yeh, I'm not a good blogger, lazy and mostly uninspired!
Left this blog tooo long without feeding it, and I think it died (just like all the pets I ever had,.. no not really).
so what am I doing now then heh? Maybe this will be my only post for another three months or maybe I will try to put down more of my thoughts more regularly, but I don't know yet.
I was just inspired to revisit blogging, as I read the blog of my big little niece Anyss (big as in giraffe, little as in "14 years old; I have gravy stains older").
Anyway, she's a good blogger, and feeds her blog regularly with tasty little candy-floss thoughts from her mind, and sprinkles it with pixiedust humour, so I just had an enjoyable 30 mins reading some of her blog posts, and being reminded that teenage angst still exists even though I am not a teenager any more.
Anyss, if you end up reading my blog, well, ,, not sure what to say ,,, 'don't want u to worry about the "angst" thingy, it's kinda natural for teens (some call it "growing pains", some "the call of the wild" )... But what am I worrying about??? You are cool right? You like to chill yeh? It's what you said in your posts, and I already forgot! You r a level headed wanita who ain't gonna let those extra teenage hormones mess u 'bout too much!
kewl!
nufink lest 2 say
pease
ps anyss' blog (which is much better than mine) iz: Anyss
Monday, November 29, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
How them elections comin along?
I wonder how the UK elections are unfolding? Gosh, it is sooo far away from my present reality that I forgot to give it much consideration these last three months.
Can't say I'm missing it much either! Everyone knows politicians are weasels (don't they?).
I guess we can look forward a labour backbench acting like butter wouldn't melt,.. opposing cameronian policies as pro rich anti poor, and hope we forget their recent track record of feeding corporate greed at the expense of all
Is gordon bennet brown still playing the elitist etonian card? Like the whole of whitehall isn't an elite anyway?
It would be interesting to find out how many whitehall windbags don't have an A1 education,... and to think they could have put all their talents to better use competing in 'who wants to be a millionair'! At least they wouldn't have done such harm.
I wish I could say politics in Malaysia are better, but alas it appears pretty much the same kind of punch & judy show, except with muslim puppets calling eachother infidels (occasionally), when they disagree strongly enough with a proposal or policy.
At least they occasionally have a good punchup, and they show arguments (I mean debates) on tv with splitscreen (cctv style) of all the delegates who wish to add their rant to the mix.
The security inside the parliament appears to be mainly to protect the delegates from eachother, but at least noone here is under the delusion that their politicians are deep thinkers inspired by high moral values or motivated by a pure sincerity and love for the people.
Ohh well, what else can I say? (I think I insulted enough people for one blog). I'd be interested in any feedback on this matter from anyone who has an opinion
Friday, April 9, 2010
I love the rain
I love the rain!
No, I'm not crazy or melancholy, rain is fantastic!
We're having a morning drizzle right now, which is slightly unusual around here, (a heavy downpour in the afternoon is more common), but all rain is welcome!
The frequent rain is why the tropics are soo green and lush and buzzing with life.
It also makes the temperature more bearable. although I am almost getting used to the heat now, a 'cool' day is always welcome!
Monday, March 15, 2010
I rant therefore I am
I read this article (link above) from Mr Bunglawala (UK) regarding voting and Muslim participation in local politics, and decided to make a comment. As usual my comment quickly became long winded and rambling rather than short snappy and concise, but it did reflect my feelings (at least at the time), so I decided to post it here as well, in case the website edits or chooses not to post my comment.
You can find the letter here:
http://www.hizb-australia.org/newsroom/hizb-ut-tahrir/2238-muslims-rightly-engage-in-democracy
my comment starts here:
I congratulate Mr Bunglawala on his charming and beautiful personality, aswell as his eloquent, reasonable sounding response to the challenges of Islam in the west.I would agree with him on many things he has said in this article, and I think he is a fair intelligent and thoughtful individual who wishes for the best outcome for all of mankind. He is also a very knowledgeable person, who has dedicated many years to studying Islamic sciences and fiqh.
Many would assume therefore, that his judgement in this matter is sound and reasonable, and follow his position without further reflection. This is the scary point for any thinking Muslim, because making taqleed is a slippery slope, especially making taqleed to another muqalid!
Question: Where did Mr Banglawala derive his opinion regarding the permissibility of engaging in secular politics? was it through his own exegesis of Qur'an and hadith? I am sure he has Islamic texts to justify his opinion, but that is not the same as Ijtihad (and I do not believe he is mujtahid), otherwise Islamic history would not look shamefully upon the sects (Mu'tazillah & ?) who fell out of Islam by arguing between eachother over ideas born from greek philosophy, justifying their stance by referring to ayahs of Qur'an that suited their purpose.
The first error of thinking we should be aware of is to blindly accept the prevalent model of reference! IB says "..despite their shortcomings liberal democracies are the best political setup we have yet managed to come up with to try and ensure that – despite all our differences and beliefs – we can all rub along without too much inconvenience." This is the defacto accepted opinion of 99% of people in the west or engaged in secular politics, but that doesn't necessarily make it so! What about the 1400 years of Christians and Jews (and hindus) living peacufully under Islam? Wasn't that a better system of guaranteeing intercultural harmony? Liberal democracy has also been described as the "best of the worst", a flawed and imperfect system of governance for mankind, but the least imperfect compared to all other forms. This is an entirely eurocentric opinion, formed by people who consider all change to be progress, and only ever refer to their own local account of history.
IB also said "...No doubt there are a number of obvious failings in liberal democracies, ...[the rich] subvert[ing] democracy through buying power and influence. However, the solution ... cannot be to withdraw in disgust... but to increase our participation and work with other like-minded people to help make our elected officials more accountable to us."
So firstly he recognises the point which Abdul Wahid made in his letter (which he never responded to directly), that the political system is corrupt and corrupting, but the main thing here is that he wishes to achieve more accountability, and assumes that participation is THE method of achieving it. This is naive and lazy thinking, it assumes their can only be two opinions (withdraw or participate), but those landmark changes that were forced upon liberal democracies have NEVER been achieved through either of these methods. The suffragettes didn't win a political campaign in parliament through witty lambasting of members of the bench! They struggled to get their voices heard in public, and exposed the inhumanity and stupidity of the status quo until public opinion turned in their favour and a radical shift occured in peoples attitudes which forced a radical change in law (to reflect the new accepted ideas in society). No such radical transformation has ever occured from within the hallowed walls of any government building without first being carried by a small active group until thier ideas were adopted and accepted by the public. Otherwise all government policies are just tinkering and tweaking, and politicians (especially of today) are not radical ideologues with vision, but mere bureaucrats being ground up by the system (eg Obama's medical reform bill) .
The last thing I would say is in regards to accountability:
The highest level of accountability is personal moral accountability. For a Muslims this is embodied in his relationship with God (and is defined by his understanding of what God demands of him), but for secularists or others it is a moral imperative (of varying strengths) to do what is right according to their own principals and values. you cannot change this by voting, the need to please the crowd despite their opposition to your values turns politicians into simpering smiling hypocrites! Only deeply challenging discourse and dialogue which infects his core values can improve (shift) his accountability on this level.
Otherwise if he is a shallow thinker or merely a career politician then appealing to his morals may be wasted effort, in which case you must appeal to his sense of conformity or popularity. This means shaping the opinion that surrounds him until he shifts to conform with the new common ideas incase he loses ground/popularity/credibility among his peers or voters or any circle of people that he values. This again cannot be achieved by voting alone, or by sitting in cosy chairs in parliament having a heart to heart, it requires grassroot transformation of the publics ideas through direct interaction on the specific critical issues.
More voters does not mean more accountability to the people (especially if voting is their only political activity), it means more diffuse accountability to more differing opinions which contradict eachother. The politician will only listen to the loudest clearest voice (if he listens to anyone), so clearly that requires something more radical than more engagement (via the system and voting) and relying on good will. Any act of voting should be the culmination of serious thinking and debate on the critical issues. If that is done properly and in a unifying manner amongst the public, then the vote becomes superfluous, as the public will account and challenge their politicians directly about critical issues day and night, whether they are voting or not, weather the politicians are out and about shaking hands or hiding in their cozy insulated parliament building. If that level of engagement with an idea or value is achieved then it wont matter if the guy voted in wears a red tye or a blue tye, he will feel accountability to the public to face their concerns and deal with their issues despite their voting habits.
In this case, (if you agree with what I said above), then why is it that the only people actively engaged in forming ideas and thoughts in the community as well as in government (regarding muslims, Islam and the relationship with the Islamic world) are Hizb ut Tahrir? Shouldn't Mr Banglawala desire to strengthen his voice (through ideological conviction based unity within the public or Muslim community) when talking to politicians? Then voting would be the last thing on his mind, public debate on values and morals (in regard to specific policies or public thoughts) would be the first, and that is real political engagement!
You can find the letter here:
http://www.hizb-australia.org/newsroom/hizb-ut-tahrir/2238-muslims-rightly-engage-in-democracy
my comment starts here:
I congratulate Mr Bunglawala on his charming and beautiful personality, aswell as his eloquent, reasonable sounding response to the challenges of Islam in the west.I would agree with him on many things he has said in this article, and I think he is a fair intelligent and thoughtful individual who wishes for the best outcome for all of mankind. He is also a very knowledgeable person, who has dedicated many years to studying Islamic sciences and fiqh.
Many would assume therefore, that his judgement in this matter is sound and reasonable, and follow his position without further reflection. This is the scary point for any thinking Muslim, because making taqleed is a slippery slope, especially making taqleed to another muqalid!
Question: Where did Mr Banglawala derive his opinion regarding the permissibility of engaging in secular politics? was it through his own exegesis of Qur'an and hadith? I am sure he has Islamic texts to justify his opinion, but that is not the same as Ijtihad (and I do not believe he is mujtahid), otherwise Islamic history would not look shamefully upon the sects (Mu'tazillah & ?) who fell out of Islam by arguing between eachother over ideas born from greek philosophy, justifying their stance by referring to ayahs of Qur'an that suited their purpose.
The first error of thinking we should be aware of is to blindly accept the prevalent model of reference! IB says "..despite their shortcomings liberal democracies are the best political setup we have yet managed to come up with to try and ensure that – despite all our differences and beliefs – we can all rub along without too much inconvenience." This is the defacto accepted opinion of 99% of people in the west or engaged in secular politics, but that doesn't necessarily make it so! What about the 1400 years of Christians and Jews (and hindus) living peacufully under Islam? Wasn't that a better system of guaranteeing intercultural harmony? Liberal democracy has also been described as the "best of the worst", a flawed and imperfect system of governance for mankind, but the least imperfect compared to all other forms. This is an entirely eurocentric opinion, formed by people who consider all change to be progress, and only ever refer to their own local account of history.
IB also said "...No doubt there are a number of obvious failings in liberal democracies, ...[the rich] subvert[ing] democracy through buying power and influence. However, the solution ... cannot be to withdraw in disgust... but to increase our participation and work with other like-minded people to help make our elected officials more accountable to us."
So firstly he recognises the point which Abdul Wahid made in his letter (which he never responded to directly), that the political system is corrupt and corrupting, but the main thing here is that he wishes to achieve more accountability, and assumes that participation is THE method of achieving it. This is naive and lazy thinking, it assumes their can only be two opinions (withdraw or participate), but those landmark changes that were forced upon liberal democracies have NEVER been achieved through either of these methods. The suffragettes didn't win a political campaign in parliament through witty lambasting of members of the bench! They struggled to get their voices heard in public, and exposed the inhumanity and stupidity of the status quo until public opinion turned in their favour and a radical shift occured in peoples attitudes which forced a radical change in law (to reflect the new accepted ideas in society). No such radical transformation has ever occured from within the hallowed walls of any government building without first being carried by a small active group until thier ideas were adopted and accepted by the public. Otherwise all government policies are just tinkering and tweaking, and politicians (especially of today) are not radical ideologues with vision, but mere bureaucrats being ground up by the system (eg Obama's medical reform bill) .
The last thing I would say is in regards to accountability:
The highest level of accountability is personal moral accountability. For a Muslims this is embodied in his relationship with God (and is defined by his understanding of what God demands of him), but for secularists or others it is a moral imperative (of varying strengths) to do what is right according to their own principals and values. you cannot change this by voting, the need to please the crowd despite their opposition to your values turns politicians into simpering smiling hypocrites! Only deeply challenging discourse and dialogue which infects his core values can improve (shift) his accountability on this level.
Otherwise if he is a shallow thinker or merely a career politician then appealing to his morals may be wasted effort, in which case you must appeal to his sense of conformity or popularity. This means shaping the opinion that surrounds him until he shifts to conform with the new common ideas incase he loses ground/popularity/credibility among his peers or voters or any circle of people that he values. This again cannot be achieved by voting alone, or by sitting in cosy chairs in parliament having a heart to heart, it requires grassroot transformation of the publics ideas through direct interaction on the specific critical issues.
More voters does not mean more accountability to the people (especially if voting is their only political activity), it means more diffuse accountability to more differing opinions which contradict eachother. The politician will only listen to the loudest clearest voice (if he listens to anyone), so clearly that requires something more radical than more engagement (via the system and voting) and relying on good will. Any act of voting should be the culmination of serious thinking and debate on the critical issues. If that is done properly and in a unifying manner amongst the public, then the vote becomes superfluous, as the public will account and challenge their politicians directly about critical issues day and night, whether they are voting or not, weather the politicians are out and about shaking hands or hiding in their cozy insulated parliament building. If that level of engagement with an idea or value is achieved then it wont matter if the guy voted in wears a red tye or a blue tye, he will feel accountability to the public to face their concerns and deal with their issues despite their voting habits.
In this case, (if you agree with what I said above), then why is it that the only people actively engaged in forming ideas and thoughts in the community as well as in government (regarding muslims, Islam and the relationship with the Islamic world) are Hizb ut Tahrir? Shouldn't Mr Banglawala desire to strengthen his voice (through ideological conviction based unity within the public or Muslim community) when talking to politicians? Then voting would be the last thing on his mind, public debate on values and morals (in regard to specific policies or public thoughts) would be the first, and that is real political engagement!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Enjoying food and conversation
The many malls here all have halal foodcourt.
Lotsa luvly food cheep cheep! Here wifey enjoying chatting with her mom after some lovely noodle dishes.
(When they chat, it is hard for me to get a word in {so not sure if they notice me taking photo,then type type on mobile})
Yehey
A few false starts, but now I can post blogs through email, which means anytime the mood strikes me while I have smartphone and data connection
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Hehey, here i am (first blog: always the worst)
Hehey!
Here I am!
It's ME!
I am BLOGGING!
Ooh, what should I say?................hmmmm
well, It's me, I am starting a new blog, don't know exactly what I'm gonna say next, but I hope it will be interesting, or at least engaging.
I not gonna start with anything heavy...keepin it lite and fun; you know, it's still the first blog! I'll save the brainbending for a little later.
Me= Benjamin Davis = Abdul Qaadir (still davis) = Englishman turned Muslim = nice guy (honest!) = a little too laid back sometimes (wife would say "ALWAYS!" [yes she would shout it!]).
So, why did I call my blog Cakap-putih?
...Well, I am now living in Malaysia (relocated), and I am a white guy, and I am blogging/chatting, and Cakap (pron chackap) is Malay for talk, and Putih (pron puté or maybe pootey) is Malay for white.
this blog is gonna be a mix of all sorts of different things (mostly my thoughts or ideas). It may end up more of a personal journal (if no one follows my blog especially ;) ). If I can post blogs from my phone, then I think I will post around once a week, if not then probably once a month depending on internet access.
soooo, I'm rambling already, breaking my first unofficial rule (keep it short benny), so I'll end it there! look forward to my next blog! I might get political! (Aah, no, I'll save that for blog 3 or 4, blog 2 should be for my family, back in snowy South England, so that will cover daily life details.
luv n hugs 2 my peeps! Salaams 2 da Muslims (+hugs)! stay loose everyone else.
Here I am!
It's ME!
I am BLOGGING!
Ooh, what should I say?................hmmmm
well, It's me, I am starting a new blog, don't know exactly what I'm gonna say next, but I hope it will be interesting, or at least engaging.
I not gonna start with anything heavy...keepin it lite and fun; you know, it's still the first blog! I'll save the brainbending for a little later.
Me= Benjamin Davis = Abdul Qaadir (still davis) = Englishman turned Muslim = nice guy (honest!) = a little too laid back sometimes (wife would say "ALWAYS!" [yes she would shout it!]).
So, why did I call my blog Cakap-putih?
...Well, I am now living in Malaysia (relocated), and I am a white guy, and I am blogging/chatting, and Cakap (pron chackap) is Malay for talk, and Putih (pron puté or maybe pootey) is Malay for white.
this blog is gonna be a mix of all sorts of different things (mostly my thoughts or ideas). It may end up more of a personal journal (if no one follows my blog especially ;) ). If I can post blogs from my phone, then I think I will post around once a week, if not then probably once a month depending on internet access.
soooo, I'm rambling already, breaking my first unofficial rule (keep it short benny), so I'll end it there! look forward to my next blog! I might get political! (Aah, no, I'll save that for blog 3 or 4, blog 2 should be for my family, back in snowy South England, so that will cover daily life details.
luv n hugs 2 my peeps! Salaams 2 da Muslims (+hugs)! stay loose everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)