What’s in a Name – Lina Joy or Azlina Jailaini? Are names important? Your existence is nameless. What you are NO Letter or Alphabet can Contain it.

'What is your name, each of you?' My name is also nameless. I have no name.
You give yourselves names, because you believe they are important. Understand, your existence is nameless. It is NOT voiceless, but it is nameless. The names you take are structures upon which you hang your images . . . What you are cannot be uttered, and NO letter or alphabet can contain it. Yet, now you need words and letters, and names and objects. You want magic that will tell you what you are. I have had TOO many identities to cling to ONE name.

Also understand the entity is the basic self, immortal, nonphysical and the individual is the portion of the whole self that you manage to express physically. There is one self, but within that self are many. You exist in other realities and other dimensions, and the self that you call yourself is but a small portion of your entire IDENTITY. Within the self that you know is the prime identity, the WHOLE SELF. This whole self has lived many lives and adopted many personalities. Personality may be somewhat molded by the circumstances that are created for it by the whole self but the prime identity uses the resulting experience.

Our social institutions are set up to fence in the individual, rather than to allow the natural development of the individual. How can we unentangled our minds with mass of knowledge or habits that we call "I and to look beyond it to see at the real thing? To be enlightened and observe and understand things so easily. The majority of people of religious faiths with their expressed beliefs will hold on to their beliefs as truths - unbending and unyielding. The only way to change is to change the beliefs.

At the Heart of All Religions is the Same Truth
That's why many of us cannot understand that one religion is no different than the next, it’s because of the mind. Perhaps, we are not that enlightened to go beyond the mind. Then we see differently, and truly understand that there’s no difference, ever. It's such a simple thing we shake our heads and can’t believe that we couldn’t understand it before.

It's alright if each of us can pursue what he or she wants to study and believe, whether false or true. But the problem comes when we start to ARGUE and FIGHT among each other because of philosophical differences. Then we truly disgrace ourselves and our ascended Teachers because they always preached peace, integrity and love.

Thus, it doesn't matter now whether we believe that Christianity is the greatest religion, Islam is the right path or that Buddhism is the highest belief system in the world; we don’t need to argue. Instead we should seek to know our true religion, the true religious essence, which Buddha left behind, which the Teacher of the Tao left behind, which Christ left behind and what is stated in the Koran. And then we’ll know that the only, the best and the quickest way are through enlightenment

= == = == the following, an unpublished work of Sonia Randhawa
from H E R E
This is an article I wrote for The Sun, but which was never published. Given the demise of the Constitution earlier today, it no longer seems relevant, though it may be of some interest. Just so we know what we've lost.

Wha’s in a Name; By Sonia Randhawa

I've always been grateful for my first name. Sonia doesn't rhyme with anything. My brother, in contrast, endured years of primary school suffering. My name has a meaning, and I learnt what it's formal meaning was long after I had learnt that 'Sonia' meant me. But names aren't always as carefully constructed to their owner as Sonia now seems sculpted to me. Some names are, merely, labels. The nicknames that various friends called me in school, none of which have stuck. The nastier names thrown by enemies. These names are only as important as the truth they contain, vicious or virtuous.

Some names, however, can shape the named. If you call a child worthless, it internalises the label and begins to incorporate this into its identity. It shapes the child's behaviour, his or her outlook on life. But it isn't just people that can be shaped by labels. It's hard to see how a table would change, even if you persuaded successive generations to call it 'Kate'. Call a State something, though, and it can have exceedingly worrying consequences. Which is why I was worried when I was engaged in a conversation about whether Malaysia as an 'Islamic state' is merely a label, or if it is indicative of something deeper.

And was before we couldn't protect our Constitutional rights through peaceful forums, closed due to the threat of mob violence. Before one of the leading organisations in the 'Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA' declared that it was okay to imprison people without trial, if it was for religious transgression. Before the clampdown on 107 religious 'deviants', with barely a whimper from civil society. The Islamic state label is more than just on name, regardless of what Mohd Nazri may have maintained earlier this year. It is an issue at the heart of many recent debates, from Anthony Rayappan and M. Moorthy, to Lina Joy, Shamala Sathiyaseelan, even the closure of radio shows on Ai FM. Because what is at stake is who or what is the supreme legal power in this country. 'Islamic state' is more than just a description. It is prescriptive as well.

It prescribes how our courts, our Parliament and our Executive should behave. It prescribes a theocratic state, one in which God, as interpreted by one religion and its proponents, is in charge of the day to day running of the State. Not the Constitution, not the law, not Parliament, not the Government. This might work, if God deigned to come down in, as it were, person, to rule in the stead of our Prime Minister. Or if our Prime Minsiter (as Bush has claimed to be) is directly inspired, a Prophet. Both solutions, of course, are blasphemous in Islam.

So we can't rely on God to govern directly. Which means that people will be governing. And my experience has been that most people are fallible. Except, possibly, Tun Dr Mahathir. What we have is a State where, in name, God is the supreme power, but in practice, a person rules in his stead. A fallible person. What happens when the fallible person makes a mistake? Well, that's the problem with a theocracy. With God as the head of state, they can't make mistakes. Because then it's saying that God is making mistakes, and that is undoubtedly blasphemous. It was for these reasons, along with a host of others, that democracies in Europe replaced monarchies. Not because the societies were mature, just or wise. But because they were fed up with dealing with the mistakes of monarchs who believed they were infallible. In the UK, as here, they rather liked their monarchs, so rather than beheading them, they just ensured that their powers were limited. True, it took civil war to get to the point, but they did get there.

Unfortunately, even in a democracy, there is no guarantee that the ruler will not attempt to usurp God-like powers from those who first put him or her in power (that's us). That's where Constitutions come in. It's our first line protection, saying, sorry, but no, you don't have the power to do that. You, no matter who you are, can't tell me what religion I should follow. You can't curb my freedom of speech.

You can't send me into exile, deny me the right to life, the right to assemble. I am equal with anyone else, before the law, regardless of race, religion, gender or class. (That one I love so much, it's painted on the side of my house). If we are a theocratic state, then these rights are taken away from the Constitution and put in the hands of a man-made interpretation of what God wants. If we're an Islamic state, it's put into an interpretation of God that neither myself nor anyone in my multi-religious family adhere to. It's just a name. Call us an Islamic state. What difference will it make, to Lina Joy, or any of us. Sticks and stones may break my bones, sure, but names will never hurt me? I hope not.
= = == = ==
May 31, 2007 21:57 PM
Accept Decision In Lina Joy Case With Open Mind, Says Abdullah

ABOVE: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi at a press conference after chairing the Umno Supreme Council meeting.

KUALA LUMPUR, May 31 (Bernama) -- Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi today asked the people to accept with an open mind without being influenced by emotion the Federal Court's decision in the case of Azlina Jailani or Lina Joy. "If we allow ourselves to be overcome by emotion, we will begin to have all kinds of thoughts; we will have suspicions about this and that," he said. The government did not bring any influence to bear on the decision of the court, he told reporters after chairing a meeting of the Umno Supreme Council, here.

"That is the decision of the court; I don't question them," he said. The Federal Court yesterday dismissed by a 2-1 majority decision an appeal by Lina, 42, who claimed to have renounced Islam to embrace Christianity 17 years ago, to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card. The court insisted that Azalina, who had taken the name Lina Joy, had to obtain a certificate of apostasy from the Syariah Court before the National Registration Department could drop the word "Islam" from her identity card. Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Federal Court Judge Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sherif dismissed her appeal while Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Richard Malanjum dissented. Asked if the Federal Court decision would cause a religious divide in the country, Abdullah said: "I don't think there is a divide although the discussion on religion becomes more widespread." At the press conference, Abdullah also dismissed a suggestion from a foreign journalist that Islamic law was now above the Federal Constitution in the country. "There is no such thing (of Islamic law being above the Federal Constitution). The Federal Constitution is the Federal Constitution. There is a set of laws we have to follow. It is something that we have to follow, that's all," he said.
= = == =
May 31, 2007 18:19 PM

Zainuddin Regrets That Western Media Used Lina Joy Case To Run Down Malaysia

KUALA LUMPUR, May 31 (Bernama) -- Information Minister Datuk Seri Zainuddin Maidin today expressed regret that the western media have taken advantage of the court decision in the Lina Joy case to run down Malaysia as an Islamic country that practises injustice. He said the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) had used the screaming headline "Malaysia Rejects Christian Appeal" in its news portal while The Times had said that the court decision is a slap in the face for religious freedom in Malaysia. "This is clear proof that the western media will use any opportunity for 'Islamic bashing' without regard for any country as long as it practises Islamic law," he told reporters after receiving a visit from Iranian ambassador to Malaysia Mahdi Khandagh. The Federal Court yesterday dismissed the appeal of Lina Joy, born Azlina Jailani, to drop the word Islam from her identity card.

Zainuddin said that the separation of the civil and syariah laws had been in place all this while since the time of the British in the country as a mark of respect to the Muslim Malay community as the original people in the country. Zainuddin said that in Lina Joy's case, it was clear that the western media could not see the aspect of justice practised in the country but only saw justice from the aspect of the freedom and egotism of the western democracy. It must be remembered that Malaysia's position as a model Islamic country with a multiracial society was recognised not only by the leaders of Islamic nations but also other countries in the world that admired Malaysia, he said. "To me, this view of the western media is only their own view and will not affect the position of Malaysia which is well-known as a model Islamic country that practises and is committed to safeguarding the rights of its people of various races and religions," he said.
= = == = = =

Two bad decisions
By Philip Bowring Thursday, May 31, 2007; from IHT India
BANGKOK: Two decisions on the same day on Wednesday have delivered huge to
blows to liberal, plural democracy in Thailand and Malaysia, two relatively prospering and open Southeast Asian societies. Both decisions have been given the appearance of being judicial, but both are highly political and represent efforts by entrenched interests to maintain political control. The dissolution of Thai Rak Thai, the party of Thaksin Shinawatra, who was deposed as prime minister of Thailand by a coup last September, has caught more headlines.
But given the volatility of Thai politics, this may prove less enduring than a decision in Malaysia to deny a woman the right to convert from Islam to another religion. The highest court in Malaysia ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the Muslim Shariah courts, even though the Malaysian Constitution, which the civil courts are supposed to uphold, guarantees freedom of religion. The Shariah courts have been adamant that "apostasy" cannot be allowed; Muslims cannot become non-Muslims. The ruling will be seen in most of the rest of the world as an example of Muslim arrogance,intolerance and obscurantism, which are particularly out of place in a country where more than 40 percent of the population is not Muslim (and non-Muslims are a majority in some states). But the ruling is as much about the politics of race as it is about religion. The Malay elite is less noted for piety than for its determination to cling on to the economic and political privileges it has awarded itself through the United Malays National Organization (UMNO), the party that has dominated the political process since independence 50 years ago.
All Malays are deemed to be Muslims; thus religion has become a means of reinforcing the racial basis of politics. The elite will not disavow it, partly to protect the privileges and partly to avoid being outflanked among Malay voters at election time by the more fundamentalist Parti Islam. In Wednesday's ruling, the chief justice argued that one could not leave a religion "at whim," suggesting that it was a function of birth more than belief. By implication, he raised this question: Are Malays in Malaysia (unlike Indonesia) incapable of making their own decisions on religion? The court (with the one non-Muslim judge dissenting) appeared to forget that non-Muslims who wish to marry Malays must convert to Islam. In short, the court has in effect undermined Malaysian pluralism for the sake of UMNO's political expediency.
[...]

For both Malaysia and Thailand, the rulings on Wednesday represent major setbacks in their efforts to become fully developed societies in which pluralism is enshrined in the conduct of institutions.

= = ==

Bar Council: Federal Constitution must remain supreme; June 1, 2007

PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council supports theminority judgment of Chief Judge
of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum that no court or authority should be easily allowed to have implied powers to curtail rights that are constitutionally granted

Its president S. Ambiga (ABOVE) said the Federal Constitution "is and must remain in law, supreme." "In an event of any inconsistency or conflict between the provisions of State Enactments and of the Federal Constitution, the latter must prevail," she said in a statement yesterday. On Wednesday, the Federal Court rejected Lina Joy's appeal to compel the National Registration Department (NRD) to remove the word "Islam from her identity card. Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Federal Court Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff voted against her appeal and said conversion issues should be dealt with by the Syariah Court. In his dissenting judgement, Justice Malanjum described the NRD's insistence that Lina Joy obtain a certificate of apostasy from the Federal Territory Syariah Court or any Islamic authority as illegal and unreasonable. Ambiga said: "We are mindful that issues relating to religion will inevitably draw emotive responses in a multireligious society. "Malaysians must be prepared to confront these issues maturely and dispassionately within the framework of our Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land." Council of Churches of Malaysia general-secretary Rev Dr Herman Shastri said it viewed the Federal Court's decision with regret and concern. "We believe that the constitutional provision in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion in our country has been severely violated," he said. He said the majority judgement had denied the individual the right to freedom of conscience and choice of religion. "It is, therefore, vital that the necessary legislation be enacted to ensure that no citizen would be penalised when he or she exercises the individual right to choose a faith and to practice it in freedom," he said

= = == =& for More Pics & Video of Ms Universe 2007 Go H E RE ON

MORE PICS & Video – Miss UNIVERSE 2007 – RIYO MORI Japan; Ms Brazil, Natalia Guimaraes; Ms Venezuela, Ly Jonaitis; Ms Korea, Honey Lee; & Ms USA Nobody had Money on Japan, 22 to 1 Odds; Ms Brazil & Ms Venezuela 4 to 1 favorite to win.