Category: Mudslinging

Categories
Liberty Mudslinging Society

[1531] Of it must be reciprocal in nature

At Mahaguru58, there is a failure to understand that relationship is reciprocal in nature. If one does not wish for others to interfere in one’s life, one should not interfere with others’.

The blogger wrote:

This is the concluding part of my dialogue with MENJ recently. I discussed with him regarding the current situation where Christians in Malaysia are prone to interfering into Islamic and Muslims affairs here since the change of leadership in the BN Government.

We who are Muslim Bloggers feel that this interference ought not be left to run its course by the Muslims of this land especially those from JAKIM who seem oblivious to all the growing number of Islamophobes here in Malaysia. [MENJ – MAHAGURU58 Dialogue Part 2 Final. Mahaguru58. January 30 2008]

He laments about Christians interfering in Muslim affairs. I say the issue is a non-starter and applies double standard. He would only have a moral authority to say such thing when he stops interfering in others’ individual affairs. That, of course, includes refrain from interfering in others’ religious freedom, be the individuals are Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, etc.

Respect goes both ways. Once the interference in individual liberty ceases, I am sure outsiders will stop interfering in Muslim affairs.

Categories
History & heritage Mudslinging

[1222] Of re: re: why Malacca but not Srivijaya?

It continues:

The low-level economist (not a historian, mind you!) does not seem to know when to quit. So he decided to harp on a slight faux pas that I committed, namely of Demak attacking the Majapahit empire. In that sense, yes, I made a historical error there in attributing that attack as to being on Srivijaya and I stand corrected. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

He made mistakes and he calls me a low-level economist. And he sneers at how I am not an historian. Mind you telling me dear readers, is he a historian?

That does not, however, change the fact that Perlak and Pasai were Islamic sultanates that were contemporaries of Srivijaya. As I mentioned before, the topic was discussed in a monograph by S.Q. Fatimi, Islam Comes To Malaysia (edited by Shirle Gordon, MSRI, 1963)which discusses in detail the tombstones of the previous Sultans of Pasai found in Acheh, bearing similarities with the tombstones in Gujerat, India. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

And here is the interesting part. Previously, he alleged that those two sultanates existed before Srivijaya (see here; under his “argument 5”). His exact words were “And before Srivijaya there were the Islamic Sultanates of Perlak and Pasai and Champa“. Now, he states those sultanates were contemporaries of Srivijaya? Wow.

How would anyone justify those sultanates existed before Srivijaya? To prove that those sultanates did not exist before Srivijaya, both Perlak and Pasai were under the rule of Srivijaya from somewhere in the first millennium up to the 13th century and both were Buddhists and Hindus. Another thing is, Srivijaya was founded somewhere in between 2nd and 6th century. Islamic Pasai and Perlak came to existence in the later half of the 13th century. Tell me, which came first: the 5th century or the 13th century?

Menj seems to think 13 comes before 5! At least, before he changed his story.

When caught making false statement, he changes his story. From being before, he changes the story to being contemporaries!

Back to the tombstone, it is dated late 13th century, around 1290s; Srivijaya had already collapsed by mid-13th century because the Javanese Majapahit sacked the Malay Palembang and Jambi. I repeat, the proof of the arrival of Islam to Perlak and Pasai is dated late 13th century, after Srivijaya had already collapsed. Check Munoz 2007, from page 180 to 200.

The point here is to show that Islam has made a far-reaching and significant contribution to the civilisation of the Nusantara, more so than the Hindu-Buddhist kingdom of Srivijaya did. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

I did not deny contribution made by Islam. But he is pretending that there was nothing before Islam whereas in fact, Srivijaya was an economic, political and cultural center in the Malay Archipelago. Srivijaya was a center for Buddhism where Chinese scholars usually stopped for learning purposes. And unlike Malacca, the Srivijaya left behind more architectural marvels than the Sultanate of Malacca ever did. One example is the Borobudur.

The low-level economist may not have any respect for copyright licence (I call cutting and pasting of my post into his blog without my explicit permission as blatant plagiarism and disrespect of copyright), but he should have read the real gist of the matter instead of harping on a slight historical mistake. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Fair use for criticism purpose? Besides, plagiarism means “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work” according to Dictionary.com. I clearly attributed the author and do not claim it as mine. Further, if I were to hand over that thing as my own and get away with it, the factual errors would get me an ‘E’ at Michigan. I do not know about his place.

It should also be mentioned that there was no real difference between Srivijaya and Majapahit, and Majapahit was indeed the successor to the Srivijaya empire. If any could lay claim to the title of being the successor to Srivijaya, it would be Majapahit and not Malacca. I suppose when dealing with intricate historical matters like this, one should be relying on real, hardcover scholarly works and not on editable encyclopedias like Wikipedia for their research. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Hahaha. He wrote that Majapahit was Srivijaya. Since he had already mistaken Majapahit as Srivijaya, instead of confessing making a mistake, he is now calling Srivijaya and Majapahit were the same kingdom. It is amazing the length one would go to rewrite history to just to justify a mistake. Where is your source asserting that there are no difference between Srivijaya and Majapahit?

Further, in Osborne 1979, he wrote Malacca is the successor of Srivijaya. See page 29. Even Munoz 2006 in page 178 reused the same argument. Wolters 1970 asserted similarly in page 4.

To clearly express the difference between the two kingdoms, in Munoz 2006, page 210 and 211, it is stated that Srivijaya was Buddhist kingdom while Majapahit was Hindu. Further, it is beyond Menj that Majapahit was a Javanese kingdom while Srivijaya is Malay kingdom and the fact that the two (the Malays and the Javanese) had been fighting for quite a number of time (for the Javanese, there were other kingdoms before Majapahit while Srivijaya lasted from give and take 1,000 years), with both managed to raze each other kingdoms. It is also beyond him that Srivijaya centered on Sumatra while Majapahit was on East Java. Sumatra, if he had failed geography, is a completely different island to the west of Java.

Also, his “newly” added conclusion:

While it is not denied that the Srivijayan empire played a role in shaping the course of the Nusantara reigion, the coming of Islam to the region brought to the region a new and rejuvenated philosophy that is devoid of the caste system that was prevalent in the Srivijaya Hindu-Buddhist culture. yed Naquib al-Attas remarks in Islam and Secularism that the role of the Sufi mystics was instrumental in the demise of the Hindu-Buddhist influence of the region and Islam gave birth to the rise of the Malacca Sultanate, of which its influence permeates even until today. Despite the end of the Malacca Sultanate at the hands of Alfonso d’Albuquerque and the Portugese colonialists, the Johor-Riau Sultanate was born from its ashes and several Islamic-Malay Sultanate kingdoms were established in the aftermath of the Malaccan demise. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Check your timeline. Tell me what is the date of the tombstone. And then tell me the date Majapahit sacked Palembang and Jambi in Sumatra.

Do a research and you will find the latter event happened far earlier than the date found on the tombstone. While indeed Islam fastened the demise of Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms, Srivijaya was gone before Islam made an impact. It mostly affected post-Srivijaya kingdoms that came to being because of the collapse of Srivijaya. Again, Munoz 2006, page 180 to 200.

What competed with Islamic kingdoms was Majapahit, not Srivijaya. The Srivijayan bloodline continued to go to Temasek, Muar and finally settled to found the Malacca. Later, Parameswara converted to Islam. Reminder again — Srivijaya had already extinct but Majapahit still lived on competing with Malacca.

The role of Malacca was significant in the eventual establishment of modern Malaysia, Srivijaya was a foreign empire based in Java island that had never played any significant role in Peninsula Malaysia. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Again, Srivijayan capital was based on Sumatra. Also, the first sultan of Malacca was a Srivijaya prince. Munoz 2006, page 183, if you have forgotten who Parameswara was. There are a few other publications if you are so inclined, such as one of those primary school history textbook.

Let’s see some hard research to dispute the above before treating this whole rape of Malaysian history as some chess game. Besides, its too early for you to call it a “checkmate”, liberal. I don’t think you have yet to realise what you are up against. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Checkmate. Oh, I do know. You are just that person that mistook Srivijaya as Majapahit.

Stick to economics, liberal, and stay out of history. [Where Srivijaya is concerned, no confusion at all! Critical Thought. May 16 2007]

Again, are you an historian?

At least, while I Michigan, I took proper, formal, undergraduate level history classes, apart from economics. Of course, anyone could learn anything without formal education. But to degrade others when one has lower qualification than the former is absurd. I wonder what kind of education he has anyway, since he keeps degrading my qualification.

Anyway, this is the last reply to him. I am uninterested in engaging personal attack and will not go down to his level of incivility. After all, he is confused between Srivijaya and Majapahit and no matter what kind of publications thrown at him, he would still believe that the Malay and the Javanese kingdoms were one of the same.

In any case, the original thesis is that Srivijaya deserves far more respect than it currently receives; that Srivijaya was greater than Malacca. With it, a question why Malacca is given greater weight and Srivijaya less. I suggested that the religion might provide a clue to answer the question.

Categories
History & heritage Mudslinging

[1221] Of re: why Malacca but not Srivijaya?

My post on Srivijaya hit a nerve. Specifically, somebody called Menj! Oh, Rajan, come to my aid please! LOL!

The best thing is, while he is calling me as an idiot economist from a third rated university and all, he mistook Srivijaya as Majapahit. I had problem understanding his objection — it did not make sense at all — until I realize, the “Srivijaya” he was referring to oddly has the same timeline as Majapahit. Majapahit that existed between the 13th and the 16th century while Srivijaya was founded between 3rd and 6th century and ended before the 14th century. Menj kept harping on what had happened between 13th and the 16th century when in fact, many history books do not talk about Srivijaya when dealing with that era.

For instance, Demak had never attacked Srivijaya. Such attack never occurred because both states had never met each other. Demak came to being more than 200 years after Srivijaya finally collapsed after Majapahit conquered Palembang (and Jambi too). Demak did conquered Majapahit however.

Further, the capital of Srivijaya was located (mostly; it shifted several time because of attack from Rajaraja of Chola and Majapahit) on Sumatra. But Majapahit’s capital was located on Java from the start to the end.

Another example of misaligned timeline by Menj concerns Pasai and Perlak. Menj said both sultanates existed before Srivijaya. Au contraire, the places called Pasai and Perlak were firmly within the realm of Srivijaya at least till the 13th century. To make it clearer, the sultanates of Pasai and Perlak existed after Srivijaya’s peak (or even end).

The best thing is, when Srivijaya was in power, Islam had not arrived yet. When Majapahit was in power, Islam had indeed arrived. The buzz word was Hinduism and Buddhism. Islam was mostly irrelevant in the powerplay.

So, could he have misattributed Srivijaya as Majapahit?

LOL! Most definitely.

Lesson: stop calling people idiot and start looking in the mirror. Think before you speak.

Checkmate.

For those that are interested more about at least two of the most powerful empires in maritime Southeast Asia history, read Srivijaya (guess who wrote that?) and Majapahit at Wikipedia. Or alternatively, a good book to start with is Early Kingdoms of the Indonesian Archipelago and Malay Peninsula by Paul Michel Munoz.

Since he has a reputation of removing his post after being caught for committing folly, I am reproducing his post here and keeping a screenshot:

A majority of Malaysian historians have accepted the fact that the Malaccan Sultanate (14th to 16th century CE) is pretty much the sine qua non the starting point of where Malaysian history begins, since the rise of Malacca was the Golden Age of the Nusantara region in not only socio-political terms, but also in terms of education, art, sciences and philosophy. Malacca was not the first place to receive Islam in the region (see S.Q. Fatimi, How Did Islam Came To Malaysia?) but nonetheless it has been equated with modern-day Malaysia, particularly because we still have descendents of the Malacca Sultanate in the modern-day monarchy of Perak. Since Malacca was the first place where the Muslim Malays actually formed a viable and self-sustaining government, it is often referred to as the starting point for modern Malaysian history.

However some Islam liberals, like this low-class American university economist, try to question this unique status of Malacca. The reason is because they seem to think that the previous Majapahit and Srivijaya empires were a more viable starting point of reference to determine the religious culture of the Malaysian Muslims. Here we shall look at their arguments and refute it point by point, insha’allah.

Argument 1:

While Malacca was a great empire, a greater civilization was Srivijaya. I truly believe that Srivijaya was that brilliant light that stayed bright from nearly a millennium. Malacca was a just spark, though brilliant as it may be.

I wonder on what criteria was this based on? The so-called “greater civilization [that] was Srivijaya” was eventually overrun by the neighbouring country of Demak. Demak, by the way, was an Islamic sultanate.

Argument 2:

The Malaysian education system fails to give Srivijaya the respect it deserves. So many Malaysian textbook pages concentrate on Malacca and successive minor Malay states but ignored that one large Malay empire that spanned from the Isthmus of Kra all the way down to Central Java and, at one point in time, even the banks of the Mekong. Admittedly, Srivijayan border was porous unlike modern states but its sphere of influence was far larger than that of Malacca or even of Malaysia.

The capital of Srivijaya was in Java Island, a remote place with not even any resemblance of culture to the Malays of the Peninsula. Mentioning their place in history was not ignored but It is like claiming that since the Crusader kingdoms [that was not established until after the First Crusades] were not given its proper due in Islamic history, therefore it means that these kingdoms are “greater” than the later Ayyubid Sultanates or the Ottomon Caliphate.

But what are the significant Srivijayan contributions to the Nusantara culture? What philosophical or cultural advancements had this “greater civilisation” provide that we can speak of today? Our liberal idiot does not make mention at all! He is simply uncomfortable with the fact that “the Malacca effect” was so emcompassing that his forefathers reverted to Islam many centuries ago and today, he is a Muslim instead of remaining as a Hindu!

Argument 3:

Perhaps part of the reason why the Malays stress so much on Malacca is the fact that so little information is known about Malay history earlier than the 14th century. Relatively modern Malays have been so ingrained with the notion that their history started with Malacca and further pushed Srivijaya into that one book in a section of a library that nobody goes.

This has to be the silliest of all arguments thus far. One can simply go to the library and pick up the works that are replete with information on the subject. Refer to, for example, S.Q. Fatimi’s How Did Islam Come to Malaysia? (a monograph by the MSRI, published in 1978 if memory serves me correctly) where she makes mention of the Islamic Sultanates of Perlak and Pasai (in modern-day Acheh). Syed Muhammad al-Naquib al-Attas had also discussed this subject briefly in Islam and Secularism (published by ABIM, 1979) and he has a monograph on the subject as well. Perhaps the economist should go out of his shell once in a while and read up a bit before talking about the subject.

Argument 4:

Srivijaya, despite its status, was only discovered by historians in the early 20th century. That was the times when vehicles were powered by steam engines.

And where is the reference for this? Reference, reference, reference! Do not make sweeping statements without backing them up!

Argument 5:

In a way, Malacca was the successor of the glorious Srivijaya. If Malacca could be seen as a sultanate that later led to Malaya and Malaysia, then Srivijaya could be seen as such as well.

And before Srivijaya there were the Islamic Sultanates of Perlak and Pasai and Champa. Perhaps we should say Srivijaya was a “successor” of these civilisations as well!

Argument 5:

Something must explain this bias that sides with Malacca. Could it be caused by religion?

Likewise we should ask the liberal the same question: Something must explain this bias that sides with Srivijaya. Could it be caused by religion? [Critical Thoughts. May 15 2007]

I appreciate a good debate on history but the way Menj handles it adds nothing of value.

Categories
Liberty Mudslinging

[968] Of re:re:the moral police is too proud to apologize

A continuation of exchange between me and kaki bangku.

Point 1:

It wasn’t a disparaging remark at all because I am well aware that you are comfortable with upholding those labels. Merely an attempt to set out the different frames of reference that shape our differing opinions. Terasa kah?

Then your assumption is false. As false as your others assumptions. It’s just plain name calling, needless to say, unethical.

If some xenophobic calls you an extremist-Islamist-terrorist kafirphobe, regardless the faulty assumption of his, would you “terasa kah” too?

Rule is simple – do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If you respect others, others would respect you. If you start throwing mud at others, others would throw back mud at you. That’s one of the basics in morality. If we fail basic morality, let’s not talk about the higher morality, okay?

Point 2:

Notice that what I initially wrote didn’t make that assumption at all. If ever it was a fallacy, it would have been an appeal to emotions, but definitely nothing being assumed here. My argument for this is that a behavioral drift towards the lowest common denominator will be the undesirable effect of moral permissivity.

Yes you did make an assumption. Answer this question, whose moral and whose standard? Yours, I suppose?

See also my Point 10, where you contradicted yourself.

Point 3:

But, of course, you are free to disagree. I am merely reasoning out to persuade people to support my position for the establishment of a moral police, far from the Straw Man that you constructed: “You instead demand submission.“

It’s not a straw man. Rather, you have a short memory span. You wrote in your very first comment that started all this:

Allah Almighty says, “Let there be a community among you who call to the good, and enjoin the right, and forbid the wrong. They are the ones who have success.” (3:104)

That ayat sounds very much like an authorization for the suggestion by a kind and loving group of sincere Muslims who desire to carry out what is called “moral policing” to help bring more goodness to our community. How can you possibly justify labeling an action to “command the right and forbid the wrong” in accord with the Will of Allah an “intrusion of privacy”?

More on forced submission:

All Muslims, and non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, should both accept and welcome an attempt to improve the moral quality of life within the community.

Point 4:

Yes of course, if moral policing is not received favorably, I would not take it to the streets to “demand submission”. That’s merely a figment of your “imagination” of me (perhaps a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding Straw Man of me?).

As stated in Point 4, it’s not my imagination. Rather, it’s your forgetfulness. Just read your own words as quoted in Point 4.

And no. I don’t assume you as a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding. But if you imagine that other people imagine you as a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding, then one has to wonder why.

Whatever the reason might be, I maintain good faith in this exchange, as I try to maintain with any stranger I’d meet. I don’t judge a book by its cover. I can’t say the same thing for you.

Point 5:

In fact, I completely agree with your suggestion if society is indecent – “don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.”

Glad you agree!

I am quite hard to be offended with indecency. I’m sure it’s the opposite for you. So yes, stay at home and don’t go out.

Point 6:

Note my position as spelt out in my first entry:

Muslim groups within our community, when they observe a social/moral problem arising, have every right to suggest a plan of non-punitive moral policing. This must, of course, be done within the law of the community and with the consent of the government.

But you are missing the point. If you could have it your way, your law would reflect this:

You wrote that a person can’t do a particular action if that action offends your sensibility. If that’s the case, should the person be thrown in jail or his rights curtailed to satisfy your sensibility or your values? Should the person be punished just because he disagrees with your values?

Wouldn’t you agree so?

Also, I quote myself on the earlier reply on your “with the consent of the government” statement:

In history, some government consented genocide. But that doesn’t make it right, does it?

Regardless, talking about law, I don’t claim to be an expert. But tell me, which part of the law the allows those morality police to harass the non-Muslim American couple in a private space at Langkawi?

Point 7:

I don’t think it is intolerance, but rather a means of non-punitive social sanctions. This quote from my first entry will eliminate your straw man (again!):

If you go into someone’s home and spy on them then that might be called an invasion of privacy, but if someone is doing something wrong in public then if other people notice your wrong behavior and make a comment on it that could never be called an invasion of privacy. Keep your bad behavior out of public areas where people will see you and no one will bother you, but if you want to show an example of wrong behaviour in public you should expect to have someone command the right and forbid the wrong.

Since I first introduced the term “straw man”, you have fallen in love with it, haven’t you?

Well, I have another two terms you might like. It’s “selective reasoning” and “selective memory”. See Point 4. In fact, I shall reproduce your statement for the second time to prove that the “straw man” actually comes with thick red flesh through what you wrote yourself:

All Muslims, and non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, should both accept and welcome an attempt to improve the moral quality of life within the community.

Meanwhile, let’s not kid ourselves. Let’s be honest. Shakespeare wrote “what’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.

When Bush invaded Iraq, he called it the liberation of Iraq. Just like how liberation is an euphemism for invasion, “non-punitive social sanctions” is an euphemism for intolerance. Just call a spade as a spade.

I’m just more than a little curious, what kind of non-punitive social sanctions are you talking about? Harassment like what had happened to the American couple in Langkawi?

Point 8:

Yes indeed. Just like you’re under the assumption of libertarian universality.

Nope. I don’t assume libertarian universality. But you’ve just admitted that you assume that your conservative values assume universality, much in contradiction of all your state that you don’t assume.

Here’s an advice. Stop assuming.

Point 9:

My reasoning is that moral behavior has nothing to do with economic prosperity. That is why your statement below is non-sequitor:

[…]

You’re still imagining what I wrote. I didn’t say moral behavior has anything to do with economic prosperity. I said moral policing affects the economy. Please note the difference between the terms “moral behavior” and “moral policing.”

Quoting what I wrote, that you in turn quoted:

Attempt to unilaterally increase that standard and enforce it – like many religious conservatives – would cause the society to concentrate pitiful p[e]tty issues and not on education, economy, the environment and other important issues that push the society well-being higher [than] previously. That’s why, conservative religious societies are backward compared to the more liberal societ[ies].

Religious conservative societies are too busy controlling everybody’s life that in the end, most resources are given to religious institution to control people’s [life] and not too much left available to bring people out of poverty and make the world a better place.

Read it slowly this time. Don’t quote it and imagine what I wrote. Spend sometimes with your rebuttal. Really. If you’re late in replying, I won’t declare “hurm… nampaknya hujah moral policing aku tak mampu dijawab..” like you did.

Point 10:

Don’t you also know that moral permissivity is also part of the reason conservative Muslims don’t frequent city centres and beaches?

If the conservative Muslims frequenting the downtowns and the beaches meaning everybody has to adhere to their restrictive standard, I’d rather let everybody else frequenting downtowns and beaches and let the conservatives be.

This comes back to the point to what you said:

In fact, I completely agree with your suggestion if society is indecent – “don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.”

You agree to it; I agree to it. So, no disagreement there. End of story.

Categories
Liberty Mudslinging

[962] Of re:the moral police is too proud to apologize

In response to kaki bangku at kakiblog.com, which in turn is in response to a post of mine on morality police. This is a point by point response and thus, kaki bangku’s complete post is here.

First point:

_earth @ hafiz,

Thank you for the instant response. Of course, your liberalism-atheism-islamophobe reaction was not a surprise at all.

So, basically, you are of the opinion that individual liberty is of the utmost importance rather than servitude to Allah Most Merciful. Fair enough, considering your secular stance.

Islamophobe?

I wonder what happens to civilize exchange. Somehow, it doesn’t escape me that whenever an exchange involves a person with conservative value, it’s likely that it would come down to name calling. But worry not as I’m determined to demonstrate that morality is independent of religion. Thus, I shall actively refrain from responding to that and hence, ironically, it’s me that’s taking the moral high ground, not the supporter of morality police.

On atheism, this has nothing to do with atheism. It seems, this is more to do with you trying to label the person that disagrees with you disparagingly.

Second point:

But you say that we should let moral standards drift to the lowest common denominator. I don’t think this is entirely a good idea because the lowest common denominator would be Western secular-materialist values. Please consider how distasteful MTV culture really is, let alone undocumented underground vices.

Again, distasteful to you, not necessarily to everybody. The problem here is that you assume everybody agrees with you. You assume your moral values is superior to others’ and that others agree that your values are superior to others’. So, it’s natural for you to be shocked when there’s an disagreement to your values, as your assumption is flawed in the first place.

Point to note: those that disagree with you don’t plan to impose their values on you. You on the other hand are trying to impose your values on others. This is the issue, not whether you find any value distasteful. Don’t get distracted.

I myself don’t really mind if whatever values you have as long as you don’t impose it on others, especially on me. Respect is all being asked here, not submission. You instead demand submission. Hence, this exchange arises.

Third point:

So my suggestion to one who adopts a secular view would be that, at the minimum, a non-punitive moral policing in public should be carried out in order to contain moral standards as well as satisfying the conservative Muslim community’s demands to have a decently behaving public.

You missed a point that I’ve written down earlier. This is why it’s better to do a point by point examination of the other person’s comment. It’s so that you wouldn’t miss anything that has been said, hence avoiding embarrassment.

Coming back to point, I’ve said the same thing, but with specific point for you to ponder:

However, I agree that “bad behavior” in public is unfavorable. Indecency in public is unwanted. In my dictionary, having sex in public is indecency. Holding hand in public is okay with me. Not wearing headscarf is okay with me. Women wearing bathing suit on the beach is okay with me. They pay tax too you know.

Point to note is that, the term “bad behavior” is opaque at best. Killing could be a bad behavior too. So, what is your definition of “bad behavior”?

If you can’t stand seeing ppl holding hands, don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.

Define indecency. I myself agree such things as explicit sexual activities in public is unsuitable for public spaces and would amount to indecency. But who would have the authority to say that?

It’s the citizens that make up the society. This is where democracy comes to play. But it’s important to avoid tyranny of the majority. But democracy is irrelevant to you, isn’t it, because mostly likely than not, you’d say that god surpasses everything in authority, including democracy.

Fourth:

I mean, come on. Surely you ought to be concerned when your 7 year old daughter comes out to play in the playground and witnesses a couple groping and kissing each other!

C’mon. Surely you read what I wrote?

Since this is dependent on the previous point, it’s flawed by default.

But I’m sure that if the parents and the couple could come together in good faith rather than with mob mentality (like what had happened with the fake sms in Penang, the Papal speech and the cartoon on the prophet), an agreement is reachable without morality police which would infringe people rights regardless if the place is a common like a playground or private space like a motel.

Fifth:

As for limited governance, you adopted a libertarian one. I would definitely not concur with you on this. The reason being is that, firstly, one’s public displayal of immorality has a social conditioning affect on others. Harming other people’s conservative values is consequently a violation of the harmed person’s conscience. This “License” is not the same as “Freedom”.

You wrote that a person can’t do a particular action if that action offends your sensibility. If that’s the case, should the person be thrown in jail or his rights curtailed to satisfy your sensibility or your values? Should the person be punished just because he disagrees with your values?

In your logic, because your values prevent you from consuming pork, non-Muslims should be prevented from consuming pork too to satisfy your value?

Charming.

Again, notice the trend: you are trying to impose your values on others. That’ what I’m disagree with here. That’s what the main issue between us. Don’t run away with it.

The opposition to moral policing has nothing about moral per se. It’s about a person trying to dictate others’ values so that it fit into the person’s values while trying to eliminate others’ values.

That my friend, is the hallmark of intolerance.

Sixth:

As to your statement that the government doesnt have a right to set moral standards, is it derived from your libertarian principles or are you arguing from a constitutional point of view? If it is the former, I don’t give a rat’s ass (as mahaguru58 puts it). If it’s the latter, you ought to show me some black-letter quote.

If you don’t give a rat ass, why are you responding at all then?

Odd, isn’t it to claim you don’t care but your action reflects otherwise?

Furthermore, when you advocate for moral policing, are you arguing from a constitutional framework? Where’s your black and white that says then?

If not, are you arguing from your conservative principles?

The ball’s in your court.

Seventh:

Lastly, your claim that giving license to promote immorality promotes better economic growth is embarassingly a non-sequitor. Then, your claim that carrying out moral policing obstructs economic prosperity is a false distinction. Oops! What happened to our Mr. Rationalist?

I didn’t say that. That’s a straw man argument. Even if I did write that, where is your reasoning that it’s a non-sequitor?

Alas friend, calling an argument a non-sequitur without proving that it’s a non-sequitur is non-sequitur…

For your convenience, I shall reproduce what I’ve written at your space as well as mine:

Attempt to unilaterally increase that standard and enforce it – like many religious conservatives – would cause the society to concentrate pitiful p[e]tty issues and not on education, economy, the environment and other important issues that push the society well-being higher [than] previously. That’s why, conservative religious societies are backward compared to the more liberal societ[ies].

Religious conservative societies are too busy controlling everybody’s life that in the end, most resources are given to religious institution to control people’s [life] and not too much left available to bring people out of poverty and make the world a better place.

In a nutshell, I said conservatives are too hung up on morality that it fails to mind economic growth 101.

Please don’t imagine what I write. Read what I wrote instead. So, don’t worry. Mr. Rationalist is still here, Mr. Irrationalist.

Finally:

Expalantion: Moral policing can be carried out by religious officials while businessmen and economists steer the economy. One does not disturb the other. If you can, name me some examples of where a morally liberal society does better than a morally conservative society on a level playing field. If not, then it is mere conjecture devoid of empirical support (ooh.. where’s your empiricism yada yada??)

Since this particular paragraph of yours is dependent on the paragraph that was wrongly inferred, by default, it’s flawed.

Regardless, empirically, did you notice that the overzealous morality police in Langkawi has just cost Malaysia a fraction of Malaysian economy? The American couple has canceled their plan to take up the Malaysia, My Second Home program. Imagine the word of mouth that has traveled across the globe. To pretend that fiasco doesn’t affect the economy is naive.

My reasoning is not devoid of empirical support. It based on something that you missed.

And yes, talking about proof, where is yours? So far, you’ve demanded proofs from me but yet, you yourself haven’t proven anything to back what you’ve written. Or did god grant you the freedom from the onus of proof?

Before I end this entry, let’s agree not to be insulting to each other onwards with all those personal attacks (and yada, yada, yada thing), okay? Let’s focus on the issue instead of the person.

p/s – also, kaki bangku, if you plan to do a rebuttal, please inform me that you’ve done so. It is an act of bad faith for you not inform me of your earlier reply directed at me and then declared “victory” just because my reply was absence, whereas that absence was caused by me not knowing that you had replied and were waiting for a reply rather than me being unable to response to your points.