Zen and the Art of Code Maintenance

US-Malaysia FTA: A Call to Action

2007-01-15T16:35:00.000+08:00

This article is dedicated to my daughter, newborn nephew and the rest of our future generations.

Somewhere in the city of the gay, better known as San Francisco, two groups of people have been sitting around the negotiation table for days. Away from the prying eyes of the media, it signifies the fourth consecutive time that the delegates have managed to evade the journalists. Hiding behind a veil of secrecy, little do the people in the country they represent know that their future may solely lie in the hands of these representatives.

A brief survey that I have conducted shows that most Malaysians are not even aware of the fact that the government is negotiating with the United States to ratify a free trade agreement (FTA). Even those who are informed about it think that the FTA will bring prosperity to Malaysia. The situation is hardly surprising, given the fact that there has been an almost total blackout on the subject in the mainstream media. The widespread coverages given to the floods in Johor and the whole Altantuya fiasco, coupled with Malaysians' latest obsession with Astro Bonanza and other similar hedonistic pursuits, leave virtually no room for us to discuss the FTA.

It is due to this very unfortunate reason that this article is written. It is my sincere hope that the Malaysian public will heed this call to give the subject the attention that it desperately needs. The fact that the government refuses to be more transparent on the subject suggests that something is amiss. Prior to the start of the negotiation rounds, there was no attempt to gather feedback from the civil society, unions, NGOs, members of parliament and the people of Malaysia despite repeated calls by various parties. I believe it is our right to be informed about an issue that may have a profound impact not just on us, but also our children and future generations. After all, Malaysia as we know it may cease to exist if we keep resting on our laurels.

To the uninitiated, an FTA is an agreement to remove barriers to trade signed by two or more countries whose economies complement each other. These barriers may include tariff, quotas and preferences on goods and services traded between them. The foundation upon which this concept is built is the theory of comparative advantage, which argues that specialization in an industry in which a participant holds a comparative advantage will result in a net increase in wealth for everyone involved. What this basically means is that, Malaysia may end up (1) importing cars and engineering expertise from, and (2) exporting palm oil and timber to the US, with virtually no restrictions. The end result will be a win-win situation for both countries in the long run.

On the surface, it seems that the FTA will do Malaysia a lot of good. Malaysian farmers can more easily market their exotic fruits like durian and rambutan, fishermen can now sell more seafood to American consumers and companies can better export their goods and services. Furthermore, our shopping complexes will be flooded with cheap American clothes and shoes, and our roads may be filled with inexpensive but high-quality American cars. Local companies that hold monopolies in their industries will buckle down and improve their offerings in order to compete with their American counterparts. It is a dream made in heaven, something that many of us have always wanted.

Unfortunately, the reality is far more complicated than that. Since an FTA merely focuses on the total accumulated wealth and not the distribution of wealth, there is plenty of room for powerful corporations utilizing their financial and political resources to wipe out smaller competitors, especially those in protected industries with a comparative disadvantage. Ultimately, instead of creating a win-win situation for the participants, the disadvantaged may have a lot to lose after all.

In order to understand the problem better, consider the following scenarios:

Local farmers and fishermen may struggle to compete with American agricultural products that are heavily subsidized by the US government. Our paddy farmers, who earn less than RM200 a month and constitute among the hardcore poor in Malaysia, are already struggling to compete with Thai rice when it comes to quality and price. Granting unrestricted access to cheaper American rice will only exacerbate their already grave condition.
More medicines may be forced to be patented under the FTA. This will result in a US monopoly which will subsequently drive out local competitions. When there is no competition, the prices of medicines will skyrocket, leaving a large part of the country with no access to many affordable life-saving drugs.
The United States, with her superior intellectual property and technological prowess, may decide to impose more patents on developing fields such as ICT and biotechnology. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) that own very little or no intellectual property, and whose livelihood and growth depend on some degree of protection from the government, may be driven out of business as a result.
Our government has traditionally been very protective of the local car industry. Giving unrestricted access to cheap American cars will certainly spell the end for the already troubled industry. While this may be welcome news to some, it will at the same time drive many companies out of business, leaving thousands of people unemployed.
Malaysia, who is rich in natural resources, may have her petrol, timber and palm oil exposed to maximum exploitation by big American corporations. Deforestations will become rampant, greenery will be razed, marine ecosystem destroyed and villages depopulated.
There is plenty of evidence suggesting that countries that signed FTAs with the US are negatively affected. In Colombia, Canada and Peru, cheap generic medicines are becoming a thing of the past due to the influx of patented drugs. Mexican farmers are finally able to penetrate the American market, only to be severely offset by the influx of maize and other heavily-subsidized agricultural products from the US. The Committee for Asian Women claims that FTAs often result in less protection for female workers who are less economically secure. These events and many others have led the peoples of South Korea and Thailand to protest against US FTAs in their respective countries.

It is also important to note that while there have been a number of FTAs that have benefited Malaysia prior to this, what makes this one particular worrying is the simple fact that it involves the United States. If history and the current state of affairs are anything to go by, we have every reason to be suspicious of the United States' intention. Some may call it paranoia. Others may call it a mere conspiracy theory. I wish to call it nothing but reality.

One needs to study the recent history and developments in countries such as Mexico, Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, Chile, Ecuador, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand and the Koreas to gather that behind these conflicts, there constantly lies a single underlying force that permeates through every stratum of society. This powerful force puts many governments through subtle and deceptive modernization and socio-economic schemes whose ultimate goal is to impose servitude on the peoples. Should the government leaders refuse to comply with a certain set of demands that favor it, the force will devise evil schemes to topple the governments and install puppet regimes in their place. If that still does not work in its favor, the force is left with no choice but to send thousands of young men and women to die in the name of democracy and justice. That force is none other than that of the United States of America.

Signing FTAs with countries around the globe is merely the latest weapon in its socio-political arsenal. Hiding behind the facade of war on terrorism to spread democracy and human rights, the United States' ultimate goal is nothing short of world domination. It is a new breed of imperialism, one that is seldom fought with guns, tanks and Apaches, but one that is fought by big corporations, financial institutions, government lobbyists and intelligence officers. It is a war whose means is so subtle and extremely devious that most see it as merely the inevitable byproduct of globalization. In reality, it is as evil and destructive as the traditional wars fought by its colonial forefathers.

It is my belief that the peace-loving and patriotic citizens of Malaysia will not stand by and let our beloved country succumb to the same fate. If you have read this far, it shows that you feel that the threat is as real and imminent as the devastating floods in Johor. At this juncture, you may be asking, "what can I do to help prevent this from happening?". Well, that is a question that you have to ask yourselves.

Most importantly, you may begin by educating yourselves about the whole issue surrounding FTAs and other related subjects. For once in your lives, drop those copies of Mastika, Apo! and Mangga, and start picking up copies of The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Making Globalization Work and The Clash of Civilizations. Once you are well-versed in the subjects, you may reinforce your knowledge by discussing it with your peers over lunch and supper, as opposed to engaging yourselves in perpetual arguments about the superiority of Chelsea over Manchester United. You may also pass this article around via e-mail and mailing lists if you think that will help the cause. And if you think that that this message can reach a critical mass by translating it into other languages, by all means please do so. And as I am well aware, some of you know more than I do about the topic, so it is your responsibility to correct and reinforce our understanding of the issue. Let your members of parliament (MPs) know how you feel about the FTA, and demand that the topic be debated in the parliament. Last but not least, you may participate in organizations such as Third World Network (TWN), Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) that have been fighting for the same cause.

It is one thing to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. It is quite another to conduct it behind a veil of secrecy and public scrutiny. The Malaysian public deserves to know how the FTA will affect their livelihood and future. After all, the poor and destitute are the ones who may suffer the most as a result. We owe it to our children and future generations to leave behind a legacy that upholds justice and equality. Imagine the world that they will inherit if we fail to heed the calls to action. No amount of regret will undo the their suffering if we choose to maintain the ignorance and reluctance that are so prevalent among us. We all have a part to play, so let us act on it.

The Myth of Eid Al-Adha

2006-12-30T23:39:00.000+08:00

Every year as Eid Al-Adha approaches, we are constantly reminded of our obligation to help orphans, the needy and the poor in our community. Some well-to-do Muslims fulfill this obligation by sacrificing whole cattle and distributing some of the meat to those who need it the most. Others who cannot quite afford whole cattle chip in RM300 in groups of sevens so that together they can achieve the same objective. Those who cannot even fork out RM300 dwell in the thought that the least that they can do is remember and sympathize with the poor in the spirit of Eid Al-Adha, hoping that God will still reward them for their sincere thought.

As our community grows more prosperous and self-reliant, we decide to reach out to other impoverished communities in the local district, the state, the whole country and eventually the world. It appeases our consciences to know that all over the world, people living in poverty finally have access to the most fundamental human right: the need to satisfy their hunger. Each year on the eve of Eid Al-Adha, we feast with our family and friends, thinking that all the problems of the poor, like Aminah and her three children, are solved once and for all.

As time goes by, Aminah and her children have all but consumed all the meat donated to them. Abandoned by her former husband who left for a younger woman, Aminah lives another day weaving ketupat to make ends meet. The income she earns is hardly sufficient to buy a cup of rice and some dried fish to feed her and her three kids. Like any other parent, Aminah needs to buy new clothes and support her two children through school, not to mention fixing the leaking roof and the torturous nights spent soaking in the rain. Until the next zakat or qurban donation arrives, she has no money for such "luxury". Lacking any other recourse, she decides to borrow some money from the local moneylender, or ah long.

As the global oil prices are on the rise, other basic consumer goods soon follow the same trend. Soon after, the inflation rises in tandem. Aminah, who has only heard of gasoline-sucking automobiles from her neighbors who have been to the city, is hard-pressed because she has to buy ketupat leaves at a higher price. The following week, when the ah long comes knocking at the door to collect the next installment, she has absolutely no money to give him. When the zakat donation arrives three weeks later, Aminah finally manages to settle her first installment, but only after losing two of her fingers and her dignity to the sexually-deprived ah long.

The fictional story presented above merely represents the tip of the iceberg of the suffering experienced by millions of impoverished families all over the world. Despite billions of dollars in aid donations awarded throughout the years, 1.1 billion people are still living on less than one dollar (USD) a day. While poverty has somewhat improved in some parts of the world, the situation has actually become worse for people in Sub-Saharan Africa, many of which are Muslims. Civil wars, droughts, natural disasters, widespread corruption and killer diseases only exacerbate their already grave conditions. This is happening amidst the backdrop of all the wonderful technologies enjoyed by people in more developed countries. This is happening despite millions of economists trained in elegant economic theories every year to help humanity grow and prosper. This is happening despite billions of dollars in oil revenues pumped out from oil fields in wealthy Middle East kingdoms each year.

While the status quo only serves to empower and enrich the wealthy, the destitute are forsaken and left far behind. Occasionally, in the name of charity and religion, a minuscule portion of the generated wealth is channeled to numerous international aid programs. Unfortunately, these are often nothing but a front for government contractors to siphon the resources away from those who need them the most. This so-called development breeds a new species of "bloodthirsty" capitalists whose primary goal is to maximize their profits with very little regard to their original goal of combating poverty. They subject the destitute to oppressive job schemes and extremely marginal distribution deals that create unnecessary dependencies on the wealthy elite. While the poor may benefit indirectly from the infrastructure building, training programs and financial aids, their standard of living has actually become worse.

All this goes to show our constant failure in eradicating poverty on a global scale. We have to get back to the drawing board and ponder on the shortcomings of the current economic system that only serve to make "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer". We have to revise and upgrade our approach to charity, be it in the form of alms (zakat), cattle sacrifice (qurban) or voluntary charity (sadaqa). Think about how the donations received by families like Aminah's can possibly provide them with a sustainable and decent living. Think about how the meat and RM500 they receive for qurban and zakat each year are going to help them survive in the coming weeks and months. While the donations may provide them with a financial cushion on a short term basis, they may continue to starve once they eventually run out of food and aid money. Most of the time, they cannot afford to wait until the next round of donations to buy some rice and dried fish.

Charity, in its traditional form of feeding the hungry and giving money to the penniless, might have been relevant centuries ago. Nowadays with the introduction of welfare programs and orphanages, orphans are now able to lead decent lives. Sure, they may long for the love and affection of their deceased parents, but at the very least they are well fed, sheltered, dressed, schooled and surrounded by many friends and teachers. Instead, on special occasions like Eid and aqiqa, we keep inviting them to our house to feed them sumptuous meals and shower them with material gifts. On the other hand, the hardcore poor are only awarded a temporary reprieve by the marginal monetary aids and some food coupons distributed by the aid agencies. But will they live another day once the money is spent on settling debts, fixing the leaking roof and buying raw materials at ever increasing costs?

The 2006 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Muhammad Yunus, has the following to say about charity:

"When we want to help the poor, we usually offer them charity. Most often we use charity to avoid recognizing the problem and finding a solution for it. Charity becomes a way to shrug off our responsibility. But charity is no solution to poverty. Charity only perpetuates poverty by taking the initiative away from the poor. Charity allows us to go ahead with our own lives without worrying about the lives of the poor. Charity appeases our consciences."

All this calls for a new model upon which our economy should be based. One such model is the one introduced by the Grameen Bank founded by Muhammad Yunus in his native Bangladesh. In this social-capitalist model, the poor are empowered by giving them collateral-free micro-credit loans with very flexible and forgiving repayment schemes. While the loan amounts (ranging from as little as five dollars to as much as 5,000 dollars) may seem negligible to many of us, they actually mean the world to the poor and desperate borrowers. Often enough these people are starving simply for the lack of five dollars to buy some chickens or cheap raw materials to make ornaments or scarves. These loans, while small, literally provide them with a new lease of life.

Such model, while unconventional and counter intuitive to many, brings many benefits to the destitute. Among others, these include:

The flexible repayment schemes are far from being burdensome to the borrowers. Each loan is spread over the course of a year, and borrowers are required to make weekly repayments including a very small amount of interest to cover administrative costs. Should a borrower default her installments, she is usually forgiven while the bank is willing to negotiate a more flexible repayment scheme spread over a longer period of time. Not just that, but the bank also provides free consultation to the borrowers in order to help them overcome their financial problems and regain their confidence in repaying their loans.
Since the bank is 93% owned by the borrowers, the issue of usurious practices do not arise, since the interests paid to the bank essentially end up in the hands of the borrowers themselves. Furthermore, the interests charged are very nominal and utilized to help maintain its workforce and extend more loans to even more poor people in other impoverished parts of Bangladesh. The bank has so far managed to stay true to its primary goal, which is to eradicate poverty first and perhaps make some profits along the way. Compare this to the so-called Islamic banks that are nothing but a front for the conventional greed-based banking framework that systematically deceives customers behind the veil of bastardized sharia principles.
It builds a culture of self-reliance among the borrowers as an alternative to perpetually relying on government subsidies and financial aids. Being able to make weekly repayments regularly gives the borrowers a sense of self-worth and discipline. It builds up their self esteem and confidence in their capabilities and skills, something they never thought existed before.
Having access to micro-credit loans provides them with a sustainable income in the long run. If previously they were perpetually stuck in a vicious cycle of starvation and mounting debts, now they are much more in control of their cash flow. With a more stable cash flow comes the confidence to expand their micro businesses on a larger scale. The children are no longer malnourished, the leaking roof is finally fixed and they can now cut out the middlemen and earn substantially more from their hard work.
Perhaps the single most impressive achievement brought about by Grameen Bank's social-capitalist evolution is the immense empowerment of women. These women, most of them hard-pressed single mothers, wives who were subjugated by their husbands and oppressed by the overly strict interpretation of the sharia, were suddenly brought back to life. They are finally able to sustain a small but meaningful living for her and the children. Even more astonishing is the fact that over 95% of all borrowers are women who not only hold a much higher social status, but also participate actively in local and national elections.

Thanks to such financial institution that is genuinely fighting for the rights of the destitute and disenfranchised, over 50 millions hardcore poor families all over the world now have access to not just income-generation loans, but also insurance, housing, education and personal loans. Being forsaken by conventional and the so-called Islamic financial institutions for a large part of history, these hardcore poor people are now able to lead decent and dignified lives. With near perfect repayment rates (98-100%) throughout all of its branches, Grameen Bank has proven time and again that the poor are in fact the best at repaying their loans. Compare this to the dismal records consistently shown by conventional and Islamic banks that are still struggling with large amounts of non-performing loans (NPL) given mostly to the wealthy elite. It simply cannot get more ironic than that.

While this social-capitalism concept may seem foreign to someone coming from a capitalist background, it should be quite familiar to all Muslims. Contrary to capitalism's primary goal of maximizing profit above all else, sharia principles place great importance on the empowerment of the poor through the prohibition of usury (riba') and oppressive repayment schemes. On the other extreme, while Marxism imposes strict distribution of wealth without leaving any room for competition and free market, sharia actually promotes a free market and profit-seeking as long as they do not run counter to the primary goal of helping the poor. If anything, social-capitalism is essentially based on true sharia principles adopted by great Islamic civilizations throughout history.

Debunking the myth of Eid Al-Adha whose central theme is the notion that cattle sacrificing (qurban) significantly improves the lives of the poor falls on our shoulders. While qurban may help alleviate the travails of the poor on a temporary basis, much more needs to be done. Perhaps we should broaden the definition of alms, qurban and sadaqa to include providing the destitute with micro-credit loans that have been proven to provide them with a sustainable income in the long run. As the poor grow more and more self-reliant, much less will be spent on charity and aid programs, the proceeds of which may be channeled to other development programs. As the poor prosper, the economy as a whole will undoubtedly benefit directly from it.

Just like the old Chinese saying, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

Eid mubarak.

This article is inspired by the book entitled "Banker to the Poor" written by Nobel laureate, Muhammad Yunus.

Sexual Crimes - are Sexy Clothes to Blame?

2006-12-08T09:12:00.000+08:00

Kota Bharu Municipal Council's (MPKB) latest move to impose an RM500 fine on retail workers who are “dressed indecently” drew a lot of attention lately. At the heart of the issue is the debate about whether indecent attires actually invite undesirable behaviors among men, especially when it comes to sexual crimes. From women's rights activists to government officials and the retail workers themselves, people from every corner of Malaysia are seemingly opposed to the idea, at least that is what the mainstream media want us to believe. Let us revisit what some of them have to say about the issue.

The newspapers were quick to lambaste the Kelantanese government, claiming that it was “an affront to women” and that the move was “completely pathetic” and “outdated”. Some even went as far as saying that women should be allowed to wear whatever they wish and nobody else should judge them for it. After all, they say that it is utterly preposterous to link sexy attires with incidents of rape and that women should completely absolve themselves if they fall victim to it.

One of our male high-ranking government officials said that “everyone had their own preference in dressing as well as interpretation of 'sexy clothes'”. He was basically inferring that there was no universal standard as to what constitutes revealing clothes. (If only he would study the Quran and Hadith a bit more, he would find the answer staring right at his face. Islam already provides the answer in detail, the only question now is whether we want to practice it or not. The rule need not apply to non-Muslims, but that is no excuse for them to dress however they wish with total disregard to the sensitivities of their Muslim peers.)

Meanwhile, one high-ranking female minister said that she was “was appalled at the no sexy clothes ruling in Kelantan” and “Kelantanese women will object to it”. (Well missus minister smarty pants, do you speak on behalf of all Kelantanese women? Did they elect you in the previous elections? And do you even live where they do? You can barely even speak for your constituents in Lembah Pantai for God's sake.)

On top of that, she was also quoted as saying that the Kelantanese government should instead focus on “how they can help women in Kelantan excel in education and entrepreneurship”. (Well, looking-glass-self, ma'am. You should instead clean up the streets of Kampung Kerinchi and Pantai Dalam for a change and maybe then your constituents will learn to appreciate you more).

In my humble opinion, these so-called popular opinions are based mainly on irrational emotions, strong personal biases and delusions of gender inequality. There are no statistics or empirical evidence provided, no research studies or scientific papers quoted, and no formal reasoning applied whatsoever. But that is exactly what yours truly will attempt to achieve in this article. In this age of science and reason, random baseless comments do not quite cut it anymore.

Let us start by taking a close look at some facts and figures:

Most rape cases are male-female where 1 in 6 women versus 1 in 33 men are victims of rape (U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey 2005)
80% of the victims are women under the age of 30 (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000)
Women aged 16-25 are three times more likely to be raped than other women (Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal Victimization in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 1991)
In descending order: In South Africa, a woman is raped every 20 seconds. In America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes. In Europe, a woman is raped every 10 minutes. In India, a woman is raped every 34 minutes. In Pakistan, a woman is raped every 2 hours. In Iraq, a woman is raped every 22 hours. In Tehran, Iran, a woman is raped every 6 days. (BBC, US DOJ, Council of Europe, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, UN-OCHA)
Rape statistics show young and sexually attractive females are raped far more often than older, less sexually attractive females (Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power)
A 1995 survey of almost 2,000 American teenagers found that: (a) almost half felt that rape was sometimes the victim’s fault and (b) 40% agreed that girls who wear sexy clothes are asking to be raped (American Medical Association. Facts About Sexual Assault. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1997)
There is a strong correlation between wearing revealing clothes and rape cases (Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape)

As you may have gathered from the above facts, what this basically boils down to is the following:

Most rape victims are young women who fell prey to men. Exceptional cases involving children and elderly are relatively very rare.
Rape cases are more common in Western and non-Muslim countries, and these do not include unreported cases.
Many youngsters, even in more liberal societies, believe that sometimes women are partly to blame for falling prey to sexual predators due to their provocative behavior.
While it is impossible to prove the causal relationship between wearing revealing clothes and rape, there is strong likelihood that it is one of the contributing factors.
The facts are figures merely represent the tip of the iceberg. Feel free to conduct your own research and prove yours truly wrong.

The facts pretty much speak for themselves. Even though the factors that contribute to sexual assault vary greatly (society, upbringing, psychological state, socio-biology, etc), there is very little doubt that donning an indecent attire is one of them. While it is virtually impossible to determine exactly why people perpetrate these heinous crimes, we should stop engaging ourselves in the constant denial that sexy clothes do not contribute to the rise of sexual crimes at all.

If you were carrying thousands of ringgit in cash while walking on the streets of Kuala Lumpur, you would never leave it dangling in your pocket. Instead, you would absolutely want to keep it somewhere safe, maybe in a steel-reinforced briefcase that is password protected and hidden from view. Otherwise, it is preposterous to place the blame solely on the bad guy if you get robbed or mugged. Likewise a woman's body and integrity are worth way more than what money can buy, therefore it has to be treated as something sacred and precious, not exposed for public enjoyment.

Surely the idea that no woman's conduct grants a man the right to sexually assault her can be made without encouraging women to overlook the role they themselves may be playing in compromising their safety. This is not to say that provocatively-clothed women should be totally blamed, rather they should share part of the blame for enticing “high-risk” potential perpetrators, and they should start admitting this fact.

And just because there are elder women and children involved does not mean that we should ignore the much bigger picture. It is like saying that carrying a lot of money on the city streets in plain sight does not at all entice potential criminals to commit robbery, since there are people who keep their money in the bank that are nevertheless robbed. The former can even be committed by an average junkie craving for the next “fix”, while the latter is usually perpetrated by professional robbers who plan for days on end before executing it. Likewise, there are different types of rapists with different fetishes and target victims. So why confuse the two?

Another obscene fallacy is the notion that being able to wear sexy clothes liberates women from the shackles of gender inequality and the delusions under which they operate. Conservative Islamic societies are often blamed for “subjugating women” and denying them of their basic human rights.

I cannot help but wonder whether the gender equality issues often cited by some parties include the freedom to compromise their safety by putting on an indecent attire and behaving provocatively, and later on absolving themselves completely and unconditionally after they are sexually assaulted? Does it also include being able to do all the things that men usually do, like playing physically aggressive contact sports, putting on a male attire and sporting a masculine hairstyle? Well then, if they really insist on having “true gender equality”, why is it that divorced wives paying for their husbands' alimony stays a rarity? Why are men still expected to pay thousands of ringgit in dowry on their wedding day, when some wealthy women are more than capable of achieving the same thing? Why then do women feel completely fine with men paying for dowry and alimony, and not so fine anymore when other things seem to side with men?

Men and women have different roles to play, and they are both equally vital to the development of a society. God created the gender differences so that we can complement and learn from each other, not to divide us and render one gender superior to the other. We should value and celebrate the differences between us and not create unnecessary and counter-productive issues out of them.

Which brings me to my next point on the issue of Muslim women. While some issues often cited by women's rights activist have their merits, others are pure misconceptions about practices that are thought to be Islamic. Problems like honor killings and prohibiting women from furthering their studies or voting in elections essentially run counter to what Islam actually promotes. These are nothing but deviations from the true Islamic path. On the other hand, if we go back 1400 years to the advent of islam, we can see that it brought an ocean of change to women. Karen Armstrong, an eminent Western expert on Islam, makes the following comment:

We must remember what life had been like for women in the pre-Islamic period when female infanticide was the norm and when women had no rights at all. Like slaves, women were treated as an inferior species, who had no legal existence. In such a primitive world, what Muhammad achieved for women was extraordinary. The very idea that a woman could be witness or could inherit anything at all in her own right was astonishing.

In fact, during the Crusades some 1000 years ago, the Roman Catholic Church was totally appalled to witness how Muslims granted women (what seemed to the former as) too much power and too many rights. Women were free to gain knowledge, trade, own businesses, and even engage themselves in politics. Some of these basic rights were not granted to women of the Western hemisphere until relatively recently. If anything, Islam was women's first liberator and protector.

Which makes me wonder why certain quarters consider the imposition of headscarf a symbol of oppression on Muslim women? If anything, it is to protect and safeguard a woman's dignity from undesirable behaviors that may arise as a result of not covering up. As the facts and figures presented earlier indicate, Western nations, the so-called champions of women's rights, suffer the most from sexual crimes against women. You cannot help but wonder why their policy of “equality” and “transparency”(pun intended) results in a more dismal situation for women. You also cannot help but wonder why the Islamic policy of “subjugation” has resulted in much lower numbers of rape cases in Muslim countries.

In an ideal society where every individual is capable of self-discipline, it makes sense not to impose too many restrictions on the citizens. However, when matters spiral out of control, certain drastic measures have to be put in place to keep them in check. MPKB's latest move to crack down on indecent attires among retail workers is necessary in order to mitigate the risk of sexual crimes. The council does not wish to be seen as emboldening other decently-clothed women to do the same thing. At any rate, the move should not be viewed in a negative light as the sole intention is to protect women. As much as some quarters would want us to believe, rape cases involving small children and elder women are relatively very rare, in which case drastic measures may not be necessary. As the statistics have shown, it is the young, bubbly and attractive women who are in a much greater risk of falling prey to sexual predators, and Islamic laws may have just the answer to the worsening problem.

Of Violence and Magicians

2006-09-19T10:36:00.000+08:00

It is funny how Pope Benedict XVI did not mention the atrocities masterminded by his 11th century predecessor (Pope Urban II during the First Crusade) when giving a speech about how Islam was spread by the sword. It is even funnier to witness the ever so predictable reactions Muslims worldwide have given since the controversial remarks took place. All in all, it all adds up to yet another continuation in the vicious cycle of conflict involving the two most influential religions on earth, a conflict that has persisted for over a millennium primarily due to misunderstanding and ignorance.

Amidst this conflict lies the fact that all monotheistic and scriptural religions were, at the time of their revelation, pure and unadulterated. Over time, there were bound to be innovations and corrupt practices incorporated into them. The original teachings were supplanted by misguided ones, their original message altered and the true essence buried forever. While we Muslims believe that Judaism and Christianity have suffered that fate long ago, many of us do not realize that Islam is gradually sinking into the same abyss of corruption. Part of the problem stems from our misunderstanding of other religions and lack of knowledge about their history. If we were to avoid the same fate, it only makes sense for us to learn more about these religions and the factors that brought about their degradation. One such religion from which much can be learned is Zoroastrianism.

Background and History

Contrary to popular beliefs, Zoroastrianism, or is better known as Majusi in the Muslim world, is not a fire-worshipping pagan religion. In fact, it is considered to be the first monotheistic religion that predates the three Abrahamaic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). It arose from the teachings of Prophet Zoroaster, the Persian prophet who lived around 1500BC.

Like Muslims, Christians and Jews, Zoroastrians believe in one unbegotten God (Ahura Mazda) from which everything in the universe originates. They believe in Creation, Judgment Day, heaven and hell, the soul's afterlife and the appearance of a savior before the end of time, just like we Muslims do. And unlike what we have learned from traditional Islamic sources, Zoroastrians are not fire worshippers. Rather, fire is simply a symbol of Ahura Mazda, much as the cross is the symbol of Christianity. Therefore, claiming that Zoroastrians worship fire is as absurd as saying that Christians worship the cross.

However, it is important to note that fire did not become part of Zoroastrianism until the arrival of Jesus 1500 years later, the details of which will be explained later in this article.

Cyrus the Great and the Spread of Zoroastrianism

Another common misconception that Muslims have is regarding the real identity of Zulkarnain. More and more Islamic scholars have come to the conclusion that Alexander the Great is not the Zulkarnain mentioned in the Quran. Of all the conquerors who reigned before the advent of the Quran, there is no one to whom the attributes of Zulkarnain are most fitting other than the Persian Emperor, Cyrus the Great.

Cyrus the Great was the one responsible for the spread of Zoroastrianism through out his empire until its emergence as the de facto religion of the Kingdom of Persia. Being a fervent believer in the oneness of God (tauhid), not only did he rule Persia justly but he also freed the Israelites who were living in captivity in Babylon and ordered the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem so that God could once more be worshipped in place of pagan gods. His success as the uniter of the kingdoms of Persia and Media afforded him the title the "two-horned one", or Zulkarnain.

People of the Book

While orthodox Muslims (with the exception of Malays due to reasons beyond yours truly) believe that Jews, Christians and Sabians constitute the People of the Book, some Muslim scholars argue that Zoroastrians should also be included. This argument stems from Surah Al-Hajj verse 17, in which Allah says:

Those who believe (in the Qur-an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists, Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for Allah is witness of all things.

The Magians (or Majusi), during the advent of Islam, were in fact followers of Zoroastrianism. Even Imam Malik himself had argued that since the Magians are specifically mentioned alongside the Jews and Christians, they are in fact among the People of the Book. Although the holy scripture of Zoroastrianism, Avesta, is not among Islam's four holy books, the fact that Zoroastrianism is the monotheistic precursor of Judaism, Christianity and Islam certainly earns it our reconsideration.

Magians and the Fire Temple

The Magians were an ancient Persian tribe who prior to Cyrus the Great's era, were the people responsible for religious and funerary practices. The word "Magi" is the origin of the English word "magic", which explains why some people in the English speaking world refer to the Magians as sorcerers and wizards. After the formation of the united Kingdom of Persia by Cyrus the Great and the eventual eminence of Zoroastrianism, the Magians were driven into obscurity due to their pagan beliefs and practices. Even though they would eventually embrace Zoroastrianism later on, they did not do so without altering its original teachings, as described in one of Marco Polo's writings:

"He [the infant Jesus] presented to them [the Magi] a closed box, desiring them not to open it till their return home. After having traveled a number of days, however, they were curious to see what was in the box, and opened it, when they found only a stone, which was meant to express that they should remain firm in the faith which they had received. They did not understand this meaning, and, despising the gift, threw it into a well, when immediately a great fire came down from heaven, and began to burn brightly. When they saw this wonder, they were quite astonished, and repented that they had thrown away the stone. They, however, took a portion of the fire, carried it to their country, and placed it in their church, where they kept it continually burning. They revere it as a god, and use it for burning all their sacrifices; and when at any time it goes out, they repair to that well, where the fire is never extinguished, and from it bring a fresh supply. This is what all the people of that country tell, and Messer Marco was assured of it by those of the castle, and therefore it is truth."
- Marco Polo, Travels

The text above clearly explains how the Magians, much like their Jewish and Christian counterparts, went astray from their original religion by incorporating a paganistic element into it. Although fire was regarded as a mere manifestation of God, there were bound to be misguided followers who would soon return to their pagan roots and mistake fire as the son of God.

Conclusion

Whether it is Saint Paul's idea of the divinity of Jesus, Emperor Constantine I's introduction of the paganistic concept of Holy Trinity, or the triumph of the Talmuds over Torah and Psalms, much can be learned from our Abrahamaic and Zoroastrian counterparts in the hope that we Muslims can avoid the same pitfall. This is especially relevant in this day and age where Islam has become synonymous with barbarism and violence, while more and more false practices have become more or less part of its new fabric.

And in our overzealous denunciation of other religions, much more can be studied about them so that we do not make unwarranted and uninformed statements. Not only will this further solidify our faith in Islam but it will also help us live in harmony along side Christians and Jews, much like our Muslim ancestors did during the times of Saladin and the great Ottoman Empire.

And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit.
- Al-'Ankabut, verse 46

The West's Whipping Boys

2006-09-11T21:19:00.000+08:00

Amidst the backdrop of the fifth anniversary of September 11 and the recent developments surrounding Iran and Iraq, I decided to conduct a research on the Iran-Iraq War in the hopes of finding a parallelism between the current events and those of two decades ago. Interestingly enough, I came across some startling facts which for some strange reason had previously eluded me.

Fact 1
While it is no secret that the United States and Israel were the main arm suppliers to Iran during Reza Pahlavi's era, what struck me as extremely odd was the fact that the two "love birds" managed to maintain a similar relationship with Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. In spite of its open "marriage" with Iraq, the United States and its sidekick (read: Israel) secretly kept a mistress (read: Iran) while supplying her with jet fighters, ammunitions and air-to-air missiles just to name a few.

Imagine Batman (and Robin) being in a relationship with Batwoman, who is feuding with Catwoman, who in turn is having a secret affair with Batman. While the two femme fatale neighbors are too busy being in a catfight, Batman and Robin break into their houses, steal their belongings, escape undetected and finally laugh their collective butt off. Now if you think that would make a stupid Batman installment, think again.

Fact 2
Iran and Iraq cumulatively spent an estimated US$1.2 trillion during the whole course of the war. And what was the return on invesment (ROI) you may ask? Close to two million people dead, thousands of war survivors suffering from the "Gulf War Syndrome" caused by the widespread use of chemical weapons, extremely devastated economies and totally indescribable mutually assured destruction, either infrastructurally, psychologically or physiologically. Oh, did I mention that at the same time, the West had an extra US$1.2 trillion bonanza to add to their already bulging coffers?

Now imagine what both nations could have achieved with US$1.2 trillion if they were to work with each other. For starters, they could have launched the Muslim version of the War on Terror against the ultimate terrorist state, Israel. Or they could have bought all the gold bars in the world and start exclusively trading in it, effectively kicking the American dollar and economy in the butt once and for all. Or they could have flooded Hollywood with countless movies depicting the atrocities committed by Christian, Jewish and godless infidels alike in which Muslims were the victims (read: the Crusade, the Bosnian War and some made up massacre horrifying enough to rival the Holocaust).

So much could have been achieved with US$1.2 trillion, but instead they chose to kill each other, in their own backyard nonetheless.

Fact 3
Interestingly enough, three of Israel's most high ranking Israeli officials are of Persian descent. They are Moshe Katsav (the current President of Israel), Shaul Mofaz (the current Deputy Prime Minister of Israel) and Dan Halutz (the current Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff). While their origin may have just been a pure coincidence (Persia is one of the Diasporas), it is still an interesting fact to note, especially since they have a lot in common. All of them were born into Iranian-Jewish families in Iran. All of them emigrated to Israel in the 1950's. All are directly involved in the Middle East conflict, either through the military or the government.

Now bring on the conspiracy theories.

Fact 4
Although not directly related to the Iran-Iraq War, this last fact concerns all of us Muslims. As if we have not learned from the stupidity of the Iraqis and Iranians, we Muslims are still carrying on their fine tradition of stupidity up to this day. In Malaysia, PAS and UMNO are still bent on each other's destruction with no end in sight. In Pakistan and Iraq, Sunnis are still slaughtering Shiites for breakfast. While in Sudan, Arab Janjaweed are still slaughtering black Muslims for lunch, dinner and supper.

Conclusion
If there is one thing I have learned from the Iran-Iraq War, it is this; if we Muslims really want to stop being the whipping boys of the West, we should start by putting an end to all the infightings that are beleaguring the Muslim world once and for all. Imagine the amount of money and time we can save, the number of innocent lives we can spare and the amount of progress we can achieve, if only we all try to get along with each other.

Turban in Islam Redux

2006-07-25T23:13:00.000+08:00

From my discussions with a few readers and responses that I have received (in this forum and elsewhere), it is apparent to me that many of you fail to get the bigger picture of what I try to convey in my previous article. Perhaps I should have not beat around the bush and just cut to the chase.

Like I have specifically mentioned in the first installment, there is no denying that wearing turban is part of the Sunnah. What is called into question is its significance in comparison to other more important aspects of Islam that are often neglected. The collection of Sahih Ahadith does contain a number of accounts describing how Muhammad (P.B.U.H) did wear turban regularly, but that is about it.

Unfortunately, we often forget that Islam also promotes many other things, things that are much bigger than turbans, beard, robes and endless tahlils.

Islam teaches us to treat our neighbors well, help the poor and needy and befriend people of all races and religions. It teaches us to be good drivers and give way to pedestrians, not to drive like maniacs beating traffic lights and cutting queues. It preaches about the importance of being a perpetual student constantly on the look out for a plethora of knowledge in science, philosophy, psychology, mathematics and politics. It encourages us to study Allah's real miracles, miracles that are found in the sublime "design" of nature, not in a piece of wood with Allah's name "magically" carved in it. It also reminds all Muslims, Shiites or Sunnis, turban-wearing or jeans-donning alike, to always be united against all odds, not to be divisive and argue over petty issues and small differences.

Despite all this, what most of us tend to focus on is the externals, the mere appearance of Islam, the one eye of Dajjal. The underlying substance is disregarded, cast aside as if it is shallow and unimportant.

We often tell our children to recite the Quran, but we seldom ask them to study what it means. We always tell our kids to perform daily prayers, but we never expect them to know their significance. We never forget to make sure that our children never miss a single day of fasting in Ramadhan, but we seldom invite them to ponder about the science and rationale behind fasting. We talk to our children about good and evil, but we never remind them that ghosts and goblins are pure superstitions. We tell our children the do's and dont's in Islam, but we never entice them to study why Allah has put them in place. We teach a lot of things about Islam to our children, but we always forget to make them thought provoking and interesting enough so that they will be enticed into learning more about it.

In essence, we teach our children to follow and listen, not to think and question.

Some of you may think that I am not qualified enough to talk about Islam, considering the fact that I do not have a college degree in Islamic Studies and the like. But I do know one thing, and that is I do not even need a PhD to figure out that the Muslim world is in a very deep and serious crisis. From Malaysia to Lebanon, Palestine and the Americas, Muslims all over the world are being slaughtered and massacred by rocket launchers and Apaches, while the more fortunate ones harassed and assaulted on the streets. Islamic values are being trampled and morality nullified. Islamic countries are among the poorest in the world, with their people starving to death and struggling with a multitude of diseases like AIDS and ebola. Muslim economies are at the mercy of the Western economic powerhouses, where a tiny increase in the oil prices or currencies will trigger monumental effects on our foreign reserves and consumer price index.

All these are beleaguring us and yet we are absolutely powerless and helpless to do anything. The most that we can do is convene an emergency OIC meeting to pass a resolution to condemn Israel's continuing atrocities in Lebanon and beyond.

All these are beleaguring us and yet we still argue about petty things that only serve to divide us further into deterioration. Instead, we should start asking ourselves what is actually wrong with Muslims nowadays?

Take for example the Lina Joy apostasy case. In a show of solidarity and unity, tens of thousands of Muslims gathered in Masjid Wilayah to urge the judiciary and government to rule against Lina Joy with the future of Islam and the Syariah Court at stake. Instead of crying foul and citing countless international conspiracies, why not ask ourselves why Lina Joy and 100,000 other Muslims are leaving Islam in droves? What exactly is the root cause of this worrying trend? Is it the education system or the negative image portrayed by Muslims in general? Have we gotten our Islamic fundamentals all wrong? If the Federal Court rules against Lina Joy, what are the real implications? Sure, such ruling will defend the sanctity and relevance of Islamic law in our country, but it will do very little to convince Lina Joy and her 100,000 compatriots to return to Islam and recover their faith in the religion.

We should begin taking a more proactive approach to such problem instead of being reactive when it is all too little too late. We should also start to recognize the humongous elephant sitting in front of our eyes, instead of zooming in on a microscopic ant across the Pacific.

These are the questions of utmost importance that we Muslims should ask ourselves, not whether Nordiana is dating someone else in the aftermath of her break up with Mawi, or how frustrated our boss is upon hearing that Siti Nurhaliza is getting married to a datuk.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. Islam is a religion of reason that encourages science and technology. There are hundreds of verses in the Quran that invite us to think and reason, not about wearing turbans and robes. With all due respect to Muhammad (P.B.U.H) and the rest of the turban-wearing Muslims, all the turbans in the world will not help us defend against Israel and its allies when they finally take over the world and lead us into oblivion. Only in a solid understanding in original Islam, a wealth of knowledge and wisdom and an army of quality Muslims will we find solace in the current disarray. We are at war, so let us start anew.

Turban in Islam

2006-07-19T11:48:00.000+08:00

Please refer to the following news article:

Islam is not about turban and beard

From my research, discussions and debates with people of various backgrounds, I agree with many of you in that the real issue in this controversial case is whether the right of individuals to wear headgear is at stake. On top of that, the question of whether this type of lawsuit falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court is also one of the major talking points.

However, I am not really interested in the aforementioned issues nor the political or legal ramifications surrounding them, which in my opinion only serve as a moot point. What I am more interested in is whether wearing turban is an Islamic practice in the first place.

Before I begin, it is important to note that my intention is not to question or lambaste the age-old Islamic practices and belief. Rather I am honestly trying to engage ourselves in a healthy intellectual discourse that has nothing to do with politics. That said, I invite you to make corrections on any erroneous or inaccurate claims that I am about to make. I am here to learn, and I strongly believe that many of you readers are wise men who possess a wealth of invaluable knowledge to offer.

If we study the "science" and history behind turban beyond what most of us already know, it seems obvious that wearing turban is far from being exclusively Islamic, let alone Arab. People of diverse cultures, particularly in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South Asia all regard turbans as part of their custom. Conventional wisdom suggests that the reasons for wearing turban vary greatly. Many Africans wear it to keep desert sand out of their faces and the more nomadic members of African tribes use turbans to disguise themselves from their enemies. Indian gentlemen wear turbans as a symbol of their wealth, caste and profession, while Turks also don them for similar reasons. If Sikh men wear turbans for purely religious purposes, Arab, Afghan and Persian gentlemen use them for a mixture of religious, cultural and geographical reasons.

If historical, sociological and anthropological knowledge were any indication, wearing turban can safely be ruled out as an Islamic practice. However, we have so far overlooked the Quran and Hadith in determining whether it is indeed Islamic. While the Quran makes absolutely no mention about turbans, the authentic Ahadith (Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Malik) hardly indicate any significance that turban has in Islam beyond the fact that Muslims are not allowed to wear it while in the state of Ihram. Unfortunately, what we often hear and choose to believe is a collection of weak Ahadith glorifying turbans and quoted as if they were authentic.

While there is no question about whether wearing turban is part of the Sunnah, the real issue remains whether it holds special significance in Islam. Even though it is true that some parts of the Sunnah are more significant than others, wearing turban does not appear to me as being one of them. Some of you may hate me for saying this, but I personally agree with the judge for commenting that not everything that Muhammad did has to be followed. The Prophet did countless things during the course of his life, and it is simply impossible for us to emulate each and every one of them, especially since we live in a totally different era that renders many of his deeds impractical.

In my humble opinion, excessive obsession with and blindly emulating Muhammad border on idolatry, which is a grave sin in Islam. I see Muhammad as my reference, not an idol. The sole object of my devotion is Allah, while Muhammad was merely one of His many messengers. Muslims often forget that Muhammad did not establish Islam, he merely completed it. Therefore it is no surprise that many Muslims all over the world were united in blind rage when the infamous caricatures of Muhammad were made public recently, while writings and other forms of mockery on Abraham, David, Solomon and Jesus were utterly disregarded.

What appeared initially as a mere question of religious attire leads to a bigger and more important question: have we been looking at the mere appearance of Islam while neglecting its underlying form? Many modern Muslims scholars believe that Dajjal or the Antichrist is an allegory (not a creature or some scary monster as Muslims widely believe) which is essentially an embodiment of evil and ignorance prevalent during the End of Days. In many versions of the Ahadith, the Antichrist is described as being one-eyed, which is a metaphor for mankind's obsession with physical appearances (materialism) while neglecting the underlying form (substance).

There is plenty of evidence to support the above prophecy, and we really do not need to look that far and deep in order to verify it. Mankind in general makes the pursuit of materialism its ultimate goal above morality and kindness. More and more Muslims are placing greater importance on physical appearance and false religious rituals above Aqidah, Tawhid and Akhlaq. We perform all obligatory religious rituals that are expected of us without understanding what they entail. As if we have not learned from the fallacy that confuses the Arab culture with Islam, Malays equate conversion to Islam with being Malay or "masuk Melayu". On each Friday (which is Islam's holiest day, not Malay's), male and female Muslims don baju melayu and baju kurung thinking that they have something to do with Islam. When we need to perform daily prayers, the elders tell us to put on kain pelikat as if wearing a clean and sterile pair of Dockers long pants does not quite cut it. And when we do not wear songkok to prayers, some imams call us fasiq.

To make matters worse, when a group of enlightened and educated Muslims (Salafis, Qutbi and Wahhabis) attempt to abolish many false practices (bid'a) that have become synonymous with Islam, we call them deviant and kafir just because they are trying to purify and restore original Islam.

Perhaps it would be fitting for me to sum up my whole point with a personal tale. I personally know a few Muslim fellows (Americans, Malaysians, Sudanese, etc) who are considered "pious" and never fail to don their favorite headgear. One of them used to tell me once, "Every time before I go drinking and nightclubbing, I will never miss reciting surah Al-Yasin after Isha' prayers."

Wallahua'lam.

Miracles and Superstitions

2006-01-30T19:09:00.000+08:00

IMHO, many people tend to misunderstand my point due to their predisposition to conservatism and the traditional way of thinking.

It is certainly not my prerogative to invalidate or debunk true miracles. After all, who am I to deny the divine prerogative of the Master of the Universe?

Miracles do happen. However, it is important to differentiate between a miracle and a bizarre occurence.

A miracle happens when something occurs without any plausible explanation, or cause. For instance, when a shadow is observed without being cast by any source of light, then it can be called a miracle, since it is categorically an effect without a cause. The laws of physics cannot dictate that God must create light before there can be any shadow, since physics is but a manifestation of His infinite power. Physics is totally at His disposal, therefore He is certainly not bound by it.

On the other hand, there are phenomena that are considered bizarre, like hallucinations and tornados for instance. All scientists admit that they understand very little about these phenomena, but that does not in any way mean that they are devoid of any plausible scientific cause. Rather, it may simply mean that the answers have eluded scientists thus far due to the sheer difficulty of putting them "under the microscope" or lack of funding. Rest assured that these are phenomena that God has created in order for us to study and ponder about His infinite wisdom and power, and subsequently strengthen our faith in Him.

The bottom line is that we may see and hear things that are not there, but that does not necessarily mean that they are paranormal and should be attributed to ghosts and evil spirits. Ironically, we keep saying how superstitious Chinese and Indians are, without realizing that we
Malays are actually no better than them. There is no place for superstitions in Islam, and we all should know better.

Miracles Debunked - Follow Up

2006-01-03T09:17:00.000+08:00

Just to clarify a couple of things in the article that I wrote:

1. By "evolution", I am not referring to the aspects of the theory of evolution that have to do with natural selection and random mutation. Rather, I am referring to the macro-evolutionary transformation and variation of non-human species. After all, this universe is far too complex for it to be attributed to some "random number generator" or "fully-autonomous nature" of some sort. Even Einstein used to say once that "God does not play dice with the universe", and Isaac Newton was once quoted as saying that "God periodically intervened to keep the universe going on track".

2. I do not deny the possibility of miracles occuring. After all, if God could create this extremely complex universe, it would be extremely trivial for Him to create miracles out of nothing. Rather, all I am saying is that we should stop labelling everything unfathomable as a miracle. Instead of merely being awestruck by a strange phenomenon, why not try to study it, ask questions and discuss it scientifically. The moment we stop thinking and asking questions is the moment we all become useless.

Miracles Debunked

2005-12-29T22:41:00.000+08:00

Miracles are overrated.

That is a statement destined to incur the wrath of many a devout Muslim, self-proclaimed and authentic alike. Most, if not all of them subscribe to the notion that every extraordinary phenomenon that occurs around them involves a direct divine intervention. Case in point: an unfortunate lad who is seemingly possessed by some evil force lying in bed helplessly, is magically healed upon the recital of some Quranic verses by a skilled shaman. If God does not intervene firsthand, then nothing else does.

But what if there is no such intervention in the first place? What if the explanation lies in the forces of nature acting within the realm of space-time continuum and is bound by the laws of physics? What if all the answers to the mysteries of the universe, including the aforementioned exorcism, can be found in a single process called evolution?

And what if miracle is nothing but an empty nomenclature mankind uses to describe something that it fails to fathom?

These issues are hardly a novelty. They have been debated, debunked, proved and disproved countless times by religious thinkers and science advocates throughout history. Every effort to reconcile these opposing camps has so far proven futile, and judging by the current situation, it is highly unlikely things will improve any time soon.

But why should the common ground between the two be so elusive? If anything, science helps to reinforce the existence of God. Since God exists outside of our physical confinement, mankind needs an avenue other than physical means on which God can be reached. That avenue is the humand mind, and science is at its highest echelon.

But just because the answer has thus far eluded scientists does not mean that God cannot be reached through scientific reasoning. Perhaps we have been looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Maybe the elusiveness is the price have to pay for our refusal to merge religion and science, something which we are meant to achieve in the first place. Or can it be due to the false religious practices we have incorporated into Islam, which have, for centuries, been miscontrued as being part of the religion, when in reality they are the bane of our religion that is responsible for the deterioration of Muslims worldwide?

The differences in viewpoint between men of science and men of faith can best be demonstrated by a common scenario, in which a strange phenomenon occurs that offers no explanation.

A man of faith will have no problem attributing it to the works of God, while at the same time marvel at His infinite power and wisdom. More often that not, he will not even be bothered by why and how it happens in the first place. It is surreal enough as it is, so it must be God's doing.

A man of science on the other hand, will be extremely intrigued and fascinated by this and attempt to analyze and hypothesize the phenomenon, even if it means delving into the extremely intricate workings of the DNA or nanoparticles. Most scientists even go to the extent of denying outright any divine involvement in the phenomenon. After all, it is not scientific to attribute any paranormal observation to the works of a supernatural being.

Nowadays, it is no longer possible to read the news without coming across the latest developments in the struggle between the advocates of evolution and creationism (or "intelligent design", in the latter's desperate attempt at rebranding). What if both both parties do in deed have a point, and that we can merge the two viewpoints to produce something more powerful and potent that will help to explain all of the mysteries of the universe? What if evolution is in fact, God's instrument in governing the world, one which He set in motion the moment He uttered, "Be, and it is"? After all, this universe would not be that fine a design if He had to constantly intervene in all aspects of our lives, just as we would not call a piece of automation carefully designed if it requires a great deal of human intervention.

Islam is a religion of reason that encourages science and technology. Think about why Muhammand did not perform any supernatural acts apart from the inspiration that he received. He did not raise the dead, heal the sick nor cure the blind. Perhaps during his time, mankind was sophisticated enough in its thinking that it did not need any miracles to confirm the existence of God, unlike what his predecessors had to go through. Maybe it all goes to show that all we need in order to reach God is an analytical and open mind. Maybe if we do just that, we may one day be able revive the glory Islam used to enjoy.

Soul Searching

2005-07-17T16:36:00.000+08:00

Soul Searching
(written 2.5 years ago)
by Hiro Antagonist

He has seen it all
He fell into the deepest abyss
Climbed the highest mountains
Plucked the fruits in paradise
Even scorched by the hellfire
But he stood resilient
with the seeds in his hand.

He reached the land of Goshen
Where the birds sang in euphoria
Where majestic clouds reigned the sky
And the rivers flowed bountiful
Realm of the promiseful seeds.

He prayed for the rain to come
To wet the seeds he has sewn
And wash away all the filth
into the river of heedlessness
And it did.

So he thought the morning would arrive
When the sun would shine in all its glory
And the gardens would spring to life
Bringing joy to the kingdom
Sunshine after the rain.

But the morning never came
As he stood there waiting
Through nights of rolling thunders
Through long grey winters
And days of incessant rain.

For years he kept waiting
Resilient as ever
Peering for sunrise on the horizon
Knowing that it would never come
Holding more seeds in his hand.

Malays in Dilemma

2005-07-09T13:25:00.000+08:00

Malays in Dilemma
(written 3 years ago)
by Hiro Antagonist

The first important lesson you learn in any defensive driving course is this: every single driver around you is a moron. Having been driving in one of the toughest cities to drive in, Kuala Lumpur, I've come to learn the indispensableness of what the aforementioned lesson teaches us, and how true it rings. However, what I've yet to discover in its entirety is the extent to which Malaysian drivers (especially the Malays) are becoming more and more moronic.

Let's face it; even though we Malays are known for our "courteousness and "gentleness" (or so people claim), when it comes to driving, we're competing to become the most fearsome and disrespectful bastard on the road. But the moronity doesn't simply end there. For instance, some of us have become witnesses to a not-so-novel breed of sickness called the "modify-your-local-car-so-that-it-looks-like-something-else" sickness. We see it on the road every day; Wiras no longer look like Wiras, they've become Gallants, Mirages or Lancers(!!) instead; Kancils have shunned their original looks, and sport the not-so-different Daihatsu Mira design. Although I don't deny the existence of such imported cars in our country, some of the modified cars that I see simply fail to conceal their original "identity". In fact, they fail so terribly to the point of utter absurdity.

And this breed of sickness is not solely confined to the automobiles we own. It is spreading even to our physical looks that in this day and age, have failed to remain as the sole characteristic that defines who we (the Malays) are. Those of us who have a darker complexion spend a fortune on beauty products (read: Fair & Lovely) with the hopes of becoming fairer one day. Some feel that being brunettes is not cool enough and decide to dye or color their hair crappy brown so that they'll look prettier, when instead what they resemble more and more are shitheads. And last but not least, many juveniles nowadays pierce their nose, eyes, lips, and tongue, even nipples so that they'll look less and less human.

On the surface, this issue may seem trivial to many. But a closer look reveals the need for more serious questions. What are we trying to achieve by doing all this? Have we stooped so low that we're no longer proud of who we are and how we look? Don't we realize that most Caucasians are dying to have our dark complexion with their overzealous obsession with tanning and everything related to it, and how some blondes are willing to sell their souls to be brunettes so that people won't stereotype them as being stupid? We're spoon fed every day by our government to be proud of our local products, when in fact the government itself refused to make our Perdana V6 the official car for the XIII NAM summit and chose Mercedes instead?

At best, we're being inconsistent in holding on to our principles. At worst, we're trying to run way from our own shadows, which is completely futile. Where's the excitement and commotion of this world when everyone tries to be someone he or she is not? What's the use if everybody decides to become the same sort of person and don the same hair color? Our physical, intellectual and cultural differences are the things that make us unique in our own way. When everyone is the same, the world is no longer a fun place to live in.

A wise man used to tell me, that being a Malay is not a way of life, it's a state of mind. It took me a while to digest what he was trying to convey, but once I grasped it, I couldn't agree more. Unlike Chinese or Indians (India mari), we the Malays have no inscriptions or ancient writings that present the characteristics that define who we are. As a result, we resort to eating ketupat and tempoyak, wearing baju Melayu and kain pelikat, listening to 'irama Melayu' songs sung by our "favorite" singer Siti Nurhaliza and watching lame-ass Yusuf Haslam movies among other things. These are but shallow attributes that do not accurately characterize what a Malay is.

The lack of definition calls for a more solid foundation of what constitutes a Malay. But the problem is, we don't have any. The closest thing we have to a solid definition is our looks. But the problem still persists in that matter, and here's why. Put together native (not talking about indigenous here) individuals from Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, the Phillipines and Indonesia, and you really can't tell the difference. Still, they may look the same, but they're so different when it comes to other things. So, what else does a Malay possess that differentiates him from others? Nothing.

Not to mention the fact that it's so easy and trivial for a person of any race to be a Malay nowadays. An "a/l" or "anak lelaki" can easily become a Malay by changing it to "bin". Intermarriages amongst bumiputras and non-bumiputras are widespread nowadays, and the latter can obtain Malay-ship automatically. Therefore, it no longer matters what constitues a Malay individual. As long as you and everyone else think that you're Malay, then you are a Malay.

What does all of this boil down to? Deep inside, unconsciously, we are groping in the dark, searching for something that truly differentiates us from the rest. The search may explain the so-called sickness that is beleaguering some Malays nowadays, or it may not. It doesn't matter anymore whether a person is truly Malay or not. What matters is being able of feeling proud of who we simply are, and not becoming someone we're not, unless it's for the better. I've always been proud of being a Malaysian, but what I'm not sure is when I'm going to be able to be proud of my fellow Malays. Maybe when we've discovered who we really are. Maybe never.

A Week of Crappiness

2005-07-09T13:15:00.000+08:00

A WEEK OF CRAPPINESS
(written 3 years ago)
by Hiro Antagonist

Last Monday night, I woke up from a post-terawih nap and felt like watching the news (just because Astro doesn't have NBC, which means no Conan O'Brien for me). So I turned on the TV and immediately switched to CNN. It was the same familiar face again: the mentally impaired Mr. Bush with his daily “brave-new-world-against-basically-the-rest-of-the-world” and “enlighten me” rhetorics, which ultimately amounted to a bunch of horseshit as usual. I was still dreadfully irked by the fact that a half-witted individual is leading the most powerful nation in the world. Then there was his half-assed comrade-in-arms, Mr. Blair, whose gestures and speech tone disturbingly bear a fine resemblance to those of Ru Paul. I said to myself that sooner or later, if I watched CNN long enough, I'd become dumb myself. It made me realize why they call it the idiot box.

I switched to CNBC, and kept watching the news while doing my work. It was already time for sahur by the time I was done. In the middle of the meal, CNBC was showing a slot dedicated to the anniversary of JFK's murder. Then my mom started asking me stuff about JFK; about the killer's name, what happened to him after he got caught and whatnot. While I found myself fumbling for the right answers, my 10-year-old brother jumped in and practically told my mom everything about the murder. I was in total disbelief. Mouth gaping wide, I kept telling myself that it didn't happen. That it was just a figment of my imagination. My kid brother knows more about JFK than I do. He didn't exist. My mom didn't give birth to him.

The next day, I went to work after terawih prayers. My colleague named Uda and I began working on a new layer for our latest system. We spent about a few hours hacking up a bunch of code. After we were done writing and compiling it, the batch of code was automatically deployed to the application server (which is the coolest thing after NASA's moon landing hoax by the way). However, to our dismay, the application server kept throwing a bunch of weird errors. So we literally spent the next few days trying to figure out what was wrong, effectively neglecting iftars and sahurs and sacrificing our sleep and shower. Finally three days and 29 cups of coffee later, I was about to give up on it when Uda found out that the application server was actually throwing a bunch of bogus errors. There was absolutely nothing wrong with our code.

It made me feel somewhat crappy.

Later that night, Uda and I went for a drink in an attempt to get over the “tragedy”. We went to this place called Western in Setiawangsa (I found out later that there was absolutely nothing Western about it). Soon after I ordered a drink, we were joined by a group of former professors who happen to be my acquaintances at work. In the middle of the conversation, they started arguing about how most female students perform better academically than their male counterparts.

Then one of them, who happens to be short of a male chauvinist, began arguing that it's actually a vicious cycle in which men and women take turns in the pursuit of academic excellence. His argument went something like this: A smart dad marries a very dumb mother. They are blessed with two kids, a girl and boy. They will share the same degree of intelligence initially. But theoretically, the daughter will grow up being closer to the smart father, and the son will grow up being closer to the dumb mother. Intuitively because of the dad's influence, the daughter will actually grow up to be the smarter of the two. And later on in her life, she will marry a dumb guy in return, while the son will marry a smart girl. The cycle goes on and on in that fashion without ever reaching an equilibrium.

I thought it was practically horseshit, even though my mind was more inclined to buying it. Nevertheless, at the end of the argument, it triggered a question in my head: which category do I belong to? Thinking it over, rather than feeling better, I actually felt worse.

Anyway, street racing is not my cup of tea. In fact, I despise the very mention of it. Ironically enough, I own a pre-modded sports coupe. So last Friday night, I was driving home from work at 4.30 in the morning when the longest traffic light in the world turned red just before I could pass it. Extremely tired and beaten down, I glanced to my left and saw a pretty girl in a gray Satria. She looked to her right, gave me a quick glance, and immediately looked away. Obviously she wasn't too impressed with what she saw. It made me feel like crap.

Then I looked to my right. A couple of guys in a modded red Kancil were staring at my car's 16-inch sports rims with what appeared to me as utter envy. What followed were a couple of deathlike stares at me, as if I had stolen the car or something. Then the driver revved up the engine a few times while maintaining his deathlike stare. He was trying to provoke me into a race.

So I played along, just to spite them. I revved up my engine a few times in response, doing my best to appear as if I had accepted their challenge. We waited and waited for the light to turn green. And when it finally did five minutes later, with my right foot still on the break pedal, I simply watched the red Kancil speed off with all its “might”. It was funny.

But not that funny.

That same morning, I decided to watch an Indonesian film before going to bed. There was a lot of buzz surrounding it, getting rave reviews all over the world. I first found out about it while reading the Arts section of the New York Times some time in June. How often do you see an Indonesian film featured in the New York Times anyway? So I thought it was worth checking out.

I have to admit that I wasn't the least bit disappointed. Even though the storyline and plot were somewhat typical, I thought that the acting was great, the cinematography above par, and the script excellent and far from pretentious (evident in the fact that only half of what they were saying was decipherable). And the girl who happens to be the main character in the film was completely adorable, witty, and energetic, which kinda reminded me of...of...nevermind.

And to think that Indonesia could come up with such a decent film, I felt ashamed on behalf of all Malaysian movie makers. I kept asking myself when would they learn to make less crappy movies, with less pretentious scripts and less showy acting. When would they learn not to jam the storyline and plot down the audience's throats. It pissed me off so mightily, I felt like bitchslapping each and every one of them into oblivion and more.

That morning, before dozing off with such crappy feeling inside, I suddenly remembered one thing: I promised my friends that I would show them a software system that my friends and I wrote. That was three weeks ago, and I had to keep putting it off by giving them all sorts of lame excuses I could think of. And to think that I had been condemning practically everyone all this while, when I myself couldn't keep a simple promise. Suddenly I realized that, like the previous two nights, I wouldn't be able to go to sleep.

And that made me feel a whole lot crappier.

The Believer's Dilemma

2005-06-23T14:19:00.000+08:00

Grossly generalizing the human race, there are three categories of believers:

1. Those that are born into a religion
2. Those that embrace a religion upon marriage
3. Those that embrace a religion after years of soul searching

Most people who fall into the first category take their religious beliefs for granted. Being a believer by birth often makes someone feel too secure that he reasons that there is absolutely no need to dig deeper into his religion. This false sense of security begets complacency and apathy towards more important aspects of the belief system, and these in turn, lead to a superficial understanding of the religion. Most people, including yours truly, fall into this category.

The second category consists of those who only pronounce (albeit hesitantly) their "new found" beliefs upon marrying their spouses who are believers of other religions. More often than not, these people lack true appreciation of their new beliefs, simply because the ultimate reason for their conversion is to win the hearts and minds of their spouses and in-laws. There is no clear distinction between the first two categories, with the exception of the second group of believers having an extra religion or two to add to their portfolio.

The third category of believers is essentially what we mere mortals should strive for. Starting with a clean slate while being on the outside looking in, free of prejudice and bias, this breed of believers are blessed in the sense that they are not influenced by any prior religious and philosophical doctrine in their quest for the truth. Thus, they are free to roam and explore a multitude of uncharted terrains laid before them, until they ultimately reach their destination where the truth is finally laid bare. The vicious cycles of confusion, sorrow, ambivalence, anxiety and helplessness that accompany them throughout their journey only serve to solidify their enlightenment, whilst building a mighty foundation for true appreciation and understanding.

In an ideal world, one would dream of achieving what the last group of believers have attained. But is pure enlightenment solely attainable through a fully "empty glass"? If a man of faith were to wish to embark upon such journey, would it then amount to an implicit renouncement of his belief? Is it even remotely possible to truly explore and appreciate another belief system with indoctrination clouding one's judgement?

One can only wonder.

BSD Forks Faster than Linux

2005-06-04T14:16:00.000+08:00

Selected quote on a recent "G5 vs. x86 and Mac OS X vs. Linux" review posted on Slashdot:

"There's no OpenLinux, FreeLinux or NetLinux. I think that proves that *BSD forks at least 3 times faster than Linux." - Atomizer

Of Buddhism and Gods, Part 2 - Reincarnation

2005-05-16T00:01:00.000+08:00

One of the most fundamental aspects of Buddhism is the concept of karmic rebirth. Some Buddhists argue that this process does not necessarily apply to the physical realm per se, rather it has to do with the rebirth of consciousness where continuous changes in the individual mind-state take place. However, the more predominant view on rebirth involves a continuous cycle of bodily deaths that a permanent "self" experiences.

In the latter, a permanent "self" transmigrates from one life to another in a cycle of birth and rebirth. Often this transmigration involves changes in the physical form of the "self" depending on the type of karma. Good karma leads to high rebirth as a deva or human, while bad karma leads to low rebirth as a hell-sufferer or an animal. The ultimate form of karma is a liberating one in which a "self" breaks free from the relentless cycle of rebirth to finally reach the permanent state of nirvana where the "self" ceases to exist in this material world.

While this school of thought clearly establishes what constitutes the end of "self", there is no clear explanation as to what constitutes the beginning. If we assume that the number of "selves" in this world is fixed and each "self" can only occupy one body, then it follows that since the beginning of time, the number of "selves" can only decrease, as more and more "selves" reach nirvana. However, the most recent number of the human population suggests otherwise as it keeps growing exponentially. At the same time, more and more animal species are becoming endangered and subsequently extinct, mostly in the name of progress brought about by homo sapiens. Therefore, it can be conjectured that the rate at which the number of animals is decreasing and the rate at which the number of humans is increasing do in fact cancel each other out at the very least, taking into account the number of "selves" that have succesfully reached nirvana.

While this theory looks promising, it fails to take into consideration an intermediate life form. Recent developments suggest the emergence of a third form that is part human and part animal. While there have been numerous attempts at christening this new life form, experts are still largely divided over the name. Biologists insist on calling them "chimeras", sociologists prefer the name "sociopaths", while psychologists refer to them as "psycopaths".

Regardless of the term used to describe these beings, scholars do reach a consensus on one occasion; that this hybrid life form consists of those so-called "humans" who molest their own children, leaders who cheat their own citizens, businessmen who cheat their own customers, world leaders who wage unjustified wars against so-called evil nations, and worst of all, drivers who like to jump queues in traffic. Why this intermediate life form was not discovered previously remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure, these hybrid beings are here to last.

Of Buddhism and Gods, Part 1

2005-05-12T06:17:00.000+08:00

Assalamualaikum,

Many a first-time blogger feels compelled to write a welcome message in his first post. I however, will try my best not to succumb to cliches and get straight down to business.

After work today, my colleagues and I decided to have dinner at a Muslim Chinese restaurant near our workplace. Some would say that it was a perfect venue for a theological discourse. Perhaps they were right, for as soon as after our orders were taken, we were already in full swing discussing Buddhism.

Contrary to what many Malays believe, Buddhism does not advocate the existence of a supernatural and supreme being, i.e. God. That struck me as mightily strange, since the majority of Malaysian Chinese subscribe to both Buddhism and Taoism, with the followers of the latter worshipping the most number of gods in comparison to followers of other polytheistic religions. Not only that, but the number of gods that Taoists worship keeps increasing every day.

Therefore I would say that the confusion was justified, for how could two religions that have very different views on God be compatible with each other? Despite the notion that Buddhist and Taoist philosophies heavily influence each other, the fact remains that they are two very different religions, for I view the belief in God as the most basic tenet that serves as the foundation of any religion.

Putting me out of my misery, one of my colleagues finally explained that being a very flexible and extensible belief system, Taoism has no problem assimilating its values and beliefs with those of Buddhism, but not the other way around. In other words, the relationship is unidirectional. Therefore if one is originally a Taoist, he will have no problem being a Buddhist as well. But for a Buddhist to subscribe to Taoism is outrageous, or a road least travelled at best. This however, begs another important chicken-and-egg question; are Malaysian Chinese Taoists first and Buddhists second, or is it the other way around?