Friday, October 31, 2014

Who is 'kiasu'?

Remember my letter to Malaysiakini about Dr Ridhuan Tee Abdullah being ironically the ultimate ‘ultra kiasu’.

I used the adverb 'ironically' for his 'ultra kiasu-ness' because Dr Ridhuan, for a person who likes to call his political-social-cultural foes 'ultra kiasu', is himself an even bigger one, wakakaka - read my letter to Malaysiakini to know why I called him so.

Incidentally, one of his 'ultra kiasu' victims had been a sweetie who was my erstwhile dahleeeng, wakakaka, though I am not sure about that now as they're currently on the same side of the political fence.


'Kiasu' is a Chinese-Hokkien word which literally means 'afraid to lose or of losing' or figuratively 'don't want to lose (ever)', or in Bahasa 'takut kalah' or more correctly '(langsung) ta'mahu kalah', wakakaka.

In Penang Hokkien, it's actually pronounced with a slight nasal sound, thus should/would be better written as 'kniasu'. But in this post I'll stick to its more common romanized form, that is, 'kiasu' without the nasal indication.

Though I like to claim our awareness of this word came about as a result of Penang or Penangites' doing (usage), I have to grudgingly concede its popularity or notoriety might well have come from Sing usage, even though Penangites have been using it for eons but admittedly not in the socio-politico-economic context that Sings have in their notorious 5 'kiasu', namely (as I vaguely remember):

  • kia-boe-lui (takut ta'ada wang)
  • kia-boe-ch'u (takut ta'ada rumah)
  • kia-boe-been (takut malu)
  • kia-chenghu (takut kerajaan) wakakaka
  • kia-bor (takut isteri) wakakaka

The last two can also be re-termed as 'kiasi' (takut mati, wakakaka) rather than 'kiasu'.

Wikipeida confirms the Sing connection by saying Kiasu (驚輸) is a Hokkien and Singlish word that means a grasping, selfish attitude. Its meaning is comparable to the English idiom "dog in a manger".

I'm not so sure of that interpretation or figurative translation (from a Sing source?), nor would I agree to its equivalency to the English idiom "dog in a manger".

I would say its further explanation that It is often used to refer to anxious, selfish behaviour characterised by a fear of missing out is nearer to the mark, but only if missing out means losing ('face', argument, status, etc).

Of course I am talking from a Penang point of view - Sing might have developed a completely different slant on that word.

But I'd agree Kiasu or Kiasu-ism means to take extreme measures to achieve success a la ta'mahu kalah, wakakaka.

And incidentally it's the last (ta'mahu kalah) that Sings have been and are notorious for, to wit, taking extreme measures to achieve success, an attitude not dissimilar to those held by Hong Kongers.

It seems the Chinese (Sings, HK-ies and Penangites) are 'kiasu' - maybe Dr Ridhuan has a point there, but he still has to include himself as an 'ultra kiasu' even he keeps reminding us in regular 'kiasu-ness' he is a Malay, wakakaka.

But wait, what about Dr Mahathir?

Hasn't his defence of indefensible Ibrahim Ali's threat to burn the bibles been an act of 'kiasu-ness'?

How could Dr M compare Ibrahim Ali's threat to burn the sacred book of another religion to Muslims burning old unwanted or unusable Quran so as to prevent inadvertent defilement or accidental desecration of Islam's most Holy Book?

Does that mean Christians can now threaten to burn the Quran, and then claim that supposed threat would be equivalent to a church burning old and torn or unusable Bibles, and escape questioning/prosecution by the law for sedition?

Maybe the Malays too are 'kiasu'.

And I have an unpleasant personal experience that tells me the Indians too are 'kiasu'.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Once there were two ...

“Once there were two moons in the sky, but one wandered too close to the sun and cracked from the heat. A thousand thousand dragons poured forth, and drank the fire of the sun. That is why dragons breathe flame. One day the other moon will kiss the sun too, and then it will crack and the dragons will return.”

― George R.R. Martin (A Game of Thrones)

Once there were two brothers. God loved only one. Why? The reason was never given - until thousands of years later by men who wanted to defend God and started being 'creative' in their explanations.

Surely there must be a reason, where some naughty people even suggested God was been a meat lover and favoured the brother who was a shepherd (with lots of sheep and thus mutton and lamb chops) over the other, an agricultural farmer who could only offer grain, fruits and veggies.

Kaytee has an answer here to explain God's so-called unfair favoritism, wakakaka.

Yet an interesting mystery of a story about another two brothers here, wakakaka.

Once there were two military men who were each accused of violating the law (different laws as their case were not the same).

Even before they have been tried by the court (different courts), one has been found guilty but the other found innocent. But then again, one has been found innocent while the other guilty.

Surely there must be a reason, wakakaka.

What about you telling me why? Wakakaka.

Once there were two men who went up to the Temple to pray: one was a Pharisee, the other a tax collector. 

The Pharisee stood apart by himself and prayed, ‘I thank you, God, that I am not greedy, dishonest, or an adulterer, like everybody else. I thank you that I am not like that tax collector over there. I fast two days a week, and I give you one tenth of all my income.’

But the tax collector stood at a distance and would not even raise his face to heaven, but beat on his breast and said, ‘God, have pity on me, a sinner!’

I tell you,” said Jesus, “the tax collector, and not the Pharisee, was in the right with God when he went home. For those who make themselves great will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be made great.”  - from Luke 18:10-14

The reason is the people who wrote the biblical Book of Luke didn't like Jews (Pharisees), wakakaka.

Once there were two muftis who commented on Lassie. One said ulama should not bullshit (kaytee's words, wakakaka) like a dog with its tongue hanging out, that touching a dog was haram when it's not haram, while the other said that doggie event has made fun of ulama which should not be tolerated as it would undermine their ulama authority (er ... yang amat alim, was it haram or not?).

Surely there must be a reason, wakakaka.

What about you telling me why? Wakakaka.

Once there were two women. One loves handbags while the other loves hand-gloves, wakakaka. One has been reputed to coach her hubby in his duties while the other is known to consider hers as 'God's gift to the people', wakakaka.

Surely there must be a reason, wakakaka.

What about you telling me why? Wakakaka.

Once there were two men, wakakaka. One was said to have once gone to Port Dickson for a wee bit of 'jolly', wakakaka, while the other was said to have gone the 'other way', wakakaka again.

Surely there must be a reason, wakakaka.

What about you telling me why? Wakakaka.

Once there were two daughters, wakakaka. To end this post, glad to say both have bravely backed the 'Get to know Rin Tin Tin' event. Well done, sweeties.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Koon T'au Boe (2)

Rafizi Ramli said Jailing Anwar might trigger street protests.

Gosh, I don't want his satay
doesn't look kosher lah

Bloke is of course the so-called brilliant strategist who f**ked everyone up kau kau, especially Selangorians, Pakatan coalition cohesiveness and even Anwar Ibrahim, with his PKR-sellfish version of Kajang Satay, served to us in rancid rotten retching maggot-festering state, and without the yin-ness of timun and bawang too.

that's why I prefer mee goreng lah
his satay is worse than Jezebel's poo

Street protests have a tendency to turn violent, more so when emotions may run wild over perceived hurt to iconic personalities, even with K-Y gel involved. Do we want that sort of violence in Malaysia?

I don't believe so, especially not from Pakatan.

So, has his latest utterance been a warning, threat or koon t'au boe? And would it be different from those who have warned and threatened to kill Syed Azmi Alhabshi?

The common denominator is just their 'ta'syiok mah'!

alamak, do I have to eat that satay?

For meaning of koon t'au boe, read my post Koon T'au Boe, wakakaka.

Saturday, October 25, 2014

As dogs ate Jezebel

Malaysiakini - Daily death threat avalanche hits Syed Azmi

Organiser of the ‘I want to touch a dog’ event Syed Azmi Alhabshi has been drowning under thousands of death threats and other hateful messages within hours for holding the controversial event, according to his lawyer, Syahredzan Johan.

“He has been getting severe death threats. It is on his WhatsApp, on his phone, on his Facebook, everywhere…

"Just to give a brief (illustration), I was with him yesterday. Just in a few hours, on hisWhatsApp unread messages, there were about 1,000, nearly 2,000 (messages),” Syahredzan (right in photo) said during a press conference today.

They range from threats to break his neck to killing him on sight on the streets, Syahredzan said, and his co-organisers of the event are “extremely concerned” for his safety.

This is Malaysia in the 21st Century, where you can threaten to kill someone you disagree with or whose actions you disagree with. Maybe that's why we have adopted the national slogan of Malaysia Boleh, where we can (depending on whose side you're with/on) with impunity boleh every bloody conceivable actions.

Though there is nothing in the Quran about the uncleanliness of dogs, some Islamic school of jurisprudence (madhhab) like Syafi'i, as practiced in Malaysia, has instructed that the dog is an unclean animal. But another madhhab, Maliki, says dogs are not unclean.

What it tells us about the difference between the teachings of Syafi'i and Maliki is that it's a sectarian issue, and not that of God.

Though Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin has informed us that Muslims should be at liberty to adopt the teachings of any Sunni Madhhab, the Malaysian religious authority has declared that the Syafi'i teachings MUST be observed. 

Now, would this be what (as reported by TMI) Kassim Ahmad had said about the ulama 'priesthood caste', where according to him, the ulama have become 'dictators' of the Muslim's understanding of Islam. He stated: "This class of priests control the interpretation of religion to the masses. They are dictators. There is no freedom."

Nonetheless, it seems that for quite a few in Malaysia it's worth killing someone over the issue of 'touching' a dog. I wonder whether it has given foreigners the sad impression that for us, corruption, crimes and injustice can wait while we deal with the far more critical issue of Muslims touching an unclean creature.

And that's what PAS' Khalid Samad has just said, as reported by the Malay Mail Online, that (extracts): 

The collective outrage among Muslims in the country over the recent “I Want to Touch a Dog” event only proves that many do not understand their own faith.

... the events suggest the education system has failed to prepare Muslims for the realities of life in a plural society where dogs exist, a situation not helped when the leaders themselves are unclear about Islam’s guiding principles.

Training his sights on the federal government’s revenue from gambling activities and alcohol sales, Khalid said it is symptomatic of ignorance among the faithful as to what is “halal” and “haram”.

He noted that Putrajaya has continued to ignore proposals mooted in Parliament for revenue from gambling and alcohol to be placed under a special fund to be used for infrastructure development, to avoid paying civil servants using money that is “unclean” or not “halal” — a system that is currently used by the opposition-run Kelantan government.

“So when sensitivities to matters that are dirty and ‘najis’ (filth) are not institutionalised and simply disregarded, why the surprise when Malay Muslims hug dogs? Or take bribes? They do not see such sensitivities in their daily lives and the country’s administration,” Khalid said in his latest posting on his blog,

“But what is strange is that those who are making noise about this programme are not making noise about other ‘najis’ that is being done out in the open,” ...

Leaving above mentioned hypocrisy aside, I did a wee bit of reading on my fave book, the Old Testament, wakakaka.

I note that the Israelites and their Judean descendants considered dogs as unclean, but because the creatures fed on human corpses which were left lying around, or licked up human blood split on the ground.

Anyone who belongs to Jeroboam and dies in the city, the dogs will eat, and anyone who dies in the field, the birds of the sky will eat, for the LORD has said it!   [1 Kings 14:11]

Doesn't the above also make birds like merpati and merbok unclean a la what's good for the goose should be also for the gander?

Tell him, "This is what the LORD says: Have you murdered and also taken possession?" Then tell him, "This is what the LORD says: In the place where the dogs licked Naboth's blood, the dogs will also lick your blood!"   [1 Kings 21:19]

The dogs will eat Jezebel in the plot of land at Jezreel: He who belongs to Ahab and dies in the city, the dogs will eat, and he who dies in the field, the birds of the sky will eat.   [1 Kings 21:23-24]

Hmm, those unclean birds again!

Incidentally, on Jezebel the Old Testament had always been biased against women since Genesis (in the Garden of Eden), which is hardly surprising when we know it was written by a bunch of misogynistic priests.

Eve, Tamar (who was bonked and made pregnant by her father-in-law Judah, the ancestor of all Judeans/Jews), Bathsheba, Jezebel and various other biblical women were always blamed for the sins of men, wakakaka.

Mary Magdalene, Yehoshua's partner or more likely wife, was described as a prostitute (harlot). New archaeological discoveries have found that she was Yehoshua's brightest disciple.

The biblical account of good old Rover seems to be quite different from the story behind Jews not eating pork - see my post Why Orthodox Jews don't eat pork! Note that I mentioned 'orthodox Jews' which means some modern or liberal Jews do eat pork.

I had initially wondered whether the dog thingy in the Old Testament might have something to do with the Egyptian god Anpu, who's better known to us as Anubis, wakakaka. Among ancient Egyptian gods, Anpu has a very very ancient pedigree (more than 5,000 years ago).

I observe that Muslims from yonder days had followed or adopted many Jewish practices. I wonder whether that had been a consequence of coincidences or religious adherence by the Muslims of the Jewish religious observances?

Examples of notable similarities have been:

^*#:" - ancient Egyptian for 'Ouch'

  • circumcision (from Egyptian to Israelites to Muslims)
  • pork etc are haram (also from Egyptian to Israelites to Muslims)
  • wearing of haji cap (Jewish yarmulke)
  • praying in direction towards the respective Holy City (Jerusalem and Mecca)

Mind, Jews use wine in some of their religious services while to Muslims, alcohol is of course haram.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

'Dogs' with tongues hanging out

Dr Asri Zainul Abidin, a popular religious scholar (and former Chief Mufti of Perlis) said Ulama who mislead are like dogs with tongues hanging out.

He emphasized he's neither for nor against the 'I want to touch a dog' (and not 'hug a dog' as some mufti had alleged) event but stressed on his Facebook:

“While we’re busily discussing the issue about touching dogs, let us not forget that there are bigger issues raised in the Quran related to dogs, like ULAMA WHO ACT LIKE DOGS.”

“A Mat Rempit, robber, or a dishonest leader is not worse than an ulama who hides the truth or who twists facts to mislead people. Therefore, the Quran equates ulamas who twist the truth to dogs whose tongues are hanging out.”

Bravo Dr Asri, good on you to tell off those lying clerics who sinfully and willfully went against Allah swt by distorting Quranic teachings (by hiding the teachings or twisting it) to push their own evil prejudices and self-interest agenda.

Interestingly, I believe it had been Dr Asri (if I'm incorrect, I apologize) who quoted a highly respected Syrian Islamic scholar saying that it's quite okay for Sunni Muslims to switch from the teachings of one madhhab (Sunni Islamic school of jurisprudence) to another.

For example, Muslims could switch from Syafi"i teachings to that of the Maliki madhhab. Coincidentally the Maliki madhhad considers dogs as clean creatures.

Well I'll be doggone, that's certainly food for thoughts.

guess where my thoughts are?


Monday, October 20, 2014

Man's best friend recognized as good mates

TMI in its article ‘I want to touch a dog’ event a big hit with Muslims reported:

TMI photo

Siti Sakinah Meor Omar Baki has been afraid of dogs all her life. Not only that, she was told that touching dogs is not allowed in Islam. That was the mentality and teaching instilled in her by her conventional family.

But today, Siti Sakinah, along with her four children, turned up at Central Park in Bandar Utama, Selangor, to participate in the "I want to touch a dog" event to overcome her fear.

"It is also to show that touching a dog is not haram. People are worried about touching the dogs more as it’s a sin instead of worrying about the biggest sins," said Siti Sakinah, a former religious teacher who currently works with an NGO.

She said her husband, an ustaz, gave her the permission to attend today's event.

"I wanted to jump for joy when he said 'yes' and I told my children they had to go. And all of them came today with me to overcome their fear and to learn that dogs are also creatures created by Allah that need love and care," said Siti Sakinah, who touched and petted a few dogs at the event.

"I am still scared of big dogs so I am touching the small ones first," she said gleefully.

Siti Sakinah and her children were among the many families who turned up at the event which was attended by more than 1,000 people.

The organiser of the event, Syed Azmi Alhabshi, said he was satisfied with the turnout.

"We only expected 60 but this is way more than 60. This is overwhelming and I hope I provided enough water for the dogs and apologise for any shortcomings," he said.

Syed Alhabshi expected 60 people but WoW, more than 1000 turned up.

wish I had been that lucky dog, wakakaka

The real gain is that Muslims are no longer prepared to believe what those false prophets or people who misused the good name of the Prophet (pbuh) said. Read this article about dogs (reproduced below) from the website of True Islam which claims its teachings are derived from the Quran.


"You would think they were awake, when they were in fact asleep. We turned them to the right side and the left side, while their dog stretched his arms in their midst" - 18:18



Are they dirty, prohibited animals?

It is traditional among Muslims all over the world to regard the dog as a dirty animal that when touched would void the wudu (ablution) and infect the one who touched it with "nagasah" (dirty impurity)!

Sadly, this concept comes from fabricated hadith which claims that the Prophet ordered the killing of dogs and gave numerous hadith that prohibit the keeping of dogs except for hunting and guarding, due to their dirty status!

However, by studying the Quran we find no such truth. No where in the Quran are dogs prohibited, nor is there any mention of any contaminating effect of these lovely animals who are man's best friend. Consequently, we must dismiss all these hadith that fabricate lies against the Prophet.

1- God tells us in the Quran about the story of the dwellers of the Cave (Surah 18). In verse 13 God tells us that they were good believers and that God guided them. In verse 18 God tells us that they had their dog with them.

Now if dogs are prohibited and dirty, would God speak of those dwellers of the Cave (who had a dog) as good believers?

2- In 5:4 God tells us that it is okay to eat what the trained dogs catch (dogs are used in hunting). Now if the dog is an animal which causes contamination by mere touch, would God tell us it is perfectly okay to eat what the dog catches with his mouth (let alone just touch the dog)?

3- The Quran contains a very important rule for all believers, and the rule is:

Nothing is haram (unlawful) unless it is prohibited by God Himself, and since God describes the Quran as complete, perfect and fully detailed, thus all the prohibitions decreed by God are found in the Quran. The following Quranic verses confirm this truth:

Say, "Who prohibited the nice things God has created for His creatures, and the good provisions?" 
Say, "Such provisions are to be enjoyed in this life by those who believe. Moreover, the good provisions will be exclusively theirs on the Day of Resurrection." We thus explain the revelations for people who know.” - 7:32

“Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?” - 6:114 
“You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: "This is halal (lawful), and this is haram (unlawful)," to fabricate lies and attribute them to God. Surely, those who fabricate lies and attribute them to God will never succeed.” - 16:116

There is not one verse in the Quran where God says that dogs are dirty or that they are prohibited to keep.

4- Is it logical that God would create an animal to be man's best friend and serve him in many ways, and then prohibit such an animal?

5- If this is what the Quran has to tell us about the issue of dogs, then where does all the prohibition come from? Where do the claims that dogs are dirty animals which if touched would void our ablution and render us impure come from? As most other corruptions which have crept into Islam, the source is always the fabricated hadith which are falsely attributed to prophet Muhammad!

Hadith tell us that the Prophet prohibited the keeping of dogs as pets. Other hadith tell us that angels won't enter a room where there is a dog. Other hadith tell us that if we touch a dog our ablution is void and we become impure, and that we have to wash seven times to clean this impurity, the final time in dust. That seems inconsistent with the Quran saying you may eat what they catch for you! Some other hadith go even beyond that to say that we must kill all black dogs!

The following are some examples:

Malik's Muwatta, Book 54, Number 54.5.13:

"Malik related from Nafi from Abdullah Ibn Umar that the Messenger of God ordered all dogs (other than sheepdogs or hunting dogs) to be killed".

Ibn Hanbal's collection: The Messenger of God said: "You shall kill all black dogs, because they are devils."

The question is: Did the Prophet really issue these prohibitions? In addition, did the Prophet have the authority to issue these prohibitions?

The answer is given in the Quran:

"O you prophet, why do you prohibit what God has made lawful in order to please your wives? God is Forgiver Merciful" 66:1

Obviously God did not include the words in 66:1 in the Quran to belittle the Prophet in our eyes, but these words are placed in the Quran in order to confirm to all believers across all time that the Messenger of God does not have the authority to prohibit anything which is not prohibited by God. God is the only Law Maker (6:114) and the only duty of the messenger is to deliver God's message (5:92).

The outcome of all the above is that we must discard all the lies attributed to the prophet regarding  prohibiting dogs and be focused on the Quran as the only source of guidance and religious law.


Kassim Ahmad has been right all along that the 'priesthood caste or ulama have become 'dictators' of the Muslim's understanding of his Islam. He had stated: "This class of priests control the interpretation of religion to the masses. They are dictators. There is no freedom."

As reported by TMI, He riled up Muslims on both sides of the divide when he questioned the use of hadith to interpret the Quran, and described the Prophet as "just a messenger of Allah".

In his lecture titled "The Nation's Direction in the Next Thirty Years", Kassim also questioned the hijab (Islamic headscarf) worn by Muslim women, saying that "the hair is not part of the aurat" (parts of the body which need to be covered according to Islamic teachings).

We have also heard (from TMI):

Dr Syed Farid Alatas, an associate professor at the Sociology Department, National University of Singapore, expressed disbelief over the recent proposal by Kelantan to impose jail term and fine on Muslim men who miss Friday prayers for three consecutive weeks.

"I read that the Kelantan state government intended to fine Muslim men RM1,000 and sentence them to a year's jail if they skipped Friday prayers three times in a row.

"While I agree that society needs rules and regulations, it is immoral and unethical to propose such drastic action on those who do not perform Friday prayers regularly.

"There is an imbalance here as respect for the sanctity of personal life has been completely disregarded. This is bordering on coercion without taking civil liberties into account."

There is this obsessive need by clerics to bully and threaten people so the ulama can hold on to unchallenged power.

See my earlier post Theocratic 3 P's - prohibit, persecute & punish.

TMI also reported: Syed Farid cited another example of a controversial fatwa issued by a former Saudi Arabian grand mufti that the sun orbited the earth instead of vice versa.

The fatwa was issued in 1966 by the late Sheikh Abdul Aziz Abdullah, who claimed that the sun orbited the earth, as the earth was fixed and stable.

My God (sorry, I can't use the 'A' word) or by Jove (Jove or Jupiter was the Roman God), a fatwa on heliocentrism in 1966!?!

This moronic stupidity was exactly what had caused Galileo Gallilei to be charged for heresy more than 300 years ago, in 1633.

Then, Galileo Galilei got into a whole lot of trouble with the Catholic 'priesthood caste', wakakaka, for saying the exact scientific truth, that our Earth moved around the Sun. He was charged for heresy and placed under house arrest for life (yes, for life) because his scientific statement had questioned the teachings of the Holy Scriptures which emphasized on the 'centrality' of Earth in the universe.

What upset the church was Copernicus' theory of Heliocentrism (Sun as the central body in our solar system with Earth orbiting it) conflicting with or threatening the biblical story of the Battle of Gideon as narrated in the Book of Joshua.

where Amorites were when Israelites invaded their country

About one and one-half thousand years before Yehoshua ben Yosef was born (hope you Christians know who he was, wakakaka), the Israelite army led by Joshua in their invasion of Canaan was winning their battle against the native Amorites, but their enemies were likely to escape once daylight gave way to nightfall.

So, according to the bible (written of course by Joshua's descendants, wakakaka) Joshua prayed to YHWH and caused the sun and the moon to stand still in order for the Israelites to finish off their slaughter of the natives in broad daylight (excuse the pun, wakakaka).

Joshua causing the sun to stay still so the Israelite army could continue their genocidal slaughter of the natives of the land Israelites were invading

The bible claims YHWH was the Creator, but alas, like an unfair parent who favoured one child over another, YHWH even gave the Israelites a hand with his heavenly artillery, raining hailstones on the natives of the land (supposedly also his creation), an act not unlike the usual massive USAF bombardment of a country prior to an American military invasion.

The Bible in Joshua 10: 11 -14 (KJV) tells us:

And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword. 
Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. 
And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel.

Joshua and men slaughtering the Amorites with YHWH's help

Amen. But that Saudi Arabian grand mufti memang ta'boleh harap dan ta'boleh dipercayai. Pordah to his 'priesthood caste'.

And Wikipedia tells us:

The historian William Montgomery Watt states that Muhammad's kindness to animals was remarkable given the social context of his upbringing.

He cites an instance of Muhammed, while traveling with his army to Mecca in 630 CE, posting sentries to ensure that a female dog and her newborn puppies were not disturbed.

On the other hand, in a tradition found in the Sunni hadith book al-Muwatta, Muhammad is reported as saying that the company of dogs voids a portion of a Muslim’s good deeds. However, in "two separate narrations by Abu Hurayrah, the Prophet told his companions of the virtue of saving the life of a dog by giving it water and quenching its thirst. 

One story referred to a man who was blessed by Allah for giving water to a thirsty dog, the other was a prostitute who filled her shoe with water and gave it to a dog, who had its tongue lolling out from thirst. For this deed she was granted the ultimate reward, the eternal Paradise under which rivers flow, to live therein forever."

According to a Sunni narration classified as authentic by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, black dogs are a manifestation of evil in animal form; Khaled Abou El Fadl states that the majority of scholars regard this to be "pre-Islamic Arab mythology" and "a tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet".

Thus, according to Khaled Abou El Fadl, for a Muslim to believe black dogs are a manifestation of evil in animal form is in fact to believe in pre-Islamic Arab mythology, and to indulge in

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Tradition? (2) - new budget briefcase

Remember my post Tradition? just a week ago, in which I discussed the loss of many traditions, not just in Malaysia but elsewhere.


I have just read an article by Tunku Abidin Muhriz, one of my fave columnists in the Malay Mail Online, titled Saving money transparently. Tunku Abidin is also the founding president of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas). It's a good article in which he lamented, among many important budgetary points, that:

The Finance Minister’s speech is perhaps the only remaining guaranteed set piece of parliamentary oratory in Malaysia; rarely are there long speeches tackling constitutional issues to arrive at powerful conclusions.

Now it’s mostly short and punchy statements for easy media consumption, assuming the YB in question isn’t being shouted down by other members or being reprimanded by the Speaker. (For an example of a proper speech, see Tengku Razaleigh’s 20-minute tour de force in denouncing the 1993 constitutional amendments, available on YouTube.)


Surely it has been a gradual but inexorable sad loss of an important parliamentary tradition, one of beautiful or long-winded (wakakaka) debates where the people's representatives would demonstrate their mettle and competency in looking after the people's interests via their public show of understanding of issues and ensuing policy proposals (or counter proposals).

But on a trivial though indicative note, Tunku Abidin wrote (perhaps with tongue in cheek) on an aspect of our loss of 'tradition', as follows:

The budget speech is usually preceded by a photo session featuring the minister showing off the briefcase containing the budget documents outside the Treasury. I cannot find pictures of Tun HS Lee or Tun Tan Siew Sin doing the same, but I presume they did it too, since it’s a Westminster tradition, although in the UK they use a red ministerial box embossed with the royal cypher, of which only four have been used since the 1860s. Photographs suggest that the leather briefcase used last week is different to the one used in 2009.

tradition but with new briefcase

from Lederer de Paris or Montblanc Meisterstuck Selection?

Note in particular his words "... in the UK they use a red ministerial box embossed with the royal cypher, of which only four have been used since the 1860s. Photographs suggest that the leather briefcase used last week [by PM Najib merangkap-ing as Finance Minister] is different to the one used in 2009."


One thing about the Poms, just leave it to them to anchor themselves to and lay it thick on traditions a la Sixteen-K'ong-K'ong (1600 or 15th Century), where the Penang Hokkien word K'ong-K'ong means zero zero (kosong kosong) and also a dig at the pomposity of such declared or hinted vintage pedigree, wakakaka.

Once there was a certain brand of cigarette which avoided the prohibited advertisements of cigarette or smoking per se but laid it on thick about a piece of smoking accessory being made in the 'finest British tradition of craftsmanship of exceptional quality', etc etc etc, ... probably since the days when King Arthur lost his burning torch, wakakaka - that's what was meant by something-something K'ong-K'ong, wakakaka.


Mind you, observation of such traditions a la the Poms would have at the very least saved the taxpayers the cost of a new leather briefcase, wakakaka.

I trust the current taxpayers-owned briefcase is still with the Finance Ministry and not on 'permanent loan' to a lil' Napoleon, wakakaka, which will then require another purchase for a new budget announcement - maybe this time one from Bvlgari or Hermès or Bottega Veneta.

Hope the Auditor-General will make a point to check on this, wakakaka.
Bottega Veneta (crocodile skin)

aiyah, only US$30,000

My uncles, who were officers in the military and also the police, told me that whenever there was a new CO (commanding officer) in their battalion or station, or a new PMC (president of the mess committee) had taken over management of the officers' club, the officers would be instructed to re-do the mess, especially the bar - yes, in my uncles' days, officers' mess bars were standard features.

Of course with limited financial expenses coming from the officers' mess funds, contributed by the officers themselves, each re-do or attempted renovation was at best a limited or even superficial attempt.

When the British Armed Forces in Malaya/Malaysia went home, they left behind the facilities in excellent conditions, such as officers' and sergeants' mess (clubhouses), each with a good bar.


Many Malaysian officers felt that consolidating the already fine facilities left for them would have been a far more sensible and more effective 'renovation', but alas, many of those COs and PMCs obviously wanted something new which could be recognized as their 'personal' achievements, for their bosses to consider in their annual performance reports.

In more than many a case, the already excellent features of a bar left by the British military were unnecessarily destroyed in the do-over.

Anyway, the above discussion is moot since the officers' mess bars of our military don't have bars anymore but only machines dispensing cans of soft drinks, or what the Yanks call soda machines.

Officers' Mess with soda machine? Alamak, no class liao lah, wakakaka.

Officers' Mess bar, RAF High Wycombe

I think we can reasonably assume that in the general case, behind each vandalizing or destroying of traditions and traditional features of an institution in such frequent do-overs lies someone's personal 'interests'.

Yes, BTW what had happened to the previous Budget briefcase? Wakakaka, and like Tunku Abidin, we'll be looking at the Finance Minister's briefcase in the next budgetary presentation.