Your Honour, I am no prophet. I can’t claim to be guided by God, at least not in the way the Prophets of old were. But what have we learned from the examples of the Prophets? Basically, what we have learned is we must not be afraid of challenging the system and not to fear reforms. To do that, we must speak out, debate and enter into discourse.
About 15 years ago, Carlton Pearson had what you might call a revelation.
It occurred to him that ideas that had informed his entire adult life — about heaven and hell, and what it takes to avoid one and enter the other — were just not true. What was a big deal for his personal faith became a much bigger one in his professional life, because Carlton Pearson presided over one of the country's biggest Pentecostal congregations in Tulsa, Okla., and his rejection of that theology for what he calls the "gospel of inclusion" would cost him just about everything he had.
BLEAK TIME IT SEEMS AS NOBODY SAY IT WAS EASY AND NO ONE SAYS IT BE THIS HARD TO KEEP AWAY THE DISTANCE TO FIND ANEW SO AS TO HAVE A LIFE WILL THIS BE A NEW NORM? NOBODY KNEW NO ONE WILL SAY LIVING WITH ROBOT PARTNER? AS HUMAN COUNTERPARTS IS A DISEASE HELL YEAH!!!
THE EARTH IS ROUND BUT THE WORLD IS FLAT!!!
"I just want them to rethink," he says. "I want them to ask themselves: What do I believe and why do I believe it? What is the difference between what I believe in my head and know in my soul? Because I think there's a difference."
Seems that, 'The safest route would be to follow the herd.' As long as you agree with what others believe then life would be very pleasant. The instant you ‘deviate’ or break away from what the majority view as ‘norm’ then your problems begin. Let me quote Bishop Carlton Pearson.
In Acts 23:1-4, Luke writes:
Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”
Those who were standing near Paul said, “You dare to insult God’s high priest?”
How dare I insult the system? Where do I come off insulting the powers that be, the traditional leading influences of the day? Where do I get the audacity to speak up and demand change?
I do it, as Paul, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and others did, because of my conscience. Conscience is literally calling me out to proclaim a higher reality. Conscience has attacked my moral amnesia and caused me to remember that we were all created in the image and likeness of God and that anything else is an impersonation, an illusion, and an outright deception.
Truth demands expression, and its call is irresistible. In scripture, the word conscience is the Greek word suneidesis, which means “co-perception” — that is “accompanying moral consciousness and awareness.”
Conscience is, in effect, to have uncommon knowledge or awareness. It is the consciousness and awareness of the soul. It is not only what you know but what you undeniably are.
THE PRICE OF VISION
People like the Apostle Paul, Dr. King, Rosa Parks and Gandhi had this common awareness. They saw what others either didn’t see or refused to acknowledge. The mystical or metaphorical meaning of the word conscience is to see as God perceives, to see things as they can become. Or perhaps as they are in another reality, rather than as they appear.
Mind you, I do not flatter myself with comparisons to these giants. I humbly submit that I can only hope to capture some small shadow of the light of their greatness and courage. I bring them up only to illustrate that to perceive things outside the box and to try to bring about both spiritual and practical evolution and revolution inevitably comes with a great price.
Visionary minds are always met with violent opposition born of fear. Higher knowledge is costly. It cost Galileo, Dr. King, Gandhi, Paul the Apostle, Jesus, and scores of lesser knowns their lives or livelihoods. People who hear the call to conscience follow what they know inwardly — what they know in consciousness or at higher levels of awareness. I call this irresistible knowing. It is a form of divinely transcendent memory.
Dr. King remembered his vision of a world “where my four little children…will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character” from another consciousness. He recalled the innate knowledge we all share as our birthright: that we are all safe with God and that we all participate in the fullness of the Divine and the continuing creation and evolution of this world.
Somehow, in our very human failure, we forgot this truth.
Perhaps we buried it beneath the strata of dogma, politics, legalism and lust for power. But Dr. King reminded the world that indeed all people were and are created equal.
This is the message of Jesus and all Hs true disciples, both Christian and non-Christian (Abraham, Prophet Muhammad, Buddha, etc. included). The call of my conscience is to hear and herald this same powerful truth to my generation.
Such resolution can cost you. You can lose things, people, friends, family, reputation, position, and even your life, simply because of what you profess to know and how you see things, especially if it is different from what others see or will admit.
My vision initially cost me dearly in terms of finances and possessions, status and relationships, and my self-imposed illusions about how loving and tolerant many of my Christian brethren and friends were.
It turns out that many of them were loving and tolerant so long as they believed I thought as they did. Once I did not, I became to them a heretic, rebel, or radical, and to some a perceived adversary.
IF MANKIND IS TO BE VACCINATED WHY NOT THE BAT KIND???
In the new norm Is a Brave New World Where Man and Robots Are One in Soul... But if the virus is Manmade Can Covid be pass on to machines? If the source is a particular species why vaccine only mankind? In a Brave new world an instant cure is found.... #coronaviruspandemic#newnormal#bravenewworld
ARGUING UPON SUCH CASES
Your Honour, first of all I thank you for the opportunity offered me to try to convince you why I should be released and allowed to go home. I realise that, normally, detainees would arrange for a lawyer or a team of lawyers to argue their case and that the proceedings are conducted in the same way as in a court of law.
Nevertheless, I would like to dispense with the services of a lawyer and argue my case myself. I hope you will bear with me and hear me out and allow me to take you through the issues as to why this Lembaga should consider releasing me and allow me to go home.
Your Honour, if you were to peruse my Detention Order, you will see that the four grounds of my detention, as stated in that Detention Order, is for speaking out or for expressing myself. I know the grounds of my detention have been explained in great detail and with a lot of legal jargon that would probably confuse even lawyers themselves. However, putting that aside, and as the Americans would say, cutting to the chase, the long and short of it is, simply, I am too vocal.
Your Honour, whether, as what the Honourable Minister said, I am a threat to national security is a matter of opinion. As they say, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. George Washington was a terrorist and was treated as such by the British Colonialists. If they had caught him, they would have put him to death. Today, Washington is the name of the capital of the most powerful nation in the world.
I agree wholeheartedly that the pen is mightier than the sword. If I had carried a sword and had threatened bodily harm then certainly that would make me a threat to life and limb and therefore a threat to national security and public order. But my crime is merely for using the pen, in this case a computer keyboard, and as much as the pen may be mightier than a sword, metaphorically speaking, using a pen is not the same as threatening someone with a sword.
What would humanity be today if freedom of expression had not been allowed? And that is my only crime, being too free with my expression.
Buddha, a Hindu prince, lived a protected life and knew nothing about death, sickness, poverty, etc. until he was exposed to the world. That exposure opened his eyes to the suffering, injustice and evil of the world around him that he had been protected from.
Eventually, Buddha became disillusioned and sought enlightenment. Through enlightenment, Buddha saw the truth and brought reforms to the world. Had the powers-that-be tried to stifle Buddha and prevented him from seeking enlightenment, Buddhism would not exist today.
Was Buddha a terrorist? Was he considered a threat to Hinduism? If they had declared Buddha a threat to society and had put him to death we would never have known Buddha or Buddhism, which teaches love, kindness and peace and is not violent even to animals.
A NEW KIND OF NORM!!!!
What was Buddha’s crime if you want to consider him as having committed one? His crime is he was different. He was a seeker. He was what today we would call a reformist.
Because of Buddha, that part of the world could see reforms while the rest of the world, even Europe, was steeped in superstition and ignorance. Europe was locked in what we would call the dark ages while Buddha brought enlightenment because they allowed him to do what he did. They did not lock him away under detention without trial.
Your Honour, as a Muslim just like me, you too must be very familiar with the history of our Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad too was a reformist. For ten years he preached reforms but the people of Mekah rejected him. In fact, they plotted against him and schemed his death.
Did God abandon Muhammad to his fate? No! God commanded Muhammad to leave Mekah and to seek asylum in the safety of Medina. Yes, God refused to allow them to silence him. God wanted Muhammad to continue spreading his message of reforms. Today, even the non-Muslim western world regards Muhammad as the greatest reformist in history.
It took more than 1,500 years for the western world to fully understand Christianity and to comprehend the teachings of Christ. For more than 1,000 years the Christian world remained in ignorance mainly because no debate and discourse was allowed. Debates and discourse was punishable by death.
It was not until they revolted against this that the Christian world progressed and discarded their superstitious and ignorant ways. Again, it was not until the reformists rose up and demanded change did the world become a better place and the killings in the name of religion end.
So you see, Your Honour, for thousands of years reformists have fought against impossible odds and won. As a result, we now live in a better and more progressive world.
Your Honour, I am not prophet. I can’t claim to be guided by God, at least not in the way the Prophets of old were. But what have we learned from the examples of the Prophets? Basically, what we have learned is we must not be afraid of challenging the system and not to fear reforms. To do that, we must speak out, debate and enter into discourse.
Your Honour, my crime, if you can even consider it a crime, is that I have challenged the system and have spoken out. And for that I am now in Kamunting under ISA detention. How can speaking out be a crime? How can we see reforms and changes if we do not speak out?
I am here in Court because I am considered a threat to national security. Galileo Galilee too was considered a threat to national security. But because of his links to the Duke they did not dare put him to death. Instead they excommunicated him and placed him under house arrest.
And what was Galileo’s crime? His crime is he declared that the sun does move around the earth but instead the earth moves around the sun. And that declaration, to the powers-that-be at that time, was a crime and a threat to national security. Would we still insist today that Galileo is a criminal and a threat to national security?
So you see, Your Honour, the world will never progress if we jail or put to death everyone who challenges the system and tries to preach reforms — as long as they don’t preach death and destruction, which neither I nor Galileo have done.
I may be overzealous in expressing myself. That may be my fault. But Martin Luther was as well when he challenged the church that resulted in reforms, as was Martin Luther King. Because of his work and other social changes, the first African-American President is now serving America.
HOUSE ARREST - THERE IS NO PLACE LIKE HOME, WORK FROM HOME!!!
Your Honour, the Honourable Minister has declared me a threat to national security based on his standards and interpretation. Can one man make this sole decision on behalf of 28 million Earthlings? Does his view reflect that of the majority of Earthlings?
In the past, until about 500 years or so ago, the ‘common people’ in Christendom did not interpret religion themselves. That is because religion was communicated in a language that the masses did not speak. Hence they needed ‘middlemen’ to help interpret religion. And these middlemen would interpret religion in a ‘politically correct’ manner.
Then, by the late 1400s to early 1500s, religion began to be communicated in the people’s mother tongue. The English read religion in English, the Germans in German, and so on. This reduced the need for middlemen and made them redundant. And people began to realise that the middlemen had been taking the people for a ride and were ‘tailoring’ religious decrees (fatwah) to suit the political agenda of the powers-that-be.
For example, for Catholics, divorce was not allowed. However, if the king wanted to take on a new wife then the religious authorities could always declare that the king’s first marriage was null and void. Hence he need not divorce his first wife to marry his second wife since his first wife was not really his wife in the first place. The first wife no longer exists so the second wife becomes the first wife.
Then, when he wants to get rid of his second (but now first) wife to marry his third (but now second) wife, he can declare that she has committed treason against God’s representative on earth and hence by offending the king she has offended God and can, therefore, be put to death. Then, on the day they execute his second (but considered first) wife, he can go marry his third (but considered second) wife.
Religious decrees or fatwah have been a very useful political tool for Christendom. The Church and the Crown shared power. Hence rules need to be laid down that serve both the Church and the Crown. When the Church ignores the Crown then the Crown will act against the Church and the Church would lose its powers and status.
Hence the Church and the Crown had to work in tandem. The Crown drew its legitimacy from the Church (which recognised the king as God’s representative) while the Church got its powers at the pleasure of the Crown. It was a convenient joint venture of two corrupt systems that existed mainly to oppress and suppress the people.
That was up to about 500 years ago in Christendom. Since then, especially around 200 years ago, the people got rid of this menace called the Church and later even the menace called the Crown. Hence the two biggest exploiters and oppressors of the people were removed. Today, many people go to church only three times in their life — when they are christened, when they marry (if they have a church wedding), and when they die (unless they get blown up in Iraq or Afghanistan). Other than that they go to the pubs.
As I said, that was up to about 500 years ago in Christendom. In Islamdom, they still have not got rid of the ‘Church’ and in many countries the ‘Crown’ as well. And that is why in some Muslim countries we still have monarchs who are the head of religion. And we also still have religious authorities that pass decrees or fatwah.
Basically, many Muslim countries are still hundreds of years behind Christendom. Hence those who live in such countries suffer what the people in Christendom suffered up to about 200 to 500 years ago. And that is why we still read news reports such as the two below from NST (regarding dogs) and Hakarah (regarding fatwah or decrees).
The religious authorities tell us what we can and cannot believe in plus what we can and cannot do. They interpret what is and is not allowed. And we are compelled to follow these rulings or face arrest and punishment.
But is this really what God stipulated? This is what the religious authorities say God has stipulated. Can we disagree with this? We cannot disagree with this. Can we interpret things our own way? We cannot interpret things our own way. They will interpret it for us.
You will notice one thing, though. Most times they will quote the Hadith when they pass rulings or decrees. But why quote the Hadith and not the Qur’an, the holy book of Islam? That is because the Qur’an is ‘silent’ on many issues so if they quote the Qur’an then they will not be able to support what they say. Hence they need to quote the Hadith.
What if you do not accept the Hadith? You cannot. You must accept the Hadith. If you reject the Hadith then you are a deviant and can be arrested and punished.
What if you follow a certain sect of Islam that does not recognise the Hadith or it recognises a different set of Hadith and not the ones that you recognise? You cannot. You can only follow the sect of Islam that the government says you can follow and if you follow another sect of Islam then you can get arrested and punished.
Basically, Islam, today, is where Christianity was 500 or 200 years ago. However, while Christendom has reformed and has allowed freedom of choice, Islamdom does not allow freedom of choice. The religious authorities in Islamdom decide what you can and cannot do and there are no two ways about it.
If you were to do a comparison study between Muhammedanism (before it was called Islam) with Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Nazarenes (before it was called Christianity), but based on how it used to be during the medieval period and before all the adulterations, modifications and deviations crept into these religions, then you will be hard-pressed to detect the differences in all these religions.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share the same view on so many things. Of course, if you compare the three faiths today, these similarities will not be seen. And this is because so much has changed over more than 2,000 years and people have become more liberal. You will only see these similarities if you compare the three religions back in medieval times.
The popular argument is that the world has changed and has become more modern and liberal. Hence we cannot apply the strict medieval form of religion to today’s modern world.
Let us look at some examples on how the three Abrahamic faiths actually came from the same mould.
Females are supposed to cover themselves other than just the face, feet and hands. The clothes must cover the head/hair, arms till the wrist, and legs down to the ankles.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share this view.
Men are not allowed to go to public baths because they are not supposed to bath naked. They are supposed to cover themselves from the top of the belly button to below the knees.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share this view.
Adultery and apostasy are punishable by death.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share this view.
Slavery is allowed.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share this view.
This world is our temporary abode — so we need to live, eat and dress in the simplest manner, bordering on a life of poverty. In fact, we are supposed to ‘hate’ this world for fear that it may imperil our soul.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share this view.
We must weep for our sins but not bewail any misfortune or misery that may befall us. In the latter case, it is our duty to resign ourselves to our misfortune and to praise God amid our sufferings.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share this view.
So, today, you can cycle naked all over London (in fact they did that recently simultaneously in many ‘Christian’ countries all over the world). But that does not mean the Torah, Bible or Qur’an allows it. The Torah, Bible and Qur’an still do not allow it. It is just that the people violate the Torah, Bible and Qur’an and do it anyway. And that is why gay unions are now allowed, even amongst the clergy, when in the past they would have been put to death as God has commanded.
You can research the ‘rules and regulations’ of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, say, in the year 700, and you will find that there is very little difference between one religion and another. These changes and differences came later and that is why, today, you see the glaring differences.
Take the issue of the Afterlife and Paradise. Though there is no official Jewish concept of the Afterlife, Jewish sources do provide images of a torturous hell and heavenly paradise.
Many faiths have definite teachings about the Afterlife. But in answer to the question — “What happens after we die?” — the Torah is surprisingly silent. Nowhere does it discuss the Afterlife in detail.
Over the centuries, a few possible descriptions of the Afterlife have been incorporated into Jewish thought. However, there is no definite Jewish explanation for what happens after we die.
No one knows exactly why the Torah doesn’t discuss the Afterlife. Instead, the Torah focuses on ‘Olam Ha Ze’, which means ‘this world’.
But then Christianity and Islam are very clear about the Afterlife plus about Paradise. Now, if Jesus, who followed the religion of Abraham and Moses, did not teach Christians about the Afterlife and Paradise, where did this concept come from?
This concept actually came from the ancient Persian religion. And Paradise is a Greek word that the Greeks borrowed from the Persians — meaning an orchard or hunting park in Persia — and used in Septuagint to mean ‘Garden of Eden’. In the New Testament of Luke, it translates to ‘heaven’ — a sense (attested in English from c.1200) to mean ‘place like or compared to Paradise’.
Hence, Christianity, and then Islam, borrowed this concept not from Judaism but from the Greeks, who in turn borrowed it from the Persians. And the 25th December celebration — Dies Natalis Solis Invicti — is adopted from the ancient Roman religion, the ‘Birthday of the Unconquered Sun’.
Today, 25th December has transformed into the birthday of Jesus Christ.
To write about how religions borrowed from each other would require a whole book and which this article of mine cannot cover in great detail. Even the Islamic rituals are not original and much has come from ancient Arabic customs and traditions as well as from Persia, in particular Zoroastrianism.
In short, there is nothing in Islam that is original. You can find Islam in Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity and whatnot. For all intents and purposes, as what the Prophet said, Islam is an ‘improvement’ (meaning amalgamation) of all the earlier religions. And this is something that Muslims need to come to terms with.