MASHITAH GOING BY YOUR DICTUM MOST MOSLEMS INCLUDING YOU WOULD HAVE ERRED AT SOME POINT OF YOUR LIVES. SO DON’T MAKE A BIG DEAL OUT OF A SMALL MATTER . BUT IF YOUR INTENTIONS ARE TO BE THE NEXT WANITA DUMNO HEAD THEN YOU ARE DIGGING YOUR OWN GRAVE, AS IT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN.
She is just another dumb bitch who tries to be a hero without any understanding of what is really going on. This is the type and quality of people we have sitting in high places.disappointed with Marshita, a learned woman in Islam displaying irresponsibility! By doing so, she is not only ‘diabolical’ but has become a devil’s deciple. Muslims beware of UMNO ulamahs!
A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR CAN BE A BRILLIANT PERSON–WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE WORSE CASE, AS THE LIAR CAN INVENT AND SPIN AND LIE THEIR WAY INTO SUCCESS …
PITFALLS OF ARROGANCE MASHITAH IBRAHIM WHAT MAKES YOUR LIFE WORTHWHILE?
Do you know the purpose of your life and are you actively contributing to it?
Mashitah was ‘diabolical’, says ’ Kuala Selangor MP Dzulkefly Ahmad today slammed deputy minister Mashitah Ibrahim for “diabolically” attacking PKR’s Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar.
Mashitah Ibrahim, are expert in turning n twisting anything possible for their advantage”’…no worry”..allah is with you n we are with you too”’. Stupid, malicious cow, this Mashitah . There is no law because in Islam, as in the Qur’an, there is no compulsion in religion. Any laws to contravene this is ‘bid’ah’ (heretical doctrine). Go, read and understand the Qur’an and understand it, not just mouthing verses like a parrot. Bloody moron. Nurul Izzah and the rest of Pakatan Rakyat leadership will only get more support with all these twisting-and-deceiving game played by Umno/BN and their lackeys.
“We are Muslims. We do not change our religion,” – Missing the point yet again. Can you, or not? Are you permitted to, or not. That’s the point., muslims do not quit Islam but many BN muslims betray Islam by abvuse of power, suppression of others and oh yes, corruption. Why dont you speak up against such BN Muslims, Dr M?
Mahathir was whether someone who claims to be Muslim is living the life which a Muslim should.
Or are there more grounds to be disgusted with that person based on his track record and deeds?
There is much danger in trying to hurl sanctimonious proclamations against others if one can easily be targeted with many more flaming arrows.
Or are there more grounds to be disgusted with that person based on his track record and deeds?
There is much danger in trying to hurl sanctimonious proclamations against others if one can easily be targeted with many more flaming arrows.
Now that Mahathir and the UMNO Baru leaders insist that there is compulsion in Islam, can we conclude that UMNO Baru’s version of the religion is not Islam?n the bandwagon and hurled cheap shots at a young lady who was falsely accused for a certain action. Amateurish and unbecoming of a person of his status.
have here some groups of so called religious scholar and hardliners that are so well versed and well above the God in term of interpretation of Islamic values given the civilization a bad name and judgement by the whole world. Please be aware that whatever you do will be watch from above, it just time before it falls back on yourself.
But Nurul Izzah has denied this and yesterday said she would take legal action against Umno-owned dailies Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian for allegedly twisting her statement.
The PKR leader has, however, found support from popular Islamic scholar Datuk Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, who said in an article in Sinar Harian today that there is no compulsion in Islam.
“After hearing her explanation, I understand what she meant. The ‘no compulsion’ is from the aspect of practice in the religion of Islam.
“If truly there were compulsion, this country’s government would certainly take action against a Muslim individual, for example a Muslim woman who does not wear the tudung (headscarf),” he told the Malay daily.
The Univesiti Sains Malaysia (USM) lecturer told the newspaper he had written an article two years ago titled “Iman Tidak Boleh Dipaksa (Faith Cannot be Forced)”, and added that the content was “the same” as what Nurul Izzah had stated.
“Malays cannot be forced and [they] believe voluntarily. But, through preaching, a person can be brought back to the faith,” he was quoted as saying.
Race and religion issues are inseparable in Malaysia, where the Malays — who make up 60 per cent of the 28 million population — are constitutionally defined to also be Muslims.
The country’s supreme law states that Islam is the religion of the federation but also provides for other religions to be practised freely.
In Parliament today, a deputy minister Datuk Dr Mashitah Ibrahim said legal action may be taken against Nurul Izzah for purportedly insulting Islam.
“There are no such provisions for now, but it can be included under provisions on insulting Islam or causing Islam to be insulted.
“Anyone who orally or in written form mocks or causes Islam to be degraded, can be imposed with a penalty of not more than RM3,000 or jail of not more than two years, or both,” the deputy minister in charge of Islamic affairs said.
How about Chua Soi Lek who attacked Hudud and twist around saying he meant Pas’ Hudud? Is that not maligning Islam by painting a horrible picture of it? UTUSAN had lied about Christian conspiracy with that Big Dog. Why not charge them for attempt to incite hatred? Even Naharuddin of Pas did it in Sarawak last month. You want to charge Nurul, who is a staunch Muslim for saying something against Islam? The government must think carefully and don’t be a fool again and again like in Bersih 3.0 after 2.0. Nurul had ever “invited and provided the avenue” of choice of religion as alleged by this deputy. She was merely speaking out her view in response to a question from a reporter. A God-fearing person would have the decency not to twist and spin what she said.The real people who are maligning Islam are those who blatantly practice corruption and cronyism OPENLY and claim that it is their RIGHT !
Go catch the real people who are insulting and bringing shame to Islam by their behaviour (like those in PDRM who hurt unarmed people who only wanted their voice to be heard!BN kept twisting and spinning the facts. I agree with Nurul that religion cannot be forced right into our throats even if by our parents! Even if Christians are being baptised when they are infant they have the right to embrace another religion of their choice if and when they wish. Afterall, believer of religion is based on one’s faith and not by enforcing religious laws to compel.What’s happening in Msian politics? Do we have bunch of ungrown kids sitting in the Parliament? Well Nurul has given her liberal views which should be respected. Sad to note we’ve fools in the BN unable to engage the subject intelligently. The country is facing other more pressing issues but the ruling party is playing up racial sentiment here.
What is the most worthwhile thing in your life? How do you feel about the way you spend each day? What tangible or intangible difference do you make to people and the world? Do you feel worthy and important to those around you?
These are crucial questions that a lot of people are beginning to ask themselves.
Time was when leading a normal life in an honest and upright manner, imparting good values to your children and generally being a good human being was enough. Not anymore. Today people realize the importance of leading a worthwhile life that rises above the mundane concerns of living, eating, working and procreating.
Recently I was surprised when a newly-formed acquaintance asked me, “Do you follow any spiritual practice? Any guru? Do you at least practice yoga?” It was an eye-opener to have someone I had just met and who barely knew me ask these questions.
Adopting a spiritual practice or following a guru has become almost a calling card. It is one of the ways in which people seek to establish their own worth. And it’s not just a quiet religion either; people make a big show of their commitment, even obsessive attachment, to the guru or sect they follow. To an extent the ‘I am Anna” phenomenon falls in the same category. Belonging to a sect or a cause seems to boil down to a search for self-worth, a need we all have to lead a worthwhile life and so avoid falling into the category of an “also was!”
So, if you have participated in a discourse on philosophical or spiritual issues in the day, had a heated discussion on the state of the nation, or stood vigil in the sun while Anna fasted, you feel you have done your bit and are a worthwhile cog in the wheel of life. Some others may get the same feeling after reading a good book or watching a movie that leaves them with some worthwhile thoughts and questions. Still others find solace in helping others — be it with words of advice, food, money, education, work or shelter. Yet others find their worth in attempting to influence social, political, economic or environmental changes.
The choices are many and dictated by the personal urges and aspirations of different people. But if each of us were to locate our personal trigger for feeling worthy, it would have a positive impact on not just our own lives but that of communities and the countries as well. How can you figure out what is worthwhile to you in particular?
When entrepreneur and author Chip Conley was invited to speak at the TED conference in 2010, he echoed the thought being raised by some world leaders that measuring a country’s growth rate by measuring its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is not a relevant benchmark. He reiterated the words of Bhutanese King Jigme Singye Wangchuk that why don’t people talk of a country’s ‘Gross National Happiness’ rather than GDP? Chip Conley left an appreciative audience with the question, “What is the intangible difference you make rather than the tangible work you do?”
Happiness, all would agree, seems to be the key of a life well-lived. A fair measure of what makes life worthwhile for us would then be what makes us really happy! But even more important than that is to believe that there is a reason and a purpose to life and you can contribute something to that purpose. If you did not believe that, you probably wouldn’t be reading this column.
The purpose and what we can contribute to it is what makes life worthwhile. Some of us just seem to know the purpose of our lives and stride confidently towards it, while others dither on the edge. A colleague asked Aruna Roy what made her resign from the IAS at an early age and follow her dream. She replied that once she was sure of what she really wanted to do, she just followed her heart and has never regretted it to this day. To find the purpose, we have to be able to trust our hearts, our instinct and allow it to lead us.
If you get a general feeling of well-being and happiness most of the time when you think of your day, you have found your purpose and are leading a worthwhile life. A friend suggests that each of us write down five things that make us happy and try to follow at least three daily. After a while, he says, we would realize what really matters. It doesn’t matter what the purpose is so long as it translates into making our lives and those of others worthwhile and happy.. As Albert Einstein said, “Not everything that can be counted counts. And not everything that counts can be counted.”
So, what is the one thing for you that would make your life worthwhile? Think about it and let’s discuss
By Joseph Richard Preville
Malise Ruthven is an internationally recognized scholar on Islam and the Middle East. Born in Dublin in 1942, Ruthven was educated at Cambridge University (M.A., English Literature and Ph.D., Social and Political Sciences). He is a former scriptwriter with the BBC Arabic and World Services. Ruthven has taught Islamic Studies, cultural studies and comparative religion at the University of Aberdeen, Dartmouth College, the University of California, San Diego and other colleges.
Ruthven is the author of more than a dozen books, such as Islam in the World (Oxford, 1984); A Fury for God: The Islamist Attack on America (Granta, 2002);Islam: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 1997), and A Satanic Affair: Salman Rushdie and the Wrath of Islam (Chatto and Windus, 1989).
His new book, Encounters With Islam: On Religion, Politics and Modernity (I.B. Tauris, 2012), is a lively collection of nearly 30 of his best essays and reviews from 1981-2011. These essays were originally composed for The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, London Review of Books, and The Guardian. Encounters With Islam is no ordinary collection; it is an elegant portfolio of meditations on Islam in the contemporary world. Ruthven discusses the new book with Aslan Media contributor Joseph Richard Preville.
Joseph Preville (JP): What inspired your passion for the study of Islam?
Malise Ruthven (MR): I am not sure that “passion” is the right word. I was working as a journalist specializing in Middle Eastern affairs in the 1970s when Islam was clearly becoming a political factor, so I decided to educate myself by writing a book — Islam in the World — which came out in 1984. Its warm academic reception led to invitations to teach, and in order to teach you have to try to keep up with — at least some- of the literature. The study of Islam made me aware of its debt to, and affinities, with other religious traditions and the contributions they have made to history. So my interest in religion is far from being limited to Islam.
JP: How did your travels deepen your understanding of Islam?
MR: Before university I spent a year working with beduin in southern Jordan and I think this gave me an insight into the fragility of human existence in a harsh, desert environment and how this informs such basic concepts as “the straight path” and Sharia (the “way” to a watering place) . My subsequent sojourns in Cairo and Lebanon, and visits to Central Asia (including Afganistan), India, Pakistan and Indonesia and sub-Saharan Africa have helped to broadened my understanding of the way a tradition originating in Arabia interacts with local customs and social practices. Travels in the broad belt of territories where Muslims are indigenous, though not always majorities, gives colour and richness to the idea of “diversity”
JP: Why do you think “empathy” and “intellectual humility” are important qualities for engaging in the study of Islam?
MR: If “empathy” means discarding the idea of Islam as utterly different or “other” and “intellectual humility” means avoiding any assumptions of cultural superiority, then I would certainly regard both qualities as absolutely essential.
Western — that is to say Christian and post-Christian — societies face massive problems in areas such as financial management, while the environmental crisis originating in western industrialism is now threatening everyone. Islam has much to teach us in both these areas. In order to take what I hope is a reasonably objective approach one has rid one’s mind of pre-existing assumptions that might prevent one from hearing what “Islam” — or Muslims — are trying to say.
 |
| Malise Ruthven |
JP: You have been credited with originating the term “Islamo-fascism” by William Safire in The New York Times Magazine (October 1, 2006)? Was he correct?
MR: I used the term in a reference to authoritarian regimes in the Arab world, in a 1990 article accessible to search-engines. Previous uses may be lost in the dust of libraries. There are family resemblances between modern Islamist ideologies and the mid-twentieth century totalitarian movement, but also significant differences. Maududi, for example, admired communist and fascist organisations while rejecting their moral bases. One should be wary of drawing the parallels too closely. Islamist movements are generally less well-organised and more ambivalent in their approaches to power than their communist and fascist counterparts. But there are fascist elements, for example in a strain of anti-semitism that goes far beyond legitimate opposition to Israeli policies.
JP: You have been critical of the scholarship of Bernard Lewis. What are your core objections to his work? Have you read his new book, Notes on a Century: Reflections of a Middle East Historian (Viking, 2012)?
MR: I haven’t yet read Lewis’s latest book. I wouldn’t criticize the quality of his scholarship, and he is a wonderfully accessible writer. But his overall approach in recent years has been increasingly blinkered by neo-conservative prejudice. An old school textual scholar, he is dismissive of the social science approaches which I believe to be essential in understanding modern complexities. The theory of a “clash of civilizations” which the late Samuel Huntington borrowed from him is a dangerously simplistic mirror-image of jihadists views about the “West”. Olivier Roy, for example, offers a much more plausible analysis of the multiple interactions between Islamic tradition and today’s global society.
JP: How do you think Muslims around the world will react to Salman Rushdie’s new memoir (Joseph Anton, Random House, 2012)?
MR: I expect the response will be varied, depending what he chooses to reveal. Despite the row over The Satanic Verses Rushdie’s work honours Muslim and South Asian traditions of story-telling. Indeed Shame, the novel that preceded The Satanic Verses, won a literary prize in Iran. While the Muslim Council of Britain which came into being on the basis of opposition to The Satanic Verses has now admitted its error in demanding that the book be banned, there are doubtless many Salafists out there for whom he remains a figure of hate. The Nobel Laureate Neguib Mahfouz was physically attacked for expressing religious skepticism in a much more nuanced way than Rushdie.
JP: What advice would you give to young journalists, who wish to specialize in the study of Islam?
MR: Apart from working in the field with Muslims its important to bone-up on Islamic history and anthropology. Marshall Hodgson’s 3-volume Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in the World Civilization is a good place to start — a tough but necessary read. Ira Lapidus’s History of the Islamic Peoples is also excellent, along with just about everything by Olivier Roy. Gender issues are vital: a place to start investigating the Veil and its multiple significations is Leila Ahmed’s A Quiet Revolution. Islamic law is brilliantly analysed and discussed by Laurence Rosen in the Anthropolgy of Justice and in Sadakat Kadri’s recent book Heaven on Earth — a Journey through Shari”a Law.
NOW WATCH NAJIB’S FINAL JOURNEY WITH ROSMAH AND MAHATHIR’S HIS FINAL SPEACH
COULD IT POSSIBLY BE TRUE? HAS PRIME MINISTER NAJIB BEGUN TO BELIEVE WHAT SOME ADMIRERS HAVE STARTED TO SUGGEST WITH INCREMENTAL PASSION, THAT HE IS MALAYSIA’S BEST-EVER PRIME MINISTER? THE ANSWER MUST BE NO. HE IS CLEARLY NOT SELF-DELUSIONAL MAYBE NAJIB KNOWS HIS SMILE BETTER THAN THE PARTY KNOWS HIS POT-HOLED SYSTEM BREEDS TREADMILLIONAIRES IN OUR COUNTRY, CORRUPTION HAS BECOME MAINSTREAM; HONESTY IS A RIVULET, WHICH IS WHY THE SYSTEM HAS DEVELOPED SUCH SOPHISTICATED EXPERTISE AT DEFLECTING STREET ANGER. THE GAME IS PLAYED OUT IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW, AND WE DO NOT SEE HYPOCRISY TRAPPING US IN SLOW MOTION.WHAT DOES THE SYSTEM DO WHEN IT DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER? IT CHANGES THE QUESTION.
Najib said yesterday that BN was ready to win the next general election as well as take back Selangor, and that public feedback has been encouraging.He said that people have been telling him BN has regained public support since the 2008 polls.The PM has said BN must win back Selangor, a key state due to its industrial and natural resources, “at all costs.
Nalla is just paying back NAJIB and UMNO for his senatorship position. So is EZAM !!!!!!. They will one day stop barking once there is nothing more on the plate Nalla, get him. Fabricate more stories until he cannot shallow it nor chew it whole. Get Ummi, Ezam to help you. Get also Daim and … Read more
COMMENT: It looks like it is one step backward, two steps forward for the powers-that-be.In a diametric reversal of renowned communist-style maneuvering tactics, the government has withdrawn the controversial Election Offences Amendments Bill in apparent placation of BERSIH supporters.
This is a step back from frontal positions taken up before the electoral reform advocacy group staged its protest of April 28 that ended in clashes between sections of BERSIH supporters and Police.
The apparent sop to BERSIH and its supporters was negated by two steps the government announced yesterday whose effect was to push the movement for polls reform back on its heels.
The government appointed a critic of the April 28 demonstration, former Inspector-General of Police Tun Hanif Omar (right in photo with the controversial Tunku Aziz), as chairperson of a six-member independent panel of inquiry into reports of violence at the BERSIH 3.0 rally.
Also, by arguing that Election Commission chief Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof did not renewhis ties to UMNO from the time he was first registered as a member, supposedly without his knowledge, the government was signaling it won’t yield to BERSIH’s demands that Aziz quit the post for reasons of bias.
This one step backward, two steps forward stratagem, intimated yesterday by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz typified the overall pattern of responses by the Najib Razak administration towards the movement for political change in the country.
A sop here and a concession there to the reform movement, whose urgency was powerfully conveyed by the results of the last general election, is cancelled out by regressive moves elsewhere.
Insufficient time
The latest raft of measures taken by the government throws into even sharper relief than was the case before this pattern of alternating the concessionary with the coercive. The Election Offences Amendment Bill 2012 was railroaded through Parliament, together with a host of other bills, on the final day of the House’s first meeting this year.
The Opposition filibustered in vain against what was a transparent attempt by the government to camouflage regressive aspects of its proposed new laws under a patina of reform to draconian laws on internal security and media operations like the ISA and the Printing Presses and Publications Act.
Without giving sufficient time to Parliament and public to debate the scope of the reforms it was proposing, the government managed to slide the regressive aspects of the new legislation within the folds of its more palatable features. The upshot: devious and unpalatable features to the new fangled laws were slid under the rubric of reforms to the old.
The result was that behind the smokescreen of trumpeted reform, nettlesome, even nefarious, provisos were tagged on to the new laws that rendered spurious the government’s avowed intention to do away with their draconian predecessors.
The government spurned the opposition’s plea to refer the new laws to parliamentary select committees (PSC), denouncing the Opposition as insincere in wanting PSCs for some laws and declining it on a hot-button issue such as the rare earth project in Gebeng, in Pahang.
All this conduced to a disheveled and rushed session of Parliament, its haste worsened by pre-election fever. Furthermore, the announcement by BERSIH, after the pressure group had criticised as inadequate the electoral reform measures proposed by a parliamentary select committee, that a sit-down protest would be staged on April 28 ratcheted up the tensions that had hovered over Parliament at its last sitting.
There is a technique in photography called direction blur, which is used to give an impression of speed. The opposition felt, in the final days of the last parliamentary sitting, that they were very much directionally blurred.
Then BERSIH 3.0 blew in with gale-like force on April 28 and ended in skirmishes between protesters and police, predictably followed by a welter of recrimination by both sides.
Marxist-Leninist tactics
The government now wants to tranquilise the febrile aftermath with an independent panel to probe abuses committed by both the police and protesters. In naming former IGP Hanif as chairman of the panel, they have picked someone who had already semaphored his disposition on the issue of whether BERSIH3.0 was a legitimate expression of the right to peaceful assembly.
Hanif has gone on record as having, together with two previous holders of the same office, denounced the BERSIH protest of April 28 as insurrectionary in goal and Marxist-Leninist in tactics.
Appointing him chairman of an independent panel to probe the violence would be akin to choosing Dominic Strauss Kahn to a head an enquiry into whether Nicholas Sarkozy had engaged in pre-election sabotage of the chances of potential rivals for the post of President of France. The notion of Hanif as an impartial moderator simply won’t wash.
Likewise the argument that current holder Abdul Aziz (far right) was not fatally disqualified for the post of EC chair because he was only briefly and unwittingly a member of UMNO; the mere fact that he was an UMNO member has rendered his position as neutral interlocutor between competing political parties irretrievably compromised.
The government’s tactics of yielding to public pressure on the impropriety of the Election Offences Bill while playing a jaundiced hand on the issues of who is to head the independent inquest into Police methods during BERSIH 3.0 and what is to be done about the current EC chair are a classic instance of one step backward, two steps forward maneuvering.
The irony is that even if it sometimes tars its present-day opponents with the brush of its revolutionary adversaries of a half-century back, it doesn’t mind adopting the latter’s tactics, with a twist or two.
No comments:
Post a Comment