Fiftynineminutes

"Two friends discover faith, direction adn the truth. An actress whom we all like to hate. A bitter past haunts a bitterer couple. A girl finds beauty in ugliness. A man and a woman make love over dinner. A fellow Malaysian makes the country proud. And a group of roommates bring back the dead - all within fiftynineminutes."

- the oral stage presents fiftynineminutes, original short plays and monologues

In my opinion, a good play is one which is able convey not just its wit but more importantly its intended emotions to the audience. Fiftynineminutes did just that. There were a lot of emotions invested in the play and there were times that the acting got so real that I actually felt a little uncomfortable. Kudos to Reuben Kang, Sharanya M., Kelvin Wong, Doreen Loo and Krystle Wong for their stellar performance. My favorite short play was the satirical "World's Smelliest Durian" - excellent script by Patricia Low, good performance by Johann Lim and good direction by Kelvin Wong. It's so good that it qualifies for a standing ovation! "Showers of Flowers" was my next favorite.

Conclusion? At only RM10, it's the chinaman's dream to watch this play as it is worth every cent. Frankly, I felt that I was underpaying them. Hehe. :) See? It is that good, comes highly recommended from me.

When? September 28th - October 1st 2006 @ 8.30 pm

Where? The Dram Projects, BG06 Happy Mansion Apartments, Jalan 17/13 46400 PJ

Tickets? RM10

Ticket contact? Louisa Low @ 0163757833

>> FOR MORE INFORMATION CLICK HERE <<

My interpretation of the Pope's speech

The following is an excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI's recent controversial speech entitled "Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections":

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 ... 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`(@H". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, F×<>

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL SPEECH]

---

The following is what I believe Pope Benedict XVI was trying to convey to the audience at the University of Regensburg:

1. [The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".]
The Pope begins by stating clearly that in Islam no one is forced to convert against their will and that he is sure that Manuel II was aware of that verse.

2. [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 Pope continues to say here that although Manuel II knew what was said in Surah 2, 256 still Manuel II continues to state crudely what was in quotes.

3. [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...".]
The Pope continues to quote Manuel II, who says that for a person to experience true conversion, reason should be used not force – which is exactly what Islam teaches and what Surah 2, 256 writes: “There is no compulsion in religions”; because for one to use force is to be unreasonable and being unreasonable is against God’s nature. Thus the Pope establishes the relationship between Islam and reason; since force is not used in conversion to Islam therefore Islam uses reason thus Islam too is compatible with God's nature.

4. [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.]
The Pope notes that the reason why Manuel II is able to see the relationship between faith and reason is because of Manuel II's background in Greek philosophy. However the Pope notes that Islam too sees a relationship between faith and reason although Islam is not rooted in Greek philosophy and the Muslim concept of God is a God that is above all things including rationality.

5. [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?]
Finally the Pope poses the question: Is acting according to reason merely a Greek idea, or is acting according to reason something that comes naturally for those who believe in God such as the Pope sees in Islam?

---

In effect the Pope uses Manuel II's comment to illustrate the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. That is both Christianity and Islam believes in "acting according to reason" thus is according to God's nature and their difference lies only in that Christianity uses Greek philosophy. Thus Muslims and Christians are even able to have dialogues because of this shared commonality in reason.

Bob Parks Speaks

"Madonna is currently touring the world and performing a mock crucifixion just to tick off the religious. Madonna’s been doing this for awhile, yet I don’t remember one Catholic riot occurring."

- in Bob Parks Black&Right

Read what the pope is really saying...

"By quoting from a robust exchange between a medieval Byzantine emperor and a learned Islamic scholar, Benedict XVI was not making a cheap rhetorical point; he was trying to illustrate the possibility of a tough-minded but rational dialogue between Christians and Muslims. That dialogue can only take place, however, on the basis of a shared commitment to reason and a mutual rejection of irrational violence in the name of God."

- George Weigel writes in The Pope Was Right, Los Angeles Times

Tagged

I've been tagged by Adriene. So here goes!

Five things in my freezer
Ayam Dinding's Sausages
Wall's Ice cream
Sweet Corn
Plain Ol' Ice
Chicken

Five things in my closet
Various clothing
Vertical Outbound duffel/messenger bag
Creative Muvo 2 MP3 player
Kodak C340 Camera
My very well-worn wallet

Five things in my car
I. don't. own. a. car. But I wouldn't mind filling up this tag if you get me one. ;)

Five things in my wallet
MyKad
Big Bookshop Discount Card
Ringgit
ATM Card
Student ID

There you go - I am pretty boring. If you'd like to do this tag, post a comment so that I know! ;)

Something to think about

"So while there are very good reasons for criticizing that emperor's knowledge about Islam in his medieval polemical dispute, to demand an apology from Benedict for quoting him in an entirely different context seems rather misplaced."

- writes Paul M. Cobb a historian in Medieval Islam and the Crusades in When do we get to offend in peace?

Ellis, Al-Qaida and the Pope

Albert Ellis developed the ABC theory of personality:

• A = Activating Event
• B = Beliefs
• C = Consequences (Emotional/Behavioral)

Ellis contends that the cause of our feelings is rooted in our beliefs. For Ellis there are two categories of beliefs, rational and irrational. Of course, according to Ellis: rational beliefs leads to healthy consequences and irrational beliefs leads to unhealthy consequences. Allow me to demonstrate the ABC theory of personality using today's examples:

"Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies responded on Monday to Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam and holy war, proclaiming that jihad would continue until Islam takes over the world."

[Source: Jerusalem Post]

• The Activating Event: "Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam and holy war"
• Consequences: "Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies responded on Monday ... proclaiming that jihad would continue until Islam takes over the world."

Thus I assume the irrational Belief of Al-Qaida to be: "It is ABSOLUTELY a MUST for everyone to say things about Islam which we agree with, if they don't it is always awful."

Ellis would categorize the above Belief as irrational because it leads to the following unhealthy Consequences:

"[Al-Qaida:] ... we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism ..."

[Source: Jerusalem Post]

A rational Belief that Ellis would suggest would be: "It is strongly preferable for everyone to say things about Islam which we agree with, but it is not awful if they don't, just very unfortunate and sad."

After which Ellis would go further into D = Disputing and challenge Al-Qaida's thoughts with the following question: "Where does it say that everyone MUST say nice things about Islam?"

---

We see that it is our Beliefs not the Activating Event which caused the Consequences, therefore Ellis concludes that people are primarily responsible for how they feel and the behaviors which result from it.

Therefore, the Pope cannot be held responsible for the feelings of "outrage" / "tensions" and the acts of violence which results.

Besides the Pope Benedict XVI has already made a personal PUBLIC apology. What else should he do?

Don't use the Pope's "remarks" as an excuse - don't be a coward; take responsibility for your actions.

"Subtle scholar, but what an inept politician"

by Waleed Ali

The Pope should mind his words. So should some of his Muslim critics.

LET me get this straight. Pope Benedict XVI quotes the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus asserting before a Persian Islamic scholar that the prophet Muhammad brought nothing new to the world except things "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". Some Muslims clearly interpret Benedict to be quoting Manuel with approval, and take offence at the suggestion that Islam is inherently violent. The response is to bomb five churches in the West Bank, and attack the door of another in Basra. In India, angry mobs burn effigies of Pope Benedict. In Somalia, Sheikh Abu Bakr Hassan Malin urges Muslims to "hunt down" the Pope and kill him, while an armed Iraqi group threatens to carry out attacks against Rome and the Vatican.

There. That'll show them for calling us violent.

Meanwhile, other commentators seem to be vying to be most hysterical. Libya's General Instance of Religious Affairs thinks Benedict's "insult … pushes us back to the era of crusades against Muslims led by Western political and religious leaders". And a member of the ruling party in Turkey has placed Benedict "in the same category as leaders like Hitler and Mussolini", in what must surely be an insult to those who suffered under them.

Closer to home, Muslim Community Reference Group chairman Ameer Ali cautioned Benedict to "behave like (his predecessor) John Paul II, not Urban II (who launched the Crusades)", while Taj al-Din al-Hilali declared startlingly that the Pope "doesn't have the qualities or good grasp of Christian character or knowledge". It's fair to say perspective has deserted us.

Parallels with February's Danish cartoon saga are begging to be drawn. As Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya and Syria did with Denmark, Morocco has now withdrawn its ambassador from the Vatican. Egypt and Turkey called for an apology. Indeed, one expert has suggested Morocco's decision may have been a tactic to prevent a wave of street protests similar to those that stunned the world in February. There is an awful sense of history repeating: a provocative gesture triggers an overblown response of surreal imbecility.

But this is not the same as the Danish catastrophe. On that occasion, the cartoons' publication was an act calculated specifically to offend Muslim sensibilities. The reaction was irredeemably contemptible, but the sense of offence was justified.

Pope Benedict's speech was an academic address at a German university on an esoteric theological theme that had nothing to do with affronting Muslims. The apparently offending remarks were almost a footnote to the discussion. The contrast is manifestly stark.

But it seems some elements in the Muslim world are looking avidly for something to offend them. Meanwhile, governments looking to boost their Islamic credentials are only too happy to seize on this, or nurture it, for their own political advantage. At some point, the Muslim world has to gain control of itself. Presently, its most vocal elements are so disastrously reactionary, and therefore so easily manipulable.

Here, the vociferous protests came from people who, quite clearly, have not bothered to read Benedict's speech. Worse, some (like al-Hilali and Ameer Ali) themselves regularly complain of being quoted incorrectly and out of context. Had such critics done their homework, they would have noted Benedict's description of Manuel II's "startling brusqueness". Manuel's point was that violent doctrine could not come from God because missionary violence is contrary to rationality. Benedict's point was a subtle one: that Manuel draws a positive link between religious truth and reason. This was the central theme of the Pope's address. He was silent on Manuel's attitude to Islam because it was beside the point he was making. Clearly, Manuel II was not a fan of the prophet Muhammad. But that does not mean Benedict isn't either.

The trouble with being the Pope is that you are simultaneously a theologian and a politician. Theological discourse is regularly nuanced and esoteric. Political discourse is not. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said "the Pope spoke like a politician rather than as a man of religion", but the truth is the exact opposite. In theological terms, Benedict chose an example well suited to his narrow argument.

In political terms, his choice was poor. He was naive not to recognise how offensively it would translate into the crudeness of the public conversation, and should at least have made clear that he was not endorsing Manuel II's words.

I happen to think Manuel had a shoddy grasp of Islamic theology. Indeed, the Islamic tradition would have much to contribute to the theme of Benedict's lecture. While medieval Christendom fought science stridently, the relationship between faith and reason in traditional Islam was highly convivial.

That's why I would be interested to have heard how the Persian scholar responded to Manuel's argument. I'm fairly certain, though, he wouldn't have called on Muslim hordes to hunt down Manuel and kill him.

Waleed Aly is an Islamic Council of Victoria director.

---

[SOURCE: TheAge.com.au]

Pope Benedict XVI's Speech

There had been much outrage due to what Pope Benedict XVI said, but what did he really say? CLICK HERE to DOWNLOAD his entire speech (only 37kb), READ the whole lot and then DECIDE whether or not you should be outraged. It is only fair to do so.

[Source of Pope's speech and image via BBC News]

God blogs too!

JESUS BLOGS AT BLOGSPOT.COM
DAILY RAMBLINGS OF THE ALMIGHTY

Psalm 23: Student's Edition

The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not flunk
He keepeth me from lying down when I should be studying
He leadeth me beside the water cooler for a study break
He restores my faith in study guides
He leads me to better study habits
For my grades' sake

Yea, though I walk through the valley of borderline grades
I will not have a nervous breakdown
For thou art with me
My prayers and my friends, they comfort me
Thou givest me the answer in moments of blankness
Thou anointest my head with understanding
My test paper runneth over with questions I recognise

Surely passing grades and flying colours shall follow me
All the days of my examinations
And I shall not have to dwell in this exam hall forever.

- CLICK HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL SOURCE -

Brooding

Bummer. I forgot to attached the literature review with my lab report and the deadline was at 5pm, anything later than that will have 1% minus off the GPA per day. Thank God, weekends don't count. So I'll pass it up on Monday then.

I really really want that A-... but a B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. Who am I kidding? No it's not fine.

I can only afford to lose a maximum of 4.5% in my lab report and my finals... :(

Don't worry, I am OK. I just brood a lot, that's all.