TURNING OUR CITIES INTO A SEXUAL NIGHTMARE?
when i was in the Bukit Bintang area. There was a total 5 “so-called pimps / promoters” that came up to me and asked me if i want to have “special massage” in other words sex. and they gave me there business cards and asked me if i want to come see the girls. Now we never have this in Canada.
This one occasion i was curious. so i actually wanted to see if its actually is. The pimp/promoter took me to this office complex. took me to one of the floors. brought me to this fancy spa. and then seated me. he called on his phone. then a bunch of girls came. like ALOT like 20-30around. I was like wow……… of course, i left after. tell him that im busy tonight. (i just wanted to see if it was real).
Whats even more weird. is that in the Bukit area. there are tons of police and some malaysian soldiers, in uniform. so like…… how are they not shutdown? if it was in canada. that place would be raided and everyone would be arrested.
So whats the deal?
prostitution is okay in kuala lumpur?
the police are paid off?
the girls are abducted, and forced to be prostitutes, against there will?
prostitution is okay in kuala lumpur?
the police are paid off?
the girls are abducted, and forced to be prostitutes, against there will?
The flourishing of prostitution in Kuala Lumpur is a paradox that we often overlook as a problem of our ummah. As prostitution is condemned and forbidden in Islam, and these women, to an extent, are marginalized and invisible in our community, many of us are not aware of the magnitude and realities of this problem. We do not consider them as a cause worth fighting for as we do for the betterment of the poor, abused, homeless, oppressed and ailing. To make matters worse, misinformation is widespread and the voices of former prostitution victims are systematically silenced.
On a larger scale, there should be a focus shift to criminalize the buying rather than the selling of sex. The burden of punishment should be on the clients who perpetuate the sex trade rather than the women who are trapped in the situation. For example, in Sweden, prostitution is officially acknowledged as a form of male sexual violence against women and children. Swedish policy addresses the issue of prostitution and trafficking by focusing on the root cause, and recognizing that without male demand and use of women and girls for sexual exploitation, the global prostitution industry would not be able flourish and expand. As a result, street prostitution has diminished. Granted, critiques have been directed to the government for making prostitution go underground and sex being sold over the internet is a growing problem; at least sources of evil cannot be accessed easily.While we criminalize them for living in adultery, spreading diseases, disrupting family institutions, and giving birth to innocent, illegitimate children who suffer for having dishonorable mothers, we fail to see the other spectrum of the consequences of prostitution. The consequences are not only devastating to the society, but also to the prostitute herself as a person. It completely destroys her already shattered life, being reduced down to a depersonalized, sexual object. She develops a personality where she is unable to develop trust in relationships and slowly numbs herself, to the point where she loses the ability to feign attachments to anyone or anything. In order to survive this overwhelming, daily ordeal, she dissociates from her real self, originally as a defense mechanism; sadly, it reaches to the point of complete shut down, where she is stripped of her identity, and over time, she disappears.
Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said the ministry would work with Jakim in addressing issues on the enforcement of Islamic laws with the setting up of ther the syariah police unit.Rather than consistently playing the blaming game and condemning them to hell, as a community we should take whatever measures necessary to assist them to escape prostitution. These desperate individuals need our help and understanding in order to believe they can lead better lives. They need to be pulled out from the pit so that they can regain their dignity, integrate back into society, and return to their senses, rest assured that Allāh and their Muslim brothers and sisters have not neglected them.
How much of the apparent conflict between Muslim and Western values is real, and how much of it is
either imagined by the misinformed, or contrived by posturing pundits?
I don’t think anything illustrates the answer better than the muddle around last summer’s threatened Quran burning in Florida, and the simple fact that Muslims burn our own Qurans.
When a Quran is old and frayed there are only three acceptable ways to give it back to God: removing the holy names and burning it, casting it into flowing water, or burying it. As far as Muslims are concerned, it’s the Word of God and you can’t just throw it into the garbage.
Christians call Jesus the Word of God, and believe that makes him something more than human. However, to Muslims, Muhammad and Jesus are like brothers. We believe Muhammad began us, but we also believe Jesus will be our leader when he returns. Frankly, that expectation is something both Muslims and Christians share.
But from a Muslim perspective, it wasn’t like how Christians would feel if someone was disrespecting the Bible. Instead, it was more like they’d feel if someone was planning on burning Jesus.
However, when Muslims burn a Quran we do it as a sign of profound respect. And I’m begging my Muslim brothers and sisters around the world, the next time someone tries to work us up that way, could we go with our symbols, rather than theirs?
Frankly, better the Qurans be “burned and returned” by God’s cleansing fire, than they remain objects of undeserved disrespect. If an ignorant someone burns Qurans, God still wins. God always wins.
There’s a reason we use words like “inflammatory” to describe unnecessarily provocative actions and reactions. Most times, everyone ends up getting burned. And evangelical Christians aren’t the only ones who make that mistake.
Every time angry mobs condemn those who disrespect Islam or a prophet to death, haven’t you noticed that it just makes them disrespect our beliefs that much more?
And Muslims who burn American flags to protest American foreign policy just inflame those who think Muslims hate Americans for what they are, rather than just hating some of the things Americans do.
I think one of the main problems with the current state of Muslim/American relations is that nobody gets the other side’s symbols and when meanings misalign, messages misfire.
For example, Imam Rauf honestly thought he could build a Muslim Center two blocks from Ground Zero and make it a symbol of peace. Imam Rauf and virtually every other Muslim (excepting the members of al Qaeda) consider Ground Zero the remnants of a disgusting attack by 19 criminals who claimed to be Muslim and failed their Islam.
There are only two crimes that get the death penalty straight up in the Quran: killing innocent people, and spreading mischief across the earth. The 9/11 attackers are guilty on both counts.
But then the many Americans who think Ground Zero symbolizes a war between Muslims and America got a hold of it, and brought Imam Rauf’s optimistic aspirations to a shuddering halt for a time.
The thing is, symbols are symbols. You can’t wish them away. We all use words to communicate, but we think in symbols. That means when you’re interacting with someone it’s really important to pay attention to what things mean to them, and pretty much impossible to get them to just change their minds and go with whatever those things mean to you.
Holy is holy. An old Quran is no less holy than a shiny new one, even though the old one’s dirty and dog-eared. Likewise, the land around Ground Zero is holy to many Americans, despite the liquor stores and the strip clubs.
But here’s the news flash: nobody has to choose between Islam and America. That is a false choice. In fact, both sides are closer than they think.
Islam and America mean very similar things symbolically to the people who believe in them, while sometimes carrying the opposite meaning to those who don’t. Whether someone’s burning flags or Qurans, they’re generally both for and against the same general things. Believe me, I know people who could do either.
To Muslims, the Quran and Muhammad’s example are the sources of our individual rights and freedoms. According to Islam, our rights and freedoms relative to each other derive from our equivalent relationships to God.
And yes, most Muslims believe that everyone is equal before God, with similar rights, responsibilities and standards of judgement.
So when people denigrate the Quran or Muhammad, even when they think they’re denigrating oppression or terrorism, Muslims think they’re denigrating rights and freedoms.
But Americans believe that their rights and freedoms derive from the American Constitution, with that constitution’s interpretation protected by the First Amendment’s proclamation of free speech.
So when Muslims burn the American flag or condemn free speech, they may think they’re denigrating immorality and arrogance. But to Americans, they’re denigrating rights and freedoms too.
And here’s the good news: faith-filled people striving for a “Just Society” founded both Islam and America, even though sometimes we all fall short of our ideals. And the great thing about free speech is, when that happens we can always count on someone pointing it out. Islam’s and America’s critics do have a point. Thereare Muslims and Americans out there doing scary things, like al Qaeda openly killing innocent people just to make a statement, or American soldiers allegedly using Afghan civilians for target practice.
Those sorts of failures need to be openly criticized and condemned by all of us, not hidden behind a smokescreen of words like “Islamophobic” and “anti-American.” Such marginalizing rhetoric merely prevents any possible constructive utility to criticism, by automatically making it destructive instead. Our shared ideals are why we should all support both free speech and tough questions, and both America and Islam. Because even though Muslims complain about being under the microscope for the last ten years, our Islam is unquestionably the better for it. It has become more refined, more defined by our founder’s examples and more self-aware.
The same thing happened to America in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and will likely prove true as America deals with the consequences of their “War on Terror” as well.
The Quran honestly promises that all our different perspectives are mutually beneficial. And I’m hoping that with God’s help, together in 2011 they can help us each find our own paths better, by helping us see ourselves — and everything else — more clearly.
If we can just keep all our symbols straight.
Made In The Image Of God: The Theological Implications Of Human Genomics
God-fearing Christians would have defended the crucifixes, Jesus Christ and God. Do they value the presence of the PM more than God?
By Jackson Ng (former journalist)
BEFORE I start whacking the organisers of the Christmas Eve gathering at the St John’s Cathedral, let me state clearly that I am not a Christian.
I am a free thinker but I believe in the existence God and I am God-fearing.
I have decided to pen my thoughts because I see this as an issue about God-fearing principles. It is not just a Christian issue.
Then, you may say that I have no right to talk about Christians but I have every right to talk about universal acceptance of basic principles and the rights of mankind.
The removal of crucifixes and banning of singing hymns at St John’’s Cathedral constitute a violation of religious freedom guaranteed under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak’s aides ordered the removal, claiming the crucifixes would be offensive to the prime minister.
That is too ridiculous for me to fathom.
Of course, the issue has naturally become political but my concern is not with the PM or his pea-brain aides who are, in my view, beyond redemption.
But I do take offence and take to task the event organisers.
Are they not God-fearing Christians, just like Muslims are also God-fearing?
Why then did the organisers remove the sacred crucifixes? Isn’t it logical to deduce that they are not God-fearing beings but Satan-fearing arse-licking politicians who claim to be Christians?
God-fearing Christians would have defended the crucifixes, Jesus Christ and God.
Do they value the presence of the PM more than God?
I say the organisers could have just politely told the PM’s pea-brain aides that the crucifixes cannot be removed and neither could hymn-singing be stopped on the eve of Christmas.
Then leave it to the PM and the pea-brain aides to decide whether they want to attend the function or not.
As it was, the organisers, for reasons best known to them, felt the presence of the PM was more important than their Jesus Christ and God.
To them, it was more important for the PM to grace the function and, therefore, abandon Jesus Christ and their God.
Disgraceful and shameful are two words best to describe the organisers.
God-fearing Christians must therefore start defending Jesus Christ and their God by throwing out the organisers from their holy house of worship. If not, they too are condoning what they did.
The Prime Minister is most welcome to visit any place of worship but conditions should not be imposed, as freedom to practice religion is guaranteed under the Constitution.
If he had felt offensive about the place of worship, there is then no necessity for him to visit is there?
A few Christmases ago my family thought it advisable to expand my reading diet. Left to my own devices, the scientific and philosophic are my staples. To wit, Christmas morn, along with the ties and underwear, I was presented with Ron Chernow’s 800-plus page biography,Alexander Hamilton(excellent book, by the way).
For various reasons — some justified, some not — Hamilton has been eclipsed by Jefferson, Washington, Adams and other more celebrated founding fathers. Yet it was Hamilton who was most responsible for making an infant democracy grow legs and walk. We live in the practical, messy democracy of Hamilton’s prose far more than the idealistic democracy of Jefferson’s poetry. In his ascent from a wretched childhood, Hamilton’s early life followed a plot line worthy of Charles Dickens. In his fall from the political pinnacle and ultimate bitter end, he was Shakespearian in tragedy. His religious journey was more gradual, but no less eventful. At a time when religion’s place in the public sphere is being actively and passionately debated, Hamilton’s personal beliefs as well as his counsel on religion’s role in a democratic society are not only interesting but potentially instructive.
As the illegitimate son of Rachel Fawcett Lavien and (presumably) James Hamilton, Alexander was unwelcomed by the church establishment of colonial Nevis Island of the British West Indies. He was 13 when his mother died and less than three years removed from his father’s abandonment. His lifelong estrangement from established religion was solidified when church burial was deemed inappropriate for a “stained” woman such as Rachel. Despite this, young Alexander was religious. Among the male adults who befriended the orphaned boy was Hugh Knox, a Presbyterian minister. Knox encouraged Hamilton’s burgeoning literary skills, which often included religious poems and hymns.
By age 14, ambition and serendipity had conspired to make Alexander the office manager of the import-export firm of Beekman and Cruger on St. Croix Island (might Cruger have been his father?). Impressed with his pluck, island leaders established an education fund for the boy and sent him off to King’s College in New York City (now Columbia University). Chapel was, of course, required of all students — but Alexander had a reputation for personal piety that went beyond protocol. He was said to pray fervently on his knees, morning and night.
It was while he was at King’s that the Revolution broke out and the eager Hamilton — now an officer in the New York militia — caught the eye of George Washington. Under Washington’s tutelage, Hamilton rose militarily, socially and politically. As the first Secretary of the Treasury, it is no stretch to say that while Washington admirably presided over America, Hamilton ably ran the government. Hamilton’s relationship with Washington also marks an inflection point in his views on religion.
As the boorish foreigner, Hamilton was never fully accepted into the high-brow world of the founding fathers. His personal piety, no doubt, only accentuated his outsider status. As Washington’s military aide-de-camp and later his cabinet consigliere, Hamilton fell comfortably into an appropriate patrician deism, an easy fit with his long standing skepticism toward institutionalized religion. In shaping a fledgling new nation, it was religious fanaticism that Hamilton found most threatening:
“The world has been scourged with many fanatical sects in religion who, inflamed by sincere but mistaken zeal, have perpetuated under the idea of serving God the most atrocious crimes” (Hamilton, unpublished report on “The Cause of France” see Chernow, p. 659).
In place of fanaticism and state-sanctioned religion, Hamilton saw economic gain in a fair and open religious free-market. Manufacturers could be lured to America not only because of cheaper labor, lower taxes and better access to raw materials, but also by America’s personal liberties, including not just religious tolerance but “a perfect equality of religious privileges” (from Report on the Subject of Manufacturers Dec. 5, 1791).
Whatever his personal beliefs at this time, publically Hamilton found it expedient to keep cordial (if distant) relations with religious institutions. His wife was genuinely devout and his family rented pews at Trinity Episcopalian Church in New York. Though Hamilton almost never attended, all his children were baptized there and he provided it with free legal services. By burnishing a respectable religious public face, Hamilton clearly distinguished himself from his main political rival, Thomas Jefferson, who was (incorrectly) rumored to be an atheist.
But as the Reign of Terror gripped France, Hamilton’s religious views took another profound turn. Jefferson took the Revolution’s excesses in stride; but in Hamilton they reawaken a Hobbesian lesson engrained from his hardscrabble upbringing — man’s nature is far more beast than angel. When French secularists renamed Notre Dame “The Temple of Reason” and proceeded to decapitate hundreds weekly in its shadow, Hamilton concluded that reason was as easily appropriated into the fanatic’s arsenal as religion. Without suitable restraints, humans — both in society and individually — were powerless to resist the entropic charge toward self-destruction. Unreasonable religion was dangerous, but reason unchecked by religious morality was anarchic. In his later years, Chernow concludes, “religion [for Hamilton] formed the basis of all law and morality, and he thought the world would be a hellish place without it” (p. 659).
Hamilton’s estrangement from organized religion ended during the dreadful 30-hour deathbed ordeal that followed his infamous duel with Aaron Burr. Repeatedly, he petitioned for the final sacraments. Repeatedly, he was rebuffed. Dueling, as he well knew, was a sin. Finally, with death nearing, Episcopal Bishop Benjamin Moore relented, offered Hamilton final communion and final solace.
So which Hamilton — the pious Christian, the deist, the skeptic, the religious free-marketeer — would pass judgment on the secular/religious debates of contemporary America? My guess is all of them, for they all coalesce around a consistent Hamiltonian striving: temperance. Hamilton was a revolutionary, but he wasn’t a radical. His life taught him the essential virtue of self discipline and moderation (virtues he did not always successfully practice). Reason, religion, government, the free-market — at their best, they all impose healthy restraints on our self-destructive tendencies. Moreover, when they respectfully jockey amongst themselves in the public forum, they impose healthy restraints on each other. In a democracy, our side is not always supposed to win. And that’s a good thing. That’s what makes it work, more or less, the way Hamilton intended.