Today, we learn that God in Arabic has become a word in Malaysia forbidden to non-Muslims in Malaysia for fear that Muslims in Malaysia will mistaken other Gods for their God.
The judicial reasoning used was that it was necessary to safeguard peace and harmony. This implies that muslims in this country are easily agitated, all the more so because they are the majority in numbers.
If we go by this reasoning of size, then we must go by an even bigger reasoning, namely the rest of the muslim world which is hundreds-fold bigger than the muslim population here.
If they have accepted the word in Arabic to be used by non-muslims for their own gods without disturbing peace and harmony elsewhere, then the rationale based on numbers and perception adopted in the decision here is against itself.
It is also against the remit by which this country was formalized, namely non-muslims can practice their own faiths undeterred.
The decision is also faulty for undermining judiciary considerations by the fiat of perceived threats, to wit corrupting due process by street-riot blackmail, all the more insidious when such mob rules can be politically generated by certain people to reinforce their hold on volatile voters, what more institutions under their influence.
The simplest expedient is to disallow the use of the word when muslims and non-muslims happen to meet. All should then use the words The Unseen One to signify their respective Ones.
And when they don't meet, there should be nothing to be anxious about since what is not seen or heard should not affect anyone's faith which was the cause of the original concern.
Likewise, people of different faiths who don't meet are also less likely to read holy books and newsletters of other faiths.
This, of course, is a mighty loss to all from not knowing what others believe which may also have tonics of wisdom that can augment one's own faith as well.
However, for only rm31.84, one can also gleam the common features.
Imagine a close-knit family of four. The father has one faith, the mother another, the firstborn yet another and the little one none. Each of the three faiths is singular in saying it is the only path to eternal peace and harmony.
Given so, you would think there's only a twenty-five percent chance one would be right. What is so wrong is that if one is right, the other three would be condemned to eternal suffering, including the innocent little one who holds no faith at all.
If the father, or mother, is right in his or her faith, would he or she visit that on each other, let alone their children?
Nuts!
Or to turn it around, would either be one hundred percent sure he or she is absolutely right when articles of faith have to be satisfied with only twenty-five percent in reality?
Furthermore, where in this dilemma is the compassion, love, devotion and timeless humanity that is the heart of all faiths?
Adopting an exclusive stance only negates and cancels the very essence of a faith.
In short, people practice religions without realizing one important factor - human limitations.
Each believer is limited in ability and scope and by changing circumstances. So why the kiasu about the kiasi of absolutism?
The problem we have today is not about religions. It is about politicians and their judicial puppets absolving themselves from the responsibility of engaging higher principles of fairness that will elevate standards of electoral insights into our common humanity.
Perhaps it is easy for them to be cowardly because they were the cause of the rift and division in the first place.
Faith is more easily served by love, understanding and confidence.
Faith is not really served by fear which at best only kick-starts the process to wisdom about the One by egging one to abandon certain habits and misdeeds.
If one is only frightened of consequences, the emotion of fear blocks one from learning the cause and effect of one's irreligious actions, and makes one no different from an automaton or lower order life-form without the consciousness of choices and sacrifice.
If He wants that, wouldn't you think He could have more easily done so by spamming His Universe instead of sending you email after email specifically to your inbox every day of your life?
All of life is a series of lessons to be learned, including religion 101.
It is easier to learn something if one starts without any hang-ups or preconceived notions.
5 comments:
The judicial reasoning used was that it was necessary to safeguard peace and harmony. This implies that muslims in this country are easily agitated, all the more so because they are the majority in numbers.
If we go by this reasoning of size, then we must go by an even bigger reasoning, namely the rest of the muslim world which is hundreds-fold bigger than the muslim population here.
If they have accepted the word in Arabic to be used by non-muslims for their own gods without disturbing peace and harmony elsewhere, then the rationale based on numbers and perception adopted in the decision here is against itself.
It is also against the remit by which this country was formalized, namely non-muslims can practice their own faiths undeterred.
The decision is also faulty for undermining judiciary considerations by the fiat of perceived threats, to wit corrupting due process by street-riot blackmail, all the more insidious when such mob rules can be politically generated by certain people to reinforce their hold on volatile voters, what more institutions under their influence.
The simplest expedient is to disallow the use of the word when muslims and non-muslims happen to meet. All should then use the words The Unseen One to signify their respective Ones.
And when they don't meet, there should be nothing to be anxious about since what is not seen or heard should not affect anyone's faith which was the cause of the original concern.
Likewise, people of different faiths who don't meet are also less likely to read holy books and newsletters of other faiths.
This, of course, is a mighty loss to all from not knowing what others believe which may also have tonics of wisdom that can augment one's own faith as well.
However, for only rm31.84, one can also gleam the common features.
http://is.gd/k3s9dZ
you want?
Imagine a close-knit family of four. The father has one faith, the mother another, the firstborn yet another and the little one none. Each of the three faiths is singular in saying it is the only path to eternal peace and harmony.
Given so, you would think there's only a twenty-five percent chance one would be right. What is so wrong is that if one is right, the other three would be condemned to eternal suffering, including the innocent little one who holds no faith at all.
If the father, or mother, is right in his or her faith, would he or she visit that on each other, let alone their children?
Nuts!
Or to turn it around, would either be one hundred percent sure he or she is absolutely right when articles of faith have to be satisfied with only twenty-five percent in reality?
Furthermore, where in this dilemma is the compassion, love, devotion and timeless humanity that is the heart of all faiths?
Adopting an exclusive stance only negates and cancels the very essence of a faith.
In short, people practice religions without realizing one important factor - human limitations.
Each believer is limited in ability and scope and by changing circumstances. So why the kiasu about the kiasi of absolutism?
The problem we have today is not about religions. It is about politicians and their judicial puppets absolving themselves from the responsibility of engaging higher principles of fairness that will elevate standards of electoral insights into our common humanity.
Perhaps it is easy for them to be cowardly because they were the cause of the rift and division in the first place.
Faith is more easily served by love, understanding and confidence.
Faith is not really served by fear which at best only kick-starts the process to wisdom about the One by egging one to abandon certain habits and misdeeds.
If one is only frightened of consequences, the emotion of fear blocks one from learning the cause and effect of one's irreligious actions, and makes one no different from an automaton or lower order life-form without the consciousness of choices and sacrifice.
If He wants that, wouldn't you think He could have more easily done so by spamming His Universe instead of sending you email after email specifically to your inbox every day of your life?
All of life is a series of lessons to be learned, including religion 101.
It is easier to learn something if one starts without any hang-ups or preconceived notions.
And that is why we have the problem here today.
It is all about fear of loosening the tottering power structure.
What if the other member of the family is right after all? Sacrifice all eternally for that transient structure?
Human limitation.
Post a Comment