The LKY family debacle: Following the fight.

Note: The table will be continuously updated.

Instead of working, here I am chronicling the recent political development in Singapore: The contest against the second-generation political elites. Claims of mistrust and abuse, allegations of greed. Obviously things are just beginning, but it’ll be good to get a sense of how far we’ve come. Well, actually I am more interested in how ‘distractionary claims’ are thrown about. Good ol’ mud slinging. But also, sifting through the mud can help us to identify the actual issue at hand.

Prelude: Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore’s long-time Prime Minister. Out of his three kids, the eldest became the current Prime Minister, while the other two are not in politics. The elder Lee died in 2015. Later the same year, a general election was held. Although the ruling party was widely expected to win, the timing to garner sympathy votes really questioned the confidence of the ruling party. Now 2 years later, the 3 siblings are quarelling over the family home, said to be worth $24 million. But it’s not just about the house. It’s reprentative of the common resent at the authoritarian, strong-armed tactic of the ruling party that has continuously ruled Singapore for over half a century.

Then one fine day in June, the local internet exploded when the younger siblings said they have no confidence in the PM. Note that many critics have been made bankrupt or exiled for merely calling ‘nepotism’. So this claim by the younger siblings make for an interesting watch, because:

  • Will the PM sue/jail his own siblings?
  • What does this mean for critics against the state?

No one knows the answer. But for now, here’s the timeline of events:


Red corner

1. Lee Hsian Yang, aka LHY, aka youngest bro

2. Lee Wei Ling, aka LWL, aka sister

Blue Corner

Lee Hsien Loong, aka PM of Singapore, aka eldest bro


13-14 June – Follow Lee Kuan Yew’s (LKY, father, ex-PM) will, demolish the Oxley house.

– PM is abusing power to block the will.

– You want your son to become PM ah? (link)

– I’m on holiday. Wait till I come back.

– And this is family issue. Don’t make public. (link)

14-15 June – What family issue? You have secret ministerial committees to decide what to do with the house. No fair. Abuse of power. (link) – Why you make LKY change will? I am suspicious.

– Also bro, I think your lawyer wife is kaypoh. I am suspicious.

– Sis, I think sister-in-law is making us fight. You should be suspicious. (link)

15-16 June – LKY can change his will as he liked. Up to him lah. He change many times also, must still follow final will. (link)

– LKY wanted wife’s lawyer company to come confirm the will. Don’t anyhow say she kaypoh. (link)

– You said to public LKY wanted to demolish the house. But then you say he wanted to keep it. So which one? (link)

– LKY signed right under the part of the will that said he wanted it demolished. (link)

– Eh hallo, I think it’s the PM wife who is kaypoh. (link)

PM’s son: Guys I don’t want any part of this. I love America. Why would I want to go back to Singapore to become PM? (link)
16-17 June – Why your committee want to challenge the will? Just demolish the house lah. (link)

– Your personal lawyer that sent us the letter… How come he now the attorney general? (link)

Former PM: Move along, nothing to see. Just a family matter. (link)

Deputy PM: Nothing secret about committee. Just some ministers talking. Also we shared some advice with the family. (link)

17-18 June – Not a secret committee? We’ve been asking about that for a year, only now you tell us. (link)

– Eh, the law minister also in the committee. But he advised LKY on what to do. How can he us on how to demolish the house, and sit in a committe that wants to keep the house? Conflict of interest! (link 1, link 2)

Law Minister: No lah, even though I serve many people, I’m impartial. (link)

Former PM: Guys, please. Move along. Nothing to see. Just a family matter. (link)

19-20 June – Deputy PM, we don’t remember meeting you after you formed the committee. Also when we talked you always said it’s your personal view. (link)

– PM’s lawyers asked us for Deed of Gift (for some items in the house to be displayed for exhibition etc). Then he emailed again, saying that the PM already got it. These things are confidential. How did he get it? (link)

– Eh stoppit lah, you making me look bad. Ok fine I’ll tell the ministers to grill me in parliament. 3 July. Whip lifted. Happy? (link) Workers’ Party (the opposition): Good. We’ll ask these questions. (link)

Tan Cheng Bok, the president we don’t deserve: Parliament not the place for family matters. Go to court lah. (link)

22 June – Apparently PM got the Deed of Gift in his public capacity as PM, but use it for family issue. (link)

– According to the record, one day after LKY got into ICU, PM’s wife passed some of his belongings to the Heritage Board. She acted like she represents the PM’s Office, but she is not PM’s Office. (link)

 – PM’s wife: Hallo I was overseas at the time. You, on the other hand, went on vacation after he died, so I have to clear his things. Also, I told you what we’re giving away.  (link)

Heritage Board: Urmm sorry we got the belongings later, not the day after LKY got in ICU. Wrong date. Clerical error. (link)

Deputy PM: Ministerial committees are normal. And we think long term. (link)

23 June Read that first——–>



But you didn’t want it, did you? Come see email evidence. (link)


Then read this———>

Minister for National Development: The donation of LKY’s belongings came with weird conditions, e.g. we have to say he wants his house demolished. But we accepted it. (link)

<——Read that second

Sr. Minister of State, (pt. 1): Look guys, nothing is happening. Nothing is changing. The PM is still the good guy. (link)

24 June – PM wife, you are not the executor, so you shouldn’t meddle in handing over our father’s belongings. (link)

– Oi, stop getting your ministers to discredit the will. Fight me in court. (link)

Sr. Minister of State, (pt. 2): Final will said that house should be demolished. But final will is a mystery because no one knows who wrote it.  Also LHY your share increased in the last will. (Now senpai will notice me).  (link)
25 June – Stop rewriting the past. (link)
26 June Sr. Minister of State, (pt. 3): Just saying, house is worth $24m. Is that why you want house demolished now? (Senpai, I deserve a promotion!) (link)
27 June – LKY wanted the house demolished, so we want it demolished lah. (link)

– We ask you, why was the committee formed only in 2016? It’s only after we told you we want it demolished that it was formed. (link)

– Allegations not true. Wait till 3 July, I’ll address the parliament.
28-29 June – I repeat, the committee didn’t talk to us. (link)

– Even now your ministers already back your story. Later in parliament all wayang only. (link)



My beard is not Taliban!

(Image credit)

“I see that you are trying to grow a beard… like a terrorist,” a colleague commented. “Nah, it’s just laziness,” I quipped apologetically. I was caught totally off-guard. I thought my beard must’ve been messy that day to have a non-Muslim commenting on my appearance like that.

Later I looked in the mirror. Well, it’s not that messy. In fact it’s barely half an inch in length. But maybe the few stray strands puts off the whole beard. The few placing the rest in negative light, no thanks to the bad bearded people.

Unfortunately, it seems that having a beard tend to result in a negative comment. I do try to keep it as neat as possible, but just like the hair on my head, it gets ruffled or unkempt on occasions.

This is not the first time I have been associated with famous bearded entities. Because of my beard, I have been called a Taliban and Osama (bin Laden, the infamous). On both occasions by non-Muslims, though in an attempted light-hearted manner. Both of whom are not my closest of friends; to say that either they have a questionable sense of humor, or really feel strongly that  the long beard correlates with Taliban/Osama-types.

Beard, the Muslim Identity

Every religion has its own identity, one which its followers attempt to project based on its teachings. So it is common to see followers of various religions wearing bangles, turbans, crucifixes, or the hijab/tudung. As a male Muslim, I put in my own effort in showing my Islamic identity by growing a beard.

The Islamic ruling on growing a beard (or not shaving one) differs, but it is at least a “great sunnah” (سنة مؤكدة)  to keep a beard, as supported by the great Azhari Jaad al-Haqq Ali Jaad al-Haqq. Also “none of the Companions was known to have shaved his beard,” signifying the beard’s unique and distinct characteristic among the great men of Islam. Ibn Umar narrated that the Prophet ﷺ said:

أَحْفُوا الشَّوَارِبَ ، وَأَعْفُوا اللِّحَى

“Trim closely the moustache, and let the beard grow.” (Muslim)

In short, to keep a beard is Islamic. It is an Islamic command, though not compulsory.

The Hijacked Beard

While I’m arguing that the beard is an Islamic thing to do, it would be confusing then to see Malay dudes (most of whom are Muslims) who sport beards, yet seem to be engrossed in non-Islamic mannerisms such as drinking and being rowdy. Unfortunately just like many other things, physical appearance manifested by the loudest group tend to end up in rash correlation. Examples of bad bearded people who “hijacked” the beard as “theirs”:

a) Terrorists: Their case is more simple to understand. They will abide by anything that they believe is even remotely Islamic. More so the beard, which is supported by hadith texts. It is thus of no surprise their bearded appearance.

b) The Malay gangster-wannabe types who also grow beards: Usually coupled with flame-colored hair, sometimes also blue or green. Their reason for keeping the beard is – I assume – more cultural than religious, one which I will bluntly categorize as a sort of “adult Malay-ness” identity (read: attempts at being taken seriously as abang-abang). While the beard do signal a sign of maturity for most, action speaks louder that facial hairs.

Aside from these two negative examples of bearded entities, most male Malays (in my circle at least) keep a short beard or goatee. They make up the  Malay-Muslim demography who keeps a beard for religious reasons. Of course, there are others who do so for possibly aesthetic motives too.

I would say that the long beard is not that common among Malay-Muslims in Singapore, but still exists. Longer length usually denotes a sense of religiosity among Muslims. If you think long-bearded (3 inches or more) Muslim males are uneducated religious zealots, leave xenophobia at the door. In Singapore, the long-bearded Muslims I personally know are a PhD student, satellite engineer, a millionaire businessman, and a Cambridge graduate. Go figure.


1. Just because a Muslim grows a beard, it doesn’t mean he’s intent on harm.

2. It is Islamic to keep a beard. It’s a religious identity. Like when a Muslim wears a skullcap or turban, it doesn’t mean he’s intent on harm.

3. Stop equating the beard or anything that a terrorist has/does with Islam.

Nice watch. (Image credit)

4. Look at the picture above. Yes Osama has beard. And a Casio on his wrist. So just because Osama is wearing a Casio, does all Casio-equipped Muslims support him?

5. Osama doesn’t eat pork (I’m sure). So all non pork-consuming Muslims support him? (In case you are don’t know, Muslims don’t consume pork. And just because a food doesn’t contain pork or lard, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is halal.)

6. Stop the oh-you-have-a-beard-Osama-lover-haha comment. I find it insensitive and incongruous.

In conclusion, avoid binary logic.

And in case you missed it: just because a Muslim grows a beard, doesn’t mean that he supports terrorism. Period.


Read more:

Nuh Ha Mim Keller, “On Keeping the Beard” (1995)

“الشيخ صالح بن محمد الأسمري، “ما حكم الأخذ من اللحية؟

Shafii Fiqh, “Did the Prophet only Keep His Beard for 14 days?

To speak English or cakap Melayu?*

*cakap Melayu = speak Malay

(Image credit)

“I feel disgusted with these types of people,” the Malay pakcik (uncle) lashed out. “Especially the girls… Those girls from universities. What, just because they’re in universities, they can’t speak Malay?”

I was in a cab, and the conversation was naturally in Malay. Amidst his tirade, the driver may have a point when he implied that higher-educated Malays are getting more alien to their native language (I’m not sure about the female comment). His concern is not isolated; for quite some time now in the Malay news, there have been debates over the decline of Malay usage among Malays, and the general perception is that the higher-educated Malays are the main culprit. It comes to no surprise though, as the same issue is also faced by the Chinese community in Singapore.

Initially, I’ve never thought that of language to be that much of an issue. I’ve always regarded language as a mere medium of expression; so whichever one you choose, as long as the intended objective is achieved it doesn’t matter. To me what mattered most is how a person acts. So in our Malay-Muslim society, religion is more of a priority than language.

To me, a good Muslim is better than anything, no matter what the language spoken. It’s a no-brainer if you have to choose, for instance, between Malay gangsters who know their language, or pious Malay doctors who don’t know Malay.

So I didn’t really care about the “great Malay language debate”, until more recently. I had an encounter with two young tertiary-educated Malay ladies near a restaurant. They were complaining about something in English – boys, I think. I cannot recall the exact conversation, but weirdly enough, from the way they are dressed and they way they talk, the imagery that immediately comes to mind is that of American college girls that you often see negatively depicted on TV. Only this time it’s the Malay version.

At that very moment, I actually felt disgusted.

Proud to sound and act like ang moh

The thing about language is that one does not only learn how to say/read/write only, but the associated culture as well. Understandably when learning English, one has access to English movies, music, news, information, and many more. Unfortunately, most of these are popularized by the media through pure sensationalism.

What bugs me is when Malays – or Asians for that matter – subsume negative Western culture as their own. If it’s positive, I’m all for it. But the negative ones, such as immodest attires and uninhibited social norms, are those which directly undermine our own cultural values.

In this respect, Malay language has provided a layer of protection against the barrage of foreign values. Of course in this day and age, it is impossible to survive solely on the Malay language, as English is the established medium for work and school. So a healthy balance needs to be struck. Malay language still play a vital role as a conduit of  good Malay/Asian culture, one that instills emphasis on respect and the traditional family structure, to temper against the overwhelming Western norms that most blindly adhere to.

Best of both worlds

Not only culture is under siege, but also religious principles. Here in Singapore, English is used the very moment you step out of the house. Schools and workplaces are not exempt from this, though mosques and Islamic institutions generally still use Malay language in daily affairs. At the same time, while there are increasingly more sermons and religious lectures being delivered in English, here in Southeast Asia, Malay remains to be an indispensable language to study the religion. Structured religious education provided by major local Islamic institutions such as Pergas and Perdaus is still being delivered in Malay (correct me if I’m wrong). Even less structured lectures in mosques is generally delivered in Malay.

As religious values should be inculcated from a young and tender age, especially with the weekly dose of Friday sermons, it is worrying if our future generation cannot appreciate its content. And since Friday sermons provide the window of opportunity to ditch or bridge the connection with those who rarely step foot in the mosque, the understanding of Malay is – the way I see it – synonymous with the introduction of religious guidance.

As highlighted in a recent newspaper commentary, a writer at first thought that – based on facial expressions – the young participants in a religious talk were engrossed by the speaker who delivered in Malay. But later when he spoke to them, he found out that while they were indeed impressed by the speaker, they were also confused by the Malay terms being used.

This is something that deserves attention. On a larger scale, limited comprehension of the language may affect the understanding of religious instructions. If Malay language understanding continues to deteriorate, the impact in the future may not only be cultural, but also a religious one.

Why oh why?

Perhaps more pertinent to the discussion is the “why” behind it. Why do Malays not want to speak Malay? Based on my expertly-derived rocking-armchair analysis, it boils down to two factors. Firstly and bluntly, English-speaking Malays are intentionally suffering from post-colonialism inferiority complex, symptoms of which include the delusion that speaking English means that you are clever, and speaking Malay means that you are stupid and of some lower caste. This is further compounded with what the “new Malays” perceive as Malay being the exclusive language of the mats and minahs; by conversing in English, not only are they “proving” that they are “successful,” but that they have “broken out” of the “Malay stigma.”

In refutation of this, I have to say that “high education” compares zilch to good upbringing. Just because one speaks English peppered with six-syllable words doesn’t mean he’s “better” or “smarter”. They’ve quickly and conveniently forgotten the MBA holders who are responsible for the global finance calamity. Yet I must admit, our education system is one that we can be proud of. A system which, against all odds, has successfully produced minahs who spew English expletives amidst their Queen’s English over a cuppa. Seriously, go to Starbucks and you’ll know what I mean.

Malay at home ≠ Failure at school

The second one is more easily digestible: parents want their kids to excel in school. But in order to do so, they believe that their English must be honed at home. Initially I was supportive of this, as I thought the Malay student may have an advantage over his peers if his English is good. But then looking at many many examples around me, of those who manage to read, write, and speak English well, they were mostly brought up in Malay-speaking home environment. Yes, even those so-called “new Malays”, we all know they grew up in Malay-speaking households too.

Then I realize how many people that I personally see and know, who were brought up in Malay-speaking homes. They went to Malay-speaking schools, studied in foreign universities which doesn’t use English, and yet are proficiently fluent in English. Some are even – while admittedly verbose – established English orators. At the same time, they are also able to seamlessly switch between the two languages fluently.

So why the need to speak English at home?

Speaking Malay at home

Thus far, I have decided that my home will be a Malay-speaking one.

Our kids will speak English almost every second when he’s out of the house. So it’s unfounded to worry about him not learning English, the worry should be placed on him growing to be a person who’s not proud of his background.

We should aim for that balance to allow Malay to blossom in the house. Not through corny Malay TV dramas, but through conversations, newspapers, and good books. Doing so will protect our precious cultural, and as a bonus, religious values.

There’s nothing to lose; your kids will still do well in school, and when he’s all grown up, he’ll still remember to kiss the back of your hand.

Nota: Bagi mereka yang bertanya kenapa blog ini tidak ditulis dalam bahasa Melayu, ini adalah kerana blog ini ingin ditujukan kepada mereka yang tidak berbahasa Melayu.


Evolution and Belief in Allah

(Image credit)

We are living in a world where emphasis on science and technology has never been greater. Be it from parents who want their kids to do well in school, employers which are putting expensive efforts in R&D, or the governments which want the economy to but down on expenses through innovation, the focus on material science does benefit – more or less – man to do improve on life on Earth.

But to what extent? Based on conversations and observations, while anecdotal, I have a fear that the belief in God is being eroded by the very emphasis in science. Scientific advancements and discoveries aside, it is the fundamentalist belief “science can explain everything” that bothers me.

As Muslims, we are usually well-protected from such forms of influence, as the “arch-opponent” for our faith is usually deemed to be the Christians, who also believe in the existence of God. Coupled with layers of tough measures to prevent prosletyzation against Islam, conversion issues are usually tackled with eloquent approaches – academic arguments, scientific evidences, etc – on why being a Muslim makes sense (for one, Islam doesn’t say that Christians and Jews are totally wrong).

In fact, if one were to believe in a religion, I would argue that none is more complete that Islam, from the moment you wake up, to interaction with people, food you eat, economy, up till the moment you go to bed, and even when you are sleeping. There exists specific Islamic guidance on all aspects of life. It is a way of life. The most complete way of life, based on the belief of Allah and his prophets.

Nevertheless, such concerns usually may be summed up in the question “which religion?”, so the debate over the existence of God never came up.

But, in current times, the belief in The Creator itself is gradually being overshadowed by science and its atheistic rhetoric. Its spread into the minds of Muslims bypasses the protective system designed against apostasy; some scientific theories are being accepted in schools as “unfalsifiable”, thus regarded as the “truth”. And it may easily be ingrained in the young Muslims who are just discovering the world of science. Chief among it is evolution.

Questioning Evolution


The discovery of Ardi (above) – the name given to a 4.4 million year-old human-like fossil – made news late last year. One can only know so much about the past, but the discovery has prompted revisions on the theory of evolution. Nothing drastic; mainstream science still states that modern men evolved from chimps of the past.

Her skeleton promises to fill in gaps about how we became human and evolved from apes. It has already reversed some common assumptions of evolution.

Rather than humans evolving from chimps, the new find provides evidence that chimps and humans evolved together from another common more ancient ancestor. (Source)

Yet despite that, the details of evolution is still being questioned by those who believe in Creationism, which I believe are usually led by the Christians. Muslims seems to be at loss when questioned on their religious views pertaining to such scientific theories. With the caveat of quoting Wikipedia, the theory of evolution and its compatibility with religion is a relatively new subject to Muslims.

A 2007 study of religious patterns found that only 8% of Egyptians, 11% of Malaysians, 14% of Pakistanis, 16% of Indonesians, and 22% of Turks agree that Darwin’s theory is probably or most certainly true, and a 2006 survey reported that about a quarter of Turkish adults agreed that human beings evolved from earlier animal species. (Source)


An article in the latest issue of the journal, “Science,” suggests the evolution-creationist divide is about to emerge in the Muslim world. The article’s author, astronomer Salman Hameed, talks to “The World’s” Marco Werman about why the debate is heating up now, and implications for Muslims on both sides of the debate. The creation story in Islam is similar to the Biblical creation story, according to Professor Hammed: “But unlike the Book of Genesis, it is not laid out in a chronological order, nor is it in one single place. Secondly, it has this six-day creation, but the length of the days is less ambiguous.” (Source)

To highlight the seriousness of the issue, there are also calls for the school curriculum in Saudi to be revised to stem “foreign ideologies such as the Theory of Evolution.”

Evolution in Islam


It began in the sea, some three thousand million years ago. Complex chemical molecules began to clump together to form microscopic blobs: cells.

These were the seeds from which the tree of life developed.

They were able to split, replicating themselves – as bacteria do. And as time passed they diversified into different groups.


How does Islam fare in the trolling against creationism? The advance of science, the proliferation of knowledge, and the smart-asses on the internet seemed to have given a new reason to scoff at beliefs which advocate creationism, i.e. all religions.

Some versions of Christian creationism theories believe the earth may be as young as 10,000 years of age, putting it on a collision course with scientists who place the earth at billions of years old.

Islam meanwhile doesn’t limit the theory of evolution to a time-frame; moreover the position of the theory of evolution is still somewhat vaguely established among Muslims.

Like many other issues which is not specifically stated in the Qur’an or hadith, it is open to many varying views. Some simply denounced evolution. Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah lined out the Qur’anic evidences of the creation of man, while steering clear of any scientific arguments.

Some attempted to combine both scientific reasoning and for Muslims to ally with Christians and support Intelligent Design.

…Said Nursi, in the 1950s, foresaw an alliance between Islam and Christianity against materialism. He prophetically wrote, “A tyrannical current born of naturalist and materialist philosophy will gradually gain strength and spread at the end of time, reaching such a degree that it denies God. … Although defeated before the atheistic current while separate, Christianity and Islam will have the capability to defeat and rout it as a result of their alliance” (Nursi, Letters, s. 77-78).

…Intelligent Design (ID) is a term that implies creation. The universe and life are not products of blind forces of nature, ID holds, but show evidence that they were designed by an intelligence. The ID Movement has deliberately chosen not to specify the identity of the Designer. Through science you can demonstrate convincingly that there is a designer, but you can’t go further without invoking theology. (Source)

Some, such as Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller went to great lengths to debunk evolution.

“Though their existence provides the basis for paleontology, fossils have always been something of an embarrassment to evolutionists. The problem is one of ‘missing links’: the fossil record is so littered with gaps that it takes a truly expert and imaginative eye to discern how one species could have evolved into another…. But now, for the first time, excavations at Kenya’s Lake Turkana have provided clear fossil evidence of evolution from one species to another. The rock strata there contain a series of fossils that show every small step of an evolutionary journey that seems to have proceeded in fits and starts” (Sharon Begley and John Carey, “Evolution: Change at a Snail’s Pace.” Newsweek, 7 December 1981).

Speaking for myself, I was convinced that the evolution of man was an unchallengeable “given” of modern knowledge until I read Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species“. The ninth chapter (The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Ed. J.W. Burrow. London: Penguin Books, 1979, 291-317) made it clear, from what Darwin modestly calls the “great imperfection of the geological record” that the theory was not in principle falsifiable, though the possibility that some kind of evidence or another should be able in principle to disprove a theory is a condition (if we can believe logicians like Karl Popper) for it to be considered scientific. By its nature, fossil evidence of intermediate forms that could prove or disprove the theory remained unfound and unfindable. When I read this, it was not clear to me how such an theory could be called “scientific”.

However, it seems clear that none of the Islamic views support that Prophet Adam evolved from an ape. So what does that make of the hours of evolution-of-man being hammered into young Muslims’ mind? How do we answer this, amidst all the differing  views and opinions? Do we even have a concrete answer?

(Image credit)

Answering with the Mind

Islam and science have also been supportive and complimentary. There are many many many verses recording scientific facts revealed some 1400 years ago, long before they were discovered by scientists. (Dr. Maurice Bucailles’ The Bible, the Qur’an and Science is a good start.)

The Qu’ran and sunnah revealed passages about the creation of earth and space which is compatible with the Big Bang and expansion of universe theories. For instance, as for the video above on the Tree of Life, which stated that everything started out in the sea, the Qur’an states (which also includes the Big Bang):

أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاءِ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلا يُؤْمِنُونَ

“Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then we parted them? And we have made from water every living thing, will they not then believe?” (al-Anbiyaa’:30)

وَاللَّهُ خَلَقَ كُلَّ دَابَّةٍ مِنْ مَاءٍ فَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَمْشِي عَلَى بَطْنِهِ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَمْشِي عَلَى رِجْلَيْنِ وَمِنْهُمْ مَنْ يَمْشِي عَلَى أَرْبَعٍ يَخْلُقُ اللَّهُ مَا يَشَاءُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

“And Allah has created every animal from water: of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills for verily Allah has power over all things.” (al-Nuur:45)

(Sidenote: In the same video, there is also an interesting point which is related in the Qur’an, regarding the extinction of dinosaurs and the appearance of the birds. At 4m 24s, it noted “…65 million years ago, a great disaster overtook the Earth. Whatever its cause, a great proportion of animal life was exterminated. All the dinosaurs disappeared – except for one branch, whose scales had become modified into feathers. They were the birds.” After Prophet Adam’s descent to Earth, which he is told to take sartorial cover from the feathers of the birds as in al-A’raaf, 26: “You Adam’s sons and daughters, We had descended on you a cover (that) conceals your shameful genital private parts, and feathers/riches/possessions, and the fear and obedience (of God’s) cover/dress, that (is) better.” The word for ‘feather/riches/possessions’ here is  ريشاً and usually translated as adornment, but in it’s original meaning, it is referred the feather of birds; the bird’s feather is its adornment. Obviously this is a relation which may require some stretch of imagination, so I’ll pause here. Furthermore, this doesn’t exactly assist my argument below.)

Answering from the Heart

Yet despite the great scientific revelations of the Qur’an, humans have a tendency to nitpick on one single scientific theory (evolution) which may not be explained by the Qur’an? Or perhaps it will be, in the far future, once Allah decides to reveal that particular detail to mankind. What is the possibility that we didn’t evolve from apes? Long ago, everyone on earth believed the world was flat, and that theory was history. How sure are we about evolution that it can’t be falsified and proven otherwise?

And perhaps the actual danger comes from the fact that most of the college and university-educated Muslims are simply trained have a systematic thought process; one before two, have money before kids,  etc. While it may be beneficial, it may also hinder the faith in Allah and the spirit of tawakkul when in dire circumstances, such as those who would thinks that a credit loan is the foremost solution to monetary problems instead of praying first to Allah. This also signals the loss of adab to The Creator, He is the utmost whom we seek refuge and help in any situation.

A pertinent question was asked by Ziauddin Sardar:

[The scientific-miracles apologia] opens the Quran to the counter argument of Popper’s criteria of refutation: would the Quran be proved false and written off, just as Bucaille writes off the Bible, if a particular scientific fact does not tally with it, or if a particular fact mentioned in the Quran is refuted by modern science? (Source)

How true, not everything can be scientifically explained. How would one scientifically explain heaven and hell, isra’ mi’raaj, and many more instances of mu’jizah gifted to our beloved Prophet Muhammad ﷺ? Scientific knowledge is still growing and ever-changing pending new findings and experiments. How would one explain the ruh (soul) to scientists? Even with the MacDougall Experiment in 1907, the loss of weight upon death was some 21 grams, which some argue is either the weight of breath inside the human body, or within the margin of error.

Attempting to justify everything with scientific knowledge may lead to bad science. One doesn’t need to be convinced of the scientific advantages behind Allah’s instruction. It could simply be a test for the heart and soul, to elevate the faith of the believer and condemn those who aren’t.

A friend once asked me why do Muslim women wear the hijab. I told her for reasons such as modesty and humility. She replied, “But you do not need reason to do that. If you believe in Allah, why do you need to question his command?”

Not every single thing can be proved by science. Instead in this “everything-can-be-explained-by-science” world, more emphasis should be placed on faith. Just because you believe in miracle, doesn’t mean you must or can explain it.

Even though the fitrah of the human is belief in The Creator, having ourselves tamed to do otherwise in years of secular institutions only serves to enhance our insecurity through the limited reasoning of the human mind. Often the teachings of Islam is sidelined to accommodate the peer-pressure rhetorics of society dominated by secular atheistic opinions.

For this reason, it’s not surprising that non-religious, college-educated adults fall back on purpose-seeking explanations. Many people have little understanding of evolution and instead view it as a cultural belief, thinking: “‘I’m a good secular liberal, I’m no yokel, I believe in Darwin,'” Bloom says. (Source)

And the gifted Sayyed Hossein Nasr recently pointed out:

The secularist paradigm which was created in the 17th century is itself a pseudo-religion in that it is a view of the nature of reality. There is no abstract knowledge; knowledge is always within the framework of a worldview, of a way of looking at the nature of reality.

We need to be reminded that secularism itself is not value-free. It is heavily influenced by the post-Christian movement, and the result is looking at everything from a completely atheistic point of view.

We always forget that Allah is the creator of this beautiful earth, suspended in space with the other planets religiously moving on a trajectory determined by Him. We always forget that Allah doesn’t need scientific reasoning to create, “kun fa yakuun” (“Be, and it becomes”), as was how we were created into beings. We always forget that we were created from nothing, and once we pass away, from nothing we will be recreated. Nothing is impossible, as Allah the Omnipotent Creator is unlike us, not bound by the laws of physics which He imposed on us mortals. If he decided to create Prophet Adam from dust, then he be. And he was.

…regarding the issue of natural “laws,” or more precisely, the issue of causality which is a prerequisite for the construction of natural laws. Scholars from Ash`ari school of theology, such as Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, denied the principle of causality, asserting that Allah is either acting directly or through the angels. This was done in order to uphold the omnipotence of God who, given a strict view of causality, would be subservient to the laws of nature, and, hence, would not constitute the ultimate reality. (Source)

Allah doesn’t need a cause. Kun, fa yakuun.

Even experts who delve deep in the knowledge of science find themselves berlieving in the existence of a Creator. For instance, the man who cracked the genome code said:

“When you make a breakthrough it is a moment of scientific exhilaration because you have been on this search and seem to have found it,” he said. “But it is also a moment where I at least feel closeness to the creator in the sense of having now perceived something that no human knew before but God knew all along.

“When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind.”

While from Einstein himself:

“There are people who say there is no God,” he told a friend. “But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. “What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos,” he explained.

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. “The fanatical atheists,” he wrote in a letter, “are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who–in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’– cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

So, while the certain parts of the Qur’an may be supported by science, we must also remember that many other parts involve the ghaibiyyaat, the world of the unseen, not bound by the laws of science and physics that applies to Allah’s creations: the minerals, animals, elements, planets, and his creatures which we do not even know exist. Some people are more keen to credit unexplainable events to the “force of nature”, rather than Allah. Lest we forget, our very existence is bound by our purpose in life. Humans are no “accident” of “nature”. We will be questioned on our doings.


Further Readings:

Evolution and Islam by Shaikh Nuh ha Mim Keller (recommended)

Evolution in the Light of Islam

Islam’s Darwin problem

Muslim academics and students are turning against Darwin’s theory

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

Non-Muslims against betting

A comment from Malaysia Kini on the legalization of sports betting in Malaysia:

Vincent Tan (the tycoon who obtained the sports betting license) was reported as asking why these Muslims groups are unhappy when the government has made it clear that Muslims are not allowed to bet.

No, Vincent Tan. It is not only the Muslims who are unhappy – most non-Muslims are unhappy, too. No sane non-Muslim will support your argument. We non-Muslims are with the Muslim groups asking the government to withdraw the betting licence.

A bit late here in Singapore as the sports betting is common, and the two casinos are already in operation, but relevant nonetheless.


Earthquakes and Porn Videos

(Image credit)

Recently, the local Muslim Singaporeans were treated to a news regarding a group of people following a so-called ustaz (religious teacher). Apparently, the so-called ustaz had told his followers that Singapore faced an impending cataclysmic earthquake measuring more than 7.0 on the Richter scale, which were to occur on a certain date – 29th or 31st January 2010.

Fearing the worst, the group of followers, said to be around 30 families, packed their bags and traveled to Malaysia to escape the quake. Of course, the quake didn’t happen, as life went on for people on the lil’ red dot.

Then news spread the follower’s trip and the reason behind it, and people chastised them for being so gullible, and also for the so-called ustaz to be reprimanded.

Apparently from sources that I have access to (correct me if I’m wrong here), this ustaz apparently received the “news” of an “impending quake” from the above. In this day and age, one can only be extra careful to say the least, especially with regards to rumors coming from possibly shady people, and of course Fox News. Here are some points I’d like to raise:

1. Obviously, news like these should be inspected and  sieved carefully; one can only assume the character of the teacher – pious or otherwise. But in this day and age, as much as I like see myself as a religious believer, I am usually more than skeptical about those who claim to profess ilham (inspiration) from Allah. While I must note that ilham is still a rare possibility, the followers must practice their due diligence and not follow it blindly.

2. One of the tell-tale signs of a suspicious teacher may be his request for exclusivity and secrecy of his teachings. This is apparent in many cults, be it Western-based or otherwise, and it doesn’t take common sense to figure that good science – or knowledge for that matter – is one which is able to stand the criticism, openness, and debate. That is why in the Arabic countries for instance, there is this culture of their religious leaders attending the lectures of their peers. Sadly one which is lacking here, I say.

3. At least, verify any questionable issues raised by your religious teacher (a warning of an impending quake is definitely one of them) with established religious lecturers, not some taxi driver with no formal religious education training, and especially not the kakis you meet over your teh/kopi session.

4. By any means, please do not just forward any news/SMS/email you receive without checking its sources. Even if the source is verified, do not forward it if it brings no one any good. This, as well as common sense,  is one of the good practices when dealing with new technology. Among these good practices is also not to use the video recording technology like a 6-year-old would; recording everything in his path. Especially not coitus.

(Image credit)

5. Do not have sex before marriage. Do not have premarital sex and record it. Even if you are married, do not record sex. Men, regardless of their charm and seeming innocence, shouldn’t be trusted with really sensitive materials, and aren’t grown up until they reach circa 60 years of age. So if you do receive potentially damaging items of other people, do not forward it to anyone else. See #4.

6. If you spread damaging materials of other people, and they kill themselves because of it, are you partially responsible for it then? Please do what is right. Let the mind triumph over temptation, for once.

A stranger called me out of the blue pleading for my help. He wants to know if there is any way in which I could assist to purge copies of a file that has been circulating on the Internet. The file in question is actually a 3-minute pornographic video clip of a Singaporean Malay girl.

Apparently, the video is that of his 22-year old niece. The 3GP file allegedly shows her in full nudity while engaging in various sexual activities with her ex-boyfriend. Spiteful after being told to end the relationship, the revengeful lover purportedly gave the file away to several of his friends.

The video has since been making its round on local pornographic forums and file sharing networks. According to the uncle, the file is so widespread that it ended up in the hands of the family’s relatives who often teased her during the last Hari Raya visits.

Drowned in humiliation, she committed suicide about a month ago by leaping from her bedroom window. According to the uncle, her body was so mangled that they had to keep the “kain kafan” (burial shroud) sealed throughout the eerily somber funeral ceremony.

The 40-day anniversary of her death is approaching soon and her family members and close friends are thinking of holding a gathering at her parents’ flat to offer prayers for her soul. The Malays call it a “kenduri” and it is largely believed to offer some reprise for the dead. Besides, it is an opportunity for the family to gain closure over the tragedy.

But before the prayers, the family is appealing to all those who are having the file to delete and cease it from distribution. With a heavy heart, I had to explain to the uncle that it is not possible to simply “purge” a file on a sex forum without the intervention of the site’s owners.

I pray that her soul will finally be at peace.



Further reading:


The “Allah” Dilemma: A Linguist’s View

(Image credit)

While “Allah” issue in Malaysia (warning: Wiki link) has raised more than just eyebrows, I have stated in a previous post that while the usage is seemingly allowed according to Islamic canonical sources, bearing specificity to the Arabic language, those who are against it would assert that the contextualization of language (specifically Malaysian vis-a-vis Indonesian) would render that argument invalid.

Further readings I came across also inferred to the relatively contemporaneous usage of the word Allah by Christians in Malaysia. Previously, the word tuhan has been used as the translation for god. So why the recent recourse for the right over Allah?

Being frank, I must say that the jury is out until these speculations are cleared.

Adding to that, here’s NUS  linguistics lecturer Jyh Wee Sew’s enlightening article in the Malay daily recently (19 Jan), elucidating the exclusivity of religious terms.

‘Adakah satu perspektif transformatif diperlukan untuk menghadapi masalah perpaduan?’

Memang tidak wajar untuk menyamakan isu kemelut linguistik nama khas dengan sejarah yang berlaku 40 tahun lalu. Masalah dasar pada empat dekad lalu ialah kemiskinan atau lebih diakuri sebagai masalah ekonomi.

Masalah pada hari ini sebenarnya isu antiglobalis yang cuba disandung pada media cetak yang dianggap sebagai cabaran kepada agama Islam.

Terdapat banyak perkara yang perlu difikirkan dalam kemelut yang melanda keheningan masyarakat majmuk di Malaysia. Isu yang paling asas bukanlah isu perpaduan tetapi isu keharmonian.

Perpaduan antara kaum tidak akan mencapai konsep kawah lebur (melting pot), malahan ia tidak perlu menjadi begitu.

Kaum masing-masing telah pun sedia maklum dengan identiti sendiri seperti cara beramal ibadat, sistem bahasa, budaya makan, kepercayaan adat resam masing-masing.

Keunikan masyarakat majmuk yang begitu baik perlu dikekalkan dengan mantap. Setiap kaum harus bebas tetapi dengan peka menjalani kehidupan menurut tabii yang diwarisi.

Yang penting ialah keharmonian antara kaum dipelihara menerusi cara hidup yang bertatasusila.

Dengan mengakuri keistimewaan nama Tuhan agama sesuatu kaum yang lain tanpa menyamakannya secara globalis, keharmonian akan terpupuk.

Isu mutakhir yang menggugat keharmonian masyarakat majmuk berpunca daripada isu bahasa.

Keinginan menggunakan nama Tuhan secara merentas agama ternyata satu usaha yang tidak wajar kerana agama tidak lut globalisasi.

Reaksi dan suara daripada penganutnya bahawa keistimewaan nama keagamaan dipelihara sudah jelas dan ia harus dihormati serta dituruti oleh institusi perundangan serta sosial.

Konsep arbitrari bahasa iaitu rujukan bahasa bersifat wewenang ternyata tidak berlaku akibat peristiwa pembakaran gereja di Malaysia.

Konsep wewenang bahasa ini disalahtafsirkan daripada buku Ferdinand de Saussure yang disusun oleh pelajarnya selepas kematian beliau. Pembetulan masalah bacaan linguistik struktural ini boleh dibaca dalam buku From Interaction to Symbol oleh Piotr Sadowski (John Benjamins, 2009) yang antara lain diterangkan bahawa lambang bahasa merupakan hasil evolusi rujukan yang bertimbunan sejak zaman lampau.

Dengan ini lambang bahasa tidak mungkin bersifat wewenang tetapi merupakan himpunan makna yang mantap. Rujukan nama Tuhan dan rujukan nama khas yang lain sudah tidak mungkin disamakan dengan rujukan baru sesuka hati.

Faktor emosi tidak boleh diabai secara struktural. Sebagai contoh lain, usaha menghalalkan makanan Cina bernama Bak Kut Teh iaitu masakan sup tulang rusuk babi. Walaupun digantikan dengan daging ayam dan lembu, ia tetap dibantah oleh masyarakat Melayu kerana nama tersebut tidak halal didengar. Inilah yang dimaksudkan sebagai evolusi rujukan yang bersifat rujukan langsung atau isomorfik. Sebenarnya banyak rujukan isomorfik yang tersirat dan tersurat pada nama.

Bagi menjawab persoalan awal, perspektif yang transformatif tidak semesti pandangan yang bersifat radikal atau baru. Satu pemikiran yang mapan dapat dimanfaatkan daripada peribahasa Melayu ‘buat baik berpada-pada, buat jahat jangan sekali’.

Bagi perancang awam, pegangan wajib ialah tentukan nama hendaklah berpada-pada agar istilah agama kekal abadi. Jika pihak berkuasa lebih peka dengan sentimen ini, kemungkinan besar kerugian harta benda dan hakisan nama baik sebuah negara yang memang terkenal dengan keharmonian kaum tidak akan berlaku.