關於 undisputed today ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

[MRM Reply To FMT's Reader Comment]

⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dear Mr. Ravinder Singh

I begin with the greetings of peace and Salam.

My name is Firdaus Wong and I am the person of whom you referred to in your article "Defying one's religious teachings to belittle another's".

First of all, as Muslims, we are taught in the Qur'an that, if we receive news from a person who errs, we should investigate and clarify it first, lest we may end up inadvertently harming others in our ignorance. (Refer to chapter 49:hujaraat, Verse 6). So it would have been a much more appropriate measure and a better conduct for us to have a decent conversation and clarified my point and Dr. Zakir Naik's, instead of posting a public article on Free Malaysia Today, immediately jumping to the erroneous conclusion and false accusation that I have defended an individual who defied his own religion.

In today's age of social media and email, we live in a world today that communication is easy and rather effortless, that it would have been much civilized and easier to contact me in person instead of releasing a such controversial and derogatory article.

Regardless, what's done is done, and moving forward, I write to you with the intent of correcting and clarifying the errors made in your writings; in full acknowledgement and respect that you write the article in sincere intent of clarifying the truth, and not a mere cheap attempt at riding on the bandwagon of Dr Zakir Naik's current popularity just to gain public attention and likes.

What you have said regarding the teachings of Islam, that there is no compulsion in religion, and that we should not belittle others, is exactly correct.

In the Quran chapter 2:Al-Baqarah Verse 256 Allah tells us "there is no compulsion in calling others to religion", and in chapter 49:Al-Hujaraat, chapter 11, Muslims are warned never to scoff and look down on others - "O you who believe! Let not a group scoff at another group, it may be that the latter are better than the former; nor let (some) women scoff at other women, it may be that the latter are better than the former, nor defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. How evil is it, to insult one's brother after having Faith [i.e. to call your Muslim brother (a faithful believer) as: "O sinner", or "O wicked", etc.]. And whosoever does not repent, then such are indeed those who have evil"

Having said that, Dr. Zakir Naik has never belittled or scorned other religions, and neither has he forced others to join the religion of islam. Your article itself has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate this claim.

In fact, if you have watched his videos, when people convert to islam in his public events, it is out of their own sincere willingness. Being a man of integrity, I am sure you have seen at least some of his videos on YouTube, and perhaps have some proof to substantiate your claims.

When Dr Zakir mentions that God does not have son, he quotes it directly from the Qur'an. So how can you say he defies the Qur'an by quoting directly from it?
Your own statement has defied and contradicted your own logic.
Unless, what you are actually trying to say is that, the Qur'an itself is taking negatively about other religions and that islam itself is a bad religion for preaching this negativity.

And where, in his quoting of these characteristics of God, does he speak of in a belittling, negative or derogatory manner of other religions?

What Dr. Zakir Naik does, as with the obligation of every Muslim, is simply promote the religion of Islam transparently as how God has Revealed in His Final, undistorted Revelation, the Holy Qur'an, and through the teachings of His Final Messenger, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. He does this in full respect of other religions, quoting from their own religious scriptures on what their true teachings are, not simply what their culture or tradition dictates. He never makes derogatory remarks on others, in the same way that, if we were to clarify our country's Laws to other countries which contradict what our country has legislated, we never did that with the intent of belittling or degrading their Law, simply stating our differences and an attempt to convince the other party that perhaps our point may be stronger and worthy of consideration to be implemented. But if you are not convinced and still feel your law is more worthy of implementation, and that you wish to remain in your ways, then by all means, I will not penalize or disrespect you - and hence what is meant by "there is no compulsion", and "to you, your religion, and to me mine".

But this does not negate our duty to propagate and promote the message of Islam.

As Muslims we propagate islam, because we are passionate about our religion and what we are convinced of as the Truth, because that gives us happiness and contentment in this life and a positive outlook on the life to come. And in knowing this beautiful way of life, it would be utterly selfish for us to reserve this message to ourselves, and hence we propagate the religion islam as we wish for others the same goodness that we have been blessed with, and that is why we are commanded by Allah not to be stingy of this faith :
"Invite mankind to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better." (Chapter 16:An-Nahl, Verse 125)

Your claims that "Zakir seems to have come on a political mission to get PAS and Umno to form a coalition" is completely baseless, speculative and provocative. You have no right to judge his intent as political, and this statement seems to be an unprofessional attempt of character assassination to instigate undeserved hatred against Dr Zakir.

When Dr Zakir makes the claim that it is better for them to form a coalition, this is not with political intent, rather reiterating the beautiful unity and harmony God asks the Muslims to achieve, to be United and cooperate on the terms of faith and not the terms of flags, borders, political parties or organizations.
"And hold tightly, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah (i.e. this Quran, this religion), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together (through faith)" (Chapter 3:al imran, Verse 103)


A HOUSE NOT WELL KEPT?

Regarding your statement,
Shouldn’t the pious Muslim be more concerned over his brethren who are not following the teachings of the Quran and go on a jihad to bring them back to the right path instead of trying to get more people to convert to Islam?

Simple logic: If your house is not well kept, how are you going to make it well kept by bringing more “property” into it and strewing it all over the place?



Firstly it is quite apparent by your statement that you are not aware of the multitude Islamic initiatives and organizations currently in existence and in operation, both in the country and globally - all in the intent of continuously educating, correcting ourselves and helping each other towards righteousness. Thousands, millions of Muslims collaborate and benefit each other through these initiatives.

Having said that, This does not negate our obligation to propagate the religion and expand ourselves. Rather, both efforts come hand in hand.

Mr Ravinder, as an educated person I'm sure you know, an organization that does not expand itself, is doomed for failure. So should a company stop expanding just because it has a few troubled employees? Should a country stop scientific advancement and research because many of its citizens are lacking in scientific knowledge?

But the reality is, the Muslims, just like any other organization, no matter how excellent or perfect our self-improvement initiatives are, there will always be shortcomings in individuals, and it is the nature that God created us differently as a test to ourselves and to others.

"It does not matter if God has a son or not"

You speak of our religion as an outsider, without proof. On the contrary, referring to our Qur'an, it DOES matter; in the teachings of Islam, the trait of having a son is a sign of imperfection that is not befitting of the Majesty and Perfection of God.

"They say: God has begotten a son! Glory be to Him: He is the Self-sufficient: His is what is in the heavens and what is in the earth; you have no authority for this; do you say against Allah what you do not know? Say: Those who forge a lie against Allah shall never be successful." (Chapter 10:Yunus, Verse 68-69).


"Don’t ask others to partake of your religion by promising them the joys of heaven and threatening them with the fires of hell."

Well, Mr Ravinder, this is essentially the message of the Qur'an, not the personal whims of Dr Zakir Naik. Mr Ravinder, for the benefit of myself and the beloved Malaysian readers of FMT, please clarify : are you trying to tell Muslims to stop following the commandments of our own religion? Are you challenging the reference of the country's official religion? Are you hypocritically belittling the official religion of the soil which you live in?

"Nobody has gone to heaven or hell and come back to tell about these places. As such, all talk about heaven and hell is hearsay, and hearsay carries no weight."

Mr Ravinder, by your statement here you have demonstrated a lack of understanding in the purpose of revelation. What are books of revelation? Why do books of revelation exist?

Books of revelation are divine scriptures revealed from God Almighty to help give guidance to mankind; as the Creator, He Knows human beings more than they know themselves and hence Sends Revelation to guide mankind to the truth according to His Wisdom. Of all books of Revelation, the final and undistorted one is the Qur'an. Hence it is part of Muslim faith to take the Qur'an as undisputed truth from the Creator, affirmed by reason, rational thinking, and scientific research. And it is within this definite proof, that the existence of heaven and hell is substantiated and proven, by proof of testimony.

Hence the implications of your claim that these beliefs as "heresay" is in fact an attack on islam, that our beliefs are false and based on speculation without basis, which again as I mentioned earlier, is a blatant attack on the official national religion of our country.

I find it ironic that your article emphasizes on defiance and belittling of others, when your article actually implicated belittling Dr Zakir Naik, Muslims and the religion of Islam in general, and defies the customs of our national religion.

In conclusion, it is with these messages therefore, Mr Ravinder, that you should see that your article is false and only serves to stir controversy, provocation and an attack on Islam, and not just the individual person of Dr Zakir Naik. It is with this also I request this article to be deleted, and a public apology issued on behalf of your good self and another apology on behalf of FMT for releasing such provocative and derogatory articles.

When all is said and done however, I continue to respect you as a human being and humbly request we meet in person to discuss this as civilized men in seeking the truth.

Thank you for your time; and may God Guide us all the Truth and keep us steadfast and sincere on the Path of righteousness.

原本我係Steam睇左一次Trailer覺得冇乜野, HK$219但係得pre-purchase未有ratings令我暫時卻步
但係The Talos Principle既announcement度見到
"Hello dear puzzle game lovers,

Good puzzle games are not plentiful, only few per year at best, so be delighted to hear that one such game is being released on Steam TODAY!

Under close conduct of legendary undisputed indie game guru, Jonathan Blow, creator of Braid, who invested millions of dollars of his own money and after seven years in making, today finally The Witness is being released on Steam and PS4.

So, why are you even reading this, follow the link:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/210970/ "

粍資幾百萬美金, 花費7年, 貌似係大作, 即買, 聽日/晚直播玩俾大家睇, 希望唔會太卡關啦XD

Official Trailer : https://youtu.be/SPMMKFX78x0

#TheWitness

A GOOD READ from one of the greatest leader that lived, #SINGAPORE's founding man, #LeeKuanYew

THIS MUST BE SHARED AND THOROUGHLY READ BY EVERY FILIPINO... Its quite long but it will surely strengthen our minds but then at the end, I was like "SAYANG!!!"
It came from the SINGAPORE'S FOUNDING MAN ITSELF, former Prime Minister LEE KUAN YEW on how the Philippines should have become, IF ONLY...

I've just read it and, its point blank!
Its a good read
____________

(The following excerpt is taken from pages 299 – 305 from Lee Kuan Yew’s book “From Third World to First”, Chapter 18 “Building Ties with Thailand, the Philippines, and Brunei”)

*

The Philippines was a world apart from us, running a different style of politics and government under an American military umbrella. It was not until January 1974 that I visited President Marcos in Manila. When my Singapore Airlines plane flew into Philippine airspace, a small squadron of Philippine Air Force jet fighters escorted it to Manila Airport. There Marcos received me in great style – the Filipino way. I was put up at the guest wing of Malacañang Palace in lavishly furnished rooms, valuable objects of art bought in Europe strewn all over. Our hosts were gracious, extravagant in hospitality, flamboyant. Over a thousand miles of water separated us. There was no friction and little trade. We played golf, talked about the future of ASEAN, and promised to keep in touch.

His foreign minister, Carlos P. Romulo, was a small man of about five feet some 20 years my senior, with a ready wit and a self-deprecating manner about his size and other limitations. Romulo had a good sense of humor, an eloquent tongue, and a sharp pen, and was an excellent dinner companion because he was a wonderful raconteur, with a vast repertoire of anecdotes and witticisms. He did not hide his great admiration for the Americans. One of his favourite stories was about his return to the Philippines with General MacArthur. As MacArthur waded ashore at Leyte, the water reached his knees but came up to Romulo’s chest and he had to swim ashore. His good standing with ASEAN leaders and with Americans increased the prestige of the Marcos administration. Marcos had in Romulo a man of honor and integrity who helped give a gloss of respectability to his regime as it fell into disrepute in the 1980s.

In Bali in 1976, at the first ASEAN summit held after the fall of Saigon, I found Marcos keen to push for greater economic cooperation in ASEAN. But we could not go faster than the others. To set the pace, Marcos and I agreed to implement a bilateral Philippines-Singapore across-the-board 10 percent reduction of existing tariffs on all products and to promote intra-ASEAN trade. We also agreed to lay a Philippines-Singapore submarine cable. I was to discover that for him, the communiqué was the accomplishment itself; its implementation was secondary, an extra to be discussed at another conference.

We met every two to three years. He once took me on a tour of his library at Malacañang, its shelves filled with bound volumes of newspapers reporting his activities over the years since he first stood for elections. There were encyclopedia-size volumes on the history and culture of the Philippines with his name as the author. His campaign medals as an anti-Japanese guerrilla leader were displayed in glass cupboards. He was the undisputed boss of all Filipinos. Imelda, his wife, had a penchant for luxury and opulence. When they visited Singapore before the Bali summit they came in stye in two DC8’s, his and hers.

Marcos did not consider China a threat for the immediate future, unlike Japan. He did not rule out the possibility of an aggressive Japan, if circumstances changed. He had memories of the horrors the Imperial Army had inflicted on Manila. We had strongly divergent views on the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia. While he, pro forma, condemned the Vietnamese occupation, he did not consider it a danger to the Philippines. There was the South China Sea separating them and the American navy guaranteed their security. As a result, Marcos was not active on the Cambodian question. Moreover, he was to become preoccupied with the deteriorating security in his country.

Marcos, ruling under martial law, had detained opposition leader Benigno (Ninoy) Aquino, reputed to be as charismatic and powerful a campaigner as he was. He freed Aquino and allowed him to go to the United States. As the economic situation in the Philippines deteriorated, Aquino announced his decision to return. Mrs. Marcos issued several veiled warnings. When the plane arrived at Manila Airport from Taipei in August 1983, he was shot as he descended from the aircraft. A whole posse of foreign correspondents with television camera crews accompanying him on the aircraft was not enough protection.

International outrage over the killing resulted in foreign banks stopping all loans to the Philippines, which owed over US$25 billion and could not pay the interest due. This brought Marcos to the crunch. He sent his minister for trade and industry, Bobby Ongpin, to ask me for a loan of US$300-500 million to meet the interest payments. I looked him straight in the eye and said, “We will never see that money back.” Moreover, I added, everyone knew that Marcos was seriously ill and under constant medication for a wasting disease. What was needed was a strong, healthy leader, not more loans.

Shortly afterward, in February 1984, Marcos met me in Brunei at the sultanate’s independence celebrations. He had undergone a dramatic physical change. Although less puffy than he had appeared on television, his complexion was dark as if he had been out in the sun. He was breathing hard as he spoke, his voice was soft, eyes bleary, and hair thinning. He looked most unhealthy. An ambulance with all the necessary equipment and a team of Filipino doctors were on standby outside his guest bungalow. Marcos spent much of the time giving me a most improbable story of how Aquino had been shot.

As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.

With medical care, Marcos dragged on. Cesar Virata met me in Singapore in January the following year. He was completely guileless, a political innocent. He said that Mrs. Imelda Marcos was likely to be nominated as the presidential candidate. I asked how that could be when there were other weighty candidates, including Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople, the labor minister. Virata replied it had to do with “flow of money; she would have more money than other candidates to pay for the votes needed for nomination by the party and to win the election. He added that if she were the candidate, the opposition would put up Mrs. Cory Aquino and work up the people’s feelings. He said the economy was going down with no political stability.

The denouement came in February 1986 when Marcos held presidential elections which he claimed he won. Cory Aquino, the opposition candidate, disputed this and launched a civil disobedience campaign. Defense Minister Juan Enrile defected and admitted election fraud had taken place, and the head of the Philippine constabulary, Lieutenant General Fidel Ramos, joined him. A massive show of “people power” in the streets of Manila led to a spectacular overthrow of a dictatorship. The final indignity was on 25 February 1986, when Marcos and his wife fled in U.S. Air Force helicopters from Malacañang Palace to Clark Air Base and were flown to Hawaii. This Hollywood-style melodrama could only have happened in the Philippines.

Mrs. Aquino was sworn in as president amid jubilation. I had hopes that this honest, God-fearing woman would help regain confidence for the Philippines and get the country back on track. I visited her that June, three months after the event. She was a sincere, devout Catholic who wanted to do her best for her country by carrying out what she believed her husband would have done had he been alive, namely, restore democracy to the Philippines. Democracy would then solve their economic and social problems. At dinner, Mrs. Aquino seated the chairman of the constitutional commission, Chief Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, next to me. I asked the learned lady what lessons her commission had learned from the experience of the last 40 years since independence in 1946 would guide her in drafting the constitution. She answered without hesitation, “We will not have any reservations or limitations on our democracy. We must make sure that no dictator can ever emerge to subvert the constitution.” Was there no incompatibility of the American-type separation of powers with the culture and habits of the Filipino people that had caused problems for the presidents before Marcos? Apparently none.

Endless attempted coups added to Mrs. Aquino’s problems. The army and the constabulary had been politicized. Before the ASEAN summit in December 1987, a coup was threatened. Without President Suharto’s firm support the summit would have been postponed and confidence in Aquino’s government undermined. The Philippine government agreed that the responsibility for security should be shared between them and the other ASEAN governments, in particular the Indonesian government. General Benny Moerdani, President Suharto’s trusted aide, took charge. He positioned an Indonesian warship in the middle of Manila Bay with helicopters and a commando team ready to rescue the ASEAN heads of government if there should be a coup attempt during the summit. I was included in their rescue plans. I wondered if such a rescue could work but decided to go along with the arrangements, hoping that the show of force would scare off the coup leaders. We were all confined to the Philippine Plaza Hotel by the seafront facing Manila Bay where we could see the Indonesian warship at anchor. The hotel was completely sealed off and guarded. The summit went off without any mishap. We all hoped that this show of united support for Mrs. Aquino’s government at a time when there were many attempts to destabilize it would calm the situation.

It made no difference. There were more coup attempts, discouraging investments badly needed to create jobs. This was a pity because they had so many able people, educated in the Philippines and the United States. Their workers were English-speaking, at least in Manila. There was no reason why the Philippines should not have been one of the more successful of the ASEAN countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was the most developed, because America had been generous in rehabilitating the country after the war. Something was missing, a gel to hold society together. The people at the top, the elite mestizos, had the same detached attitude to the native peasants as the mestizos in their haciendas in Latin America had toward their peons. They were two different societies: Those at the top lived a life of extreme luxury and comfort while the peasants scraped a living, and in the Philippines it was a hard living. They had no land but worked on sugar and coconut plantations.They had many children because the church discouraged birth control. The result was increasing poverty.

It was obvious that the Philippines would never take off unless there was substantial aid from the United States. George Shultz, the secretary of state, was sympathetic and wanted to help but made clear to me that the United States would be better able to do something if ASEAN showed support by making its contribution. The United States was reluctant to go it alone and adopt the Philippines as its special problem. Shultz wanted ASEAN to play a more prominent role to make it easier for the president to get the necessary votes in Congress. I persuaded Shultz to get the aid project off the ground in 1988, before President Reagan’s second term of office ended. He did. There were two meetings for a Multilateral Assistance Initiative (Philippines Assistance Programme): The first in Tokyo in 1989 brought US$3.5 billion in pledges, and the second in Hong Kong in 1991, under the Bush administration, yielded US$14 billion in pledges. But instability in the Philippines did not abate. This made donors hesitant and delayed the implementation of projects.

Mrs. Aquino’s successor, Fidel Ramos, whom she had backed, was more practical and established greater stability. In November 1992, I visited him. In a speech to the 18th Philippine Business Conference, I said, “I do not believe democracy necessarily leads to development. I believe what a country needs to develop is discipline more than democracy.” In private, President Ramos said he agreed with me that British parliamentary-type constitutions worked better because the majority party in the legislature was also the government. Publicly, Ramos had to differ.

He knew well the difficulties of trying to govern with strict American-style separation of powers. The senate had already defeated Mrs. Aquino’s proposal to retain the American bases. The Philippines had a rambunctious press but it did not check corruption. Individual press reporters could be bought, as could many judges. Something had gone seriously wrong. Millions of Filipino men and women had to leave their country for jobs abroad beneath their level of education. Filipino professionals whom we recruited to work in Singapore are as good as our own. Indeed, their architects, artists, and musicians are more artistic and creative than ours. Hundreds of thousands of them have left for Hawaii and for the American mainland. It is a problem the solution to which has not been made easier by the workings of a Philippine version of the American constitution.

The difference lies in the culture of the Filipino people. It is a soft, forgiving culture. Only in the Philippines could a leader like Ferdinand Marcos, who pillaged his country for over 20 years, still be considered for a national burial. Insignificant amounts of the loot have been recovered, yet his wife and children were allowed to return and engage in politics. They supported the winning presidential and congressional candidates with their considerable resources and reappeared in the political and social limelight after the 1998 election that returned President Joseph Estrada. General Fabian Ver, Marcos’s commander-in-chief who had been in charge of security when Aquino was assassinated, had fled the Philippines together with Marcos in 1986. When he died in Bangkok, the Estrada government gave the general military honors at his burial. One Filipino newspaper, Today, wrote on 22 November 1998, “Ver, Marcos and the rest of the official family plunged the country into two decades of lies, torture, and plunder. Over the next decade, Marcos’s cronies and immediate family would tiptoe back into the country, one by one – always to the public’s revulsion and disgust, though they showed that there was nothing that hidden money and thick hides could not withstand.” Some Filipinos write and speak with passion. If they could get their elite to share their sentiments and act, what could they not have achieved?

-----

SAYANG! kindly share.

Speak For Yourself | Wiley SHOCKED Kevin Durant is "more gifted" than Michael Jordan

Speak For Yourself | Wiley reacts to Chris Paul's return actually make Suns worse or better?

The Herd | Colin reacts to Dak Prescott ranked 50th in PFF's top-50 players list when he return