Why War?!

"Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?"

"WAR does not decide who's right only who's left"

Bunga Popi

Dari darah, dari nanah yang punah di tanah,
rangka manusia kehilangan nyawa disambar senjata,
hasil manusia gila perang membunuh mesra,
bunga merah berkembang indah minta disembah.

Yang hidup tinggal sisa nyawa,penuh derita,
kering, bongkok, cacat, tempang dan buta,
perang dalam kenangan penuh kengerian,
sekarang dalam kepahitan,
dalam kesepian.

Yang lain kehilangan anak, suami dan kekasih,
hilang pergantungan, hilang pencarian,
hidup kebuluran,
ribuan janda, ribuan kcewa, ribuan sengsara,
jutaan anak-anak yatim hidup meminta-minta.

Manusia gila perang telah membunuh segala mesra!
perang berlangsung mencari untung tanah jajahan!
perang berlangsung membunuh anak dalam buaian!
perang berlangsung menghantar lebur nilai kebudayaan!

Bunga popi bunga mayat perajurit bergelimpangan,
bunga darah merah menyimbah,
penuh kengerian,

kami benci pada perang penuh pembunuhan!
kami rindu pada damai sepanjang zaman!

Usman Awang, 1955

Poppies

From blood, from pus that rots in the soil,
from skeletons that have lost their lives,
snatched by weapons,
the result of war maniacs who kill love,
the red flowers bloom beautifully,
requesting to be adored.

Those who live on are remnants of life,
full of sufferings,
wizened, bent, deformed, maimed and blind,
war in retrospect is full of horrors;
they remember now,
in bitterness,
in solitude.

Others lost children, husbands and sweethearts,
lost their sources of support, their livelihood,
they live in starvation,
thousands widowed,
thousands disappointed,
thousands tormented;
millions of orphans live on, and beg.

The war maniacs have killed all love!
war raged and found profit in colonial lands!
war raged and killed babies in their cradles!
war raged, and destroyed cultural values

Poppies are the flowers of fallen soldiers,
flowers drenched red with blood,
full of horrors,

we hate war,
full of killing!
we cry for a never-ending peace!

Usman Awang, 1955
(English translation by Adibah Amin)

Culture, Respect and Freedom of Expression

In his farewell visit to Iraq, outgoing United States President George W. Bush had a shoe thrown to him (twice!) during the press conference in Baghdad. In many ways, for someone to be thrown a shoe at, as Professor Akbar Ahmed had pointed out when interviewed by CNN, is the ultimate insult akin to like having your head being stepped on by someone.

Predictably, there were different reactions from different sides to the shoe throwing incident. Many Iraqis and Muslims in the Middle-East saluted the actions of the Iraqi journalist. Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is now not only receiving support from various quarters clamouring for his immediate release, he has also received a new job offer and a marriage proposal! Many Americans, on the other hand are angry about the incident as they believe their president deserves greater respect from the Iraqis having poured in billions of dollars rebuilding their country.

During his presidency, George W. Bush has been condemned, ridiculed and made fun at. Both Jay Leno and David Letterman have said that they will miss President Bush. Why? Because both of them and many other talk-show hosts and comedians have prospered with Bush jokes in the last eight years. To make jokes about Bush was easy, but to joke about Obama will not.

When I was visiting Washington DC last year, I saw a number of anti-war activists with placards with some very nasty caricatures of President Bush on them displaying them directly in front of the White House. That, and the many nasty jokes made about Bush are deemed acceptable in America, actions that are considered part of the society’s freedom of expression. To openly and publicly make fun of government and political leaders is considered normal and acceptable in most Western countries, but here in Malaysia and the Asian region?

As much as I cherish the rights of any individual to express himself, and as much as I am indeed disgusted about some of our local political leaders, I don’t think I would like to see the kind of jokes made about Bush being made about them here. Malaysians or Asians in general are still conservative societies in which respect towards elders is a sacred tradition inspired by cultural and religious values. In many ways, we show respect to our seniors, teachers, superior officers, and society leaders the same way we show respect to our parents. And people here just do not openly argue with their parents.

Even when there are disagreements, children would most likely utilise various subtleties to express their disagreements with the hope that somehow their parents would understand. Children find it hard to give a direct "no" to their parents for the fear of hurting their feelings. As the Malays would often say, 'ibarat menarik rambut dalam tepung... rambut jangan putus, tepung jangan berselerak' ('like pulling a hair from a container full of flour... you have to pull the hair out gently that the hair does not break and flour is not scattered around the place').

On this adab (etiquette) of respecting our elders, is it possible however that people here tend to overdo it? My respected senior colleague Professor Malik Badri certainly thinks so as he often laments on how students here are indeed over-adab-ised, a point that I cannot help but agree since my own students hardly question me in class even when I made factual errors (occasionally) during my lectures. Yes, students should respect their teachers but would it be disrespectful for students to disagree with their teachers?

As a student, I once disagreed publicly with one of my lecturers about attendance to make-up classes. He had said that attendance to make-up classes is compulsory to which I argued a student’s responsibility is to attend classes as arranged in the official schedule. Make-up classes are organised to replace class sessions cancelled by the lecturers in order for them to cover all topics in the syllabus. Hence, lecturers have the obligation to organise make-up classes but they should not force students to attend them. The argument I had was quite tense but I knew my lecturer did not take it personally. After all, it was the same lecturer who a few years later as the head of department lobbied the university’s authority to hire me as a teaching staff at the university.

I have to say though that my experience above was more an exception rather than the norm. The reality is the culture here in Malaysia, and in the whole of Asia in general, has limited tolerance for dissent. I have heard numerous personal stories of students and low-ranking officers being heavily reprimanded and unjustly punished for disagreeing with their teachers and superior officers.

When I first became a staff member at IIUM, it was after two years studying in Finland and half-a-year working for UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Three years of ‘Westernisation’ had ‘corrupted’ me somewhat that I was always eager and ready to argue with anyone regardless of their standings and positions whenever I feel I had something to say. However, I have learned to be much more relenting over the years mainly due to some of the friendly advice given to me by a few concerned colleagues. Was this for the better? Perhaps, because I no longer create any unnecessary tension between myself and others. But I can’t help but feel that by doing so I may have sacrificed some of my core values and principles.

Still, I do not quite understand why people here almost always take criticism personally. My senior colleague Professor Wan Rafaei once told me how astonished he was to see both the supervisor and co-supervisor of his doctoral research (at the University of Wales) arguing so aggressively for more than an hour, but at the end of the meeting both went off happily together for lunch. According to Professor Wan, if there was an argument like that here in Malaysia, both parties will not be on speaking terms for at least a few months!

Perhaps, traditional cultural values and 22 years of Mahathirism had nurtured this culture of submissiveness in Malaysia. But certainly a balanced and moderate perspective between the need to show respect and the need for constructive criticism and disagreements can be achieved. Sheikh Taha Jabir Al 'Alwani has written a beautiful book on 'The Ethics of Disagreement in Islam' (Adab al Ikhtilaf fi al Islam). I remember vividly his argument in the book on how Islam in fact recognises disagreement and scepticism as valid methods of inquiry. Of course, in Muslim communities today, this beautiful tradition is largely forgotten. The political culture in most Muslim countries does not value dissent and tend to see it as a corrupted Western approach that is alien to Islam.

Of course, I am not advocating throwing shoes as a way to express disagreements, or making nasty jokes about our political leaders as often seen in Jay Leno and David Letterman talk shows. What I would like to see is the creation of proper channels and avenues for freedom of expression where people can voice their views (with observance of adab) without fear of negative repercussions.

To speak just for the sake of speaking is indeed foolish, but to not speak when something needs to be said is a sign of lack of wisdom and self-confidence and often lead to weak and faulty decisions and understanding. Allahu’alam.

Early Marriages

I'm not a therapist, nor am I a counsellor. However, for whatever reasons, in my five years working at the university, I've had on a number of occasions, students who came to me for advice for various personal problems. These are young adults, and as can be expected many of their problems centred around the issues of marriage and romantic relations.

Sheikh Abdallah Adhami, a Muslim preacher in America, was once asked to deliver a talk on marriage in Islam. In preparing for the talk, he asked the organiser what exactly about marriage they want him to talk about. The organiser requested the sheikh to focus on what happens before marriage. To that, Sheikh Adhami said: "that will be a very short talk because in Islam NOTHING happens before marriage."

If 'nothing' here means no social interactions whatsoever between men and women, it certainly is a big challenge for youngsters today to adhere. Of course, in the past the situation was different. Both my grandmothers got married at the age of fourteen while my paternal and maternal grandfathers were eighteen and twenty respectively; both immediately upon completing their education (the former upon graduating from Tanjung Malim Teachers' College, and the latter after passing his Senior Cambridge examination). Needless to say, when my grandparents got married they hardly knew their spouses.

Allah SWT has instilled in the hearts of human beings the ability to experience love. To love and wanting to be loved is part of human nature. Hence, for a person to fall in love with another is something natural and in most instance unavoidable. The only question then is how does one manage and respond to this emotional experience?

Marriage is the natural solution ordained by both religious and cultural traditions. It is not easy however for people today to get married. Here in Malaysia, social-cultural expectations dictate that only those (men especially) who are financially stable can begin contemplating marriage. To be exact, you should have a stable job, a car and at least able to rent a decent house before you can think about getting married. All of these of course are in addition to saving enough money for the dowry, wedding gifts and expenses for a lavish ceremony. To meet all these requirements, a young man would need to work fulltime for at least a few years. That would mean pushing the age of marriage to the late twenties if not later.

Can a young man (or a young woman for that matter) wait that long? Of course, I'm posing this question in the context of the Malay-Muslim society here in Malaysia where conservative religious values are still largely adhered to (to be exact, the strict prohibition on pre-marital sex). Studies in developmental psychology have shown that humans develop romantic feelings and sexual desires from the period of adolescence. And it grows even stronger and remains strong during the entire period of young adulthood. Can we just simply expect young men and women today to suppress these feelings? Suppressing them entirely during high-school, throughout their years studying at universities, and a couple of more years of working life?

To me, the answer is quite simple: encourage early marriages! During my undergraduate studies, I once wrote a term paper on encouraging early marriages. And one of the earliest publication projects I worked on was to translate a book entitled 'Marriage in Islam' from English to Malay in which the propagation of early marriages is the thesis statement of the very first chapter. Of course, the call for early marriages would run directly against social-cultural expectations. One has to decide then which one is more important: marriage as a religious duty to preserve one’s chastity or adherence to social-cultural norms?

Without a doubt, anyone who decides to get married at a young age would face some serious challenges. I have never failed to caution students who have consulted me, about these challenges that they should be mentally prepared for. Certain sacrifices of course need to be made, but rather than making things more difficult, the society can and should facilitate young married couples. At IIUM, back in the 1990’s, married students received additional allowances for living expenses. In fact, family apartments for married students were part of the original design of the university’s main campus in Gombak. Such facilities should be reintroduced and offered by other social institutions.

What we have now is more cultural than religious. When religious values and socio-cultural expectations collide, religion values must and should always prevail.

The Making of Muslim Terrorists

Denial, is a common reaction among many Muslims to any news of terrorist acts committed by Muslims. At first the reaction will be: "a Muslim could not have done that", then to: "how can a Muslim do such a thing?", and finally the conclusion: "it must be a conspiracy!"

I was in Joensuu, Finland (barely two weeks since my arrival) when 911 occurred. I was first told of the attacks on the World Trade Centre when I came to the masjid on that day for evening prayers. And to be honest, when my Muslim brothers were talking about the attack, most of them were expressing a genuine feeling of jubilation. Yes, in jubilation that America was attacked in its own soil, and to a large extent, proud (not shame) that it was allegedly done by our fellow Muslim brothers.

It is always difficult for me to explain terrorist acts committed by Muslims. On one hand, I feel the need to explain this is not what Islam propagates while on the other, I cannot deny the atrocities committed by my fellow Muslims. Often, my arguments were defensive but ultimately, a point that I would vehemently defend is, blame the Muslims who committed these crimes, don’t blame Islam. Hence, there are in fact only Muslim terrorists, not 'Islamic' terrorists!

I’ve travelled across a few cities in Western Europe and in almost all of them, managed to spend some time at the masjids and talked with members of the local Muslim communities. In all these places, there were always groups of young, angry and high-spirited Muslims who displayed strong animosity towards America and the entire Western–kafir civilisation, and often times, wished and prayed for their total destruction.

From where does all this anger come from? My background in psychology propels me to focus on a more micro perspective, specifically in relation to the social psychological phenomenon called cognitive dissonance; a psychological discomfort that arises as a result of inconsistencies between one’s self-concept and behavioural actions.

Any Muslim who has experienced a deep sense of religious awakening, would very likely come across some of the well-known ahadith (Prophetic traditions) emphasising on the importance of ukhuwwah (Islamic brotherhood) and unity. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "The Muslims are like the limbs of a man, where if the eye hurts the whole body feels pain and if the head hurts, the whole body feels pain and suffering." And in another hadith emphasising on the responsibility of a Muslim to another, the Prophet said: "Whoever does not take an interest in the affairs and problems of the Muslims, he is not of them. And whoever's state is such that, each morning and evening, he is not loyal and earnest to Allah, his Apostle, His Book, the Islamic ruler and towards the Muslims as a whole, he is not of them."

Muslims who learn and internalise lessons from these narrations would feel a deep sense of connectedness, an emotional-spiritual bonding with Muslims all over the world across different countries and continents. Such feelings often transcend relations based on citizenship, race and ethnicity. It is with this deep and intense feeling of brotherhood that many Muslims began to develop a strong sense of sympathy toward Muslims inflicted with hardship and struggles. Hence when they hear and read about the sufferings of Muslims in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, they would ask themselves firstly: "have I done anything to help my Muslim brothers and sisters?", followed by the painful question: "what can/should I do to help them?"

For some, the behavioural reaction would be making some donations to charity funds for the suffering people. But for some others, that would not be enough. They would think that a Muslim should be able to do more than that. And when the hardships experienced by Muslims in these areas are associated with struggles against a non-Muslim enemy, the call for jihad will soon be heard. When this happens, many Muslims would respond positively to the call seeing it as a legitimate way to harmonise their self-concept as a devout Muslim responsible for defending his/her Muslim brothers, and their behavioural reactions from one which was docile and passive to a more active and confrontational approach. Armed with religious justification, these Muslims would thereon rally behind any groups whose ideology resonates with their newly found confrontational attitude. Being confrontational means to do whatever that is necessary to destroy the enemy which include resorting to committing acts of terrorism.

So, coming back to the common reactions among Muslims mentioned in the first paragraph, yes, Muslims are capable of becoming terrorists. In fact, it won’t surprise me if some of the terrorists in the recent Mumbai attack are neither Indians nor Pakistanis. They could very well be Muslims from the UK or any other Western countries, whose minds have been indoctrinated with intense hate and animosity. A book published last year The Islamist by Ed Husain, a British Muslim and former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, outlines the author’s journey towards radicalism and explains how such an ideology can and have inspired acts of terrorism.

Conspiracy? The only thought I have along this line stems from the question, 'where these people get their weapons from?' There can’t be that many countries in the world that manufacture weapons. And weapons are also not cheap. Thus, the burning question in my mind, if most of these struggling Muslim communities don’t even have enough to cater for their basic needs, how did they get all these weapons?

Allahu'alam (Allah knows best)

In view of the need for Muslims to strive for the cause of Islam and to protect and defend our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, are there other means to fulfil it other than through violence and terror? Something for all of us to think about...

Ma'as salam.

Psychology, Culture and Indigenisation

(Below is an excerpt from my article bearing the same title above to be published in the forthcoming publication Psychology from the Islamic Perspective: A Guide to Teaching and Learning, Noraini Mohd Noor (Ed.), IIUM Press)

The primary task of this section is to clarify the differences between culture and religion. That the two concepts are different is a pre-conclusion of this discussion, and a deliberate attempt to confront the conventional assumption that religion is merely a component of culture.

'Culture' has been defined in many different ways in the different areas of social sciences. Some definitions focus on the functions of culture while others focus on the structures, representing respectively the functionalist and structuralist perspectives. The definition provided by Matsumoto and Juang (2004) attempts to integrate both these broad perspectives. Culture here is defined as:

"dynamic system of rules, explicit and implicit, established by groups, in order to ensure their survival, involving attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and behaviours, shared by a group but harboured differently by each specific unit within the group, communicated across generations, relatively stable but with the potential to change across time."

Two key components of this definition are the structure of culture as a 'dynamic system of rules', and the function of culture 'to ensure survival'. Although a universally accepted definition of culture remains elusive, these two components are incorporated, in one form or another, in all definitions of culture.

'Religion' similarly does not have a universally acclaimed definition. However, what is arguably the most referred to definition of religion in the social sciences is the definition provided by social anthropologist Clifford Geertz. Geertz (1973) defined religion as:

"a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

Geertz’s definition of religion, on one hand, is a positive recognition of the function of religion, but on the other, a subtle attempt to de-sacrelise religion. Religion is described here as a cultural system that may not necessarily have a divine origin whose effect on human behaviour and emotions therefore, are merely matters of human perception.

As a cultural system, religion has to be dynamic. And a dynamic system, essentially, is not static, hence is always incline towards change and continuous revision. This, however, is not in agreement with the views of scholars of religions. From their perspective, religion is a system that clarifies the answers for five quintessential issues: theology, doctrine and rituals, scriptures, cosmology, and eschatology (Smart, 1989; Eliade, 1981). While there are indeed certain provisions for hermeneutic change and revision, these five issues are essentially religious dogmas from which pillars of religion are based upon.

Islam is dynamic as there are indeed avenues for new interpretations of the divine law (shari’ah). The door for ijtihad (revised interpretation) remains open for Islamic religious scholars to explore in view of circumstantial and contemporary challenges (Kamali, 1994). However, this avenue is restricted both in terms of subject areas and individual qualification. The five pillars of Islam for example, are not open for new revisions, nor are the articles of faith and other doctrinal aspects. Furthermore, the majority of opinion amongst the ulama’ (Muslim relgious scholar) would subscribe to the view that only a mujtahid (one with sufficient knowledge) is given the provision to exercise ijtihad. A Muslim who is not knowledgeable about Islam is to seek guidance from the learned, and not to decide on matters of religion based on his/her own rational justification and logical deduction.

Is Islam a cultural system? The Islamic faith is not a philosophy open for individual cultural perspective. Islam is a revealed religion, revealed by Allah SWT to His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). The message of Islam is preserved in the form of a book, the Holy Quran, which is divinely protected from all forms of corruption.

The cultural manifestations of Islam however, do exist. The two sources of the shari’ah, the Holy Quran and ahadith (Prophetic tradition); provide the general guide for Islamic conduct and responsibility. How these general guidelines are applied and manifested depends on cultural and individual preferences. For example, Muslim women are obliged to cover their awrah, which allows them to expose only the palm and the face. This is the general guide. How a Muslim woman fulfils this depends on her personal and cultural preferences. A Muslim woman in Malaysia would normally use the Malay traditional baju kurung, while a Muslim woman in Pakistan would normally use the traditional shawal kamis. Both these cultural manifestations are acceptable as long as they adhere to the guidelines in the shari’ah.

The religion of Islam is referred to in the Quran as ad-Din, a concept that explains Islam not only as a belief or cultural system but an all-encompassing entity that provides guidance for a distinct way of life and answers to the very purpose of one’s existence (al-Faruqi, 1982). Such attributes clearly goes beyond and above the realm of culture as explained in Western social sciences. With this Islamic worldview, compared to Western psychology, an Islamic indigenous psychology would naturally operate from a quite different epistemological assumption. As observed by Murken (cited in Khalili et al, 2002), secular Western psychology considers religion as merely one example of a cultural subsystem, i.e. a set of variable in research. In Islamic psychology however, religion (i.e. Islam) is the basis and framework for everything. Islam is not a variable to be evaluated, but the very principle that guides the judgment and understanding of Muslim psychologists both in research and practice. Herein lies the unique characteristic of Islamic indigenous psychology as espoused in much of the work on the Islamization of psychology.

References:

Al Faruqi, I.R. (1982). Al-Tawhid: Its implications for thought and life. Virginia: International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Eliade, M. (1981). A history of religious ideas. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Kamali, M.H. (1994). Freedom of expression in Islam. Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing.

Khalili, S., Murken, S., Reich, K.H., Shah, A.A. & Vahabzadeh, A. (2002). Religion and mental health in cultural perspective: Observations and reflections after the First International Congress on Religion and Mental Health, Tehran, 16-19 April 2001. The International Journal of the Psychology of Religion. 12(4), 217-237.

Matsumoto, D. & Juang, L. (2004). Culture and psychology. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Smart, N. (1989). The world’s religions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

British Conspiracy Against Islam

All this hype on the latest James Bond movie reminds me of a little book I read a few years ago, Confessions of a British Spy and British Enmity against Islam. I first came across this book in 2001 at the masjid in Joensuu, Finland. A fellow postgraduate student from Turkey at the University of Joensuu had placed the book there because he was apparently uncomfortable with the influence of Salafi teachings among members of the congregation.

Confessions was allegedly written based on the memoir of a British secret agent named Hempher who served in various undercover operations in the Middle-East for the British government in the 19th century. The book presents in some detail what was arguably Hempher’s greatest mission: to engineer the destruction of the Ottoman Empire by empowering local rebellious groups. To gain control of the Arab Peninsular, Hempher sought the assistance of a local cleric and community leader Muhammad Ibn Abd Wahab from Najd, who went on to spread a puritanical and revivalist version of Islam known today as Wahhabism.

I do not wish to indulge too much on the content of the book (curious readers can access the entire book in PDF format by clicking on the full title of the book in the first paragraph). Sufficient to say its main thesis is, the Wahhabi movement and Salafi teachings are products of a British conspiracy initially designed to hasten the demise of the Ottoman Empire, and to sow a perpetual sense of ‘religious’ rivalry and antagonism among Muslims.

Of course, it would be naive (and stupid) to say that spies and espionage missions do not exist but to say that Wahhabism is a product of British conspiracy to me is more paranoia than reality. The fact is, the authenticity of Confessions has been put in serious doubt by both Muslim and non-Muslim researchers, which by right should render the book to a status of a work of historical fantasy and imagination. Nonetheless, the book remains very popular among Muslims especially among the young, idealistic and those with a political-reformist mentality.

Conspiracy theories are in abundance in the internet. I have to confess that I do occasionally go through them but I do so more out of curiosity and for entertainment. I used to attend a Salafi-Wahhabi study group and I clearly do not see how Salafism can be construed as something other than a genuine approach (among many approaches) to understand and practice Islam. What has given Wahhabism and Salafism a bad name are their alleged followers, those with extreme views and militant tendencies like Usama Bin Laden. Yes, Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia, and in Saudi Arabia Wahhabism and Salafism are dominant, but just because Bin Laden and some of his followers subscribe to these approaches, does that make Wahhabism and Salafism absolutely bad and dangerous?

Extremists exist everywhere, in Wahhabi-Salafi groups as well as among followers of other approaches. A friend of mine once received an 'advise' from a Salafi sister that he should stop wearing trousers because wearing trousers is an imitation of Western-kafir culture. I myself was once 'warned' by someone that if I do not make bai’ah to his sheikh hence joining his tarikah, I will be led astray by the devil and end up in hell fire. These are examples of people with extreme views who genuinely believe that they are in the right while others are wrong. Nevertheless, it needs to be emphasised that while most terrorists are indeed extremists, very few extremists are in fact terrorists. There are millions of Muslims in the world who subscribe wholeheartedly to the writings and words of Ibn Taymiyyah, Muhammad Ibn Abd Wahab, Nasaruddin Al-Albani and Abdul Aziz Bin Baz. The views of these respectable scholars to many are extreme (refer to the collection of articles at Mas'ud Ahmed Khan's homepage), but very few among their followers went on to become militants and terrorists.

My point is, the Wahhabism-British-conspiracy theory is in fact a myth, likewise the alleged association between Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda with Wahhabi political ideology as well as many other so-called conspiracies against Islam associated with various international organisations (a subject I wish to address in future postings inshaAllah). We can be followers of Wahhabism, Salafism, Sufism, Ikhwanul Muslimin, Jama’ah Tabligh etc. In the end, we are all Muslims, united by the same Tawhidic doctrine amid our differences in some specific aspects of belief and practice. Let’s stop this paranoia with conspiracy theories and the seeds of distrust that it carries.

Allahu'alam.

AUKU and the Generation of the Uncurious

"Our education system must change. Our children are just not curious enough. They must be curious about the world. They must ask questions." These are the words uttered by Deputy Prime Minister (and in-coming Prime Minister) Najib Abdul Razak in his opening speech yesterday at the Seminar on Creating a Blue Ocean in Education and Training Sectors in Kuala Lumpur.

Back in August this year, I attended a forum organised by the network of academic staff associations to discuss suggestions on amendments to be made to the University and University College Act (more widely known by its Malay acronym AUKU – Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti). AUKU (in its current state today) was enacted in 1975 to disallow university and college students as well as all academicians from being actively involved in political parties. The bill was tabled by the then Minister of Education Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in the aftermath of the Baling Demonstration organised by student and youth organisations and supported by many academicians. Anwar Ibrahim was allegedly the key youth leader who organised the demonstration, and Dr. Syed Husin Ali (then a senior lecturer at the University of Malaya) was one of the academicians who openly supported the event. Both were swiftly detained under the ISA, and both are now respectively the De-Facto Leader and Deputy President of the main opposition party, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (National Justice Party).

In the AUKU forum mentioned above, the keynote address was delivered by a former vice-chancellor of a public university here in Malaysia. Reminiscing on the ‘good old-days’ of pre-AUKU, the former VC described the time when academicians were welcomed to express their critical views on political leaders and current issues effecting the country, student unions very active in various social-political activities, and student leaders celebrities in campuses across the country. But to me, the highlight of his presentation was his response to the oft-repeated statement that "AUKU is important to make sure students concentrate on their studies." His swift respond, "close all campuses... have all academic courses conducted online".

Let me add a bit more to the point above. Since public universities nowadays are pressured to become more financially self-sufficient, all lectures should be pre-recorded in an 'infotainment' format, mass copied in DVDs and then sold to students. Thus, at the start of every semester, after registering for a set of courses, student can go to bookshops as well as Tower Records and Speedy video stores to buy the DVD’s and then view them at their own convenience any time anywhere throughout the semester. If they have any inquiries, they can email the academic coordinator of the course, use Yahoo Messenger and other chatting programmes, or even use video conferencing for individual consultation. Students need only come to campus to take their exams. If this is done, not only will universities make money from the sales of these 'academic' DVDs, they will also reduce drastically their operation cost. Students would be happy having been given the freedom to study at their own pace and not troubled by the need to rush from class to class every day. Professors and lecturers can thus devote more time in research and academic activities other than teaching. Surely, this is a win-win situation, or is it?

Coming back to AUKU, if the reason to continue to have it is to prevent students from getting involved in partisan politics, I can agree with that to a certain extent. As my university’s former president once said, "there are no principles in partisan politics." But then, if that is the case, let us be fair and not selective. If students can be charged for misconduct because of their involvement in campaigning for opposition parties, students who act as 'volunteers' in UMNO gatherings should also be charged for the same crime. If the PAS youth movement is not allowed to infiltrate into campuses, Puteri and Putera UMNO should also be barred from recruiting members from among university students. If professors and lecturers are not allowed to become members of PAS, DAP and PKR, they also should not be allowed to become members of UMNO, MCA and MIC.

My personal view, and in respond to the DPM’s statement quoted in the first paragraph, let us abolish AUKU. Give freedom to students and academicians to explore their own sense of idealism without fear of punishment. Of course, if anyone transgresses; immersing oneself in politics while neglecting one’s principle duties as a teacher or a student, the person must be punished. But let’s not punish people for questioning the status quo and exploring differing political ideologies.

I am quite certain if the government decides to abolish AUKU, it will not result in an explosion of public support for opposition parties. When given the freedom to explore and reflect, people will eventually realise that while the current government is not always right, the opposition parties are not immune from mistakes and weaknesses either. The main thing is, students should be allowed to question and encouraged to develop a healthy sense of scepticism about everything they learn.

Three decades of AUKU has produced a culture of passive submission prevalent among university students and academicians. Should we then be surprised that "our children are just not curious enough"?

Bangsa Malaysia

In the book Introduction to Political Psychology (published by Lawrence Erlbaum in 2004), the authors assert that the best long-term solution to ethnic conflicts is "the development of an overarching common identity among the groups". In the case of Malaysia, this suggestion would call for the creation of a Malaysian Race (Bangsa Malaysia), a call embedded in the Vision 2020 (Wawasan 2020) blueprint announced in 1991 by the then Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

Malaysia is indeed a country blessed with economic prosperity and decades of peace and harmony. Many other countries who gained independence around the same period (in the aftermath of World War II) have been beset with periods of instability due to ethnic-religious conflicts. In contrast, Malaysia has had only one major racial clash, the tragic event on 13th May 1969. Yet, the situation in Malaysia remains fragile, and to some superficial. Though violent conflicts are very rare, tension is very high, thus the need to ensure that the multiracial society of Malaysia remains solidly united.

How can we use psychology to promote Bangsa Malaysia? My personal view would mirror the ideas expressed by B.F. Skinner in his controversial book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. According to Skinner (1971), to elicit change in a society, the culture of the society should be changed. To him, "designing a culture is like designing an experiment; contingencies are arranged and effects noted. In an experiment we are interested in what happens, in designing a culture with whether it will work." (p.69)

So, the question now is, how can we design a culture here in Malaysia that is geared towards the creation of Bangsa Malaysia? Changes can be made at different spheres and levels in the society through the education system and the mass media. These new initiatives are geared towards one simple objective: to promote greater ‘meaningful’ interaction among people from the various racial groups in Malaysia. This is in accordance with the contact hypothesis, which states that relations among groups can be enhanced by greater interaction, which brings forth greater awareness and understanding, and eventually a greater sense of solidarity.

At schools, students should be encouraged to learn about the cultures, religions and languages of other ethnic groups. Malay students for example, should be strongly encouraged (if not required) to learn Mandarin, Cantonese and Tamil, and learn to appreciate and respect beliefs and customs of the Chinese and Indians. I once argued in a workshop on inter-religious dialogue here in Kuala Lumpur that we should re-introduce the subject Tatanegara (Civic Education) in our national schools. Tatanegara was a short-lived subject taught from the late 1970’s to the early 1980’s as a core course at primary schools. Although the course was no longer taught when I started school in 1984, I have come across some of the textbooks used for the course. In reviving the course, the new syllabus should incorporate information on common values shared by different religions and customs. Values such as justice, honesty and filial piety exist in all religious teachings, and this ought to be emphasized to students of all religions and beliefs.

In the past several years, the government has been running the National Service Programme (Program Latihan Khidmat Negara) to promote greater interaction among teenagers (age seventeen) of different races. Similar programmes (with similar goals but far less logistic requirements) ought to be introduced earlier at the national level involving for example Year Six students (upon completion of their UPSR examination), and Form Three students (after their PMR examination). The programmes should be non-academic but involve meaningful activities such as humanitarian work and environmental projects. By working towards a common goal, students from different racial groups will learn to cooperate together and realize the importance and benefit of national unity and solidarity. Inadvertently, this may also help diminish whatever sense of prejudice they may have against people of different races and religions.

I have sought the opinions of my students this semester on how we can use psychology to create Bangsa Malaysia. Many of their suggestions are similar to what I’ve stated above while they are others who have argued for a more creative use of the media. Among those are proposals for ‘multicultural’ reality TV shows such as Academy Malaysia and Intercultural Explorace. And, in addition, the airing of more bilingual informative and entertainment programmes with multicultural characters and subtle use of cross-cultural messages.

In conclusion, after more than fifty years of independence, multiculturalism in Malaysia should strive towards the true spirit of muhibbah (love and understanding). To be a member of the Malaysian race is not to lose our respective ethnic and religious identities but to attain a genuine feeling of respect of and tolerance for others.

2008 US Election: Understanding Voting Behaviour

Can Barack Obama still lose the election despite leading in all the polls less than 3 days before election day? Of course he can. Nothing is certain in politics. A lot can still happen between now and Tuesday. As Obama himself pointed out, "it’s gonna get nasty" in these last few days. Already, news of Obama's Kenyan aunt's illegal status in America has just 'conveniently' emerged. And the Republicans, not wanting to appear personal in it's attack, simply commented that "it is a family matter". Nice!

Analysis and predictions on how Obama could still lose the election range from sensational conspiracy theories to some very pertinent and real social psychological phenomena. Of the latter, one that I am most curious about is the Bradley effect. In 1982, Tom Bradley, an African-American, ran as the Democratic Party's candidate for Governor of California. All the polls before the election showed Bradley with significant leads against his White-American Republican rival. Bradley however narrowly lost the election and his defeat was attributed to a large number of White voters who voted against him despite proclaiming their support prior to the election in response to polling questions. Why? Because these White voters feared being labelled as racists if they told pollsters they were not going to vote for Bradley.

The Bradley effect will certainly come into play in this year's US Presidential Election. That is without a doubt. The only question is how significant will it be? Will it be significant enough to give John McCain an unlikely victory? Many political commentaters and Obama supporters think that it won't. The McCain camp agrees while at the same time hoping that it would. We'll just have to wait and see.

Whether Obama or McCain gets elected is not of direct concern to us non-Americans. However, once you consider that the US President is the leader of the world's largest economy and most powerful military, hence arguably the most powerful man on earth, we, citizens of the world should observe the elections with keen interest. There is no doubt that most people outside America want Barack Obama to win. His multicultural background indeed is a major factor, but above all, I believe Obama's plan to reinvigorate international diplomacy in his foreign policy; a refreshing change to the Bush doctrine, that has really endeared him to the international community.

Furthermore, for many non-Americans like myself, the choice is pretty obvious. As W Scott Thompson pointed out, "McCain came in near the bottom of his (Naval) Academy class, Obama the top (Harvard Law School). Sarah Palin had to try five times to get through college (earning a bachelor degree in journalism). Obama ran the Harvard Law Review — you can’t get higher. Why wasn’t the choice obvious?" I can't agree more.

Which brings me to the issue of political sophistication. In 1960, psychologists from the University of Michigan conducted a landmark study on how Americans decide on who and which party they would vote for. The survey's result, published in the book The American Voter, categorised Americans into four groups of levels of conceptualisation. The first two groups; the ideologues and near-idealogues who account for 2.5 percent and 9.5 percent of the American population respectively, are party loyalists who vote for their respective parties partly due to their strong belief in the party's ideology, but arguably more because of blind loyalty. The rest in the population are 'independent voters', who may be persuaded to vote for a particular party or candidate because of "group benefits" (42 percent of the population), "the nature of times" (24 percent), and for no reason whatsoever (22.5 percent, which represents the number of Americans who don't care and not interested about politics, and most likely has never voted in any elections). This study was of course done almost 50 years ago but a recent study published in the book The American Voter Revisited presents some very startling similar results.

What these studies have basically concluded is that the majority of Americans are unsophisticated voters; they don't understand the main issues in the elections and they don't do any research or serious thinking when they cast their votes. A damning revelation considering that the reason why we have direct presidential elections in the first place is to choose the best leader to lead a country. How can the 'best' person be elected if the majority of the population are ignorant on the issues? In reality, the person who is elected is one who has the most number of votes (in America, that would mean the electoral college votes), but when the people who voted them in are considerably ignorant, does the person who receives the highest votes really is the BEST person to lead the country? This is what we call the paradox of democracy.

If the reason not to vote for Obama is his inexperience, that is quite understandable. His lack of executive experience is indeed an issue but the fact that he has managed to run a successful and discipline campaign (he has never used race as an issue) against firstly the Clintons, and now against John McCain, shows what an astute person he is, a quality I believe is more important than mere number of years of experience (and a mounting political baggage that comes with it) in the senate. Even then, I can understand why some people would still vote for McCain because of his greater experience and image as a maverick.

What I don't understand is why many Americans are still supporting McCain's running mate Sarah Palin? The case for Sarah Palin is that she is an average American, a hockey mum, who connects with the American people. Well yes, she is just as ignorant! Her public statements in the last two months have shockingly exposed the vastness of her ignorance, which for a person who could be a heartbeat away from the presidency, is really unbelievable. In that sense, yes, Sarah Palin can relate to the hockey mums and Joe Six-Packs in America. But as Jon Meacham's Newsweek wrote, "do we (Americans) want leaders who are everyday folks, or do we want leaders who understand everyday folks?"

I would argue for the latter for America and all other countries in the world. And for that to happen, voters need to acquire greater political sophistication.

Classics in Psychology

I have been teaching the course History and Philosophy of Psychology at the university for the last three semesters. Although I can never claim to be an authority on the subject, many of the issues covered are of great interest to my academic inquiry and personal curiosity. Most importantly, having spent many hours reading classical works in psychology; books written by Freud, Jung, James, Skinner, Maslow, Rogers, and Frankl, during my undergraduate years, I realised how important it is to read the original works of these luminous figures to have a better grasp of their scholarly ideas and thoughts. Textbooks attempt to compress and summarise thus what we often get are simplistic views that do not do justice to the complexity and sheer enormity of the thoughts of these great thinkers.

Take Freud for example; a man whose colourful background is matched only by his colourful ideas. In an earlier posting, I gave my views on why Freud will always be an important component in any psychology syllabus. That had to be argued because Freud is by far the most vilified figure in critical psychology. It’s fine to argue against his ideas but I certainly find personal attacks against him (drug addict, sex-maniac etc) distasteful. And I’m very sure anyone who has read any of Freud’s original work, though may still disagree with his ideas thereafter, would at least appreciate his detailed and sophisticated arguments.

In teaching History and Philosophy of Psychology, I have asked my students to read the classical works in psychology and compare their impression and understanding upon reading these primary sources with what they have understood about the same issues from their readings of contemporary textbooks. I am happy to note that some of the reviews and analyses produced were quite impressive. Most notably are the more fair and mature analyses from the Islamic perspective. Rather than cliché statements that these ‘Western’ psychologists are secular, atheist, anti-religion etc without ever trying to understand what they meant in the first place, I was very happy to note that some students were able to express intellectual arguments and even concede that some of these ‘Western’ psychological ideas are in fact Islamic.

Islamization of knowledge as propounded by both Al-Attas and al-Faruqi was never about labelling knowledge as Islamic or un-Islamic. It is a meticulous process of understanding and mastering a particular field of study as prerequisite before any attempt to criticise and challenge it. One cannot criticise something that one does not understand. The great Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali was a strong critic of Greek philosophy and he was able to do that with credibility due to his undisputed knowledge of philosophy. That therefore is the standard that we should aspire to achieve.

Different Approaches of Islamization of Knowledge

(Below is an excerpt from my paper 'Islamization of Knowledge: Current Development and Future Trends' presented in a Seminar on Philosophy of Science in 2001)

To indulge on the issue of the origin and originator of the Islamization concept is to indulge into a meaningless argument which reaches to no end. It is meaningless because it does not serve any great significance. Sufficient to say, the idea, or in this case the movement, was given the limelight it deserves in 1982 with the publication of the book Islamization of Knowledge: General Principles and Work Plan, written by Isma’il al Faruqi. This work provoked critical responses from scholars, both Western and Muslims, and has resulted in a series of conferences, research, books, and to a large extent the formation of the first international Islamic university in Malaysia.

Not everyone however, shared al Faruqi’s approach towards Islamization. Agreements varied and this ultimately resulted into several other approaches. Christopher Furlow, from the Department Anthropology, University of Florida, in his article ‘The Islamization of Knowledge: Philosophy, Legitimation, and Politics’, published in the journal Social Epistemology (Vol.10, 3, 1996) has categorized these different approaches into three major groups: modernization, indigenization and nativization. The following are summaries of each approach.

1. Modernization

The advocates of this modernist approach hold that "science is value free, neutral and objective." Any values that surround science are "primarily personal in nature and therefore do not effect the content of science." Knowledge is considered universal. What makes it different or in this case Islamic or un-Islamic is the application. Application in this case covers both intention and action. Two major figures in this approach are physicists Muhammad Abdus Salam and Jamal Mimoumi. Both view modern science as a Graeco-Islamic legacy and state that "natural sciences are as Islamic as nature could be." There is no need then to Islamize science and knowledge. Knowledge should be pursued no matter from where or whom the source is. Knowledge is Islamic or Islamized if and when it is used in the path of Allah and towards the betterment of mankind.

2. Indigenization

The indigenists’ goal is "the production of knowledge relevant to the specific problems of Islamic countries." While they argue that Western philosophy should not be adopted in its totality in an Islamic education system, they are none-the-less unwilling to discard the whole enterprise altogether. The goal then is an integration of Western sciences and Islamic revealed knowledge. For this to be achieved, the Muslim world will have to produce scholars who are endowed with both Western modern disciplines and Islamic revealed knowledge. This is the approach championed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists (AMSS). And among its major proponents are almarhum Isma'il al Faruqi, Sheikh Waqar Husaini and Sheikh Taha Jabir al-Alwani. How this integration is to be achieved is firmly outlined in the 12 steps of the Islamization of Knowledge Work Plan of al Faruqi.

3. Nativization

If the modernists argue science should be approached as it is, and for the indigenists, an integration of Western modern sciences and Islamic revealed knowledge and heritage, the nativists propose the creation of a completely new Islamic science. For them, Islamic science should not be an adaptation of the modernist model of science, rather it is a new and different science that must be built upon the foundations of Islamic epistemology. Two main models of this approach are the Ijmali’s model, led by Ziauddin Sardar, Parvez Manzoor and Munawar Anees, and the model of Seyyed Hoessein Nasr. The Ijmalis' ultimate aim is to apply universal Islamic concepts to contemporary situation "... and (to) address the issues of modern Islamic civilization from within its own worldview." For Hoessein Nasr, the goal of this new Islamic science is "the demonstration of the interrelatedness of all things." And to achieve this, knowledge should be pursued from a Tawhidic perspective whose pre requisites include total rejection of Western philosophy and science.

My Ambition... (Cita-Cita Saya...)

In reflection of my nostalgic childhood ambition to become a poet (sasterawan), I wish to share the very piece that inspired me then to have that dream. I would like to cling on to that dream and would perhaps one day attempt to revive whatever talents I may have in writing poetry.

=============================================

AKU

Kalau sampai waktuku
'Ku mau tak seorang kan merayu
Tidak juga kau

Tak perlu sedu sedan itu

Aku ini binatang jalang
Dari kumpulannya terbuang

Biar peluru menembus kulitku
Aku tetap meradang menerjang

Luka dan bisa kubawa berlari
Berlari
Hingga hilang pedih peri

Dan aku akan lebih tidak perduli
Aku mau hidup seribu tahun lagi

- Chairil Anwar, Maret 1943 -

=============================================

(English translation)

I

If my time should come
I’d like no one to entice me
Not even you

No need for those sobs and cries
I am but a wild animal
Cut from its kind
Though bullets should pierce my skin
I shall still strike and march forth

Wounds and poison shall I take aflee
Aflee
‘Til the pain and pang should disappear

And I should care even less
I want to live for another thousand years

- Chairil Anwar, March 1943 -

Why We Still Study Freud...

One of my dilemmas as a Muslim teacher of psychology is whether I should or should not teach Freudian psychology. As a person, my religion, Islam, is what defines me first-and-foremost. That I am bounded by the standards of professionalism as a teacher, though of paramount importance, to me does not supersede my religious values and obligations. With that in mind, how then can I justify teaching my students that during their pre-school years they all had romantic feelings towards their parents, that when they were infants they all obtained sexual pleasure when breast-fed by their mothers, that young girls are envious of boys for their genitals and young boys envious of girls for having a womb, that religions are nothing but illusions and neurotic compulsions etc. All these, very obviously are NOT Islamic, hence the argument for Islamization of knowledge. Even then, rather than Islamizing Freud, why not discard totally Freud and psychoanalysis from our syllabus?

Well, the reason why we don’t do this is because, although Freud was not right on many issues, he was also not totally wrong. There are two books that I often refer to for an in-depth scholarly critic against Freudian psychology: ‘Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire’ by Hans Eysenck, and ‘Freudian Fraud: The Malignant Effect of Freud’s Theory’ by E. Fuller Torrey. Both, though highly commendable work, contain some very cruelly unfair and negative remarks against Freud and his ideas.

I was an undergraduate student when I first read both books. I was a psychology major but was (maybe am still) suffering from an acute intellectual identity crisis. Reading these two books didn’t help much to resolve the conflict. In fact, it made me feel even more confused and disillusioned to the extent that at one point I even considered quitting psychology and reinvent myself with studies of religions, spirituality, mysticism and philosophy (in addition to my ever burning interest in politics and history).

Now, with almost five years of experience teaching psychology, I like to believe that my level of understanding of psychological theories has grown more sophisticated. In the case of Freud and his psychoanalytic school, having read some of the primary sources in the last few years, I believe I can now understand and appreciate better Freud’s ideas. I can only claim to have read three books authored by Freud himself: ‘Totem & Taboo’, ‘The Future of an Illusion’, and ‘Civilization and Its Discontents’. But even from reading these three books, it was very clear to me that Freud has not always been fairly depicted in contemporary psychology text books.

I certainly believe Freud was quite right to say that the unconscious is the key to understand one’s personality. And his deliberation on the id, ego and superego to me was a fair reflection of man’s constant battles against his own whims and desires. Of course, I won’t go as far to say that it is exactly the same with the Quranic depiction on the nafs (mutmainnah, al-ammarah, al-lawwamah). There are indeed some fundamental differences between them both philosophically and operationally.

One of Freud’s most brilliant assertions was his defence mechanisms. I do not think that there is any doubt that all of us do try to repress (if not forget) painful and embarrassing memories, we do sometimes project our anger not to the person we are angry with but to others weaker and more vulnerable, and we do to sometimes quite strangely embrace the very habit and behaviours that we openly denounce as immoral and unacceptable.

Some things are just so eerily true, which, in the case of Freud’s views on war and aggression, even Albert Einstein was greatly impressed. Below is an excerpt from Freud’s famous letter to Einstein:

Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion; nevertheless, men are also prone to conflicts of opinion, touching, on occasion, the loftiest peaks of abstract thought, which seem to call for settlement by quite another method. This refinement is, however, a late development. To start with, group force was the factor which, in small communities, decided points of ownership and the question which man's will was to prevail. Very soon physical force was implemented, then replaced, by the use of various adjuncts; he proved the victor whose weapon was the better, or handled the more skillfully. Now, for the first time, with the coming of weapons, superior brains began to oust brute force, but the object of the conflict remained the same: one party was to be constrained, by the injury done him or impairment of his strength, to retract a claim or a refusal. This end is most effectively gained when the opponent is definitely put out of action--in other words, is killed.

(Sigmund Freud’s letter to Albert Einstein dated September 1932. Click here to read the entire Einstein-Freud correspondence)

So, where was Freud wrong? The mistakes Freud made are in fact the same mistakes made by many others who came after him; the mistake of overemphasizing and overgeneralizing his claims. Yes, he was wrong to overemphasize on human sexuality, and he was wrong to present his theories as a universal theory despite the very small number of case studies from which he derived almost all his ideas from. But then, didn’t Skinner overemphasize on learning factors (hence largely ignoring biological and genetic factors), Hull on drive-reduction as the basis of all reinforcements, and Maslow on self-actualisation and peak experiences? They were all scholars who promoted their own theories and approaches and all of them believed theirs were without flaws and most superior.

Why then that Freud continues to be the most convenient target of criticism? His ideas I guess were just too explicit and radical. Be-as-that-may, I am quite sure Freud will forever remain an important part of any psychology syllabus.

Virtues of Imprisonment

When Anwar Ibrahim was imprisoned for six years between 1998 and 2004, he wrote numerous letters and articles for newspapers and magazines both local and abroad. Impressed by the high quality of these publications, one of my professors quipped that perhaps all of us should spent some time in jail. Why? Because nothing nurtures the mind and soul better than being in solitary confinement, accompanied entirely by one’s thoughts and reflections. After all, many past great scholars and world leaders had spent some time in prison. Amongst religious scholars, Imam Abu Hanifa was imprisoned for four years, Ibn Sina for a few months, and Ibn Taymiyyah for seven years; while amongst world leaders examples include Mahatma Gandhi for six years, Muhammad Natsir for five years, Vaclav Havel also for five years and Nelson Mandela for twenty-seven years. While indeed some of them did not survive the ordeal and died in prison, many survived the experience and upon their release demonstrated greater wisdom, resolve and conviction. After all, as the early Muslim jurist Sufyan Al-Thawri had said, "when a man is used to contemplation, he will learn lessons from everything" (quoted in Malik Badri’s Contemplation).

So, if anyone is really sincere about searching for eternal peace (damai abadi), and the thoughts and wisdoms of Al-Ghazali and Al-Shafie, going for a short sabbatical in our ‘international standard’ prison cell could be one of the options. Sheikh Kickdefella has recently experienced it. He and another 'privileged guest' Teresa Kok have now extended invitations for government leaders to sample a taste of that experience.

Indigenous Peoples: Listen to Our Cries (Malaysiakini, 13.9.2008)

In my last posting, I described an imagined scenario where the orang asli community publicly expresses their long-held grievances against the Malay-majority government. It didn't cross my mind that something real was about to happen. For futher details, go to: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/89657

As reported in the news article above, a group call the Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (Indigenous Peoples Network of Malaysia) is seeking for not only better respect for their rights, they are also demanding the government to apologise for past injustices against them. The last three paragraphs in the article says it all:

According to findings in the memorandum, the Orang Asal consist of more than 80 ethno-linguistic groups, each with its own culture, language and territory, totalling up to four million or 15 per cent of national population.

“In the context of Malaysia, however, no law or policy was found that mentions the right to self-determination for indigenous peoples, let alone, accord us that right,” said Mark (Mark Bujang, Executive Director of Borneo Resources Institute.

According to him, the Orang Asal have suffered from injustices by previous regimes and governments since the formation of the government of Malaysia.

“Therefore, the government must apologise for all these injustices and prejudices that have happened throughout the history,” he stressed.

Question: The statements above, are they seditious or are they (simply) deliberations based on historical facts?

Regardless, I don't think in this case we can brush them off by telling them to go back to where they came from, can't we?

I am a SQUATTER (Aku Seorang PENUMPANG)

Ramadan Kareem!

'Orang Cina cuma tumpang di sini sahaja.' (The Chinese are only squatting here).

This was the statement of 'historical fact' (fakta sejarah) uttered by the Bukit Bendera UMNO Division Chief Ahmad Ismail last month. Since then, we've seen some very 'colourful' reactions and counter-reactions by various parties, some of which to defend while arguably many more to condemn.

Historical fact? True, no one denies that. But isn't it equally a historical fact that the majority of us Malays in Malaysia, if we were to trace our ancestral roots a few hundred years back, our ancestors too started off as squatters (penumpang) in this blessed land? If anyone wants further clarification on this, Kuda Ranggi's excellent piece 'Antara Pendatang dan Punumpang' would be most enlightening.

Undoubtedly there are many Malays who think that there is nothing wrong to say such statements. To them, the Chinese community are simply overeacting to a mere statement of historical fact.

To reach to some level of understanding, we, the Malays perhaps should try applying the golden rule of intercultural dialogue. Let's imagine if we were at the receiving end of such statements.

Imagine at some point in the future, when the orang asli (aborigine) community here in Malaysia has developed substantially socio-economically, they mobilise their resources and establish their own political party (say for example the 'United Aborigines National Organisation' or Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Orang-Orang Asli Bersatu). To reclaim their rights as the true natives of this land, leaders from this party exclaim statements such as these:

"Orang Melayu cuma menumpang di sini, ini adalah fakta sejarah... jangan cabar dan persoalkan hak kami masyarakat orang asli... masyarakat orang asli sudah lama bersabar... kembalikan hak kami... jika orang Melayu tidak berpuas hati, mereka boleh pulang ke tempat asal mereka"
("The Malays are just squatting here, this is a historical fact... don't you dare challenge and question the rights of the orang asli community... the orang asli people have been patient long enough... give back our rights... if the Malays are not satisfied, they can go back to where they came from")

Well, maybe to add more colour to this imagined scenario, imagine these statements were made by an orang asli leader during their annual general assembly, shouting on the stage with a loud threatening voice while holding a machete (parang) on one hand. And the event was telecast live on national television.

The Malays, how would we feel in that situation?

Reformasi Revisited

All eyes are focussed on Permatang Pauh. In less than 48 hours, the people of this small district in Penang will participate in an election process that carries a significance greater than any other previous by-election in this country's history. Never before has there been a more genuine talk of change of government. Some welcome the change, while some others are worried.

I've just stumbled across something I wrote ten years ago. What I wrote was within the context of the political scenario at the time but the situation today is certainly not that different. Although I may no longer speak and write with the same sense of idealism (and syntax errors), my thoughts and views in general remains constant.

==================================================

What does reformation aims for…

The Islamic term for reformation is Islah, which literally means change towards the better. This is the overall general principle. The ultimate aim is to create a society par excellence based upon the concept of Pax Islamica (al Faruqi, 1992).

A true Islamic society is an ideological society. It is a society which upholds the Islamic ideology transcending race, territory and socio-economic background (Maududi, 1983). In this society, Allah’s will is the primary source of law. Human reasoning and logical thinking are confined only to matters that are not explicitly stated in the Quran and the Sunnah (al-Qaradawi, 1995). Hence, Allah is the ultimate legislator, judge and prosecutor, not some long-serving heads of government, megalomaniac politicians or whomsoever. Therefore, it is incumbent that reformation shall promote the Syariah as the law of the nation.

A Muslim society should be a group of Atqakum, or God-fearing citizens.

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge, and is well acquainted (with all things). (Al-Hujurat[49]:13)

Atqakum is derived from the word taqwa, which is “the fear of Allah which springs from the heart and expresses itself in righteous deeds” (Musleduddin, 1988). Fear in this sense is out of love and reverence for Allah. By acquiring this feeling, one shall protect him or herself from wrongful deeds and ill-will. Such is due to one’s awareness that one is accountable for his or her actions. Simultaneously, one shall remain at all times empathetic of others. When a society is saturated with such individuals, even ‘peace and harmony’ may sound like an understated description. But this is what Islam promotes and promises, hence this is what reformation hopes to achieve.

Unfortunately, what we have now is something to the contrary. Instead of fearing Allah, we fear man-made threats and draconian laws above everything else. Worldly fears are completely unfounded and unacceptable. Reformation is inevitable and only Allah can sanction against it.

Say: “Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than Allah, when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? (Al-An’am[6]:164)

Another important agenda is freedom. Islam does not impose any shackles except for those stated in the divine guidance. The Islamic Syariah or concept of life is based upon the law of duties where man is encourage to exercise his human rights thus contributing to the maintenance of a civic society. Islam believes that “all humans are entitled to know the truth…to inquire, to search, to learn and to teach one another…and to provide to the ruler advice as well as correction where needed (al Faruqi & al Faruqi, 1986).

Abu Said reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) said: “The best jihad is that a person speaks the truth before the tyrant ruler” (Abu Dawud) (qtd in Siddique, 1983). It is clear then that Islam does not completely prohibit dissent. Dissenting comments are encouraged but should be forwarded in a polite manner through proper channels. Thus, proper channels should exist, not ceased to exist. Reformation is adamant in providing that.

India’s Mahatma Gandhi once said, “the world is enough for everyone’s need, but it is not enough for everyone’s greed”. Man’s greed is a universal disease effecting almost all societies. Greed has inspired people to corrupt, to fabricate lies, to organise deceit, to destroy the career of a political rival, and many other heinous crimes. Reformation aims to put to an end to all of this once and for all, for these are endeavours that should not be tolerated absolutely. They are against both Islamic and moral ethical values, and results to nothing but destruction, if not in this world in the hereafter.

To stifle the growth of greed, the country’s wealth should be fairly distributed. No preferential decisions favouring family members, cronies or any selected few should be allowed to take place. The country belongs to the people, not to the ruling elites, the royal families or any other groups whatsoever.

Give full measure when ye measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight: That is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination. (Al-Isra’[17]:35)

Reformation should not hope to succeed without first overcoming some major obstacles. To enjoin good is to face extreme struggle. Imam Razi describes it as “the most arduous duty”, while for Ibn Taymiyyah, it is “the test of one’s faith” (qtd in Ansar, 1990). At this age, the emergence of dictators, oppressors and Firaun’s soul-survivors seem to provide the biggest threat. True, they are the most dangerous and cruelest of all people. But still, in a democratic country, the power to rule is vested on the people. Changes can be pursued peacefully through the ballot box. And this is where reformation ought to take place.

Malaysia is a multi-racial country. Somehow, this fact is seen detrimental to reformation. The current ratio of 59% Muslims and 41% non-Muslims seems to add support to this claim (Crystal, 1995). However, since Islam is the official religion and Muslims are the majority, even though the majority is considerably small, Islamization must be allowed to prevail. Reformation is inevitable since it is a direct command from Allah.

O ye who believe! Guard your own souls: If ye follow (right) guidance, no hurt can come to you from those who stray. The goal of you all is to Allah: it is He that will show you the truth of all that ye do. (Al-Maidah[5]:105)

Nonetheless, the Islamic way is to act with wisdom. Thus, changes should take place gradually. The needs and feelings of the non-Muslims should always be taken into consideration. Speedy radical changes will create unrest and provoke unnecessary violence. Therefore, one of the best approaches would be in accordance with fiqh al-awlawiyyat, the understanding of priorities. Coincidentally, the prime advocator of this approach in Malaysia was former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim. In his book The Asian Renaissance, Anwar wrote:

"Muslims need to address urgent social and economic issues such as the eradication of poverty and illiteracy, the provision of employment, decent housing and other social amenities. These are preconditions before certain specific Shariah injunctions can be translated into legislation." (p.118)

Only recently, this very same person has led the call for reformation. To support or not to support, that seems to be the question. And that is something only we ourselves can decide. Whether his call is pure and sincere, Allahu'alam, only Allah knows best.

Save UiTM?

As an alumnus of ITM (Pusat Pendidikan Persediaan/ITM, 1995-97), I am greatly saddened by the irrational response of UiTM students to the mere suggestion by the current Selangor Chief Minister to open-up a meagre 10 percent of its students admission to non-Bumiputera and foreign students. Below are views which echo exactly my thoughts on the issue.

Har Wai Mun: The MB's reasoning for his suggestion is to allow UiTM students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races. If anyone thinks his reason is not correct, the logical counter-point would be along the lines of either ‘the suggestion would not allow students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to other races,' or ‘allowing students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races is not beneficial'. Hopefully, the MB's suggestion will be viewed constructively and is not obscured by communal sentiment. Non-bumis will be an asset to UiTM. Quoting a declaration on various placards on parade at the demonstration, the MB's suggestion might not only ‘Selamatkan UiTM' (Save UiTM), but might propel UiTM to be a world-class university that makes all Malaysians very proud!

Anti Double-Standard: It is unfortunate that the MB of Selangor's view about UiTM made him become a racial and political scapegoat when all he was trying to do was foster greater racial harmony in the country and encourage better quality bumiputeras to go through an open university system. After all, he was only proposing a 10% allocation for non-bumiputeras and foreign students. In fact, allocating a small percentage of places for non-bumiputera students has already been practised by the present BN government in fully residential schools (sekolah berasrama penuh). (may I also add; at the International Islamic University Malaysia where almost 10 percent of its current students are Malaysian non-Muslim students) This has happened even though these schools were originally meant for bumiputera students coming from low-income families. Thus, Khalid Ibrahim's proposal concurs with the present government's line of practice - only that he is trying to extend it into the universities. If UiTM remains die-hard on its decision to keep the university as an all-bumiputera institution of learning, then why does it have a programme of study known as 'UiTM International' and why is it scouting for foreign students from abroad to study there? I know that UiTM has even participated in an international exhibition on higher education in China as late as last year in order to enroll students from China to study at UiTM. What has UiTM to say on this matter? We would like to hear from the vice-chancellor on this question.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/87828

A final note, just to add a quick respond to this spectacular statement made by a student who took part in the demonstration: “Mula-mula diminta kemasukan 10 peratus tetapi lama-kelamaan kadar itu dipertingkatkan. Akhirnya golongan bumiputera lenyap dan tertindas di universiti sendiri.” (Initially they will ask for 10 percent of the students intake, and later the rate will be increased. In the end, the bumiputera will disappear and be oppressed in their own university). I have studied and worked in local universities. Empirical evidence will show that students 'disappear' because of their own truancies and when they are dismissed for either extremely poor academic performance or serious behavioural misconduct. Disappearance because of the emergence of minority students? That I need Fox Mulder to explain!

The West and The Muslim World Post 911

Last Friday, the university hosted a forum entitled “The US and The Muslim World: Between Cooperation and Confrontation”. The guest speaker was the internationally respected American scholar on Islam, Professor John L. Esposito. Professor Esposito is a no stranger to IIUM having visited the university on many occasions in the 1990’s. However, just like many other international scholars both in the West and the Muslim World, prior to this year's visit he has not set foot on Malaysia since the tumultuous political events of the late 1990’s.

The focus of Professor Esposito’s presentation is the findings from the global attitude survey reported in his latest book ‘Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think?’, and the forthcoming 'The Future of Islam'. The survey covered a total of more than 40 countries with more than 50,000 respondents who were all interviewed one-on-one in their own respective native language. Respondents include both Muslims and non-Muslims who were asked a series of questions about their attitude on Islam and Muslim communities, and the values of the people in the West.

Without going to specifics, my personal view is the result of the survey has confirmed the opinion shared by many of us who have lived in both worlds, that between the people in the West and the Muslim World, there is a great degree of mutual misunderstanding. On one hand we have the people in the West who believe that Islam is a global threat to their freedom and values; while on the other the Muslims who believe that there is a global war and conspiracy against Islam. Both views are in fact illusive and hallucinative.

After the events of 9-11, the intensity of inter-civilisational dialogues between Islam and the West has indeed increased. Many Muslims have never quite understood the strong reactions of the Americans to the events (just like how most Americans have never understood why Muslims are so angry about America's continuous support to Israel). For the Americans, 9-11 was the very first time their country was attacked in its own soil. And this, according to Professor Esposito “created a hysteria on terrorism”, and since President Bush had singled out Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the Americans greatest enemy, Muslims and the religion of Islam became the focus of attention.

Professor Esposito has always maintained a positive view on Islam and an optimistic attitude towards Muslims. Hence, when discussion and debates on Islam and the Muslims began to flourish in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, he took centre-stage and appeared in various media programmes and events to defend those views. In one memorable programme aired on the BBC World Channel, Professor Esposito, in the course of defending Islam went to the extent of almost ridiculing some aspect of Christian values. A fellow Christian panellist had made a cheeky attempt to paint Islam as a religion of violence by saying that Islam does not have anything similar to the Christian teaching of “turn the other cheek”. To that, Professor Esposito nonchalantly suggested that the Muslim panellist hit the Christian man on one side of his face and see how he would react!

While I do agree that negative spins from the Western media have contributed to the prevailing negative attitudes toward Islam and the Muslims, I would like to emphasise that such negativity is also the result of genuine naturalistic observations. Except for those who have travelled extensively to various Muslim countries, or those who befriended closely individual Muslims, the only direct information the people in the West have about Muslims are based on their observations of Muslim immigrant societies in their midst. And if this is the yardstick that they base their judgment and attitudes on Muslims with, the negativity would not be entirely shocking, in fact could be considered almost expected. I do not know for sure the situation in America, but in Western Europe, the lifestyles and progress of Muslim immigrant societies certainly have much to be desired.

In Finland (in fact in all the Scandinavian nations), the people are proud of their welfare system where among others there is free education, free housing and generous allowances for unemployed persons. Unfortunately, instead of taking advantage of the system to improve their educational and social standings, many Muslim immigrants choose to remain unemployed and live with the free allowances given. In Germany and the Netherlands, where Turkish and Morroccan communities are established for three generations, their youth are more often associated with drugs and gangsterism rather than academic and entrepreneurial achievements. These are not exclusively the views of Western media or propaganda, but crucially the findings of various academic studies conducted by both Muslim and non-Muslim researchers.

The way forward is for Muslims to assume centre-stage and speak up for Islam and our respective communities. And we need to learn to do so first-of-all, by using the ideological language of the West (the language of human rights and democracy), and to live up according to those principles and ideals. Calling ourselves Islamic is one thing, but living an Islamic way of life is quite another.

Al-Ghazali: Skepticism and Denial of All Knowledge

Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali was born in Tus, Persia in 450 H (1058 AD). During his lifetime, he acquired one of the most distinguished positions in the academic world as the Principal of the famed Nizamiyya Madrasah in Baghdad. He was appointed to the position at the age of 34 and was widely revered for his extensive knowledge and eloquent presentations.

At the age of forty, al-Ghazali encountered a crisis; internal in nature and spiritual in essence. He came to feel that the one thing that mattered was avoidance of hell and attainment of paradise. He perceived as if his present way of life was too worldly that he had lost any hope of achieving eternal reward. This severe internal struggle eventually prompted al-Ghazali to take the life of a wandering ascetic, roaming around various landmark destinations across the Muslim world.

One of the most important sources that explain vividly al-Ghazali’s struggle against his own thoughts is the book al-Munqidh min ad-Dalal or 'The Deliverance from Error'. This book outlines in detail al-Ghazali’s refutations on the validity and reliability of all knowledge.

Al-Ghazali contented that for knowledge to be certain, it must always remain free of doubts, illusion and possibilities of error. To him, “knowledge that is not infallible is not certain knowledge.” He evaluated the various branches of knowledge available during his time. From the analysis, al-Ghazali embraced the view that all knowledge are to be denied. His reasons are based on the following two issues: reliance on sense-perception, and reliance on intellectual truths. These two, representing the philosophy of empiricism and rationalism respectively, are the two major schools of thought in discussions on epistemology.

Since al-Ghazali had acclaimed that for knowledge to be certain, it has to be free from doubt, he launched a series of analysis to see whether he could make himself doubt either or both sense-perception and intellectual truths. The outcome extinguished whatever reliance he had on both.

To demonstrate the falsity of sense-perception, al-Ghazali used our sense of sight as an example. Al-Ghazali claimed that sight is the most powerful sense. But yet, when it looks at the shadow of a stick, it sees it standing still, and judges that the shadow has no movement. However, if one were to observe the situation after an hour, one would know that the shadow is moving. It moves gradually and steadily but infinitely in small distances in such a way that it is never in a state of rest. Therefore, what we had observed through our sense of sight is proven to be wrong, thus should not be relied upon.

In another demonstration, this time to falsify intellectual truths, al-Ghazali began asking some profound questions to himself pertaining to his previous reliance on intellectual truths. He finally came to the assumption that perhaps behind all intellectual comprehension, there is another judge who, if he manifests himself, will show the falsity of intellect in passing any judgments. Even if this meta-physical comprehension has not manifested, that does not prove it is impossible.

A clearer explanation can be obtained from al-Ghazali’s narration on the relationship between dreaming and wakefulness. One has to be asleep if one were to dream. Therefore, he is either in an unconscious or sub-conscious state. But yet, the images he had in his dreams are so vivid and graphic that everything seemed to be real. However, when the person wakes up, he immediately knows that everything he had imagined were false, therefore unreal. In other words, we know that our beliefs, once we are awake, automatically nullify whatever beliefs we had while we were dreaming. So, the question now is, wouldn’t it be possible that there could be another higher state, beyond consciousness that can nullify whatever beliefs we have in this conscious state, just as how our beliefs during wakefulness had nullify our beliefs in our dreams? To support his opinion, al-Ghazali quoted a hadith in which the Prophet SAW said, “the people are dreaming, (but) when they die, they become awake.”

The state beyond wakefulness that al-Ghazali proposed, is often referred to as what the Sufis claim as a special ‘state’, mystic union or ecstasy, which occur when they have withdrawn into themselves and are absent from their senses. In his writings, al-Ghazali often claimed that the Sufi path is the only way to seek knowledge. He denounced all other classes of knowledge seekers; the theologians, proponents of batiniyyah, and the philosophers. Al-Ghazali had labeled them as either anti-religious or ultra-religious, whose view on epistemology therefore cannot be accepted.

Al-Ghazali’s viewpoints on this issue are interesting amid somewhat controversial. His conclusion to accept only and only the Sufis as the true seeker of knowledge is even more intriguing once devoured upon entirely. Dare I ask, in our pursuit of knowledge today, have we indeed been on the right path?

(Note: This essay was originally written as a class assignment in November 1999. It was later adapted for publication in a student magazine. The article is reproduced here for the benefit of students of History & Philosophy of Psychology. Jazakumullahu khayr.)

The GREATEST good!

The movie Spy Game (released in 2001), starring Robert Redford and Brad Pitt, revolves around the story of the complex relationship between two CIA agents; one the retiring veteran agent and spy mentor; and the other, his cunning yet relatively naïve protégé. The protégé was in trouble and the mentor, in accordance with the agency’s official policy, cannot and should not offer any help. The rule is simple. When a spy is caught, the government denies your existence. The agent alone takes the fall and the government absolved itself from all responsibilities. After all, what is one life compared to the reputation of the entire nation and the government. It is for the greater good.

The protégé knows this. As one of the scenes in the movie depicts, in one of his earliest missions, he was instructed to abandon an anti-communist political figure at a heavily guarded communist territory. The young agent, though angry and disillusioned, obediently carried out the order. He shouted angrily at his mentor for forcing him to literally leave the person to suffer and die but was nonchalantly told “it was for the greater good”.

In many of the UMNO gatherings that I’ve been to, the same philosophy of ethics was used vis-à-vis Anwar Ibrahim. They would acknowledge that Anwar is a great politician and an intelligent man, but he is more importantly a dangerous figure. He is pro-America and he is too liberal. If he becomes the Prime Minister of Malaysia, he will dismantle the NEP and remove Islam as the official religion of the country. The Malays will lose their special privileges in business, education and all other enterprises. Anwar Ibrahim will then bring in the IMF, the World Bank and the Neo-Cons to take over the country, and the Malays will be abandoned and condemned to life as peasants in villages. Preventing Anwar from becoming the Prime Minister therefore is mandatory, no matter what it takes. It is for the greater good.

What we have now are two high-profile cases, one involving Anwar Ibrahim (former Deputy Prime Minister), and the other involving Najib Abdul Razak (current Deputy Prime Minister). In both cases we have people representing the highest institutions of the nation; the judiciary, the office of the attorney general, the military, health ministry, as well as various professional bodies directly and indirectly involved. Those who are directly involved in the police investigation, medical examinations and legal inquiries would know the truth about who is innocent and who is lying. They must have seen all the evidence and witnessed all the secret conversations. Hence they have the power either to perpetuate or dismantle the conspiracy.

As of today, it seems that Anwar Ibrahim will soon be charged, pronounced guilty and sent to jail for a very long time. Najib Abdul Razak will be absolved from any involvement with the Altantunya case and will continue his march towards the UMNO presidency. It does not matter that the international community and a sizeable majority of the country think that all these are conspiracies. It does not matter that the police and the judiciary in Malaysia will continue to be ridiculed and doubted. It does not matter too that Malaysia is now an international joke taunted with dishonourable titles such as “East Zimbabwe” and “Sodomy-Land”. UMNO and Barisan Nasional must be protected. They are the raison d’être of this nation. UMNO and BN is the greater good.

Now, coming back to the movie Spy Game, despite his direct involvement in various manipulative and devious operations, the retiring agent played by Robert Redford eventually decided to break the rules and disobey protocol to conjure up a rescue mission to save his protégé. In the end, what viewers saw was that even a ruthless spy, who many would have thought does not have a conscience, was willing to jeopardize his professional reputation to do what he himself thought deeply in his heart, was the right thing to do.

Human beings by nature have a conscience, a soul, an inner speech that is good and virtuous. We would be able to know upon reflection and deep contemplation, what is the right thing to do no matter how complex or ambiguous the situation is. The only question is whether we are willing to embark on that search, follow our hearts and do the right thing.

Let us hope and pray that all Malaysians; the monarchs, politicians, members of the judiciary, policemen, military personnel, medical doctors, nurses and all others directly and indirectly involved shall see the light that paves the way for them to realise what is the right thing to do. No more conspiracies, no more manipulation, no more moral gymnastics; follow your heart and do what is right. So please, anyone who has any knowledge of anything related to this issue, come forward and reveal them to us. If that means going against the status quo, risking your personal status and threatening your own comfortable life, so be it! The truth is the GREATEST good.