but yet again playing their dirty racial game of prejudice at the same time – what else if they are not true hypocrites!

The strategy to garner votes with the assumption made that the voters are racist is an outright insult to the voters themselves.

Hopefully, no matter how orthodox PAS is, they would not stoop as low as DAP exploiting racial sentiment. It would definitely make them look like hideous hypocrites if they were to adopt such repulsive political culture.

Incidentally, is it not that Uncle Kit who is the chairman of their Strategic Planning Commission?

It is no surprise that a Malaysian surgeon in the US who is also a regular guest columnist of Malaysia-Today, Bakri Musa, has labelled him as racial provocateur.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lim_Kit_Siang. Musa, M. Bakri (2007). Towards A Competitive Malaysia.: Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 79. ISBN 978-983-3782-20-8)

Perhaps this is the sickness which psychologist categorised as ‘unconscious racism’. The only different is - such deplorable act as the above was done with conscience.

Walk The Talk

It is a good thing that the opposition try to emulate the US Democrat presidential candidate Barrack Obama, in making full use of ICT in their political campaign and fund raising.

Just like Obama, DAP as well as the other oppositions; put the issue of transparency as one of the main agenda. Obama says he believes in transparency and he releases his tax return just to prove he has nothing to hide. His honesty has so far paid off. He is now in the lead.

However the sad part is, unlike Obama, DAP and the rest of the oppositions never prove anything.

Anybody can say anything they want especially if they are in desperate need to win votes. Even if we were to ask VK Linggam whether he believes in transparency; his probable answer might be - correct, correct, correct.

Perhaps DAP and/or PKR leader/s should take the initiative to convince the people that they truly believe in what they say and say what they mean rather than bore the people to death with their usual empty political rhetoric.

It is a fact that the BN is a multiracial political organisation – a time tested model of fourteen parties representing certain community working together and unites under one organisation.

Conversely, besides the PKR’s multiracial model, DAP (despite whatever it claims to be) and PAS are not multiracial. However one can find that they all share a common theme in calling for unity in their publicity campaign against the BN. It is unthinkable that they expect the people to believe in the thing that they preach while they themselves can’t even do just that – unite as one.

Have they not insulted the people enough?

Perhaps the DAP has come up with the perfect slogan – Just change it! This is excellent and the timing is perfect - it’s time to change the opposition. Malaysia is in serious need of one strong opposition that can measure up the formidable BN for a better and healthy democracy. That is the way forward toward better future.

The people have had enough of the weak, ineffective and incompetent oppositions who are good for nothing and incapable for anything good. They have nothing better to do other than ranting empty political rhetoric and making patronizing remarks that viciously insult the people.

Hopefully in this coming 12^th GE, whatever the peoples’ decision maybe – it is for better future for all Malaysian with continuing Security, Peace and Prosperity. Woof out!

This article can be viewed at;

Malaysia_Today( http://www.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/3736/36/)

Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/79269 )






.

How about Secular Islam?

Uzumaki Naruto

Some insist that Malaysia is an Islamic State while others say it is a Secular State. Perhaps from outside of the field some would tell off – ‘who cares’ and yet maybe some would opine – ‘I don’t know’ (no, not Pak Lah this time).

This is petty matter indeed. It is a resource-wasting issue that shouldn’t have been there in the first place. However, as petty it may seems, it gets enough attention from both sides. One may wonders how such paltry matter could have such political imperative that both sides are bogged down by it. Perhaps this may confirms the generally held knowledge about the significant mix of religion into politics.

When religion and politics are intertwined, there is a tendency that religion gets exploited as a pawn that underpins political logic to camouflage political objectives. In which, political organizations would produce discourses to legitimize their strategies and goals in order to garner support.

In addition to the above example, there’re also moves where a political party ‘Islamicizing’ mundane matters for example declaring a city as an ‘Islamic City’ or ‘Serambi Mekkah’ and also coining Islam into various terms with respect to the various political parties for the same reason. And make no mistake that the term ‘secular’ and ‘secularism’ (tabooed by religionist), exhilarate this mixed-up politicizing game of politics.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to find out, what it is about ‘secular’ or ‘secularism’ that most Muslim scholars of present day frown upon.

For one thing, Muslims scholars over the time have soundly developed the constituents of the syaria and sets of religious disciplines. These originally were ideas/disciplines opinionated by Muslim jurists and scholars of the medieval period. These ideas have been repeated until today and over the time they have become so sacred and have been thought-out as divine in origin. As a result, any creative interpretation in view of change or reform would be marginalized and resisted by the authorized jurists (ulama), and this includes the idea of secularism.

Another point is that conservative religionists more than often would unwittingly associate secularism with atheism (Godlessness) – that gives out grimy aura to the term. Thus these rigid interpretations of both Islam and secularism are conceived as standing in opposition towards each other with antagonistic contradictions. This is the reason why conservative religionists would decry the inclination towards secularism in today’s modern world.

However, the irony of it all is, Muslims in general would agree to the fact that the Quran stresses the importance of knowledge and also promotes actions and reasoning. This idea itself is in a way similar in temperament with the idea of secularism which generally argues for reasons, rational, knowledge and action. In essence, both ideas are compatible.

Thus in view of that, intellectual synthesis between reason and faith is absolutely necessary. In other words, faith has to be in present values and should not mean blind imitation of past traditions.

This is mainly due to the fact that the way Islam was interpreted and understood by past Muslim scholars conformed to their own socio-cultural situation at that time. But human socio-culture is never static. Its state of affairs constantly evolves and changes through time. The human socio-culture of today demand more liberal disposition, tolerance and promotion of pluralism.

If the intellectual trend in interpretation of the religion were confined to conservative traditions of scholars of the past, it may create rigid hurdles for the ever changing, demanding and complex human socio-culture.

With religion mix into political equation; when there are other faith communities or other interpretations of the same faith that the state can become an instrument of religious oppression in the hands of the majority. Some religious issues might eventually affect the collective identity of the people and trigger religious sentiments that consequently turn into controversial political issues. Sooner than later, as religion becomes more assertive and religious zealots become more proficient at playing the system, constitutional guarantees may become futile.

Taking all that into consideration, adapting to a more liberal interpretation of secularism would be necessary. It shouldn’t be interpreted too rigidly as to equate it with atheism as many conservative religionists do. As well, the conservative interpretation of the religion from scholars of the past should not be binding on subsequent generations, as it may not conform to the changed socio-cultural situations.

On the plus side, secularism in a political sense would create social and political space for all religious communities. Most importantly, it would function as an effective device to protect religions from the corruption of politics and politics from becoming an instrument of oppression by zealots.

As a matter of fact, some scholars may argue that the idea of secularism have its roots from a historical context of Islam itself. Whereby, Islam in its early stage sparked the idea of religious tolerance, understanding and appreciation of diversity in human socio-culture 1400 years ago. This idea has ignited positive social order, ethical culture, intellectual discipline and spiritual concepts in their community. It brought forth torch of wisdom and rays of light and has transformed a once backward community to one of a world super power at that time.

Furthermore, the growing intellectual trends of understanding the Quran in a holistic manner would firmly suggest that Islam upholds pluralism, freedom of conscience and embrace diversity in its truest form. It does not clash with the idea of secularism and would assemble well in this complex human socio-culture of the modern world.

Now back to the trivial issue at hand; while at it let’s play along with this naming game on whether or not it is an Islamic State or a Secular State.

Perhaps the best solution to make everybody from both sides happy and to put to a halt on wasting time and resources, delving on such trifling matter in the future, is to go for the middle path. How about ‘Secular Islam’?

Let the nation be for all and religion for God. Woof out!

( This article can also be viewed at: Malaysia-Today.net)

End.

.

Incoherence of the Politicians

Uzumaki Naruto

Stop corruption! Good governance! Freedom of speech! Accountability!, Equality! Social Justice! Transparency!…….bla, bla, bla.

Who lets the dogs out? Woof,..woof,..woof,..woof…woof….

There’s not much one can expect from dogs like chiwawas or chihuahas and the likes. Indeed they can be annoyingly loud but, pathetically ineffective or useless maybe. While they bark, the crooks steal the money and the boss of the house sleeps.

For once they should quit barking and woofing their rhetorical craps and start using their brains. Have a look at the data below;



From the data, it can be concluded that overall Malaysia is still doing okay. Although the HDI value registers improvement, Malaysia’s HDI rank slides down 2 notches. This means that Malaysia is improving but at a slow pace. The same goes with Corruption Perception Index. Although it shows that Malaysia’s rank slides down to 44th place but still index wise Malaysia has improved slightly.

Statistically, Malaysia sees an increase in crime rate. However not to forget that the influx of immigrants and crimes related among immigrants also contribute to the number. In other words the direct affect of the rising crime rate to Malaysians is relatively low.

To sum it up, the data construe to the point that Malaysia is in fact improving.

All this translate to the fact that Malaysia as a whole in a general sense is doing okay under the present administration. This would mean that the collective perception of Malaysians would feel that the current administration has done a fairly good job.

So the best part is this; in this coming General Election, soon after the result is announced – we will hear the usual mindless barking and woofing of the dogs blaming the ghosts and SPR for their miserable fate.

The ‘misery’ ghosts of Ijok will come back to haunt them (Oppositions).


Aspirations of the People.

It has been and will always be every Malaysians’ aspiration to have a good, fair, well managed and strong government taking care of the Nation’s well being for the betterment of its present and future generations.

As shown in above data, it is evident that the BN as a government is making an improvement in building Malaysia a better place for all. In a way they are improving themselves. But as in politics; power and money can’t be separated. There will always be greedy crooks doing hanky panky for selfish reasons.

If BN doesn’t seem to be doing enough improvement and rectification in certain areas; a strong and effective Opposition could do the trick. Strong opposition would make a good watchdog to constantly do the checking and balancing in pushing the BN on the right track.

But sadly Malaysia is seriously lacking that. The reality is this - the Oppositions are ineffective and inherently incompetent. They can never actually work together because they never trust each other. They share nothing in common accept for hypocrisy.

Take a brief look into the opposition camp.


PAS – An Islamic political party runs by conservative/orthodox religionists.

Pas ultimate objective is to establish a theocratic state. In actuality they are with the ambition to relive and establish Middle Ages Islamic ideals into present day 21st century Malaysia. Impressive thinking is it not?

PAS and its supporters have this crazy idea of believing that once the Nation is governed and guided by religious leaders and theocracy is the law of the land – corruption would steadily decline and the Nation and its people would progress dynamically.

It would be pointless to reason with religionists with this mindset on how unreasonable such idea is. This is because it is simply impossible to reason with the unreasonable. Perhaps it would be better off putting the figures down for them to see.

Below is the HDI and CPI data for oil rich Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in comparison to Malaysia.



Factually, it is obvious that the HDI for both countries are very low (despite their wealth) in comparison to Malaysia. The Corruption Perception Index shows that they have serious corruption problems.

This would make one wonders why would certain groups strive to transform present day 21st century Malaysia into becoming the middle ages’ theocratic state? Why would certain groups want to bring the rest of progressive Malaysians to regress along with them? This just doesn’t make sense.

The fact is they are totally incoherent.


DAP – Perceived by many as a race based political party but proudly carries the tag line ‘Malaysian Malaysia’.

This is perfect example of Malaysia ‘boleh’. Anything goes – ‘cincai kira lah’.

Besides ‘Malaysian Malaysia’ there is also this call for ‘Bangsa Malaysia’. No doubt that all these are absolutely good ideas. In order to achieve this goal, logically it would be wise to set up a single Educational school system for all.

Conversely, DAP is so adamant in preserving vernacular school system which itself is racially segregating. Perhaps they are more interested to ‘out-Chinese’ the MCA rather than focus on their objective of Malaysian Malaysia.

This is the reason why they can ‘easily’ get the ‘overwhelming’ support from the non-Chinese and becoming a ‘truly’ color blind multi-racial political organization. Amazingly brilliant strategy on their part is it not?

Some say with respect to certain DAP leader; DAP literally means ‘DAP Aku Punya’. However some say DAP means ‘Daddy Aku Punya’. Whatever it is, people are free to speculate.

Perhaps it is high time for DAP to do away with its ‘Dinosaur Aged Politics’ and maybe together with the dinosaur too, why not?


PKR – A party that are made up of opportunists who have missed their opportunity.

There is no need to say much about this political organization. It is dying a natural death. The reason for this is, the very foundation of its existence is based on emotional objectives – for Anwar Ibrahim.

Many say that if Anwar were truthful, he should have resigned when Mahathir asked him to in 1998. That would have saved Malaysia the chaos from the entire unnecessary political stunt by both sides. Maybe Anwar might have had his own selfish reasons in doing what he did.

PKR (Keadilan) used to have quite a number of sincere young loyalists who would spend their own money fighting for the cause they believed in. Obviously many have left the party soon after they learned the hard truth about the kind of people running the organization.

As the well is drying out, the ‘suckers’ would scramble around looking for any well for the opportunity to suck. These suckers are pure selfish hypocrites.


Conclusions.

Weak, ineffective and incompetent oppositions would have adverse impact to the Nation in the long run. The Oppositions have always intellectualized their disadvantage mainly because they are not getting enough support from the people (beside the ghosts stories). Some of the hardcore pro-opposition intellectuals even blame the people for they see as the lack critical thinking in casting their votes wisely. (This is an outright insult to Malaysians in general).

All this blame game and vicious insult to the people show their desperate attempt in diverting the truth. They refused to accept the fact that the majority doesn’t support/vote them because they are incoherent – and that is why they are weak, ineffective and inherently incompetent.

A single party Opposition would definitely be stronger than the incoherent political orgy of the wobbly tri-party opposition. A ‘pitbull’ is definitely better, stronger and effective than three pathetic species of chiwawas or chihuahas and the likes. However, the idea of the Oppositions resolving their differences and evolve into a single party is akin to George Bush embracing Islam and join Osama ben Laden in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the best alternative solution would be for the BN to shape up by shedding off those ugly parasitic fats and put on lean clean muscles and shoot for zero opposition. Woof out!


End.

A slightly different version of the article above can be viewed at Malaysia-Today.


.

What sort of a muslim are you?

Uzumaki Naruto

It is a common knowledge that Islam and Muslims in general is divided into various ‘mazhabs’ or sects that are due to theological differences. There is nothing weird or abnormal about this; it is just a natural human phenomenon and it happens in most religion and not only Islam. The reason for this is human goes through different life experiences, exposures and cultural environments from one another. Therefore differences in ideas such as religious ideas are bound to happen.

There are good and bad sides to these differences but it all depends on how these differences are being handled by the religious authorities.

As in the case of Islam, had these differences been looked upon in a positive manner (ie acceptance); it could have been beneficial to the Muslim world. It would help facilitate Muslims in general with a basic cultural/societal value towards welcoming diversity and respecting the many spiritual paths to ‘God’.

This would instill the idea that spirituality or ‘truth’ cannot and should not be monopolized or owned by religious authority/institution of a certain sect. This would lay down basic philosophical foundations in the belief system that would make it more dynamic and conducive towards pluralism. Hence, would open the door to honoring the many ‘non-Islamic’ paths.

However, the sad reality is, this never happened. Rather than promote acceptance and welcoming differences; the religious authority selfishly do the opposite. They advocate sectarianism. They creatively come up with religious edict game of branding others who hold different views of the religion as ‘deviants’, ‘heretics’, ‘infidels’ and so on. As sad as it is, this segregation has reared its ugly head and becoming the reason for sectarian conflict in some parts of the Muslim world.

It is important to note that the complex role of Islam plays in one's life and faith is often difficult to put in words, let alone to be put in general categories of mazhab/sect. Though some may and some may not agree with this labeling and stereotyping, why not have fun while we are at it.

Take the test below and find out – what sort of Muslim are you.

Answer all 20 questions. On each question choose only one answer that best fits your understanding. Point scored for each question will depends on the answer you choose. Point value for each answer is in bracket at the end of it. For example: if you choose answer B for Question 1, your score will be 4 pts.

Answer all questions and add up your score points.

Start Test.

Q1. Do you perform ‘solah’ prayer? What’s your view on ‘solah’ prayer?

A. I don’t. God never command such thing in the Quran. (2)

B. I pray 5 times a day and keep regular prayer times without miss. (4)

C. I don’t pray the conventional way, I do it my way. (2)

D. I try to keep regular prayer times but I miss some occasionally. (3)

E. I don’t pray. To me ‘solah’ is just a form of meditation. (1)

Q2. How do you observe the fasting month of Ramadhan?

A. I don’t fast but I would attend Ramadan functions (buka) when invited. (1)

B. I don’t fast; I don’t see why we need to. God never command such thing. (2)

C. I fast but I do not attend mosque functions regularly. (3)

D. I fast, recite the Quran, keep the daily prayers and do extra prayer at night. (4)

Q3. What is your perception of ‘Ulama’ in general?

A. I don’t always agree with their views. Some are good some and narrow. (3)

B. I only look up and hold high regards to certain ulama(s). (4)

C. They are not ‘Ulama’, they are actually ‘habr’ - ‘ular dalam semak’. (2)

D. They are partly responsible and the cause for most problems facing the Muslim ummah. (1)

Q4. What is Quran to you?

A. It is revelation from God. One will be rewarded if one read the Quran in Arabic. (4)

B. It is from God but unfortunately many of the meanings of the words have been corrupted. (2)

C. It should be treated as it is - historical document. (1)

D. It is from God but I prefer reading it in the language that I understand. (3)

Q5. What is ‘Islam’ to you?

A. It is the only true religion prescribed by God and only those who profess in it will be saved in the hereafter. (4)

B. It is the same with all other religions – they are mortal construct. (1)

C. I was born and raised as a Muslim, and I am comfortable with it. (3)

D. I have different understanding about what ‘Islam’ is. It is not a religion but a way of life and that’s how I try to lead my life. (2)

Q6. If you were to marry or thinking of re-marrying would you marry a ‘non-Muslim’? (Assuming you reside in a total secular country).

A. I would marry a non-Muslim if he/she is willing to convert. (3)

B. I have no problem at all. (1)

C. It doesn’t matter to me, as long as the person believes in God. (2)

D. No, I would only marry a Muslim. (4)

Q7. How do you feel about eating ‘non-halal’ food?

A. I only eat halal food and I will check out ingredient list on the labels. (4)

B. I only eat halal food but I am not that particular about the ingredient list. (3)

C. I eat anything that tastes good except for meat of pig and alcoholic beverages. (2)

D. As far as I’m concern, all food is halal. (1)

Q8. What would your reaction be if your close Muslim friend told you he is gay?

A. Continue to be friends with him even though you find it a bit uncomfortable with his choice of lifestyle. (3)

B. Continue to be friends with him. You feel that it’s not for you to judge. (2)

C. Continue to be friends with him as long as he doesn’t try anything funny with you. (1)

D. Ostracize him because he is living a life of sin. (5)

Q9. What do you think of Muslims who own pub selling alcohol for a living?

A. What matters is the owner’s intention. (2)

B. It is pure business. There is absolutely nothing wrong doing that. (1)

C. Muslims should advise them not to sell alcohol. (3)

D. They are committing a sin and should not be supported by other Muslims. (4)

Q10. Would you still marry someone you love if you know he/she had engaged in premarital sex before (but not with you)?

A. No way Jose, sex should only take place in marriage. (4)

B. Premarital sex is not an issue to me. (1)

C. I would think twice but it depends on how he/she is now. (3)

D. My issue here is how it would affect my ego, nothing to do with my belief. (2)

Q11. What would you do if you were invited to a gathering where alcohol was being served?

A. Attend but not drink. I would explain why I'm not drinking, if asked. (3)

B. Not attend. It is ‘haram’ to be in such a setting. (4)

C. Attend and have a drink with no guilty conscience. (1)

D. Attend and may drink a little because you are not used to drinking alcohol. (2)

Q12. Would you insist your wife and daughter wear head cover?

A. No, but I would not stop them if they wanted to. (2)

B. I would recommend them to wear head cover, but I leave the decision to them. (3)

C. Yes, it is obligatory and it’s a must because it is God’s command. It’s a sin for them to expose their hair in public. (4)

D. No. It is an outdated Arab tradition that has been Islamicised . (1)

Q13. What is your view on Muslim leaving Islam - apostasy?

A. Death to apostates. That is God’s law. No question about it. (6)

B. There’s no compulsion in religion. Islam truly supports freedom of conscience. (2)

C. I would agree to some sort of short counseling session – few hours max. (3)

D. I would agree with Aqidah Rehabilitation Camp. (4)

Q14. Would you enroll your son/daughter to a religious school’?

A. Yes, I would make sure my kids receive good religious education. (4)

B. Yes, I would send them to a religious school if it were convenient for us. (3)

C. No, never. My children’s mind would be constrained if they were to be exposed to religious doctrines at early age. (1)

D. No, I wouldn't. I would only send them to learn to recite the Quran in Arabic. (2)

Q15. To whom do you turn for guidance on your spiritual related issues?

A. I look to a particular ustaz,ulama or maulana. (4)

B. I don’t really look to anyone, but I sometimes ask a particular spiritual leader. (3)

C. I rely mainly on the Qur'an. If I have questions, I usually share views with friends. There are times I would reflect seek guidance directly to God. (2)

D. I read from all sort of books and trust the strength within myself. (1)

Q16. How do you perceive those who have different understanding about Islam particularly the ‘quranist’ group?

A. They have gone astray and are way off from the truth. (4)

B. I would make an effort to know their views. They make a lot of sense. (2)

C. I can relate with the idea so long they don’t act ‘holier than thou’. (1)

D. I treat them the same as those of different sect. (3)

E. They are on the right path because they only follow the Quran – words of God. (4)

Q17. Do you feel comfortable shaking hands/kissing friends of the opposite sex in greeting or when saying good-bye?

A. Yes, I am comfortable shaking hands but not kissing. (2)

B. Yes, it is not an issue for me but it depends on the person I greet. (1)

C. No, I don’t feel comfortable shaking hands with the opposite sex let alone kissing them. It is immodest and Haram. (4)

D. I feel comfortable shaking hands but only during business meetings or official social gathering etc. (3)

Q18. Do you think you have found the truth?

A. I am comfortable with Islam. The basic teachings help me spiritually. (3)

B. Yes and it is the Quran. I am striving to get to the correct understanding. (4)

C. Yes Islam is the only true religion – Quran and sunna lead us to the right path. (4)

D. All religious truth is relative truth. (1)

Q19. How do you perceive ‘suicidal and fanatical believer’ for instance Dr. Azahari?

A. He was a true believer. I agree with his struggle and I pray for them. (5)

B. He got himself involved with the wrong people. (1)

C. I don’t agree with his action but I’m sympathetic towards him. (3)

D. He was a good example of how religion corrupts the mind. (2)

Q20. Which group of people in the list below whom their work or their life history inspires you the most?

A. Al Ghazali, Dr Hamka, Prof Fazilah Kamsah, Harun Yahya. (3)

B. Ibn al Qayyim, Ibn Tamiyyah, Md. Illyas Khandlawi, Ashaari Muhammad. (4)

C. Abdul Wadud, Kassim Ahmad,Rashad Khalifa, Aidid Safar. (2)

D. Avecienna, Stephen R Covey, Al Nabulsi, Taufik Hamid. (1)

End Test.

Add up your points and look below to find out which category you belong to.

25 or lower: You are a Secular Muslim.

You are a secular Muslim. Islam provides you with more of a social setting rather than religious belief. You may identify yourself to others as Muslim even though you may hold secular ethical values. For you life is best lived by applying values understood by the process of reasoning. You may be a believer in ‘God’ or an agnostic. However it is less likely you are a hardcore atheist. Reason being it requires much more faith to not believe in ‘God’ than to believe in one. (Whatever you may call/define it to be).

26 – 45: You are a spiritual seeker.

You are looking for answers and wandering through the world of Islam. You probably have your own interpretation of ‘Islam’. The spiritual realm of Islam particularly appeals to you. You may find that many of the social regulations or rules of Islam that are being practiced today (in general) may seem daunting and unnecessary. You have probably gone through years of questioning and researching to come to the understanding of Islam you hold now.

46 – 65: You are a progressive/moderate Muslim.

Even though you may hate and would never vote for the ruling party, Pak Lah must be proud of you. This is the ‘Islam Hadhari’ he has been promoting ever since. Islam is your direct path to God and guides you on matters concerning your spiritual path. You may find that many basic principles in Islam benefit you spiritually and you believe that ijtihad should be reopened. For you, Islam is a state of being that leads you to your ultimate connection to God through your submission to Him.

66 – 80: You are a conservative Muslim.

You are a devout believer and steadfast in your belief in the religion. You hold dearly the sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH) and the writings of past scholars for references in your understanding of the Quran as guidance to determine how to live your life. You are constantly aware of your religious conviction. You most likely have a ‘spiritual guru’ and you often hold religious gathering and love to hang around people with the same conservative ideas as yours.

However, if your score is 81 or higher: You may fit the description of a conservative Muslim very well but leaning treacherously towards extreme side. It would be a wise move that you start mixing around with people from all walks of life. Try to see and understand people as the human being they are rather than their religious persuasion.

End.

A different version of this article can be viewed at Malaysia-Today.net

.

Unmasking Fallacy

This essay below is an analysis on debate sessions between Farouk A Peru (a quranist) and Anti-Jihadist (islamophobic) in Malaysia-Today. See related links at the bottom of this page for the debate.

Unmasking Logical Fallacy

By Uzumaki Naruto

It is imperative for a culturally and religiously heterogenic plural society as in Malaysian society to have an open platform that provides free flow of diverse ideas engaging in all kind of subject matters that affect its society. This would familiarize the society with diversity of ideas and thoughts and most importantly would put ideas in which may be deemed ‘taboo’ or ‘sensitive’ by a large part of the society to be discussed out in the open. With that, it would prepare the society with the competency in handling diverse ideas effectively. This is a crucial ingredient for a social foundation of a well informed society that respects diversity in the truest sense.

It is important to note that no matter how notoriously wild this virtual land of Malaysia-Today is considered by some; Malaysian in general is fortunate to have such facility carrying out this vital task.

Recent debate in Malaysia-Today between Farouk A Peru of Jidal Society and Anti-Jihadist of Pedestrian Infidel Team must have been an attention grabbing debate to some M-T readers. This is due to the fact that it deals with such sensitive subject matter as faith and belief system. In addition to that, it was put at the center stage of M-T’s letters section.

Without doubt, the debate has shown a remarkable display of passionate exchange of wits, wisdoms and ideas between both sides. Alternatively, some might see this whole debate as a showdown of the minds.

This article would try to probe the technical aspect of the debate and would try to highlight technical fallacy of arguments from a logical point of view. By doing so, it would maintain its position on a neutral ground with the objective to yield better understanding and neutral analysis on the said debate. With that in mind, hopefully it would come across as neutral and without any prejudice or bias towards a certain side.

Delivering arguments and Strategy.

Farouk A Peru exhibits a pretty straight forward style in presenting his ideas. It is safe to say that he follows intellectual trend in scriptural hermeneutics of understanding Islam through the Quran in a holistic (meaningful and realistic) manner. He argues well (from ‘quranist’ viewpoint) that the teachings of the Quran upholds freedom of conscience and does not clash with the concept of embracing diversity in today’s complex socio-culture.

Anti-Jihadist on the other hand exhibits an impressive display of attack strategy. His technique of delivering blunt crude lines of convincing arguments demonstrates his striking well polished assault skill. He is well prepared and loaded with readily available ammo of facts and information.

Although the debate initially started off from Anti-Jihadist response to Farouk’s essay on Lina Joy, it is funny to note that they are both standing on the same position as far as the issue is concerned. However it is interesting to point out that the spark that light-up this debate into a fiery spin comes from comment made by Anti-Jihadist in his attempt to dismiss the credibility of Farouk’s ideas. This is done through releasing his (Anti-Jihadist) massive firepower of blatant attack arguments.

Ad Hominem attack and Logical fallacy.

Anti-Jihadist makes an excellent valid point in his remark (3/06 The Anti-Jihadist responds to Mr. Farouk) to Farouk whereby he mentions;

“Usually, the accusations of being a ‘Nazi’ or ‘fascist’ follow almost immediately before or after we’re called ‘racists.’ It’s all part of the script when Muslims respond to any attacks on their beliefs. And here, Mr. Farouk does not disappoint. Ad hominem attacks do not an argument make. But what else can we expect from the self-appointed defenders of Islam?”

It is true that Ad Hominem attack is a fallacy in which its argument focuses on the person (opposing side) in defending or countering an idea. The possible motive for this attack mode is character assassination. This is done mainly with the objectives of convincing the audience to stop listening to the opposing arguments.

However, it may come as quite a huge surprise that while Anti-Jihadist acknowledges the fact that Ad Hominem attack is a fallacy; Anti-Jihadist himself employs Ad Hominem attack through out the debate. In actuality, there are many forms of Ad Hominem attack and Anti-Jihadist arguments specifically fall under the subtype - Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

Technically speaking, it is obvious that Anti-Jihadist himself dismisses his own attack argument since his attack is also Ad Hominem attack. Anti-Jihadist actually goes against his own statement. This is a clear proof that Anti-Jihadist action is self-contradictory. The fact of the matter is, his own statement, can be a decisive justification that his attacks throughout the debate are fallacious arguments.

This grand scale of naivety of self-contradicting act on Anti-Jihadist part is absurdly baffling that calls for serious question; is he aware of his self inflicting majestic blunder? Only he has the answer for that.

To get better understanding on Anti-Jihadist’s logical fallacy, let’s briefly go into details on this type of fallacy - Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is a fallacy because it involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.) rather than on the assertions made. Essentially, it constitutes an attack on the bias of a person in trying to dismiss an argument by attacking an entire class of people. Another reason that this is fallacious is that person’s circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the assertion being made.

In this case the fallacy has the following form:

1. Person A makes assertion X.

2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.

3. Therefore X has no credibility or false.

Obviously, Anti-Jihadist’s circumstantial Ad Hominem attack is a fallacy. His attack arguments have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made by the opposing side (Farouk). Nevertheless, the idea that Anti-Jihadist applies the same attack that he himself admits its fallacy is hilariously absurd. To put it in simple words, in his debate with Farouk, he ignorantly shoots himself in the head with a double barrel shotgun.

Demo on circumstantial Ad Hominem.

In order to give a clear picture on this type of logical fallacy, this article would try to demonstrate Anti-Jihadist technique but from a different perspective. Please note that this is just a demo.

1. Have some famous hate quotes.

Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue. August 8, 1995

“When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed.”

James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Rondald Reagan. May 24, 1981.

“My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.”

Randall Terry: The News Sentinel, (Fort Wayne, Indiana), August 16, 1993.

“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism.”

Gary North: The Myth of Pluralism (1989)

“The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.”

Anti-Jihadist: Malaysia-Today, 31/05/2007 02:18:30

“The arch oppressor of all humans everywhere is alive and well. It isn't some mythical being called Firaun. It's Islam.”

2. Put on some violent incidents into the picture;

a) Russia: Christian Extremists Attack Hindu Festival - About 200 people with icons and slogans have attacked the opening of Vedic culture festival in the South Russian resort of Anapa. The attackers carried slogans saying ‘Vedic Culture Is Hitlers Culture’ and ‘We Will Clean Anapa of Devil Kin’. Some of them turned over a book stall, trampled down a portrait of a Krishnaite saint, tore down festival posters.

b) On December 4th, 2000, Christians converts under the direction of Missionaries, desecrated an ashram (Hindu religious retreat) set up by murdered Hindu leader Shanti Kumar Tripura. . They desecrated Hindu idols and destroyed photos of the slain religious leader revered by both Hindu tribals and Bengalis. The Christian converts also raped two female devotees and brutally attacked two men who had come to the ashram for puja (religious rituals).

c) The Baptist Church of Tripura was initially set up by Missionaries from New Zealand in the 1940’s. Despite their efforts, even until 1980, only a few thousand people in Tripura had converted to Christianity. Realizing this, the Church used one of its most efficient and time-tested weapons of evangelization - creating racial and ethnic divide among the people. In the aftermath of one of the worst ethnic riots, engineered by the Church, the NLFT was born in 1989 -- but not without the midwife role of the Baptist Church. From its very inception, the NLFT has been advancing the cause of Christianity through armed compulsion. Every trace of indigenous culture and religion is being eliminated through violent means. Every resisting group is made to bleed its way to extinction.

3. Cut and Paste selected verses from holy book;

Deut 22: 23-24; “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones………….”

Deut 13: 6-9; “……………….you shall not yield to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.”

4. Finally, making up a conclusion with disparaging sweeping remarks to the believers of the belief-system, its holy book and the belief system.

What we have here in the conclusion is obviously a logical fallacy. In which adverse pre-select information in relation to the belief system as a whole is presented in an attempt of projecting unfavorable view. This pre-emptive smear tactic of ‘poisoning the well’ is also a subtype of Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

Only a narrow minded bigot would come to such absurd conclusion. However, it is important to note that, in a whole, this is a basic structure of an effective hate message.

Conclusions.

1. Religious extremists come in many colors. They are all similar but not the same. Inciting hate is a trademark of religious extremists.

2. Anti-Jihadist has the same stand with Farouk on Lina Joy’s issue. Rather than be supportive as simple as not putting down any comment, Anti-Jihadist goes all out inciting hate. There is no other reason for this except for pure hatred.

End of article.

Resource:

* S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994)

* Alan Brinton, "The Ad Hominem" in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995)

* Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendoorst, "Argumentum Ad Hominem: A Pragma-Dialectical Case in Point" in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson & Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995)

* Douglas N. Walton, Arguer's Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy

* Hurley, Patrick (2000). A Concise Introduction to Logic, Seventh Edition. Wadsworth, a division of Thompson Learning, 125-128, 182. ISBN 0534520065.

Related links:

1. Farouk A Peru 30/05: Lina Joy - 'Save' one, lose a million.

2. Farouk A Peru 31/05: How Fascist anti-Islamists wants Islam to be the Barbaric Other

3. Anti-Jihadist 03/06: The Anti-Jihadist Responds to Mr. Farouk

4. Farouk A Peru: 04/06: How to respect your fellow Man'

5. Anti-Jihadist 05/06: Respect works both ways

6. Farouk A Peru 06/06: Don't go to butchers to learn veterinary medicine

7. Anti-Jihadist 07/06: When butchery masquerades as a religion

8. Farouk A Peru 07/06: The basic art of answering questions

9. Anti-Jihadist 10/06: Calling a Spade a Spade

This article can be viewed at Malaysia-Today



.

An inconvenient Reality

By Uzumaki Naruto

Almost every belief-system in the world claims that their version of truth is rightly the only truth. There is no doubt that many devout believers in all these belief systems would affirmatively confirm this. They would wholeheartedly make the claim that they have found the `Truth' in their respective belief system.

At the same time, it is important to note that `Truth' with respect to these devotees is observed in a form of experience which is often called - `religious experience' or `experience of truth'.

However, it is impossible for one to find out which `experience of truth' among the many versions of `Truth' is the real truth. This is due the fact that it is just not possible to capture `experience' empirically.

Nevertheless, base on scientific research and studies on the relation of the brain and `truth experiences' , aptly known as `nuero-theology' , one thing that all these versions of `Truth' experiences have in common is that they all show similar patterns of brain activity. This is due to the fact that it takes millions of neurons firing in the brain before a devotee can validate his/her truth experience.

For this reason, it can be deduced that all experiences of `Truth' are just too similar regardless of which belief systems they belong to.

All these construe to the point that `Truth' in belief-systems is relative truth hence; there is no absolute `Truth' as far as truths in belief systems are concerned. For this matter, it can be concluded that the belief of one religion as the only `truth' to the path to GOD while others are all in error (or in short `religious exclusivism' ) is a flaw.

There is no tangible `neuro-theological' evidence to support the validity of religious exclusivism.

Journey through time

The belief in religious exclusivism is considered as one of the vital element of faith in most belief-systems. The logical reason behind this is that after the exclusivist idea has been solidly embedded into one's mind through constant religious indoctrination processes, it would make it easier for the rest of the religious doctrines and ideas to follow suit without much hassle and rigid scrutiny.

Realistically, the idea of religious exclusivism is a practical psychological tool to spread social ideals effectively in the early age of its emergence during the ancient time. This is due to human socio-culture and its circumstances and also the community's state of affairs at that time i.e. - limited knowledge, loose social order, lacking mobility and minimal contact with different cultures from outside world.

Taking all this into consideration, `religious exclusivism' had efficiently served the purpose for `wise men' at the time in their mission of spreading their package of `Truth' – which also consists of social ideals, positive human values and goodness.

In time the practical aspects of the `Truth' had laid down social foundation that was conducive for human progress and later had transformed the community that led to humanity greater advancement.

As time went by, human progress had made it possible for more direct relations and interactions between communities of different cultural beliefs. This later on created competition between cultures that led to political strains; and finally the growing tension end up in war. Unfortunately, more than often, religion fuelled by exclusivism logic became an explosive propaganda in waging religious wars that has spawned all sort of crusades, holy wars (jihad), genocides and hostilities between cultures throughout the centuries.

Sadly enough, the continuation of this devastative trend of exploiting religious exclusivism is still going on at present time. It doesn't stop at drawing the line between different beliefs; it goes deeper and has played a murderous role between different sects of the same belief-system. The ongoing sectarian conflicts in Iraq and occasionally in Pakistan , India and Indonesia for example, prove how such religious idea that seems to be harmless can turn out to be deadly.

Religious exclusivism has reared its ugly head. The once dignified spiritual mechanism responsible for human progress seems to have lost its purposeful function. Its application for peaceful means that it used to be has now turned into a lethal ideological belief that has brought misery to humanity in some part of the world.

Religious exclusivism in today's modern socio-culture is morally wrong and inherently divisive. It reflects bigotry and narrow mindedness. It separates humanity into the camps of believers and non-believers; a dichotomy between `us' and `them'. It creates and promotes systematic derogatory labels between people out of their spiritual differences, for example – deviant (sesat), heathen (musyrik), infidel (kafir), heretic (munafik) and so on. These psychologically divisive labels would only promote hate that could lead to communal disharmony. The saddest part of it all is that all these are done with the sense of righteousness.

Religious exclusivism of today, hiding under the banner of `respecting diversity' is hypocrisy in the highest order.

Time has changed and human social culture has evolved to a new height. Differences in belief should never be the reason for social conflict of any form. It is obvious that the once decent idea of religious exclusivism has lost its noble function and is a misplaced idea in present time. The idea has become irrelevant and there should be no place for religious exclusivism to fit in today's heterogenic plural society.

A more inclusive approach in belief-system would be vital towards respecting diversity in the truest sense thus enriching human effort in their spiritual quests. Rather than looking at differences and magnify the inconsistencies that may ensue social repercussions; belief-systems should be the platform that could pull all devotees (from all different belief-systems) deeper into unity of not only of common interests but also capacities and intelligences that far transcend those of the individuals.

Possibly, in time, this may bring humanity closer together in harnessing their power of collectives towards finding solutions to humanity most complex problems of the day and the future.

*This article can be viewed at malaysia-today.net

.

Liberating Islam

By Uzumaki Naruto

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg ~

It has been very depressing lately. Malaysia has witnessed the hideous nature of a ‘force’ that has swept the country and left its people with a string of disheartening events of religious disputes – corpse snatching, baby grabbing, breaking up family etc.

In a true sense, this force was a manifestation of ‘power’ that had been carried out by the religious authority for the purpose of maintaining and safeguarding the sacredness of the religion and the power of the religious institution.

Ironically, it seems that the religious authorities are oblivious to their socially-destructive deeds and far from realizing the damage they might have brought upon the fragile social fabric of multi cultural/religious society. Reason being, they failed to notice that such imperceptive act of gross injustice ensue social repercussions.

It would draw the perception of backward religiosity to the believers of Islam in general. Thus would give rise to negative religious sentiments directing towards the religion itself and consequently create animosity among the people in the community. In reality, they (religious authority) have stained Islam with morbid image of vile ruthlessness that doesn’t befit the culturally and religiously heterogenic plural society of the modern days.

They have fashioned Islam into an institution that is armed with repressive ideological stupor. They have utilized their power and exploited the religion into an oppressive tool victimizing the defenseless poor and the innocents. As repulsive as it is, they have actually hijacked the religion by disseminating corrupt doctrines embedded with extreme ideology of religious intolerance. Evidently, they are themselves the ‘hijackers’.

Islam is under siege.

It has been echoed in the Muslim world that Islam has been under siege; that there have always been foreign forces/powers that are constantly trying to weaken and destroy Islam. There are many Muslim thinkers championing the cause of Islam who follow this familiar theme. There are also some who would go to the degree of relating contemporary reality of the West as ‘morally decadent’ with ‘un-Godly’ secular values (that have crept into the Muslims’ societies) as the cause for all the ills and miseries plaguing the Muslim world.

All these above are mostly the usual themes many Muslim thinkers would go by in their analysis. As a matter of fact, this is a clear sign of mental-siege syndrome; an indication that they are in the state of denial and refusal to be objective/rational in finding way out from the problems inflicting the Muslims. They have opted for the easy way out – the convenient blame it on others.

Muslim thinkers (especially) have to step out of the box and disregard this obsolete paradigm of thoughts and initiate shifts by looking inwards and be critical on every doctrines/ideas that have been dumped into the package brand of ‘Islam’. They have to identify and disregard doctrines that are detrimental to human progress, doctrines that sow the seeds of fanaticism, and doctrines that are harmful to social foundation of multi cultural/religious society and inter-faith relation. This has to be done with the objective of finding solutions to overcome the drawbacks and limitations that are detrimental to the community’s full potential for progress collectively.

However, the question remains; is Islam under siege?

Focusing on Malaysia’s Islam; one can find that such has been happening here. Malaysia has witnessed the radicalization of Islam through enforcement of strict religious codes that infringed the private domain of individuals. Islam is considered being under siege whereby the community which comprises of believers and non-believers are subjected to an oppressive religious law. There has been one too many cases of gross injustice that had been directly inflicted upon the born-Muslims and the non-Muslims indirectly.

That said, the radicalization of the religion has held ‘Islam’ under siege, in which Islam is being hijacked by shallow, oppressive and extreme religious ideals that impede the collective potential of human progress. They have numbed down freedom of thought, insensitive towards private spiritual welfare and provoke the harmonious interfaith relation. This in turn would set a ground for social foundation that is susceptible to the virus of fanaticism. To sum it up, Islam is indeed under siege; surprisingly not by foreign forces but from the forces within. Islam has been under siege by the ‘hijackers’.

There is a need for Muslims to liberate Islam from this stranglehold of the hijackers. They seem to be working religiously in dragging Islam to the slippery slope to worthlessness.

If Islam were to maintain its claim of truth and relevancy in multi cultural/religious society of today and the future, a more progressive/liberal approach is needed to position Islam as a dynamic belief system. This is due to the fact that human socio-culture is never static; it constantly evolves and changes through time. Strict, outdated, rigid and shallow ideas must give way for a more functional and liberal understanding/interpretation that can absorb and respond to the latest challenge of the continuously changing human socio-culture. Adapting to a more pluralistic and inclusive premise of thought would be vital in raising the sensitivity towards enriching human effort in their spiritual quest.

Muslims have the option to reject change and continue living in the past; or liberate Islam and bring it well into the future. The choice is in their hands.

© 2007 naruto_of_mt@yahoo.com

*This article can also be viewed at malaysia-today.



.