Muhassabah Diri

I wish to see back, the spirit and motivation that everyone once had,

I wish that everyone would stop bickering and whining like a bunch of toddlers .

I wish we could suppress that bad force we see all day, and look at the good things in life.

Because by the end of the day............. we do really want all the good things to come.

So hold my hand my friend,
We could share the world,
Share the spirit of good.

Think about it for once, what does debate really mean to us all? is it just some other co-curriculum? or is it more than that?

Never put your spirit down even when some lunatic came hitting it.

NEVER EVER GIVE UP................ IN WHAT YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN

We need to regroup, get back the lost memories and experinces we had last year, Musleh, UIA, Training. We all miss the old wani, raihan, amira, azizul, kimi and laila, and anyone else that held the spirit of debate.

We're so gonna get it back............

PS: I'm sure if Ariffuddin was here, he would have said to never give up, he'll say that we'll find a way.

Amendments of ISA

Taken from the STAR, 20 March 2010

KUALA LIPIS: Amendments to the Internal Security Act (ISA) and related laws are to ensure a comprehensive change in dealing with security issues in the country, says Prime MInister.

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the review was also to keep abreast with times and the wishes of the people.

"The Home Minister has brought the matter to the Cabinet on Friday and the ministers agreed that if other related laws are not similarly amended, it will create an awkward situation," he told reporters after opening the Rural and Regional Development Ministry's 50th anniversary at Dataran Lipis here on Saturday.

On Friday, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said the amendment to the ISA would be tabled along with amendments to six other laws.

The six are Prevention of Crime Act 1959 to review its effectiveness in preventing crimes; Section 27 of the Police Act 1960 relating to staging of assemblies without a permit; Banishment Act 1959 (Revised 1972) to determine if the law is still relevant; and Restricted Residence Act 1933 to review its effectiveness.

Other laws are the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985 and the Emergency Ordinance (Public Order and Crime Prevention) 1969.

The ISA aspects to be reviewed are the detention period, rights and treatment of detainees, powers of the Home Minister and detention without trial.

Najib said the Government was serious in bringing about changes on the issue of security in the country.

"We will study and implement change to these laws in line with current needs and the wishes of the people," he said. - BERNAMA

From Wikipedia:

Criticism

Due to the alleged draconian nature of the ISA, several human rights organisations and opposition political parties have strongly criticised the act and called for its repeal. Foreign governments, notably that of the United States, have also pressured the government to repeal the act.

Several opposition parties such as the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) have spoken out against the ISA. Many of them have leaders or prominent members who were held under the ISA, such as Muhammad Sabu of PAS, Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh and Lim Guan Eng of the DAP, and Anwar Ibrahim of the PKR. Previously in the 1960s, the law had been denounced by such opposition leaders as Tan Chee Khoon, who said:

“

This infernal and heinous instrument has been enacted by the Alliance Government at a time when the emergency was supposed to be over. Then it promptly proceeds to embody all the provisions of the Emergency Regulationsad infinitum...[10] which during the Emergency had to be re-enacted every year, but now it is written into the statute book

”

However, several politicians from the Barisan Nasional coalition, including its largest component party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO or Umno), that has governed Malaysia since independence have also criticised the ISA. The fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, went on the record in 1988 to state "If we want to save Malaysia and Umno, Dr Mahathir (then Prime Minister) must be removed. He uses draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act to silence his critics.^{[citation needed]}" The year before, he had also stated "Laws such as the Internal Security Act have no place in modern Malaysia. It is a draconian and barbaric law." In 2003 when he became Prime Minister, however, Abdullah called the ISA "a necessary law," and argued "We have never misused the Internal Security Act. All those detained under the Internal Security Act are proven threats to society." But opposition parties believe it is a threat to Umno rather than a threat to the country.

Prior to becoming Prime Minister, Mahathir had also adhered to a critical view of the ISA. In 1966, when Mahathir spoke out in support of the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill 1966 as a backbencher, he stated that "no one in his right senses like[s] the ISA. It is in fact a negation of all the principles of democracy."^[10] After becoming Prime Minister however the former premier had little if any hesitation using the law to suppress what he termed racialism but was seen by some as a move against his political opponents, the most notable of events being the infamous Operasi Lalang in 1987.

REVIEW FROM Kd:
Now we all know that ISA is preventive detention law that allows enforcers to apprehend people whom were suspected of breaching the security of Malaysia. Typically it's just lunacy, why? well simply they are allowed to apprehend them in a manner of without trial and without concrete evidence (tell me if I'm wrong).

ISA was "originally" used to curb the issues of communist and internal terrorist. On the 13 of May 1969, the ethnic riots (rusuhan kaum 1969) happened, and this caused the government to use the full force of ISA, also on the 27 of October 1987, the police used ISA again this time with the nickname "Operasi Lalang".

They apprehended 106 politicians members from both opposition and government, the Chinese were in fear of another 13 May incident happening again, abd it was all because of some Chinese vernacular schools...hish.

Base on my review and research, I think that an amendment of ISA isn't enough as it still apprehends "wanna be criminals" without trial. No one likes it. Duh. Once upon a time, during the 13 days ruling of PKM (Parti Komunis Malaya), they did a similar tactic, its force was called "Kempetai", and it issued a "kill first ask questions later policy".

The main reason of Malaysia is doing ISA in the first place is to hush up the communist from Malaysia, when we are doing such laws, we're not hushing it, we're encouraging it. As a Muslim major, Islam doesn't announce apprehension without trial, Islam at least orders 4 eye witnesses to prosecute a suspected criminal. Doing such laws might just give the idea that Malaysia isn't ruling under respect and leadership qualities, but by fear and under-minded. Where did the 1 Malaysia concept gone? "Rakyat didahulukan, Pencapaian diutamakan".

I really loved the idea of "1 Malaysia" as it is a starter for the concept of "1 Ummah", but to do things without putting priority towards the citizen is just contradicting it.

For Starters, if Malaysia is so afraid of it's citizen, then start educating them becoming good citizens than apprehending them when they never understood a thing of what they did. Hopefully, we wouldn't more communist than the communist.

Knowledge With Purpose

Taken from the STAR newspaper, 17 March 2010, IKIM Views

From Kd: This is a counter article to the recent post I give about the social problems happening in our country......

Please read the latest article to get the whole story

Nobody can be a proper Muslim without knowledge and understanding, and that knowledge must be sought and disseminated with correct intention.

KNOWLEDGE and action are two fundamental elements making up the conceptual structure of Islam. Islam is a conscious and willing submission to God. It is a submission that is made “knowingly” and “freely”, without any compulsion. As such, the submission is not possible without knowledge.

Islam does not concede to a dichotomy between knowledge and action, or between theory and practice. The term “Islam” also describes an act, i.e., the act of submission. It means Islam does not simply happen to someone; it comes into being from one’s volition. And volition also does not arise without knowledge.

The action of every Muslim is subject to the rules of the syariah, correctly understood as the path to salvation prescribed by God through His Messenger.

“Islam” is also the name of a particular religion, and that means the above-mentioned submission is not subjective or formless; it is the submission which is made willingly and consciously according to the way prescribed by the religion called Islam.

Since nobody can be a proper Muslim without knowledge and understanding, knowledge-seeking becomes the first and foremost obligation of every Muslim, male and female.

Islam teaches that knowledge must be sought and disseminated with correct intention, to seek Divine Pleasure and Guidance. Studying religious sciences need not necessarily be a religious deed because the aim of the seeker could be worldly, and when that is the case the whole effort becomes blameworthy.

The following is al-Ghazali’s reminder to all knowledge-seekers: “If in your quest for knowledge your aim is to gain something for yourself and to surpass your fellows, to attract men’s attention to yourself and to amass this-worldly vanities, then you are on the way to bring your religion to nothing and destroy yourself, to sell your eternal life for this present one; your bargain is dead loss, your trading without profit.”

To have a correct and sincere intention is indeed not a simple matter. It entails knowledge of the nature of ultimate reality, and a definite commitment to a particular way of life in conformity with that knowledge.

Every research activity is carried out within a certain framework that is based on certain assumptions and aligned with some purposes. The credibility of the finding depends upon the validity of the assumptions and the soundness of the purposes, which means – upon verification – one would finally come to the conclusion either they conform or not to what is regarded as ultimately real and true.

If the researcher concentrates solely on the immediate objective of research (i.e., limited to knowing the nature of a particular object of knowledge as it is) to the extent of being heedless to the ultimate aim of knowing (which is the culmination of all other purposes, transcending immediate concerns and needs) his research will lead him nowhere.

The purpose of knowing ultimately is the purpose of existence itself. Without the knowledge of the purpose of knowing, knowledge and sciences may only serve secular aims and objectives, where no amount of research can satisfy man, because the knowledge gained from it does not give him any clue as to the meaning and purpose of his life, which is ultimately the foundation of his actions and behaviour, including knowledge-seeking itself.

Therefore Islam makes distinction between knowledge that is useful and that which is not.

Knowledge is useful and worthwhile in so far as it is related to the most basic problem of life, namely, the problem of human identity and destiny. This is the most basic problem because the answer to it is what everybody seeks to know, and without it this life becomes meaningless.

The answer, therefore, should be final, free from doubt and possibility of error because life is too short and unexpectable, and we cannot take the risk of living our life based on an answer that is subject to revision and correction.

This knowledge is also known as the knowledge of the reality of things. To this kind of knowledge certainty is a necessary condition, and by that we mean: (i) the object of knowledge is disclosed to the knower in such a way that no doubt remains along with it; and (ii) no possibility of error or illusion accompanies it; the mind cannot even entertain such a supposition.

Certainty, to quote Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, is the permanent state of the soul having to do with the knowledge of permanent realities. It would not be attained and experienced if the justification for believing ‘A’, for example, contains the possibility of error.

Is it possible to attain certainty? Can man, with all the potentialities that he owns, ever attain certainty?

A Muslim will definitely answer in the affirmative. He is taught that realities of things are firmly established and that objective knowledge about them is possible and verifiable. If certainty is impossible then knowledge is also impossible, and if knowledge is impossible accountability and justice would also be impossible.

The knowledge of the nature of the ultimate realities is knowledge that does not change with the change of time and nations. It is knowledge about what is real and true about existence in general. It is what every thinking human being would want to know about his self, and about the world around him.

He would like to know, for example, whether God exists or not, and if He does what His name is and what His Attributes are. What he holds as an answer to this question will determine the way he is going to live his life. This kind of knowledge will have a significant implication on one’s life because it is ultimately the basis of one’s ethical judgement and action, hence, no error or doubt should be tolerated.

There must be certain implication to life for example, in believing that God does not exist, or that He does yet He does not possess knowledge or power. Uncertainty about this matter is a tragedy because how would one make decision in such a state of mind?

We cannot tolerate erroneous belief because every belief has got its practical consequence. There is nothing that can be categorised as “purely practical”, if what is meant by that an activity that has nothing to do with any theory, assumption, or belief.

All the horrors committed during World War II were based upon a certain theory, assumption, or belief; the Japanese believed that their emperor was a living god, and the Nazis in the supremacy of their nation over other nations.