OutSyed The Box |
- International University of Malaya - Wales Sdn Bhd??
- New Egypt Old Egypt Pakatan Rakyat : No Freedom
- Religiousness Without Belief
| International University of Malaya - Wales Sdn Bhd?? Posted: 02 Jan 2013 02:00 AM PST By Norman Fernandez Deputy Chairman, DAP Johor. Tuan Syed, Salam and Happy New Year. Reading today's Star paper, I came accross an advertisement at pg. 21 of Intensive English Training offered by an institution called International University of Malaya-Wales Sdn Bhd. I am wondering how did the Registrar of Company approve a name which bears close resemblance to a premier university in Malaysia - University Malaya. Secondly, isn't the word "university" gazetted or could anyone form a Sdn Bhd University? Lastly, is it not the government and the Minister of (Higher) Education who can sanction this accreditation status ? My fear is that this will open up the floodgates to misuse and deception very similar to the situation in United States where thousands of degree mills with names similar to renowned universities offer degrees to doctorates to gullible people including to those who wish to buy these qualifications in order to deceive others. Are we also going to see a stream of Africans coming into Malaysia with a letter of offer from International University of Malaya and the immigration officers unable to distinguish between the real McCoy and the dud, between the real and prestigious University Malaya and a Sdn Bhd incorporated International University of Malaya. Tuan Syed, I dare say, unless action and immediate action is taken there is a serious and real (danger?) including the loss of reputation. Next, we may have Ustaz "Bombay" and the likes of him also opening his own Sdn Bhd universities. You know all the "high up's". Maybe you can pass it on or highlight in your blog. If the authorities have no objection to International University of Malaya Sdn Bhd, then maybe I too wish to start my own Sdn Bhd university - maybe University Johor Sdn Bhd. How ? Norman Fernandez My comments : Thank you for highlighting this. As a practising lawyer, you may be better aware of the legalities and the gazetting requirements of using the word 'university'. A few years ago there was a lot of controversy over the upgrading of colleges to universities. Finally many private colleges became 'university-colleges'. So what is the criteria behind a Sdn Bhd university? I hope the rightful authorities wake up and rub the sleep from their eyes. |
| New Egypt Old Egypt Pakatan Rakyat : No Freedom Posted: 01 Jan 2013 11:58 PM PST
What a lark. A tv comedian made fun of Mursi's usage of the word 'love' and they are investigating him. An independent newspaper said the president was due to visit a hospital (when it was his wife visiting a relative) and the paper is being investigated. In Malaysia, since the time of Dr Mahathir we have had had 'Maha Zalim' websites, Maha Firaun cartoons etc. No one has been jailed for the Mahazalim and MahaFiraun websites which came about as early as the 1990s.  These cartoons and images were oxymoron stupid. How can you call someone a firaun when he allows you to call him a mahazalim, mahafiraun or whatever else crap is in your head? None of these cartoonists were called by any investigators or prosecutors. They were not even called by their girlfriends. Ha ha. In Penang Lim Guan Eng's Brownshirts, the Pasukan Peronda Sukarela have beaten up Press photographers who were reporting on a suicide case. Guan Eng has not yet lifted the ban on newspapers critical of the Pakatan from covering Penang State events. Lim Guan Eng has also passed an unconstitutional piece of State legislation which bans DAP members from party hopping. The talk on the ground in Penang is that this unconstitutional law was passed (obviously) because there are real fears that more DAP and Pakatan MPs may jump ship. There is also suggestion of infiltrators and spies being placed inside the Pakatan especially inside the PKR who may embarrass the party later. There is also talk that TWO civil society crackpots are actually "planted". Alamak ! There are no bans on any of the Opposition media or Opposition Blogs covering any Government events. Opposition party organs like Harakah, Suara Keadilan and the Rocket are free to write anything they want. You can buy these newspapers at any newstands. But the PAS is aware that the sales of the Harakah have dropped. Newsagents now have unsold copies of the Harakah which they return to the distributor. So this is the similarity and the difference between Malaysia and Egypt. In Malaysia the BN Government does not restrict any of the Opposition media from saying what they want to say in their media. In Malaysia it is the Pakatan Rakyat which has banned newspapers from covering their events, they have passed unconstitutional laws banning party hopping. The DAP is also famous for its gag orders. This is the same in Egypt from before and until now under the jihadists. Serupa saja. |
| Posted: 01 Jan 2013 05:00 PM PST This was written by Tril Shah (I do not know the writer, this was sent to me in the email. My comments are in blue.) Embarrassed by the hatred and strife that has historically been legitimized by many religions, religionists typically answer that the fault lies not in religion as such, but, rather, in what they call a 'faulty interpretation' of it or in the political 'misuse' of religion for 'irreligious' ends. In this way, they seek to absolve religion for the conflicts it has generated down the centuries across much of the world. This glib response fails to convince, however. (I agree. For too many people religion has become an excuse to hate people. Religion and hatred seem to go hand in hand. Religious people do seem to be hateful. Their degree of hate is kept in check by 1. their numerical inferiority 2. their exposure to modern scientific thinking. Fortunately we cannot find the word 'religion' anywhere in the Quran. 'Deen' refers to a way of life.) As far as I can gather, drawing boundaries between 'true believers' and others is one of the principal functions, as well as consequences, of religion. Once these boundaries are drawn and harden, it is almost inevitable that they encourage believers to imagine that their religion alone is right or is the best and that those who do not subscribe to their beliefs and practices are muddle-headed, wrong, deviant or even evil. (When 'other' people teach their followers to think in this way we might say that they are evil. What if it is we who do the same thing?) In turn, this conviction engenders a strong sense of supremacism among the followers of a particular religion, who tend to look down on others who do not share their religious beliefs and practices. This leads to a variety of attitudes towards others: indifference, condescension, pity, disdain, and very commonly, hatred, all of which are rooted in the fundamental belief in the inherent superiority of one's own religion and the inferiority of others. (How many of us feel comfortable with this type of understanding of religion? To sow hatreds among human beings? Can it be a good teaching to teach the followers these types of values?) These attitudes combine to powerfully shape individual believers' behavior vis-à-vis people who don't share their religious beliefs. They could be driven into reaching out to these others with irrepressible missionary zeal in order to coax them to abandon their 'erroneous' religious beliefs and practices and to enter the fold of the 'true belief'. But it could also lead, as it has all too often, to conflict with others—heated polemics, for instance, and even to physical warfare. (And what is achieved at the end of it all? They create polemics, they create hatred, they create violence. They end up killing each other. And then what? Go home for tea?) The tendency of religion to lead to these unsavoury consequences is perhaps inherent in the very nature of religion as such, as conventionally understood. The popular understanding of Religion is that it is a set of beliefs and rituals centred on empirically unverifiable 'supernatural' beings, forces, laws and phenomena, as well as a set of rules and norms for individual and social conduct. Defined in this way, religion has two sides to it. Firstly, elements that can be empirically neither validated nor disproven (for instance, belief in the existence or otherwise of God/gods, heaven and hell, the Day of Judgment, as in the Semitic religions, or the theory of rebirth, in the Indic religions). (I call it believing in 'imaginary pet unicorns' and magical flying horses. The Quran mentions neither. Logically there must be some Initiator, Grand Design or Creator. There must be also be a guiding force which governs the Universe. The Quran describes Allah as the Creator (khaliq) and that Allah is the Rabb or overlord of the universe - Rabbul Aalameen. The Quran says (59:24) "He is Allah; the Creator, the Initiator, the Designer. To Him belong the most beautiful names. Glorifying Him is everything in the heavens and the earth. He is the Almighty, Most Wise" Surah 59:24. (17:110) "Say: Call upon Allah or call upon the Beneficent; whatever you call upon, to Him belong the most beautiful names; and do not be too loud with your salat nor take a low tone with it, seek a way between these") So whatever you call upon, to the Creator, Initiator, Grand Designer belongs the most beautiful names. I think this has to be a point of convergence between thinking people - not a point of divergence.) And, secondly, elements whose worth can be judged by one's conscience and whose truth can be tested through experience. This is the realm of values, such as kindness, love, compassion, justice and so on. Theoretically, it is possible for followers of different religions, and even agnostics and rank atheists, to arrive at a consensus on this latter dimension of values. They may all agree, for instance, on the importance of compassion, sincerity and selflessness. No matter what their religious beliefs, they may heartily concur with each other on the need to help the poor. These values, then, can serve as a powerful means to bring together people of differing religious persuasions. They unite, rather than divide, people of otherwise different religious and ideological persuasions. (I disagree here. Different religions have different understandings of what is kindness. Some religions think it is kindness not to eat meat. They hate people who eat meat. Some say it is kindness to stone people to death. Some say it is kindness to reserve their charity only for people of the same religion. All these are not in the Quran. Hence "religion" is not in a position to agree on what is kindness or charity. This situation has to be treated first. Only then can they even have a chance of understanding right from wrong.) But religion, as conventionally understood, is not only about values. Whether the putative founders of various religions intended it or not, religions have historically come to also be centred on key unverifiable beliefs related to the 'supernatural'. In fact, for many—possibly the vast majority—of religionists, values and morals are secondary to such beliefs. That is why, for instance, if someone fails to live up to the lofty moral standards of their religion many religionists won't get even remotely as upset as they would if the same person were to even mildly criticize their core theological beliefs, patently absurd though they may be. Clinging to, and passionately defending, these beliefs and engaging in rituals connected to them seem more important an aspect of lived religion for many religionists than the leading of an ethical life. (Correct. This is the basis of many religions. You may murder, cheat, steal, lie its all ok. But if you question their 'pet unicorns' woe be upon you.) What distinguishes the different religions are more their empirically unverifiable beliefs, which they regard as non-negotiable, than anything else. It is primarily these beliefs that set the different religions apart from, and against, each other. (The correct word to use here is 'delusions', empirically unverifiable 'delusions'. It is their delusions that are 'non-negotiable'. This is the crux of the problem.) Religionists, as we have seen, typically take these beliefs to be the core of their religions, and so it is that these beliefs automatically lead them to stress and reinforce their differences with people of other faiths. In other words, these beliefs serve as powerful walls between groups of people who come to be defined as members of separate, even antagonistic, communities primarily by virtue of holding different, often conflicting, beliefs about the 'supernatural' that can neither be proven nor debunked. The very fact of adhering to such beliefs leads to the creation of boundaries that define 'true' believers from the rest of humankind. Often, religionists invest incredible amounts of energy into sustaining and further reinforcing such boundaries, and this tendency can easily—as it has throughout much of history—slide into physical conflict with people who hold other or contradictory beliefs about the 'supernatural'. (Man made religion often falls back on our latent childishness. As children we create imaginary heroes in our minds. Sometimes children fight over their imaginary heroes. Cartoonists and Hollywood script writers have learnt to understand this psychology very well and exploit it for money. Hence they create fictional characters like Superman, Spiderman, Batman etc. It appeals to childish fantasies which still resides in all of us. They do this for profit. Religion does the same thing. My imaginary pet unicorn is better than your imaginary pet unicorn. And the ulterior motive is the same - contol, power and money. Remember "no money no religion.) If what, in effect, defines the different 'religious communities' and also sets them against each other are their differing beliefs that are beyond the purview of reason and ordinary experience, it appears that as long as religion continues to be imagined as premised principally on such beliefs theologically-fuelled antagonisms will continue to plague humanity (except, of course, in the unlikely event of the whole of humankind agreeing to convert to a single belief system). (The Quran says 'Proclaim, "The truth has prevailed, and falsehood has vanished; falsehood will inevitably vanish" 17:81. So all we need to do is to tell the truth. Easier said than done. How do we tell the truth? What is the truth? The Quran provides an easy solution to derive the truth 'haatu burhanukum inkuntum sadiqeen' - bring forward your evidence if you are truthful. This is also called the scientific method. Show us the evidence. Show us evidence for your magical flying horses. Science is 100% Islamic. So is logical argument. Hence the way to cure religious delusions is science and logic. We must teach science and logic in huge doses to our children. Our children must be taught to challenge the religious people with 'show me your proof'. A slap on the face or showing anger at children who ask difficult questions cannot be Islamic.) True, such antagonisms, as previously pointed out, need not always take violent forms, but that is besides the point. The fact remains that belief-centric religiosity appears by definition prone to building barriers between what come to be regarded as 'true believers' and others, rather than breaking them down. In this way, such religiosity easily conduces to conflict. (This is saying it very mildly. All man made religion creates violence and conflict. To me this is evidence enough of falsehood and delusions. Reading chicken entrails, worshipping locusts, belief in some Superman coming through the sky are all just delusions which have gripped the human beings. And the majority of these people end up being poor, violent, uncivilised and cruel. They can kill their fellow human beings in the name of their delusions.) Increasingly, however, many people are veering round to the opinion that there is absolutely no need to hold onto any empirically unverifiable beliefs in order to be truly religious. For them, religiousness is essentially about leading a life that exemplifies certain values that they hold to be important, inspiration from which they may draw from various sources, even those not conventionally seen as 'religious'. They may not deny the existence of the supernatural realm—they are definitely not atheists—but neither do they affirm it. Unlike conventional religionists, they are honest to admit that, like everyone else, they have not the faintest clue about the veracity or otherwise of beliefs about this realm that different sets of religionists hold. The reality of such beliefs, they would say, must always remain unknown because they are unverifiable. They are great mysteries whose answers not even the most ardent believers can really ever know, even though they claim to know them because that is how they have been conditioned. It is the life you lead, they would stress, rather than the empirically non-verifiable beliefs you hold, that really matters. And, if asked, they would probably tell you that religionists who spend their entire lives agonizing about and defending beliefs that they desperately cling to and denouncing those that they think are false are simply wasting their time. (Well its like this - delusions cannot help do anything useful. You need science to do anything. If peoples' belief systems have less and less practical benefit in their real lives, their beliefs are likely delusional.) Religion, for such people, is essentially ethical living, which they identify as genuine religiosity. They do not deny, but nor do they affirm, the various conflicting unverifiable beliefs that other religious folks regard as central to their understanding of the world. They are convinced that such matters are completely inconsequential in order to lead a truly religious life. As can be easily appreciated, this way of conceiving of, and living, religion completely does away with the vexing question of conflicting unverifiable beliefs that underlie the antagonisms that characterize relations between various sets of conventional religionists. It appears, then, that in the dissociation of religion from such beliefs and in rethinking religiousness simply as ethical living lies at least a partial answer to the horrendous conflicts that belief-based religiosity has historically engendered. (We have to be careful here. One man's ethics are usually another man's poison. To derive a universal set of ethics we must ask an intelligent Martian. Imagine a clever Martian fell to the earth and begins to study what makes modern human life succesful, without any knowledge of our past and without any preconceived clutter. We must ask this Martian to observe us now and make his reccomendations. OK, we do not need Martians. We can do this ourselves. This means we must ignore all our previous religion induced notions of ethics and begin from a clean canvas. Study our surroundings and work out what ethics will be workable for us today and now. That shall be a universal ethics - minus all delusional influences. The Quran says, "No one can believe except in accordance with Allah's will. For He places an abomination upon those who refuse to use their sense (akal)" 10:100. We have to rely on our common sense. Education that is based on science and logic does add greatly to our common sense.) |
| You are subscribed to email updates from OutSyed The Box To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Jom berjuang bersama rakan bloggers di Facebook!
Tunjukkan sokongan anda! Sila Like.
No comments:
Post a Comment