06/01: Substance over rhetoric

Posted By: Raja Petra

I don’t think we can look at so-called religions for the answer. And with respect to the Muslims, we have to reject most of what we have been told as the rules and regulations have been handed down by dictators and rulers with their own agenda.

Most of you may have had trouble accessing our site the whole day yesterday. That was because we were hit by massive DDOS attacks which practically rendered our site inaccessible to all. We were trying the whole day to block the attacks and at the same time trying to trace the source of the attacks which came from a Singapore data-centre. The previous attacks, which closed us down for about six to seven hours a day, almost the entire week, came from Europe.

I am beginning to suspect that some very unhappy people are trying to put us out of business. Rest assured, however, we have put in some new hardware with a completely new database system around Christmas last year to pre-empt further attacks. I know many of you do not like this new layout but it is necessary in the interest of security. We are still working around the clock to strengthen our security system and we hope the frequent interruptions will soon be a thing of the past.

Now, onto the next subject, the current controversy surrounding the use of the word 'Allah'. On Wednesday, Malaysia's Cabinet ruled that those not of the Muslim faith are prohibited from using the word 'Allah' in reference to God. This is to avoid 'confusion”, whatever that means. I can only assume this is to avoid Muslims from thinking that Muslims and non-Muslims share the same God or that we all pray to the same God. Or maybe it is to prevent Muslims from praying to the 'wrong' God, the God of the non-Muslims. (And I was led to believe that there is only one God who made all of us).

In Passion of the Christ that starred Mel Gibson, 'Jesus' was shown as speaking Aramaic and he used the Aramaic word 'Alla' to address God. Allah, in Arabic, is rooted in the word Ellah, which means a god (any god). The word 'Allah', therefore, simply means 'God', be it in Judaism, Christianity or Islam. 'Allah' was also the word that Arabs during the pre-Islamic period used in reference to God. Therefore it can be said that 'Allah' is a word that all religions share, including those considered pagans, and is not exclusive to Islam, which in the first place 'lifted' the word from others.

Muslims appear to focus more on rhetoric rather than the substance of the religion. This is not only true for Malay Muslims but inflicts Muslims the world over. Take this news item below as an example.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Row over abortion right for rape victims in Egypt

By Ramadan Al Sherbini, Correspondent

Cairo (1 Jan 2008): With an estimated 20,000 cases of rape annually, some Egyptian lawmakers are pushing for giving rape victims the right to abortion. According to the semi-official newspaper Al Ahram, an MP has presented a draft bill to the parliament demanding an amendment to the Egyptian law to allow pregnant women, who have been raped, to go for abortion. The aim, according to MP Khalil Qouta, is to curb an increasing number of children of unknown parents in Egypt.

“Any girl or woman, who is subjected to rape, has the right in Islam to have abortion at anytime, and she would not commit a sin for doing this,” said Egypt’s top Muslim cleric Mohammad Sayed Tantawi. Giving his blessing to the pro-abortion bill, Tantawi, who is the Grand Shaikh of Al Azhar, demanded that women given the right to abortion should have done their best to resist the rapist.

His fatwa (religious edict) has drawn opposition, though. “Endorsing the right to abortion in the cases of rape has several risks,” said Fawzia Abdul Sattar, a professor of criminal law. “In the first place, this bill deals with the aftermath of the crime, but not the crime itself,” she told Gulf News. “Legalising abortion for rape victims may well encourage immoral behaviour on the part of girls involved in illicit affairs, who would manipulate the code and claim they were raped.”

Abdul Sattar also warns that some 'unscrupulous' medical professionals could take advantage of the bill to perform illegal abortion on immoral women. “Rather, we need to promote ethics and religious piety in order to encounter the crime of rape,” she said.

Pro-life supporters like Mohammad Rafaat, a professor of Sharia (Islamic Law), believe that abortion for the raped women should be conducted only in the first days before a foetus forms. “There is a consensus among Muslim scholars that the abortion is not permissible 120 days after the conception occurs.” Rafaat urges the government to set up medical centres to treat victims immediately after they are raped. “This can help remove the effects of rape before the foetus is formed,” he said.

While supporting the right to abortion for raped women, Nehad Abul Qumsan, the chairperson of the Egyptian Centre for Women’s Rights, balks at the suggestion that abortion can be carried out at any time. “Many women give birth to premature babies in the seventh or eighth month after conception. Should they be allowed to have abortion at this time?” she asked. “I think the issue should be resolved from the beginning and abortion restricted to cases when the foetus is not formed,” she said.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, while 'liberal' Malaysia argues whether non-Muslims should be allowed the use of the word 'Allah' in reference to God, those in 'liberal' Cairo (where drinking liquor is not frowned upon and some smoke during the month of Ramadhan because they consider that smoking does not nullify the fast) are arguing whether abortion for raped women should be allowed in the event 'immoral' women use this 'loophole'.

Yusuf Estes rightly said that he loves Islam but he hates Muslims. Many prominent converts to Islam in fact share his view. And I, who in a way 'converted' to Islam later in life though I was 'officially' born a Muslim, do not differ in this view. Who in heaven's name, you may ask, is this dude Yusuf Estes? Is he someone important or an authority on Islam? Well, let me put to rest any anxiety you may harbour on who this dude is.

Yusuf Estes, PhD., is an American convert to Islam and Chairman of The Muslim Foundation International, an Islamic promotional and missionary organisation dedicated to spreading the message of Islam. He was brought up as a Protestant Christian and was a member of The Disciples of Christ.

From 1962 until 1990, Estes had a varied career as a music minister, preacher, and the owner of the Estes Piano and Organ Company. He was born in 1944 and lived in Texas and Florida. In 1991, Estes 'discovered' Islam and converted to Islam that same year along with his wife, father, and step-mother. He has since pursued Arabic language and Quranic studies in Egypt, Morocco and Turkey.

Estes has been regularly appearing on Peace TV, which is a 24/7 Islamic channel broadcasting to many countries around the globe. Estes' Islamic activities include:

1) Volunteer Imam in a Texas military installation.

2) National U.S Chaplain for the Federal Bureau of Prisons since 1994.

3) Delegate to the United Nations Peace Summit for Religious Leaders in August of 2000.

4) University guest speaker.

5) Television preacher, syndicated television programs on satellite and cable networks.

6) Maintaining Islamic websites.

Estes is also well-known for his website motto which he regularly uses at the end of his speeches and interviews: 'Visit Islamalways.com. We're open 24 hours a day and there's always plenty of free parking'.

Another prominent convert from the West sent me this e-mail which I thought I just have to share it with you. Unfortunately I do not have permission to identify the writer so the person will have to remain anonymous. But rest assured that this is a genuine message from a prominent convert whom I personally know and have met.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing you today as I have read 'Fruit From A Poisonous Tree Will Be Poisonous' and wanted to give you my take on the matter.

You ask, how can a good religion make people bad?

To answer this question we have to understand what religion is. Religion is man-made. If we look at the early generations of Muslims, the first two Caliphs for instance, we see a pretty just system. But from there it goes downhill. We have Muslim fighting Muslim, rules and regulations implemented based on frail human understanding and often with less than pious motives, and we see Muslims seeking power rather than Imaan.

Islam is no different from Judaism and Christianity in this respect – they have all lost their way as 'religions'. Faith is one of the most powerful motivators – it can lead men to murder, to corruption and to all sorts of horrific acts, and it is often used by tyrants to accomplish these things. But at the core of it is one human trait that we must always struggle to suppress and that is our desire to be better than others.

We all want notoriety and often 'religion' is used as a way of separating us, as making us think we are better than others, that we somehow are the 'chosen' ones. Look at the division within the Muslim Ummah and the fights over who is the 'saved sect'. Is there a man on earth who really knows for sure how to secure a sacred place in the hereafter?

I don’t think we can look at so-called religions for the answer. And with respect to the Muslims, we have to reject most of what we have been told as the rules and regulations have been handed down by dictators and rulers with their own agenda.

Islam has no Pope. As Muslims, our relationship with Allah is direct. Instead, we look to scholars and leaders as if they have some inside track to God. In Pakistan and Egypt, the Muslims kiss the hands of the Sheikhs, throw money at them and elevate their status. While surely we can gain knowledge from learned men, we need to filter out personal motives and validate so-called 'knowledge'.

Travelling the world as I have, I can tell you that Islam in Malaysia and Turkey, for instance, is drastically different. Look at Saudi Arabia as another example. Women there are not allowed to drive. Yet, in Islam, women are equal and are not restricted from working or achieving skills! Many cultural things have found their way into the 'truth'. How can that be when there is only one truth? I conclude that much 'truth' is man-made!

I have great compassion for your current situation having gone through a similar thing myself. The more I understand, the more I reject organised religion. It seems to me that we are focusing on man-made details while totally side-lining the source of faith.

The Quran is a book for all time, as are the other Holy Books. Yet Islam, today, is based more on Hadith and the life of the Prophet (pbuh), Fatwas, Islamic precedence, cultural traditions, etc., than on the Quran. Let’s face it – you can get a Fatwa to justify anything these days. If we find a ruling we don’t like, presto – we find a Sheikh who will endorse it. We really have to make sure that our own arrogance does not cloud our vision, and that is something I am constantly trying to keep in check.

In Malaysia, the situation is more complex as there are religious differences and a hefty amount of racism that magnifies the differences. You have so-called Muslim leaders using their position to condone their own behaviour and condemn those they choose. And they do this in the name of religion. But the obvious question is - where is the justice?

Allah said do not take the Christians and the Jews as (CLOSE) friends. This only makes sense – it’s logical. Ultimately, a different faith will eventually limit those relationships but that does not mean we must abuse Christians and Jews or that all of them are 'evil' – that goes against what Allah tells us in the Quran. Allah tells us to wage war against the OPPRESSORS within His LIMITS and to respect the People of the Book but somehow we let this get twisted by men with personal agendas.

Brother, as a Royal son of Selangor, I think you have your priorities upside down. You have worked tirelessly for your country and I know the country’s problems trouble you a great deal and you put a lot of effort into trying to instigate change. This, no doubt, is also partly expected of you. But you cannot condone bad Muslim behaviour because you are Muslim and you cannot turn a blind eye to Allah’s justice because of your patriotism.

The world map is changing even as we speak and there is no guarantee that Malaysia, as we know it, will even remain. We need to hold onto those things that pass the test of time like divine truth and justice even if it makes us unpopular. Working tirelessly at deciphering truth will reap much greater rewards for mankind and in the hereafter.

I no longer take what other Muslims tell me as truth. I too am at the stage of my life where I see hypocrisy everywhere and, for me, I don’t buy a lot of the interpretations of Islam as they are now presented. I come back to the Quran and the guiding principles and contemplate these at the source. That often puts me at odds with other Muslims but I really think we must each travel our own path to truth. Is this not the purpose of life?

Faith is an individual journey, not a 'religion', and Allah gave us a brain, a conscience and freewill to choose right from wrong. I think we must focus internally before we act externally and we must be cautious that we don’t get caught up in the politics of the day or 'religious' trends that will be long gone tomorrow. Faith is not a coat we put on and instantly we are pious. We must come to know that we know that we know. It's a learning process.

There will never be peace without justice. We need to stand on the side of justice whether that is with the Muslims or non-Muslims, believers or unbelievers. We are so busy sweating the details that we often miss the real truth. We know deep down what is right as long as we let Allah be our guide, and once we are at peace with what is right, we need to act. Knowledge is useless unless we use it. We need to get our eye off men and onto Allah because with Allah we have hope, guidance and mercy and with man, our future is futile.

You are a very blessed individual brother. Allah tests those He loves – often relentlessly. It seems to me you have reached the point that Allah is requiring you to make a choice. Love of your country or love of Him. That does not mean that you will not be able to help your country nor does it mean that you have to stand with the so-called Muslims who are using Islam for their own purposes. Allah is asking you to put Him first. Our requirement is only to submit and leave the outcome to Him and let us never underestimate His capability. He’s got you covered!

That’s my two bits brother.

May Allah help and guide us. Ameen.

Wa salam.

05/01 Warlords and heavyweights: two peas in a pod

Posted By: Raja Petra Kamarudin

Actually, the attitude of the opposition is no different from that of the ruling coalition. The only small difference is that the opposition is not in power, yet. It makes one wonder whether if the opposition comes to power things would be different. From the way they are conducting themselves now this does not appear to be so. The opposition heavyweights are as selfish as the Umno warlords.

I have said this before and I will say it again. Sex and politics are the two top sellers. If you talk about these you can't go wrong; your newspaper will surely sell. And if it is a combination of both, sex scandals involving politicians, that is even better. It sells even more and you can safely double your printing order as you can be assured of selling every copy printed.

Incidences of sex scandals involving senior politicians are not something new of course. We have been seeing these pop up from time to time since Merdeka and they will surely keep popping up until long after we are gone. Of course, much of these so-called scandals were mere talk and whispers. As much as they may have made interesting reading, you really could not prove them. That was until quite very recently.

Malaysia was recently entertained by the revelation of a DVD of the Health Minister literally caught with his pants down. I use the word entertained because most were amused rather than shocked at the on-camera revelation of the indiscretion of the Minister who just days before that had propagated safe sex but did not see the need for himself to do the same. Safe sex of course not only involves the usage of condoms but also making sure you do not get caught, especially on camera, and the Health Minister failed in both aspects.

That is the level of Malaysia's moral outrage. No one took to the streets to demonstrate their disgust or displeasure. Yes, there certainly were people running around all over the place, no doubt of that, but they were scrambling helter-skelter to try to get their hands on a copy of the DVD so that they could do some 'academic research' and establish that the DVD indeed features the Minister of Health and not his look-alike or brother.

It was actually a very well-organised and well-coordinated distribution campaign. Teams of distributors went from town to town in Johor to distribute the DVDs to every house and public place. Thousands upon thousands were dished out and no one can claim they did not receive a copy of the DVD. The huge manpower resources and substantial amount of finance required to embark on such an operation could only mean that big bucks were involved here. And it could only have been financed by those with deep pockets.

Chua Soi Lek is of course not quite unknown as a ladies' man. He would in fact brag that he is 'famous' as a Casanova and would tell his peers 'everyone knows I am a womaniser'. As much as one may frown upon such behaviour, at least he was honest about what he is and did not try to hide behind the mask of Islam Hadhari while leading the lifestyle of Paris Hilton.

Woe to any woman who caught Soi Lek's eyes. He would immediately task his bouncers with the job of propositioning her and negotiate whether she is 'for sale'. He did not care whether he was in the presence of strangers or someone whom he might have just met barely minutes ago. Many would relate how they were shocked when Soi Lek whispered in their ear as to whether that woman sitting at the next table or walking by was 'hot' and sleeps around. One man even told Soi Lek to his face that he was shocked and Soi Lek responded with a smile as if the statement was meant as a compliment.

The DVD making its rounds all over the country is not new. It was taken two years ago. As Soi Lek himself admitted, his only mistake was to frequent the same hotel and the same room each time he rendezvoused with his 'partner' and this allowed his enemies to place five cameras all over the room to record the goings-on. Soi Lek does not think he made any other mistake other than that.

But why did they want to record what, as Soi Lek said, is his private affair? Quite simple, really. They wanted to keep that recording as an insurance policy in the event they needed to get rid of him in an opportune time. It is no secret that Soi Lek is very popular amongst the grass-root. His performance in the 2004 elections was much improved over the 1999 elections and his majority can be regarded as very impressive. He speaks well -- in Mandarin, English as well as Bahasa Malaysia -- and is a powerful orator. He is everything that one looks for in a national leader. And he openly declared that the MCA leadership is weak and is due for a change -- meaning he should take over the leadership of MCA.

When the MCA President asked Soi Lek to appoint certain people aligned to the former in some of the local councils, the latter replied that the President should just concentrate on national matters and stay out of Johor State matters. It was Soi Lek's way of telling the President to go jump in the lake. Soi Lek did not hide the fact that he had only contempt for the President and at the next party election scheduled after the coming general election he was going to make a bid for the Presidency of the party.

But the President had other plans. He wanted his brother to replace him as President. So they had no choice, therefore, but to get rid of Soi Lek. And they did this by cashing in the insurance policy they acquired two years ago.

Once this DVD hits the national scene, Soi Lek would have no choice but to resign his party and government posts. And once he no longer holds any post either in the party or the government it would be very difficult for him to even keep his division post, no need to even talk about making a bid for the Presidency. Invariably, he would also have to be dropped as a candidate in the general election thereby sealing his fate once and for all.

While all this was going on though, while Soi Lek was set up to be sent into permanent retirement, not many noticed the outburst by the Umno Secretary-General who said that Shahidan Kassim, the Menteri Besar of Perlis, should go. No doubt the excitement of the Soi Lek DVD overshadowed this episode and not many took much notice of the Sec-Gen's outburst. This outburst, however, was not a mere outburst but a cry of frustration by the Sec-Gen who was so depressed that the Umno President a la Prime Minister failed to act on a certain matter that places the Soi Lek DVD scandal way at the bottom of the serious matters scale.

Earlier, the Sec-Gen had brought a Thai girl together with the brother of a certain state Ruler, who was also a Wakil Rakyat, to meet the Prime Minister. A lady doctor was also in the delegation. The girl then testified that Shahidan had made her pregnant and then arranged for her to have an abortion. The lady doctor confirmed that this was so and that she had performed the abortion. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi appeared perturbed and asked the Wakil Rakyat whether his brother, the Ruler, knew about this matter. The Wakil Rakyat replied that the Ruler has all the facts and is fully aware of the matter.

The Sec-Gen then told Abdullah that this was not the only girl whom Shahidan had made pregnant. He personally knows of three such cases and has heard that there are many more. The Sec-Gen added that Shahidan's sexual trysts are perpetrated in the country home of another Minister from Perlis, Azmi Khalid, and sometimes in the office of the Menteri Besar, in the surau or prayer-room of the Menteri Besar's office to be exact.

Abdullah took all this in with a troubled look on his face and promised to do something about it. He then referred the matter to his son-in-law who replied that Shahidan is their strongest and most loyal ally. He, in fact, was instrumental in blocking Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad from entering Perlis. They just can't afford to sack Shahidan. If they do, then the opposition would have a better chance of taking over the state as Shahidan and his team of gangsters is the only thing they have to keep Mahathir and the opposition out of the state. For purposes of political expediency, Shahidan has to be retained.

So Abdullah did nothing and this was what upset the Umno Sec-Gen. Instead, Shahidan, dropped both the Sec-Gen and Azmi from the candidates' list. Abdullah can't afford to lose Shahidan but he can afford to replace the Sec-Gen and Azmi. Perlis has only three Parliament seats and there are many others waiting in the wings to take over as Members of Parliament. But there is only one gangster who can mobilise an 'army' of bouncers to keep the state under a short leash.

Like it or not, Umno is still a party of warlords. And these warlords are those who keep the Umno President in office. And he who is Umno President is also the Prime Minister. You do not replace warlords. You do not sack warlords. Instead, warlords will sack you and replace you with someone else. That has always been how Umno operates and that will always be how it is for a long, long time to come.

It is said that Pakistan is run by just 100 families. It is said that the United States is also the same. In Malaysia, 191 people call the shots and these 191 are the Umno division chiefs.

The 191 Umno division chiefs pick the 2,000 or so delegates to the Umno general assembly. Then the 2,000 or so delegates decide who gets to become President and Deputy President depending on the choice of the 191 division chiefs. In fact, in the first place, the 191 division chiefs decide whether there will be a contest for the Presidency and Deputy Presidency or whether there should be no contest. If the 191 division chiefs decide that there should be no contest and the President and Deputy President should be allowed to continue indefinitely then this should be what happens. And these 191 division chiefs also sit in the Supreme Council and Cabinet where the policies are made and which cannot be challenged in any court of law.

Most of the 191 Umno warlords or division chiefs do not think Abdullah is capable. They think he is the worst Prime Minister Malaysia ever had. Many, which holds true for most Malaysians as well, look back on the good old days of Mahathir. They in fact would not mind if Mahathir came back as Prime Minister in spite of the fact when he was in office they rated him the worst Prime Minister Malaysia ever had. But these 191 Umno warlords, or 190 if you exclude Abdullah, realise that a Prime Minister of the likes of Abdullah is better to have around than the likes of Mahathir. Abdullah never makes any decisions. In fact, he is so scared of making decisions and would fall back on his son-in-law for advice and would follow whatever advice the latter may offer.

The son-in-law knows he is not popular. Harbouring ambitions of becoming Prime Minister at age 40 is a pie in the sky and extremely risky to boot. Whether he can even win the post of Umno Youth leader or, later, become one of the Vice Presidents is stretching the imagination. In Umno, as in most political parties, you need grass-root support. And if you do not have this grass-root support then you need to ride on those who do, and in this case it would be the 191 Umno division chiefs.

Sure, the Umno division chiefs may be scum of the earth and slime-balls. Most warlords are anyway in almost all the countries where warlords call the shots. But it is because they are scum of the earth and slime-balls that they are where they are; meaning Umno division chiefs. So you need to work with these people. You need to get their support. And you do not worry about morals and ethics because warlords do not have any. What they have is power and the strength to mobilise the grass-root. And that is how you become Umno President and Prime Minister, by mobilising grass-root support.

Sex scandals will not sway the voters. Corruption will not sway the voters. Heck, even murder does not seem to sway the voters. If it did then Barisan Nasional would have been out of office a long time ago. Musa Aman, the Chief Minister of Sabah, was worth RM300 million barely a few years ago when he took over the running of the state. Today, in a few short years, he is worth RM1 billion. How he acquired RM300 million on taking office and how it grew to RM1 billion in a few short years has already been discussed at great length, so we need not go into all that again. But the voters will not kick Musa Aman out. So Abdullah need not kick him out either. After all, he has given Abdullah's family plenty of money and even underwrote the entire cost of the late Endon's medical expenses in the US plus Khairy's cost to acquire shares in ECM Libra.

There are only two things that worry Abdullah. First would be an internal rebellion and conflict within Umno. But if you leave the warlords alone and close your eyes to their sex scandals and corruption you need not worry that they will turn on you. Second, of course, would be that the voters kick you out. But with the opposition so weak and fragmented and making conflicting statements there is no danger that the opposition can garner enough support to kick out the ruling party.

Abdullah would best leave things as they are. The next general election could be as soon as before Chinese New Year about a month from today. This means within a fortnight or so Parliament would probably be dissolved. With less than a month to go why the need to rock the boat?

The outcome of the general election hinges on the Elections Commission. Considering the first-past-the-post system that Malaysia practices, it is not votes but seats that determine who gets to form the government. The opposition is expected to garner at least 40% of the votes. Based on a voter turnout of roughly eight million, this would give the opposition 3.2 million votes. That would mean 4.8 million votes will go to the 14-member ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional, giving it a majority of only 1.6 million votes. But that is all it needs to come back to power with a comfortable two-thirds majority. And the warlords and power-brokers will remain in office and will continue serving Abdullah as long as he continues serving them. That is how it works in a 'you scratch my back, I scratch yours' culture which has become not only Umno's culture but Malaysian culture at large.

The Elections Commission Chairman's term of office has actually expired. But Abdullah did not request the Agong's consent in extending it lest His Majesty says no like he did in the case of the Chief Justice. Abdullah knew he faced a great risk by requesting the Agong's consent. So, instead, he went before Parliament and amended the law which will now allow the Prime Minister to extend the tenure of the Elections Commission Chairman without requiring the consent of the Agong.

Then a stack of papers which required the Agong's signature were presented before His Majesty. Amongst that of course was the amendment bill whereby the Elections Commission Chairman can be extended a year beyond retirement without requiring the consent of the Agong. The Agong can now be by-passed and ignored and there is nothing His Majesty can do about it. It was now legal to bypass the Agong and illegal for the Agong to block the move. Any move by the Agong would be seen as unreasonable and unconstitutional so the best His Majesty could do was just sign the papers and not make any noise. Doing otherwise might work against His Majesty and the very institution of the Monarchy itself.

Abdullah is not really as stupid as he looks after all. He of course goes around creating that impression as a fall-back so that, at worse, you can just accuse him of being stupid but never of being devious, manipulative or exploitive. The Elections Commission Chairman has made it very clear, without holding back his punches, that his job is to ensure that the Malays will not lose political domination. He is not apologetic or evasive about this. He says this openly to anyone who cares to listen. Since the Malays have lost economic domination to the Chinese and the Chinese now practically control the entire economy, what is wrong with the Malays, in turn, having political domination?

That argument makes everything legitimate and noble. No one can fault you for 'maintaining stability' and ensuring that the 'delicate racial balance' is not shattered by race riots in the event the Malays lose political domination after losing economic domination to the Chinese. This is the only way, argues the Elections Commission Chairman, to guarantee that the Malays and Chinese will not go for each others throats, or rather the Malays will not go for the Chinese throats that will see Malaysia explode into another May 13, as how the government is so fond of reminding us.

The Chinese are blatantly reminded that they can retain economic domination as long as the Malays retain political domination. But if the Malays suffer the loss of political domination, then the Chinese would no longer enjoy economic domination. And if Malaysia were to erupt into civil war with the Malays on one side and the Chinese on the other, and of course the security forces being all Malay would certainly be on the side of the Malays, the economy would collapse bringing down Chinese economic domination together with it.

So 'Chinese' seats are large with more than 100,000 voters while 'Malay' seats are as small as 5,000 voters. This way the opposition can win 40% of the votes but not 40% of the seats. And even if the opposition wins 45% of the votes, leaving the ruling coalition 55%, like what happened in 1999, the ruling coalition would still retain power with a comfortable two-thirds majority.

But this would be true only if the opposition voters are Chinese while the ruling party voters are Malay. The opposition has always been perceived as Chinese while the government has always been perceived as Malay. It has always been them and us, Chinese being 'them' and Malays being 'us'. This was how it was since Merdeka 50 years ago. But would this still apply if the Malays, Chinese and Indians unite under the opposition banner and the opposition is no longer race-based but a multi-racial front?

Yes, this is the new scenario emerging in Malaysian politics. No longer is the opposition based on race with the Chinese as the opposition and the Malays as the government supporters. Now it is justice opposed to injustice with both sides seeing equal support from all the races. There are as many angry Chinese and Indians are there are Malays.

There have of course been exceptions to this rule. In 1999, the Malays swung to the opposition while the Chinese stood by the government. But that was not enough. Though the Malay heartland fell to the opposition, the ruling party still managed to retain most states and its two-thirds majority in Parliament as well. Only in 1969 when the Malays and Chinese were both united against the government did the ruling party almost collapse. So it has to be another 1969, not enough just another 1999. But 1969 also brings back other painful memories which the Chinese would not want to see repeated. So will the Chinese dare do another 1969 by uniting with the Malays to deny the ruling coalition its two-thirds majority in Parliament?

Many Chinese feel that the 1969 election result can be repeated without the repeat of the 1969 election aftermath. The Malays of today are not the Malays of 40 years ago, as is also true of the Chinese. Even the Indians of today are not like the Indians of 40 years ago as the recent HINDRAF episode has proven. The Malays, Chinese and Indians are ready to unite, united against the ruling coalition. The BERSIH and HINDRAF events of November 2007 have proven this. As much as the government tried to stoke the anti-Indian fire and get the Malays to rise in anger against the Indians, it did not happen. Many Malays, in fact, support HINDRAF, as do many Chinese support BERSIH.

This is what worries the government. If the races can't be separated by communal interests this does not augur well for the government. They need the different races to be on the brink of civil war without actually going to war. It should be much sabre-rattling and rhetoric without any blows actually being traded. But if the different races lock arms and call one another brother, then this will spell the end of the divide-and-rule strategy.

But the problem is not the different races. The Malays, Chinese and Indians are ready to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. It is the political parties which are the stumbling block to opposition unity. Even after one year they still can't agree on the seat distribution. The next general election could be as soon as one month away but the three opposition parties still can't resolve their many differences. The squabble over seats is just one of the issues, though maybe one of the more important ones. They also refuse to agree to a joint or common election manifesto, each preferring to come out with their own individual manifesto.

It appears like the opposition is the worst enemy of the opposition. The ruling party does not really have to try too hard to defeat the opposition. The opposition is doing that very well by themselves. PAS has its own agenda. DAP has its own agenda. PKR too has it own agenda. And each of them are only interested in their own agenda, not in the opposition agenda. They all want safe seats so that they can be assured of a win even though the rest will not. So the big guns choose the plum seats and fight with each other across parties and within parties for these safe seats, leaving the others to their own devices, to sink or swim as the case may be.

The opposition leaders are also human and, as is common to most humans, they are all very selfish. They do not care about the party. They especially do not care about the opposition coalition. They just want a good seat which they can be assured of winning. PAS, DAP and PKR will not compromise on seats. Each wants the good seats and each will not allow the other these seats. And they will keep these seats for themselves. And the newcomers and not so heavyweights will be given the high risk seats which are assured of falling to the ruling coalition. These are not candidates. These are sacrificial lambs. And the job of sacrificial lambs is to get slaughtered.

The heavyweights should actually be sent to contest in the tough seats. After all, they have been in office many elections and are already well-known. It is time they moved up in the world and prove that they are really good by contesting in the tough seats -- and win, of course -- while allowing the new faces to contest in the safer seats where voters will vote along party lines rather than based on personalities. Those who have been winning in safe seats at least two elections in a row must be sent to battle it out in tougher areas. Let those guaranteed seats be given to newcomers who need all the help they can get. If not we will have the same people in office for generations while no new blood can be groomed to eventually take over the leadership of the party.

Actually, the attitude of the opposition is no different from that of the ruling coalition. The only small difference is that the opposition is not in power, yet. It makes one wonder whether if the opposition comes to power things would be different. From the way they are conducting themselves now this does not appear to be so. The opposition heavyweights are as selfish as the Umno warlords. What we accuse the Umno warlords of we can say the same about the opposition heavyweights. It is frightening to think that changing the government may merely tantamount to out of the frying pan and into the fire.

The opposition can of course prove us wrong. They can sit down and settle the seat allocation issue. They can agree on a joint or common election manifesto. They can offer us just one party to choose from instead of currently three parties with three different election manifestos. And if they do that we might just consider coming out to vote on Polling Day instead of staying home to watch television. And who knows, we might even vote opposition again. If not, then I will have better things to do on Polling Day instead of wasting my vote on a lost cause.

04/01: Resignation of Chua Soi Lek only logical and gentleman

Zuraida Kamaruddin

Ketua Wanita Parti Keadilan Rakyat

KUALA LUMPUR 2 Jan - Referring to the latest scandal outburst committed by MCA Vice President Dr Chua Soi Lek adds on to the long list of immoral practices of the leaders in the BN government.

Wanita Keadilan on behalf of the Malaysian women demand Dr Chua Soi Lek to resign from his Minister of Health post. Chua has put the nation to shame and should be accountable for his act and resign. He is therefore not fit to earn the respect from the public especially so in the fraternity of the health ministry.

Women being the majority of hospital visitors do not tolerate the government's double standard practices on women caught in anti vice raids. In this Chua Soi Lek case, it is much the same and therefore he should be charged.

We also strongly urged that Prime Minister Dr Abdullah Badawi take a courageous stance to terminate Dr Chua Soi Lek service and take heed of the nation voice as a hint to reinforce his weak leadership.

We support the views of Professor Khoo and Umno Cheras Division Chief Senator Datuk Wira Syed Ali Alhabshee that demand for Chua Soi Lek resignation as logical and gentleman.

01/01: When good is bad and bad is good

Raja Petra Kamarudin

It is not that Islam is violent or that Islam teaches violence. It is that all religions are violent and all religions teach violence. The only difference is, Muslims are good Muslims and they follow their religious teachings whereas those of other religions are bad Jews, Christians, etc., in that they do not follow what their religion teaches them.

"Subversives should not be allowed to voice out ideas, says Syed Ali,” screamed the headlines of this Bernama news items yesterday.

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 30 (Bernama) -- Subversives and radicals should not be given opportunities to voice out their ideas and views because they pose a threat to the country's peace and stability, said Cheras Umno chief, Senator Datuk Syed Ali Alhabshee.

"We want the government to take stern action, if there is a need to use the ISA (Internal Security Act), then so be it," he told Bernama.

He was commenting on the remarks by Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak in Keningau, Sabah, yesterday that the government would take stern action against any group bent on creating chaos in the country to gain power.

Earlier, Syed Ali had presented clothes and schooling materials to 50 orphans from Al-Qadim Organisation donated by the Jalan Peel Umno branch and local people's associations.

That was what Bernama reported Syed Ali Alhabshee as saying. In case many of you don't know, 'Syed' means his forefathers (not 'four fathers') came from the land of the Prophet Muhammad. 'Alhabshee', in turn, means his ancestors originally came from Ethiopia. This probably happened in the days when Islam was expanding and the Muslim army was conquering the areas surrounding the Arabian Peninsular. Those who resisted the Muslim army and lost the war would either be killed or captured and taken as slaves (while the beautiful women would become your plaything). So Syed Ali's ancestors were probably Ethiopian prisoners brought back to the Arabian Peninsular as slaves to look after the camels and clean out their shit every morning until the day either they or the camels died.

But Malays, being the simple-minded people that they are and a race that is always awed by anything and everything that allegedly comes from the land of the Prophet, would certainly treat what this descendant of a slave from Ethiopia has to say with great importance (hell, they even made him a Senator). After all, he does carry a 'Syed' in front of his name and all those with a 'Syed' or 'Sharifah' in front of their names are 'special' people because they are supposed to be descendants of the Prophet (or at least descendants of those who cleaned the shit from the Prophet's camels).

Yes, I remember 20 or 30 years ago when parents would offer their anak dara (virgin daughters) to a 'Tok Syed' for the night so that their daughter can 'terima berkat' (receive blessings). This would involve the 'Tok Syed' impregnating the virgin daughter who would then be blessed with the sperm of a descendant of the Prophet. Hey, this is true, no bullshit, and I almost changed my name from 'Raja' to 'Syed' but then I did not see many beauties on offer so it would have been a total waste of time as far as I was concerned (I suppose 'Tok Syeds' are not too fussy and have set lower standards for themselves).

But that is really not what I want to talk about today. What I want to talk about is the recent tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I was shocked when I first received that SMS informing me about the assassination. I just couldn't understand why they would want to do something like that. My immediate and unthinking response was I hope it was not a Muslim who did this. On second thoughts, maybe it is better after all if a Muslim did carry out the assassination because if a Hindu had done it I just can't imagine the ethnic cleansing that would follow. As it is, the India-Pakistan conflict has already claimed more than one million lives.

Actually, calling it an Indian-Pakistani conflict is not quite right. It was actually a Hindu-Muslim conflict that resulted in India being partitioned into separate regions for Hindus and Muslims to keep them from each other's throats. The conflict of course continued even after the partitioning of India and it thereafter became known as the India-Pakistan conflict when it should really have been called the Hindu-Islam conflict.

Anyway, the brouhaha of the Benazir assassination made us forget the first anniversary of Saddam Hussein's hanging on 30 December last year. I was also very upset when I saw the manner in how they killed Saddam. I of course do not condone what Saddam did but if you have to kill a man as punishment for his crimes then the condemned person should at least be allowed to die with dignity. A man should not huff and puff his last breathe at the end of a swinging rope to the sounds of taunting and cursing. You are sending him to his Maker. Is it so wrong to allow him to leave this world in peace and with his dignity intact?

The last 50 years or so have seen the most violent side of Islam. Actually this has not been happening over only the last 50 years. It is just that with radio and television, and now the internet, the world has better access to information -- so it is more visible now than it was in, say, the 1800s and the period before that. Today it is in real-time so you get to see it as it happens. But the violence has always been there from the period soon after the Prophet's death. It is just that we did not see it from the comfort of our living rooms. Many of the Muslim leaders down to the Caliphs of the Medina period suffered violent deaths, as did the children and grandchildren of the Prophet. Yes, that's right, even the immediate family and descendants of the Prophet were not spared this violence.

Are Muslims violent by nature? Is this in their genes? Or is Islam a violent religion and that is why the followers and believers of Islam are so violent?

No, it is not that Muslims are violent by nature. Many are actually very nice people (me included -- unless you say something stupid, then I whack you to kingdom come). And it is also not Islam that is at fault. Sure, I know what the Islam-phobics are now going to say. Islam is a violent religion. Islam teaches violence. The Quran teaches Muslims to become violent. And so on and so forth.

You are actually only partly correct. It is not that Islam is violent or that Islam teaches violence. It is that all religions are violent and all religions teach violence. The only difference is, Muslims are good Muslims and they follow their religious teachings whereas those of other religions are bad Jews, Christians, etc., in that they do not follow what their religion teaches them.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that Muslims are good Muslims whereas Jews and Christians are bad Jews and Christians. Now, if the Jews and Christians are good Jews and Christians, then they will be just like Muslims because Judaism and Christianity, just like Islam, all teach the same thing. But while Muslims follow to the letter, and to the spirit, what they are taught, the Jews and Christians are deviants who do not comply to what their religion teaches them. In short, Muslims are bad because they are good whereas Jews and Christians are good because they are bad. Confused? You should be!

Okay, let us look at what Prophet Muhammad and the Quran say. Muhammad said he did not introduce a new religion. The Quran confirms this and talks about the religion of Abraham, the same religion for the followers of Moses and Jesus. Now see what Mathew says:

"I come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them. Till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5.17,18)

Mathew, just like the Quran, confirms that the teachings and laws of the Prophets before that are to be upheld. None have been abolished or abrogated. Okay, what about the punishment of stoning to death for adulteresses and apostates? This is the so-called barbaric 'Taliban' laws of the Muslims, so say the Islam-phobics. Actually it is not. It is a Jewish-Christian law that Islam 'borrowed'. Remember, Islam is not a new religion but the religion of Abraham, which is also the religion of Moses and Jesus. See what Deuteronomy, chapter 13, has to say about apostasy.

13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

That's right, apostates must be killed, and you must strike the first blow. Then the entire community is to join in and keep stoning the apostate until he or she stops breathing. That is what Moses and Jesus taught us if you go by the correct teachings of Judaism and Christianity. And Judaism, Christianity and Islam are not new religions but the religion of Abraham. And while Muslims are good Muslims, Jews and Christians are bad Jews and Christians. That is the real problem here.

Okay, Muslims go to war and those 'enemies of God' can be killed or, if they admit defeat and surrender, can be captured and taken as slaves. The women of those killed can also be captured even if they did not carry arms. And if the women are beautiful then it is lawful for you to keep them as your concubines and you can have sex with them. Of course, this was practiced many generations ago during the time of the Islamic conquest and is not quite the practice today. But what many do not know is that this is not an Islamic thing but is what the religions before Islam stipulated and this has never been abrogated from the Holy Books of the Jews, Christians or Muslims. In other words, it is still lawful to this very day if you want to do it.

This is what Deuteronomy, chapter 21, has to say:

21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,

21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.

21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Another controversy is with regards to the cutting off the hands of thieves. Islam has been whacked as being very barbaric when some Muslim countries implement this law. Is that so? Well, see how the religions before Islam punished wayward sons:

21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:

21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

No, Islam is not violent. All religions are violent. The problem is, only Muslims still follow what the Holy Books stipulate. People of the other religions deviate from their religious teachings and refuse to follow what their religions stipulate. This makes them bad people. People who have no respect for their own religion and refuse to follow their religion's teachings are bad people, they can't be good people.

The only crime that Muslims have committed is that they are good Muslims. Just because Jews and Christians refuse to follow what their religion teaches them does not make them good people. They are bad Jews and Christians. If they can't even follow their own religion's teachings how can they be good? How can we trust anyone who does not respect their own religion? And, worse of all, they accuse Muslims of being bad people because, according to them, the Quran is bad and it teaches Muslims to be bad. But the Quran is only a continuation of Abraham's teachings which is the same teachings for the Jews and Christians. Unfortunately, because the west controls the media, they make it appear like good Muslims are bad for following their religion's teachings whereas bad Jews and Christians are good for not following their religion's teachings.

Confused? You should be!

01/01: Malaysia cannot afford another May 13, says DPM

(Daily Express) - MALAYSIA cannot afford another bloody May 13 because it will only hurt the country and the people.

Deputy PM Datuk Seri Najib said this is why the Government is doing all it can to avoid the recurrence of the nation's most painful episode.

May 13, 1969, was a black mark in the history of Malaysia when race riots mainly between the Chinese and Malays occurred at the nation's capital.

They were generally dissatisfied about certain socio-political issue and it resulted in the deaths of 196 people and subsequently a major reform on the country's economic policy.

Najib said street demonstrations can easily turn racial and that if the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) insists on its agenda and the people at Kampung Baru in KL came out, it would be disastrous.

"We cannot afford another May 13 and the Government will ensure there is no more May 13."

The government is willing to offer any stadium in KL for unsatisfied groups to carry out their gathering but does not want to see any protests on the streets since it would only inconvenience the people.

However, he said the groups refused the Government offer and insisted on carrying out their demonstrations on the streets that later turned violent.

The Government, he said, also had to take action for the sake of public interest. Najib said that if the group concerned had connection with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), it certainly has impact on national security.

"That is why we took action, including the ISA, if they have an agenda to see racial dispute happening," he said, adding the ISA could be used as a pre-emptive legislation to prevent something from happening.

"If bad things happen, it has impact on national interest and also the image of the country."

01/01: Christians don't call Allah in everyday life

The issue concerning the use of the word Allah by Catholics and Christians in Malaysia has somewhat been settled. I personally have no worries about it since the non-Muslims hardly use the word in their everyday life anyway and they also do not use it with the same conviction as the Muslims.

All my Catholic and Christians 'Thank God' for everything and none has said 'Thank Allah'. They, themselves would find it odd if they have to say Allah, while Muslims do it often.

I also find it baffling when I realize that the Malay word 'Syurga' and 'Neraka' are actually referring to the Hindu Heaven and Hell. So how come the Muslim leaders in Malaysia, especially, do not discourage Muslims from using the words by replacing it with Arab words for them instead such as Jannah for Heaven and Jahanam for Hell.

Malays who are angry will say 'Pergi Jahanam!' or 'Go to Hell!

So I hope by continuing to use Syurga and Neraka, the Muslims might be confused to mean that all their deads and misdeeds in life will result in them being sent to the Hindu Heaven and Hell.

How come the Hindus did not complain against the use of such words by Malays who are Muslims in Malaysia and in the region especially, since the words are not used by Muslims in the Middle East.

So there's no need for Muslims need not worry about it.

Even amongst Muslims, many would use the word Tuhan and Ilahi over Allah because it is not easy to prononce it correctly. And if the sound is not perfect, the person who pronounced it is telling everybody that he is not a religious person because he lacks practise in pronouncing the word.

Anyone who tries to pronounce the word for the first time will make the word sound flat and lifeless.

I would like to hear the church elders in Sabah and elsewhere in Malaysia to pronounce the word and say that they are praying to Allah to find out how it sounds.

But for me, it doesn't matter if the Christians and Catholics are allowed to use the word in their publication, whose usage may be related to history that some of their elders I Malaysia wanted to refer to Biblical times when it was so.

What I am more interested is if it is true that Christians and Catholics use the word Allah in everyday life. I have many friends who profess this religions, since I had studied in a Catholic missionary school in Melaka and mixed around fairly well with many of them.

But I have yet to hear even one of them spouted the word Allah in front of me.
It is true that the word has also the same meaning as the word God. But in America they are now preferring to call or spell it as G_d as opposed to God for some strange reason while the agnostics spell it as Gawd.

No one in America calls God, Allah.

In my travels in few countries in the Middle East I have heard the Jews saying Allah and also 'Insyallah' in front of the Arab Muslims. I did not think the staff at the Israeli Embassy in Amman, Jordan was using it to make the Arabs comfortable but because they also use it often in their everyday life.

Here and in other countries the Christians and Catholics hardly use the word Allah in their everyday conversation.

So I hope the Catholic groups in Sabah did not try to be sinister in insisting to use the word in their publication.

The truth is that the Catholics and Christians in Malaysia and elsewhere outside of the Middle East has not been using the word in a very long time that it has become the 'property' of the Muslims.

And it seems to me that the Catholics and Christians in Malaysia and Singapore had already changed the way Jesus Christ and his Apostle wear from the Arab robes to a skirt with the Arab-style headdress looking like a shawl because they did not wish to confuse the flock, especially the younger ones.

And the nuns and priests, too, are redesigning their habit so that they do not look like what Muslim women and men wear. And if the nuns have to drive they make sure they open up their scarves so that they are not confused with other Muslim women wearing headscarves, while the prists are now wearing a red belt around their waist instead of the flowing white robes which look like many robes worn by pious Muslims.

If they insist on being allowed to use the word Allah, then they should also insist on wearing their habits properly like what I had noticed in the past.

So by wanting to use the word Allah instead of God, the Catholics and Christians are indirectly saying that they are praying to Allah.

Sincerely,

Mansor Puteh