Of Religion and Nutters.

Prologue: I finally come up with the essay that my junior and commissioner of random menial job for menial income needed as a model essay for his SPM level English tuition. It took me four days of thinking and four hours of actual typing. So much for efficiency. To top it off, that's the most in depth writing I've done for a while now...which reflects where's my current standing in coming up with my thesis. Though I wonder if any student can actually come up with essay of such length within the short period of two hours or so.

Alternate title: Why am I still an pretty much an Atheist/Agnostic/Non-Practicing only in IC Buddhist because there's no place for me to tick Atheist/Agnostic.

For TL:DR: Hold on to your pitchfork and burning stake. Click on that red X button on your browser and retreat back to respective life that we're having right now: without knowing each other. Thank you.

The Himpun poster that was stapled on to the much abused palm tree right outside USM Sungai Dua Gate bus stop. Quite a well designed, minimalist, aesthetically designed poster which seen a departure from the painfully cliched minaret and dome or serban/hijab with green as overall colour, the usual thing that appears on poster for Islamic banners/posters in Malaysia. Then again, no amount of aesthetic design can wash away the burden of controversy they had for the past few weeks in October.

The word Himpun or gather has become the most controversial buzzword in Malaysia for the past few weeks. Himpun which is short for Himpunan Sejuta Umat or The Gathering of Million Faithfuls staged a demonstration at Stadium Shah Alam to protest against "the rising tide of deviant or Murtad" and "proselytization from other religions (but especially Christianity) towards Muslims in Malaysia" and calls for action from all Muslims in Malaysia to "defend vigorously their Akidah (wellbeing though I think there might be a better translation for this) of their faithful." The few weeks leading up the event has been loaded with heated discussion bordering inflammatory and hate speech across all board with spurious allegations and accusations from both sides of the fold ranging from the allegation that said that as much as 250,000 Muslims has renounced Islam (hence murtad) while the actual number of application was not as well as the allegation why such rally were approved so swiftly in the first place while others was not. There were some sector (like the usual Utusan) defending the rally as "free speech" (even though I think not all viewpoints are equally valid) while others has call it "anti-Christian" and even other more well-mannered Muslim has call people to stay away from such rally. Anticipation and anxiety awaits as the day approaches...but in the end, it fizzles out becoming one of the most anticlimactic event ever after so much hype and controversy just like Anjem Choudary with his planned march of Wooton Bassett against British troops parade. There's something to be slightly concerned about however because even though there aren't "million faithfuls" that came on that day itself, there are however 5,000 VERY THICK PARANOIAC who probably believe  ZIONIST-FREEMASON-HOMOSEXUAL GLOBAL DOMINATION PLOT shite that did. Of course true to Malaysian way of dodging the shark, the organisers say it's a success and they plan to extend to go national planning to have audience with all the Malay Rulers as well as calls for the new law that's going to replace ISA in the future to prevent Murtad of Islam to other religion as well as the ensure the teachers in school doesn't Murtad their child. What a bunch of BULLOCKS.

It's just a common recurring theme for nutters of Abrahamic Religion (but more so Evangelical Christian and Islam) to claim they are always under attack from the wave of deviants and homosexuals and Atheist and Zionist Freemason plot shite and calls for Jihad or Crusade against anyone who dare to question them. Despite statistic showing that Christianity and Islam is the most widely professed religion in the world and continues to expand in third world country. In fact, it is Christianity and Islam that explicitly made it a covenant of some sort to spread their Gospel or Holy Teaching across the globe with Dakwah or Proselytization. What do they worried about anyway? That they won't go to Heaven if they didn't tote their Bible or Al-Quran around while calling everybody else heathen unless they repent and follow their one and only God/Allah? Oh, don't tell me about the mutual hatred between Judaism, Christianity and Islam that lasted for a couple of thousand years and millions of death. Despite the fact all the three of them had holy books (Torah, Bible and Al-Quran) shares the same early chapter as well as characters except in their nomenclature and status. That's why the hyponym to encompass all three of them are called Abrahamic Religion or Agama Samawi in Malay. Despite their same origin, all of them claimed to be the chosen one while everybody else is going to hell for eternal damnation. Their discrimination complex, I would say, is all in their head.

In a nutshell, Himpun (and everything that comes with it) certainly didn't make me (or any other sane people for that matter) budge even a micron into believing Islam is under threat of Murtad and the nutters has only make fool of themselves as well as the very religion that they try to defend of. Definitely didn't help in improving Islam's image in the eye of non-Muslim especially since I attended a talk about Non-Muslim Misconception of Islam held in USM about a week earlier from Himpun itself which is what I am going to talk about in this post today.

The talk was held on Saturday 15 Oct at DK A and organised by Hidayah Centre Penang, an NGO that works to aid the Dakwah work as well as providing support of all form to the new converts or Saudara Baru, as what that is euphemistically called in the job.

The talk was presented by Bro. Lim Jooi Soon, a Muslim of Chinese ethnicity and has been one for a couple of decades or so after being born Buddhist/Taoist/Traditional Chinese Belief and tested the water of Evangelical Christian while he was an impressionable 14 years old. In case anyone of you wondered why he still kept his Chinese name even though he is a Muslim now, it's not necessary/compulsory for Converts to change one's name to an Arabic sounding name or add an bin/binti Abdullah to their name. Apparently the scripture point out that the name of Muslim only need to carry a good meaning (not deragatory) and that's it. SO if any JPN or Jabatan Agama people asked you to changed your name, you have your right to say no and keep your own name. That's the few and only few misconception that I managed to clear on that night itself.

He started off his talk by listing a few key reason why misconception of Islam by non-Muslim persisted, a few of which I think are reasonable but otherwise still open for debate. He listed western/non-Muslim dominated media and publishing landscape that's quick to prejudge whatever thing done in the name of Islam (some truth but otherwise questionable. I consider all mass media are partisan anyway with their editorial explicitly subscribed to one viewpoint only and would only be too happy to spin a news based on their editorial viewpoint to achieve more sales and viewership for dumb people who feeds on such bigotry. Case in point: Utusan Malaysia, Metro, Kosmo not to mention rubbish magazine like Mastika.), non-Muslim themselves that refuse to understand Islam (there's some truth in it but it's only human nature for people to feel distance to things that are unfamiliar to them especially in Malaysia where everything Islam is sensitive and should not be soiled by the heathens' hand ever.), Muslim themselves are did not reflect the good example of Islamic teaching (Fair point especially when you've suicide bombers and serbanistas who are trigger happy in wanting the head of anyone who disagrees with them, sometimes literally.) and last but not least, the clerics, the Ustaz and the Ulamas, the one who's actually the most knowledgeable in their field are more often or not the on furthest or out of touch with the public, leaving the public to search on their own until they're misguided and confused themselves and non-Muslim forever confused and misunderstood Islam because they've no where else knowledgeable enough to refer to except the follower which is not the most suitable representation of Islam at all.

The talk moves on with him asking anyone to throw the common questions that non-Muslim always have towards Islam. Little did he realised though out of 70-80+ attendees that came that night, the actual non-Muslim that came can be counted with less than 10 fingers, including me. Obviously the organisers had not done enough in actually promoting the event and probably anything Islam will remain within the domain of Muslims. Too bad. Anyway, seeing no response from the few non-Muslims in the hall (I didn't respond at this point because there are nothing for me to nitpick with at that moment.), he himself decided to throw a few questions into the air before continuing in explanation (with intermittent interruption of a nutter of an Makcik. Will talk about that later.) The question he threw open to the public are (if my memory serves me well of course):

1. Why is pork/swine sinful? Specifically consumption of pork.

2. Why Muslim men can have four wives (polygamy) while it's not alright conversely for women to have four husbands. (Polyandry)?

3. Why do non-believers have to go to hell? (something to that effect. Can't really remember the exact word for it)

...and another question that I can't seem to remember. Anyway to be frank, the speaker did made SOME research and manage to come up with a few fair points (like the one about name changing) but otherwise, his answer to those few questions are basically same old same old preacher talks, some of which contains fallacies and unverified statements which can be easily disprove and rebutted with further research. Here are some of the the best (including the euphemistic quotation mark "") bits.

The sinful PORK/BABI: Not much clarification because I already know those stuff but yeah, the scripture stated clearly thou shall not eat pork because HE said so (the thing about being not complete ruminant and split hooves and what not) but Islamic jurisprudence permits consumption of pork under dire circumstances (starvation and there's nothing else to eat except pork for some reason) but definitely not for enjoyment. I am somewhat impressed that the fact that he didn't dwell on the science bit about how "dirty" the pig is (You know those rubbish chain email about when you pour Coke on pig meat and parasites come out? Let me tell you a thing or two about raw meat...and he probably know that it's futile to say pig is still unclean even if it's reared with the most rigourous health standard because he said one day in the future, science has developed to a point that pig is as sterile as it can be so is it still unclean?) but instead focus on scriptures alone should suffice. OK then. (Sorry Muslim, no Bah Kut Teh for you.)

Still well and merry right? The point where everything goes kind of wrong starts from here.

Polygamy or specifically, why a man can have four wives while a wive are not allowed to do the same? His answer: Man and woman has been created and treated fairly but not necessarily EQUAL/SAME because man and woman are fundamentally different in various aspect like childbirth or strength (he made the analogy of robbery in a house and if husband ask his wife to defend him instead, the wife can reply that please pregnant and bear a child too. Whatever the analogy trying to prove.) He did talk about Prophet Muhammad and his wives (not just four, but NINE including minors and former servant girl!) but of course he mentioned the situation back then (the war, the dark age or zaman Jahiliyah as the Sejarah textbook taught me plus he did it with no malicious intention.) and now is different so OK then. THEN made a postulation which I found degrading not just for women but for men too. Specifically, period and sex. Men who practice polygamy can find the other wives to have sex (he said it euphemistically but it's clear it's sex) if just so happen one of them have period. Not the same for women who have four husband: if the wife have period, the men would have to "Berpuasa" or fast for at least seven days during that cycle. He actually had the gall to tell that a man can love many women but women can only love one man because it's FITRAH manusia or human nature. So much for dispelling misconception because all I know about men from the Islam perpective is that man are SEX MACHINE. The worst part from this part of the talk: every Muslimah in the hall AGREED to this notion in unison especially that loud, wryly nutters of a Makcik who replied loudly that it's all god's will. It's all god's will for men to be horny and wives should be ready at all time to be shagged by their men. Apparently time has moved on but the scripture and jurisprudence didn't.

Soon after that, people (specifically, the Muslims. I for some reason remained silently incensed that I forgot to ask questions. Or I am silently scared that the nutter of a Makcik will start hitting me with a handbag.) started to ask question as well, one of them is why he converted to Islam and when did he received the epiphany or hidayah? (Another thing that I learned about Abrahamic religion and its proselytization/dakwah movement is that they always feel good to listen to a converts testimony as if it's a self-assurance or proof that their religion is the best compared to others as if they jizzed in their pant whenever anyone sing praise of their religion and convert en masse to them.). He said that he started to learn about Islam when he was exposed to the speech of certain Muslim scholar (which I didn't bother to remember his name was) which prompted him (some form of epiphany of sort) to continue his research further into Islam by making comparison with other religion (which he made a fair point about comparative religious studies: if we ever want to do comparison between religion, always start from the scripture (the source) instead of looking just at their followers which I agree because human are bound to falter anyway. That's the few thing I agree in principle just to give credit where credit is due but there are still places which I can nitpick about what he said.) bit. before making that leap of faith.

He said that in his journey of extensive studying of Islam (and other religion as comparison), he has come to the conclusion that the particular religion is the ONE true religion if it satisfy certain criteria: 1. There has to be one and ONLY one god (monotheist in theological term). 2. The said god must not be and should not be able to be objectify or expressed in physical form because His existence goes beyond the normal sense of existence. (Metaphysical in theological term.) 3. The scripture and the teaching must not and should not contradict self. (Inerrancy in theological term.) In the end of the day, he comes to the conclusion that only Islam with Allah and Al-Quran can satisfy all three criteria of being the one true religion. While I am not sure how did his thought process goes when he did his research but from what I see it, the only conclusion he's going to make of course is that Islam the the ONE TRUE religion...because he quoted to so-called corner stone of being the one true religion...from Al-Quran!

Then he continues to make this point while expounding the beauty of Islam which is a last straw for me that blow off all the few good point that he managed to made: Al-Quran contains SCIENTIFIC fact. Yes, you heard me. SCIENCE in scripture. At one point, he talked about the continuously expanding universe and Stephen Hawking (by doing a reverse experiment/postulation etc) said that the universe comes from one point of singularity or origin ergo GOD. Further research (Wiki!) said that Stephen Hawking did mention about the point of singularity (as big bang theory goes. Please read up what exactly Stephen Hawking meant by singularity.) BUT that's not necessarily meant that is god or there might not be god at all. In fact, Stephen Hawking doesn't not even mention about god in his writing expect in metaphorical, postulating sense before he dismisses the need of a god to exist in the beginning of universe. Best of all, Stephen Hawking is an atheist or in his own word, has no personal god of his own. Stephen Hawking and religion: DEBUNKED. He continues on talking about various scientific facts proven time in modern that has been mention in the scripture 1,400 years ago (the very thing evangelical missionary and dakwah parroting out to plebs across the globe) like saying Allah has said that the earth is oval and not flat (or ostrich egg shaped as what inscribed in Al-Quran about the origin of life.) He then said that the west still believed that the earth is flat while Al-Quran has already predated western scholar by a thousand years until Magellan actually made his round the world sail. This however is ANOTHER big FALLACY and a MYTH because people has already know that the earth is ROUND since GREEK civilisation, a few hundred BC and almost thousand year ahead when Islam is born. I think he got confused with the Catholic in dark ages' belief that the sun circle the earth instead of earth orbiting the sun, roundly disproved by Copernicus and Galileo. Another Scripture-Science relation DEBUNKED. The thing I would like point out: things just happen to be parallel with what's is written. (He claimed there are a few hundred more scientific fact in Al-Quran but I bet each of it can be easily debunked by further research starting from Wikipedia) Scripture is just scripture, not fact, not science hence should be taken at most metaphorically. Any preacher/pendakwah that claimed that Al-Quran or Bible contains scientific fact should be taken with a HUGE SACKFUL of SALT. Unfortunately however, these kind of fallacies are exactly the one the religious nutters love to hear because it makes them feel good about themselves. Nutters.

Last but not least, someone asked that all religion teaches good to all humankind and what not so why must one believe in just Islam. His answer, all religions are similar in certain aspects  but it's not the SAME. Based on his cornerstone of godliness (as I mentioned earlier about his journey or epiphany about accepting Islam), he said Allah cannot be equated to another god/deity etc because it's Syirik and it's the biggest sin a Muslim can do. My only question that I have in mind: if they don't believe in Allah, why they could'nt just leave. Just like how Bro. Lim Jooi Soon (The Hidayah centre dakwah preacher and he's a Muslim convert for 15 years...from Christianity and Buddhism.) did to his previous religion. Why non-Muslim can afford the freedom of religion while Muslim are doomed of indoctrination and threat of Murtad punishment if such thought ever popped up in their mind? These are the questions that I probably will never get a decent answer from because everyone will just flip to their scripture and quote it ad nauseam and blind devotion, the very things that I stay away from out of despise.

At the end, I left the hall pretty much with my atheist mindset embolden and my perception towards Abrahamic religion especially Islam are still the same: it's for wacks. Oh well, I left my email and contact number with them in audience registration (in fact, I was the first to arrive at the hall hence my name is on top the list. Sorry to give you peeps over Hidayah Centre false hope about the reception of the event because only less than ten curious non-Muslim actually bothered to turn up...and left somewhat unsatisfied with unanswered question.) so who knows they might start pestering me with spam. I treat all form of proselytizing (especially for Abrahamic religion) with cynicism anyway.

Epilogue: Feel like commenting? Go ahead as I appreciate good knowledge and could use some brain excitement with constructive debate. Since you're in my territory however, do refrain from making inflammatory or patronising comments or name-calling about my state of mind, my background, my alma, my homeland and my family. (Because name-calling can arises from any where of one's character. That's why it's called personal attack.) Hey, you're taking to someone with deep-rooted misconception anyway. Why not try to enlighten me with facts and knowledge then perhaps we will sail together towards greater good and harmony? Tread carefully. Meanwhile, it's nice to have an actual thought and musing post for once. I bet it will be sensitive though. I need to tread lightly and a carefully.