Utusan has put up a two big cover pages in succession with a different Islamic scholar but each of them declares that it is forbidden to support DAP save for the exception of MCA and MIC. According to their demented logic, DAP doesn't recognize Islam’s pre-eminence. But then again, DAP has repeated so many times that it recognizes that Malaysia is a secular nation with Islam as the official religion. I don't recall having seen such logic as defined in either the holy books but as someone who has a rough idea - that logic absurd and non-existent.
Misinterpreting that phrase will get you into tons of headaches and confusion. This is apparently the intended goal that is indirectly intended by UMNO with some of those clerics quoted of saying that. The religion is already been used as a political tool now by UMNO as what PAS did many years back. This is already, out of control religious interference into the system of administration.
When Lim Kit Siang famously hammered Barisan in the early 90s over the Bank Bumiputra scandal in Hong Kong, many of those accused him of being all sorts of time - like naughty, chauvinist, a foreign power instrument and attempting to undermine a Bumiputra institution. This was not very well known outside the Parliament circles and was kept under wraps in order to keep people in the dark, but when with the power of Internet, people have started to ask questions about that the government finds it hard to keep in tabs. Seems that the skeletons in the closet have come out to haunt politicians in this time period for their mischief.
A pity that there are still a portion of Malaysians who do not use their brain to think, when they are presented with such statements above, or they could have forgotten of what happened the other way round almost a dozen years ago. In 2001, when Dr. Mahathir famously declared that Malaysia is an Islamic state, none of UMNO's partners dare to have the "testicles" to rebut that statement in contrary to what was written in the Constitution nor what was affirmed by the first three Prime Ministers.
During the two years leading to the 2008 general elections, many of us have repeatedly whacked MCA and MIC for not doing their job right and rather becoming a running dog for UMNO. Why this happened and why that 2001 incident happened all ties up to one common reason: they would be whacked one way or another in a subtle way. To this day, the big partners MCA and MIC have yet to recover to the level of respect they wanted. Instead, every time people like Chua Soi Lek talks trash on television on main print, everyone will really say something that is not going to stand well with those two parties.
While Barisan attacks the opposition for doing what is right, they are actually selling out the country by failing to control illegal immigrants to come in, amassing the mass riches for themselves while claiming to protect the Malay race from everything, and claiming to represent the people but actually doing things opposite that put ordinary people in misery. So much of being cheated of false promises more by the party that rules for 55 years and not the opposition who has yet be given the chance to demonstrate their ability to run in national scale.
There are people who had the foresight and are concerned that the interference from the church or the religion would put a damp to the country's stability and confusion in administering the law and system, since religious law differs in various aspects in contrast with the secular law.
As what RPK said recently, "Eventually, Christendom saw the separation of church and state. But this did not happen overnight. It took more than 1,000 years for that to happen. Islam, however, although it took the same route as Christianity to spread, did not go the same route of separation of church and state, as Christianity had."
I previously touched about Kemal Attaturk in my previous posting, a reminder to PAS. I said:
The one that is closest to the situation of secular / hudud law is Kemal Ataturk's implementation of Turkey. It fascinates me that he had a clear firm hand that religion should be kept out of every day administration, even though he himself is a Muslim. To his mind, there is a certain believe that the Ottoman law and sex segregation prevented social interaction between men and women - required to further advance the country.
Here, Raja Petra also mentioned another point about Kemal Attaturk:
Kemal Attaturk and Lee Kuan Yew are the two notable figures of the 20th century whom I noted that attempted to prepare the country to face the harsh realities of the outside world, in the level of the great empires of the 20th century like America, Europe, Russia and even China. And they have eventually succeeded in doing so. While doing that, they (Attaturk in particular) are branded traitors to their religion by many naysayers. Ultimately, they were right in the end.
There are also several literary references where the character branded the outcast by a society ultimately wins on the long run and eventually proven right. You can take the Weasley family - proven right to the end despite branded as a blood-traitor (the love of other levels of society rather than their own) or even Batman, once considered as a outcast but proven to be savior at the time of desperation.
When that day happens what will then happen to those who hold power but proven wrong? Whine and say that the society has lost direction? They are not likely to make an apology or neither they are unwilling to take the reality that is now.
Misinterpreting that phrase will get you into tons of headaches and confusion. This is apparently the intended goal that is indirectly intended by UMNO with some of those clerics quoted of saying that. The religion is already been used as a political tool now by UMNO as what PAS did many years back. This is already, out of control religious interference into the system of administration.
When Lim Kit Siang famously hammered Barisan in the early 90s over the Bank Bumiputra scandal in Hong Kong, many of those accused him of being all sorts of time - like naughty, chauvinist, a foreign power instrument and attempting to undermine a Bumiputra institution. This was not very well known outside the Parliament circles and was kept under wraps in order to keep people in the dark, but when with the power of Internet, people have started to ask questions about that the government finds it hard to keep in tabs. Seems that the skeletons in the closet have come out to haunt politicians in this time period for their mischief.
A pity that there are still a portion of Malaysians who do not use their brain to think, when they are presented with such statements above, or they could have forgotten of what happened the other way round almost a dozen years ago. In 2001, when Dr. Mahathir famously declared that Malaysia is an Islamic state, none of UMNO's partners dare to have the "testicles" to rebut that statement in contrary to what was written in the Constitution nor what was affirmed by the first three Prime Ministers.
During the two years leading to the 2008 general elections, many of us have repeatedly whacked MCA and MIC for not doing their job right and rather becoming a running dog for UMNO. Why this happened and why that 2001 incident happened all ties up to one common reason: they would be whacked one way or another in a subtle way. To this day, the big partners MCA and MIC have yet to recover to the level of respect they wanted. Instead, every time people like Chua Soi Lek talks trash on television on main print, everyone will really say something that is not going to stand well with those two parties.
While Barisan attacks the opposition for doing what is right, they are actually selling out the country by failing to control illegal immigrants to come in, amassing the mass riches for themselves while claiming to protect the Malay race from everything, and claiming to represent the people but actually doing things opposite that put ordinary people in misery. So much of being cheated of false promises more by the party that rules for 55 years and not the opposition who has yet be given the chance to demonstrate their ability to run in national scale.
There are people who had the foresight and are concerned that the interference from the church or the religion would put a damp to the country's stability and confusion in administering the law and system, since religious law differs in various aspects in contrast with the secular law.
As what RPK said recently, "Eventually, Christendom saw the separation of church and state. But this did not happen overnight. It took more than 1,000 years for that to happen. Islam, however, although it took the same route as Christianity to spread, did not go the same route of separation of church and state, as Christianity had."
I previously touched about Kemal Attaturk in my previous posting, a reminder to PAS. I said:
The one that is closest to the situation of secular / hudud law is Kemal Ataturk's implementation of Turkey. It fascinates me that he had a clear firm hand that religion should be kept out of every day administration, even though he himself is a Muslim. To his mind, there is a certain believe that the Ottoman law and sex segregation prevented social interaction between men and women - required to further advance the country.
Here, Raja Petra also mentioned another point about Kemal Attaturk:
No doubt Islam had Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the
Father of Modern Turkey, the seat of the Ottoman Empire, who attempted
to impose the separation of church and state. Atatürk, however, although
viewed as a reformist by those from the west, is viewed as a traitor by
most Muslim scholars. In fact, people like the PAS President, Abdul
Hadi Awang, label Atatürk as an apostate and one of Islam’s greatest
traitors.
The notion of separation of church
and state is not an acceptable concept in Islam. And any ‘true’ Muslim
would agree with this. To disagree would make you a deviant Muslim or a
Muslim who is defying God’s command and who is violating the Qur’an.
Fine, maybe separation being unacceptable is what makes people unhappy about, but in the modern times, it is no longer putting too much stock into the religion. It is as what Darwin or that mutant En-Sabah-Nur (Apocalypse) used to say "only the strong in the chain will survive". In this case, Malaysia can't survive the harsh realities of the outside modern world if we have people like those two ulamaks, and other people who seem to look at the angle of religion as threatening their own race.
Kemal Attaturk and Lee Kuan Yew are the two notable figures of the 20th century whom I noted that attempted to prepare the country to face the harsh realities of the outside world, in the level of the great empires of the 20th century like America, Europe, Russia and even China. And they have eventually succeeded in doing so. While doing that, they (Attaturk in particular) are branded traitors to their religion by many naysayers. Ultimately, they were right in the end.
There are also several literary references where the character branded the outcast by a society ultimately wins on the long run and eventually proven right. You can take the Weasley family - proven right to the end despite branded as a blood-traitor (the love of other levels of society rather than their own) or even Batman, once considered as a outcast but proven to be savior at the time of desperation.
When that day happens what will then happen to those who hold power but proven wrong? Whine and say that the society has lost direction? They are not likely to make an apology or neither they are unwilling to take the reality that is now.
There would be a day where the talk of religion as politics will not save a country or the world from the disasters to come. There are many things in the world that knows no religious boundaries so if that is the case that many of us know accept that, shouldn't we all be branded as apostate or deviants like what people like Hasan Ali or Ridhuan Tee would call?
Finally, let's go back to the DAP question. What will the two ulamaks say if they were eventually proven wrong? DAP wouldn't go as far as having 1/3rd of representatives in Parliament so they can never call their own shots at everything. The party only wanted to uphold what was already established as the nation's foundation stone. That's all that is. Speaking of which, the two ulamaks never mentioned of ridding of corruption. It simply implies of following false prophets and tells people to continue the culture of Ali Baba, patronage and bribing. What's wrong is halal now it seems.
People have called others who don't share their ideals as "infidels" or called countries like Britain as "infidel country" but yet they have conducted themselves better with minimal level of corruption - which adheres to even Islam and other religion core principles. But then these people are committing tons of acts that Islam forbids. Who's the loser eventually? Who's eventually proven right? It's the moment when those people who found themselves on the wrong end that I really wish to see, especially of those two.
Finally, let's go back to the DAP question. What will the two ulamaks say if they were eventually proven wrong? DAP wouldn't go as far as having 1/3rd of representatives in Parliament so they can never call their own shots at everything. The party only wanted to uphold what was already established as the nation's foundation stone. That's all that is. Speaking of which, the two ulamaks never mentioned of ridding of corruption. It simply implies of following false prophets and tells people to continue the culture of Ali Baba, patronage and bribing. What's wrong is halal now it seems.
People have called others who don't share their ideals as "infidels" or called countries like Britain as "infidel country" but yet they have conducted themselves better with minimal level of corruption - which adheres to even Islam and other religion core principles. But then these people are committing tons of acts that Islam forbids. Who's the loser eventually? Who's eventually proven right? It's the moment when those people who found themselves on the wrong end that I really wish to see, especially of those two.
thank's for your information
ReplyDelete