Yet the Malays create numerous excuses to prolong their crutches mentality.
28/06 04:38:53
===========================
Yes mujehidin.
You said it right.
You wanna see how virtuous a nation is - watch the money.
NEPist think they can control money - they do not understand that money is an "idea", and not a piece of paper.
It is a contract for value, between two entities.
If there is exchange between them for anything other than this, slowly but surely, if perpetuated, it would lead to an economic meltdown. It would encourage corruption, and it would attract all the conmen, pirates, cheats and speculators who are the opportunistic capitalists (read- parasites).
That is why Zimbabwe is having an inflation rate of 4500%, today. They thought that the money will flow in the moment everyone had land and assets, once they give them wealth through “affirmative action”.
They did not understand that money will stay only with those who know how to "create wealth".
No legislation in the world can change the laws that rule the idea of "money".
Do the NEPists realize that by depriving others of opportunities to create wealth legally, by demanding respect through legislative acquisition of assets, they cannot suppress them (the entrepreneurial society) and elevate the Bumiputras? Indeed they don't. They don't realize that what they need to create, is a “paradigm shift” in the as a result of the acquisition of knowledge (via legitimate education/ competition), and not creation of overnight millionaires via “policies” of “affirmative action”.
Do they honestly believe that the rogues of the economy who have “struck gold” would actually care for the people of their own “kind”?
Do they believe, that by depriving the truly entrepreneurial guys of equal rights or legitimate opportunities and giving freely to parasites, would create wealth for the dispossessed?
Sadly they are mistaken .... all that they would succeed in doing is, driving the economy "underground" and creating a "black money" economy (as was the case in many socialist nations of the past e.g. India). This black money/ undeclared money cannot benefit the people and it has to circulate among the corrupt, or in the "entertainment and gaming industry". It encourages dubious business ventures in an effort to make it "white". (In India, there is even a movie theatre that screens the “Sholay”, three times a day – for the past 30 yrs - to an audience of no more than a handful, so that “they” can declare incomes from a “full house”!
The people raise a hue and cry when it is alleged that the police are part of the underworld – but do they have a choice? They are doing their job, as per the NEP, which has unwittingly given a boost to the underworld! Therefore it (the underground economy) has become an essential part of the NEP!
This black money is "hot" and it wouldn't stay, if it cannot turn "white" - hence the appeal of Swiss/ offshore banks, purchase of precious metals, entertainment/ gaming industry and dubious business ventures.
When there is strife and chaos as a result of an economic meltdown, this money will be the first to flee, while the people languish in squalor created by the "protectionist affirmative policies" that protect the criminals, rather than the victims.
This is what the NEP (as it is practised) is in actual fact doing.
This is where Malaysia is heading with its economic policies - Zimbabwe!.
Excerpted from the RZIM Critical Questions booklet, Why Bother With Truth? Published in Areopagus Journal 2/2 (April 2002): 13-18. Posted with permission by Areopagus Journal (http://www.apologeticsresctr.org).
How can we know the world around us? How can we know God? How can we know anything at all? These are some of the questions of epistemology, the study of theories of knowledge. Epistemology has two main goals. First, we want to find as much truth as possible. And second, we want to avoid as much falsehood as possible. These two goals stand in tension with each other. I can easily acquire very large amounts of truth. If I were totally gullible, I’d believe just everything I hear. That would give me the largest number of true beliefs possible. But the problem is that along with all the true beliefs I’d acquire, I’d also obtain many false beliefs. So I’d have some needles of truth hidden in a very large haystack of error. That wouldn’t help me much. Similarly, I could easily avoid as much error as possible. If I were completely skeptical, I’d disbelieve everything. That would safeguard me against every falsehood. But the problem is that I’d miss out on all truth whatsoever—and some truth might be very important. So that wouldn’t help me much either. No one urges us to believe absolutely everything. But some very important and influential thinkers do advise us to believe nothing (or very little)—or at least they recommend that we believe only when an idea is incredibly well supported. This is skepticism. Skepticism puts most of its energies into avoiding error, and very little effort into finding truth. So how can we develop an understanding of epistemology that goes beyond skepticism? How can we balance our desire for truth with our need to avoid error?
Truth and Knowledge
It’s critical to distinguish truth and knowledge. Too many people equate these two concepts, with chaotic results. But truth and knowledge are different concepts. Put simply, true affirmations are those that correspond to reality. So truth is a characteristic of statements that properly describe aspects of the real world. This is called the correspondence view of truth. The correspondence view of truth isn’t a method for testing truth claims or discovering knowledge. It’s a definition of what we mean when we say that a statement “is true.” According to the correspondence view, what makes a statement true is reality itself. A statement like, “This car is red,” is true, simply if the car in question actually is red. Truth doesn’t depend on anyone knowing the truth. So, for instance, even if no one’s around to discover that it’s 115° at 2:00 p.m. on August 15, 1977, in the middle of Death Valley, it’s still true that it’s 115° out in that desert. The statement, “It’s 115° at 2:00 p.m. on August 15, 1977, in the middle of Death Valley,” is true even if no one thinks about it. Truth is independent of human minds. The word knowledge denotes a person’s proper understanding of the true nature of reality. This proper grasping of reality can be knowledge by acquaintance. In this sense, we know what the color blue looks like. An accurate perception of reality can also take the form of knowledge of true statements that describe that reality. Both of these are important. Knowing a friend is more akin to knowing by acquaintance, and it’s more important than just knowing about a friend. But knowing true statements is also important. In fact, the two kinds of knowing are related, because knowing by acquaintance entails the truth of descriptive statements. If I know a friend named Greg, then I know many true propositions, including “Greg exists” and “I count Greg as a friend.” For a belief to count as knowledge for a person, it must meet three conditions. First, knowledge must be true. We don’t just mean that someone thinks the idea is true. We mean that the idea is true. Members of the Flat Earth Society (believe it or not, there is such a thing!) think that the earth is flat. Do we count their belief as knowledge? Of course not! They believe the earth is flat, but their belief is false and hence can’t count as knowledge. Genuine knowledge is true. Second, knowledge must be believed. We must believe a claim (that is, we have to hold a belief as true) in order to know it. Of course, believing something isn’t enough to make it true, and not believing it doesn’t make it false. But without believing, a true idea isn’t knowledge for us. Suppose it’s true that one of my great-great-grandfathers was a Confederate Army lieutenant whose troops played a key role at the Battle of Fredericksburg. Now suppose I don’t know this fact and don’t have any particular beliefs about the lieutenant. In this case, it’s obviously true that my great-great-grandfather was this lieutenant, but it would be very odd to say that I know this about my great-great-grandfather. In fact, I probably have very few beliefs about my great-great-grandfathers. I can know generic things: eight persons who lived sometime in the last 250 years are my great-great-grandfathers. They were males; they fathered my great-grandparents; and none of them ever watched TV or received an e-mail. But since I don’t believe anything individually about any of them, I can’t be said to know anything distinctive about them as individuals. We must believe something to know it. Third, knowledge requires some other fact that legitimates the knower’s holding that belief. The belief must arise out of this legitimating fact; it must be grounded in this “something else.” Now we’re being vague because the exact nature of this legitimating fact is very hotly debated. But the importance of this legitimating fact is that it separates genuine knowledge from true beliefs that are held purely by chance. Obviously, we shouldn’t consider a true belief as knowledge if that belief was the result of a wild guess. Say I win the lottery by guessing the winning numbers. Sure, I hoped that the winning numbers would be the first five digits of my Social Security number, but it’s wrong-headed to say that I knew that they would be the winning numbers! In sum, by the word knowledge, we mean a true belief held by a person for an appropriate reason—that is, grounded in a legitimating “something else.”
Forming and Testing Beliefs
If knowledge is true belief plus some legitimating fact, then how should we set the standards for assessing these legitimating facts? The 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes concentrated on this very problem. His philosophy set the stage for modern discussions of knowledge. Descartes’ approach posited very high—too high—standards for that “something else,” that legitimating fact that distinguishes merely true belief from genuine knowledge.
Methodism Vs. Particularism In order to weed out false beliefs and gain genuine knowledge, Descartes required that all candidates for genuine knowledge must arise from a method. Correct method (for Descartes, the geometric method) is the key to finding true knowledge. This approach is called methodism. Methodism, in this discussion, isn’t the religious denomination. Rather, it’s an epistemic theory that stipulates this: we know any particular true belief if and only if we arrive at or produce that knowledge by following a correct method. Here’s a specific example. Suppose someone asks me whether I know the statement, “My coffee cup is blue.” (Let’s call this statement p.) Methodism requires that before I can truly know p, I must follow a proper method by which I know p. So to know any particular truth, methodism says I must follow a proper epistemic method. Although Descartes’ methodism may seem like a promising way to ground knowledge, it’s fundamentally flawed. Methodism requires that before I can know anything, I must have prior knowledge of the method by which to know that thing. But then how do I know that method itself? My coming to know what method to use would itself require following a prior method. This quickly leads to what’s called an infinite regress. Every time I try to answer the problem, the problem keeps appearing. I start moving back a chain of questions. But every time I move back to a prior link in the chain, the problem repeatedly emerges. It’s like asking, “What explains Michael’s existence?” If I say, “His parents,” I just raise again the very question I hoped to answer: “What explains his parents’ existence?” “Their parents?” Ultimately, given the methodist approach, there’s no way to end this infinite series of questions. In the end, if methodism were true, I’d have to know something (the right method) before I could know anything. There’s no way out of this double bind. But there’s another approach to finding the legitimating fact that separates true belief from knowledge. It’s called particularism. Particularism starts by assuming that it’s right to know particular things directly (that is, without following a method) since we find that we already know many particular things. In certain conditions, we directly and properly form true beliefs. And we form these beliefs through a variety of means. We see a tree or hear a train. We compute things. We infer conclusions from things we see or hear. We learn from experts. We read the Bible. Each of these processes generally leads to true beliefs. And so it’s legitimate, particularism says, to count particular beliefs like these as knowledge. We shouldn’t be required to step back and first prove that, say, our vision is perfect, before we rightly know something we see. That would lead us back to the methodist trap (since we’d have to prove the method that we use to prove our vision is perfect). So it’s better just to assume that our properly formed beliefs are innocent until proven guilty. With these particular beliefs in hand as examples, we can begin to understand what knowledge is—and gradually to increase the number of things we know.
Testing Individual Beliefs But difficulties arise when we run into contrary evidence. Let’s say that, just by looking at it, I form the belief that a particular stick is straight. I have no reason to doubt this because my eyesight’s generally very good. Then I put the stick in water, and suddenly I form the belief that it’s bent. Again, my eyesight’s pretty good. But my mind tells me that the stick can’t be both straight and bent. So which of my two beliefs is true? Or let’s say my wife helps me pick out a tie that looks gray to me. I protest: “It’s too drab.” But she assures me that the tie is a nice shade of rose. Should I trust her judgment? It’s when this sort of thing happens that testing procedures become important. This is where we follow methods. We have procedures to help us figure out which of the conflicting things that our normally reliable belief-forming processes are telling us is actually correct. The conflict between beliefs produced by these normally reliable indicators leads us to question whether what we think we saw could really be so. I remember something in my high school physics class about light refracting when it passes through water, and this accounts for the bent appearance. Or I remember that I’m color blind in reds and greens, and this explains why the rose-colored tie looks gray to me. So what do we do about conflicting facts? We go to procedures to help us sort them out. (This is the correct insight that methodism takes too far.) Should we just give up and concede skepticism? Hardly. What are the procedures or strategies for evaluating competing beliefs? First, our beliefs should be rational. At a minimum, this means that our beliefs shouldn’t contradict one another. This is coherence, a negative test. Say I believe both that “I’m the world’s leading microbiologist” and that “I don’t know much about microbiology.” These beliefs are obviously incompatible, and so holding both beliefs at the same time is irrational. One of the two (or maybe both) must go. Coherence is necessary. But it doesn’t guarantee truth. Incoherence is a significant red flag. It guarantees that some beliefs are false. We should pursue strategies in order to avoid holding incoherent beliefs. Second, our belief should fit with the evidence. If a belief doesn’t fit with data we know to be true, we should give up that belief. Take the claim, “I’m the sixteenth president of the U.S.” This belief conflicts with many well-established facts: “The sixteenth U.S. president’s name was Abraham Lincoln”; “My name is David Clark”; “Abraham Lincoln is dead”; “I’m alive”; and so on. So I’m really not the sixteenth U.S. president. Generally, we look for beliefs that fit the evidence. But notice something very important. We don’t stipulate a rule: “Every belief must be proved by evidence before it counts as knowledge.” Among other problems, that rule would land us back in methodism. The problem with making this rule into an absolute requirement for knowledge is that the rule itself can’t be proved by evidence. No evidence could ever prove that “Every belief must be proved by evidence before it counts as knowledge.” So we do look for evidence to help us, but only when it’s appropriate.
Testing Large-Scale Models So far we’ve been talking about particular beliefs. But we also seek knowledge about large networks of truth claims. A large-scale scientific theory, for example, is a complex set of interlocking claims, all connected in a large network. Large-scale models include many different kinds of things, including scientific, historical, and even religious convictions. Large-scale models compete with each other to see which one does the best job of explaining all (or most of) the known facts. Thus, for instance, the heliocentric (sun-centered) model of our solar system competed with the geocentric (earth-centered) model. Though this isn’t well known, both the heliocentric and geocentric models explained the available physical facts equally well for centuries. Physical observations didn’t finally confirm the heliocentric model until more than 200 years after Galileo’s controversies. Thus, the heliocentric model didn’t compete with the facts. Rather, it competed with and finally defeated the geocentric model of the solar system by doing a better job of explaining the most facts. This is one way that large-scale models gain support—by outdoing their rivals at explaining the data. Here’s another example. When National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators are trying to explain a plane crash, they look for evidence. They know what to look for because they’ve explained other crashes by finding telltale facts that guided them to large-scale explanations. The telltale facts are clues that unlock patterns of interpretation and lead to strongly supported explanations. The NTSB puts all the data together and concludes, say, that the plane crashed because a turbine blade in one of the engines shattered. The power of this explanation to incorporate all the relevant data—like the loud explosion passengers heard and the sudden loss of airspeed reported on the cockpit data recorder—is a major reason we hold that the large-scale theory is a properly supported, interlocking set of true beliefs. The individual facts are themselves grounded in experience (such as the sound of the explosion, the report of the plane’s reduced airspeed, and the shattered pieces of the blade). The large-scale theory incorporates and explains these and many other facts. Complex explanatory models can form ongoing programs of research and investigation. They not only explain what we know already. They can also guide us to what we don’t yet know. Take, for example, the discovery of Neptune. Uranus didn’t orbit the sun as the large-scale models suggested it should. But when scientists imagined that another planet was exerting gravitational force on Uranus, then its orbit suddenly made sense. So scientists began looking for this other planet, and sure enough, they found Neptune. This is similar to “superstring theory” which developed when theorists used mathematics to explain their observations. The mathematical calculations worked out beautifully when scientists assumed the existence of things they called superstrings. The calculations are powerful in that they explain a number of related issues. So researchers posit that superstrings exist even though they can’t observe them. Research programs that guide researchers to new discoveries are progressive. This helps confirm their connection with the real world. But testing large-scale constellations of beliefs isn’t simple. In fact, it’s sometimes impossible. Theories about particular events, like why a particular ship went down in a perfectly calm sea, may never in fact be understood. The problem might be that certain key pieces of evidence are stuck too far down on the sea floor. This means we could explain the event in principle, but can’t in fact. That is, there’s no logical reason why we can’t explain this event, but there’s a practical barrier to our understanding. So in this case, we should remain agnostic rather than claim to know what we really can’t know—at least until we develop a new submersible vessel that can get down to the wreck and find the key evidence. The truth about some complex processes might just remain hidden. Testing models is even more complex because it requires making judgments of several different kinds. What are the facts to be explained? (Sometimes the two models will explain different ranges of data, and there’s no way to step outside the two models to know which range of apparent facts is really most relevant.) What are the criteria by which we decide which explanation is best? (Sometimes the two explanations will excel at two different criteria—one model might be simpler while the other is more helpful in guiding us to new discoveries.) So our procedures aren’t straightforward and linear. But reasonable judgments are still possible. When the NTSB investigators find a cracked turbine blade, we know we shouldn’t blame the pilots for the crash (and maybe we should blame the jet engine manufacturer). Gathering knowledge isn’t always easy, but it’s amazing how much we can learn through carefully using all our strategies in a coordinated way.
Knowledge and the Intellectual Virtues
Thus far, we’ve been discussing some of the key elements of a proper understanding of knowledge, including belief formation and testing. We’ve argued that knowledge requires true belief plus some account of that belief—something that legitimates the belief. But thus far we’ve been quite coy about what this account is. It’s time—indeed, past time—to repair that deficiency. What is this feature that, when added to true belief, constitutes knowledge? Here scholars disagree—in fact, there are few things about which epistemologists disagree more! Thankfully, it’s not our purpose to address all the academic squabbles. Rather, we’ll offer an account of knowledge that we find persuasive. t focuses on the relationship between knowledge and the intellectual virtues. What are intellectual virtues? Virtues are qualities of excellence possessed by a person. Intellectual virtues share some characteristics with moral virtues. In fact, many acts that are virtuous in a moral context are also virtuous in an intellectual context. Examples of intellectual virtues are honesty and courage. Being intellectually honest means making a fair appraisal of the evidence at hand, dedicating effort to reach valid conclusions, admitting personal biases that affect beliefs, and seeking to override or reduce those biases. In an intellectual context, courage involves, among other things, being willing to take a minority position when the evidence points in that direction. It also means investigating personally held beliefs with rigor. An intellectual virtue, therefore, is a characteristic of a person who acts in a praiseworthy manner in the process of forming beliefs. But an epistemic virtue isn’t simply an instance of intellectual skill. For example, think about the ability to see sharply. This is a skill that some lucky people have from birth. This ability isn’t developed over time. (In fact, eyesight falters over time.) So it’s not particularly virtuous. Virtue relates more to what a person does with abilities or skills like incredibly sharp vision. Further, the intellectual virtues don’t just happen naturally. Rather, they arise from habits. Like good habits (such as exercising and eating healthfully) and bad habits (like biting fingernails and gossiping), the intellectual virtues are the sorts of things that become more and more a part of us the more we practice them. Similarly, the more we practice their opposites, like intellectual dishonesty, the more difficult it becomes to respond to any given situation in an intellectually virtuous way. Intellectual virtues influence, and are influenced by, the motivations of the one employing them. A person must come to believe something out of proper intentions. Say that a student named John hears a teacher talking about a classmate whom John dislikes. “He is nice,” the teacher says. Because of his ill will toward the student, John hears, “He has lice,” and he jumps on this bit of negative information. Even if it’s true that the student has lice, does John’s belief count as knowledge? No. Even if he believes it, it’s true, and it’s grounded in a normally reliable belief-forming process (John has good hearing), from a virtue perspective, John’s belief doesn’t count as knowledge since this belief arose in an intellectually non-virtuous way. John’s belief was shaped by his malicious attitude toward the fellow student. Given all these points, we define knowledge in this way: Knowledge is true belief that is reached or acquired through an act of virtue. The key insight of virtue epistemology is that knowledge isn’t just an issue of whether evidence exists for specific belief at a particular time, but an issue of how a person goes about gathering evidence. So whether or not a particular belief is properly grounded for me has to do with how I formed the belief. Did I form this belief in accord with the intellectual virtues, reflecting praiseworthy habits of belief formation and testing acquired over time? Or did I form this belief in a manner that reflected slipshod handling of the evidence or haphazard reasoning processes?
Conclusion
We began by talking about our need to gain truth and avoid error. Skeptics are fixated on avoiding error. Their concern is the adequacy of a person’s evidence. To avoid falsehood, skeptics place a very high standard for admissible evidence. For some skeptics, the standard is so high that every belief becomes doubtful. We agree that avoiding falsehood is vital. And given our virtue-oriented epistemology, the notion of evidence is important. But more important is whether we rightly handle the evidence we have! An unscrupulous person can twist evidence to support the position he holds. But if we’re intellectually virtuous, we’ll operate differently. We’ll treat evidence honestly, overcome our biases toward our own culture’s preconceived notions, and refuse to misuse evidence to gain power or to pretend that our own pet beliefs are superior. So is knowledge possible? Even though people have many false beliefs, Yes! The existence of junk car yards doesn’t count as evidence against the existence of new cars. Similarly, the existence of intellectually non-virtuous people doesn’t show that intellectually virtuous people fail completely in their quest for genuine knowledge. In sum, due to human limits, some things are beyond knowing. But if we exercise the intellectual virtues, we can achieve genuine knowledge about important things. Skepticism wins some skirmishes along the way, but it doesn’t win the war!
James Beilby is an adjunct professor at Bethel College and Theological Seminary, St. Paul, MN.
David K. Clark is professor of theology and Christian thought at Bethel Theological Seminary, St. Paul, MN.
The following is my response to a comment from Rentap to RPK, who was of opinion that you need a guru to learn about the Quran, as opposed to that of RPK
[Okay, I may have a well-stocked library with hundreds of books, I may have the entire 11 volumes of Hamka’s Tafsiran al-Quran, I may have all nine volumes of Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, and I may have six different English Language translations of the Quran. But that is still not enough.]
Okay, get hold of a medical book, read through and then try calling yourself a Doctor.
Rentap wrote: Okay, get hold of a medical book, read through and then try calling yourself a Doctor.
Ah, my dear Rentap, that is just the thing. I DO read medical books and know that in the first 40 mins of jogging (at 10 kph speed) I burn my sugar and after 40 mins I begin to burn fat. By 2 hours of jogging I eat a Mars Bar which I carry in my pouch to replenish my sugar to allow me the energy to continue until 5 hours (my time for a Full Marathon). I also drink 100Plus every 30 mins to replenish my salts which I lose through the sweat as drinking only water replaces the fluid without replacing the salts.
The night before the Marathon I eat plenty of rice for the carbohydrates but take no food before the run since it takes my body 2 hours to digest solid food. I take plenty of fluids 30 mins before the run since it takes my body 20 mins to absorb liquids.
Yes, I DO read medical books and learn and apply what I learn but I NEVER call myself a doctor or perform brain surgery on my friends and family. And I bet you can't run from Kuala Terengganu to Kuala Lumpur in 48 hours or cycle from the Perlis/Thai border to the JB-Singapore Causeway in 36 hours like I did at age 40 and 45 respectively. (But that is another story for another time).
Oh, and one more thing, I also NEVER call myself an ulama or religious scholar, if that is what you are implying.
Being Human said: Note the main subject is OPINION not performing brain surgery. ----------------------------------------
You can't blame folks like Rentap and his ilk for their lack of sophistication in differentiating between the two. After all, they are in serious need of reconstructive brain surgery themselves.
But this is not the first time, and will also not be the last time, we have seen such pea-brained excuses by these kinds to stifle the opinions of others.
"Okay, get hold of a medical book, read through and then try calling yourself a Doctor. " By Rentap
Bad analogy here, a medical book is for specialised trainer. Allah on the other hand, wants everyone to know him, so he would want you to find him, by giving opinions and discuss more about him. Not just baca dan hafal. Mesti tanya soalan.
Rentap wrote: Okay, get hold of a medical book, read through and then try calling yourself a Doctor. ------------
Let me raise some points with you:
1. How do you know the medical book is accurate. If I read a medical book written in the middle ages, I'd be 'leeching' myself for every ailment! No medical book is perfect.
2. How do you know doctors are perfect? My Uncle, an autodidact in the medical field, has questioned his various doctors using his Merick's Guide and found their diagnosis to be indefensible.
The only way to verify anything is through experience. Doctor's qualifications mean nothing if they kill you.
So too can you have PhD's from Madinah, al-azhar or UIA or whatever. But if you teach Islam contrary to what Rasulullah taught, you're wrong.
Dear Rentap, "It is in the uncompromisingness with which dogma is held and not in the dogma, or want of dogma, that the danger lies." -Samuel Butler, The Way Of All Flesh
For you to draw a parallel between medical knowledge and dogma is logical, but inaccurate.
It must be borne in mind that it is possible that laymen know more than some doctors in specific areas of speciality. You do not need a medical degree to have accurate medical opinion. Nor do you need all the medical knowledge to do an operation. I do know of medical assistants who actually guide and teach doctors on various things. Moreover no doctor can claim that he has all the answers.
Having said that, it must be remembered that Medical knowledge lacks the element of "spirituality" for which there is no University curriculum or "guru".
I recollect very clearly what a wise man once said - He said, "Do you think you will find God when you come to church regularly? Or is it when you say your prayers? Or is it when you do 'penance' by fasting? No, my man! Go into the world, face the challenges in life, do good to others - then you will find God! The temples, mosques, churches and synagogues are only for fellowship and for the weak who need support. You on the other hand are made for greater things ......"
Just as the above was ending, josh - a participant in the discussion on MT, had fired an uncouth salvo at "anon" who had praised RPK on the article.
This guy, josh, is a real weirdo - he seems to enjoy "picking fights" on the web! The last time, he actually threatened me after he had misconstrued what I had written - he is so "dense", that no amount of explanation spelled out made a difference.
He got so upset with the word "towelhead" (though is was in reference to the ignorant guys who advertise Islamic religiosity with a turban which isn't a religious requirement in Islam)- apparently he is a Punjabi and has a turban - so he claims that this term is derogatory to him exclusively!
The following was the "retribution" he got from anon and me ....
Yet another masterpiece. This article I believe sums up not just what you write but me and others as well.
When we write on certain issues, there will always be some on the defensive. But that is precisely what posts are all about, to bring out those moles living in mudholes.
Living in mudholes is one thing but living in twisted mudholes with guilt whimsical, weird and narcissist dogma is another.
qualifications- professional ball-licker in MT have been continuously lickin RPK balls using various techniques and rhythms ----------------------------------------
I'm glad to know I hit the nail on the head. You must be one of those mudhole moles.
You are the kind of pathetic pariahs that I am talking about. You and RPK are poles apart. That is what I am trying to say here and you have proven it.
josh wrote: anon =
qualifications- professional ball-licker in MT have been continuously lickin RPK balls using various techniques and rhythms ----------------------------------------
I'm glad to know I hit the nail on the head. You must be one of those mud-hole moles.
You are the kind of pathetic pariahs that I am talking about. You and RPK are poles apart. That is what I am trying to say here and you have proven it.
If someone writes a good article, I acknowledge it. I have done that to a few other people who write well AND with substance in their articles. But you choose to see the negative side of everything.
Various techniques and rhythms? Listen shithead, either the article is good or not good or perhaps somewhere in between. So, one does not have to use ‘various techniques’ to say so.
You have overshadowed OU. You have just revealed what is in your head …. if there is any. Garbage in garbage out.
If you have nothing else to say other than crap, I would give you some advice …. Shut the fcuk up you damn pusillanimous reprobate.
People like you make want to puke. You seem to have this obsession with licking balls. Did your friends steer clear of you because you licked their balls dry? I guess they ran off because you ventured into licking other tools.
Now you’re not even 'qualified' to lick anymore. You went into overdrive. Your friends absconded because of your asinine half-baked, dense, fatuous hollow rock that’s on your shoulder.
woooh anon, Reign it in man! Josh is the guy who freaked out and threatened me for mentioning the word "towelhead" (he claims to be the Punjab variant)..... now you called him shithead! Don't flatter him lah .....
LOL. If that prick claims to be the Punjab variant, then you are indeed spot on .... he must be a towelhead .... only difference is he must be a dickhead towelhead. It's okay lah, let me flatter him more. People like him adore flattery.
This mongrel must be an outcast in the Punjabi society. Must be living in seclusion, ostracized by his own community.
I made a simple comment, just a personal observation of what happening , here is what the replies I got from u,
pathetic pariahs shithead revealed what is in your head …. if there is any. Garbage in garbage out. crap, Shut the fcuk up damn pusillanimous reprobate People like you make want to puke. obsession with licking balls( who was ball lickin again?)(it seems he's licked their balls dry? I guess they ran off because you ventured into licking other tools. ---wow, ur vry imaginative, reminds me of sum1----
'qualified' to lick anymore. You went into overdrive. Your friends absconded because of your asinine half-baked, dense, fatuous hollow rock that’s on your shoulder. You vacuous degenerate diabolical deviant -----dunno where all this came from?---
and certainly, ur proud of what u said ''But I certainly am not retracting what I said.''
repeat that to ur mom, I guess she'll be proud too... '''dickhead towelhead.
This mongrel must be an outcast in the society. Must be living in seclusion, ostracized by his own community.''''
anon, remember. sometime back, u wrote an aticle about some crap.... then I commented something about me 'feeling pretty fucked up after reading, and u r a pretty fcked up guy' It is something about my sixth sense where I can read ppl very easily, and can get to the the 'inner-self of someone without even actually knowing much abt that someone'... I couldn't explain that that time, but my sixth sense was right nevertheless, u've shown ur true self now...I think u have the liberty now to judge ur ownself..u've said everything, there is nothing much left for me to say about you. anothr thing, I never mentioned and hinted anything abt ur race and background etc... that was what u did, nt me, let me ask u, whos the racist here?
and about me, i'm no one... just less than 2 decades old... calling me a pariah?... ok fine, its ur opinion, but then glance through ur comments again and compare it with mine....if i'm a pariah, ur then an ultra-pariah but I think, culturally its obvious who is the pariah here, but that is irrelevant to me... are u the right person to be talking about race, religion, culture. etc?...like I told u judge urself
fellow bastard( anon), ======================================== You are a bastard, don’t include me in your category. ---------------------------------------- simple comment, just a personal observation ======================================== Hey dickhead, you wrote: josh wrote: anon =
qualifications- professional ball-licker in MT have been continuously lickin RPK balls using various techniques and rhythms ---------------------------------------- That is your version of SIMPLE comment? Just a personal observation?
You retard, that’s a personal attack fool. Don’t you know the difference? What a mutt. ======================================== and certainly, ur proud of what u said ''But I certainly am not retracting what I said.''
repeat that to ur mom, I guess she'll be proud too... '''dickhead towelhead. ---------------------------------------- Now you have stooped even lower, your head in in the abyss dickhead or should I say towel head. You have resorted to bringing in mothers!
Remove that towel on your thick skull and you might just see some semblance of your crap that you write.
Have you been deprived? You poor soul, your momma must have kicked you in your arse when you were trying to lick her too. One too many she must have said. Or perhaps she liked it, who knows. ======================================== It is something about my sixth sense where I can read ppl very easily, and can get to the the 'inner-self of someone without even actually knowing much abt that someone'... ---------------------------------------- Now we have an licker with sixth sense. Take your ‘sixth’ sense and shove it up your arse because that’s where it came from. You failed to 'read people' miserably. ======================================== and about me, i'm no one... just less than 2 decades old... ---------------------------------------- That says all about you doesn’t it? Listen, you juvenile spoilt brat, go to your room and study for your exams. And take that pacifier out of your mouth. That is the root of your problems. ======================================== ps-anger is no defense for a man's character ---------------------------------------- You caught me at the wrong time buddy. Otherwise I may have let you go seeing that what you wrote is equivalent to that of a juvenile delinquent.
anon, This guy has a sixth-sense! LOL I'm really surprised by his "courteous" reply ..... the last he wanted a fight! From the looks of it, that lashing that you dished out, had the desired effect on this conceited kid. Civility is misconstrued as a weakness by this brat. He probably needs a "whipping" each time he misbehaves! Strange that he would call himself a bastard, though ......
anon,u picked and choose only parts of my article to reply
age does not limit wisdom...if ur words reflect ur actions, pity ur kids, they will be living a rotten life i'm not going to 'layan' u further...i've proven my point, adios
josh wrote: anon,u picked and choose only parts of my article to reply
age does not limit wisdom...if ur words reflect ur actions, pity ur kids, they will be living a rotten life i'm not going to 'layan' u further...i've proven my point, adios ----------------------------------------
Yeah run like the pariah dog that you are you little twirp.
Don't you listen to good advice?
I gave you one .... take that pacifier out of your mouth then you might just grow up and start thinking more maturely. For you it will take a lot of time but have patience. And don't be too hard on yourself too. Calling yourself a bastard will not get you anywhere dude.
Oh, and do not be delusioned by that so-called sixth sense that you claim to have. You are delusional. Get out of it fast before you really believe it and cause problems for others.
anon, I think I'll put up his comment (calling himself a bastard and claiming he has 6th sense) on my blog, so that I can have a good laugh at this moron when I feel down! His old comments, I don't seem to be able to find ..... he must've deleted them. I wouldn't be surprised if he deletes these too.
1.If you have nothing else to say other than crap, I would give you some advice …. Shut the fcuk up you damn pusillanimous reprobate.
2.People like you make want to puke. You seem to have this obsession with licking balls. Did your friends steer clear of you because you licked their balls dry? I guess they ran off because you ventured into licking other tools.
3.Now you’re not even 'qualified' to lick anymore. You went into overdrive. Your friends absconded because of your asinine half-baked, dense, fatuous hollow rock that’s on your shoulder.
4.You vacuous degenerate diabolical deviant.You poor soul, your momma must have kicked you in your arse when you were trying to lick her too. One too many she must have said. Or perhaps she liked it, who knows. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear MT readers, I hav been accused of watchin Disney Channel because i talked about 'six sense'. This guy here, Mr.Anon, said the above. Can anyone please give me an idea of what channel has he been watching all the time?
Anon, josh, Take a break lah. Take some deep breaths, shift your attention to the ceiling and count to 10. seriously..
No point wasting energy engaging in those types of childish filth. At the end of the day, it will only backfire on yourself, emotionally, physiologically and your health.
Okay teo, you got me there. forgot about kit-kat after reading about some self-proclaimed bastard & towelhead's shit sense! anon, have a kit-kat (I'll have one too)!
Sometimes I wonder, is this a political blog, or Malaysian Gay forum masked as a political blog.
The title of the article has arsehole in it, in every other comment is directly or indirectly related to the arsehole e.g. how the Arabs wash their arsehole with sand. People are being racist and flaming each other with their arsehole. And lastly, some people has substituted their brains with their arseholes. Before this it was freeanwar.com..... no coincidence i guess Malaysian men here, especially the aged ones, have a very sad,angry life... they beat up small boys(looks like some of them enjoy doing it) and they like arseholes..... luckily, i'm nt in that category
ps- dear RPK, some Malaysian brothers in mamakspecial.com has opened a thread about the publicity they are getting here. Some of them wants you to share with them some anal-techniques. They think that since you are quite closely linked with Mr.Anwar, you should be highly experienced. I havent checked the site for a long time, I suggest you give them some tips..
josh wrote: i think anon is a lady... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ i'll vomitt.. even my dog wouldnt want it ---------------------------------------- Of course you'll vomit boy. You go for only guys. Your dog must be exhausted with your constant cruising around it's behind. LOL
Boy, I told you to study but you didn't. Now you have all your spelling wrong. Silly boy.
Hey cruz,
we better be behave lah. This kid has some 'connections' LOL
The 'connected' friends are those he rammed from behind.
Okay, okay, I'll have a double kit-kat. Maybe triple as this punk kid will start his tautological tantrums again.
Sometimes I wonder, is this a political blog, or Malaysian Gay forum masked as a political blog.
ps- dear RPK, Some of them wants you to share with them some anal-techniques. They think that since you are quite closely linked with Mr.Anwar, you should be highly experienced. ---------------------------------------- Whoa, now this shithead scum is getting out of hand.
No respect for anyone, even the owner of this site.
How did this kid creep into this site baffles me.
I think cruz has a stockpile kit-kats. Pass me some cruz. LOL
RPK wrote, "Opinions are like arse holes, everybody has one"
===========================
Anon,
I think from the opinions expressed by "some people", in MY opinion, the above statement should be rephrased - "Opinions are like arse holes, everybody has one. But the ones who think they have 'sixth sense' and make threats, have two - extra large!"
freeway wrote, as well the cheapest tools of labelling and bashing(cruziero).
=======================
Hey now, take it easy okay - I never bashed Islam, per se. I had visited a link given by FFT, and found it truly hilarious ...... (too bad, some people have lost their sense of humour, and have forgotten how to laugh - even if it is at themselves for being silly) Confirming my suspicions, he took it as an insult to Islam from ME, and not the guys who "did the damage"! So, the humor in it was lost .... and anger had taken over. I truly cannot understand this justification of the "Rage" that is very much prevalent in Muslim communities. If you have noticed, none of these sanctimonious "defenders of the faith" would come out boldly to condemn this behaviour. It is this that I spoke about in my letter to RPK - "The Pathology of Rage" - it is destroying Muslim communities worldwide, and has "isolated" them from other communities worldwide. It has brought about silent disdain from the peaceful, and retribution from the militants. It has bred hatred in the Islamists, and destoyed the Image that the rational ones have built over the years. It is this "hatred" and rebellion against hostility that drives the desire for the fundamentalism of the middle ages to be established for an Islamic Utopia. If you go back to my posts, it was a "pattern of behaviour" that I had "labelled and bashed" - mind you, I even included christians. In fact, all I wanted to know was whether such irrational rage is condoned, by those who advertise their verbose religiosity, but seem to know nothing about spirituality. The problem with you guys is, you get so defensive and paranoid, and think that the whole world is out to screw you people - so much so, you think that everything is about Islam. No lah, there are some things in this world which don't have to be about Islam. So when you are free, have a kit-kat and read through what I wrote. Maybe you'll understand. BTW, RPK, maybe you can write something about this "rage" thingy, by the various religious groups?
Dear All who disagreed with YM RPK, Think about it, would it be better to have a really deep look into yourself ? Can you see anything at all ? Who are you ? Where are you heading ? What do you hope and dream about ? As YM RPK has say this has nothing to do with religion. Think about it.
Dear YM RPK, You are trying too hard, it is getting the negative effect, relax man, have a break and give them (Us) a break also, this sort of things take time. We cannot mature overnight, I might not even see this maturity, sign....... But Hey ! life goes on. Never stop trying, for you have done what many has fail to do and even some very powerfull men has given up on.
cruzeiro said: Confirming my suspicions, he took it as an insult to Islam from ME, and not the guys who "did the damage"! So, the humor in it was lost .... and anger had taken over. I truly cannot understand this justification of the "Rage" that is very much prevalent in Muslim communities. -------------------------------------------
How dare you make fun of "Rage"?
Did you not know, it is one of the new "pillars" of the modern-day practice of Islam.
The more Rage you exhibit, the more Islamic you are perceived as being.
Which is why even locally, we are seeing small but loaded examples of peacock-feather-fluffing games of oneupmanship in terms of Rage between UMNO and PAS. On the PAS side of the ring, they take to the streets for every little reason and scream Allahu Akhbar until their brown faces turn purple and threaten "Death to [enter Muslim bogeyman of the day]!" On the UMNO side of the ring, you can see keris waving, unsheathing and inserting, and also the phenomenal ac of Rage by one son-in-law who made a monkey of himself to get Condi Rice's attention while she was on official visit to Malaysia.
Raging is the new Islamic cool. If you ain't ragin', then you're failin'.
Dear menteri, That is like poring petrol into a raging fire. (No help at all) It is not Islam, it is a classical example of someone who has landed him or her self into a situation they are not qualify to handler, therefore the raging, for it hides many short comings and very easy to manipulate. This raging also plays on the fear in each one of us, almost a marriage make in heaven, what do you expect ? Honor ? Nobility of purpose ?????
I know if Malays give up the wahhabi version, they will surely be better off.
Then we might have a tolerant Islamic society that respects other religions too.
If they agree to RPK's article then we just might see the way to a more harmonious intermingling of all races.
Ahh, the good ole days when we mixed freely and had loads of fun. That was before the coming of the consciousness of race and religion.
Never did I see Malay girls with tudungs and rempits and khalwats and kafirs and all other kinds of deviant thoughts that have now divided not just the Muslims against the non-Muslims but also Muslims against Muslims too.
The shallowness and kebodohan of fft and his stooges r amazing.Tau cakap ingerisu bukan bermakna pandai dlm segala galanya.Aah,not surprisningly buffons like them r still blablaing here,and not xcersing thier supreme intelleck in some cutting edge technology in the the West.
Dear Anon, Dreaming is good, I still remember we (a whole group of all races) use to sing late into the night on an open field watching the stars go by. Ahhh, the power of dreams.
cruz, even with all this new contorted Islamic versions, I still am able to laugh - at them.
Laughter is the best medicine. Like you said, a lot have forgotten how to laugh as they have exhausted their energy trying so hard to prove that they are the New Age Messiahs with a panacea to cure the world and make it a 'clean' by eliminating kafirs, be it Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and all other religions of the world.
menteri wrote: Cruzeiro, FFT & Anon do you think Malay will be better-off if they give up Islam? =================== Dear menteri, I believe you have asked the wrong question. It would've been better had you asked, "Would Malays be better off if they stopped trying too hard to recreate their identity thru religiosity (as opposed to spirituality)?". Anyway, I'll give you an answer based on what I perceive which may not necessarily be accurate. The Malay Identity has been corrupted and partly destroyed by "arabisation" as RPK had mentioned.Remember, Islam and Arab culture are very different. If arabisation is what you would qualify as Islam, by all means - they'd definitely be better off without it. However, they would be no better off should they adopt christianity, and try to practice "white man" culture, or adopt hinduism and practice indian culture. Same goes for every other religion and the dominant culture practicing it. The one major factor that has contributed to the corruption of Islam, is the arab struggle for self determination, and it's humiliation as a result of foreign domination - aka today as the "Palestian Cause". Violent "Successes" by these terrorists/ fighters are misrepresented as achievements of Islamic doctrine! This can be seen and heard on Malaysian and pro-palestinian media - children and women who become suicide bombers killing innocents, are described as "pejuang berani mati" lending it glory! These arabs have successfully hijacked Islam as the rallying call to create a "palestinian state" and made it an "Islamic Cause" - and from their logic, if you're not with us, you're against us. Bear in mind that the two have nothing in common - and yet, this violent and intolerant culture has creeped into Islam (therefore, as FFT says - it's the new "Islamic Cool"). "Malays" and Muslims worldwide should learn to look at the Palestinian conflict as a political struggle for land, power and wealth, rather than an Islamic struggle. I hope you are clear.
Oh Anon, I recently decided to publish all my postings and all postings relevant to my comments from MT in my blog. RPK, hope your comments aren't "copyrighted" you're there too where relevant. Of course not all thots are published to avoid problems ...... those who want their comments deleted, pls let me know. To all you guys who wish to thrash me, you too are welcome to
menteri wrote: Cruzeiro is not even convinced that christianity, hinduism.... can be of any help. ================= Menteri, I never said any faith won't be of any help. don't twist my words - I said, that it wouldn't help only if you chose to ape the dominant culture of the faith not the faith/ theology/ philosophy per se. Pls read it again if you must.
menteri wrote: Anon :All Malays are wahhabi, Instead of wahhabi, what are the alternative?
Don't destroy the broken vessel unless you can replace it with a good one.
Dear Anon, you are unintentionally playing hit & run games despite your writing reflects how you care for others. ---------------------------------------- Dear menteri,
I do not wish to be tautological but do read RPK's article. Looks like you did not make an effort to read it carefully.
By your own admission, you mentioned a broken vessel. That is good. You seem to realize that the vessel is indeed broken. How long do you think that broken vessel will last?
Unintentionally playing hit-and-run games? There lies your failure to understand people.
With regards to religion, I do nor play games, unintentionally or otherwise. Then again, I do not expect you to understand me as a lot in here share your views about me.
As you said: To the real people, What lies behind them and what lies ahead of them are tiny matters compared to what lives within them.
Very true but .... who are these real people? You? The anti RPKs? People who call non-Muslims kafirs?
If you read RPK's article with an open mind, you will find all the answers. A vessel that is united and strong is presented to you on a silver platter but you fail to recognize it.
Dear menteri, Relax man, all these couldn't be good for your blood pressure. Please read my posting, posted on 26/06 10:38:42. I for one would not ask u to give up anything, maybe just looking at it again and judge for yourself if changes needs to be done.
I know if Malays give up the wahhabi version, they will surely be better off. ----------------------------------------
That is what I said as a follow up on those radicals.
Ok, let me first say ( and I am not giving excuses ) that I meant, these Malays which I did not insert. I should have and then you would be clear of what I meant.
I thought I made myself clear earlier on moderate Malays and the ones on the other side.
If the Malays were offended by that, then I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention to generalize.
Think of it this way menteri. My Abah is also a Malay. Do you really believe that I would say that and mean ALL Malays? Which would mean even Abah who is certainly not a wahhabi.
If I do say ALL Malays, it would mean RPK too who is certainly not a wahhabi too.
There are other Malays here too who do not subscribe to the wahhabi version of Islam.
I shall be very careful when I reply you henceforth as you are rather hasty jumping to conclusions.
You too have my apology if you thought I meant ALL Malays.
cruzeiro : However, they would be no better off should they adopt christianity, and try to practice "white man" culture, or adopt hinduism and practice indian culture. Same goes for every other religion and the dominant culture practicing it...
I never said any faith won't be of any help...
Menteri : May be other faith will help? Pls forgive me for my ignorant, I don't read btw lines but you are extremely good at writing btw lines.
FFT: Let me put it this way:
Malays will be better off if they know what Islam IS in the first place.
Menteri : Hmm.. It does make some sense. Ya..a bit of self clarification and enlightenment can be good.
I know if Malays give up the wahhabi version, they will surely be better off. ----------------------------------------
I shall rephrase it .... if the Malays give up the wahhabi version .... simply means the Malays who subscribe to the wahhabi version of Islam .... and certainly not the rest of the Malays.
I hope you understand now. Look for the semantics of the language please.
Life is bigger It's bigger than you And you are not me The lengths that I will go to The distance in your eyes Oh no I've said too much I set it up
That's me in the corner That's me in the spotlight Losing my religion Trying to keep up with you And I don't know if I can do it Oh no I've said too much I haven't said enough I thought that I heard you laughing I thought that I heard you sing I think I thought I saw you try
Every whisper Of every waking hour I'm Choosing my confessions Trying to keep an eye on you Like a hurt lost and blinded fool Oh no I've said too much I set it up
Consider this The hint of the century Consider this The slip that brought me To my knees failed What if all these fantasies Come flailing around Now I've said too much I thought that I heard you laughing I thought that I heard you sing I think I thought I saw you try
menteri wrote: Cruzeiro, FFT & Anon do you think Malay will be better-off if they give up Islam? =================== Dear menteri, I believe you have asked the wrong question. It would've been better had you asked, "Would Malays be better off if they stopped trying too hard to recreate their identity thru religiosity (as opposed to spirituality)?". Anyway, I'll give you an answer based on what I perceive which may not necessarily be accurate. The Malay Identity has been corrupted and partly destroyed by "arabisation" as RPK had mentioned.Remember, Islam and Arab culture are very different. If arabisation is what you would qualify as Islam, by all means - they'd definitely be better off without it. However, they would be no better off should they adopt christianity, and try to practice "white man" culture, or adopt hinduism and practice indian culture. Same goes for every other religion and the dominant culture practicing it. The one major factor that has contributed to the corruption of Islam, is the arab struggle for self determination, and it's humiliation as a result of foreign domination - aka today as the "Palestian Cause". Violent "Successes" by these terrorists/ fighters are misrepresented as achievements of Islamic doctrine! This can be seen and heard on Malaysian and pro-palestinian media - children and women who become suicide bombers killing innocents, are described as "pejuang berani mati" lending it glory! These arabs have successfully hijacked Islam as the rallying call to create a "palestinian state" and made it an "Islamic Cause" - and from their logic, if you're not with us, you're against us. Bear in mind that the two have nothing in common - and yet, this violent and intolerant culture has creeped into Islam (therefore, as FFT says - it's the new "Islamic Cool"). "Malays" and Muslims worldwide should learn to look at the Palestinian conflict as a political struggle for land, power and wealth, rather than an Islamic struggle. I hope you are clear.
cruz, even with all this new contorted Islamic versions, I still am able to laugh - at them.
Laughter is the best medicine. Like you said, a lot have forgotten how to laugh as they have exhausted their energy trying so hard to prove that they are the New Age Messiahs with a panacea to cure the world and make it a 'clean' by eliminating kafirs, be it Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and all other religions of the world.
cruzeiro said: Confirming my suspicions, he took it as an insult to Islam from ME, and not the guys who "did the damage"! So, the humor in it was lost .... and anger had taken over. I truly cannot understand this justification of the "Rage" that is very much prevalent in Muslim communities. -------------------------------------------
How dare you make fun of "Rage"?
Did you not know, it is one of the new "pillars" of the modern-day practice of Islam.
The more Rage you exhibit, the more Islamic you are perceived as being.
Which is why even locally, we are seeing small but loaded examples of peacock-feather-fluffing games of oneupmanship in terms of Rage between UMNO and PAS. On the PAS side of the ring, they take to the streets for every little reason and scream Allahu Akhbar until their brown faces turn purple and threaten "Death to [enter Muslim bogeyman of the day]!" On the UMNO side of the ring, you can see keris waving, unsheathing and inserting, and also the phenomenal ac of Rage by one son-in-law who made a monkey of himself to get Condi Rice's attention while she was on official visit to Malaysia.
Raging is the new Islamic cool. If you ain't ragin', then you're failin'.
OK gorshan, you got our respect, no one here is brave enough to ridicule your religion, but the exception of Islam, we're being attack from all sides and being argued using state of the art scientific theory(beinghuman), as well the cheapest tools of labelling and bashing(cruziero). But don't worry, Islam is dynamic enough to withstand this challenge.
freeway wrote, as well the cheapest tools of labelling and bashing(cruziero).
=======================
Hey now, take it easy okay - I never bashed Islam, per se. I had visited a link given by FFT, and found it truly hilarious ...... (too bad, some people have lost their sense of humour, and have forgotten how to laugh - even if it is at themselves for being silly) Confirming my suspicions, he took it as an insult to Islam from ME, and not the guys who "did the damage"! So, the humor in it was lost .... and anger had taken over. I truly cannot understand this justification of the "Rage" that is very much prevalent in Muslim communities. If you have noticed, none of these sanctimonious "defenders of the faith" would come out boldly to condemn this behaviour. It is this that I spoke about in my letter to RPK - "The Pathology of Rage" - it is destroying Muslim communities worldwide, and has "isolated" them from other communities worldwide. It has brought about silent disdain from the peaceful, and retribution from the militants. It has bred hatred in the Islamists, and destoyed the Image that the rational ones have built over the years. It is this "hatred" and rebellion against hostility that drives the desire for the fundamentalism of the middle ages to be established for an Islamic Utopia. If you go back to my posts, it was a "pattern of behaviour" that I had "labelled and bashed" - mind you, I even included christians. In fact, all I wanted to know was whether such irrational rage is condoned, by those who advertise their verbose religiosity, but seem to know nothing about spirituality. The problem with you guys is, you get so defensive and paranoid, and think that the whole world is out to screw you people - so much so, you think that everything is about Islam. No lah, there are some things in this world which don't have to be about Islam. So when you are free, have a kit-kat and read through what I wrote. Maybe you'll understand. BTW, RPK, maybe you can write something about this "rage" thingy, by the various religious groups?
Rentap wrote:
[Okay, I may have a well-stocked library with hundreds of books, I may have the entire 11 volumes of Hamka’s Tafsiran al-Quran, I may have all nine volumes of Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, and I may have six different English Language translations of the Quran. But that is still not enough.]
Okay, get hold of a medical book, read through and then try calling yourself a Doctor.