These are just plain opinions; they can be rejected, refuted, argued against or accepted. These words are not meant to impose my ideals upon anybody , and they are not going against the law of the diversity of thoughts~~

Friday, 8 March 2013


                  The victors of war can decide upon the definition of justice. They have the authority to rephrase the essence of justice , making it so that it bends towards their ideals and their way of life. Just so you know, Batman  is my cousin, and so we share our knowledge of justice. No, this is not just a blunder to release excess exam stress, but a summary of thoughts produced after inquiring a number of fictional characters of their world views.

                  I was engaged in a debate about Islamic laws. No, I wasn't involved, I was just an ignored bystander, as I was unable to match their ability to produce quick responses and sharp retorts.  Don't blame my inability, blame the education. My friends somehow reached an unofficial consensus that they wish to able to be freed of the shackles of Islamic laws; meaning that they can voice out whatever opinion they have, Muslims can convert to other religions at whim, and although said indirectly, they suggested that Islamic laws are somewhat barbaric and out of place; inhumane and impractical. Sorry if my summary is incorrect, but after a number of similar arguments we had, these are the impressions you created upon this fickle mind of mine.

            As for the reason to why they want to be freed of the shackles of Islamic laws , I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps that one of their siblings had their hands cut off, or their grandparent's head were severed, but I doubt that ever happened. It could be that when they tried  to express their world views, they were attacked with a flurry of death threats and anthrax in envelopes, but they are still alive and kicking to this day. We were different from every aspect of living, that every time we converse, I am unable to say a word. I really feel that I am a failure as a person.

                 They brought up a case where a Maldivian girl was sentenced to a hundred strokes for adultery, and claimed that it was based upon a false judgement. Amnesty International condemned the case and called upon human rights activists to protest against this , but then again, that is the fault of the false judgement, not hudud itself , is it?

               It is the same when a man is falsely sentenced to death- that is the fault of prosecutors ,not the law itself, is it? If it becomes the fault of the law, then we have to amend the law every time there is a false judgement. I suppose that that is irrelevant.

                 Hudud laws serve as a punishment and a deterrent. Punishment for the crimes that were done, and deterrent for the community as a whole.  Prevention is better than cure?

                  Adulterers are caned 100 times in front of the public. The argument here is that it is too degrading for a human being, cruel and inhumane. Well then, if such a punishment is displayed to the people, would there be any person who would ever commit adultery? There will be,  but it would be at a number 99 percent smaller than the advocates of free sex nowadays. We should take into consideration the negative effects that occur when the law of God is not being followed. There are hundreds of thousands children who are born without fathers. Teens as young as 11 being pregnant is no more a rarity. Divorce is much more frequent than marriage. The so-called family institution collapsed  years ago when people decided that sex is plainly for fun. Cheating spouses had become so common that people talk of it as normal as if Arsenal had lost another game. Women are treated as sexual objects, and the amount of hentai on the net is too damn high. This list is endless, my friend.

                What is better , a collapsed family constitution, or only 4 or 5 people sentenced to caning each year and solves all the problems above?

                      I was raised to believe in Islamic laws blindly, as I was unable to understand the reasons behind it. But as I grew up, I am able to recognize the perfection of the laws that Allah dictated for us human beings. Suppose that a man has his hands cut off due to thievery, will the people ever resort to stealing ever again? What is better, having hundreds of robbery cases daily, with convicts and ex-prisoners stealing repetitively, or  a perfect act of prevention?

             I said earlier that the victors of war can rephrase the definition of justice. Should the Caliphate won the first world war and enacted Islamic laws, will this argument even exist? We had been taught by the victors of war of human rights and their freedom, and so we tend to feel that their law is better and much more compatible. Amnesty's definition of justice is nothing more than a set of words taught by the imperialists to suit their necessities.

           Perhaps the fact that we haven't seen the effects that Islamic laws can bring causes us to doubt it all over again, and perhaps we have the impression that the current social condition has no cure. But my friend, we surely can't forget that those people who defined justice have only won the war less than a hundred years ago, and before that period, the caliphate had created an era which women are being respected, family institution became the pillar of nations, and crime levels were brought down so low.

        Then we pondered upon the view that there is no absolute truth. You suggested that in an interfaith debate, none of the religions can claim to be the one and true religion, and only then we can sit together and debate; because if one staunchly believe in his faith without any chance of compromise, there is no use to argue. It becomes pointless. You seek for compromise between religions. This is my answer; I can bring forth every form of proof and evidence that my religion is true, and my religion is the absolute truth. That is the essence of a debate; the one with the best evidence and proof is the better argument of the two sides. I wish to question then; what is your reason not to believe?

              What is the reason that my friends despise this religion so much that they wish to escape from its guidelines? Why is that when they speak of people who staunchly exercised Islamic laws, they speak of it with disgust and disbelief ? You can't speak of these laws as if they are ancient tribal laws, when the Prophet who brought it forth was the one who was able to civilize Badouins. The Arabs killed and robbed and disregard laws. They have no respect for women, and they are the ones who bury newborn girls out of shame. How come the laws that turned them into civilized men be regarded as 'tribal' or 'inhumane'?

              What is the reason then? Is it because old people who wear turbans and keep long beards look old-fashioned and silly? Or perhaps it is because the ones who advocated Islamic laws did not graduate from Oxford? It can be because with these laws, there will be no freedom with liquor, no more free sex and no more porn on the net, but my friends are good people with healthy minds, not to mention them being 
excellent scholars.

I don't know. I have no idea.

Thursday, 7 March 2013

Racist Bubbles~

                 I have no intention of making a certain organization as the point of condemnation and clever insults, and if one take into account the current atmosphere, this issue is so boring that I feel that writing about it is totally pointless.  At the moment everybody is focused towards our warriors in Sabah, those currently standing at the frontlines to defend this country. We are in the midst of confusion; about the real intention of the Tausugs and the condition of our army. To add to this befuddlement, some political opportunists tried to name opposition leaders as the cause behind this uprising,  which then only backfired to them.

      When we are facing an imminent war, the voices of a certain covertly racist people which seeks to further divide the community is totally irrelevant, don't you think? During war times, every citizen should unite, no matter what race they are, whatever religion and their skin colour. We should stand together and fight , because we are  citizens of this beloved country. You are not going to call that pluralism, are you? Sick people.

                    That said , even if there is no war, what the fish is wrong with unity? I think that it is time to realize that this world is never reserved to us Muslims alone. Never was. This place is for human beings to strive together , just like we people should. The main notion of Islam is rahmatan lil alamin, not rahmatan lil muslimin faqat. Then , if you are able to recognize that other people from other races are humans too, what is wrong with sharing the leadership with them, to share the burden of being representatives to the people? I have always failed to understand the reason that some people managed to classify people different from us to the likes of cows and goats, inhuman beings that are evil with intentions of converting muslims, sabotaging the entire ummah, or perhaps the personification of devils themselves . Where does this paranoia comes from?

                   There are numerous races in this world   , with the number of languages more than 8000. To be able   to shrink our focus to this one race which haven't done anything significant for the   past hundred thousand years  is honestly pathetic , and totally  beyond comprehension.  I wonder if actually we were the ones who reached the moon first, or perhaps we were the ones who managed to map the whole world and founded Suvarnabhumi, the land of gold. Where does this pride comes from? Hang Tuah?

                            They tried to justify that we should focus upon the development of young muslim minds, 
our personality and characters. Well, go on. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It is a noble task  that not many are able to hold, as it is tedious and tiring. The efforts to bring people back to tarbiyah is one our main focuses, and those who are leading the way should be hailed with respect. I honestly celebrate this movement , because we long for guidance and advice from the wise and thoughtful.

                My friend, if that is the case , why should we stop extending our hands towards others? Can't we be friends? Could it  be that the supporters of this certain organization are born to be socially awkward towards other races? Extremely racist introverts, perhaps?

              Justice and truth are universal values, my friend. Ah, I feel like I'm Batman now.  These values are part of human nature, and it was never constricted to any certain religion. Sorry for these extremely clich├ęd phrases, they helped me feel better  about myself.  A muslim can love cats and help poor people, and a non-muslim can also love cats and help poor people.  A muslim can manage a company and bring about good enterprising, and so does a non-muslim. So, if a muslim can be a representative to the people, why can't a non-muslim be one? " Calon Muslim berwibawa", is it? Why can't we add a " non-muslim berwibawa"  next to it?

                The phrase " to use race as the platform to raise Islam" is wrong. It should be " to use Islam as the platform to support the race". A platform is a base. It is bigger and wider than the thing that is being supported. "Race" is just a genetic variation that results in the difference in looks and skin colour. Diseases, stupidity and social awkwardness are also born of genetic variance.  We cannot choose the race we are born in. We can choose to be a Muslim.                   

                It is true that while we are many, we are like bubbles in the sea, but that doesn't mean that we should seclude ourselves to our own world views and neanderthal opinions. Bubbles in the sea, when they ascend to the surface, they become bigger, and when they reach the surface, the bubbles pop and become one with the air. I can break bubbles, but I can't break the wind, can I?

          I agree that the we Muslim youths are plagued with hedonism and all sorts of problems, but seriously, tell me, how does distancing ourselves from non-muslims solve this particular problem? Is there any logic in that?

a logical fallacy

            They said that they aim to fulfill the gaps which the current opposition failed to grasp, but honestly, from the depth of my heart, they have been nothing but an obstacle, a big thorn in the road.

Bubbles, bubbles in the sea~~~~