Sunday, January 20, 2013

Listen! You could have made millions by now!

Listen! You could have made millions by now!

If Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin could speak on "How To Make Your First Million", she could have told her audience to patent all their speeches, no matter how rude.

After all, it was her impolite outburst which has now been repackaged by giant companies for their online advertising campaign. And without worries about royalty claims.

From food outlets to insurance providers, Zohra's now-famous "listen!" rant now adorns advertisements targeting Malaysian netizens through social media and popular websites.

"Listen! Listen! Listen! Listen! When You Speak, ING Listens" goes Dutch-based insurance giant ING Insurance Berhad on its official Facebook page.

South African food franchise Nando's, among the earliest to cash in on the "Listen" craze, splashed the same words to publicise its signature 'peri-peri chicken' dish on news websites already intensely covering the controversy.

Mobile telco giant Digi digged further into Zohra's 'lecture' by extracting the part where she launched herself into a long drivel of animal-themed analogies, unbeknownst of a historic public relations disaster in the making.

"Cows. Chickens. Cats. Even Ikan Jaws Have Problems," thundered one poster in the company's yellow background.

"Dear animals, we know you can't talk. But if you can type, then you can search/share/tweet/complain online for just RM1/day. DIGI Prepaid. No problem," it continues, rather cheekily.

The country's most popular internet marketplace, mudah.my, has also based its promo on the same theme, as has Japanese restaurant Suki-Ya:

"Our beef, lamb and chicken have no problem..." it begins, before concluding: "You can bring your mother, grandmother and daughter to join."

Digi's other ad was less discreet, blurting out student K.S. Bawani's pleas on Zohra to "Let me speak!" before continuing: "Ok. Now you can talk longer to your friends and family for 12sen/2 minutes. But don't snatch the phone away from someone else ok?"

In the meantime, the original YouTube video of the "Listen!" incident has fetched more than 700,000 views only nine days after it was posted by an online channel catering to campus life.

Condemnations from netizens have turned into an explosion of humour, with endless parody videos being produced on the incident, attracting equally large numbers of viewers on YouTube.

But perhaps not all have welcomed the controversy as good for business.

The organiser of a talk event titled "How To Make Your First Million" featuring Sharifah Zohra as one of the speakers, with a fee of RM200 per participant, was forced to cancel it following security concerns.

For now, however, there is little doubt that she is the right person to speak on the subject!

-Harakahdaily

From : Malaysia Chronicles

Saturday, January 19, 2013

The Ugly 1Malaysian Muslim Woman

Umno women, like Sharifah, Norhayati Saiddin, Raja Ropiah Raja Abdullah, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and Rosmah Mansor, are poor role models for Malaysian women.
 
By : Mariam Mokhtar
 
COMMENT

Umno seems to have a lot of people who open their mouths and put their feet straight into them. That is why few will sympathise with Sharifah Zohra Jabeen, the president of Suara Wanita 1Malaysia (SW1M) who has gone into hiding and is attempting to restore her reputation after she delivered a knockout blow to Umno.

Perhaps, she deserves a tinge of sympathy for having an out-of-body experience; the moment she opened her mouth, all credibility left her body.

Incidentally, from where does SW1M get its funding? Is it the taxpayer or does the money come from abroad?

Incredibly, the other members of her little known organisation are just as blind, and do not think Sharifah’s behavior was appalling. Can anything be clearer?

It is Sharifah’s snobbery and aggression which the rakyat identifies with Umno. Her lack of humility prevented her from apologising for her poor conduct. She is too arrogant to admit that she was wrong and her decision to go into hiding because she says she is being “blackmailed”, shows her cowardice and guilt. Her decision to prolong the issue and not deal decisively and immediately with it, has made her look even more conceited.

Sharifah’s tirade against KS Bawani the law student couldn’t have come at a worse time. The day before, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak had tried to take the credit for the incident-free People’s Uprising rally dubbed KL112, but Sharifah’s outburst, has again focused our minds on Umno’s arrogance. Najib was again eclipsed by an arrogant woman.

Umno women, like Sharifah, Norhayati Saiddin, Raja Ropiah Raja Abdullah, Shahrizat Abdul Jalil and Rosmah Mansor, are poor role models for Malaysian women.

The video clip of the incident was around 24 minutes long, but in that short episode, we witnessed a snapshot of Malaysia as it really is. In real life, we have Umno, the bully party. In the university hall, Umno is personified by Sharifah.

Sharifah talks down to us and tells the students that she has respect for Bawani, despite giving her a public tongue-lashing. Her behaviour is just like Umno which tells us that the reforms are working, that there are low levels of crime in the country, that our education in the best in the world, but at the same time steals from us.

After several hours of listening to the panel members, only two questions were allowed from the floor. Even then, one wonders if the questions had been selected before the talk and did not come from the students themselves.

Drug dealer’s pitbull

Concerned that the students were unable to provide feedback on the talk, Bawani felt compelled to ask some questions. She quoted the High Court ruling on Bersih and corrected SW1M’s assertion that S Ambiga was an anarchist. She then asked for the panel’s opinion on the provision of free education for Malaysian students.

Sharifah, like a drug dealer’s pitbull, was ready to sink her fangs into Bawani, to prevent the other students from “thinking” about greater issues. Perhaps, the only difference between Sharifah and a pitbull is that eventually a pitbull will let go.

Sharifah, in typical Umno fashion, sidestepped Bawani’s questions and prattled on about animals and other unrelated matters – an Umno trick which has been honed to perfection in parliament.

Another similarity with Umno is the way Sharifah held the galaxy lucky draw after the talk. This is just like Umno offering bags of rice and Milo after canvassing.

The fact that the video-clip took one month to surface showed that the university was afraid of the backlash. When only one student appeared to show support for Bawani, the quality of our students, at least in that hall, is questioned. The panel members who failed to stop Sharifah from making a fool of herself, are themselves weak. What is Sharifah to them?

Most of us, despite our racial origins, have been brought up to respect others, but the school of respect Sharifah attended does things differently.

She sees nothing wrong in verbally abusing others in public. She claims she is being respectful, by virtue of shaking their hands first.

When Sharifah talked about respecting elders, did she want us to have respect for leaders who steal from us and take away our dignity?

Perhaps, this is another symptom of an education system gone wrong. Muslim children are given religious education at school and are barred from Moral Studies, when they should be learning alongside their non-Muslim peers, about manners, courtesy and consideration to others.

Sharifah’s SW1M cannot claim to speak for Malaysian women; she certainly does not speak for me.

For all her intellectual snobbery, the mangled English on Sharifah’s SW1M website brought howls of laughter, thus attracting more ridicule on the president, who had sought to browbeat Bawani with boasts about her degree.

Divisive doctrines

Are animals in an animal testing laboratory, which have been conditioned by scientists cleverer than animals in the wild? Sharifah should realise that the attainment of a degree is not as important as the use to which one puts it. A degree is not a badge of honour with which to belittle others.

We are all products of former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s divisive doctrines. Whilst many of us try to overturn his racism and look forward to a country with can be proud of its varied population, people like Sharifah feel it convenient to prolong Mahathir’s legacy.

At this crucial time before GE-13, other BN groups have distanced themselves from Sharifah.

Is Sharifah a Malaysian or someone who was put on the fastrack to citizenship?

The Malaysian Indian Muslim Congress (KIMMA) has denounced Sharifah for being difficult. Perhaps, her overbearing nature hides insecurities about her origins. Is this a trait which she shares with another Indian who calls himself a Malay?

In the Biro Tata Negara (BTN) sessions, students are told that all Muslims are considered Malays whatever their racial origins. Thus, any Chinese or Indians who embrace Islam become Malay.

When Sharifah locked eyes with Bawani, in the university hall, did she realise that the only difference between them was religion? These two women could have been twins who were separated at birth, but by virtue of being brought up a Muslim, Sharifah was entitled to all the perks of the bumiputera.

Did she feel morally, intellectually and spiritually superior to Bawani and decide to bully her? Was it fear that made Sharifah lash out? In Bavani, Sharifah saw herself as she might have been, if she or her family had not converted.

If a Malay had posed Bawani’s questions, would Sharifah’s tongue-lashing have been as severe and would she have suggested the questioner go to another country?

Mariam Mokhtar is a FMT columnist.

From : Free Malaysia Today

Thursday, January 17, 2013

An Open Letter to PAS on ‘Allah’

FMT LETTER: From Jason Seong , via e-mail

First of all, I would like to state that the Sultan of Selangor, a truly people-oriented ruler and a down-to-earth figure, has been terribly ill-advised on the issue of the kalimah Allah. As one who embodies the role of Guardian of Islam in the state, the Sultan must realise that no decree of an Islamic council can bind non-Muslims. We are not under the jurisdiction of Syariah law.

Secondly, non-Muslims are now wondering how is the slogan, “PAS for all” consistent or compatible with the decision by the Syura Council to “forbid” Christians (and by extension, Sikhs and adherents of other faiths) from translating the word, “Allah” in the Bible ( and by extension the Holy Scriptures of the other non-Muslim faiths).

It is illogical to suppose that one can use the word, “Allah” in oral form but not in written form. After all, the meaning underlying both type of linguistic forms would be the same. Furthermore, how is this different from Umno’s move to impose a ban? This being the case, why should Christians support PAS?

As it is, forbidding non-Muslims from using the word, “Allah” whether in speech or text absolutely violates Article of 11 of the Constitution which provides for the freedom of religion as expressed in both profession and practice. It is a question of non-Muslim’s fundamental right to freedom of religion.

“Profession” here would correspond to verbal & written declaration of one’s faith; “practice” relates to ritual habits of non-Muslims as expressed in the divine liturgy for many Christians which would not only contain Bible readings but also follow a pre-scripted text.

PAS needs to ask why is it that Christians in the Middle East do not face such a situation? In fact, there are quite a few questions which PAS must face. How is the prohibition compatible with Islam as an Abrahamic religion? How is it compatible with Christians as “People of the Book”?

After all, there has never ever been such a decree within Judaism prohibiting Christians from claiming the Old Testament as part of their Holy Scriptures. And not least, Muslims have never ever been prohibited by Christians in the West from claiming that the prophets in the Quran refer to the prophets in the Old Testament and the Gospels.

Has this to do with the growing Islamisation in Malaysia? Islamisation can only breed even more extreme forms of Islam. That is the trajectory. In the Palestinian Territories, Hamas must now contend with Salafis and both are at each other’s throats. Pakistan’s current problems with religious extremism can be traced to the Islamisation initiated by Zia ul-Haq.

In a sense, the country is a failed state. Many Iranians, especially the young, are disillusioned with the rule of ayatollahs. In Indonesia, religious intolerance is rising since the downfall of Suharto. And of course, terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah (JI) consider themselves as “pure” Muslims. But I digress.

PAS must come to terms with the concrete reality of the situation. Non-Muslims respect Islam’s universally exclusive claims. But these claims however central cannot be imposed on non-Muslims. More over, the trend can become a dangerous precedent in the future.

The claim of the oneness of Allah as affirmed in the opening statement of the Syura Council’s “decree” that God is unbegotten and begets not presupposes and implies the Christian understanding of the Trinity. This is consistent with the Quran’s claim that it stands in the lineage of the Gospels albeit as the pure and uncorrupted form of divine revelation.

Is PAS going to next forbid Christians from referring to Jesus as the Son of God since He is Nabi Isa the son of Maryam in the Quran? After all, Jesus as the Son of God and Trinity goes together.

Or to put in another way, Jesus as the Son of Allah is also Allah the Son which of course is blasphemous and scandalous to Muslims. PAS has to realise that the concept of the oneness of God is not unique to Islam alone or even the Abrahamic religions.

It is also worth repeating here that Sikhism is monotheistic and Sikhs refer to their God as Allah. Even Hinduism in its original form is monotheistic. Just as Judaism and Islam understand monotheism in one way, so do Christians (and Sikihism and Hinduism understand monotheism in another way.

The Christian concept of the Trinity is not a concept. The oneness of God is not a mathematical one where you and I can count 1, 2,, 3 … and so on. It is beyond affirmation and negation. It is not a “thing,” and it is not also not-not a “thing.” In other words, it is beyond this world – intellectually and empirically.

That is to say, the oneness of God does not share the same logical status with human logic and experience so that oneness of God is opposed to the multiplicity of creation. But that God is both, simultaneously, one and three – “numbers” of which are absolutely unique and without parallel. God is both unity and multiplicity.

The unity of God is found in the Father the Almighty and the multiplicity of God is expressed in the eternal begottenness of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. God’s oneness, therefore, is “structured” around the divine Persons. God’s oneness is not a solitary oneness but a “social oneness” – a paradox to the human mind.

The closest analogy is the human family where propagation is physical and takes place in time and space takes place.

It is my sincere wish and hope that, especially for the sake of my East Malaysian, Orang Asli and Indonesian brothers and sisters in the faith, that good sense would prevail out of this controversy. Let us strive to respect, understand and accommodate one another in the spirit of national unity and Bangsa Malaysia.

I appeal to PAS not to infringe on the fundamental right of the Christians in Malaysia but rather work for solutions that would preserve both the parties’ concern and also of the non-Muslims who are anxious about the forthcoming general election.

From : Free Malaysia Today

Allah is not the problem. Mankind is.

FMT LETTER: From Lembu Susu, via e-mail

I wish to share my thoughts to laypersons and have intentionally omitted quoting scriptures from both the Quran and the Bible, so as to make it easy reading for both divide.

1 The word ‘Allah’ is meant only for Muslims and for all who hold the view that there is only one God, according to the PAS Majlis Syura. This view resonates well with the majority of Muslims in Malaysia. The non-Muslims and the Christians must understand that the reason PAS does not allow the word ‘Allah’ in the Bible translation was because of theological reason.

Christians hold the view that God is a Trinity; that is, the belief in a Triune God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Though the Christians maintained that they believe in One God, but the concept of Trinity was unacceptable in Islam. Hence, if the Christians were to use the word ‘Allah’ for their God, then, it will not represent correctly the ‘Allah’ of the Muslim God.

2 The Christians, on the other hand, have a problem if they use the word ‘Allah’ without qualification. The problem is that the ‘Allah’ of the Bible is not the same as the ‘Allah’ of the Quran. For example, the Christians believe the Bible teaches monogamous marriages, but in the Quran, polygamy is allowed, albeit with certain conditions.

Moreover, in the Quran, jihad also involves wiping out infidels, which is not advocate at all in the New Testament of the Bible. Hence, when the Christians use the word ‘Allah’ for God, they have to clarify, that though the word ‘Allah’ is the same word being used for ‘God’ by both the Christians and the Muslims, yet, the ‘Allah’ revealed in the Bible is different from the ‘Allah’ in the Quran.

3 The bottom line is this: ‘Allah’ is just a word to denote ‘God’. It is how you will fill that word with meaning. This is where the teachings in the Quran and in the Bible gives meaning to the word  ‘Allah’ by each religion.

4 But if we were to look it in another angle, actually, Allah is greater than any human words can express. Allah cannot be confined to a word. The word is only necessary to help man connect to Him, but He is greater than a word. In fact, there is no word that is sufficient to address Him. He is beyond words. He cannot be reduced to just a word, ‘Allah’. He is greater than any words mankind can call Him.

5 So, on ‘Allah’s side, there is no issue for the Muslims and there is no issue for the Christians. He will never be confused by the Christians or by the Muslims.

6 As for Muslims and Christians, there were also no confusion with the word ‘Allah’, as the years has proven. It is how you fill the meaning of the word ‘Allah’ with. The teachings from the Quran and the Bible will give understanding and meaning to that word, by each one’s religion accordingly.

7 Every person will believe his or her religion is the correct and right one. Malaysia has existed in harmony all these years because of the mutual respect shown towards another’s religion and faith.

8 In each religion, it is only normal for their religion to tell them that theirs is the only and correct religion. Others are not. In fact, they are false. This is alright, because the constitution allow freedom of religion. But what a person believes must only be confined to himself or herself. They are not to extend what they believe onto others. If that is done, it will cause war.

9 Though Islam is the religion of the Federation, the Constitution allows freedom of religion. Hence, to stretch one’s believe and impose it on others infringes on the rights of a citizen.

10 The non-Muslims cannot impose on Muslims their beliefs, neither can the Muslims beliefs be imposed onto non-Muslims. Instead, there must be mutual respect for one another’s beliefs.

11 No one can tell another religion what word they can use and what word they cannot use. If this is allowed, it will breakdown the peace and harmony that was built and cherished all these the years. It will be the same as telling them, ‘you cannot practice your own religion, because your religion violates my religious beliefs’, and we all know that it is common for almost every religion, if adhered to fully, will violate against another. If this happens, then, there will be provocation and war.

So, in conclusion, may the one in authority not use their authority to impose one’s beliefs onto another, just because this is what they believe in. Instead, the call for restrain and respect for one another’s faith and belief should be paramount and upheld. Let the Muslims respect the non-Muslims’ faith and beliefs, and vice-versa, the non-Muslims respect the Muslims’ faith and beliefs.

If ‘Allah’ is consider a sacred word to the Muslims, then, keep in within the context of own religion. Don’t impose it on another, who may not share the same beliefs. The Christians have no intention to hurt or to confuse the Muslims. They are only asking for their right to practice their own religion, using a word that has been there and used all these years

From : Free Malaysia Today

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Why Allah in Bahasa Bibles should be allowed

Many Muslims and even some Christians have misunderstood the use of “Allah” in Bahasa Bibles. To clarify some of the confusion:

1. The BM Bible or the Alkitab is not translated from the English Bible but from the original languages, ie Hebrew and Greek.

2. The Hebrew word for God is 'El' or 'Elohim' (similar root as 'Ilah' in Arabic) and 'Yahweh' for LORD. The Greek words are 'Theo' for God and 'Kurios' for Lord.

3. Biblical translators all over the world have used the local language terms for 'Elohim' and 'Yahweh' eg God and LORD in English; 'Dios' and 'Senor' in Spanish, 'Shangti' and 'Zhu' in Chinese

4. For 15 centuries, Arabic Bibles have used Allah for God and Rab for Lord (predate Islam)

5. The first Malay translation of the Bible was made in 1612, and Allah was used for God and Tuhan for Lord in this and all the subsequent translations till today.

6. Malay-speaking (and Iban) Christians have used the term Allah for more than a hundred years in Malaya and the Borneo states in worship, prayers and reading their holy scriptures.

7. Twenty million Christians in Indonesia have used Allah for years without any misunderstanding or objection.

8. English Bibles nor Bibles of other languages obviously do not use the Bahasa terms

9. Forbidding the use of the term “Allah” by Christians, not only infringes their rights to practise their faith but also lead to confusion. For example, is the “Tuhan” in Negara-Ku and Rukun Negara not the “Muslim God” or can Christians sing the Selangor anthem where “Allah” is used?

10. Theological meanings between Christianity and Islam will always be different whether the term used is “Allah” or “Tuhan” or “God”.

-harakahdaily

From : Malaysia Chronicles