Red Flowers~

                 The trees here are blooming with red flowers, this time of the year, when it is never certain whether the day is going to be sunny or rainy. I have grown accustomed with the coldness of the mornings and the extreme heat of the noon.   I like it when the scenery painted with red flowers is fused with the horrible smell coming from the rubber plantations; it is confusing  and seems just wrong. Such a beautiful place , and such a terrible atmosphere to breathe in; love and hate becomes one. Ah, sorry, I'm writing this because another exercise paper would make me puke my soul out, so forgive me if the following words seem incomprehensible.

              I am leaving this place in a matter of days, when it is most beautiful; when the trees are painted red. I can only wish that we could leave this place when it is not this breathtakingly  magnificent, so that it won't be hard for me to leave this place that I despise so much.

it's not this much of a redness

          I am writing this post as an apology towards a friend who had been apologizing to me every day in these two years. He has done absolutely nothing wrong , yet he kept saying sorry for every single thing he ever did. My friend apologizes to me for waking me up for Subuh prayers, and he would say sorry for not waking me up. He would apologize for making a joke, and he apologizes for making bad jokes. Everything seems wrong, and I do not understand why.

                Even though what he did had absolutely no effect or correlation whatsoever upon my soul , he would blame himself for it. It seems like he would apologize if the air we breathe in stink of spoilt rubber , or if it rains, or if I have a fever, or if I forget my lunch. It is very depressing to carry the burden of guilt of the whole earth, yet my friend takes upon himself every single thing that happens. Sometimes I feel sad for my friend because of his tendency towards blaming himself, but sometimes I feel like punching him in the face.

                My roommate and I fart at our leisure, because it is human nature , and there is nothing wrong with it. Unless if the word fart is beyond your tolerance threshold.  My friend however apologizes every single time he farts, and that is just unacceptable. What the fish man.

     

             Forget the previous paragraph.

               Even if the day is a perfectly fine day, windy and coloured with fallen red petals, without even a hint of the stinking rubber, it seems that my friend would find something to apologize for.

             The main problem is that my friend is an extremely kind guy. He has never refused to help me with my studies, nor is he ever reluctant to share his notes and books. Sometimes he would pack breakfast for me when I am unable to come to the dining hall in the mornings; for various  reasons obviously. He is the one who reminds me of important things ; dates and tasks to be settled; all of which I tend to forget. In this place where  everyone else seems uninterested with religion, he would always speak to me about hadith; their matan and the meanings, surahs and ayahs in the Quran. My friend is like an angel, soaring in the sky painted with red trees; his kindness overwhelms me and rendered me speechless. When an angel apologizes to you , the burden to forgive is too heavy and depressing, especially when there is nothing wrong in the  first place.

                  Due to the high frequency of apologies being said, I feel like he does not regard me as his friend at all. Friends do not have to apologize for most of the stuff we did. Eat my food and smack my head, I won't even care. The only moment that you have to apologize is if you kidnap my sisters and burn  my house down.

                   My economics teacher taught me that the excess of supply of a good would reduce the price, as the marginal utility diminishes for every extra consumption.  Too many apologies would reduce the value of the word  "sorry", I guess, similar to the story of the boy who cried wolf. The third time when the shepherd boy cried for help, this time against a real wolf, none of the villagers come to his rescue. The next time my friend apologizes, I would never know whether  his apology is sincere, or just born out of routine.

                I guess that I must sound like a mean and judging schmuck who are unable to appreciate others.  Well then ,sorry for that.

              I have no idea whether my friend and I would ever meet again after these two year's end.        After all we would be leaving this desolate place painted with red trees. I would be happy if we could part ways without being guilty. He would feel guilty because he always feel that way. I would feel guilty because I was never able to say sorry.

  

  Peace.     

The Macai Mentality

            The word macai, according to a very suspicious open dictionary, means a group of people with low mentality, gullible , and easily influenced by negative perceptions. This weird dictionary further defines macai as stalwart supporters of a particular political party. I would prefer to define macai as supporters of a group , with a loyalty beyond the boundaries  of reason, and sometimes seeks to justify the acts of their leaders, although they are  clearly wrong. In Malay, the coin word for the acts of a macai is "kesetiaan tak berbelah bahagi" .

                  I have  no reason to write something so unpleasant, but this is just an analysis I made after months of observation.

                       Macais and the macai mentality exists everywhere, in every group and party. The very existence of the macai mentality has succeeded to halt the progress of our nation's political development.  The general characteristics of a macai is as follows;

1. Seeks to justify every action and decisions made by their leaders, without trying to question it.

2. Employs baseless assumptions , slanders and pointless accusations  due to the lack of facts on their side.

3. The ones who swears on every political Facebook post.

4. Those people who are going to dance and sing like hooligans tomorrow morning.

5. People who consider those sodomy cases and sex videos as legit.

6. Every person that ever said that we should be grateful to the government.

7. ISMA

             A macai can either have all of those above, or even only one of them, to be qualified as a macai. The reason for their unwavering loyalty is beyond me- I have an idea for it, but that will take another post for it. Dr Tariq Ramadan wrote about critical loyalty in his book, What I  Believe. Critical loyalty is the exact opposite of macais' stalwartness. People with a critical loyalty  believes in their ideology, but they seek to question the acts made by their leaders, before they decide to follow. Islam is the true religion, but that does not mean that I have to justify every act made by Muslims. If some Muslims decided to bomb people alive for fun, then I should criticize such actions.

             Dan Ariely mentioned about possessing an ideology in his writings. The concept of possession of ideology is similar to the possession of our personal assets. Say that I have a bike that I ride to college every day. I bought  that bike with hard-earned cash, and the bike has done so many things for me. I formed an emotional bond with my bike, and I do like it very  much. Therefore , I put a great value upon that bike, and when I decide to sell it, it is most probable that the price that I put is much higher than anyone would want the bike for. The same goes for an ideology. When one took a liking in an idea, they put more value on it than anyone else, and they seek to justify every single deficit that the ideology has. For example, ISMA members enjoyed their activities so much, for it is so fulfilling, that they decided to accept and justify every action that their leader took. That is just an example.

          Although I support PAS and its endeavours, that does not mean that I should agree  and justify every acts made by the party. The act of some supporters who seek to justify every single action that PAS took, for the reason that they are ulama'  and they know more, classifies them as macais. We don't need this kind of people in our journey. This is a democracy, not  a monarchy. Every single person has the right and the ability to question everything. Being an underling ,or just a normal member does not reduce our brain capacity, nor does it take away our rights to question everything.

[And they should consider that] when those who have been followed disassociate themselves from those who followed [them], and they [all] see the punishment, and cut off from them are the ties [of relationship],

Sahih International

Those who followed will say, "If only we had another turn [at worldly life] so we could disassociate ourselves from them as they have disassociated themselves from us." Thus will Allah show them their deeds as regrets upon them. And they are never to emerge from the Fire. (Al-Baqarah, 166-167)

          This is not a war , where you either kill or be killed. This is just an election , where we have choices to make, and we question ourselves on which choice to make. I need to question myself to find out whether I understand the ridiculous MRP theory in college. I need to question myself to see whether this post makes sense or not. Question everything, my friend.

          To question is not to deny, nor does it seek to reject. To question is to reiterate  our faith and belief in something.

            A faith without questions is just blind love. Remember , my friend, to question is to understand , not to deny. Ah, what is love without understanding

                   Be free of the macai mentality , my friend. Think by yourselves.

Lies~

                 As an Economics student, I have learned with great emphasis, that doing an analysis with a baseless assumption is a grave error.   I myself considered it a sin , because of the number of times my teachers get annoyed for wild assumptions I wrote in my essays. It resulted in my works being degraded as  'highschool level' essays- a cruel and deep insult. An example for a baseless assumption is like  suggesting that children will die out of hunger, should the government stops giving book vouchers. It has no correlation with the main issue whatsoever, and there is no reason that it would happen. I think a better example is like suggesting that Japan should enforce its infrastructure now, because Ultraman and his lovely monsters are going to appear in Kyoto soon.

himpunan rakyat kl112

                 An Economist that works upon baseless premises should die alone in a terrible death, eaten by dogs in a monsoon drain, for his analysis is misleading and wrong, and decisions made from his views will lead to an economic downfall. He would work better as a manga writer or a novelist, for his imagination is very likely to be powerful. Politicians that utilize baseless assumptions  should become hikikomoris, beings that would never interact  with  people, for these kind of men are dangerous to the society and the nation

.

           A better word for 'baseless assumptions' made by politicians would be 'lies'. This is because those assumptions are not true, they have no supporting evidence, and there is no reason that it would happen. However, for the people who believes those assumptions, it becomes an 'inconceivable fear'. They fear for  predictions that have no reason to happen, similar to people believing in shamans making predictions about their fates.

                 My mother always tell me not to lie to anyone.  So did every wonderful mother upon this planet. My religion taught me not to lie, and so did every other religion in this world. It is not just a lie, it is a universal sin. Telling lies is a sin that has been recognized since the beginning of time, and it is an act despised by anyone. Lies break friendships, relationships, and lies hurt our hearts. I would lose your trust should I lie to you, my friend, and for that reason, I promise I won't lie to you, no matter what it is. Should there is something that I can't tell you, I won't  make lies to cover it up, but I would just be quiet about it, and I won't say a word. Such is the Bro Code that I learned.

              If lying is a universally recognized sin, then why does it  become acceptable in politics? Does lying become right in the name of a better government and a better nation?

              Tonight , in his Labour Day speech, our Prime Minister said that " it is hard to achieve peace and harmony, it takes tens of years. But chaos and disorder can happen overnight". What is he trying to imply here? I respect him for he is a skillful politician, but such statement is an example of a subtle lie, an impression put in our minds without us realizing it.

              Such assumptions might seem harmless , for it seems to be just a part of a campaign slogan , but the truth is , it is a lie. For example, BN has banners in my town that said these words; "vote for PR , and the country goes bankrupt in two years". Some might say that it is just a prediction about the future, so it is not a lie, it is not a sin. Nobody can lie about things that have yet to happen. However, I choose to disagree. If I suggest to you, that a kind friend of mine , who has done nothing wrong before, that he is  going to a gay bar next week , to gain money before going to the UK, what will you think of it? Is it fine because it is just an assumption of a thing that is yet to happen? Is it fine then, to take my words , and spread it to everyone in your Facebook friends' list?

                  I went to a BTN camp last month, and at the end of the camp, they showed us students a video about the violence in the middle east, Narathiwat, Palestine and Ambon, among a few of the places. We were shown people being shot alive, cut apart, and their brains scattered on the roads. Houses and schools were burnt down, and the people were deprived of their basic needs. They concluded the video by saying that we should appreciate the peace in our country, and for the sake of that peace , we students should keep the current government in power.

btn in a nutshell

          They didn't even have to mention that should PR come in power , something terrible will happen to this country. It was such a subtle and crafty lie , that I felt so sick and disgusted.

            It is time that people stop acting based upon these lies. There is no reason whatsoever that LBGTs will be legitimate when PR comes in power. There is no proof that DAP will turn this country into a communist heaven that kills all Malays, and surrender this country to Singapore. But there is always a proof that the current government is corrupted to the core  . I agree that being cautious is good for us Muslims, but being cautious upon baseless things is just plain wrong.

  "  O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do." ( Al-Maidah, 8)


       Isn't it time that this country becomes a democratic country, with the parties discussing about policies for the future of our religion, and our country, instead of all those lies? Be free of brainwashing lies and inconceivable fears, my friend. Vote for a change.

  Happy Labour's Day~~                    

Piala Ketua Pembangkang

                      My father used to give lectures at local mosques , before he passed away. There were about a dozen different places that he went in rotation every month. His students were mostly retired old men; pensioners, and they called him a  "guru taalim". Some of his students were his own teacher from his school days. Most of them were twenty years older than him.  My father was not a preacher; he was a high school maths teacher; and I do not understand how, or why,  but people asked him to talk about hadith every other night. My father himself told them that he was not a preacher; he's a maths teacher, but people does not seem to mind that at all.

          His younger brother also gives lectures at local mosques. To my eyes, my father and his brother were essentially the same. They have  two sets of cars of the same model , a house with a similar plan and an eerily similar location  . They have the same number of eight children, and  got married at about the same age . They both have the same hobby, and both of them are teachers during the day. Even their acts and quirks are strangely similar-but there was one thing that made them complete opposites. Their way of giving those night lectures were so different, it's like comparing karipap with lasagna.

                      My father would calmly read hadiths and their translations from his books, then he would take off his glasses and face his audience.  He gave his students  brief comments from the writers' point of view, then he would explain it from his own opinion, in a perfectly professional and academic way-and as a child I found that so boring. He kept his voice down in front of his senior students; all of whom listened to him tentatively. He looked like a real professor in a lecture hall, where students who were forced to attend-like I was with him- would fall asleep minutes after the lecture starts.

                    His brother in the other hand is a very provocative speaker. His voice is very loud and clear. If you happen to pass by a mosque in Muar, and you can hear the lecturer's voice three blocks away, that's   probably him. My uncle's way of speech is able to make his audience cry their hearts out, and his students are old men and women with grandkids. He is able to exert pressure upon steel hearts and break them to pieces. The only similarity between their lectures is that they would try to relate their contents with worldly affairs; BN's corruptions, the government's aversion to religion , and voters' responsibility in the Hereafter-my father explains, while his brother provokes, and as a result , my uncle got banned from several mosques which have hardcore macais, among them was the royal Masjid Sultan Ibrahim.

                  I joined high school debates to show my father that his way of giving lectures was boring, and that I was a better speaker than he ever was. I preferred my uncle's brave and provocative way of speech; loud and unforgiving.  I spoke from the depths of my heart , and preferred personal attacks as my favourite weapon. The thunderous claps and laughter from the audience  every time I speak made me assume that such provocations were the essence of debates. I once called  a female debater an "elephant with big ears, but apparently deaf". It felt kinda cool back then-sorry , my bad. The ratio of my personal attacks to the facts that I presented was about 6:3. I gained support from the audience, but to my surprise, my team lost every competition we went in, even though we were spontaneous speakers, and our counterparts refer to written texts word by word.

                I learned that my provocations reduced our points, and the lack of contextual evidence to support our premises, added with my sharp  personal attacks led to our downfall. Well, calling a girl an elephant isn't exactly something tolerable.

               I was not able to proove anything to my father , as he passed away before I could win anything. He cheated in our competition by dying first.

          Later on, I went to my uncle's lectures to study his skills again; as I believed that his way of speech was still the better  option. But then, I was honestly surprised; I found that his lectures weren't provocative at all; I as a child had misunderstood him. I was wrong.  His way of explaining things was actually similar to my father-too similar in fact, it was just that his voice was way louder! Should he reduce the loudness of his voice, then they would be perfectly alike. Words cannot explain how taken aback I was. I watched recordings of our previous debates, and only God knows how ashamed I was to hear how stupid I sound in those videos.

                The essence of a debate is to present an idea to the audience, not to make them laugh. I was a joker back then, not a debater. The facts presented must correlate with the main idea, and in order to do so, I had to be able to make the audience confident with the words that I say. I need to make the audience understand my premise , more than to make them agree with my words. The point of a debate was not to determine the winner,   but to find out whose logic is better. After all, even though I gained the most support from the audience, the judges cannot accept my logical fallacies. It is a battle of ideas, not plain provocations and crude words.

             Then, in what way are debates unacceptable to the macai community? I believe that the reason that our beloved Prime Minister rejects every debate is that they have exactly no evidence to support their arguments. Pakatan brought forth their manifesto, facts of BN's corruptions, new ideas for a better living; everything that shows their readiness to govern. Macais on the other hand had nothing but sex tapes and plain provocations. They created baseless assumptions using politics of fear; PR's victory means a collapsed nation, LGBT, civil war ...the list goes on.

             There is no way that BN's representatives can win debates with assumptions and sex tapes. That's what they meant when they stated that debates aren't part of our culture,  I suppose. Plain word wars and crude provocations are a better option, I guess.

               In order to create a better future for the nation, our leaders should indulge in debates, in order to present better ideas to the people, rather than slanders and lies. Debates often results in the creation of new ideas; it is after all just a more intense form of a discussion.

         Should our PM choose to further refuse to join debates, Piala Perdana Menteri  should be changed to Piala Ketua Pembangkang. That way, the dignity of the glamorous competition can be restored.  Nobody puts the title of a cowardly speaker for a debate competition .

                 Back to my story , my fellow debaters and I changed our way of speech drastically , and we managed to win some of the competitions. Alhamdulillah, for a happy ending.

               

    But then, even after all those victories, I still lost to my father, because I only copied what he did, and created nothing new out of it. I lost to a dead man.

            And our PM can't even join a debate.

          Peace.

                

Compromise~~

                  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.

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?

uncensored

                            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 clichéd 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~~~~

Hate at first sight~

                To know is to love. Or so said a friend of mine who is allergic to people. To love is to accept and understand each other in health , sickness, mental breakdown and every form of psychotic retardation. My friend, with such power of love , we can go through every nook and cranny of this world together, overpowering every obstacle and tribulations. But before we can reach that we need to know each other  , every detail of our acts and choices; for example; there might be a reason that a punk decides to skip exams like he's the school's principal-yes, in order to love , we need to understand each other, embrace each other's weaknesses and weirdness. Ah, this is ridiculous, yet true. Love at first sight is a heinous crime and cannot be acceptable as love, but pure lust.

          No, I'm not writing about love. Screw that Shakespeare thingy and go real, my friend. I suppose that , if to know is to love, then to know is also to hate. In other words, we need to understand someone before we decide to hate them.  Some would say that it is wrong to hate, but man, this is part of human nature. Try to put that aside. The topic tonight that I wish to explicate is in regard of hate at the first sight.

        Hate at the first sight is an inexplicable phenomenon, yet it  happens almost too commonly. Some people does not have any particular reason  to hate, but they just happen to bear such ill-feeling, either through unconscious informal teaching or indirect internal transgression. Yeah.  Allow me to explain. Unconscious informal teaching means that the hate towards others is unconsciously taught , usually by a parent to his/her children, teacher-student or from the elders to youngsters.

          An example for this kind of hate at the first sight is senior folks who experienced the May 13 tragedy, which results in an unrequited hate in their minds towards other races. Stories that they convey to the younger generation bring them to hate -which explains the term 'hate is taught' . These kind of people exist in abundance-such as the infamous Ibrahim Ali.  The level of interaction between races are kept at minimum, separated by geography and occupational differences, and thus this young generation knew naught  of each other. They studied at separate vernacular schools, live in different atmospheres, and are  practically separated through the ever-existing divide and rule effect. They know not of each other, yet they hate each other unconditionally.   This is the glorious hate at the first sight. As for the hate bearers such as the PERKASA, it is not weird that such group can exist, but the fact that there are people who listen to their blunders is plainly unacceptable.

                Indirect internal transgression-sorry for the fancy name- happens  due to rampant labeling and the act of blaming others.  When an Indonesian maid performed acrobatic acts with a 4 month old baby , the society reacts by cursing Indonesians. Perhaps cursing the maid herself is acceptable-I know it's not- but what do Indonesians have to do with her crime? From the few Indonesians I have met in my life, I learnt that they are among the most productive and hardworking people, at least ten times more than I am. They had contributed to this country more than I did in all these years. So why do we hate?  The mainstream media has a habit of labeling people- which I don't know whether it's intentional or not. Suppose that there was a robbery in my village, and the police caught the villains. Shouldn't it be enough for the media to report that " Three robbers caught red handed" instead of " Three Indians detained for robbery" ? What is the logic behind putting the label of race behind their names? The society ended hating not only the robbers , but also their family, their children and the innocent majority.

               This form of logically flawed hate at first sight caused numerous wars hundreds of years ago, and a supposedly civilized generation should be able to dismiss this irrational way of thinking. Altercation between only two men could result in a war between tribes, when things could have been settled fair and square. I suppose that the reason behind this hate at the first sight is that  human instinct actually yearns for war and conflict, and some people have a longing to put bullets in some people's head, but they are born in a wrong generation and a wrong time.

             And the same goes  to some Jews in Palestine, the fact that the Zionists invaded Palestine does not mean that all of them condone such violent and inhumane acts upon the civilians. They themselves never asked to be born  Jews, did they?

            For my fellow ISMA brothers,   just because we are born as Malays and Muslims, that does not permit the act of hating others. The act of prioritizing Malays just because they are Muslims means that we are arrogant with the nikmat of Iman and Islam, and to refuse and reject the reconciliation between muslims and non-muslims  means that we declare that Islam is exclusively ours. What if Allah decided that the Chinese people are the ones to be blessed with Islam, and we remained under the shadows of Hinduism, all those hundreds of years ago? What then? Do we have the right to brag again?  Just because the idea of liberalism comes from the West, that does not mean that fellow liberal muslims condone homosexuality and hedonism. The fact that we are different does not mean that you can hate.

"They regard as favour upon you (O Muhammad ) that they have embraced Islam. Say: "Count not your Islam as a favour upon me. Nay, but Allah has conferred a favour upon you, that He has guided you to the Faith, if you indeed are true."
(AL-Hujurat; 17)

Don't hate me, my friend. Let us love.