 |
| Source: The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, March 24, 2015, page 9 |
 |
| Source: The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, March 24, 2015, page 9 |
Folks,
There were two tragedies in Australia that disturbed me the most in the past week.
First is the Sydney cafe siege in which an idiotic Islamist (unfortunately) held hostages of the patrons. The perpetrator and the two hostages were apparently killed when the police were rescuing the latter.
The death of the hostages saddened me the most, but the death of the perpetrator is one that I have no regret except for cherish and joy.
I hope the perpetrator will rot in hell for his action, which is clearly un-Islamic (goes against the teaching of the religion) and pathetic.
On the other hand, I sympathise with the family of the hostages who were also killed during the traumatic time of being rescued by the authority. I am saddled by the utter sadness.
This is why, I, as a Muslim, will never allow any religious scholars -- whether Christians, Muslims or otherwise -- to run and rule for a country, for fear of radical Islamic views that will results in the mushrooming of many others that would follow suit.
Just recently, a tragic incident happened in Pakistan, in which the Taliban was blamed as the mastermind behind the death of some 140-odd students in a school.
This reiterates my view once again about choosing and voting for a religious leader to run for the country.
In Malaysia, there are two Islamist groups that are politically linked. The first is Pertubuhan Agama Se-Malaysia (PAS) and second is Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA).
Both of these groups are also pressure groups in which they aspire to create Malaysia as an Islamic state.
While the idea is actually ideal, and very much welcomed by the Muslim community; I on the other hand, am not sure which part of Islamic teachings or sects or school of thoughts do they belong to.
Some of them are pathetically radical, calling for a ban on this and that; while other in the faction are more moderate, progressive, and pragmatic in their approach to certain issues.
Judging from the actions abroad, both in Pakistan and Australia, as well as others elsewhere; I am more than affirmative of my view of dismissing an Islamic state.
As for me, a state need not be Islamic; but the act of one is definitely indeed.
Islam does not advocate killing of others in the name of religion. And nor does Islam endorse its practitioners to impose its values to others.
The world as it currently is need not be Islamic.
It should be a safe haven where everyone could live in peace, prosperity and harmony, without fear of being intimidated by particular religious groups.
I denounce such a despicable act of killing innocent children and I pray that those behind the attack will be brought to justice, and eventually be forgiven by the families of the victims and God the Almighty.
Once again, I reiterate my view that a country should be ruled by moderates and not some religious scholars.
Second is the barbaric acts of murdering eight children in Australia.
Why oh why must these beautiful children be killed at such a young age, when they have yet to enjoy the bounty and plenty good things in this world?
I really am unable to fathom this.
Just what is this world turning into, I wonder.
Folks,
Just now, I read a story about a lower-caste boy in India being burnt to death for failure to properly monitor the goat of a farmer.
The boy, apparently from the lowest caste, was brutally bashed and later burned to death.
That sickens me. It boiled my blood.
And it disturbs me!
Why is there still a caste system?
I'm sorry, but I particularly do not see any benefits of this human-labeling system, that has no basis.
Why classify and categorise persons as holy, unholy and untouchables?
Wait.
Are we all not creation of God?
And who are these humans, taking the role of God to categorise other fellow humans, when God itself does not do so?
No baby requested from God to be born and later classified as either lower-class or upper-class human.
The baby may be born in a rich or poor family, but in the end, all babies are equal before God.
The issue concerning the caste system is somewhat similar to the issues of slavery and gender equality.
All of these three -- caste, slavery and gender equality -- steretotype and discriminate between one human and another.
Historically, we used to have a slavery system, where a person can be owned by another person.
Thank heavens that the system no longer exists in this half-sane world.
And then there was and still is, the issue about gender superiority, where men see themselves as superior than women.
But time has changed.
Everyone has its own unique capability. And neither no gender is superior nor inferior than another.
A lot of effort has been placed to enhance the role of women in the society.
In Malaysia at least, though a lot needs to be done, but women's right is protected here.
Yes, there are still some chauvanistic views, but at least we do not kill any women for petty crimes such as this.
And what remains now is this issue of caste, which is pretty much prevalent in India and ought to be properly addressed.
Now, I have to tread very carefully here as it involves a lot of sensitivity from some community. And by all means, I am not trying to offend them.
If I do, then I am so sorry, but the trauma of reading such disturbing article left a deep scar in my heart.
The extend of human action is beyond imagination.
What I am writing is merely a diplomatic view concerning the issue of the world's societal fabric, which I hope will be for the greater good of humanity.
My view is this:
(1) no baby is born with any kind of sin. All babies are born free of sin, but with countless number of blessings.
(2) no person or human should be enslaved and owned by another human.
(3) all persons, regardless of the social status and gender, are equal before the law, and ultimately God.
(4) no human has the right to claim that her or she is holier than the other. Only God can do that.
And I therefore pray that proper justice be done.
Folks,
This is funny. Absolutely funny.
A hoax of death between two different individuals.
While there may be some (significant?) resemblance between Morgan Freeman (the actor) and Nelson Mandela (the late revered president), there too are distinct features that distinguish these two men.
And I am also not sure whether this is thw official tweet by Morgan Freeman as I highly doubt that he would go on a swearing rampage in the microblogging sphere.
Anyway, this is indeed funny! :)
Rest in peace, Nelson Mandela.
And may you live longer, Morgan Freeman.
Folks,
Recently, The Heat -- a sister newspaper of Focus Malaysia published a commentary (there was some personal stance in the article, hence being unworthy of calling it a 'factual news') that calls for a total abolishment and repeal of capital punishment: death sentence.
Many arguments were presented, and I hve to say that the writer is a little biased. That is totall fine because at the end of the argument, she has to choose a side; but before she decides which side should she choose, a proper understanding of the both sides of the coin should be thoroughly examined.
In her piece, she presented so many arguments "for" the abolishment of the death sentence, but she failed to discuss or even mention the arguments "for" capital punishment.
She even said that Malaysia lags behind many countries for having "this archaic law that is cruel and perverse in its finality".
I totally and absolutely disagree with her statement.
While the law may be archaic, but it is this very law that gives justice to those who lost their loved ones at the hands of the murderers.
Such a careless statement, dear ma'am!
My belief is simple and clear -- justice must be done. It must not be manifestly be seen to be done, but it must be executed so that it is done.
I fully support and endorse the idea that certain crimes should not be punished by death. For instance, in cases related to drugs. I think that whipping is sufficient to teach the carrier a lesson.
In Christianity, there is this argument that says "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
I could not agree more.
It is a universal principle, one that is consistent with the principle of natural justice.
If someone commits a murder for instance, then that person's actions should be rightfully punished by death.
However, since death is the utmost form of punishment, we must clearly define the degree and cause of murder.
If the death of the victim was caused by accidents, then we must factor in many reasons for it.
We must mitigate and consider various reasons from all aspects and sides.
If it is intentional, then one logic question is -- why should we give the murder a (second) chance?
Why should the murder be spared the death sentence and instead walk scot-free?
Why give the murder a so-called 'second chance' for rehabilitation, while the victim didn't get any?
It just baffles me.
The charter by the UN for a total abolishment of death penalty is all nice with 'sweet' principles of justice and human rights; but lest we forget that the victims died did not even get the chance and rights to breathe and enjoy the beautiful life on this planet earth.
I am not saying that the said UN charter is totally flawed, all I am saying is that while the charter is good in promoting human rights, we must look at it from both angles and in totality.
We must not look solely on the basis of 'humans should not play God in taking life away from criminals', but instead we should look at the perspectives of 'how do we retribute justice?'.
On the other hand, we must equally too be very careful in passing down death sentence.
Only deserving criminals should be punished by death sentence. We should not be too quick in handing down sentences so as to avoid wrong persons to be executed.
In conclusion, I truly detest the idea of totally abolishing the death sentence.
We need this law of death sentence, and we need to reform the law so that only certain crimes are punishable by death.
Repealing this law will only makes us look like a fool in bowing to some demands by external parties having complete disregard to the principle of justice.
But at the same, I respect those having different ideas than mine.
Peoples,
Ooh, this is a hot story in Kosmo!, a Malay daily newspaper, dated May 17th, 2013.
The translation of the headline can be approximated in English as:-
"Worker Died After Working Long Hours".
Imagine that. An employee in China is reported to be dead after working long hours. The cause of death: heart attack.
In simple and plain logic:-
Work long hours = heart attack
heart attack = death
Wow, what a horrible cause for death. Is this kind of death covered in an insurance?
So for those out there who is a workaholic and love to stay back, there is now a reason for you to mumble to your boss on the consequence of working long hours.
And it is reported in a newspaper. Isn't that credible enough? ;p
