My Achievements

My achievements:
NOTHING.

At least I get to dispose all of my precious, but ultimately khurafat, dreams and beliefs. Lel.

If November Ends

-Sebulan setengah lagi, tamatlah 2014.

-2014 tahun yang aku tak tahu sama ada patut kubilang baik atau buruk.

-Semakin tua semakin hidupku berkecamuk.

-Aku mahu pulang ke masa dahulu, sebelum jiwaku mula mengamuk.

-Tapi di masa dahulu, aku tak punya cita-cita.

-Aku tak punya rasa tanggungjawab di dada.

-Hidup sentiasa bertangguh; besok masih ada.

-Sekarang aku tak punya cukup masa.

-Kerja, duit, hidup di dunia.

-Itu sahaja yang aku risau belaka.

-Cinta muda entah ke mana.

-Aku masih mahu mengejar cinta, mengejar bahagia.

-Kalau tidak, aku akan hanya duduk melaram di rumah tanpa mahu menggerakkan sebarang anggota di raga.

-Tapi aku tahu aku sekarang punya cita-cita.

-Kerana itu walaupun sakit dadaku semakin selalu menyerang, walaupun kerjaku dari pagi hingga ke waktu Isyak di malam, meskipun aku terpaksa merantau lagi ke Kuala Lumpur bandar yang kejam, aku gagahi.

-Kerana aku semakin sedar dan yakin setiap hari.

-Dia menungguku walaupun dia sendiri tidak menyedari.

More On Stupidity

-I'm stupid.

我が国の病

この世界に存在する全ての国家は、それぞれ自分の特殊の問題に関わる。馬来西亜も同様である。
ここでは「宗教」が病になっています。

Sapi

-Dalam kitab Taurat, ada dijelaskan bahawa "seekor lembu yang melanggar seorang laki-laki atau wanita sampai mati, maka lembu itu harus direjam sampai mati." Pembacaan kitab Bible saya sebetulnya belum sempurna dan perlu lebih ketelitian, tapi sekali pandang ayat ini, memang rasa ada 'something wrong.' Rasa macam bodoh pun ada.

-Dalam cerita yang tak berkaitan, hari ini ISIS memperbaharui serangan ke atas Kobane, atau Ayn al Arab. (ISIS panggil tempat tu Ayn al Islam by the way; suka-suka hati saja tukar nama tempat. Macam Soviet betul.)

Hidup 24 Tahun

-Alhamdulillah, dengan izin Allah, hidup aku sudah 24 tahun. Sekarang dengan usia yang bolehlah dikatakan dewasa ini, aku punya hak selaku orang dewasa. Aku secara teorinya bebas untuk mencari duit dan penghidupan sendiri. Dan itu aku lakukan dengan termampu. Dalam sebuah masyarakat yang tidak punya kebebasan mutlak dalam berhati nurani, aku secara separuh diam dan separuh bising menyuarakan bahawa aku tidak percaya kepada agama. Seandainya aku dahulu bukan penganut agama rasmi, ini tidak menjadi masalah. Namun bagi orang-orang yang didaftarkan oleh ibu bapanya dalam agama rasmi, fakta ini akan, dan telah, menjadi masalah kepada mereka. Bukan jarang aku mendengar kisah-kisah perjuangan orang dari kaum majoriti yang berjuang supaya nurani mereka yang sebenar-benarnya diiktiraf dan dianggap bukan sebagai jenayah, tetapi sekadar sebuah ekspresi nurani. Namun kisah-kisah itu selalunya berakhir dengan kemenangan di pihak yang empunya kekuasaan, dan suara-suara kecil itu hilang entah ke mana, melarikan diri dari cacian dan kekejaman kaum mereka yang tidak mahu mereka wujud sebagai diri mereka seadanya.

-Begitulah hidup; aku tahu bahawa ia tak mudah. Namun aku teruskan jua; aku cuba hidup seperti biasa. Tapi hakikatnya aku tak tahu ke mana aku boleh melangkah, dan apakah aku biasa melangkah seorang diri. Namun aku tak punya teman, dan tiada siapa yang boleh aku andalkan untuk menemaniku. Mungkin aku harus mati seorang diri. Siapa tahu. Aku teruskan sahaja langkah hidup ini, jujur kepada diriku sendiri, dan cuba untuk menerima seadanya keadaan dunia, kerana aku telah dewasa, dan dewasa ini aku semakin mengerti bahawa mimpi muda, yang ingin melihat dunia ideal menjadi nyata, akhirnya menjadi sempadan yang membawa dukacita. Kerana itu aku harus membuka mata, dan melihat dunia ini sepertimana yang seharusnya, dan menyedari akan kerdilnya diriku, aku berhenti berharap yang bukan-bukan, dan terus maju ke depan, meredah lubang dan juga dinding. Aku tahu yang aku barangkali tidak punya kemampuan meredah semua itu; tapi aku tidak boleh berundur, kerana masa adalah jalan yang tak empunya titik balik berundur.

-Harusku gagahi jua. Tidak mengapa. Semua ini akan berakhir juga akhirnya.

The Twilight

-So the rocketing starts again in Gaza. This is an inhuman game, played by Israel and Hamas. Israel and Hamas both overstepped their boundaries and that resulted in thousands of Palestinians dead and amplification of hate.

-Seriously, when will these two sides learn, that even trying to kill, albeit unsuccessfully, just TRYING, will blow things up? I pity Mahmoud Abbas; Mahmoud Abbas is the real good guy in here, but he is going against Netanyahu and Khaled Meshaal; both of these two guys are better at their game than Abbas is at his game.

-That's it; it's all a game. Thousands dead; it's all a game. It's not about God or land; it's just stupidity and hate. Go on killing. I don't care if justice is served or not; let the strongest win!

(what can I do? I am not that good; everyone has got his/her limits; am I being an oppressor just by not doing anything right? only because I can no longer go on? I've had enough of this game of hate! Freedom is NOT achieved through hate! Security is NOT achieved through hate! Justice is NOT achieved through hate! Anger and violence do not solve anything!)

-The twilight signals evening prayers. Both Israel and Hamas need to reflect on their actions.

Between Worlds

-I have started working in KLCC for Microsoft. The pay's pretty decent, the job's not too hard (for now) and the conditions are great. It will be a great place to start improving myself and carving myself a place in the society.
-But deep inside, I am really, really feeling insecure. What if I mess up? I can't afford to mess this up.
-And I also feel regret that I didn't use my youth the way youths are supposed to do; have fun, hang out with friends, be in a romantic relationship (well, the last one's just beyond me). Now all I have to do is grow up.
-Wouldn't it be nice to have someone who grows up with you and loves you the way you love her, and yet she also reminds you of simpler, younger times that you both experienced.
-I don't have that. I thought that I did, but perhaps I will never marry. I am an agnostic; I should be prepared to die a heathen. Heheheh.

Semakin Tua

-As I listened to those Muslims praying Tarawih at the nearby mosque, I thought of myself. I used to be one of them. Yes, my faith was inherited, but I was very dedicated nevertheless. I spent a lot of time reading Quran and the history of the prophets; I spent most of my youth building up my knowledge on the Abrahamic faiths; and as I look around and see all these people who still believe in the Abrahamic God, I can't help but thinking that perhaps there is something I did wrong, there is something I misunderstood, there is something I shouldn't have done.
-Of course, sometimes the majority doesn't get it right. But does being 'right' and being 'true' matter? Is it worth all these alienation, disconnection, loneliness and not belonging? I don't feel like I belong anywhere anymore. I can no longer say I am a Melanau, I am a Muslim, I am a Malaysian, I am a Sarawakian; I have lost connection with what I was born into, what I was supposed to inherit. Why? Because the concept of God as the Abrahamic faith teaches it is philosophically troublesome and there is no such God in the first place?
-Get real; religions, cultures, ideologies are never about God. It's all about fitting in the society, it's all about having a place to live and grow in the society. The society is God in itself; who is rejected by the society suffer, and who's accepted by the society doesn't suffer as much. The society favors some and curses some; isn't that very God-like?

Say, "O Allah , Owner of Sovereignty, You give sovereignty to whom You will and You take sovereignty away from whom You will. You honor whom You will and You humble whom You will. In Your hand is [all] good. Indeed, You are over all things competent. (Quran 3:26)

قُلِ اللَّهُمَّ مَالِكَ الْمُلْكِ تُؤْتِي الْمُلْكَ مَن تَشَاءُ وَتَنزِعُ الْمُلْكَ مِمَّن تَشَاءُ وَتُعِزُّ مَن تَشَاءُ وَتُذِلُّ مَن تَشَاءُ ۖ بِيَدِكَ الْخَيْرُ ۖ إِنَّكَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

Numbers

-Numbers sometimes intrigue me.

-Here's why. When we talk about numbers, or anything that has a numerical value, we just assign values, like 1, 2, or 3 with utter confidence. But ask anyone on the street what is the meaning of those numbers, and you will find out that most people can't really explain what is the meaning of 1.
We just know that a car has a numerical value of 1, two cars has a numerical value of 2 and so on. We assign values real easy. We don't actually give a real thought to it most of the time. And yet it is really hard to find people that can actually give an ample explanation of what 1 really means. So I tried to define the meaning of 1.
And it is really hard. I have spent 3 or 4 years meditating on this thing (not continuously of course) and I still haven't found a satisfactory way to explain this.

Love Is More Real Than God Itself

-Now, there is a time when I believe that life is going to be good all the time, everything shall be easy and things are going to work. I don't believe in that anymore. Those are superstitions that a boy has during his formative years. A man cannot hold on to such detrimental superstitions. Those unfounded optimistic notions are going to eat him alive, as they fail to realize.

-24 years old and still figuring out what to do with his life, I struggle to understand every single thing I see. I used to think I were a special boy with a mission; that is not true. Not only is it not true, but it is also egoistic in nature. That was me. I didn't know what it feels like to take care of somebody else, what it feels to be an adult. And now I know better. I am not saying I understand it all now; I doubt that anyone understands it all. That is why some questions are best left unanswered, some feelings need to be let go, and some dreams have to die. It is all for the best. But what does the 'best' really means?

-I suspect that the world is as perfect as it can be. It is perfect, with sadness, regret, fear, uncertainty; the negativity, the pain, intertwined arbitrarily with the positive emotions and the desire, form what is to be known as the humanity. Human tries to live up to their desires by facing up to their pain and fear. That is in itself, beyond any human judgment , beautiful. It is beautiful, for it is the reason of everything, and yet, it requires no meaning. It is meaningless, and yet, it is the source for what we see as living.

-But, may be I don't want it to be beautiful. Maybe, I just want to see my utmost desire fulfilled. Maybe I have only one chance at happiness. Maybe I need to make a mistake, maybe I need to go to Hell in order to have that chance fully utilized. Nobody needs it to be beautiful. In the end, it didn't matter; as long as we get to see our love requited, then beauty really doesn't matter. Meaning doesn't matter. Love is all there is to be.

-But, that is a dream that remains unfulfilled. Perhaps it is a superstition that one has to bash like religions, perhaps it is a drug. Things need to be beautiful, and my desires don't have any role, apart from being a part in this beauty, a part that needs to be crushed in order for the beauty to finally blossom and achieve perfection. I need to die to perfect my life. But not now.

Negaraku Nerakaku

-I have returned back from Japan to Malaysia. The weather's still pretty much the same, and so does the appearance. But something here has changed; the atmosphere. It is toxic, full of bigotry and tension, as ideologies clash and personalities fight for air to breathe.

-But it is all not so surprising to me; this is, after all, the long-term results of both the globalization coming from the outside and the conservatism from the inside. What can you expect? It just had to happen. As one of my friends once said, every single hidden thing is coming up. And people find that unpleasant.

-Is it suffice to say that our country has turned a bit Hell-ish? Well, maybe it is not an appropriate term to use here to describe the situation; a revolutionary period would be a better, though still inaccurate, term. This is the time of change.

-We will see massive changes in the society, as tensions go up and hushed up issues got uncovered. Malaysia as we know it is over. But it is not necessarily a bad thing; things change, and change is natural for any single existing being. The problem is whether we have the right attitude and the right reaction to this change. We can choose to adapt or react; but we have to be responsible and respectful of human rights. Think about the future generation. Do we want them burdened with issues regarding human rights, or do we want them free? It is a fairly easy question. Of course, most of the people who are reasonable in their thoughts will want their children free and unburdened with unnecessary issues. That is the struggle we are currently having; seeking freedom not just for ourselves, but for the next generation as well.

-But this struggle means that one has to face a wall that has been there for ages. It is a wall called the insecurity. People are afraid of change. What would change bring; Heaven or Hell? The question is there waiting to be answered. But it is not God who decides the outcome. It is us. We are the ones who have the final decision. Our insecurities, that take the form of institutionalized religion, ideology, racism and conservatism, are going to hold us back from the outcome. But we cannot stay the same. Staying the same would spell the doom for our society. Like it or not, we have to move forward. But some disagree on the direction. That's the reason for so many tensions inside the country.

-Tensions bubble up and might explode if left unchecked and not channeled. We can't expect the government to do this; the government is in itself one of the cause of the tension. The only way is for us to become truly independent of the government and handle this tension in a healthy way, lest our nation becomes a Hell.

Rumahku Tempatku Merintih

-2 tahun genap aku duduk di rumah ini. Rumah yang melihat aku merintih, melalak, bercakap dan menggila seorang diri menghibur hati. Sekarang sudah tiba masanya untuk aku ucapkan selamat tinggal kepada rumah ini. Rumah yang busuk dengan bau rokok dan sunyi sepi tatkala aku keseorangan.

-Aku rasa amat pedih hati. Mengapa harus sayang selalu menebal tatkala engkau mahu meninggalkan sesuatu?

Humanity and Religion (part 7)

-But language is not just meant for cursing. Language is a diverse system for communication, and cursing is just a small part of it. Language is a tool by which we organize our thoughts and feelings and knowledge, so they become something that is coherent and workable to certain extent. But language is limited nevertheless. But this limit is necessary, for in order for something to be coherent, there has to be a rule, a scope by which it works on, and this rule necessarily limits our language.

-The limitations in our language, coming together with our limited capacity of sensing and taking information from the world around us, makes our world nothing more than perception; We do not perceive the real world, what we perceive is just a world built out of language and sense. Thus, science, being reliant on our language and sense to work, is a human undertaking; the laws of physics may not actually be really real; it is just something that has been put in order by our language and sense.

-But to say that the law of physics may not actually be real is a large, almost anti-scientific statement. For it can be used as a negation to scientific progress, and this has happened before in Islamic society; the statement saying that Allah is the mover of the world has stopped many religious person to actually examine how the world works, because the answers are already ready-made in the form of Allah. The fact that Quran mentions the incident where people tried to burn Abraham with fire, but the fire didn't burn him even whilst he was engulfed in it, makes the attitude worse; for there is a subliminal attitude expressed here that Allah bends the laws of physics to His Will, and thereby the laws of physics, being the lesser rule, is not worth researching; thus the religious shifted their focus on God instead, missing a lot of opportunity in the process, the opportunity that was taken instead by the Europeans, thus the Europeans end up surpassing Muslims in a classic 'the turtle beats the rabbit' story.

-The limitations of language also poses a problem to the idea that God gives humans guidance in the form of scriptures. We hear of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis saying that each language is unique and thereby cannot be adequately articulated into another language; if this is indeed true, than Quran in all its glory, must not have been meant for every single human being; "this Quran is in Arabic so that you may understand it." It must have been meant for only the Arab-speaking people, because the only way that a message can be adequately conveyed is by preserving the language that serves as the medium. But that would run in contrary with the insistence that every human is equal in the eyes of God, and the belief that Quran is meant for every human being. Of course this would not be the case if the Sapir-Whorf  hypothesis is not true, but if it is not true, then why is it that the Muslims are banned from treating translations of Quran as Quran, if the translation is reliable? The answer; language is limited.

Humanity and Religion (part 6)

-But cursing requires hate, and furthermore, it increases hatred. Sooner or later, we have a population of people who are both violent and hateful. Most animals are violent, but it is doubtful that they are hateful animals; Lions don't kill deer out of hate, they kill out of a need to consume food. Violence and hatred are actually separate from each other; violence may and has existed independently of hatred; but why are then they interlinked? Because hatred may spark violence, and with a population of humans cursing the nature for not bending down to their will, sooner or later, these humans started doing what Quran termed as 'fasad fil ardh': damaging on earth. And these damages are done out of hate; hate for the nature.
-When one starts hating the nature, it becomes an endless expansion; nature is after all an all-encompassing term, and hating the nature easily leads to hating other things, as all is nature and nature is all. Hatred drives humanity; it spurs the desire to fight, the desire to struggle; struggling against nature requires a certain disdain of nature. One hates the fact that the rivers floods every now and then, so he builds an irrigation system to control the floods; one hates the fact that plants usually flower and bear fruits once a year, so he genetically enhances them so they can yield more flowers and fruits. Hatred becomes a force by which human eliminates things considered as undesirable to human convenience; it is both selfish and self-rewarding at the same time.
-But is cursing the impetus for hate? No; cursing is just an expression of hate. But by expressing hate through cursing, the hatred is defined more properly; no longer is hatred a purely abstract concept that lies at the subconscious, a concept that has no form; it is now a directed form of sentiment that begets force and action. It is no more a mere agitation; it is now a usable tool that can cause and puts things into motion. Cursing is a part of language, and language gives form to hatred through cursing.

Humanity and Religion (part 5)

-But why people began farming? One of the great mysteries concerning human evolution is the impetus for farming; hunting and gathering food is a much simpler (albeit riskier, considering the fact that humans compete with other strong animals for food, and may run the risk of being preyed upon themselves) task than farming; Farming requires an understanding of how plants grow, an understanding of how time flows, the ability to control water flow etc...why is then the massive-scale change to farming?
-Perhaps it was the climate change; if one read the Bible and the Quran in an allegorical way, the Garden of Eden might be interpreted as a time when people finds it easier to hunt and gather food. Adam and Eve were forced out of Heaven because they ate the forbidden fruit; was it because the humans ate way too much that species went extinct, burnt too much that the Sahara became a desert? No one knows for sure; except for the fact that there was a climate change occurring thousands of years ago that forced the ancestors of the humans into the savannah out of the tropical rainforests; or rather, the rainforest became dry due to lack of rain, and became savannahs. Ancestors of humans, deprived of trees, had to stand upright, and due to the warm climate had to shed their furs. (At least that's how the theory went) But that occurred way far back before farming began.
-Perhaps it would be useful to trace the farming back to where it began. Farming developed in different parts of the world; it had not one source of beginning; one began in China, one in India, one in the Nile Delta, one in the Mesoamerica. But all these had one thing in common; they have a seasonal water flow; one season is dry and one wet. Another thing to ponder is the fact that these places are relatively dry; dry climates mean less varied ecosystem, and that means it is harder to find food. So farming should hypothetically began as a way humans tried to survive a harsher and less bountiful ecosystem. In that sense, Bible can be true; Adam (Hebrew for 'man') was condemned to hard labor of farming, instead of the leisure of picking food from any tree in the Garden of Eden. But that doesn't mean Bible is truly the Inspired Word of God; just because something is true doesn't mean it came from God.
-But why then would farming start the cult of worshiping God? Farmers are meant to be observant of nature; they need to know when to begin farming. Hence farmers would have to organize the world around them in a way that simple hunter-gatherers simply don't have to do; (I would include husbandry within the context of farming) farmers need to know when is the rainy season, farmers need to know how many times they have before the dry season begin, farmers need to plan for the summer and the winter, farmers need to accomplish their tasks within a set period of time. Thus the concept of 'time' becomes more important than ever; instead of just organizing time based on the time the sun rises and sets, humans plan their lives much further; days become weeks, weeks become months, months become years. A week is defined as a period of 7 days; Aztecs organize it into 20-day units; see the difference? Both Bible and Quran didn't think about the Aztecs; they insist that weeks have to be organized into 7 days--a total rejection of a whole civilization. No wonder the Catholics persecuted the Aztecs as if they were worse than animals. Heathens--they are lesser humans!
-But then, it remains a challenge to truly predict the temperament of nature. Droughts happen; floods happen; back then humans are totally at the mercy of the temperament of nature. Hence the God as ar-Rahman and ar-Rahim; what can one do? If it's going to be a drought, nothing (yet) can be done about it. We just have to die along with it. But no! We have been spending all our time organizing, planning, farming; is it all going to waste? Who is the first one to have come up with the idea that 'it is all going to waste?' That might be the first philosopher, the first prophet, the first sage ever; some one who can see that his or her efforts are going to waste; instead of just going along with the nature, he cursed it! He cursed the nature for going against his will! Cursing the nature; that is a religious act!

Humanity and Religion (part 4)

-But ask yourself again whether human really needs God to live. How about the Penans and the Papuans who live as hunter-gatherers in the jungle? Do they know God? Notice that not every single language has a word that refers to what can be understood as being equal to Allah, being equal to YHWH, being equal to the Turkish Tanri, to Aryan Brahma...there are many languages in which the concept of the unseen things are confined to worldly and little beings, beings that can actually be perceived by the speakers of the language, but would remain invisible to non-speakers...Speech is belief; Islam's definition of Iman involves three aspects of 'heart', 'mouth' and 'action', all of which are language-based. Language is the only possible way to Iman. So how can one say that the whole world believes in God? Many people would argue that even the seas do praise the Creator; even Quran said so...it is just that the praises are not coherent to human. But something that is incoherent to human, can we call it 'praise'? Calling it a 'praise' is an anthropocentric act; we, by the act of saying that 'even the seas praise the God' makes the whole phenomenon an anthropomorphized one, which is ridiculous; Seas are seas, not humans. They don't speak; they don't possess language, at least not a humanly language; so how can one say they praise the Lord? I suspect that the statement is made in order to make a religion superior from other religions, but does not take into account about the nature of language enough. Will God in his omniscience make such a statement? Language is a barrier.
-God as we often understand would then be reconstructed as being products of language; Muslims, Christians, Jews...whenever they invoke the name of the God, really only invokes the concept created through their utterance of the name God. Their efforts, their prayers, their beliefs; none of these reaches God, none of these have anything to do with the REAL GOD. The REAL GOD is something that I can't say anything about; I can at least say that it is not a coherent being, but think; literally there are millions who pray to God, who reports that they do feel God. It is not coherent through language, but people make do anyway. With what? With feelings.
-Thus talking about God would bring us to the realm of the emotional. The turmoil of the human emotion that seeks both the fulfillment and the emptying of their existence; "I want to erase all my sins." Erasing my sins; what exactly is that? We hurt people as soon as we were conceived; think about how our mothers deliver us from the state of being nothing to the state of being something. Pregnancy is a terrible predicament. But why mothers endure the pain of pregnancy? What is the thing that drives us humans to keep on procreating; keep on surviving? Aren't we all going to die? Thus some might say that life in itself is a sin, which is inferred from the fact that living and dying is actually the same thing. You lie when you say you are living; you lie when you say you are dying. You are both living and dying; you cannot claim to be one without claiming to be the other. Living is dying and dying is living. Why these two antithetical states coexist arbitrarily with the other?
-That would pose no problem to the earlier humans who hunt on a daily basis for food. They observe that both are no different; they are not antithetical; they are not separate. Lions consume other animals so they themselves can live. Female spiders devour their mate after procreating. Salmons die soon after laying eggs. The early people see these and do not see any conflict. But why do we perceive the conflict between living and dying?
-The answer; we begin to farm. Why did we begin to farm? The whole idea of farming is not exactly what I would call a brilliant idea. It is easier to hunt, easier to gather food, than actually taking care of them, nurturing them until they got mature enough to be eaten. Taking care of things; that action involves emotion. Emotion spoils everything up. All because we wanted to take care of something. If one were to believe in Torah, one of the very first things that God ordered (or rather, condemned) Adam to do was to farm. All of a sudden, Adam knows how to farm. There is no mentioning of the learning process. Adam just began farming.
-Perhaps that is the reason why the more sedentary population hated the nomads. Those who don't farm and those who do farm; there seems to be a totally fundamental difference in the ethics. Farming begins the history. Religion sprang up together with farming. People didn't believe in God before they began farming. They don't even know God to begin with; the whole idea is not even started yet.

Humanity and Religion (part 3)

-What truly defines human? Just because an infant is born of human parents, does that make him or her a human as well? What do we make of a person who is mentally defective, depriving her of the faculty of speech....what is she? Is she a human? Is she still a human when her defective mental faculty renders her unable to recognize and understand speech, let alone using speech? Is she still a human when her brain is wired that she doesn't feel empathy for others, totally self-centered and lacks patience? Is she still a human when her behavior is so erratic she can't fit into the society due to her lack of mental capacity?
-That is why I say Hegel is wrong in his conception of the world as an organic being made of parts; he assumed that societies are organic beings too, and it is made up of individuals; but certainly he did not pay heed to those who are mentally incapable of catching up with society. Mentally incapacitated individuals pose a challenge to our conception of humanity and of ethics. Paul Singer would say that such individuals are unable to attain 'happiness' whatever it may be to him, and thus it would serve them better to be off dead, for life without the attainment of happiness is considered life not worth living. 'Happiness;' that is a problematic concept. In utilitarian mindset, that would just mean someone is living his life to the fullest, by being useful in someway. Mentally incapacitated people, would by then, by the nature of them being less useful to the society, be unable to achieve happiness as well.
-But is happiness our true goal? Islam promised Heaven, where the believers enjoy the presence of God, 'Salamun qaulan min rabbi ar-rahim'; Christianity offers salvation to those who accepted Christ as their Savior; Buddhism dictates that a person who has attained enlightenment will be able to escape the circle of life, being Nirvana. All of these do not have worldly aspects to it; the world is viewed as 'evil' for it contains 'suffering'; why should religions promise its adherents the world, when the world is full of suffering? Islam said that those who enter Jannah, stays there forever. Why forever? Perpetuation of a state renders separation as something that does not exist in that plane of existence, and separation is a painful event. Think about it; when a person dies of something, be it an accident, a natural death, murder, whatever, there's almost always some sort of pain involved. The person might not himself feel the pain; but even if one does not die a painful death, with no mourners, the death of a person might affect the surroundings in a negative way. The body might get smelly; the stench of death is never pleasant. It is very rare that a death is painless; Muhammad is remarked to have said on his deathbed, 'how painful death is.'
-Thus people are afraid of death, mostly out of the fear of pain. Otherwise, we wouldn't be so scared of death; nobody is actually scared of fading away from the existence. It is impossible to be scared of non-existence; Non-existence, because it does not exist, is not something that can be feared. Fear requires an object that it can fear; but in the case of non-existence, there is no object. So how can one fear? That is why many religions advocate life after death; in the field of non-existence, there's always room to be filled. One can take a white paper, and use it to paint beautiful pictures; it is almost the same with non-existence; one can always make something out of it.
-Thus the idea that something cannot came out of nothing is nothing but a popular mistake. This idea that something that exists must have a cause has been pointed out by many philosophers to be simply the doing of our minds; the sun does not produce the light, but the relationship between the sun and the light has been epistemologically painted by our conscience. The relation between the sign and the meaning is the same too; it is our conscience that makes the relationship come into being. Cause and effect is a product of us observing the nature, and putting what we observe into knowledge. And knowledge is made up of language.
-That puts me into a problematic situation. When knowledge is said of as being made up of language, how can then an animal can be said of as having knowledge? Does a human with the inability to utilize the speech faculty totally can be said of as having knowledge? Quran said that 'allamahu al-bayan'; He taught us plain speech. Speech is knowledge. The Scripture has to be in a human speech, no matter what. But that would mean that Quran is not meant for the dumb; Quran is not meant for the animals. It has been stated that Quran is meant for the humans. Animals do not need Quran. Animals do not need God. Do humans need God? One is tempted to say so.

Humanity and Religion (part 2)

-The role of each human as khalifah Allah (Quran didn't mention khalifah in a political way; it struck me that it's a role designated so that every human has to play it) is to spread Islam. "Ya Rasul, balligh!" (O Messenger, deliver!) Thus there is an obligation that is made dutiful onto every Muslim; so the fatigue of proselytizing is solved by making sure everyone does it; Islam is thus a religion made to be inherited, from father to son. Thus, there is a need for Islamic family system to take its shape; 'muhrim' and 'non-muhrim' is just the tip. We have got in Muslim society a very rigid family system that has no place for bastards and interfaith children, as well as gays and lesbians. Sexuality is shunned except for the heterosexualism; and heterosexualism is regulated strictly within the context of the family; one would observe very little physical touch among Malays, due to the perception that touching is sexual. Sexuality is regulated heavily; one might say that it is rationed only for the purpose of procreating new Muslims.
-But the laws result in a necessary segregation between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is a familial segregation, a fraternal segregation. Thus fundamentally, Muslims and non-Muslims become fundamentally different from each other; they are segregated on a familial level. Muslims can't marry non-Muslims unless they convert; the laws serve as another way to proselytize non-Muslims. And that is fine; Muhammad had envisioned a belief system in which the heaven is made exclusive for Muslims. Non-Muslims go to hell; there is no other way around. Of course some argue that every soul gets to go to heaven not due to them being Muslim or not, but through the merits of their deeds. But merits here are often understood as being 'Muslim': Islam is everything that is good. Good equals Islam.
-Thus the laws often in the end favor Muslims, discriminating against non-Muslims, despite the fact that it is not intended to be so; theoretically there shall be no discriminating, nor shall there be an intention to discriminate against people; the real targets are the non-Muslim belief systems. They ought to be eliminated; the belief systems operate based on what Islam perceives as lies; "Truth will prevail, while the lies perish."
-Of course Islam isn't alone in discriminating; consider the time period when the Catholics of the Iberian peninsula got swept up in religious fervor and discriminated against Muslims and Jews. It got nasty; Muslims and Jews were uprooted due to their non-Catholic beliefs. But this is also an unintended consequence of the idea that only those who accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior gets salvation in the end. Jesus is the key. No key, no heaven. Thus Christianity and Islam both have to be proselytizing in order for their ethics to work the way they were intended to work. The Bible said in the Gospels that the Apostles were ordered to spread the Word of God; Muhammad said that 'deliver from me even if only a sentence.' Proselytizing becomes the new religious game, surpassing the previous idea of tribalism: each nation has its own god. No; God has become an international concept; each nation must accept that there is no God but Allah; in fact there are no nations; just a nation. An ummah.
-So universalism is born through the conception of God as being One and Only and for All; and the conception of an exclusivist Heaven. This ran in contrast with previous order of the nations. No longer is polytheism or henotheism allowed. There is only one God, and only one Nation; a Nation formed by human. Thus we got back to the formulation of 'human.'

Humanity and Religion (part 1)

-If religion is just about logic, reason and the meaning of life, then we would not have religions we currently have in our human society. No; religions are shaped also by our human emotions; insecurity, weakness, revenge, fear, greed, egoism, prejudice, love, anger, sadness, nostalgia and hate. That's why I don't believe in religion, nor do I believe in God; religion is human, and God is a product of our human capacity.
-But then again, I also realized that my rejection is human in nature, driven by my human intelligence and cemented by my human desire. Islam envisioned a God that is "mukhalafatuhu lil hawadith" (different from anything that's new), which implies that God in Islam is BEYOND what we can perceive; No one can actually worship this kind of God, as it is just impossible to reach such a God (hence rejecting this God would have been as equally senseless as worshiping him; but here it's no longer the question of it being sensible or not; it's now a matter of emotion; that's why some people kill in the name of God, while others love in the name of God). Hence theoretically speaking, Islam really is not about worshiping this God; it is about shaping humans.
-Which presents us with a problem; can such a feat be achieved? The feat has at its foundation the idea that there is such a thing called 'human' that is definable and tangible. 'Human' here is not just a physical-biological animal; 'human' is an idea, a concept. This concept has to be invented; only then can one begin to lay out the ideals for the ethics and religion that is to be imposed on this 'human.' Thus the 'prophet' in Islam. Those weren't historical figures; they were a fictionalized version of Abram, Moshe, Dawed, Shlomo, Yohanna and Yeheshua; a version fitted up to meet Islam's arguments, a version that is radically and fundamentally different from the Bible accounts. Why such radical differences? Because there is a revolution, regarding the nature of 'human'; no longer are 'human' viewed as given, but instead a whole new paradigm of human as 'abid' that is subservient to 'God' (explore other religions; there's not as much emphasis on the relation between God and human as being 'master-slave' relationship; this is radically different with the idea of Christian 'Father-Son", with the idea of Judaism's "Deity-Chosen People"; it's a new thing.) Did Muhammad envision such a thing? Truth be told, perhaps no; but perhaps yes; but it is not intended as a lie. Islam is, from this point of view, a religion of truth: Truth the way Muhammad saw it.
-But then, Muhammad is just a human, and so the religion he established was also human in nature. It is a flawed religion; with too much emphasis on the nature of human as slaves to God, there is just no way those slaves can bring themselves to rule their own selves; that is the reason why dictatorship, monarchy and authoritarian rule has been the rule in many Muslim countries over the past century; not even the secular Turkey escaped the tendency. Why? Because the Muslims largely don't want to rule; "leaders will get judged in Judgement Day the most." So the idea of democracy is fundamentally very challenging, if not incompatible, with the Islam theology. This theology is very deeply ingrained, and also infectious: the person who established the Baathist ideology, with its emphasis on purportedly 'Islamic' tendencies, marrying it with authoritarianism, was not a Muslim (Michel Aflaq was a Christian) but even a Christian, after years of living with Muslims (even a very secular one; even an ex-Muslim), will get influenced by Islam. The idea of human being a mere slave will surely make Jean-Paul Sartre mad; Sartre was a person who firmly believed that human is 'cursed to freedom'. I don't expect such a person would yield to Islam's ideas regarding human. Islam is never about freedom. Quran has nothing regarding freedom; it's all about submitting to God, and only by submitting to a reality you can't fight, you can find peace. Imam Shafi'e said to abandon rebellion; a rebellion against reality would strike him as being stupid, naive and misguided at best, and a borderline blasphemy, if not sheer madness at worst. But then again one has to struggle with reality. "Jihad" would mean to be this struggle; so does the word "Israel", which in Hebrew would mean 'one who struggles with God'. It's an honor given to Yaakov to be having this name; In Torah it is said that Yaakov won a wrestling match against God! Now that would really defy Islam's vision of 'master-slave'. Which means that Judaism has to be Islam's archenemy. How can a slave struggle against his master? That is blasphemous! But Judaism view humans not as a slave of God. For the Jews, they are God's own People. It was a tribal God; and being tribal, it is totally acceptable for such a God to be almost human in nature; asking Abram to kill Yitzhak and Ishmael as a test of faith, despite already knowing the result He himself was going to give; such playfulness! Isn't that human nature to be playful? But this is not Islam's Allah! No! Allah is beyond anything that is new. So trying to talk about the nature of Allah is going to be pointless; let's talk about human instead. But it's going to cause problems, because 'human' isn't a concept existing in nature. 'Human' is human's invention, invented through language. But language is invented by human. Hence we have yet another circle; "human-language, language-human" Of course, this is just a wordplay; but from this one should be able to deduct that human's attempt to describe human is at best a naive attempt. More often it is at its worst; we treat gays badly, we treat minorities badly, we treat other races badly, we treat believers of other religions badly, we badmouth each other. Why? Because these people would not fulfill our idea of what a 'human' should be like. This discrimination happens with or without religion; but religions have this knack of institutionalizing this discrimination, and moreover, justifies it. Read the Bible and its condemnation of the Egyptians and Canaanites; read the Quran, and its condemnation against the polytheists and the Jews ('the Jews and the Christians will not be happy with you until you follow them'); this religious justification, once institutionalized and sanctified by making them part of the Scriptures, is very hard to be dealt with. Of course Muhammad's idea is to eliminate Judaism and Christianity (among other religions), converting everyone to Islam, so the hatred would not last; ideally Muslims should hate Christianity, not the Christians. But this is not happening; one simply does not have the energy to convince everyone.

Menginsafi Dharma

-Kadang-kala dalam hidup, terutamanya dalam keadaan kita panas dan giat berjuang mempertahankan pendirian dan prinsip hidup kita sendiri, kita terlupa akan hakikat bahawa kewujudan kita, kerana bermulanya dari ketidakwujudan, akan berakhir dengan ketidakwujudan.

-Kalaupun kita tidak melupai hakikat fananya hayat di dunia karma ini sekalipun, kita jarang sekali boleh menginsafi bahawa dharma hidup, hukum realiti di dunia ini selalunya berakhir dengan pedih derita dan penyakit.

-Tatkala kita hidup Mati menjenguk tanpa ada tanda-tandanya. Tidak semestinya kita yang mati; tidak semestinya Mati menyedarkan kita tentang hukum alam yang tertakluk kepada kita manusia. Apabila kita melihat orang lain berjumpa dengan Mati kita melihat itu seolah-olah suatu fenomena yang tidak terpakai kepada kita. Kita tidak menjadi sedih dengan adanya Mati; kita tidak merasa apa-apa tentangnya. Seolah-olah Mati itu sekadar kita menghembus udara keluar dari peparu; kita tidak sedar sama sekali.

-Tapi andai kata sesuatu atau seseorang yang kita sayang hilang lenyap dari mata, itukah apa yang kita rasakan? Ketidakpedulian? Ketidakberperasaan? Sahabat yang hilang lenyap dari mata; air mata yang berlinang di pipi; itukah namanya kesengsaraan pengakhiran? Dan kesakitan itu kita bius dengan api kemarahan terhadap hidup; mengapa harus begini? INI TIDAK ADIL! Dalam hati kita menjerit kepada Tuhan seolah-olah benar Tuhan itu wujud, dan seolah-olah benar bahawa Tuhan itu Penggerak segala-galanya di alam semesta.

-Namun hakikatnya, manusia...tidak, barangkali hanya aku seorang sahaja...dalam hidup harus terus bergerak, maka luka pun disembuhkan, parut lama dikambus, kesakitan dibius. Lalu kewujudan menjadi seperti sedia kala; bosan dan tidak punya pengertian apa-apa, melainkan sebagai perjuangan bagi seorang yang memperjuangkan hidupnya dalam siratan kepercayaannya; perjuangan itu dadah yang menutup kezaliman hakikat dunia yang fana. Maka semua orang pun mahu mempercayai sesuatu, dan mahu menjadi hero yang mempertahankan kepercayaannya; PERTAHANKAN KALIMAH ALLAH! PERTAHANKAN MELAYU! PERTAHANKAN NEGARA! KEBEBASAN BERSUARA! JATUHKAN BN! JATUHKAN KEZALIMAN! HIDUP RAKYAT! HIDUP PROLETARIAT! HIDUP REVOLUSI!...Ini semua dadah. Semua slogan ini kosong dan tidak bermaksud apa-apa melainkan sekadar sebagai balutan menutup luka takut kekosongan di hati.

-Mungkin hanya aku seorang sahaja begini. Aku tidak tahu sama ada orang lain berfikiran sama; apa kaitan antara HIDUP MELAYU dengan tiupan sangkakala Israfil? Aneh sungguh berfikiran tentang hidup mati; kedua-duanya tidak berpisah sama-sekali, namun terasa begitu kontras sekali sehingga sukar memikirkan bahawa hidup dan mati adalah satu. Tapi hidup dan mati memang adalah satu; manusia hidup mesti mati.

-Alam sains fizika ada yang meragui dikotomi hidup mati sebegini; tiada yang betul-betul hidup; segala-galanya fenomena material semata-mata, justeru tiada jiwa yang sedar; tanpa jiwa tiada istilah 'berpisah roh dari jasad.' Tapi perpisahan tetap terjadi, dengan atau tanpa jiwa; aduhai dunia.

The Future Separation

-If you ask me, the possibility of Malaysia splitting up into two countries in 20 year's time is very possible. The reason would be the divergence between the mindset of the people, and it will be racially and religiously lined. The split would led to the formation of (at least) one secular republic and (at least) one Islamic Malay sultanate (or Islamic republic) It is likely that the secular republic will be situated in the present state of Sarawak; there is a slim chance it might include Penang and/or Selangor as well, but I do not think it is likely that this Republic of Sarawak shall be joined by any other parts of the present Malaysia, except perhaps Labuan and West Sabah. I cannot tell whether Sabah would be a part of the new secular republic or not due to the Bajau-Sulu population; it is most likely that Bajau-Sulu part would split from the Kadazan-Murut part, leaving the Bruneian Malays and Kedayans with no options except to retreat to Labuan or perhaps Sipitang-Beaufort. The split would come at a heavy cost; there shall be a racial conflict between the Malays and Chinese which may result in Chinese exodus, either to Sarawak or other countries. Sarawakian Malay and Melanau run a risk of losing their homeland if the split results in religious purge; there is no telling whether Ibans would be swept with religious fervor or not when the country divides itself; but the risk is fairly low due to relative lack of religiosity among the Sarawakians as compared with other parts of Malaysia, and also due to the fact that Ibans are mostly Catholics, which has tempered down a lot of its violence and bigotry since the Middle Ages. There is a risk that the Peninsular Malaysia be divided into a North-South divide, due to the differing culture and world view; the South Peninsular is fairly more cosmopolitan in nature as opposed to the more conservative, Islamist north. Penang shall be an independent island, but perhaps losing Seberang Perai; it might end up joining Singapore or not. There is no telling whether these would happen; it is all just hypothetical.
But it is very possible, if the people keeps on dividing themselves along the lines of race and religion; if the government keeps on to their outdated Malay nationalism ideology and does not embrace the zeitgeist, and if there continues to be resistance from certain sectors of society that opposes the change of time. Malaysia needs to change, or the future is grim. But change is hard; might as well split up.