Buddhism: A Muslim Primer
There is a popular saying that all faiths lead to God.
Just recently, a fellow blogger and Muslim Internet activist Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi, better known as Menj, published a book, Buddhism: A Muslim Primer, one that caused quite an caustic reaction from agnostics, atheists and many non-Muslims.
Now what might interest you is that fact that I have a copy of this book, thanks to Menj, who sent the copy to my office at my request. In return, I promised him that I would write a 'professional review' of the book and that I would try to be as objective as possible in this attempt.
This is the review, and with a topic as serious (and sensitive) as religion, I wish to remind readers that the subject matter can be quite heavy as it might be offensive to many.
In an introductory sypnosis found on this post, Menj describes his book as 'a critical introduction to the beliefs of Buddhism and its soteriology, as well as its ethics and social order from the Islamic viewpoint'.
The book runs in six main sections, providing readers, mainly a Muslim audience, a brief introduction to Buddhism the 'religion' and its true identity as a teaching and philosophy, the practise of idolatry in Buddhsim, its soteriology and eschatology, ethics and social order, the treatment of the feminine gender in this religion and Buddhism today. All these are discussed in 30-odd pages, a 11-point-serif typeface with a 11/13 pt spacing (technical terms in printing, but that's about 1.5 spacing if transfered to an MS-Word document).
Did I just emphasize that personally, I feel that 30 pages on a half-A4-sized page to discuss two religions comparatively is an ambitious attempt?
I digress, but back to the topic.
Many people have yet to reconcile the differences in society that each and every one of us is bound to face. Understandably, for many, including myself, it is not easy to practise religious tolerance when our personal religious doctrines have clearly taught us that 'all the other things are wrong'. Contradicting beliefs, not necessarily religious ones, have been the very cause of man-against-man arguments, and in the context of religions and multireligious differences, living in current times causes our separating lives to be even more intricately opposing, but interesting and exciting, nonetheless.
This is both a fortunate and unfortunate existence at the same time.
It is quite apparent that Buddhism: A Muslim Primer was not an easy book to pen. A lot of research is required by the author, and I can respect the efforts that Menj has put into producing this book.
However, a big hindrance to Menj's efforts to be 'as tolerant as possible' towards a contradicting belief against that of his own was his very own beliefs. It is no secret that Menj is a Muslim Activist who says no to liberal Muslims, and when one cannot tolerate differing treatments of the same religion who puts the faith in the One Same God, I can understand it can be quite difficult to be 'objective' in one's own writing.
No I stress again the author is not a bad person. This I can attest from personal experience, and in our scarce e-mails to each other.
Menj just loves God very, very much, and has a zeal for Islam which I can totally respect. He loves God so much, that everytime I come across a chapter that makes me feel, 'Wow he's hit it here,' his own words overturn against him and places him in that vulnerable position where Buddhists and other non-Muslims are bound to label him as a fanatic.
The result of this, of course, is Menj's failing in being objective and tolerant in his book. As he tries too hard to overcome the strict beliefs that he has imposed upon himself, what is ringing is Menj's fierce attempts to acknowledge the presence of the many non-believers of Islams against Muslims like him may be personal battles for himself to overcome.
Just by reading the preface, the reader would have formulated an expection for the author to be objective, tolerant and impartial. Yet in most parts of the book where discussions of the two contradicting doctrines are presented, Menj's overzealousness towards Islam has resulted in many occasions of adjectival misuse that Buddhists (and non-Muslims) will certainly define as 'insensitive'.
An example, in point. On page 15, Menj talks about the Buddhist principle that desire is the root cause of all suffering. He says
The principle of Buddhism soteriology, namely that desire is the root cause of all dukkha (suffering), is in itself problematic. This philosophy of Buddhism is self-contradictory because the third truth says 'suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire'…
…and then, in the closing line of the same paragraph, Menj sums it up,
It is self-contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire.
I have this to say. Language is a powerful tool, and like any other tool, you can mold it to your advantage. This is something that Menj has failed to do. The same thoughts as presented above could have been, could have been written in a softer, more convincing stance.
I might have chosen to define the Buddhist principle that desire is the root cause of all suffering as 'quite contradictory from what Muslims believe. For Muslims, the concept of wanting to eliminate desire may be considered a desire within itself, and it probably causes the basic fundamentals of Buddhism to be both self-contradictory and self-defeating'.
That would have been me, if I were to write the book as Menj. But I didn't write the book, and all I can do is review and criticise, so here it is: I feel that Menj's work would have been more formidable if only he had chosen his phrases and adjectives with more caution.
Instead of impressing a sceptic of Islam into acceptance and tolerance, when he employs words like 'self-contradictory' and 'self-defeating', the reader is merely further convinced that the overzealous religious-self within this student of comparative religion has overcome his trying efforts to be tolerant.
In conclusion, everything else is discounted and what remains of this book just that, a primer for Muslims, unacceptable to non-Muslims.
Technically, of course, Menj, I need to comment a little on the publication price, and the editing methods of the book. If not mistaken, the book is printed on 70 gsm paper, and around 230-240 gsm artcard cover with UV varnishing. The publishers have priced the book to be about RM7.90 (after conversion).
RM7.90 for a 40-page book, which amounts to about five unprinted signatures, of the above-mentioned paper quality, is rather overpriced, is it not? (Sorry readers, getting a bit technical here.)
I'm also quite sensitive to the 'lifting' situation. In copyright law, you are not allowed to reproduce more than 100-words of a pre-published text (whether or not it is already protected by law, and whither the publication medium, which means, INCLUDING THE INTERNET). In this book, I noticed that acknowledgement to original sources is quite scarce. Where you don't lift, there is a serious need to, well, dot your i's, and check the subject-and-verb-agreement.
The editing of the book could have been more thorough, and I feel that this book is certainly overpriced.
In the preface to the book, Menj wrote, 'it is clear that as a belief, Buddhism is contrary to logic and intelligence.'
In return, I ask this of my readers, 'Which religious belief on earth is not contrary to logic, and not asking of a disregard of human intelligence?'
Faith is a very powerful thing, and just as it has provided firm believers of The One True God to hold steadfast to His Word, so it will allow other staunch practitioners of the teachings of their many Boddhisattvas to bow their heads in humble honour and remember the ancestral teachings that have been passed down from generation to generation.
As for our contradicting opinions, well, variety is the spice of life, and if we all felt the same way about everything, the world would be a very boring place to live in indeed.
July 5th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
I was once told that faith, of any kind, defies logic as it requires total trust in an element(s) that is not measurable nor comparable.
Having said that, any person who consciously decides to have faith in any particular belief, is making a personal commitment which deserves respect.
This is why I restrict myself to poetry, recipes and toys when it comes to self-expression.
July 5th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Well now, is there anybody else out there who still thinks Mini’s nothing more that a fiery China-girl with a chip on her shoulder?
I’ve sampled some of his earlier writings, and yes, the way he writes turns me off (mainly because I’m a fiery dork shouldering a chip the size of Mt Kinabalu). It scares me so much that I don’t read his blog, although it’s hard to resist when he talks about XHTML and CSS… .
Given that all major religions are meant to set Man on the straight and narrow, the “my God is better than your God” debate is a waste of time and effort.
July 5th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Wow…what a review. Language is definitely a powerful tool. And like what you said, it can be used to your advantage and if not used wisely, it would be a big big disadvantage.
July 5th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
it is true that believe of a religion contradicts human logic, as we mortals cannot comprehend god.
every faith in the world is based on fabrication. that is the definition of faith - acceptance of that which we imagine to be true,that we cannot prove. every religion describes god through metaphor,allegory and exaggeration, from the early egyptians through modern sunday school. metaphors are a way to help our minds process the unprocessible. the problems arise when we begin to believe literally in our own metaphors.
the above is taken from Da Vinci Code
July 5th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
owh yeah
language is an extremely powerful tool
i’m a muslim alright, but i am not afraid to agree that faiths all attempt to force their believer to just believe it outright. some do try to offer explanation, some don’t. in some cases, if you don’t believe, then you’re doomed.
i have lived in a society where we are taught that we are better than people out there, which when i go out and live out there, social condition says otherwise.
hmmm..it’s an interesting topic. to be discussed, only without fanatics! owh yeah
July 5th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
“I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.” - Wilson Mizner
Good review btw.
Cheers!
July 5th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
I tend to frown at books with titles like these, simply because they sound more like money making gimmicks (perhaps even with a personal vendetta thrown in too) rather than someone with some sense trying to enlighten the rest of the world.
This philosophy of Buddhism is self-contradictory because the third truth says ‘suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire’…
It is self-contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire.
I’m not sure if this is his failings in objectivity that is showing or just that he has yet to understand Buddhism on a more profound level before trying to write a book like this.
It reminds me of a zen parable, A fish in the ocean, asking what the ocean is. Or, more analogically correct, a fish not knowing what the ocean is, talks about what it thinks the ocean is based on what it sees.
I don’t mean any disrespect at the author, and I certainly haven’t read the book to come to a proper conclusion and my reply is derived from the two particular book excerpts alone.
There’s a bigger picture to see, here Mr.Menj. Knowing this alone is the first step to seeing it.
July 5th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
You know what is wrong with us?
we humans JUDGE religion as is it is our saying and judgement that determines the truth in life.
instead of going for REALISATION of truth, people go for LABELS and blablabla PHILOSOPHYS and INTELECTUAL opinion when come to religious issue.
I do not think it is for us to judge the truth. but I agree that TOLERANCE is very important when come to religious issue.
I am not happy with the tolerance of some people. Sometimes somebody toss Christian booklets in my mailbox. when I read them, it is about condeming Buddhism and Taoism to show that Chistianity is the “right” religion. These Christians have made thier assumption and offense on my religion, shall I in return make similar judgement and say that Christianity is arrogant? I do not think so. it is all labellings and blablabla Philosophy. It lacks REALISATION and LOVE. (IMO, LOVE is a label that is being misused by many people who do not understand love)
talking about logic in religion I think miracle exists. There are some monks and religious buddhist people leaving buddha seeds behind after thier bodies are burned.
a blog reader
-Life Feel
July 5th, 2005 at 1:52 pm
tiger: I wish i could restrict myself when it comes to self-expression. oh yes sometimes i do wish that.
sotong: wahahahha… yeah i astounded myself when i finished writing this too…
s-kay: truce!
serge: we get classic quotes like that from everywhere
maduh: i think ‘fanatic’ is a dangerous term easy to be misused.
solbi-wan: i’ll remember that
christian: i’m quite honoured to have had the opportunity to read this book, nonetheless.
life_feel: I think they’re called relics, not buddha seeds.
July 5th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
hm…i dont think it would’ve made any difference as to what religion he was going to compare against islam, because im sure he’s going to find something wrong with the other religion that contradicts with the “true religion” anyhow.
i know this to be true, because i used to be a pretty religious muslim, and to prove to myself that my religion was right, i used to spend time reading the bible, torah, and all the other religions, dissecting them and finding out how wrong they were (yes, it’s true. ironically, this was also how i found out about contradictary things in islam, which led me to drop my faith).
anyhow…the problem was, when i was ticking off the religion as wrong, i was comparing it to islam. it’s like taking an english test, then ur teacher compares ur answer to their maths answer. everything u say would be wrong.
(btw, now i use logic, so i think everybody’s wrong)
anyhow, nice job breaking down the book as objectively as possible (ui nah, ada orang kembang nih…)
July 5th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
captain oh… you new nick is HILARIOUS! haha
July 5th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
minishorts :
relics? whatever, it is just a label. Usually buddhists call them buddha seeds, they have various colours and sizes.
Kapitan Karsinoma :
That is my point. Too many people make judgement and assumption when come to religious issues. Blablabla Philosophy and intelectual debates cannot be used to see the truth.
What you have done is just like what those christians who toss thier booklets in my mailbox are doing.
a blog reader
-Life Feel
July 5th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Life_Feel:
they are not buddha seeds. buddha seeds grow into drugs that will send you to ‘enlightenment’ immediately, not unlike marijuana
ANYWAY, to the others.
This is not the first time I have written about religion, and I don’t want readers to condemn each other too… so please practise discretion and some kind of tolerance before you start pointing the finger at your fellow human being.
July 5th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Hey good review, I have to agree with the christian, the author has yet to understand what dukkha really is other than literal suffering.
July 5th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
thanks for reviewing this book here (not that I’m the author!), made me wonder where I can get hold of this book.. I think there were enough condemning done on this author (though I could not agree more), but understandable that everyone who’s a believer of another faith tends to be biased even in the smallest degree.. still, would want to check this book out..
RM7.90 is overpriced? That bad ah? Is it available in all major bookstore?
July 5th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
good review there, minishorts. you can really write.
i don’t know but to me i like buddhism. (i’m a catholic/christian though). we usually hear of troubles from these 2 religions only - christianity and islam. buddhism and hindusism yes, of course got lah but not so frequent. i would say buddhism is a more tolerant religion, but of course that is only MY opinion, so don’t shoot me down. (and don’t point to me happenings in thailand, the PM being buddhist and this and that blah blah. i’m speaking of ‘comparatively’).
July 5th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO MINISHORTS!?!?!?
Fuuh, your last few postings have been vastly different to the stuff I’m accustomed to, and that’s kinda weird-ish.
But yes, I have to agree with you in the end-bits. However, I’d like to point out that it’s not just religion that expects you to suspend logic and intelligence long enough to form a faith. Love works that way too. Then again, to some people Love and Religion are one and the same.
July 5th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
For me religion can not be written in book, further more how can you compare two different religions in 30 pages… must be joking… or somebody trying to make a quick $ …well that’s my thought
and yes your review is fair and very good too
July 5th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Religion is, as always, a sticky topic.
A lot of people preach about tolerance, but yet, some tolerance means retreat, to exclude oneself from the society so that one does not become part of the debate, seclude oneself in search for the path to God?? Isn’t that more to escapism rather than tolerance?
But if you are being tolerant, then it could be seen as not being passionate of what you believe in. Then what is the point of you believing in something if you don’t want to commit and be passionate about what you believe in? Nobody likes a girlfriend who does not commit herself to the relationship, isn’t God the same?
If you say that i believe in one religion but i also take-in values of other religions because ‘all roads lead to God’, then shall we not call it ‘Rojak Religion’? And if we take in other religious values from other religions, are we not saying that our own religion is not good enough that we need to learn from others??
so… can you, in the end, determine what religion is perfect??? Isn’t man’s pursuit of religion a pursuit of perfection?? Then, you must judge for yourself, with you educated minds, what religion is perfect.
something for the brain… and faith…:grin:
July 5th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Link me link me…
I’ve got a nice long toot for you.
Putting that aside. I personally have not found a religion that suits me.
And I agree with SadneZ about religion being a sticky topic. Lets just stick to the lighter side of the world and not touch about Religion so much.
Cheers gal.
P.s. : Send me one of your minishorts pulezzz…
July 5th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Language is powerful! no doubt…
language can save, and build glory…
but language can also kill, and make destruction…
religion is not something to discuss… you will never get an unbiased conclusion..
so everything rely on faith and fate…
July 5th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
teckliet: just the same as buddhists too need to understand the idea of ‘Heaven’ before transfering it literally to mean ‘nirvana’… every religion has its right to sanction its believers within its doctrines.
alicia: can pinjam from me, but its a bit worn… had to do referencing when i checked for authenticity. dun know if its available in major bookstores though.
lucia: haha… yup i agree with you on that… likewise, i prefer catholicism of all the christian denominations. it’s more tolerant, and up with the times. we can’t keep a 1 AD thinking in the 21 century of globalisation.
james: what’s the difference? same what. same old me, same old me.
lamdog: that i agree, comparative religion is not possible to be discussed in 30-odd pages.
jc: i don’t think it is up to minions like us to define which is the right religion. but we are given brains to discuss it. why not? discuss we will.
nbtd82: urm. no one begs for linkage… i link ppl if i want to… but that aside.. if everyone left heavy topics aside, we would seem very shallow people indeed, wouldn’t we?
davors: i disagree. religion can be discussed… but it oft depends who you are discussing the topic with.
July 5th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Language is the vehicle of propaganda in any country. If only Malaysia could get its citizens to speak only 1 language, then the propaganda ministry could be more effective… but since we are so segregated by language and culture, we need every race to be represented in the Prime Minister’s department…
So, there’s good and bad… if we hadn’t been so diverse in language and culture, we would all be thinking alike… but then, national unity suffers…
*Minishorts, if you find this too sensitive for your site, I am ok if you didn’t paste this up…
Disclaimer: This posting is entirely based on the author’s point of view. No research has been made, and no claims are therefore true. Nor does it reflect the opinion of the owner of this site. So, Feds, if you want me, come and get me!!
July 5th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
sadness : we are strict but not that strict la.. so sked for what
July 5th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
when it comes to religious or any teachings, i only believe one thing, Kalama Sutta ( any worthwhile book/teachers will start with this )
July 5th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
Logic you say? Well, try this:
Islam is a religion.
Buddhism is a religion.
Therefore, logically, Islam is Buddhism!
That’s logic!
July 5th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
Great dissection, although “soteriology” is technically only used with specific reference to Christian theology. Call me a semantic pedant…
I am an anti-theist, albeit Christian by birth culture and Muslim by enforced conversion, and am completely polarised in opposition to rationalisation of ancient and irrelevant religion.
But this post, well said, indeed. Well said.
July 5th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
Wow! You review so professionally! Talk about price and paper some more! I’m going to have to review my opinion of you, airhead!
It has often been taught in Buddhist circles that “tanha”, (a Pali word loosely translated as desire) leads to “dukka”(loosely translated as “suffering”). That is a POOR interpretation. Also, the Pali language(spoken by Siddharta) has already been lost. A more accurate translation would be “UNWISE DESIRES AND AVERSIONS” lead to “UNSATISFACTORINESS”. And the way out of unwise desires is EQUANIMITY. Such a simple message! But humans, being humans will heap on a lot of religio-mumbo-jumbo over the centuries until a simple message carries so much baggage. Siddharta would be the first to insist that all philosophy(including Buddhist philoshophy) is wrong understanding. Only those who understand the Buddha nature can quote the famous zen saying,
“If you see the buddha on the road, kill him.”
Others will probably recoil in shock at hearing those words.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:26 am
clap clap clap clap.
your understanding of offset printing is utterly amazing.
it totally boggles my mind the fact he takes so much time writing something to go against than to take the energy and channel it for his belief’s teaching. Buddhism is not god where you pray to, is a way of life. so, like what viewtru say, is totally correct. loosely translate to there’s no Buddha in this world, only the path to enlightenment.
I guess if you’re obsessed with something that something becomes your string and you will puppet your life to its will.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:05 am
religion divides; faith is what brings people together
July 6th, 2005 at 2:00 am
dear nose,
it’s been a long time since I’ve looked at you. But what you just said is “flawed” logic. Filed under categorical syllogism.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:05 am
maybe you guys need to broaden your knowledge more on religion. ever heard of the Baha’i Faith?
speaking of religion, saw the big new on the front page of Star?
July 6th, 2005 at 4:12 am
i must say you’ve outdone yourself this time. ’tis a very, very good post, and a good book review at that.
but also i appreciate, and in time will come to reflect on, your stance on this issue. religion in most cases requires a ‘leap of faith’ of some sort, and more often than not it persuades its believers to leave scientific logic at the door.
One true God? Who’s to know for sure? i respect Menj for writing said book, for many people i know including myself would never take on the challenge of comparing religious doctrines. it takes courage. plus, you very seldom end up not being labelled objective and neutral.
that said, i am pleasantly surprised to stumble across THAT Star article which catapulted (and continues to catapult) you to blogosphere megastardom. i was shocked, but could recognise your upper face.
congrats!
July 6th, 2005 at 4:13 am
typo on the ‘very seldom’ sentence. extra negation.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:18 am
I have not read his book but I have read his blog. After reading his blog, I can say that it is pretty impossible for me to ever think that he can be impartial when comparing any religion with Islam. I kid you not, the way he writes in his blog, it’s seriously scary. It certainly borders on fanaticism.
How can a supposedly pious and holy man refer to many other human beings with such rough derogatory terms. It’s littered all over his blog and even his photo gallery which have several pictures of what he brands as “enemies of Islam”. In one picture of an “enemy”, he called a female companion in the picture a bitch.
By this virtue alone, if I am a Muslim, you will have lost all my respect even though you might be the most respected imam in Malaysia. Not only that, I will be thorougly ashamed to be associated as a Muslim, with a fellow Muslim acting like that. However, I’m not a Muslim and therefore, instead of losing any respect for him, I am instead, scared. Scared that Malaysia has started to sprout (dare I say it) fanatics like him.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Leaving heavy topics aside does not necessarily make a person shallow.
Some of us (perhaps only myself) feel that religion is a very sensitive issue to talk about. (especially when it comes to comparing between religions)
You have every right to talk about religion in your blog, and I salute you for producing an excellent and unbiased review on Menj’s book.
As what Scared MAlaysian commented:
“I am instead, scared. Scared that Malaysia has started to sprout (dare I say it) fanatics like him.”
I disagree with Scared MAlaysian to call Menj a fanatic, but I am pretty sure there are already many fanatics (regardless of religion) living among us.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:37 am
SaDdNesZ.jc: you ni asking to ‘die’ only… am going to kenakan you one of these days. blek.
suanie: he sked i kill him mah.
theV: peace to you man.
bishopnose: you tok kok izzit.
intensecure: tell that to menj… i just took his words from the book.
viewtru: cos i thought the book was so expensive for such quality mah.
terence: aih… i think it’s called a workaholic syndrome. everytime i touch a book i start to think about the cost of making it.
bishop: file file for what lah. he was tokking kok.
Vynn: same thing. don’t point fingers. the Sky Kingdom is a sect in existence for about 12 years adi. the newspapers were late. and b’ahai? i think they do. don’t presume ppl don’t.
alvin: siao-kia… what megastardom lah… hype only hype only.
scaredmalaysian: i think i’m more scared of you than i am of menj. at least i know he’s nice in real life.
ntbd82: thank you… don’t mind me for being sharp in my comments. very often i just blab crap.
July 6th, 2005 at 9:42 am
It was a stormy night last night… The wind was howling violently. I was sitting beside my window on the 16th Floor of my condo, looking down at the lights of the city below me, when suddenly, i gush of wind rushed through my windows, causing the sheets to fly, shattering the cup of water that lay on my table beside my desk. Then, the lights went out.
and I felt a cold, thin slice just below my chin. Couldn’t breathe. Eyes are blurring, i could feel the warmness of blood flowing down the rest of my body. Then I looked up and saw, a girl in minishorts, wearing her infamous tank-top that said ‘i am wearing nothing’…
I slip into dillussion, i can see a light at the end of the darkness… I… am… dead…
July 6th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Spyder very impressed! Wah so terror lah you chooki.can relly write lah u! This was a good review indeed!
Visited your site when saw your mug in The Star. And to think that Spyder had been coming up to u-know-which publisher (3Floor)and did not even know got such a terror editor one there ..u all the time onli tell us ‘I gotta lose weight ..aiyoo getting fat ….going for dance classes ..etc etc’ . Miss u whenever spyder visits the place now……email me and we can talk somemore (that is if you gotta time since u now a celeb hehhehhe ….u more femes than textbook writers :wink:)
July 6th, 2005 at 11:40 am
To bishop: Congratulations! I’m glad you spotted it.
To minishorts: Of course I’m tokking kok. So is everybody here and the author of that tokking kok book. It’s not worth the weight of the paper that it is printed on. Frankly, I just skimmed your review which I think you’ve wasted much time on.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:11 pm
[...]
Minishort’s review of my book
Thank you, mini, for that review of my first book. It was a good read from a non-Muslim perspective, and the technical details about the p [...]
July 7th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Menj wrote, ‘it is clear that as a belief, Buddhism is contrary to logic and intelligence.’
What is more contrary to logic and intelligence is that a religion that exhort its adherents to terrorize, deceive, behead, rape, torture and murder non believers has the audacity to call itself “the religion of peace”. I invite all of you to check out the following site:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
July 7th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Wow that review is already like a thesis by itself.
July 8th, 2005 at 1:00 am
scaredmalaysian: i think i’m more scared of you than i am of menj. at least i know he’s nice in real life.
Ah, I hear Osama bin Laden is nice in real life too.
July 8th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
“He’s a nice guy. Always honest, decent and polite. Never heard him uttered a word of profanity.” That’s what their friends always say about swindlers, murderers, rapists and all kinds of criminals. “He killed his wife? I can’t believe this. He couldn’t even so much hurt an ant! What, he raped that poor 8 year old girl? He was always so nice to children; he had always treated them like his own! Com’on, don’t joke lah! He committed CBT? He’s so honest that he wouldn’t keep … and so on.” As a Chinese saying goes: “you know his looks but not his heart.” On the other hand, well, foul-mouth people like minishorts are er, hmmm … angels in disguise?
July 8th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Minishorts said:
“He’s a nice guy. Always honest, decent and polite. Never heard him uttered a word of profanity.”
I have been analyzing your behaviour Minishorts
and I notice you are what we call an Atheist. It
is a scientific fact that Atheists are the best
friends of Islam. Islamists such as PAS maintain
close friendship with Atheists as they are very
easy to be mentally manipulated and moreover an
Atheist does not require “freedom of religion”
(kebebasan agama) perhaps all the Atheists just
need is “freedom of worship” (kebebasan
sembahyang). Sembahyang what? Basically money but
it could also be status,i.e. ministerial position,
wakil rakyat position, datukship, etc. Atheists
do not worship God but created things so Atheists
are indeed polytheists. You are one of them, IMHO.
On July 8th, 2005 at 12:40 pm, bishopnose
replied to Minishorts here:
“That’s what their friends always say about swindlers, murderers, rapists and all kinds of criminals. “He killed his wife? I can’t believe this. He couldn’t even so much hurt an ant! What, he raped that poor 8 year old girl? He was always so nice to children; he had always treated them like his own! Com’on, don’t joke lah! He committed CBT? He’s so honest that he wouldn’t keep … and so on.” As a Chinese saying goes: “you know his looks but not his heart.” On the other hand, well, foul-mouth people like minishorts are er, hmmm … angels in disguise?
Very nicely said. All the friends of Menj will
no doubt say good things about him as all of
them are Atheists who can be mentally manipulated
with all sorts of things, such as but not limited
to money and status. Atheists do not care for real
justice but vote based on their emotions, which
is why most vote for PAS and Keadilan, two great
examples of political parties that comprise of
Muslims and Atheists. An Atheist is allowed to
lie–its no crime as he does not worship God. So,
an Atheist (take defeated US Presidential
candidate John Kerry who lied that he was a
Christian but the verse faith without works is
dead gave him away as voters demanded he prove
his faith and he could not he lost to staunch
Christian, George W. Bush.) will normally tell a
lot of lies about his religion so as to deceive
others–such as the voters in an election.
Now, I live this Chinese saying: “you know his looks but not his heart.” Nobody knows who minishorts is his/her/its private life and where he/she/it has secret association with Menj. I suspect both of them are close friends as minishort is an Atheist and Menj is an Islamist.
Have a nice day.
July 8th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Hey Gary W Bush: Minishorts didn’t say that. That was my context. Btw, the literal translation of that Chinese saying should read: “You know the mouth and the face but not the heart.”
July 8th, 2005 at 5:13 pm
where did the science part come from? and how is it a fact?
can you like, read a bit more before jumping to your own made up conclusions?
July 8th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
nbtd82: There are indeed many fanatics (regardless of religion) living among us. Some religious fanatics would turn the interior of their cars into mobile shrines, others would thank and praise the Lord every time they successfully flush a toilet. However, only one religion can produce fanatics that have no compunction killing women and children while shouting “God is great!” You will do well do remember that.
ScaredMalaysian: You said :” Ah, I hear Osama bin Laden is nice in real life too.” A point ScaredMalaysian, definitely a point!
Minishorts: There is nothing scary about someone if they are observing a fact. Which is more scary? A meteorologist who warns of an impending tsunami, or one who dissuades such a meteorologist from issuing the tsunami warning?
Gary W. Bush: First, Atheists are not the same as polytheists. Second, the claim that atheists value nothing but material gains is as banal as it is fallacious. Also, contrary to your claim, it is the monotheists that are the easiest to manipulate. Just tell them to do something and then quote any ambiguous verse in that religion’s holy book and there you go…
July 9th, 2005 at 12:10 am
Mr Nice Guy
I learnt early in life that if I wanted to keep my friends and stay out of trouble, I’d be wise to avoid any discussion of two taboo subjects: Politics and religion. Why? I asked. Well, because there are just so many bigots on both sides of the f…
July 9th, 2005 at 10:59 am
hey ck,
this was very, very insightful… would you mind if i quote you in an essay, as material for college, with reference to you of course?
July 9th, 2005 at 11:11 am
I have been analyzing your behaviour Gary Bush
and I notice you are what we call an Idiot. Not only have you quoted the wrong person, you call the claim “Atheists are the best friends of Islam” a scientific fact. Where did you get that, o scientist?
“Atheists do not worship God but created things so Atheists are indeed polytheists.”
Did you write your own dictionary too? (check a real one for the words theist, atheist, monotheist, polytheist and pantheist before you open your mouth)
“Very nicely said.”
What was said had no connection with what you said whatsoever. You shouldn’t participate in conversations until you learn how.
“Atheists do not care for real justice but vote based on their emotions”
As you can see in the news, there are theists who care for their own twisted justice and not of others. Fanatics (like you for example) who get high on religion are the ones who act on their emotions.
“An Atheist is allowed to lie—its no crime as he does not worship God.”
There are many moral atheists and immoral theists, like it or not. Unfortunately theists believe that morality comes exclusively from religion. Do you know how lie detectors work? You see, the body itself discourages a person to lie. (Because trust is a basic currency and indirectly a biological imperative among social creatures — it’s true for gorillas, chimps, dolphins, etc.)
And don’t you dare claim that as a staunch
Christian, George W. Bush doesn’t lie. Well a lot of what you’ve been saying isn’t true so technically you’re a liar. (using your logic, that’s makes you an atheist, yes?)
You cannot be taken seriously. You must stop talking. (it’s not like you’re gonna listen to me, though..)
July 9th, 2005 at 11:51 am
LOL @ Lionel!
Good one, good one!
July 11th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Nicely written review, Minishorts. It was a good brief read. Enjoyed Lionel’s postings too.
Well, all streams and rivers flow out to sea, some say. What matters not is the religion one proudly claims to believe in or proudly claims to be THE true one. What should matter is the way of life one chooses. One’s actions and thoughts ultimately, IMHO, will differentiate the good and the not good.
I think religions are to make humans be good people. Be good, and more than half the battle is won.
July 12th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
insanecancerian, I believe what you have written with every ounce of my being. Its ultimately our morality that counts, not the name by which we call god.
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but unfortunately, according to the monotheistic faiths of the Islamic-Christianity model, its not good enough simply being moral. What is more important than morality is your acceptance and submission to god. God can accept immoral persons so long as they accept and sing praises of god, but god will not hesitate to banish a moral person to hello for the sole reason that he is an unbeliever.
July 12th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
it is about knowing what Islam is really about, not knowing what you think it is about.
it is not a religion of terrorism, rape, etc. the oxford dictionary defines terrorism as ‘use of violence and intimidation.’ do you know that in a battle field, if a muslim were to be faced with women, children, elderly or the infirmed of the enemy, he is not allowed to kill them?
anyone, regardless of race, creed or status; if he or she uses violence and intimidation, he or she is terrorising. think about it. it is only in our time and age, after the 9/11 tragedy, that the world has defined terrorism that must include islam in it.
the problem here is many do not know the essence of islam. rightly-guided muslims do not kill whoever, or whenever they like. if those involved in the 9/11 and london bombings claim to be muslims, they will have gotten their understanding and belief of islam wrong.
culture seeps into most religions, and islam is not spared, especially in our country. buddhism, hinduism, taoism, christianity, islam… all these religions teach goodness. as a muslim, i do not have a right to condemn another religion or another race for that matter. it is about tolerance, and about agreeing to disagree.
July 12th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Rayhana,
While Muslim apologists like yourself and Menj assert that real Islam is peaceful, elsewhere your fellow religionists are killing innocent people all around the world on a daily basis, from New York to Spain, from Thailand to London, from Bali to Beslan etc. Ultimately, Islam is judged by the actions of its adherents, not the words of its apologists.
Sure, atrocities are not committed by Muslims alone. Christians are known to commit atrocities, so also Catholics, Hindus, Sikhs and Atheists etc. However, what is noteworthy is that followers of these other religions commit the atrocities against the teachings of their respective religions, while Muslims commit the atrocities in the name of Allah.
Claiming that these Islamic militants are ignorant of “true” Islam will not solve the problem. ‘Moderate’ Muslims like yourself need to ask, why is only Islam susceptible to this phenomenon? Why do we not find any “misguided” Buddhists waving the Heart Sutra while sawing off the head of an innocent man? Why do we not find any “misguided” Christians shouting hallelujah while spraying women and children with machine gun fire? Why do we not find misguided Catholics shouting “Hail Mary” before detonating the TNT strapped to their body in crowded train stations?
Muslims need to take a long and hard look at itself, its teachings, its prophet and its holy book in order to find the root cause of the problem. What Muslims cannot afford to do is adopt the ostrich “head in the ground” approach.
July 13th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
Rayhana says, “…do you know that in a battle field:?:, if a muslim were to be faced with women, children, elderly or the infirmed of the enemy, he is not allowed to kill them?…” Excuse me, but I’m a little stupid. I’m trying very hard to understand why the muslims train women and children to become suicide bombers? Also I know that Islam is good and terrorism is bad. So Islamic terrorist is good and bad. aha, not bad, eh? I’m learning to tok kok, hor. Some more, if I see a muslim crook, hor, I know that the muslim is good, the crook is bad. You see, the muslim crook is actually two people! One is good muslim the other is bad crook. Not bad, leh!
July 13th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
This religion bashing will not go on. I’m closing the comments. Thank you for your time and minds.