Unscientific Malaysia

Petunjuk Yang Maha Kuasa – atau kita sendiri yang tunjuk?

Cob Nobbler — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:13:10 +0000

Mencari petunjuk Yang Maha Kuasa mengikut logik kalimah Tuhan dalam kulat kayu.

Saya masih ingat di suatu petang tahun 1992, saya sedang bermain bola dengan kawan saya sambil tergelak-gelak budak perempuan sedang main skipping. Dalam saya sedang berangan untuk menjadi Bruce Groebellar, dan kawan saya sedang berangan untuk jadi Mokhtar Dahari, lagi seorang kawan saya berlari-lari seperti tak cukup tanah bagai Chicken Little berlari untuk memberitahu seluruh kampung yang langit akan runtuh. Saya terpinga-pinga melihat kawan saya itu, kenapa dia berlari bagai tak cukup tanah?

“Tak lama lagi nak kiamat! Tak lama lagi nak kiamat!” sama seperti Chicken Little dan cerita langit nak runtuhnya, dia datang membawa khabar derita. Buktinya dia membawa sebuah kepingan surat khabar Bacaria, dan menunjukkan gambar-gambar bentuk awan yang berbentuk wanita sedang terbakar dalam api neraka, gambar kalimah Allah dalam bentuk awan, dan juga awan yang berbentuk pelbagai lagi bentuk. Pada ketika itu, saya yang baru nak berangan nak jadi Bruce Groebellar terus melupakan angan-angan tersebut, memandangkan surah dari kawan saya — dunia dah nak kiamat.

Tapi semasa usia saya berusia lebih kurang 17 tahun, saya mendengar surah di Amerika bahawa mereka terjumpa kerusi kayu yang berkulat membentuk muka Jesus Christ. Kemudian saya juga ada mendengar surah di India bahawa seorang budak ada tanda lahir yang sama seperti Dewa Shiva. Jadi, saya mempersoalkan diri saya — apakah tanda-tanda ini tidak hanya tertakluk kepada satu ugama? Kalau Islam mendakwa bentuk-bentuk awan itu adalah petunjuk dari ugama mereka, bagaimana yang lain ini?

Lama-lama saya give up untuk mendengar cerita-cerita ini. Saya pun tak pasti yang mana satu cerita ini benar. Cerita awan bentuk kalimah Allah, cerita akar kayu, cerita urat daging lembu, cerita Jesus pada kulat kayu, cerita lebah berbentuk kalimah al-Quran — dalam djaman teknologi Adobe Photoshop ini segalanya boleh dijadikan cerita.

Pokok ini menyerupai perempuan seksi - perempuan seksi adalah Tuhan?

Kini naik satu level lagi — video sejadah berdiri dan juga video ikan berenang dengan kalimah Tuhan di siripnya. Menjadikan saya berfikir sejenak, apakah Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa itu nak menunjukkan kuasa dengan menayangkan kalimah di sirip ikan atau gambar Jesus di kulat kayu? Takkan itu je yang mampu Dia lakukan?

Kenapa Dia tak mampu hapuskan kemiskinan — hampir 1 billion manusia tidak ada bekalan air bersih. Kenapa Dia tak mampu hapuskan peperangan dengan membalikkan bumi Amerika dan mengembalikan Amerika ke zaman batu? Kenapa Dia hanya menunjukkan Kuasanya pada sirip ikan, kulat kayu, lebah ataupun sejadah berdiri? Saya pun tak pasti sejadah berdiri ini adalah lawak tapai troll siapa yang cuba mahu membuat lawak — tetapi yang sedih adalah masyarakat kita untuk percaya ini semua?

Saya pernah menghabiskan satu hari yang paling membazir dalam hidup saya — menengok awan bentuk apa. Kadang-kadang saya tengok awan ni bentuknya arnab, eh, takkan Tuhan itu adalah seekor arnab? Kemudian saya lihat awan itu berubah menjadi bentuk udang pula. Ah, baru semalam saya makan udang masak petai — takkanlah Tuhan boleh dimakan? Kemudian ia berubah-ubah kepada pelbagai bentuk sehingga hari sudah larut malam.

Kesimpulannya — saya tak nampak bahawa petanda awan berbentuk kalimah ini adalah petanda besar dari Yang Maha Kuasa – tetapi kita sendiri yang tunjukkan ia supaya kita rasa itu petandanya.

Pada petang tadi, saya nampak awan itu berbentuk seperti Liverbirds logo pasukan bolasepak Liverpool FC. Kalaulah saya nampak awan berbentuk Liverbirds itu sehari selepas final Champions League 2005 di Istanbul (perlawanan paling dramatik dalam sejarah), saya dengan beraninya menulis ugama saya dalam borang pendaftaran saya sebagai seorang yang berugama “Kopites”. Kalau nak mengikut logik kalimah Tuhan dalam kulat kayulah.

Hari Darwin 2012

Team UnMsia — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:17:37 +0000

Our first Darwin Day event was a success, despite a minor stir online.

Unscientific Malaysia held our first Darwin Day celebration on Sunday, February 12, to remember Charles Darwin — one of the most influential and misunderstood man in science.

Darwin Day usually celebrates the life and works of Charles Darwin, but also in general pays tribute to science and reason which guided his discoveries.

The event started with an introduction by Zurairi AR, our founder and editor, who recapped the earlier points made in his article “In denial over evolution, in denial over science“. He stressed the damning statistics that slightly over half of Malaysians surveyed in 2008 thinks that evolution is false.

He ended his brief with excerpts taken from notjustatheory.com explaining that evolution is not “just a theory”, which included the joyous final line:

“Evolution is not just a theory, it’s triumphantly a theory!”

The guest speaker, Dato Hamzah Majid was next. The chairman of Cempaka Holdings — which owns the Cempaka Schools — gave some remarks on the life of Darwin. He lamented that after two centuries, Darwin is accepted only by the world community of scientists, and not by the world at large.

Hamzah’s defiant quote resonated with the audience, “I do not just ‘believe’ in Darwin, since believing requires faith. That is not science, and with that we would not be scientists.”

Unscientific Malaysia’s resident biologist and co-founder Hawa O was supposed to present on the misconceptions about evolution, but wasn’t in good health. Instead, she recommended a TED talk by medical ethicist Harvey Fineberg on the next step of evolution:

Dodya Lim then promoted the play boom by Peter Sinn Nachtrieb which was described as an explosive comedy inspired by the wonders of science. Pik-Svonn Liew of ChowKit Kita also promoted the Religion Film Week 2012 which is going on along this week.

Among the most memorable moments was a plea by our writer Zeffri Yusoff, who urged fellow sceptics and science lovers to breed so their voices will not be lost. The audience also had the chance to hold a short video conference with the celebration of Darwin Day in Singapore.

One of the goals of Hari Darwin 2012 was to raise the awareness of science and evolution among the public, and we were glad to see many people tweeting about the day, with our without the hashtag #HariDarwin:

Selamat #HariDarwin semua,igt, hari Darwin bukan utk uncle Janggut sahaja.tapi sebagai apresiasi dunia sains

— Qusyairi Hashim (@qusyairihashim) February 11, 2012

Read Origins of the Species. It’s just RM9.90 since it’s a classic. Don’t worry. I still pray 5x per day after reading it. #HariDarwin

— Izwan Zakaria (@throngz) February 12, 2012

I do not agree that religion and Darwin’s theory is mutually exclusive. Doing so challenges the omnipotence of God. #haridarwin

— dyap38 (@dyap38) February 12, 2012

aku harap hari darwin tak akan jadi trend.bodoh ke apa kau salute orang yang cakap manusia dari monyet

— Danial Sharom Nizan (@Danialsn) February 12, 2012

Selamat #HariDarwin. I wish one of u guys jadi theorist/researcher/scientist yg proven.dont just sat there talk crap n feels educated..heh

— HafeezNazri (@HafeezNazri) February 12, 2012

We hope that in the future, we can work more in educating the public and ourselves on the theory of evolution, and combat the rampant misconception about it.

Thank you to Nook (@NookMalaysia), an anti-office co-working space, for lending a hall for us to organise the event. Find out more about them at nook.my

Celebrating Darwin Day 2012 in Singapore

Guest Writer — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:11:00 +0000

by Pepper Lim (@PepperLim)

Unscientific Malaysia correspondent Pepper Lim’s experience in Singapore on Darwin Day.

Every year, on the 12th of February, people all over the world are invited to celebrate Darwin Day and his renowned theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory earned him a place in history as one of the greatest scientists in history and also the scorn of religious people.

I went down to Singapore with a small group of Malaysians to join the celebration organised by the Humanist Society of Singapore (HSS).

We arrived in Singapore late Saturday afternoon, just in time to freshen up to join a group of hospitable humanists for dinner. At a Japanese restaurant close to Clarke Quay, we talked about cameras, Facebook, Whitney Houston, and rock climbing. Surprisingly, no one talked about Darwin!

Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England on 12 February, 1809. He graduated from Cambridge with a Bachelor of Arts before embarking on a 5 year voyage aboard HMS Beagle serving as a naturalist. After studying the animal specimens he brought back from his sea voyage around the world, he came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection. He expounded this theory in his book, On The Origin of Species, was sold out when it was first published in 1859. His theory made him a superstar of science and Darwin Day has been celebrated all over the world since Darwin’s death in 1882.

On Sunday morning, the small group of Malaysians visited the Art Science Museum and strolled through an exhibition of The Titanic and Cartier watches. Then we made our way to Toa Payoh where the Darwin Day celebration was held. Like typical Malaysians, we were late. But the kind Singaporeans patiently waited for us before starting.

As we rushed into Harmony Room at One People Singapore, the first thing that caught my eye was cookies laid out on a table. Each cookie was decorated with either a “Darwin fish” (a fish with legs) or a finch (a bird studied by Darwin).

Two speakers presented two interesting topics for the audience. Through the magic of the Internet, Terence Tan hooked up video conferencing via Skype for a group of Malaysians who had organised Hari Darwin in Bangsar so they could see the celebration in Singapore.

Dr John Elliot, an Associate Professor from National University of Singapore, presented a talk entitled Can Morality Evolve?. He described how humans attain consciousness via a gradual process starting about 5 million years ago. Humans naturally do good things and not evil because it is beneficial to their own survival. Good deeds are usually reciprocated. This can also be found in the animal kingdom where vampire bats will share their meal with those unlucky to find a meal knowing, in future, they would receive a favour in return.

After the first talk, we were given a short break. Everyone quickly made a beeline for the Darwin Day cookies! It was gone in a matter of minutes and I did not get a chance to take one.

While at the break, I met with Liyan Chen, one of the organisers, and asked her why she helped organise Darwin Day. She told me, “It is to remember the man who contributed so much to our understanding of ourselves as human beings.” I agree; it is mind blowing to realise we evolved over millions of years.

I asked Mark Kwan, a member of the HSS, if there were any resistance to Darwin Day and he told me, “Many religious organisations oppose the idea of evolution, preferring to believe man was created by God. For me, I prefer to see the evidence before I call it fact; and evolution is fact.”

After the break, Dr John Van Wyhe, a senior lecturer of Biological Sciences & History in National University of Singapore, debunked some commons myths surrounding Darwin. Many people think Darwin was so afraid for his theory that he kept it secret for 21 years; this is not true. Another myth says Darwin recanted his view that man evolved from apes and accepted the story of God creating human beings. Again, this is not true.

Then, I was invited to say a few words and I took the opportunity to thank the HSS for being a gracious host. To give them an idea of what is happening in Malaysia, I invited Colin Shafer, a lecturer at Taylor’s College, to give his views on scepticism in Malaysia. He said many Malaysians would readily believe something without first checking out the facts and without thinking it through. Nevertheless, groups like Unscientific Malaysia are promoting science and scepticism.

All too soon the event came to an end and we parted ways promising to connect again on Facebook until the next Darwin Day.

Valentine’s Day “facts” are actually fiction

Guest Writer — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 05:25:47 +0000

by Obefiend (@obefiend)

The truth about Valentine’s Day is more heretical to its supposed Christian origins than local dailies would want you to believe.

Every year without fail we will start seeing articles condemning Valentine’s Day as a day that should not be celebrated by Muslims in Malaysia. One of the most used and rehashed (they rehashed the article annually since god knows when) story is St Valentine was a martyr who died helping the Christians took over Cordoba from the Muslims during Queen Isabella’s reign.

Because of his sacrifice the day that he was buried is celebrated as St Valentine’s Day. Because of this Valentine’s Day is “haram” to most Muslims as celebrating it is akin to celebrating the downfall of Muslim empire in Spain. Sounds plausible right? Nope, it’s wrong and pure fiction.

First of all, there is no St Valentine in Spain during Queen Isabella’s (1451 –1504 AD) lifetime. In fact the only Valentine in Spain history was the brother of Saint Fructus, who died stopping the Moor’s advance into Spain in 751AD. This is a discrepancy of over 700 years between the supposed “Valentine” who helped defeat the Muslims (The Moors) and the St Valentine during Queen Isabella’s reign. Saint Fructus and his brothers’ sacrifice are remembered every October 24, during the St Fructus Feast Day. So clearly this is not the Valentine that we are looking for.

In Christendom history, there have been 7 recorded St Valentines and 11 separate Valentine’s Day that occurred on different days throughout the year. The first Valentine’s Day was in honour of Valentine of Rome (also known as Valentine of Terni) who was a priest martyred in 269AD. Not much is known about this St Valentine other than he was a priest who was buried in Via Flaminia on the 14 February.

The lack of background story regarding this first St Valentine lead historians to believe that Valentine’s Day was created to suppress the pagan celebration of Lupercalia, a very ancient Roman pastoral festival, observed on 13 February through 15 February to avert evil spirits and purify the city. If you haven’t already known about this, early Roman Christians assimilated their pagan celebrations with their Christian beliefs. For example the pagan celebration of sun worshipping on 25 December is converted into Christmas Day despite the fact Jesus was actually born on 17 June.

It also should be noted that the early Valentine’s Day had nothing to do with neither love nor romance. This brings us to the modern day’s version of Valentine’s Day.

It is generally accepted that the modern VDay celebration started in the 19th century when a woman by the name of Esther Howland started designing cards for VDays. The celebration started in England before spreading around the world like it is today. In the ‘50s, lovers started exchanging more than just cards and the commercialisation of VDay as we know it today started. In the ‘80s DeBeers started linking diamonds with VDays and many men end up broke so that their significant others may have the in vogue diamond VDay gift.

As you can see, the modern day VDay is now perverted beyond recognition from its Christian (or is it Pagan?) origin. I would say that the modern day VDay is not even the same VDay as celebrated in 269AD or Rome for that matter. The date and name might be the same but the one being celebrated now is totally different. Sort of how Christmas and Easter are now considered “not Christian enough” by fundamentalist Christians.

Thanks to commercialism, a lot of the religious celebration is now no more than a day for capitalists to make a quick buck out of them. Only in VDay can you see a man buying roses and chocolates at twice the normal price. The free market can be such a dick come Valentine’s Day!

So why do we keep seeing factually wrong articles in Muslim-owned newspaper when VDay is just days away? I guess this is another case of fictional oral history being passed around for years and years before eventually accepted as fact. The fact that it’s repeatedly printed in magazines, newspaper, and forwarded emails only reinforces the idea that the story is legit.

“Bai.. gua baca ni dulu dalam majalah Al Islam dan Berita Harian bai. Takkan dia nak tipu so ni mesti fakta sohih ni! Apa je dia dapat dengan menipu”

“Tapi takkan ko tak nampak banyak lobang dalam cerita ni. Takda fakta langsung cuma 2-3 cerita disambung jadi satu.Tarkih pun tak ada padanan”

“Ni la kamu….. termakan dakyah setan! Pergi la sambut kalau nak masuk neraka“

“Kenapa lak aku masuk neraka kalau sambut VDay?”

“Pasal ada hadith – Sesiapa melakukan perbuatan menyerupai sesuatu kaum, maka ia termasuk bersama golongan itu”

“So you are telling me if I celebrate New Year, World Cup, AIDS day, Diabetes Day, Hari Pahlawan, Hari Guru , Hari Persahabatan dan segalanya aku masuk neraka la yek. Macam tu?”

“Ko ni memandai lah. Hari yang diilhamkan kaum kafir je haram”

“Abis ko ingat hari-hari yang aku listkan tadi tu siapa yang reka? Graduation day pun kaum kapir yang start dulu. Yang baling Mortar Board Hat masa graduation tu kapir yang start dulu! Masuk neraka la kamu nanti!“

*********************

Majlis Fatwa should issue a fatwa on playing “mercun” during Ramadan and the two Hari Rayas. Using the same arguments they used against Valentine, I say a ban on it is long overdue.

First of all the tradition of burning fireworks is heretical in origin. The Chinese believe that by setting off fireworks they can ward off evil spirits. This is clearly not in line with the holy Islamic beliefs. Only “ayat-ayat Al-Quran” can ward off evil spirits. Not carbide and manganese stuffed into cylindrical rockets!

Furthermore plenty able-bodied Muslims were killed and maimed due to homemade “mercuns”. To add to this, the burning of fireworks disturbs the sleep of many Malaysia regardless of religion. They are just bloody annoying.

Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on Obefiend’s blog, but it has since been deleted during a site attack.

In denial over evolution, in denial over science

Zurairi AR — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:50:21 +0000

Malay Muslims; their stubborn denial of evolution and their understanding of none of it.

“Malays have no problems embracing science when it supports their pride, but they won’t even acknowledge the theory of evolution,” a friend remarked after reading the news on proto-Malays. It might sound like a broad sweeping statement, but it is obvious that most Malaysians, and by extension most Malays, have strong disagreement with the subject despite being poorly educated on it.

When asked “Did human beings develop from an earlier species of animals?”, slightly over half of Malaysians answered “false”, a mere 17.4 per cent answered “true” and the rest were unsure. This statistic was then published in the most recent report on scientific and technological awareness by the Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (Mastic) in 2008.

In comparison, almost half of those surveyed back in 2004 answered “true”, 21 per cent answered “false”, and the rest unsure — a complete opposite of 2008’s result.

Suspiciously, Mastic decided that the correct answer to the question is “false”, contrary to the answer in the American and European version of the survey. The decision was, according to them, “for many different reasons not to be mentioned in this report.” By their own admission too, this had eliminated any fair international comparison for the survey.

It is no secret that there are some of our medical students overseas who purposely skip their evolutionary biology lectures “in protest.” Steve Jones, emeritus professor of human genetics at University College London, claimed that an increasing number of Muslim students in UK had been boycotting his lectures.

In TV AlHijrah, we have a government-owned (read: taxpayer-backed) Islamic TV channel which freely airs pseudo-scientific and pro-creationism drivel such as the show Signs of Creator. This is just one of the many works by cult head Adnan Oktar, more known and idolised in Malaysia by his pen name Harun Yahya. I tried watching it the other day, but lost my patience by the time it got to the Miracles by Prophets are Proofs that Evolution is Wrong section.

What in the name of Darwin happened here?

I blame the encroachment of religion into non-religious studies, especially science. If you are a parent, do take some time to go through the syllabus of high school biology supplied by the Ministry of Education. Despite dedicating a chapter for Variation, one section of the chapter suggested the teacher “conduct a sketch to show respect for all God’s creation”, and espouses “being thankful to God” as one of the scientific and noble values to be learnt through the curriculum.

Shouldn’t this be left in religious studies? It is bad enough that the government is letting religion be part of scientific studies in class, out of class they are even letting theologians teach science through channels like TV AlHijrah.

There are two main concerns with those who are in denial over evolution. Most people, especially Muslims, have trouble reconciling their faith with it. Literal interpretation of holy scriptures tell that all humans came from the Adam and Eve pair, who were in turn created from clay — as opposed to a common ancestor from which homo sapiens and apes come from (no, evolution does not say that humans came from monkeys).

I shall not address here how to make this reconciliatory process work, save that I offer this for Muslims to consider. Consider that many medieval Islamic scientists and philosophers — of which people are so fond of reminiscing — have dabbled in primitive evolutionary ideas. Al-Jahiz, famous for his Kitab al-Hayawan (Books of Animals) and Ibn Khaldun, who wrote in The Muqaddimah (The Introduction) are just some of the names who have pondered on the theory of evolution. Consider that in the modern world, there are numerous Muslims who see no problem in studying and championing the topic without jeopardising their faiths, such as Dr Usama Hasan, vice-chairman of Leyton mosque and a senior lecturer in Middlesex University, UK.

The other main concern with evolution is the insistent that it is only a theory — only an assumption, that is widely accepted by the scientific community for the lack of an alternative theory. This can be put down to a lack of understanding in the scientific method. A theory is not a guess, but rather a framework that ties different ideas. The theory of evolution then describes the different mechanisms with which evolution occurs: natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow are all theories of evolution.

Evolution is not just a shot in the dark, not a lucky guess. Since Charles Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859 (that was more than 150 years ago, by the way), evolution has become a robust theory, subjected to rigorous testing and supported with a lot of empirical scientific evidence. To put it simply, evolution is a fact, without which nothing in biology makes sense.

Opponents of the theory of evolution have a big glaring problem: there is not one scientific theory proposed that can explain the origin of humans any better. Without this, proponents of creationism had to resort to the vague concept of Intelligent Design: a divine hand helping and guiding evolution as it goes… something that might not even be testable.

To be fair, it matters not whether evolution was guided or not. The fact stands that it is a scientific fact, and the stubborn denial of it would only impede one’s understanding of the basic building blocks of our universe. It is only when we fully embrace the building blocks, we can move on to the construction of more advanced ideas.

Malay Muslims and the ‘perfect religion syndrome’

Guest Writer — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 05:25:58 +0000

by Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasi

Most Muslims in Malaysia think that only their religion is perfect, thus closing any room for growth.

The main purpose of this essay is to explain what I term as the ‘arrogance’ of many Malay-Muslims in reacting to certain religious issues that have plagued the existence of Malaysia since her independence half a century ago.

Muslim Malays are suffering from what I term as the “perfect religion syndrome”. This means that Muslims, especially Malays, feel that their religion is the best and that other people of many faiths are “wrong”, always out to convert the Muslims and trying to politically and militarily dominate Muslims, wherever they are.

In other words, non-Muslims are kafir (infidel) and therefore the sworn enemies of Islam. Malays also feel that it is their jihad, or solemn responsibility, to protect Islam at all costs.

Everyone who is not Muslim is suspect and especially so if they are non-Malays. I think this sums up pretty much how Malays generally feel in this country.

The Malays have been brought up by the national school curriculum, the ceramah or lectures of the ustaz or religious teachers, religious television shows and of course the religious scholar-politicians of PAS and Umno.

The Malays do not “read” about Islam, for reading seems to be synonymous with people who are “astray”.

Islam as part of history of civilisation

Of all the major religions of the world, Islam is the youngest.

Muslims celebrate this fact by stating it is therefore the most up-to-date religion and that others are just “old hat”. For those unschooled in the religion’s history, Islam is, according to Muslim historians, part of the Semitic religion, with its parent religions in Judaism and Christianity.

Islam is tied to Judaism and Christianity by the line of the Prophet Ismail or Ishmael, the son of the famed Prophet Abraham or Ibrahim. So Islam is tied to the two great religions since Isa or Jesus also came from the long line of the prophets from the lineage of Ishak down to his mother Mary or Maryam or Miriam.

Both the Quran and the Bible narrate the story of Mary and her miraculous birth, again both attesting to this undisputed fact. The Jews of course deny the divinity of Jesus by modern Christians and the Prophethood of Isa by Muslims.

As one can see, the stories of the Quran, the Bible and the Torah are like three rival siblings, telling three slightly different versions of stories concerning one simple issue or incident. The three siblings choose to quarrel about slight differences whilst forgetting they all came from the same father, Abraham.

What then of Islam’s relationship to other religions? What is Islam’s position vis-a-vis say, Buddhism?

Messengers from God

Muslims unanimously agree that there have been two different kinds of messengers from God. One is the rasul, who number around 300, and the other is the nabi, who number in the hundreds of thousands.

The main difference between a nabi and a rasul is that the rasul is supposed to spread the revelations from God to all human societies and engage directly in the socio-political scene of each age.

The nabi, on the other hand, is given revelation but not required to engage in the spreading of the message. They are there probably to give aid to the rasul or to act as intermediate carriers of the message between the periods of prophethood or rasullullah.

The eminent scholar Prof Dr Hamka of Indonesia, in his Tafsir al Azhar, made a commentary that perhaps Buddha was one of the nabi, as he spent his whole life seeking enlightenment but never involved himself directly in politics and nation-building.

The Prophet Muhammad, Isa and Moses confronted the establishment and engaged in political discourses and Muhammad even went on many military campaigns against tribes as well as the empires of Rome and Byzantine.

What is important to discern here is not the different versions of history but the fact that Muslims must understand that Islam sits on the timeline of a historical, theological, social and philosophical discourse and not separated in limbo.

The mufassirun of old or those who provide commentaries on the Quran found that they had to refer to the old Judaic texts to place many of the historical verses of the Quran within a proper historical context.

So, Muslims cannot be “perfect” or perfectly suspended without any historical, philosophical and spiritual context in the knowledge of human civilisation.

The sufi ‘imperfection’ attitude

Muslims think that they are “perfect” because they think the Quran says so. We all know that if someone were to say that he or she is “perfect”, then we know that that person should not be made a friend.

This is because “perfect” people have no way to develop. Why? Because they are perfect. How do you live with a friend, a spouse, a parent a co-worker or anyone who says everyone else is wrong except he or she who is “perfect”?

To err is human, to forgive, divine. If you are human, then you can never say that you are perfect. Even in religion, the sufis teach that one must always think that one’s sin is a lot even if it seems few and that one’s good deeds are few, even if it seems a lot.

If one feels that one’s deeds are “enough” or adequate, then one is in a state of spiritual crisis. Even the Prophet Muhammad was not “perfect”.

He made the mistake of turning away from the blind man who came to ask to be taught while the prophet was engaging with the leaders of Mecca. Allah “reprimanded” the prophet in the Surah Abasa. The prophet was asked about his military decision in the Badr battle and when it was shown that it was not a sound strategy, he opted to accept another person’s suggestion.

In Sufi teaching, you must remain in the state of “imperfection” of hoping for Allah’s mercy till your dying day and then you will achieve peace with ridha, or pure acceptance.

I have read about Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela Mother Theresa, St Thomas of Aquinas, Dalai Lama, accounts of the Buddha, Christian literature, Hindu philosophies and I have come out a better Muslim because all of these readings affirm in different forms or narration what I have to struggle to understand from the writings of religious scholars like Al-Ghazali, Ibu Arabi, Al-Shafie and many others.

The art of changing the soul into one of a higher humanity is difficult if only one source is considered. As an academic searching for knowledge, you must access all sources available and a clearer scenario would open up with these numerous sources and the path to true knowledge begins.

Candidates for heaven or hell

Muslims think that they are all destined to heaven by a mere professing of the Kalimah Shahadah. Some have even told me even if they were punished for a period in hell, everyone eventually ends up in heaven!

It’s really funny to hear what Muslims think in this way because the Quran contains verses where Allah reprimanded the Jews for saying the very same thing! The Jews were arrogant, according to the Quran, for thinking since they are the “chosen people” and loved by God, and that they will not suffer any punishment in hell.

Allah challenged them through the prophet’s statement by asking the Jews to pray to Allah to make them die at that very moment so that they can fly to heaven!

Obviously, none of the Jews dared to do so. The business of going to hell or heaven resides with Allah alone. Mortals, whether Muslims or from other religions, should feel funny in debating such issues.

Once, Christianity was said to be selling places in heaven by forgiving sins in exchange for cash. Certainly, Christianity is not at fault here but the greed of men, even if they call themselves cardinals, bishops or ulama.

The Prophet Muhammad once said to his daughter, Fatimah, that even he does not know her fate in the akhirat or hereafter.

Once, when the prophet heard a few of his companions remarking about so and so who would go to heaven, and that so and so would go to hell, he said that a person may be doing acts that seem to be destined for him to go to heaven but there is a hand’s span between him and heaven, he does a deed that puts him into hell. Similarly a person may be engaged in deeds that may destine him to hell but there is a hand’s span between him and hell, he does a deed that places him into heaven.

Bottom line? No one should dwell on this matter.

Going astray

The Quran lists people who are greedy and deep in self-interest at the cost of others and even at the cost of selling the religion. From my readings, these people who are astray come from all religions whether Muslims, Christians, Jews and many others. Look at Indians. Once they were not Muslims, as were the Malays.

Now Indian Muslims number much, much more than Malay Muslims and the best scholars seem to be from that race. I am indebted to the writings of Abul A’la Maududi, who opened my eyes to Islam. He was an Indian. Once I asked my brother-in-law if he would trust a Jew should he or she embrace Islam.

He said the Quran has laknat or cursed all Jews and Christians and thus we must never make friends or believe in these sworn enemies of Islam.

What about Muhammad Assad? He is a Jew who converted and wrote the influential book, The Road to Mecca, and also wrote the commentary of the Quran, The Message, which I found an invaluable academic source of reference.

Should we condemn Muhammad Assad just because he is a Jew? Then again, why did Allah permit Muslim men to marry believing Christians and Jews? How can we marry them if the Quran has cursed all Jews and Christians?

No, that verse referring to cursing the Jews and Christians refers to people who have their vested interest and greed in mind and so made things difficult for the prophets of old.

Thus, we Muslims should refrain from making judgements whether the Christian King Najashi, who helped the first migration of Muslims to Abyssinia, or Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Theresa, as those who incurred the wrath of Allah for not becoming Muslims.

There was a film, The Blind Side, about a white Christian family who cared for a homeless African boy and made him a family member until he grew to become a successful football player.

Will such kindness be repaid with the fires of hell just because they were Christians and had not converted to Islam? I believe in Allah’s Mercy and Divine Providence.

Simpati untuk Al-Hallaj

Guest Writer — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:51:20 +0000

oleh Asrul Muzaffar Mohammed

Umat kini hidup dalam era kurang percaya diri dan perlukan objektiviti, bukan seperti zaman al-Hallaj.

Bayangkan pada suatu hari kita sedang berjalan-jalan di Pavilion Bukit Bintang. Tiba-tiba ada seorang Mamat berpakaian serabut mundar mandir berlari sana-sini berteriak menempelak “AKULAH KEBENARAN! AKULAH TUHAN!”. Apa persepsi pertama anda terhadap Mamat tersebut?

Kita kini hidup di dalam era kurang-percaya diri, atau insecurity.

Kita mudah gusar bila menerima emel atau SMS mengatakan bahawa kopi latte di Starbucks kononnya bercampur emulsifier berasaskan haiwan.

Kita cepat seronok bila mendengar latahan kononnya pelajar sekolah agama terlihat kalimah Al-Quran di biji buah durian.

Kita mudah tersentak bila menerima khabar angin kononnya tarian Poco-Poco mengagungkan agama menyembah roh dari Jamaica.

Kita lantas marah bila mendengar mitos kononnya lagu Baby oleh Justin Bieber itu menghina agama Islam.

Tapi itulah hakikatnya – kita rasa kurang percaya-diri bila ada sanggahan terhadap sesuatu yang kita telah genggami turun temurun.

Tetapi agama bukanlah sesuatu yang boleh diobjektifkan. Sebarang langkah untuk ‘meng-objektifkan’ agama akan menelanjangi agama itu dari segala kekaguman, kudus dan rasa kecil insan yang seharusnya dirasa apabila berhadapan dengan Pencipta.

Mungkin sebab itulah golongan Ahli Sunnah begitu obses dengan hukum hakam dan fatwa. Kerana hukum hakam dan fatwa boleh diobjektifkan. Boleh dizahir depan mata, dipraktik, dibincang, ditelaah.

Mungkin sebab itulah kita meminati filem Khurafat, Senjakala atau Santau – kerana segala kepercayaan kita terhadap ‘perkara ghaib’ di-objektifkan, dipertonton dan diiyakan dengan jelas di hadapan mata.

Kerana kita hidup di dalam era kurang-percaya diri. Kita sentiasa mahukan ‘bukti’ bahawa apa yang kita percaya itu adalah Kebenaran hakiki.

Sufisme, Tarekat, Tasa’uf (atau apapun terma yang ingin dipanggil) bukanlah sesuatu untuk masyarakat umum. Terutama masyarakat yang telah terasuh untuk hanya berfikir secara objektif dan dipaksa menerima secara literal apa saja yang dikatakan oleh Tok-Tok Guru.

Bila berbicara tentang Pencipta, yakinilah bahawa “Wa lam yaqullahu kuffuan Ahad”. Tiada sesuatu pun yang serupa dengan-Nya. Tiada sesuatu pun perkara yang telah, sedang atau akan terlintas di kepala manusia adalah sama dengan-Nya.

Dia tidak ‘bertutur’ dalam Bahasa Arab, Aramik, Hebrew atau Latin (walaupun Dia yang menciptakan bahasa tersebut). Malah bila disebutkan bahawa Dia ‘bersemayam’, ‘berkata’ atau ‘murka’ – kita WAJIB percaya bahawa Dia tidak melakukannya seperti yang kita lakukan.

Bila saja Al-Husayn Mansur Al-Hallaj (858-922 AD) mengatakan bahawa “Ana Al-Haqq”, ia bukanlah bermaksud bahawa beliau dan Tuhan telah ‘bersatu’ secara literal.

Al-Hallaj merujuk kepada suatu situasi di mana segala kedhaifan, keegoan dan ciri duniawi yang ada pada beliau telah hilang lesap apabila ruang hati avatar-nya dikosongkan agar hanya ‘tinggal’ Kekasihnya semata-mata.

Suatu dimensi di alam metafizikal di mana diri beliau mampu ‘lena beradu’ dalam ‘pelukan’ maha kasih Maha Kekasih.

Sesuatu yang amat peribadi.

Sesuatu yang maha indah dan tak mampu diperjelaskan oleh kata-kata atau sebarang bahasa yang wujud di muka bumi.

Sesuatu yang hanya miliknya dan Kekasih yang amat dirindui.

Kekhilafan Al-Hallaj ialah kerana menghebahkannya kepada masyarakat umum suatu rahsia yang hanya sepatutnya dikongsi di antara beliau dan Kekasihnya.

Sebarang gerakan Sufisme, Tarekat atau Tasa’uf yang cuba menghebahkan aktiviti mereka, cuba menarik ramai pengikut, mengajar menyembah kubur guru yang dikatakan ‘karamah’ atau mengangkat pengasas gerakan itu melebihi darjat Rasulullah sendiri – maka gerakan itu mungkin tidak lebih dari sebuah gerakan devian.

Malah mana-mana guru yang beria-ria melakukan publisiti di kalangan pengikutnya bahawa “Wei… semalam aku dah bersatu dengan Tuhan secara harfiah”, maka guru itu tak ubah seperti seorang nabi palsu.

Kerana Dia bukan kita.

Tapi kita adalah Dia.

Rights, loudspeakers and call to prayer in Malaysia

Guest Writer — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:12:56 +0000

by Hafiz Noor Shams (@__earth)

If mosques are free to use their loudspeakers, they should also be ready for criticism.

Though a libertarian and in many ways individualistic in the sense that I am protective of my individual negative liberties rights, I am highly conscious of the fact I live in a society. Even with these rights intact, there have to be a give and take, some kind of mutual and voluntary compromises.

The realisation that we do not live as an island is doubly important in times when rights are unclear. The exercise of these unclear rights does create tension and ultimately bad blood in society. That is not a way to live by. This is especially so in a multicultural society where no certain way of life is necessarily taken for granted.

Yes, this about the call to prayer controversy in Penang. Although it happened it Penang, it has happened elsewhere in the past and it is really a case applicable nationwide, even elsewhere.

In Malaysia where everything done in the name of Islam is accepted by the conservatives as sacrosanct, criticism against the use of loudspeaker by mosques has been considered as an attack by Islam, at least by them. I do not think this can be seen separately from the Malay right narrative, where rightly or wrongly within local context, the idea of Malayness is seen as Islamic.

Noise (I use noise here without prejudice and only in a very general sense that it is a series of loud sound regardless of its human origin) is a complex issue as far as rights are concerned. On the default, I think I am happy to have the right of making noise stands as it own. It does seem to me like a negative liberty.

It is not a primary right I suppose but only a derived right, derived from freedom of expression. One perhaps could derive it from religious freedom but I tend to believe religious freedom itself is a derived right, and as far as the Islamic call to prayer in Malaysia is concerned, I think freedom of expression is more relevant than religious freedom. That does not mean religious freedom is being negated. I am simply stating that freedom of expression is more relevant. Sometimes, reiterating that in useful as an emphasis. I have found that typical readers read only to forget what they read in the previous sentence.

In any case, given the default position, there clearly is a problem with individual or organisation like mosques using its right in early morning in a residential area, causing discomfort to others, especially for those who do not appreciate being effectively shouted at with a loudspeaker.

I personally have bad experience with mosques and call to prayer. My childhood home in Malaysia is surrounded by at least three large mosques, never mind the smaller ones dotting the neighbourhood. During call to prayer, the three will seemingly engage in a competition with the loudest call will win the day.

This is very, highly annoying. Things are made worse when these mosques use loudspeakers and project their reading of the Quran or the actual prayer outward.

While the default position belongs to the mosques, it is much better for the general harmony of the neighbourhood to not, at least, use the loudspeakers at every single chance these mosques have. Even with the right, voluntary compromise goes a long way in creating tolerating neighbourhood. One does not what to live a neighbourhood which bad blood prevails.

Respect, compromise and harmony may be a something-in-the-cloud or everything-and-nothing kind of approach. It sounds nice, but what exactly does it entail?

Well, I think it means mosques need to use their loudspeakers discriminately. Personally, I think the best is by turning the loudspeaker inward rather than outward. Realistically, use it only for actual call to prayer, and be extra mindful about its morning usage. Lower the volume by some notch, especially when there are oppositions. If there were none, the problem would not have existed in the first place.

Be as that may be, with the default case of right belonging to the mosque, freedom of expression and free speech is a two-way street. If the mosques insist in using its right, then criticism will be mounted. The mount of such criticism is also part of negative individual right. It is part of free speech.

So, if negative rights and liberties are adopted as the way forward by the mosques to justify their use of loudspeaker and projecting it outward to show its Islamic credential, they must face the criticism in the spirit of free society. Do not issue threat. Do not think that that criticism is some kind of unfair demand.

This goes with churches and temples as well.

In fact, I think it goes for all of us. Loud radio, loud TV, loud party, firecrackers, speaking into the phone loudly in the train, etc.

Just be mindful of your neighbours. Do not be obnoxious.

And I think that is reasonable.

p/s — while I am supportive of any move of reducing the use of loudspeakers by mosque, I do not support having a central authority telling local mosques what to do. That however is another issue that I will give it a pass right now.

Why atheists must not be silent

Darrick Lim — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 05:17:11 +0000

In response to calls that atheists should stay quiet in Malaysia, our contributor explains why they can’t just do that.

When GaySec wrongly accused Arlene Tan of being the anonymous anti-Islam blogger Makcik Hajjah Sitt Al-Wuzara, there was an encouraging show of support for Arlene from sensible people, both religious believers and non-believers.

Yet even among those who condemned GaySec’s irresponsible smear campaign, there were some who openly wondered if Arlene’s own criticisms of religion contributed to her recent ordeal. A few of her supporters have gone so far as to suggest that critics of religion, particularly atheists, should just STFU and refrain from antagonising the faithful.

This call for atheists to censor themselves is wrongheaded. It also casts undeserved blame on Arlene Tan, who has done nothing to warrant the horrible experience she went through. The guilt lies entirely with GaySec and their rabid supporters. They are guilty of two things: falsely accusing an innocent person of criticisms she did not make, and responding to those criticisms with an apoplectic rage that is ridiculously disproportionate to the actual injury caused.

Secularism is on the rise in many parts of the world, and religious groups aren’t happy about it. A favourite pushback tactic of theirs is to cry discrimination, that their rights are being trampled on by the godless. If they’re referring to their ‘right’ to be bigots, to be shielded from criticism, to be accorded special privileges like tax-exempt status and unelected political power, and above all to be unquestioningly respected, then yes, such ‘rights’ should be denied to them.

Religious groups demand these pseudo-rights because they understand – and fear – the consequences of not having them: they would be forced to compete with more liberal, rational, progressive and humane ideas on equal terms. A level playing field in the great social debate humanity has with itself is a prospect that frightens the religious. Without the cocoon of special privileges combined with secularist stigma, religious arguments would be exposed to the harsh light of reason and evidence-based scrutiny – and they would promptly wither.

Atheists, humanists and freethinkers know that they have a better than good chance of winning in a fair ideological fight. Religious groups are aware of this, so they try to silence their opponents either by force or by the more subtle yet no less deplorable method of tarring them as supposedly strident, aggressive, militant, arrogant, simplistic polemicists. As atheist activist Adam Lee writes in a blog post:

In their furious hushing of atheists and demanding that we be more respectful, in their efforts around the world to pass bills punishing speech that insults or denigrates religion, we see that what the major religious groups and their allies want is to silence dissent. Again, they don’t want to compete in a marketplace of ideas; they want society to be their parishioners, sitting in enforced silence while they alone stand in the pulpit and preach.

The need for atheists to speak out against the lies, harms and hypocrisies of religion is greater in societies that remain under the thrall of backward, oppressive, misogynistic beliefs. It is unremarkable to be an outspoken atheist in a liberal, irreligious, egalitarian society. But for secularists in places like Pakistan or conservative Middle Eastern countries, being a critic of religion takes incredible courage.

In a society gripped by religion, each time an atheist dares to speak out against it, one risks physical harm, even death, at the hands of the fanatical elements of the Belief Brigade. That one needs to be brave to stand for truth, reason and knowledge is in itself a terrible indictment of religion and the maliciously bigoted segment of its believers.

Despite the heated polemics of those like the New Atheists and their supporters, not one of them would ever call for religious believers to be killed, maimed, raped or tortured as a warning to other believers. While religion has no monopoly on violence and cruelty, it shows an appalling tendency for both.

We have the current situation prevalent in religious parts of the world where violent, often murderous, intolerance towards heathens, infidels and unbelievers is encouraged, even celebrated, by self-appointed dispensers of God’s justice. We witnessed as much from those who bayed for Arlene Tan’s blood over a perceived slight to their religion’s dignity.

Secularists everywhere must not be cowed by such thuggery. Religious bullies have little more than incoherent anger and childish oversensitivity to sustain their position. Like all cowards, their aggression melts away when it is opposed by intelligent, articulate, passionate secularists supporting each other in a show of solidarity.

As for those religious believers who may not aggressively confront their critics but nonetheless wish that these critics would simply be quiet and mind their own business, they will be continually disappointed. Their religious beliefs, like all beliefs, are not immune to criticism.

The same liberal ideals that guarantee them the freedom to believe in fairy tales and deities also allow others to question, dismiss and mock their convictions. Of course, believers have the right to argue back. What they do not have the right to do is forcibly gag those who disagree with them.

Adam Lee writes:

There’s a lesson here for freethinkers: to win the debate, we just have to show up. If we can speak freely and make our case, we’ve already won. If we can successfully claim the same rights and the same privileges as religious people, we’ve already won. If ordinary people have friends and family who are atheists, and know that they have friends and family who are atheists, we’ve already won. If the battle is waged on a level playing field, our victory is assured, because we know that in an open and fair debate, our arguments are the better ones and will carry the day. It’s only coercion and prejudice that can hold us back, and both those obstacles are weakening and falling one by one.

Yes, secularist arguments are indeed the better ones, for they are based on reason, evidence and universal values. This is why certain religious believers would rather we didn’t voice them. And this is why it is important that we do.

Confession by Arlene Tan: My side of the story…

Guest Writer — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 03:52:52 +0000

by Arlene Tan (@ArleneTan)

After the ordeal suffered as a result of GaySec’s libel, Arlene Tan tells her side of the story.

The week a fortnight ago was tough for me as it really taught me the values of patience and forgiveness. Despite all these, I feel sad that in this holy month of Ramadan, there are still people out there who do not understand the importance of respecting truth and upholding the good values taught in Islam.

This article is written in response to the event that unfolded two weeks ago, when a bunch of school-kids went on a crusade to expose the identity behind Sitt Al-Wuzara. These kids calling themselves GaySec had unfortunately caused a huge damage and hurt to my personal life as they falsely accused me of being Sitt. They exposed my identity and personal information on the internet, and worse they created disinformation by accusing me of being a murtad (apostate) and insulting Islam.

I am saddened that people believed in such misleading allegation and in fact even spread the false news to others. It became like wildfire that I feared for my life, Never in my life had I been fitnah (slandered) by people who have no regards of other people’s lives.

Before I rewind back on what actually happened last week, I want to be clear about who I am, what I did or didn’t do. Due to GaySec’s misleading accusation, many assumed that I am a member or knew about the Facebook group Apostate of Malaysia and Singapore (AMS). The truth is, I have never been a member of AMS and have never even heard of it until I was falsely accused. I am all for free speech and freedom of expression, but I am definitely against any sorts of hate speech or mockery of any religion.

On the other hand, I actively joined debates and discussions in the Facebook group Malaysian Atheist, Agnostics, Freethinkers and Friends (MAFA), as well as Unscientific Malaysia (UM). These groups promote healthy discussions on various issues, ranging from science, philosophy, religion & faith (any religion, even scientology), supernatural, controversial issues, etc.

What was interesting about these groups is, they encourage people from all spectrum of belief-system — from religious, to conservative, to liberal, to secular — to give their two-cents.

The so-called “evidence” that GaySec proudly cropped out and displayed came from a long discussion thread in MAFA titled “Malay Atheist?” more than a year ago. As Muslims, I think it is important never to judge, and understand the plight of others.

As an avid traveller, what inspires me most are the knowledge, cultures and people that I meet along the way. I notice that Islam prospers tremendously and Muslims display the values of Islam much better in places where people are free to choose their religion — especially secular nations where religion is free from political manipulation and state hijack.

That is why in most of my writings I advocate the importance of upholding faith as a personal relationship with God, rather than wearing religion as if it is mere marketing brand to show off to others. I care a lot about Islam, hence I feel it is a duty for me to uphold these values.

Coming back to the night when GaySec threatened me: I received random calls from people I do not know and death threats in SMSes. People kept on sending hate messages to my phone and Facebook account with really horrible messages.

Some wanted to rape me, some wanted to kill me slowly until I die a horrible death, some called me a whore or animals, some even said that I was born because my mom had sex with a dog! What was my crime to receive such hate messages?

Is it wrong to comment about the authorities and looking for a clean religion that lives in the hearts of believers? Asking the authorities not to downgrade the value of religion? Had anybody who sent me those dirty words thought of why they were doing that? I felt the world had become dark as I was drowning in sadness.

These people were just following a very clear mistake without even questioning. This time I was the victim, but it was possible that this could happen to anyone. What if their own family or themselves had been threatened like that? Would they forgive? Could they stand it?

The eagerness and hatred in finding the identity of Sitt is understandable, but abusing religion and people’s emotion to seek attention and making noises for nothing will never help it. All I could say was istighfar to God seeking for His guidance.

It got even more horrid when I saw blogs dedicated to how I should be killed, some became stalkers and digged deeper information about me, but none of them cared to check their facts or even thought about the grave sin of fitnah in spreading the lies.

I was under so much stress and sadness from GaySec’s despicable act. Was this how easy of them to accuse another Muslim of murtad just because of differences in opinion? Islam was forced to become mere playing field for these hooligans in order for them to satisfy their sadistic need of so-called jihad (holy war).

That night, I received so many calls that I got a really bad feeling that something wrong is happening. I was so sleepy and tired, but a good friend brought me to the police station in the wee hours to make a police report. I was forced to skip work a few days as I feared that my life was threatened.

After the report, I consulted a lawyer and lodged a report to the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission for and (MCMC) as well. I went to MCMC to co-operate with the officers in their investigation. I also wrote a public statement that I was wrongly accused but instead I received so many hate and vulgar comments in my blog. These had made me very sad.

To add salt to injury, GaySec only stated a public apology after the damage had been done. In fact, they treated the whole episode as just a small mistake and again falsely accused me as “keliru dalam agama” (confused in religion). They did not see that they had in fact committed a serious crime and a serious sin of fitnah which is despised by Allah. Again, religion has become mere tool for these people to simply brand someone that does not share their views as “confused”.

This is how blind faith works where people are subjected to conform without question — especially when it comes to the superiority of religious authorities. The essence of Islam is buried within the books untouched and collecting dust (while pretenders scream loudly as the “defenders of Islam”), Islam is being played according to the politics of the day, while constructive criticism and expression of free thoughts are refrained.

I call all moderate Muslims who uphold peace and truth to speak out against such hooligans who only care to hijack Islam and its good values. For those who are still hunting Sitt, please go to the police and MCMC to provide your evidence, instead of harming the life of another innocent human being. Don’t expose personal informations on the internet and create even more sin of fitnah among the Muslim community in our country.

To GaySec, let me be very clear. If forgiveness is what you seek, I suggest you:

Taubat (repent) to Allah,
Come forward to me personally and apologise,
Retract all their posts about me on the internet,
Give a disclaimer message to all the blogs, Facebook group, page and personal comments that they had fitnah/slandered me and caused grave harm and distress to my life
Demand all these sites to delete the misinformation and stop them from spreading
Perform community services at places, and with people of other religion/race, preferably in places of worship of other religion or poverty-stricken areas inhabited by non-Malays
Blog about their interfaith experience in their community service afterwards
Learn comparative religion on Islam, Christian, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrian, Atheism, Agnosticism, Jainism and Taoism by talking to people of these faiths or do research of your own (the internet for a start?)
Read books by Islamic philosophers/thinkers such as Ali Shariati, Rumi, Avicenna and Fatema Mernissi and blog about your thoughts on the writings of these scholars.
Do charity work by volunteering in NGO that promotes welfare to the poor, sick and unfortunate.

Just a reminder to GaySec: the punishment for fitnah (if not being forgiven) is hell.

To other Muslims who helped spread the fitnah about me, if forgiveness is in your mind too, I urge you to repent and do as much as you can in promoting good values of Islam. Please stop the fitnah by deleting your blog posts that falsely accused me and enlighten your readers to refrain from fitnah or hate speech.

My sincere hope is for Malaysia to be a nation that upholds true peace and harmony, regardless of race, religion and creed. From now on, we all ought to go against the evil veins of ignorance, hate speech and blind faith. Only through upholding good values in religion — in any religion for that matter — can we mature and prosper as a nation.

Nevertheless, I want to thank all those who had stood by me and did not believe GaySec’s accusation. I also would like to thank my family and friends that tried their best to counter the disinformation spread by GaySec. There are good people that went to these blogs and Facebook walls to request people not to quickly point fingers, and instead asked them to verify the validity of the accusation.

I would like to thank Azwan Ismail for coming forth to clarify the truth regarding on the discussion threat in MAFA. Finally, I would like to thank all blogs that promote their readers to think wisely, not to spread fitnah and respect truth. Especially Unscientific Malaysia, which quickly responded to GaySec’s false accusation by debunking their half-baked “evidence” with factual analysis.

Thank you and Salam.