Rhazes Avicenna

Ngoprek Web

2006-09-30T20:01:00.000+07:00

Now i'm also bloggin here : http://blog.ngoprek.web.id

Picasa sta ottenendo eccellente

2006-09-23T19:22:00.000+07:00

Picasa get better and better. I have just download the new version, it has many new features including share your pictures in picasaweb. I wonder if picasaweb will replace flickr ...

Anyway, come and see my new gallery in picasaweb.

Amazing Google

2006-09-23T17:15:00.000+07:00

Google caught me again, i thought this 1 hour saved was for the page i was viewing at :) Then i see the performance data, and here we go

What Pope did not say

2006-09-23T03:11:00.000+07:00

Great article from Thenews.com.pk (copied from khilafah.com),

Why would pope Benedict XVI, an ex-professor of theology, one of the best-known theologians of the Western world, a prolific writer, a staunch defender of traditional Catholic doctrine and values cite this medieval text in a lecture on faith and reason? Let us look a little more closely at the context of the speech.

The pope invoked the words of the emperor to serve as the "starting point" of his reflections on the issue. He resurrected the seventh conversation between the emperor and the almost-absent Persian from the text which is to be found in a version edited by Professor Khoury. In this conversation "the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war", the pope told his audience, and then went on to state that "the emperor must have known that ayah 256 of surah 2 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion'."

Then the learned pope said that the "according to the experts, this is one of the surahs of the early period, when Muhammad (PBUH) was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the directives developed later and recorded in the Quran concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels', he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". After having expressed himself so forcefully, the emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God', he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death'".

This quotation from the pope's speech leaves one struggling with the question of his understanding of Islam. To begin with, regardless of the pope's experts, the second surah of the Quran (Suratul Baqarah) is not an early surah of the Quran; it was in fact revealed in Medina at a time when Muslims were in full control of the Arabian peninsula and not when "Muhammad was still powerless and under threat". Second, to consider the Prophetic mission of the Prophet (PBUH) in terms of an individual's struggle, even to treat him as a man who is once "powerless" and "under threat" and who then gains power and strength is totally contrary to Islamic understanding of a prophet's mission. According to Islam, God has chosen certain men to act as his messengers to humanity and once a man has been chosen to perform this function, his individual power of strength have little meaning left; he is acting under Divine Commands.

But regardless of these obvious misunderstandings about Islam (which one would not expect from such a learned theologian), the point that the pope attempted to make in his speech was that there is a "profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God". He did not say that such a "profound harmony" does not exist between Islam and Greek thought, but his invocation of the ugly words written by a Byzantinian emperor leaves one wondering how much of that text has crept into the understanding of the Church.

To be sure, the current perceptions of Islam and Muslims in the West are not merely the result of CNN and Fox News; they are the handiwork of generations of churchmen and academics who have followed in the footsteps of people like Emperor Manuel II. One only has to read a work like Islam and the West: The making of an image by Norman Daniel to see the contributions of the Church in the cultivation of the deep hatred of Islam and Muslims in the contemporary West.

Again this shows us the man real view of Islam.

Pope, Bad "Freedom of Speech" Player

2006-09-23T02:03:00.000+07:00

As a learned theological man, Pop Benedict XVI must knew perfectly well the consequences of his invocation. But seemed to me, the man has "freedom-of-speech supporter" all over him, only he played bad.

I mean, what could be the rational for quoting a part of the dialogue that took place between the Byzantine emperor and a Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam? why would he choose to resurrect the ugly words of this medieval text in Germany at a time when the hurt caused by the terrible Danish cartoons is still fresh in Muslim memory?

Even low educated muslim will take that as an open war, considering his position as the head of a global institution with more than a billion follower.

Jonathan Freedland made a great view of this,

At a 1983 Conservative rally, the comedian Kenny Everett called out, "Let's bomb Russia!" A year later, a microphone caught Ronald Reagan ad-libbing a mock radio address: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia for ever. We begin bombing in five minutes." Both had an equal right to make the joke. But it was rather less wise for the leader of a cold war superpower.

Pope Benedict is in the Reagan category. Of course he has the right to quote whomever he chooses, but there is now a significance to his words that did not apply when he was a humble scholar. This is what makes the Pope's defenders so disingenuous when they insist that he was merely engaged in a "scholarly consideration of the relationship between reason and faith". He is not a lecturer at divinity school. He is the head of a global institution with more than a billion followers. So he has to think carefully about the sources he cites. When he digs out a 700-year-old sentence that could not be more damning of Islam - "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" - he has to know there will be consequences.

Text of Pope Speech at University of Regensburg Germany

2006-09-23T01:59:00.000+07:00

Below is the text of the speech presented by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg, Germany, September 12, 2006. I copied it from CTU Review for reference purpose (just in case it get dissapeared from internet :).

Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections

Benedict XVI

September 12, 2006

Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies,
Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too, Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 8`(oH". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, F×< 8`(T, with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am". This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God’s nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, "transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul - "8@(46¬ 8"JD,\"", worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue, and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s "Critiques", but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is – as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss". The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

Who is tolerance?

2006-09-22T19:31:00.000+07:00

When i first found the link to this article in delicious, i thought it would be a thoughtful and intellectual article about muslim tolerance. But i realized i was wrong just by reading the first two paraghraps of it. It is nothing but an ignorance journalist who tried to make big hit from his nonsense article by quoting from Al Qur'an.

How can i guessed just by the first two paragraphs? Simple, just connect the title and the ayat he quoted.

Is this what they mean by 'Muslim tolerance'?

Listen to this: "Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."
Or then again, this: "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends."

The minute he said about muslim is actually intolerance, he declared himself as intolerance to muslim.

2006-09-22T12:43:00.000+07:00

Ngabuburit

So, my uncle did it again. He made this google-like news agregator for indonesian and non indonesian muslim. You need information about Islam, Ramadhan, Hilal, or any news about islam and politic, you can go here.

Anyway, ramadhan mubarak .. may Allah give us strength to raise Islam rules back to this world. Amin.

2006-09-20T18:42:00.000+07:00

Betrayal of the Muslim Rulers

Good article from KCom Journal,

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" - David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

This statement that Ben Gurion made in 1948 is quiet revealing about the status of the Muslim rulers. Even Ben Gurion the first prime minister of Israel regarded the act of signing an agreement by a Muslim Ruler with the state of Israel as a betrayal to the people they represented. However today the Muslim rulers are not content in their betrayal by signing treaties with the state of Israel, they are working to normalise relations between this illegal entity and the Muslim countries and they also oppose any resistance to the occupying state of Israel. This is why Ben Gurion regarded the Muslim Rulers to be in the Israel camp when he said that the Arab regimes are the first line of defence for Israel, he also said “the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine” (David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.).What he means by artificial is that these Muslim rulers have been artificially imposed on the Muslim Ummah ever since the Uthmani Khilafah was destroyed in 1924.

The failure of the Muslim rulers to respond to the aggression carried out over the years by the non Muslim states against this Ummah has exposed them. But the ultimate betrayal was witnessed during the recent war between Israel and Hizbullah, where they blamed Hizbullah for instigating the war.

The war was in fact instigated by Israel in its plan to disarm Hizbullah, which is the only force in the region resisting Israel and protecting the people from Israeli aggression. Most of the biased western media put the blame on Hizbullah for instigating the war, but when we examine the UN report (Secretary-General report to the Security Council in 2001/2002/2004) since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 the report mentions many violations :

“Regarding air violations, the report stated that Israeli aircraft violated the line on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace”(Jan-July 2001)

“Of equal concern, stated the Secretary-General, were Israeli air violations of the Blue Line, which continued on an almost daily basis, penetrating deep into Lebanese airspace. These incursions were not justified and caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas.”(Jan-Jul 2002)

“The Secretary-General also voiced deep concern that “ Israel persists in its provocative and unjustified air violations of sovereign Lebanese territory. Hezbollah's retaliatory firing of anti-aircraft rounds across the Blue Line "is a violation that poses a direct threat to human life", he added.” (Jan-July 2004).

So in the words of the secretary general it was Israel, which was provoking and Hizbullah, was only responding to the attacks.

As regards to kidnapping of Israel soldiers lets examine first the International Committee of the Red Cross 2006 report on Israel :

“At the end of 2005, approximately 11,200 Palestinians were held by Israel in interrogation units, temporary detention centres, military detention camps, prisons and police stations”
“12,192 detainees visited, including 7,504 monitored individually (of whom 131 women and 565 minors)”

The document states that ICRC issued documents to 17,882 detainees, so the total number of detainees being held illegally may be much higher, these numbers quoted are the detainees which ICRC has access to. There are a large number of Muslims which have gone missing, which are not reported in this figure. Most of the detainees have been either abducted or kidnapped of the streets in Palestine or Lebanon, it is worth noting that 565 are minors.

So, when Israel mentions that it has been provoked into this war with Lebanon due the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah, it is nothing but a complete distortion of the reality, it is in fact Israel which is the provoker.

The facts presented above are well known in the region and especially by the Muslim Rulers, and yet they blamed Hizbullah for instigating the war, which allowed them to lay the basis for their inaction. They even sought to divide the issue into sectarian one along the lines of Shia and Sunni, highlighting the fact that Hizbullah is shia and is supported by Iran. The main reason for their inaction is that they do not serve the interest of this ummah they serve the interest of their colonial masters America and Britain.

“Blaming Hezbollah is a message to the U.S. from these countries, which says they are sources of stability and will continue to serve U.S. interests in the region,'' Abdullah Mohamed, professor of international relations at Kuwait University.

President Mubaraks statement reflects the stance of the Muslim ruler in the area:

"Those who urge Egypt to go to war to defend Lebanon or Hezbollah are not aware that the time of exterior adventures is over,"

"Those who are asking for war will make us lose all of that in a blink,"

"The Egyptian army is for defending Egypt only and this is not going to change,"

(Press Trust of India - Cairo, July 26, 2006)

These rulers once talked about Arab unity and they also professed Muslim unity through the OIC. But when challenged to act on this unity they profess self-interest. The statement of Mubarak reminds us of Musharaf words when Afghanistan was invaded by the US in 2002, he said “Pakistan first”. But don’t be fooled to think that they will even defend the nation, as we know with Iraq Sadaam Hussein did not release the armies to defend the nation against the invading force, it was the people and individual soldiers who took up arms to defend Baghdad in 2003.

In fact the statements made by King Adbullah of Jordan, King Abdullah of Saudi and Mubarak criticizing Hizbullah implicitly gave justification for Israels attack and she took it as a green light to invade Lebanon.

The Muslim rulers have cited many reasons for their inaction, but the main ones being the superiority of Israel’s Military and that it will bring harm to their national economies. Let us examine what options are actually available to these rulers:

Military – Directly confrontation

Economic sanction and blockade of Israel

	Population	Military Manpower available	Military Expenditure $bn
Israel	6,352,117	2,936,041	9.45
Egypt	78,887,007	36,031,464	2.44
Iran	68,688,433	35,860,582	4.3
Israel	6,352,117	2,936,041	9.45
Jordan	5,906,760	2,920,637	1.4
Syria	18,881,361	8,479,752	0.858
Saudi	27,019,731	13,066,921	18
Turkey	70,413,958	32,808,029	12.155
Lebanon	3,874,050	1,998,636	0.5406
Kuwait	2,418,393	1,331,865	3.01
Oman	3,102,229	1,228,492	0.25299
Muslim - Middle East	300,648,110	141,652,713	43.94879

The Muslims outnumber the Israelis by a ratio of 48 Muslim soldiers to one Israeli soldier. They spend almost 5 times on their military, so it is clear that a united Muslim force is the dominant military power in the region. Even with the advance military technology the Israelis cannot overcome such a large Military force.

Also a brief glance at the borders of Israel it is clear that it would be virtually impossible for it to defend itself from a simultaneous land offensive from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. You may be wondering have not these states staged a war against Israel before. Yes they have but they were scenario wars with the objective of seeking peace with Israel. This was mentioned by Mohammed Heikal's in his book "The Road to Ramadan" - he quotes one of Sadat's generals, Mohammed Fouwzi who gave the analogy of a samurai drawing two swords - a long one and short one in preparation for battle. Fouwzi said that this battle would be a case of the short sword, signifying a limited battle for certain motives.

Economic blockade

It may be stating the obvious but the Israel is land, sea and air locked by the Muslim countries. So Israel is dependent on the Muslim countries for its survival. What would be the impact of a Sea, Land and Air blockade?

Sea Blockade

Some 98% (by weight) of Israel's imports and exports travel by sea (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org). Just as Israel with its minute naval force imposed as sea blockade on Lebanon, it would be easy for Egypt, Syria and Turkey to impose a sea blockade on Israel further up the Mediterranean Sea. Israel import 90% of the oil it consumes, majority of which is imported by oil tankers. This blockade will have a major impact on its Energy requirements. The major oil ports are at Ashkelon and Eilat, currently the port at Ashkelon receives oil from Russia in tankers via the Bosphorus which is controlled by Turkey. In 1989 Egypt supplied about 45% if Israel's oil needs but this has been gradually replaced by russian oil, currently it is still around 26-30%. The oil tankers arriving at Eilat have to pass though the Gulf of Aqaba whose waters are controlled by Saudi and Egypt. This is approximately 12nm wide and a blockade can easily be implemented. There port at Eilat is strategic as it will become key point of distribution of the central asian oil to the world market, BP plans to pump oil through Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil and gas pipelines via Turkey through Israels Tipline pipeline to Eilat. All the routes require the consent of the Muslim countries. Continuing on the theme of Energy requirements Egypt signed an agreement with Israel in July 2005 to supply Israel between “1.7 to 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually for 15 years.”(www.arabicnews.com).

The blockade would simply nullify the following treaty, which really exposes how treacherous our rulers have been in aiding Israel:

“Ships of Israel, and cargo destined for or coming from Israel, shall enjoy the right of free passage through the Suez Canal and its approach through the gulf of Suez and the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of the Constantinople convention of 1888”
“The parties consider the strait of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba to be international waterways open to all nations for unimpeded and non-suspendable freedom of navigation and overflight.”
“it is agreed that such relations will include normal commercial sales of oil by Egypt to Israel, and that Israel shall be fully entitled to make bids for Egyptian-origin oil”( Treaty Of Peace Between The State Of Israel and The Arab Republic of Egypt - 26/03/1979)

(Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)

The sea blockade would also curb the shipment of vitally needed water to Israel from Turkey. Israel and Turkey signed a 'water for arms' agreement in Jan 2004 where Turkey would “ship 50 million cubic metres of water a year for 20 years from the river Manavgat in Anatolia”(Gurdian uk) to Israel in water tankers.

Land Blockade
The following trade agreement meant that goods were traded across the borders between Israel Egypt and Jordan;

Agreement on Trade and Commerce (08/05/1980) – “To ensure the free movement of goods between the two countries, each party will make available to the other party, laws, regulations and procedures prevailing in his country, concerning the importation and exportation of goods and commodities”. “Both nations shall accord each other most favoured nation treatment”.

(Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)

The impact of this treaty has been the increase of exports from Israel to Egypt and Jordan as the report mentions below:

“Israel’s exports to Egypt and Jordan in January-May 2006 increased, thanks to the Qualifying Industrial Zone (QIZ) export agreements with Israel's two neighboring countries…. Exports to Egypt rose 93% to US$48.7 million” (http://www.port2port.com)

A land blockade would affect trade, mail and communication between Israel and the international community.

Air Blockade

Air Transport Agreement - 08/05/1980 – “To fly without landing across the territory of the other Contracting Party.”. “To make stops in the said territory for non traffic purposes … Agreement for the purpose of putting down and taking on international passengers, cargo and mail to and from the territory of the other Contracting Party.”

(Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)

International flights to and from Israel utilise the air corridors over Muslim countries. Imposing the blockade would greatly impact tourism and vital communication channels, which are required for the state of Israel to operate.

Betrayal beyond belief
The level of betrayal of the rulers is not just confined to their inaction, but they are actively defending Israel and helping to integrate it into the region, the following agreements clearly highlight this:

Over the last decade Turkey has been carrying out joint military exercises with Israel;

“Billion-dollar military agreements, intelligence cooperation, manoeuvres and secret operations are being made between Turkey and Israel. Israeli war planes are flying over Konya. A common missile shield project is on the agenda between the two countries; it’s under consideration for the missiles to be located on the borders of Iran and Syria. In a 20 thousand square kilometre area in the Konya valley, there were manoeuvres of hundreds of planes making a nuclear attack. Dozens of examples like this can be shown. In short, Turkey is Israel’s friend and ally” – (http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&amp;amp;amp;amp;alt=&trh=20060824&hn=35945 )

On area such as Education, Media and Culture treaties have been signed between Israel and its Muslim neighbours. The aim of this is to dilute the Islamic culture and to make Israel more acceptable to the Muslim societies. The following are three examples of such treaties:

Education-Protocol on the Establishment of the Israeli Academic Centre in Cairo (25/02/1982) – “Two parties have agreed to establish an Israeli academic centre in Cairo …. The centre will be established by the Israeli Oriental Society ….. ”, “provide hospitality and assistance to Israeli citizens on scholarships and visiting scholars”. “ Conduct seminars for its visiting scholars and researchers and provide opportunity for them to meet and cooperate with Egyptian scholars and researchers”. (Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)

Media- Protocol Of Cooperation Between The Israel Broadcasting Authority And The Radio And T.V. Union Of The Arab Republic of Egypt - 16/02/1982 – “The parties shall exchange Radio and Television programmes and Television films, reflecting culture, social, economic and scientific life in their countries”. (Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)

Cultural –Cultural Agreement between the State of Israel - 08/05/1980 –
“both parties shall encourage and promote youth and sport activities youth and sports institutions in each country”. “Both Parties shall encourage co-operation in the cultural, artistic and scientific field…” .. “Exchange of cultural, educational and scientific publications”.

(Treaties Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Israel)

It doesn’t end here; we know that the purpose of creating the PLO was to shift the responsibility of defending the Muslims of Palestine and protecting Masjid Al- Aqsa to a nationalistic organisation the PLO. In fact this the responsibility of the Muslim rulers.

A similar stance is taken when the issues of boycotting Israel arises, the ummah was encouraged to Boycott Israeli goods and even American good for it’s support of Israel. But they themselves deceive this ummah by importing Israeli products under the label of Muslim companies. It was reported in 2002 that a total of 150 million dollars worth of Israeli goods were imported into Saudi Arabia alone through 72 companies in Jordan, 70 companies in Cyprus, 23 companies in Egypt and 11 companies from Turkey. These regimes use a third country to disguise the source of the goods (Deutsche Presse-Agentur).

The ummah has been offered solution to their problems on an individual level and not at the state level. So the Ummah very effectively boycotted the Israeli and American goods. So much so that the boycott in 2002 against American products by the Muslims in Saudi Arabia resulted in a $2 billion drop in US exports. But this is insignificant when we compare it to the investment of the Gulf countries in the US. It was reported by Pravda the Russian newspaper that the total assets of the six Persian Gulf countries are evaluated in the sum of 1.4 trillion dollars, 75% of which resides in the G8 countries. The figure is likely to be double if not more when we consider indirect investment and joint venture with the western countries that Gulf States indulge in. The $1 trillion lawsuit brought against Saudi Arabia by the families of the US attack exposed the Saudi investment in the US to be around $750 billion (Aug 2002 -BBC).

Conclusion

One may think that this is a simplistic view of the situation and it is not easy to move the army and it is difficult to get agreement on implementing sanctions and blockade on a country. If that was the case then why did the Muslim Rulers assemble a force and join the Anglo American coalition to remove Sadaam from Kuwait. Surely in the eyes of the UN and the international community the invasion of Kuwait by Sadaam Hussien is no different to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel. Is it possible for the UN to impose sanction, the no fly zones and the sea blockade for 10 years without the collaboration of the Muslim Rulers. Just like Israel Iraq is also surrounded by Muslim countries. It was the Muslim Rulers, which actually implemented the sanctions, can you recall any ruler opposing or violating these sanctions.

By now the question that should be on your mind is how do we rid ourselves of these rulers. A number of options have been suggested to us, such as vote them out. We have seen so called Democratic elections in the Muslim world since the end of World War II and yet they have not produced any change. They have only hindered change and reinforced the status quo. There has been numerous attempts to bring change by arms struggle, this has only created instability and destruction and brought us back to where we started. The problem is that we looked to the reality for our solution. But the solution like with everything else lies in the example of our beloved prophet Muhammed (SAW). He (SAW) said :

"The master of martyrs (sayyid al-shuhada) is Hamza, and a man who stands up to a tyrant ruler and gives him nasiha (advice). And so the ruler kills him"

Accounting the Tyrant rulers is of one of the highest duties in Islam. The process of accounting is the way to bring change, because in this process the corruption is exposed and the correct solution is offered. The society witnessing this will rally around the correct Islamic ideas and will work to undermine the corrupt non Islamic ideas which are represented by the Rulers and the system they implements. The Prophet (SAW) did this in Mecca, where he publicly exposed the corruption of the system and the rulers, then he (SAW) presented them with Islam, this was also done in Madina. When the people had accepted the ideas and the solution that Islam brought to society, He (SAW) approached the people who possessed the power to remove the rulers and their system. The powerful tribes of Madina accepted and that is where the first Islamic state was established. Today the task is very similar, the Muslim armies need to approach to remove these rulers but at the same time we need to be accounting these rulers to maintain the Public opinion for Islam and against the Kufr they represent.

2006-09-20T11:53:00.000+07:00

To Forgive Not To Forget

So, after recent resentment from muslim worldwide regarding Pope Bennedict's remark, we now hear many muslim suggesting to accept his apology. Well, not all muslim though, some muslim leader to be appropriate. Some of them are, Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Nadhlatul Ulama chairman Hasyim Muzadi.

Badawi said during (guess what) his visit to America regarding Pope's regret, "I think we can accept it and we hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims"

While Hasyim said on the sidelines of a religious leaders conference at the NU office, "As long as it (the Pope's remarks) was made out of negligence, we are obliged to accept the apology"

Furthermore, he said, "If the rage continues, perhaps what the pope said is true"

Well, i couldn't agree more. Yes, there is an obligation for muslim to forgive anyone who makes mistake. But i think they're missing the point here. First, it is not about the speech, since as we all know Pope was just quoting a medieval text. It is about what the man truly feels toward Islam and muslim which is not new at all.

Second, Who has the right to 'accept' the apology of a man who has insulted Islam and prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam? Which Qadi has studied the facts of the case and pronounced such a decision? It is Badawi who may have agreed with Bush's opinion that the Pope's 'apology' was sincere. Not necessarily, the Muslims of Malaysia. And it is Hasyim Muzadi who may agreed with Cardinal Julius Darmaatmadja of the Indonesian Bishops Conference to think Pope's apology is satisfied, not necessarily all Indonesian muslims.

I mean the text was about linking Islam with violance. It is conceptual judgement, which if it is an insult then it goes to The Creator who created such concept. As a muslim, then the obligation really is to look what Islam told us to judge such as this. Not the apology but the insult.

Since muslim's understanding of Islam is quite vary, then you cann't expect them to do as you suggest. Forgive, forget and move on. In that case, the rage is understandable.

So, if the title is to forgive not to forget, i think it's more appropriate to address it to christian. Please forgive what muslims have done after Pop's remark. And please do not forget that any insult to Islam will be taken as an insult to each and every muslim. And we cann't just sit back and do nothing about it.

Anyway, Badawi before leaving for America, mentioned that he was going raise with Bush the matter of the two Malaysians reportedly being held in Guantanamo to ensure that there is 'justice'. At the time of writing, NOTHING still has been mentioned on this matter.

Furthermore, as a Muslim leader, (heading up the 'OIC' even) he had a duty to ask for the immediate liberation of ALL the Muslims being detained and tortured illegally in Guantanamo and other illegal detention and torture facilities of the US.

Any comments are welcome.

2006-09-20T09:19:00.000+07:00

Finally, Introduction

Hi, there. My name is Rhazes Avicenna. I am a 5 years old Indonesian boy lives in South Sumatera, Indonesia. This blogs was made by my uncle as a gift for my birthday. I know, i'm not old enough to write anything, in fact i still cann't write anything right now. But my uncle said i have inspired him alots so that he decided to made this blogs for me.

So, as you might guess, lots of things written here is not actually from me. But some of them inspired by me, my life or my thought of something. That is enough to name this blog as my name.

My uncle thinks that when i grow up later i'll be doing what he does now. He knows i'm going to be pretty much like him. Doing stuffs as he does. Although he expect alot more better than him.

Thanks for coming. I'll see you around, in ten years perhaps :) Till then, enjoy my blogs. Thank you.

2006-09-19T11:33:00.000+07:00

Pope Benedict XVI, Islam and True Colour

In Indonesia we have saying, "what goes out from a bottle shows the true colour of water in it". You can not fool people about your thoughts of something, since your words tell us all. Pope Benedict XVI's speech in Germany shows it too well.

As Pope Benedict XVI faces criticism from Muslim worldwide, the BBC's religious affairs correspondent, Rahul Tandon, looks at earlier views he expressed during his time as a cardinal.

This is not the first time Pope Benedict has been at the centre of criticism for his views on Islam.

Before becoming Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger, as he was known, was considered a theological conservative.

He appeared to be uncomfortable with Pope John Paul II's attempts to improve dialogue with the Islamic world. His predecessor was the first pontiff to step inside a mosque, during a visit to Syria in 2001.

During his time as a cardinal, Pope Benedict opposed Turkey's bid to join the European Union, saying it belonged to a different cultural sphere, adding that its admission would be a grave error against the tide of history.

And in 1996, he wrote that Islam had difficulty in adapting to modern life.

Last year he accused Muslim leaders in Germany of failing to steer their youth from what he described as the darkness of a new barbarism.

Obviously, there is a pattern of hatred that betrays this man's mind and true feelings towards Islam. It is clear that his agenda runs parallel with the Islamophobia that has gripped Western countries.

There is no 'philosophical' difference of opinion here, there is no taking his speech 'out of context'. His speech and the juxtaposition of the opinion of an enemy of Islam (14th century Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire) without any embarrasment for the sheer ignorance it displays, and without any apology for the misguided Emperor's hateful views towards Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam, speaks the true contents of his heart.

Is he a coward that uses the speech of a man dead some 700 years to voice his own thinking? Then retreats to the excuse of 'difference of philosophy'?

Is he not implying, in the faux apology and multifaceted-speak of the Catholic Church, that he STILL believes Muslims force people to convert on pain of violence thus 'philosophically' disagress with them?

Would he just as happily quote the Catholic Church's anti-semitic, specifically anti-Jewish views?

Is his opposition to Turkey joining Europe due to his anger at the liberation of Constantinople by the hands of the mighty Uthmani Khilafah at the time?

Does he not see, that Islam is the fasterst growing religion and way of life all over the world even without the Khilafah, even in Europe. Does he fear the Khilafah's return for it might liberate the whole world from ignorance such as his?

Let this be a lesson to those who believe the Catholics are sincere in their quest for dialogue between faiths. Let them see that despite their seemingly polite words, hatred, ignorance and consequent bigotry runs deep in their hearts, sometimes beyond the reach of evidence or thought.

2006-09-17T23:12:00.000+07:00

Conference On Hacking And Security

So, this is interesting. I hope i can attend to this conference. I know friends from Pakistan, and they all are hacker. Neat hacker.

I don't know if it is true, some says that Pakistan and India are some of the countries with best hacker ever.

Replacing CPU Fan can solve PC Problem

2006-09-17T12:41:00.000+07:00

This is intereseting, you can solve your PC problem by replacing CPU Fan. Well sounds to me like a horrible joke that used to do by local commedian here in indonesia.But its true, my laptop make horrible sound each time i play warcraft or counter strike. Its like my cpu got overloaded so that the fan get faster and noisy.

2006-09-11T23:32:00.000+07:00

Steve Irwin
I love this guy. He taught me lots of things about wild animal. So long buddy ...

2006-09-11T23:21:00.000+07:00

Cheat Sheet

My uncle told me once that I should not waste my memory space by remembering lots of things. Use the manual instead.

He believes that you don’t have to know everything, just make sure you know where to look reference about anything you need to know.

That’s why his windows quick lunch full of manual shortcut about programming. PHP, MySQL, Javascript, CSS, you name it.
The problem arise when he’s away from his laptop. But that will not be a problem anymore, because now he has cheat sheet. Here’s the example,

2006-09-11T16:21:00.000+07:00

These guys are my uncle's crazy, workoholic, counter-strike'oholic co-workers. They are good, so beware ...

2006-09-11T15:59:00.000+07:00

Cute heh? yeah i think so ... i remember my uncle said that women is just like a bus, mmm ... mmm .... that's it. Damn, i never really understand what he meant by that, but somehow it sounds right.

2006-09-11T15:54:00.000+07:00

Me and my uncle in Ancol. Alright .. alright ... that red thing on my head made me look silly, but i like it. In fact i loved it so much so that my mom finally have to convert it into a nice rag in my kitchen.

2006-09-11T15:46:00.000+07:00

I never really have time together with my little brother, yeah i'm so busy with my tinkering stuffs, so this moment kinda rare that i'd shoot myself if i didn't take this picture.

It's kinda awkward though, coz that bike was actually my ride. Maybe it's time for me to pay those guys from MTV to pimp it.

2006-09-11T15:34:00.000+07:00

Yeah, i finally did it. Hey ... don't give me that look. I'm young, smart, single and handsome, so there's no way i can keep myself in my nest hiding my ass from the rest of the world. And there you go, i finally decided to create this blog.

What is panama? i hear you ask, well there's nothing special about it, but fortunately i will always have no reason to explain it to you, at least for now. But i can tell you this, just sit back and enjoy it ...