Is Tun telling the audience that like John Lennon, he too likes to imagine a world with no religion?
Does he “imagine there’s no heaven” and “no hell below us” because he loves to blame others for nothing and slander others to get what he wants, like what he is doing to our Prime Minister Najib?
By singing this song, does he like John Lennon, want to be free from religion and is calling others to join him as said in part of the chorus of the song, “I hope someday you’ll join us, And the world will be as one.”
Is Tun trying to tell the audience that “no religion” is a way to make people live in peace? (And no religion too, Imagine all the people, Living life in peace…)
In other words, is it religion that makes people fight?
Now to his supporters, what do they feel when they hear Tun, as their icon singing such song?
And what will they say if it was Dato’ Sri Najib who sings the song.
Maybe too busy thinking of how to force Dato’ Sri Najib to step down makes Mahathir lose his judgement nowadays, like supporting the DAP powered Bersih 4, which used to be against his principals.
Mahathir should calm down, may Allah gives him hidayah.
Here’s the lyrics of the song, “Imagine” that Mahathir sang, a song with beautiful music but with lyrics that ‘ruin’ our akidah:
Imagine there’s no heaven It’s easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today…
Imagine there’s no countries It isn’t hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace…
Looking at the video, I guess it was recorded by one of the bullies’ friend or maybe by one of them.
I’m very sad to see such an incident and I have lots of things to question the bullies:
Why must they bully their friend? At that age, they should have known that bullying is bad and it is against the school rules.
How did they feel when they were doing what they did and how did they feel when they watched the video of the incident? They recorded the incident, seems to be proud of what they did and even laughed at the victim when they should be ashamed of their actions.
For what reasons, did they recorded the incident? Was it to show their power against the victim? Aren’t they ashamed of themselves?
Did they know that they hurt their parents and teachers by doing what they did?
Is bullying part of liberalism, meaning that a person what to liberalise the existing laws and to express their freedom of expression?
We are human and we are civilised so we must understand that we have our responsibilities as a student, a human being and a citizen of our country; so we cannot be selfish, we have to think about others, we must make ourselves good and help others be good too.
In the above article, The Malaysian Insider (TMI) reported that Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosa who is a South African, made a statement that “Malaysia was a pluralistic and liberal country”.
He made that statement in reply to a question from the audience regarding the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom’s statement,“the teachings of liberalism and pluralism are seen as among the most prevalent forms of insult to Islam”.
TMI wrote that:
“The very idea that Malaysia has accepted, constitutionally or otherwise, the plurality of religious and ethnic communities… it is already on the way to liberalism. You are already on a certain kind of liberalism. It might not be an optimal one, but it is already there” – TMI.
I do not know whether Professor Ebrahim understands the words liberalism and pluralism that were mentioned by Datuk Seri Jamil Khir.
Malaysia does accept “the plurality of religious and ethnic communities” but that does not makes Malaysia“a pluralistic and liberal country”; furthermore Malaysia does not accept pluralism of religion.
“The very idea that Malaysia has accepted the plurality of religious and ethnic communities”,shows that our Rulers, the government and the Malays respect other religions and ethnic communities as how Islam teaches us.
But that does not make us liberal.
Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosaalso also said,
“If you want to get away from liberalism, you need to tear up the Malaysian constitution” Professor Ebrahim E. I. Moosa – TMI.
Tear up the Malaysian Constitution if we do not want liberalism?
I do not know if Professor Ebrahim knows what is he talking about, if he thinks he does, he must be so confused or he must has read the constitution of another country!
And there is no such word as ‘liberalism’ in our Federal Constitution.
Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia says:
Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.
… and we have Article 11(4) to protect the religion of the Federation:
State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
Islam is the only religion mentioned in the Federal Constitution, and Islam is protected by the Federal Constitution and the state laws.
In fact as the religion of the Federation, Islam is above other religions in Malaysian; which is against the idea of liberalism that rejects state religion.
Moreover, Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution recognises the Syariah Court.
Now, if the professor does not understand what is liberalism and pluralism, he should ask somebody.
Liberalism is all about total freedom and pluralism is saying that one’s religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth,and thus the acknowledgement that at least some truths and true values exist in other religions.
When TMI wrote that, the professor said that, “Malaysia was a pluralistic and liberal country”, I wonder if the word“was” is a typo or he used the word, “was” to indicate that Malaysia was once a pluralistic and liberal country but not anymore.
For the record, Malaysia is neither was nor is a pluralistic and liberal country.
History tells us that Malaysia is always an Islamic country even before our independence.
Actually the existing Islamic laws before Merdeka Day are still valid according to Article 162 of the Federal Constitution which says:
Subject to the following provisions of this Article and Article 163*, the existing laws shall, until repealed by the authority having power to do so under this Constitution, continue in force on and after Merdeka Day, with such modifications as may be made therein under this Article and subject to any amendments made by federal or State law.
So Malaysia can’t be plural or liberal if it still has Islamic laws.
The professor also told us to learn history:
“The first thing to be done, to the many spokespersons who are saying these things, is a quick lesson in Malaysian history… Malaysian history 101… to re-familiarise themselves” -TMI.
Actually the person who needs to learn history is him and most of those who supported the above TMI article!
And above all, since he is not a Malaysian and since he just came to Malaysia, he should not interfere in local issues that he knows nothing about.
He might want to say that as a scholar, he should know better about our Federal Constitution than others including our Federal Constitution experts like Dato’ Naser Disa and Professor Shamrahayu.
But, has he ever read the Federal Constitution and does he know that it takes a lawyer to interpret law and constitution?
I hope that the government can take stern actions on those who make such a malicious distortion of the truth regarding the Federal Constitution of Malaysia including foreigners because our Federal Constitution is the highest law and something like the pillar of our country.
Those ‘scholars’ are bringing bad influences as they being used by certain groups to influence the public into believing something which are fictitious to serve their hidden agendas and can cause racial and religious disharmony among the people.
And these so called “Muslim scholars” are spreading the ideologies of liberalism and pluralism as the teaching of Islam when these ideologies are actually part of deviant teaching.
I find the above article from The Malaysian Insider (TMI) as unjustly written, full of lies and using wrong arguments and analogies to wrongly accuse the Islamic religious authorities and the Malaysian government.
It is a malicious distortion of the truth.
Below are my answers to the writer’s statements, TMI’s text is in blue and my answer will be in red.
It seems that whenever we question anything, either the government or those linked to it does, it is seen as a bad thing. And this comes during a period of a prime minister whose initial speech said “the era of government knows best is over”.
So, why is questioning a fatwa a big issue? It is truly not.
A: Official fatwas are Muslim’s guidelines. We are Muslims of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah. People cannot interpret Islam as they wish, the way they want it to be like the liberals do. I think it is the same for other religions.
Even if we look at the most conservative nations practising Islam, there are landmark changes globally. Iran allows sex reassignment surgeries for their transgender community. However warped their mindset may be, it is clearly different than Malaysians who recently heckled the courts for upholding the constitution.
A: Iran is one of an example of “the most conservative nations practising Islam”? He must be kidding because Iran is not an Islamic country but it is a Syiah country. There are big differences in important matters like akidah between us, the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah and Syiah followers. The rules of Syiah is against our akidah.
In Saudi Arabia, the authorities are now mulling over giving women the right to drive cars, a fatwa which is decades’ old and has only been vocally challenged in the last five years. We have seen Muslim-majority countries that are moving forward in issuing religious edicts or limiting the viability of such rules and regulations to allow moving ahead together as a nation.
A: Driving has nothing to do with akidah, unlike LGBT. Malaysia never ban women from driving. Women are free to drive buses, lorries or even to become commercial pilots.
And yet in Malaysia, we continue to limit the general public and civil stakeholders from venturing an opinion without being heckled, or in the case of Sisters in Islam, having a fatwa quietly gazetted banning them.
Sisters in Islam (SIS) leaders are liberal activists. Liberalism is against Islam. They tell people that they understand Islam better than our Muslim scholars and Muftis but they do not follow even the basic rules like to cover their aurat. They do not respect Islamic rules and want liberal rules to be accepted as Islamic rules.
It is truly nonsensical that in this day and age when other nations are talking about matters which are truly important such as poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport – we are stuck discussing, and even going so far as to file police reports, a tourist attraction dedicated to a Hindu deity placed on a bottle of water next to a “Halal” logo.
A: Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia, so in Malaysia everybody must respect Islam. The halal logo was placed at a lower part of the mineral water bottle than the Batu Caves picture. In our custom, that shows disrespect to the religion of the Federation. I guess in Vatican City, they also have rules to respect Christianity more than other religions suitable to their customs that people over there must respect.
The Malaysian government has done much more than solving the problems of “poverty eradication, the lack of knowledgeable human resource, and pushing for better public transport”. But there are people who are never thankful and only look for ways to complain and cause troubles to the country to put down the government.
Even worse: we have Malaysian Muslims who think cross-dressers are a threat to society by promoting a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT, if you still don’t know what that is) lifestyle.
A: LGBT is against Islam and so are cross-dressers. Malaysia does not sign the SOGI rights.
Permit me to point out that a guy in a dress has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, especially when Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear a burqa to escape their hunters.
Would you accuse them of being sodomites, too?
A: Will a man who is not LGBT supporter wants to look like a woman and wear a dress in public without any purpose?
re: “Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden chose to wear burqa to escape their hunters”.
There is a huge difference between men wearing women’s clothes to escape from danger or to save their lives or for other important reasons like investigating a certain case compared to men who always wear them including in public because they like and proud of wearing them, saying that they have the rights to do so.
Fatwas should be up for question because while the religion stays true, its followers evolve. There was once a limited source of knowledge specific to Islam from muftis and imams, and perhaps PAS for the more politically inclined.
A: We cannot change a religion, changing means liberalising and that is against Islam. To question a fatwa a person must be at least as knowledgeable as the members of the fatwa council on Islamic matters. PAS is not an Islamic party because like SIS they only use the word Islam for their own agendas.
However, with the advent of the Internet, anything and everything about Islam and other religions can be found online. Intellectual debates can be seen on YouTube as raging, trolling debates rage on news portals and social media aplenty.
A: We can find lots of things from the internet including lies like this article from TMI. How can a person who does not understand a subject take part in intellectual debates on the subject or be a judge on problems regarding the subject?
Malaysian Muslims can not only listen to the lectures of Azhar Idrus, but can also go as far the BBC to see debates of Islam versus Science.
The internet sparked a revolution of information being streamed, “torrented” and read online without control, allowing Malaysian Muslims to seek counsel outside the boundaries, and this is what has made our religious authorities very nervous to the point of stupidity.
A: It is the main duty for our religious authorities to protect the akidah of the Muslims in Malaysia. Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitutions gives the rights for the states in Malaysia to have state laws to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. Prevention is better than cure.
What was once a monopoly of information by the religious authorities is now apparently threatened by Malay-language Bibles and Irshad Manji books. Not Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, whose books are widely available and for everyone to read and buy either online or at a local bookshop.
A: The religious authorities are not threatened by the Malay bibles or Irshad Manji books. They are only doing their duty because any bible that calls the Christian god as Allah is against most of the states’ laws in Malaysia. Irshad Manji books are about deviant teaching but she claims them as the true teaching of Islam. Promoting deviant teachings to Muslim is against the law of Malaysia. All countries have laws to protect their constitutions and people.
They have lost control over the access to information; so clinging to this moral authority has resulted in stupidity beyond measure. Instead of opening issues for debate, our government-led religious authorities have instead decided it is better to outlaw those who talk back.
A: Religious authorities have lots of other more important things to do to benefit the Muslims.
Never since the schism of the Christians by Martin Luther, creating the Catholics and Lutheran churches and subsequently the Protestant denomination, has any religious authority done something so despicable.
Questions lead to enlightenment. The ability to debate and discuss everything – even faith – is a must. While this is definitely encouraged, what matters is also how such affairs are debated.
A: A rule is not made to be broken even if one does not like it. In Islam not everything can be debated and denying Allah’s rules affect our akidah and cause a person to be a murtad or an apostate.
It is one thing to say our religious authorities are out of sync with the rest of the world, but it is totally another for us to blame it on the religion itself.
Tact, respect and even the ability to access information are a necessity in order to discuss these issues intellectually and with a level head. Personally, Islam should not be limited for discussion among Muslims because it has now become a national issue.
A: Muslim authorities in Malaysia do not interfere with people of other religions unless people of other religions slander, humiliate,interfere in Islamic mattersor other similar things in order to protect Islam and the Muslims.
When you steal the bodies of the deceased, kidnap kids from parents, stop people from getting married on their wedding day, confiscate Bibles or even raid bookstores and take managers to court, I am pretty sure you are affecting the lives of non-Muslims as well.
A: These are lies and the writer spins the facts of the cases to unjustly accuse the Muslim authorities.
So, religious authorities have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity and harmony that will not be resolved easily. – November 18, 2014.
A: People like the writer who write and spread lies are the ones that “have affected not only national unity, but have created a schism in national unity”.