Malaysia is a RACIST Country
-
hiel mahatir! hahaha... kyas... go put on your armband n yell SIEG HIEL!!
-
oi u f**king @$$ , wat racist ,wat KUKU Ali, u go home n suck ur own dick lah,motherf**ker,without malaysia there wouldn't be sg, think u must have failed ur social studies n history,by saying these u have offended millions of ppl, be prepared 4 the worst, @$$holeOriginally posted by starzzz:Malaysia is a RACIST Country!!
And it's true!!!! It's damn true!!!!
Cuz it doesn't matter what you are thinking or trying to say, cuz Mhatir says so!!!!
So thats the bottomline!!! Cuz the evidance proves so!!!!
Malaysia is a racist country and there's no doubt about it, look back during those times when our dear SM Lee who brings SG to merge with Malaysia and propose a Malaysian's Malaysia which made the Mr KUKU Ali and his racist gang so fumed up that they kick SG out of it.....
Look! Msian's govt got so many plans to double standards like setting qoutas to school, where the malays which have poorer and sicker minds get places in some schools which forced kids of other races with bright minds without a good education...
Look at the M'sian way of trying to curb the Chinese way of entrepuenership but putting cap on ownership or whatever.....
Sounds like Kukuharto's way too...
Msia is just racist I feels for the Indians and Chinese there -
hee hee... been some time since i last saw the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied...Originally posted by Typhoon:
i really should put the mp3 up to share... did u know they music was adapted from a popular cabaret? only the lyric's original... thanks to Herr Horst Wessel... a Nazi brownshirt thug who got wasted in a street brawl with communists...
anybody heard the Panzerlied as well? kick ass... beats any SAF song... -
Hello Kyas, very nice of you to make the good effort of keeping your points clean, and for your attempts in clearing up the good name of Islam.
No, it was not my intention of slurring the good name of Islam; but it is certainly my intention of questioning the wisdom of our South-east Asian Muslims willingness in practicing Islam in the manner that the Arabs are practicing, in which it is totally alien to the local social, cultural and customary practices of South-east Asia.
You mention the clear differentiation of religion and culture, and how one should avoid mixing interpretation of religious practices with cultural practices.
Unfortunately, the practice of Islam has entered into these realms, by dictating oneÂ’s social norms, cultural practices, customs and habits - and has even affected the lives of non-Muslims too.
This has become so pervasive that local social, cultural, and customary identity of a Local Muslim, has slowly become little different from those found in the Middle East.
The only seperation between the different Muslim Believers common to both Malaysia and Singapore, will range from the moderate (following Saudi Islamic practices) to the extreme (following the practices of Iran or Afghanistan) – these differences which I understand is due very much to the different Middle Eastern tribes or religious sects of the Sunni and Shiite (spelling to be corrected).
Both of which has no relevance to our Malaysian or Singapore, or even South-east Asian Culture, Social and Customary practices.
Since you mentioned that Islam is also practised in China, I would certainly agree with you on that point.
However, from the documentary movies that I have seen, I noticed that the Muslim Chinese Women (in the Western Parts of China) DO NOT cover their head, nor follow any practise of covering their face, nor their entire body.
This Western Parts of Muslim China also border the other Muslim Countries of Central Asia, and documentaries of these other Central Asian Countries that include the ex-Soviet States, also do not show any Muslim Women wearing the Tudung, nor the Afghan Burkah, nor the Iranian style Black Robes.
Sad to say the Afghanistan burkah is NOT a "cultural Afghan practice", but was RELIGIOUSLY imposed by the RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims called the Talibans, who cruelly imposed this practise onto the Afghan Women.
Now that Afghanistan is liberated, where is the "cultural practice" of wearing the ‘burkah” by the Afghan Women ?
The Afghan womenfolk are only too happy to be liberated from this evil dictate of the supposedly rigidly religious Afghan Man.
This practice of enforcing the dress code of TOTAL COVER UP is also imposed onto the Women of Iran by the AUTOCRATIC Mullahs of Iran, who think that they are the only AUTHORITY that is able to interpret GodÂ’s words and instructions.
Not too surprisingly, the Mullahs are all MEN...!!!
MANÂ’s vanity knows no bounds.
Certainly Islam do not subjugate women.
Unfortunately, it is the Muslim MALE and HUMAN interpreters of Islam who is subjugating the Muslim Women by their vain HUMAN attempt to interprete GodÂ’s words.
Unfortunately, the largely Muslim community in Malaysia and Singapore are from our Malay community, who are economically and intellectually disenfranchised, and become easy subjects to be persuaded to join the Muslim Fellowship.
You will not find any Indonesian of Malay origin being bound by birth to be a Muslim - as there are Indonesian of Malay origin who are Hindu, Christian, and practitioners of their own Indonesian ancient beliefs in Animism.
OPEC was mentioned, as it is an organization of largely Oil Rich Countries that are co-incidentally also Islamic too.
The resurgence of Islam was due largely to the rise of the “economic power” that was wielded by the largely Muslim Member Countries of OPEC against the Western World.
This has swollen the pride of the Islamic World, and gave it renewed confidence with its own religion, and also gave it international status.
In my last posting, I had posed a query that:- if ISLAM is not linked to the oil rich Arab Countries that formed OPEC, but had originated from Africa which remains hopelessly disorganised and backward, will there be any new found revival and interests in ISLAM...?
You will not find a MODERN Muslim Woman wearing the “Tudung”, let alone the Afghan Blue Burkah or the Iranian style Black Robe that allow only a slit to expose the beautiful eyes of the women inside a baggy black cloth.
NOT wearing the Tudung or the Burkah or the Iranian Black Robe, does not make a Muslim Women less religious, or a lesser Muslim.
Incidentally, if Islam is to be relevant to Life in the Twenty First Century, it will not subjugate WOMEN by allowing the MAN to have more then ONE Wife.
Islam will not allow MAN to try to INTERPRETE the Islamic Word to allow the MAN to secretly take on an ADDITIONAL wife, WITHOUT informing the First Wife of his intention (current issue in Perlis or is it in Kedah?). -
my grandfather had an old record of all the nazi songs...Originally posted by CX:hee hee... been some time since i last saw the lyrics of the Horst Wessel Lied...
i really should put the mp3 up to share... did u know they music was adapted from a popular cabaret? only the lyric's original... thanks to Herr Horst Wessel... a Nazi brownshirt thug who got wasted in a street brawl with communists...
anybody heard the Panzerlied as well? kick ass... beats any SAF song... -
Actually if it wasn't for Malaysia's racism, there wouldn't be Singapore, we did our social studies very well, far better then those up north as we can clearly see.Originally posted by DizZy:oi u f**king @$$ , wat racist ,wat KUKU Ali, u go home n suck ur own dick lah,motherf**ker,without malaysia there wouldn't be sg, think u must have failed ur social studies n history,by saying these u have offended millions of ppl, be prepared 4 the worst, @$$hole -
are u a matlaysian? english obviously isn't your first language... prepared for the worst? wad u gonna do? drive ur protons to s'pore n make us drink bandung?Originally posted by DizZy:oi u f**king @$$ , wat racist ,wat KUKU Ali, u go home n suck ur own dick lah,motherf**ker,without malaysia there wouldn't be sg, think u must have failed ur social studies n history,by saying these u have offended millions of ppl, be prepared 4 the worst, @$$hole -
Oh you mean Malaysia isn't at its worst yet? Gosh... how low a life form can the political leadership drop to?
-
Dear Kyas......can u pls explain the post below to me:
Media Statement
by Kerk Kim Hock
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Melaka, Monday): Datin Rahimah Ghazali, principal of Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Infant Jesus Convent, was quoted in the press three days ago as saying that she saw nothing wrong in imposing the measure requiring students to wear baju kurung on Fridays.
She claimed that the measure was on a trial a basis for 3 months and was done to promote national unity.
She was also reported to have said that such measure was already introduced in the teacher training colleges .She revealed that a secondary convent school in Muar, Johore, had also implemented such a directive.
As such measure is not only ignoring the sensitivity of other communities, it is in fact tantamount to the hijacking of the national school system revealed by the Prime Minister on 27.12.2002.
Hence, I have today faxed a message to the Prime Minister and the Education Minister calling on them to carry out a thorough investigation and to take the necessary disciplinary actions against those responsible for hijacking of the national school system through such directives so as to ensure that such hijacking will not repeat in future.
In his interview with the New Straits Times, the Prime Minister himself had said that the idea to set up the national school was to cater to all races but people who ran the schools had different ideas.
He was quoted as saying that in the past, there were no problems with girls wearing skirts and boys wearing shorts, especially for games but now boys were forbidden from wearing shorts, even for games, and even games were discouraged.
He said that such interpretation of Islam put off the non-Malays.
The measure requiring students to wear baju kurung will certainly put off the non-Malays and such attempt will be seen as a move to make the school into a Malay school and this perceived assimilation move would definitely put off many students.
There are non-Malays who choose to wear baju kurung on various occasions or at their offices, but this is done out of oneÂ’s own free will. To make this into a school regulation, whether done as a compulsory measure or otherwise, is totally unacceptable. After all, no one will believe that national unity can be achieved by getting another race to wear the traditional dress of a particular race.
As such, I wish to reiterate that, irrespective of whether the measure is a compulsory directive or otherwise, DAP cannot and will not accept such an unnecessary and extreme measure which does not respect the sensitivity and feelings of other communities, but is is also an act of hijacking which will deviate from the original aim as to why national schools are set up.
I also wish to call on the Prime Minister to direct the Malacca Chief Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rastam to remove Datuk Haji Long Said as the State Executive Councilor in charge of state education.
Instead of directing the school principal to rescind the unacceptable measure, Long Said was quoted in the News Straits Times as saying that the school must have its own reasons for issuing the directive and that such a directive might not be made compulsory.
Two years ago, Long Said had offended the Chinese community when he said that for the government to provide financial allocation to the Pay Fong Middle School, the only independent Chinese secondary school in Malacca, would be like “ pouring salt into the sea”.
Cleary, he is unqualified and unsuitable to be in charge of the state education and should therefore be removed.
- end -
i think u have just slap ur own face......lol. -
THE CHINESE OF MALAYSIA
July 15, 2000
(The following excerpts were taken from the book, THE CHINESE OF SOUTH-EAST ASIA, by Chin Ung Ho and published recently by Minority Rights Group, London.)
MALAYSIA
The federation of Malaysia was created in 1963, comprising peninsular Malaya, Singapore, and the states of Sabah and Sarawak. Sabah and Sarawak are located on Borneo Island. In 1965, Singapore was ejected from the federation after its leader, Lee Kuan Yew, challenged the notion of Malay political supremacy.
Malaysia is where, proportionately, the ethnic Chinese constitute the largest minority group in the whole of South-East Asia. Ethnic Chinese constitute about 27 per cent of Malaysia's 20 million population. The ethnic Malays and other bumiputera make up about 59 per cent, Indians 8 per cent and others 6 per cent.
The demography of Sabah and Sarawak are significantly different from the peninsula. In the peninsula, the main local ethnic group is the Malays while in Sabah it is the Kadazan-Dusun, and in Sarawak it is the Iban Dayak.
SETTLEMENTS
A small number of Chinese traders probably first settled in Malaya during the fifteenth century. Large-scale Chinese immigration, however, only occurred during the British colonial administration in the nineteenth century. The majority of the new settlers were Hokkien, Hakka, Cantonese, Teochiu and Hainanese.
The British policy of 'divide and rule' meant that the community had little contact with the local Malay population. The Chinese formed their own associations and built their own schools, temples and even townships. More than 50 per cent of Chinese lived in urban areas, a pattern that persists today.
In the 1950s, large numbers of Chinese were resettled by the British into camps (called 'new villages') throughout the northern part of the peninsula when an armed insurrection was launched by the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). The MCP was led mostly by pro-Beijing Chinese.
The insurrection was put down by the British after more than a decade of fighting but it left an impression among the Malay community that some Chinese were loyal to communist China, creating a barrier between the Malay and Chinese. The signing of a peace agreement between the MCP and the Malaysian government in 1989 and economic reforms in China in the past decade have erased this perception.
The Chinese in Sabah and Sarawak have distinct histories. The Chinese in Sarawak first arrived in large numbers in mid-eighteenth century from what is now West Kalimantan, Indonesia. These were mainly Hakka gold miners who settled in the gold-rich areas of Bau.
There was no new migration until the early twentieth century, when large-scale migration began directly from China. This was organized by the Brooke family, the rulers of Sarawak, for the purpose of economic expansion. The first large group from China was made up mostly of Fuzhou Methodists led by a missionary.
Agents were later appointed in Singapore to recruit labourers directly from southern China and Hong Kong. The biggest dialect group in Sarawak today is the Fuzhous followed closely by the Hakkas and Hokkiens. The Chinese make up about 29 per cent of Sarawak's 2.1 million population.
Sabah was ceded to a private company, the British North Borneo Company, in 1881. To develop the state, the company engaged agents in China to recruit labourers. The first arrivals were mostly Hakka Christians led by a missionary from Hong Kong. The Hakkas were followed by Cantonese and Hokkiens. At present, the largest dialect grouping in Sabah is still the Hakkas, followed by the Cantonese and Hokkiens. The Sabah Chinese account for only 12 per cent of Sabah's 1.8m population today.
POLITICAL FRAMEWORK
The most important political distinction in Malaysia is the bumiputera/non-bumiputera dichotomy. 'Bumiputera' (literally 'son of the soil') is a legal term meaning that the state recognizes the indigenous status of the citzen. 'Non-bumiputera' signifies that the citizen is not indigenous.
According to the Constitution, the bumiputera category consists of ethnic Malays and other indigenous ethnic groups in the peninsula, and the many indigenous ethnic groupings in Sabah and Sarawak. All other ethnic groups are deemed 'immigrants' and classified as non-bumiputera. Thus the Chinese, and the Indians, are non-bumiputera.
The bumiputera/non-bumiputera dichotomy has important legal, economic and political implications. Under the Constitution, a bumiputera is entitled to 'special rights', meaning that the government may make special provisions to protect the economic, social and cultural interests of the bumiputera.
Under the New Economic Policy (NEP), which ran from 1971 to 1990, and its successor, the New Development Policy (NDP), a 30 per cent quota for bumiputera was imposed on all economic and social spheres. The official discriminatory system was justified on the grounds that the non-bumiputera (read Chinese) were more commercially advanced than the bumiputera (read Malay). The argument was that the wealth gap, between the Malay and the Chinese would lead to political instability, especially in light of the riots between Chinese and Malays in the capital Kuala Lumpur of 13 May 1969, after the mainly Chinese opposition made impressive gains at the general elections.
Malaysia is a peaceful multi-ethnic society.
The discriminatory system is also justified on the grounds that the Chinese had made a 'constitutional bargain' prior to independence. The Chinese community allegedly accepted the notion of Malay 'special rights' in exchange for citizenship based on jus soli (place of birth). This 'bargain', if it ever existed formally, was negotiated by the Malay and Chinese political elite without any consultation with their respective communities.
Some Chinese leaders claimed that their acceptance of Malay 'special rights' was conditional on the understanding that the 'special rights' would be removed once the Malay/bumiputera community was on par economically with the Chinese community. The Malay elite, on the other hand, claim that acceptance of 'special rights' was forever.
The problem for the Chinese community is that they cannot re-visit the issue of the 'constitutional bargain'. Under the Constitution, matters of citizenship and Malay 'special rights' cannot be questioned or discussed, even in parliament. Ethnic relations are officially deemed 'sensitive issues' and cannot be discussed openly without contravening the Sedition Act or the Internal Security Act (ISA).
Chinese activists and opposition politicians have been jailed or detained for questioning Malay special rights and discrimination against the Chinese community.
ETHNIC POLITICS AND MALAY POLITICAL HEGEMONY
All the major political parties in Malaysia are mobilized along ethnic lines. The Barisan Nasional (National Front) coalition has ruled since independence, turning the country into virtually a one-party state. It claims to be a multi-ethnic coalition government, but in reality is controlled by the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).
UMNO's raison d'être is Malay nationalism, political supremacy and Islam. UMNO's political strength lies in its ability to manipulate the electoral system. More than two-thirds of the seats in Malaysia are located in the rural areas, where ethnic Malays predominate. This has ensured that UMNO (or Malays) always win the largest number of seats in elections, often slightly more than half of the seats in parliament.
Since independence, all Malaysian prime ministers, deputy prime ministers and key cabinet posts have been held by UMNO. This means that the Chinese-based parties in Malaysia cannot advance Chinese interests. Even the Chinese parties in the ruling coalition, at most, can only protest quietly to UMNO about anti-Chinese policies.
UMNO cannot afford to soften its position on Malay 'special rights' because its major political opponent is the Islamic fundamentalist, Parti Islam Malaysia (PAS), that has vowed to establish an Islamic state with no political or cultural rights for non-Muslims when it comes to power. UMNO fears that any concessions to the Chinese community would mean a loss of support among its core constituents to PAS.
EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES
The Chinese suffer discrimination in relation to employment, education and economic opportunities. The private sector is the main source of employment for almost the whole Chinese population. The public service is effectively closed to them due to the bumiputera-first policy. Recruitment in the public service has traditionally been set at one non-Malay (read Chinese or Indian) for every four Malay recruits. This rule, however, has never been strictly observed and anecdotal evidence suggests that the ratio is closer to one non-Malay to every ten Malay. In the upper echelons of the civil service, non-Malays definitely constitute less than 10 per cent of the elite administrative service.
The education problem centres on two issues: access to tertiary education and vernacular education. A quota system has severely restricted the entry of non-bumiputera into state-funded universities. Officially the intake quota for universities was set at 55 per cent bumiputera and 45 per cent non-bumiputera, but in reality, bumiputera students constitute more than 70 per cent of tertiary students.
Every year, thousands of Chinese students are thus denied a place at university solely on the basis of their ethnicity, while many Malay students who performed much worse than Chinese students in public examinations are given a place. This has forced thousands of Chinese students to go abroad for their tertiary education, creating deep resentment due to the high costs involved.
From the 1970s to the 1990s, Chinese Malaysian students consistently ranked in the top five among international students in the US, Australia and the United Kingdom. Often the cost of an overseas tertiary education has meant that a typical Chinese family could only afford to send one of its children, usually the eldest, overseas. Government scholarships are also openly biased towards the Malay. More than 95 per cent of government scholarships for overseas tertiary education are awarded to bumiputera students.
On top of the quota restrictions, the government established MARA (Majlis Amanah Rakyat/Council of Indigenous Trust) institutes and colleges throughout the country. These colleges offer employment-related courses such as accountancy and only admit bumiputera students. In other words, Malay students who failed to get a place in the public university will still get a post-secondary education through the MARA institutes. The costs of tuition and lodgings are met by the government.
In the mid-1990s the government decided to let foreign universities set up branches in Malaysia to give more non-bumiputera students access to tertiary education inside the country. This policy was not driven by the need to accommodate non-bumiputera needs in higher education but rather was an attempt to stop the massive outflow of funds from Chinese parents for their children's foreign education. The 50 per cent devaluation of the Malaysian currency, the ringgit, caused by the 1997 Asian currency crisis, helped to force the government's hand. Despite the government's motives, the setting up of private universities and other tertiary institutions has given the Chinese community more opportunities for education at the post-secondary level.
Since the arrival of Chinese migrants on a large scale during the colonial era, the community have established Chinese schools to serve the needs of their children. There is a strong belief that in order for Chinese culture to survive and flourish in Malaysia, Chinese schools are essential. Over the years, an extensive network of vernacular schools throughout the country was established.
After independence, for political reasons, the Malay language, renamed Bahasa Malaysia (Malaysian language), was made the official language and became the medium of teaching in all government schools. This meant that certificates from the independent Chinese and other vernacular schools were not recognized by the government. It also meant that Chinese school leavers could not apply to universities or any government-funded institutions, and they could not apply for employment in the public service, statutory bodies and state-owned enterprises.
The vernacular schools are not eligible for any form of government funding and their existence depends totally on community support. The government sees them as a hindrance to national unity and assimilation. Currently, many independent Chinese schools teach a dual curriculum to prepare their students to sit for both the government public examinations and those sanctioned by the Dong Jiao Dong, an umbrella group representing all Chinese schools in Malaysia. Although the government has refused to recognize any certificates issued by the Chinese schools, many universities around the world accept them as meeting matriculation requirements.
Another area of concern to the Chinese community relates to its share of the economy and opportunities for expansion. Under the NEP, the target for the Malay share of the economy was set at 30 per cent by 1990. In 1971 when the NEP was promulgated, the Malay share was estimated to be only around 2 per cent. To fast-track the Malay share, the government, first, aggressively promoted selected Malay businessmen. They were given multi-million government infrastructure contracts without going through a tender process.
Second, the government discriminated in favour of bumiputera businessmen across the whole spectrum of the economy. Bumiputera businessmen were given first preference for all government projects, supply tenders and trade licences. Certain government contracts could only be awarded to bumiputera companies. All financial institutions had to set aside a set percentage of their loans for bumiputera businesses.
Public listed companies and large companies were legally obliged to set aside 30 per cent of their shares for bumiputera investors. These shares often had to be sold at below market value simply to conform to the shareholding rule. The government's aim was to create a 'Bumiputera Industrial and Commercial Community' that was on a par with that of the Chinese. While the aims were noble, the outcome so far has been the creation of a rentier bumiputera business class more interested in using the government's discriminatory policies for quick gains than in becoming genuine entrepreneurs.
While the larger Chinese business concerns can withstand the government's discriminatory policies, and in some cases thrive by using Malay fronts for their business activities, small to medium Chinese traders have been seriously hurt by the NEP and the NDP. Many believe that Chinese business would have expanded much faster if the policies had not been in place. Overall, Chinese business has suffered because of the government's bias towards Malay businesses.
Despite the restrictions, the Chinese share of the economy was estimated at 40-50 per cent at the end of the NEP in 1990. Presently, the Malay share of the economy is estimated to be in the region of 20-30 per cent. The rest is owned by foreign interests.
One area where the Chinese community was seriously hurt was employment. Large companies were required to have a minimum of 30 per cent of their staff from the bumiputera community. This rule was not applied in reverse. Malay companies could have a 100 per cent bumiputera staff. Many government-owned companies and statutory bodies have bumiputera-first hiring policies resulting in more than 90 per cent of their staff being bumiputera.
ISLAMIZATION AND CULTURAL POLICIES
Almost all Malaysian Chinese are non-Muslims while the official religion of the country is Islam. The majority of Chinese are Taoists, Confucians, Buddhists and Christians. Although religious freedom is guaranteed in the Malaysian Constitution, serious restrictions are placed on non-Islamic faiths. These include a legal ban on proselytizing to Muslims, restrictions on the building of new temples and churches and the use of certain terms deemed 'Islamic'.
Government policy is to promote 'Islamic values' in all areas of public life. This policy started in the 1970s but was only implemented aggressively from the 1980s onwards. An International Islamic University was established, Islamic banking and finance was introduced and the rapid expansion of Islamic schools and a mosque-building programme were generously funded by the state. A course dealing with the basics of the Islamic religion, history and culture was made a compulsory for all tertiary students, regardless of their religious affiliation, in government-funded universities.
There are state-sanctioned Dakwah (missionary) groups who target the Chinese for conversion to Islam. In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases of teenage Chinese girls converting to Islam without the knowledge or consent of their parents. There are credible reports of peer pressure to convert being applied to non-Muslim students studying in local universities and government boarding schools.
Controversy also surfaced in the mid-1990s when a Chinese Muslim preacher attacked the Christian religion and traditional Chinese faiths on a weekly Mandarin-language Islamic programme on state television. In Sabah and Sarawak, there were reports of indigenous peoples such as the Kadazan-Dusuns and Ibans being converted to Islam with promises of material aid or money.
Conversion to Islam is controversial in Malaysia because it implies a switch in ethnic identity. Under the Constitution, a Malay is defined as a Muslim, and therefore converting to Islam in Malaysia is often referred to as 'masuk Melayu' (becoming a Malay). Chinese converts are not only expected to adopt a Malay name, but are also expected to cut all cultural and linguistic links with their Chinese backgrounds and there are many cases of Chinese converts who do this. Conversion to Islam is non-reversible under the law.
In 1971, the government announced a National Cultural Policy (NCP). The Chinese and the non-Malay community were unaware that a NCP was being drafted, and the policy totally ignored the fact that almost half of the Malaysian population were non-Malay and non-Muslim. The NCP declared that the core of the NCP must 'reflect indigenous society' and thus only Malay and Islamic culture. This policy means that the official mass media ignore non-Malay and non-Islamic cultures. Movies that promote Christianity or any other non-Islamic faiths are banned.
PROSPECTS
In summary, the Malaysian Chinese suffer significant discrimination in the political, social, cultural and economic spheres. This is due to a deliberate government policy of discrimination in favour of the Malay and bumiputera community, and Islam. Despite the gains made by the bumiputera in the economy, the Malay-led government is unlikely to change the system.
The Malay population is so used to privilege that a subsidy mentality has developed. Many younger Malays believe that the benefits accorded to them are their birthright. The political system is also unlikely to be liberalized. The Malays know that their privileged position is tied directly to their dominance of the political system. While the Chinese share of the economy will probably remain stable in the coming years, the Malay and government share of the economy will increase. This takes away any leverage, political or economic, the Chinese community might have in trying to extract concessions from the government.
The positive side of this is that with significant Malay holdings in the economy, the Indonesian scenario, where the local people can easily blame the Chinese for any economic ills, is unlikely in Malaysia.
Another problem facing the Chinese is that their share of the population is expected to fall to between 22-5 per cent in the coming two decades. This is because the largely urban Chinese are having fewer children as society industrializes, and because of immigration from Indonesia and the southern Philippines. Politics plays a role here as most Indonesians and Filipinos accepted for residency are ethnic Malays and Muslims.
The likely outcome is a political, social and cultural system that is dominated by the Malays and Islam. The prospects for minority rights for the Chinese in Malaysia in the long term are therefore not promising.
Chin Ung Ho, PhD, is a Malaysian-born academic currently teaching overseas. He has published extensively on Malaysian politics. He can be contacted at [email protected]. The above article reflects the personal views of the writer. -
yeah, one f**king tight slap.
-
i am waiting for harimau and innocent_malaysian to explain my first post too.....lol.Originally posted by foga:yeah, one f**king tight slap.
-
wait long long then... either that or expect the usual malaysian bullshit.
-
Looks like there is some consultations for some wild ideas with the Sneaky Ratty FM Syed Hamid Albar; or with their Senile PM - who is busy praising the Malaysian Chinese for their hard work in keeping up the educational standards of their community.
The Senile PM has forgotten that the Malaysian Chinese Community got to where they are today, without owing anything to the Malaysian Ministry of Education or to the Ministry of Finance).
For todays Malaysian news, visit: www.thestar.com.my -
There are many issues that have been underlined that I believe will eventually benefits me and others hopefully. I born as a Muslim, therefore I have the tendency to just follow the practice of Islam without even thinking on the relevance to the current scenario. This discussion has helped me to understand the non-MuslimÂ’s perspective on Islam as well as to increase my own knowledge on discussed subjects.
Through the documentaries we have witnessed that most (not all) of the Chinese Muslims in China or Muslims in other countries do not wear ‘tudung’. I do agree with you. Actually you do not have to go far. Just look around us, even in Singapore and Malaysia we can see there are people who do not cover their ‘aurat’. If that is the question, I would like to raise another question so as to make things easy for me to explain. Why are there Muslims involved in gambling, drugs, crimes, alcoholic drinks and other negative activities? Islam provides the guidelines for the followers on how their way of life should be. Unfortunately they are not being followed. The answer is very simple – non-compliance. Yes, it is true that not wearing a tudung does not make the Muslim Women any less Muslim. But it is the requirement of the Islamic law, and no body should be stopped from fulfilling the requirement.
On the ‘burkah’ issue, I mentioned that it is a ‘cultural practice’ without touching on the imposition of such dressing rule in Afghanistan. I stand corrected. As I mentioned before, Muslim women are only allowed to expose their face and hands. It is a clear rule. There is no such rule in Quran saying that women have to cover their whole head or wearing black robe as practised in Iran. That is why they were called radical or extremist Muslim. They practice more than they should be. In Islam we call it ‘bid’ah’ – creating new practices as if they were required by Islam (which is actually not). I prefer to call them radical or extremist and not fundamentalist because the fundamental of Islam is very simple and there is nothing wrong about fundamental of Islam and of being a fundamentalist.
There are so many misinterpretation of Islamic concept by the Muslims. I give you some of the examples. Suicide bombing that is practiced by the group Hamas – they call it jihad. Well Atobe, I call it stupid. Why? The fundamental of Islam states that committing suicide is one of the biggest sins that must be avoided by Muslims. And most of these bombers are actually affecting the innocent people, not the real enemy. Killing innocent civilians is prohibited my Islam, therefore – another sin, same as the incident on 911 and recently in Bali. How come the act of committing oneself to sin can be called jihad? It is just ridiculous. They are not the act of Islam. They are the act of terrorists due to misunderstanding on Islam.
You touched on the issue of polygamy among the Muslim community. Lets take a glance at the statement in Quran inter alia ‘Muslim men are allowed to marry two, three or four as long as you are able to be fair to all of them. If you are not capable, forget it’. Note the word ‘fair’ and ‘capable’ in the sentence. There is nothing wrong of having more than one wife, but the conditions stressed are equality and capability.
One of the purposes of the rule of polygamy is actually to protect women. The relevance with the current scenario among others is the relationship of a husband with his second, third or fourth wife are connected officially because there is an ‘akad’ or official agreement or contract on such relationship. When there is an agreement they will bind themselves to Islamic legal rights on each of the wives. This is to avoid Muslim men from involving themselves with mistress (act of having an affair outside marriage). If there is no such rule, imagine what will happen to the mistress if suddenly the men decided to leave her. Things will become more complicated if they have kids. They will have no legal rights to claim from their ex-boyfriend.
The rule of polygamy will always be relevant (we believe every rule stated in Quran and Hadith will always be relevant regardless of time). The message or ruling on polygamy was actually received by the Prophet after a war which is called the war of ‘Uhud’. During that time there were so many Muslim died and there were too many widows and orphans. That was why God gives the message of allowing men to marry more than one wife – to take care of the widows and orphans. It is really relevant especially after a war or any conditions that almost the same like after the war of ‘Uhud’ e.g. in the aftermath of Bosnia crisis and war in Afghanistan. But still the basic rule must be maintained - to be fair and capable of doing so economically and physically. Unfortunately, there are many Muslims who take advantage on that rule just to fulfil their desire. Again, it is not Islam is wrong; it is the followers who misinterpret the rule.
Now, with regard to the current case in Perlis, the Mufti allows Muslim men to practice polygamy without the consent of the first/existing wife/wives merely because such act (getting permission) is not stated in Quran or Hadith. As I highlighted before, the word ‘fair’ and/or ‘capable’ explained the equal rights for the wives and the capability of the husband economically and physically, means there must not be any difference of treatment for all the wives e.g. if one is given a car than the others must also be given the same unless agreed by all parties to not doing so.
It is true that there is nothing in the Quran and Hadith that husband must get permission but the question now is whether it is fair for the first/existing wife/wives not knowing that their husband is married to another woman? I don't think so, because in this situation only one party i.e. the new wife knows that she is getting married to a married man whereas, the first/existing wife/wives have no knowledge on the act of her/their husband. This is not fair; therefore it is against the fundamental of Islam of being ‘fair’ and ‘capable’. It is not impossible that ‘ulama’ can also make mistakes. They are just normal human beings. Furthermore, such law will create trauma among the female Muslim to get involved in marriage. Polygamy will lead to female ‘subjugation’ if the result of the new marriage is actually destroying the existing institution due to dissatisfaction on the part of the first/existing wife/wives. Due to that and the ruling by other states, I am against the Mufti’s view. Again, I am sure this is another misinterpretation. Fortunately, we are moving towards uniformity of law in all states.
On the issue of ‘baju kurung’ for a school in Malacca, this matter has been resolved by only ‘encouraging’ the non-Malays to wear ‘baju kurung’ at any days. If the rule is imposed on non-Malays, I will definitely against the idea. Such rule will create hatred to the Malay culture since non- Malays are forced to adopt other cultures into their living style. Maybe the principal has a good intention of doing so, but apparently it is just not acceptable, not only by the non-Malays but also the Bumiputera in general and the Malays in particular.
Islam was accepted by the Malays generally not because of any material factors. It is not because of the oil or OPEC. It was accepted because we believe that it is the truth about life, regardless of the country it was originated from. If material is the factor, might as well we follow the US or USSR or even Japan (the then one of the most powerful nation economically – reminds me of the ‘look east policy’ introduced by Mahathir). Even though they have the oil power, hitherto they are still left behind as if they do not know how to take advantage on their own treasures. What is so good about them to the extent that we follow their culture? If you go to Pattaya in Thailand you will see how most of Arab men get so excited to be with those ‘tourist companions’. Should we follow such behaviour just because they are Arabs? No. We do not follow the Arabs. We follow Islam. Again, Arab and the language of Arab is just the medium of interaction of conveying message from God to human. It is the way of showing to the entire human being that the true teaching of Islam comes from one source not multiple-source. So, the oil and OPEC is really out of the issue. -
School: Baju kurung uniform encouraged, not compulsory
MALACCA: Infant Jesus Convent (IJC) Secondary School girls are free to wear the baju kurung school uniform any day on a voluntary basis.
School principal Rahimah Ghazali said that students were encouraged to wear baju kurung although it was not a compulsory measure.
“Girls can wear baju kurung any day in a week, not only Fridays,” she told students during school assembly yesterday.
For the first time last August, students wore cultural costumes to school one day as a way to express patriotism.
Rahimah said the suggestion to wear baju kurung was to promote national unity, adding that she was in the midst of getting feedback on the matter while it was being implemented on a trial period.
Several parents have complained that the principal had requested students to buy a pair of baju kurung uniform each and wear it to school on Fridays when school starts.
They were also told that the school would turn it into a regulation in April after the three-month trial period. .
The school has 1,500 students including 400 Malays.
Parent-Teacher Association chairman Jerry Lim said students were encouraged to wear baju kurung but they were not forced to do so.
Education Minister Tan Sri Musa Mohamad has been quoted as saying that the dress code was a matter for the school to handle, adding that it did not need the interference of any other party.
DAP secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock said although it was true that many non-Malays were wearing baju kurung to work, this was done out of their own free will.
He said it was unacceptable to make it compulsory in school, and that “no one will believe that national unity could be achieved by getting another race to wear baju kurung.''
The Star, January 8, 2003 -
Hello Kyas, many thanks for your very fine effort in clarifying the tenets and teachings of Islam as a religion.
Unfortunately, short of exposing myself to the risks of criticism by all religious persons, I would risk to comment that “Religion is Man Made” – be it Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Animism, Hinduism, and all the likes.
It all started with “Visions” and “Messages”, and consequently the interpretation of those “visions and messages” by the First Person who experienced those phenomena; and subsequently by the generations thereafter trying to interpret those “First Person Interpretations”.
Religions exist because of ManÂ’s innate weakness and ManÂ’s inability to comprehend the vastness of the Universe, and ManÂ’s role in it.
What Man cannot understand, Man worships.
Man had worshipped Fire, Lighting, Thunder, Trees, Stones, Weather, Stars, Sun, Moon, Animals, and all other mysteries that are beyond ManÂ’s comprehension.
Religions exist due to ManÂ’s vanity in his quest to understand himself and his world around him, and to satisfy his own inquisitiveness and intellect.
As time passes, Man became more sophisticated and knowledgeable in the workings of nature, then MAN “created” GOD - as an all encompassing, all powerful, all overwhelming Being – to conveniently explain for the intricacies of the Universe that remain beyond the grasp of Man’s limited understanding.
This “GOD” that MAN created is unseen, unheard, untouchable, except in the Heart, Mind, and Inner Spirit – which is the basic human conscience, basic psychological and physical emotions
This is a very sophisticated and complex concept of GOD, that is created by Man, as it cannot be fathom, touch, seen, or heard - unlike the earlier primitive worship of objects and visual or sound effects of Fire, Lighting, Thunder, Stones, Animals, and others.
MAN begin to have visions, and to receive Messages – from Abraham, to Muhammad, to Jesus, to the Indian Prince that became Buddha, and to countless other well known Holy Personalities who started new branches of Religions on earth.
The "First Person's Interpretations of His First Visions and Messages received" will form the "Core Principles" of the Religion started from hereon.
Nearly every religion depend on the guidance and interpretation of its “core religious beliefs” from some Human Leaders, and much will depend on the integrity and righteousness of such an important person to guide the millions that follow his “Interpretations” of the Holy Word.
Herein, lies the weak link in this entire religious set up.
The multitude of human beings have no say, nor influence in the choice of such a Religious HUMAN Leader, to lead and guide them in their understanding, interpretation and practice of their respective Religions.
Unlike Governments that are elected, or by the Barrel of the Gun, the Religious Leaders come into their Office by various mysterious ways that are beyond the touch of the worldÂ’s Common Men and Women.
It is not my intention to criticize the correctness or incorrectness of any religions, nor its beliefs, nor its practices, nor its tenets, nor its teachings.
However, I do question the relevance of Religious Forms that are practiced, imposed and followed with such fervor, based on the common Man's “limited understanding” of the Fundamentals of Religions in the context of Local Cultural, Social, and Traditional Practices in this day and age of the Twenty-First Century.
There seem to be a “romantic” return to the basic old ways, as during those old days, power emanates from the Pulpits. This occurred not only in the Middle East, but also in the Christian communities of Europe, where the Priests guided the Kings.
This is the danger of religion in the Present Day, where UN-qualified Humans can usurp Political Powers and control societies – as had happened in Iran, where the Mullahs have entered the realm of Politics and Government; and as had happened in Afghanistan, which fortunately was brought to an end.
The dangers of religions being “hijacked” by Religious Leaders, who have their own quiet agenda is real, as we are currently experiencing the events of the J.I. Group and other radical groups in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and even in the Philippines.
It starts with the simple practices of basic religious fundamentals being imposed onto society, and subsequently moving towards societyÂ’s governance, and then to higher political agenda.
It is a slow inching exercise.
The dangers do exist in this region, after the Islamic dress code has been imposed and practiced widely, there is now a slow built up in the clamor for the Syriah Law to replace the Common Law - which is already long practiced in the various countries of this region, and had held multi-racial societies together.
What next - after banning short pants for boys, and imposing tudung for girls, closing of beaches for males and females to gather, closure of cinemas and entertainment joints, closure of bars, and implementation of the Syriah Law to replace Common Law...?
What next..?
Do the people that practice the faith still have a say against those who lead them, without offending the Religion itself - by daring to question his Interpretation without commiting heresy..??? -
My pleasure to read your contribution on this issue within this forum. Your position is sounds more of a moderate Asian MuslimOriginally posted by kyas:There are many issues that have been underlined that I believe will eventually benefits me and others hopefully. I born as a Muslim, therefore I have the tendency to just follow the practice of Islam without even thinking on the relevance to the current scenario. This discussion has helped me to understand the non-MuslimÂ’s perspective on Islam as well as to increase my own knowledge on discussed subjects.
than some which I've come across ike in the Harimau.org or
even the Fetaha sites.
Really saddens me when one of human's belief in God has been
used and abused by many in todays world. From war to wearing
of tudung in school, it never cease to amaze me how a personal
relation with God becomes a tool for self-interest and making
a public statement.We do not follow the Arabs. We follow Islam. Again, Arab and the language of Arab is just the medium of interaction of conveying message from God to human. It is the way of showing to the entire human being that the true teaching of Islam comes from one source not multiple-source. So, the oil and OPEC is really out of the issue.
Unfortunately, this do not seems to be the case based with all these news report about infiltration by radical Islamic teachers in regions' Madarash sch, Islamic seperatist civil war and terror like JI casting negative impression on Islam itself.
Pardon me, but I believe that it is rather idealistic to seperate the reality of human greed and "sin" from the "true-teaching of Islam" as similar puritan ideology (Socialist Communism) and ultra-orthadox Christian segs had imploded or having failed to realise this fact.
Be it OPEC, oil, money or power, these will influence all human
regardless. Even that Osama himself can't get his plan going without the help of financial assistance and modern technolgies.
In fact, I'd rather see Osama more as a Venture Capitalist.
He has a master plan. He seeks interested and enthusistics pple who share similar belief as his. Empower them with good marketing skills (can go Heavan ) and $$$ (private fundings).
Lastly, he rip the most reward regardless if his investments returns
a profit or lost as more believers heeded his evaganlica calls
thru video, radio or internet broadcast.
Like some had say : It is not about the war between believer and non-believer of Islam, but it is a war within the Religon itself.
Unless pro-active policies and actions are taken now, those radical form of Islam will only grow at the expense of moderates and humankind's progress.
If Muslim majority Asian countries like Malaysia or Indonesia can't even handle these threat and its influences on their own Muslim pple , then how can we expect the rest of the region to act effectively together ? -
Die fahne hoch
die reihen fest geschlossen
SA marschiet
mit ruhig festem schritt
kamraden die rotfront und reaktion erschossen
marschier im geist in und sern reihen mitt
die strabe frei
den braunnen battalionnen
die strabe frei dem sturm abteilungsmann
eschaun'auf hakenkreuz voll hoffnung schon millionen
der tag fur frei heit und fur broct bricht an
zum letzen mal
wird nun appel geblasen
zum kampfe stehn
fur alle schon bereit
bald flattern hitler fahnen uber allen straben
der knechtshaft zer dauert und fur kerze zeit -
Following is an extract from http://www.asiaone.com
JAN 15
Mystery and militancy in Islam
Chua Lee Hoong
THERE'S something about Islam... Half declaration, half question, that remark is heard often these days. Confronted with rampaging Muslims who burn down churches, Muslims who commit mass murder, and Muslims who insist that a woman who cries rape must produce four male eyewitnesses, the temptation is to find in their common denominator - the religion of Islam - the root cause of such senseless behaviour.
Well-meaning persons, Muslim and non-Muslim, try to assure the world that that is not so; that Islam forbids violence, that Islam means peace. Those who resort to terror are wrong; they are not good Muslims; they are betraying the true religion.
-- CHEAH SIN ANN
Would that things were so simple.
A new book out paints it starkly. British philosopher Roger Scruton's The West And The Rest - the title derived from Samuel Huntington's Clash Of Civilisations - contains two key points that make it clear it will require more than guns and butter to rein in Islamic militancy.
First, he reminds us that 'Islam' means not 'peace', but 'submission' - specifically, submission to the will of Allah. 'The Muslim is the one who has surrendered, submitted, and so obtained security.'
The Singapore Government's White Paper on the arrests of Jemaah Islamiah (JI) members for terrorism-related activity offers a chilling corroboration. Many JI members, it says, 'continued studying (under the radical teacher Ibrahim Maidin) not only because of the search for religious knowledge, but also the sense of Muslim fraternity and companionship'.
Searching for a 'no-fuss path to heaven', these would-be terrorists wanted to be convinced that in the JI they had found 'true Islam', and thus freed themselves 'from endless searching, as they found it stressful to be critical, evaluative and rational'.
To be sure, Islam is not the only religion providing refuge from the stresses of modernity; most religions do.
In Islam, however, today's practitioners are confronted with compelling teachings and teachers that make it hard for them to figure right from wrong, orthodox from unorthodox, mainstream from deviant.
As Prof Scruton shows, Islam's murky ideological swamp predates the Al-Qaeda or Taleban. Wahhabism, the radical sect named for an 18th century zealot, was one important precursor. Another precursor was the formation in Egypt in the late 1920s of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose avowed aim was to rid Egypt of foreign powers. The Muslim Brotherhood established a pattern of violence and insurrection that was followed elsewhere, including in Indonesia, where the Darul Islam - inspirational father to the JI - fought with the revolutionary army against Dutch colonial rule.
Then there was Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran, who showed that a radical, violent Islam was not only possible in the modern world but also exportable to the West.
He said in 1984: 'War is a blessing for the world and for every nation. It is Allah himself who commands men to wage war and to kill.'
Killing them, indeed, was doing them a service: 'If one allows the infidels to continue playing their role of corrupters on Earth, their eventual moral punishment will be all the stronger. Thus, if we kill the infidels in order to put a stop to their (corrupting) activities... their eventual punishment will be less.'
That logic, however perverse, continues to resonate with and inspire young men across the Islamic world.
The greatest danger, however, is in the periphery of Islam moving to the centre. As intelligent, educated Muslims sympathise with the radicals, they bring with them a level of intellectual and operational sophistication that in time to come will render Islamic militancy as potent a threat as communism was 50 years ago.
The story of Yazid Sufaat, reported in the Asian Wall Street Journal on Monday, is instructive. Son of a poor Malaysian rubber tapper, Yazid was a scholarship student sent by the Malaysian government to California in 1982 to study biochemisty. He was meant to return a progressive professional, a poster boy for Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's social engineering towards a prosperous modern society.
Instead, the 38-year-old sits today in a Kuala Lumpur prison. The middle-class militant is suspected of abetting two Sept 11 hijackers and of being involved in the Bali blasts.
Like the 'conscientisation' sessions of 1960s liberation theology, militant Islam combines religious precepts with those of social justice - or what it deems as social justice. As the JI White Paper notes, JI teachers employed 'the tactic of inserting into lectures quotations from the Quran and Hadith, discussion on jihad and the plight of suffering Muslims worldwide'.
The other chilling point from Prof Scruton is that unlike Western individualist secularism, Islam is in a very fundamental sense a totalitarian doctrine: It seeks to embrace and subordinate to its dictates the totality of life. The ulama ('those with knowledge') have their authority directly from God. The syariah, the revealed will of God, is the only sanction for law.
The point is affirmed by Iraq-born Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, who wrote in The Islamic Conception Of Justice that Muslims took for granted that political justice was 'an expression of God's will as interpreted and put into practice by the Prophet', and, after the Prophet's death, by his legitimate successors.
Such an ideological framework is not only devoid of church or holy orders; taken to its logical conclusion, it also denies any official compact with the state and regards secular authority, by definition, as being without legitimacy.
'Like the Communist Party in its Leninist construction,' Prof Scruton says, 'Islam aims to control the state without being a subject of the state.'
What does this all mean for the war against radicalism?
The secular prescription is obvious. For the sake of peaceful and sustainable co-existence, Islam's best hope is under the same framework that binds other religions to the state, in which religious institutions are subordinated in temporal matters to temporal authorities.
Some scholars, including Muslim ones, have noted that Islam is today at the point that Christianity was when the Reformation took place. They postulate that the throes the religion is undergoing are not dissimilar to those that Christianity went through before the separation of church and state became accepted within Christianity.
As Islam awaits its equivalent of Martin Luther, however, national governments have only one option: tough, strong and secular leadership that heads off exclusivist tendencies before they take deeper root.
Even the Malaysian government is coming round to that: Defence Minister Najib Tun Razak warned yesterday that growing intolerance towards non- Muslims and an Islamic religious school system that preaches extremism and hatred threatened the Malaysian way of life. Singapore is no exception.
The writer is Features Editor of The Straits Times.
E-mail: [email protected] -
YUSUF ISLAM (CAT STEVENS)
Islam today is one of the most misunderstood phenomena. Unfortunately, people are looking at Muslims by some of the incidents which we see going on in the world today, which are supposed to be a reflection of Islam. They are not a reflection of Islam. They are a reflection of badly misbehaving Muslims. That is the problem which is besetting the Muslim community.
There are, of course, very good elements and good practising Muslims but these are not normally seen. It is usually the bad and the most sensational elements which are shown on television and in the media. The way to solve this is for someone not to look at the Muslim, but to look at Islam. It would be wrong for someone to judge a car as being a bad car if the driver of the car was drunk and he crushed into a fence. You say, "That car is bad." It has nothing to do with the car. It is to do with the driver. So you must look at the car and see what kind of a car it is. How many miles it does for a gallon and so on. Once we look at the actual description of what the car is then you will see that there is nothing wrong with the car. It is the driver.
Islam is to guide all human beings in their daily lives, in their spiritual, mental and physical dimensions. But we must find the source of this instruction which is, firstly, in the Qur'an and then secondly in the examples of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) being the last Prophet. So once we come to these two things, the Qur'an and then the example of the Prophet, which is called the 'sunnah' of the Prophet, then we can see the ideal Islam.
http://www.islam.gov.my/e-rujukan/call.html -
Please dun involve race or Islam here k?
I am a mix Malay Muslim here and it hurts me to see u guys condemn Malays and Muslim at one go.. I know these may just be words but only God knows the solution.. Ur life here is short, try to live as happily as u can...
-
The Basis of Muslim Belief
By Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar)
Dilemma of Applying Reason
Almost all of us have been faced with the questioning of a child by repeating one word over and over. He can be very frustrating to us as he asks "Why?" If you put a knife beyond his reach, he wants to know, "Why?" When you explain it is sharp, he asks "Why?" And so you explain, "in order to cut fruit," and he asks, "Why?" And so it goes.
It illustrates the dilemma of applying reason. What we have to do when we apply reason is first to set standards of proof. We decide for ourselves, "What will be satisfied with if I find such and such and so and so that constitutes for me a final proof?". We have to decide on that first.
What happens though, is that on the really important issues, the philosophical matters, thinkers set standards of proof and they take a look at their subjects and eventually they may arrive at their standards. They may arrive at the point which they say would constitute a proof. But then they ask for a proof of the proof.
Setting Standards
The key to avoiding an endless dissatisfaction is to satisfy ourselves about standards first; to satisfy ourselves that such and such are a list of criteria that constitute proof, satisfying proof, and then we test the subjects that we examine. In particular I will apply this to the Qur'an.
Ask a thoughtful Christian why he is a Christian, and he will usually reply, "The miracle of the Resurrection." The basis for his belief being that about two thousand years ago a man died and he was raised from the dead. That is his miracle, his "touchstone", because all else depends on that.
Ask a Muslim, "Well, what is your miracle? Why are you a Muslim? Where is your miracle?" and the Muslim can go over and take his miracle off the shelf and hand it over to you because his miracle is still with us today. It is the Qur'an; it is his "touchstone".
Sign of God
While all the prophets have their signs, Moses had the competition with the magicians and the Pharaoh, Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead and so on, one Sign was given to the last of the prophets. According to the Muslims, this is the Qur'an. And this one Sign is still with us. Does not that after all seem fair, that if prophethood is to end that the last prophet should bring something that stays with us so that, in fact, a Muslim who takes his religion seriously suffers no disadvantage to Muslims who lived fourteen centuries ago?
Those people who kept company with the Prophet had access to no more of the necessary information than we have today. They had the Qur'an. That was the sign for them. It is still a sign to us today, the same miracle.
Well, let us test the Qur'an. Suppose that if I say to a man, "I know your father." Probably he is going to examine the situation and see if it seems likely that I have met his father. If he is not convinced, he will start asking me questions like: "You know my father, you say, is he a tall man? Does he have curly hair? Does he wear glasses?," and so on. If 1 keep giving him the right answers to all these questions, pretty soon he is going to be convinced. "Well, I guess this man did meet my father like he said." You see the method.
The Big Bang Theory
Here in the Qur'an we have a book which claims that its author is one who was present at the beginning of the universe, at the beginning of life. So, we have a right to address that author and say, "Well, tell me something prove to me that you were there when the world began, when life began." The Qur'an gives us an interesting statement. It reads:
“Have not the disbelievers seen that the Heavens and the Earth were one piece and we parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe?” (21:30).
There are three key points here. First of all, it is the disbelievers who are mentioned as being those who would see that the heavens and the earth were one piece and then parted and would see that all life came to be made from water.
As it happens, the universally accepted theory of the origin of the universe is now the Big Bang theory. It maintains that at one time all of the heavens and the earth were one piece, the ‘monoblock’ as it is called. At a particular point in time, this ‘monoblock’ burst and it continues to expand. This gives us the universe we have today. This was a recent discovery, a recent comfirmation.
The Nobel prize in Physics was awarded only a few years ago to those who confirmed the Big Bang origin of the universe. It was only about two hundred years ago that Leeuwenhoek and others perfected the microscope and discovered for the first time that living cells are composed of about eighty percent water.
Those Nobel prize winners and the Dutchman who invented the microscope were not Muslims. And yet they confirmed the vital statement that at one time the universe was one piece, that life was made from water, just as this verse says:
"Have not the disbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were one piece and We parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will They not then believe?" (21:30).
Well, this sounds like an answer to the question we started with when we ask the author. "Tell me something that shows me you were present when the universe began, when life began?"
Atobe and the others, I am not trying to influence anybody to become a Muslim. It is just that I want to share this interesting article that makes me more convinced that Islam is the truth about life. The above is only a small section of the actual. You can go to
http://www.islam.gov.my/e-rujukan/belief.html
for the rest of it. -
Indeed.Pls practise some restrain.
-
Originally posted by kyas:
Only got one word to describe tht.... BULLSH!T. islam is a fake religion. it was stolen thousands of years ago, by your nutjob prophet and his followers. The koran is just a cheap copy of the bible. Have u seen the english translation? Its basically the same. Its many inconsistencies, as compared to the bible, is proof of that. So please don't subject people to your crap.
[b]The Basis of Muslim Belief
By Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar)
Dilemma of Applying Reason
Almost all of us have been faced with the questioning of a child by repeating one word over and over. He can be very frustrating to us as he asks "Why?" If you put a knife beyond his reach, he wants to know, "Why?" When you explain it is sharp, he asks "Why?" And so you explain, "in order to cut fruit," and he asks, "Why?" And so it goes.
It illustrates the dilemma of applying reason. What we have to do when we apply reason is first to set standards of proof. We decide for ourselves, "What will be satisfied with if I find such and such and so and so that constitutes for me a final proof?". We have to decide on that first.
What happens though, is that on the really important issues, the philosophical matters, thinkers set standards of proof and they take a look at their subjects and eventually they may arrive at their standards. They may arrive at the point which they say would constitute a proof. But then they ask for a proof of the proof.
Setting Standards
The key to avoiding an endless dissatisfaction is to satisfy ourselves about standards first; to satisfy ourselves that such and such are a list of criteria that constitute proof, satisfying proof, and then we test the subjects that we examine. In particular I will apply this to the Qur'an.
Ask a thoughtful Christian why he is a Christian, and he will usually reply, "The miracle of the Resurrection." The basis for his belief being that about two thousand years ago a man died and he was raised from the dead. That is his miracle, his "touchstone", because all else depends on that.
Ask a Muslim, "Well, what is your miracle? Why are you a Muslim? Where is your miracle?" and the Muslim can go over and take his miracle off the shelf and hand it over to you because his miracle is still with us today. It is the Qur'an; it is his "touchstone".
Sign of God
While all the prophets have their signs, Moses had the competition with the magicians and the Pharaoh, Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead and so on, one Sign was given to the last of the prophets. According to the Muslims, this is the Qur'an. And this one Sign is still with us. Does not that after all seem fair, that if prophethood is to end that the last prophet should bring something that stays with us so that, in fact, a Muslim who takes his religion seriously suffers no disadvantage to Muslims who lived fourteen centuries ago?
Those people who kept company with the Prophet had access to no more of the necessary information than we have today. They had the Qur'an. That was the sign for them. It is still a sign to us today, the same miracle.
Well, let us test the Qur'an. Suppose that if I say to a man, "I know your father." Probably he is going to examine the situation and see if it seems likely that I have met his father. If he is not convinced, he will start asking me questions like: "You know my father, you say, is he a tall man? Does he have curly hair? Does he wear glasses?," and so on. If 1 keep giving him the right answers to all these questions, pretty soon he is going to be convinced. "Well, I guess this man did meet my father like he said." You see the method.
The Big Bang Theory
Here in the Qur'an we have a book which claims that its author is one who was present at the beginning of the universe, at the beginning of life. So, we have a right to address that author and say, "Well, tell me something prove to me that you were there when the world began, when life began." The Qur'an gives us an interesting statement. It reads:
“Have not the disbelievers seen that the Heavens and the Earth were one piece and we parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe?” (21:30).
There are three key points here. First of all, it is the disbelievers who are mentioned as being those who would see that the heavens and the earth were one piece and then parted and would see that all life came to be made from water.
As it happens, the universally accepted theory of the origin of the universe is now the Big Bang theory. It maintains that at one time all of the heavens and the earth were one piece, the ‘monoblock’ as it is called. At a particular point in time, this ‘monoblock’ burst and it continues to expand. This gives us the universe we have today. This was a recent discovery, a recent comfirmation.
The Nobel prize in Physics was awarded only a few years ago to those who confirmed the Big Bang origin of the universe. It was only about two hundred years ago that Leeuwenhoek and others perfected the microscope and discovered for the first time that living cells are composed of about eighty percent water.
Those Nobel prize winners and the Dutchman who invented the microscope were not Muslims. And yet they confirmed the vital statement that at one time the universe was one piece, that life was made from water, just as this verse says:
"Have not the disbelievers seen that the heavens and the earth were one piece and We parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will They not then believe?" (21:30).
Well, this sounds like an answer to the question we started with when we ask the author. "Tell me something that shows me you were present when the universe began, when life began?"
Atobe and the others, I am not trying to influence anybody to become a Muslim. It is just that I want to share this interesting article that makes me more convinced that Islam is the truth about life. The above is only a small section of the actual. You can go to
http://www.islam.gov.my/e-rujukan/belief.html
for the rest of it.
[/b]