The Birth of Jesus

Luke 2: 1-7 The Birth of Jesus

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

John 14: 1-4 Jesus Comforts His Disciples

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”

John 15: 18-25 The World Hates the Disciples

“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. Whoever hates me hates my Father as well. If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.'

Season of goodwill

By The Sultanah of Johor RAJA ZARITH IDRIS. Published by The StarOnline on 9 January 2011.

DURING the days before Christmas last year, I wished my friends who were celebrating it “Merry Christmas” in much the same way they would wish me “Selamat Hari Raya” or “Happy Eid”.

I find it rather sad that such a simple greeting – one which I grew up with and which I have never regarded as something that would compromise or de-value my own faith – is now regarded as something so religiously incorrect for us Malaysian Muslims.

When I was at boarding school in England, I had to go to church every Sunday because it was part of the rules. My father advised me to consider it as part of my “education” and he had no doubt that the experience would strengthen rather than weaken my own faith.

I was able to see the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. I learned more than the average Malaysian Muslim would about Christianity. I learnt that just as we Muslims categorise ourselves according to the four different schools of thoughts of the four Imams (Imam Malik, Imam Al Shafi, Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad Abn Hambal) and are either Sunnis or Shias, so Christians too are divided into different sects or churches.

Going to church did not make me less of a Muslim when I was a young girl, and neither does saying “Merry Christmas” make me less of a Muslim now. My faith has not been shaken just because I wished some friends a time of joy with their families. Neither will I suddenly suffer from amnesia and forget what my religion is.

What I do not wish to forget, however, is that there are good, kind people who are not of the same faith as me.

As Harun Yahya, the Turkish writer (he was selected last year as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in the world by the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre of Jordan) noted: “Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance.

Today, however, some circles have been presenting a false image of Islam, as if there were conflict between Islam and the adherents of the two other monotheistic religions. Yet Islam’s view of Jews and Christians, who are named ‘the People of the Book’ in the Quran, is very friendly and tolerant.

“This attitude towards the People of the Book developed during the years of the birth of Islam. At that time, Muslims were a minority, struggling to protect their faith and suffering oppression and torture from the pagans of the city of Mecca. Due to this persecution, some Muslims decided to flee Mecca and shelter in a safe country with a just ruler. The Prophet Muhammad told them to take refuge with King Negus, the Christian king of Ethiopia. The Muslims who followed this advice found a very fair administration that embraced them with love and respect when they went to Ethiopia. King Negus refused the demands of the pagan messengers who asked him to surrender the Muslims to them, and announced that Muslims could live freely in his country.

“Such attitudes of Christian people that are based on the concepts of compassion, mercy, modesty and justice, constitute a fact that God has pointed out in the Quran.”

I do not wish to be a self-centred Muslim who expects friends of other faiths to wish me Selamat Hari Raya or, for those who are not Malaysians and therefore do not know about Hari Raya, a Happy Eid and yet do not return their goodwill when it is Christmas, Chinese New Year, Deepavali or Vesak Day.

Every year, friends who are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or those without any faith come to our home to celebrate Hari Raya with us. They do so with sincerity and as a mark of respect for one of the most important days in the Muslim calendar. Why should we not reciprocate their kindness, show them the same mark of respect for their religion and wish them the same joy on their holy days of celebration?

An Islamic scholar and lecturer also reminded me that as Muslims we must remember the importance of both the five Pillars of Islam and in the six Pillars of Iman (Faith), which are:

> Belief in Allah;

> Belief in the angels;

> Belief in the revealed Books (which include the Bible, the Torah and the Holy Quran);

> Belief in the Prophets (May Peace be Upon Them);

> Belief in the Resurrection and the events of Kiamah, the Day of Judgement; and

> Belief in the predestination (Qada’ and Qadar) by Allah in all things.

The prophets include not just Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him) as the last prophet and as the Messenger of Islam, but also in the 24 earlier ones who are mentioned in both the Bible and the Quran. Four of them are Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), Daud (David), and Isa (Jesus).

So, if Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Isa (Jesus), a prophet respected and revered in Islam, is it so wrong to wish a blessed day for those who celebrate it?

We are now in the second decade of the 21st century. Surely, we should, now more than ever, be far more enlightened at a time when information of any sort and of all kinds are so readily available to us.

What is most important is that we regard one another as fellow citizens and treat each other with respect, regardless of our race or religion.

> The writer is Royal Fellow, School of Language Studies and Linguistics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), and holds a BA (Honours) degree in Chinese Studies, University of Oxford.

Link: 

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?file=/2011/1/9/columnists/mindmatters/7762860&sec=Mind

Stop Lynas group vows to fight on

By G Lavendran. Published by Free Malaysia Today on 20 December 2012.

The Save Malaysia Stop Lynas (SMSL), a coalition of non-governmental organisations against the Lynas rare earth plan in Kuantan, has vowed to continue its legal battle against the granting of the temporary operating licence (TOL) to Lynas recently. 

The group said it will go on with its campaign against Lynas despite failing to win its appeal at the Court of Appeal yesterday, against a High Court decision which refused to grant a stay on the government’s decision to award Lynas the TOL. Tan Bun Teet, an applicant to revoke the TOL and a spokesperson for SMSL, said although “we didn’t think we would win the stay on the TOL through this appeal, we had to exhaust this legal avenue to test the court system”.

“We now have three judicial review cases, all armed with strong technical and scientific evidence in court. We will fight till the end to stop Lynas,” he said in a statement. “Radiation and hazardous substances are not something one should be complacent with. Lynas will be producing a massive amount of toxic waste. Lynas has no safe plan to dispose of this waste. Lynas is now at odd with our ministers who insisted that that waste be transported out of Malaysia, which Lynas has declined. Yet the court had done nothing to halt the TOL until the waste management issue has been sorted out,” he added.

“Lynas’ suggestion to turn its radioactive waste contaminated with other hazardous substances such as chemical compounds and heavy metals [into commercially safe products] will lead to its toxic waste spreading far and wide, subjecting more innocent public to its hazards. Once again I call on concerned residents and citizens to stand together with us to do something to protect your family, investment and your future in Kuantan and in Malaysia. The government has failed in its duty of care to protect you. The choice is now in your hands to do something to reclaim your safe space here in this country,” said Tan.

Another applicant to the case, Ismail Abu Bakar, said in the same statement that SMSL was disappointed with the outcome of the appeal as the court did not take into full consideration the scientific facts and technical details provided by our experts.

“We have been informed by highly qualified and skilled independent experts that the Lynas project has many problems with pollution and waste management,” he said.

SMSL also asserted that the court has neglected to take into consideration that the two judicial review cases are aimed at nullifying the approval of the TOL. “If these cases succeed, the TOL now granted to Lynas will no longer be legally valid and Lynas’ operation stopped,” the statement said.

Ram Punusamy, a local resident and active Stop Lynas campaigner, said the court did not accept SMSL’s request for the precautionary principle to be adopted to make sure that Lynas has settled its waste management and pollution problems identified by SMSL’s experts.

The application for a judicial review case will be heard in court on Jan 29, 2013.

Link: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/12/20/stop-lynas-group-vows-to-fight-on/

How dare the UK secretary of state try to redefine marriage?

Published by BBC News UK on 11 December 2012.

Other religious organisations will be able to "opt in" to holding ceremonies, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said. But she added that the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly" stated strong opposition and would not be included.

Labour said the exemption for the established Church was "disappointing". The plans are due to be introduced before the next election, in 2015. Labour backs the government's decision to legislate on same-sex marriages, which will apply to England and Wales, and urged ministers not to be "too reserved" in promoting the policy. Party leader Ed Miliband suggested that Labour votes would "ensure that this measure is passed in the House of Commons".

The Church of England and Roman Catholics, among other denominations, have voiced opposition to same-sex marriage and are expected to oppose the bill, even with its caveats. But some religious groups, including Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism, are in favour.

In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:

• No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
• Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
• Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
• The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply.

Mrs Miller said the Church of England and Church in Wales had "explicitly stated" their opposition to offering same-sex ceremonies, so the government would "explicitly state that it will be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples".

She also said: "I am absolutely clear that no religious organisation will ever be forced to conduct marriages for same-sex couples, and I would not bring in a bill which would allow that.

"European law already puts religious freedoms beyond doubt, and we will go even further by bringing in an additional 'quadruple legal lock'. But it is also a key aspect of religious freedom that those bodies who want to opt in should be able to do so."

For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper, welcomed the announcement, saying: "We should not stop people from getting married and getting that recognition from the state on grounds of gender or sexuality.

"And we should not here in Parliament say that some loving relationships have greater value than others." Plans to legalise same-sex marriage have divided the Conservative Party and more than 100 Tory MPs are thought to be against the idea.

Religious freedom

One of these opponents, Peter Bone, asked the Commons: "How dare the secretary of state try to redefine marriage?"

Richard Drax said: "I would like to ask the Secretary of State and the government what right have they got, other than arrogance and intolerance, to stamp their legislative boot on religious faith?"

Another, Sir Tony Baldry, who speaks for the Church of England in Parliament, said: "For the Church of England, the uniqueness of marriage is that it does embody the distinctiveness of men and women. So removing from the definition of marriage this complementarity is to lose any social institution where sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged."

The Catholic Church stepped up its opposition, accusing ministers of ignoring a 600,000-signature petition supporting the status quo. Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and Archbishop Peter Smith, the Archbishop of Southwark, said opponents of gay marriage should lobby MPs "clearly, calmly and forcefully, and without impugning the motives of others".

In a statement, they said: "The meaning of marriage matters. It derives that meaning from its function as the foundation of the family. The union of one man and one woman for love and mutual support and open to procreation has over the centuries formed a stable unit we call the family."

But the Archbishop of Wales said that making it illegal for the Church in Wales to offer same-sex marriages would be a "step too far". "In my personal opinion it's a great pity it's illegal for us not to even have the possibility to do it," said Dr Barry Morgan. "It should be left for us to opt in or opt out."

The Bishop of Leicester, the right reverend Tim Stevens, warned the issue was creating a division between the political classes and practising religious people. He spoke out against the government's proposals in the House of Lords and said ministers needed to work towards a consensus on the matter.

But former bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, said in response that a "fair number" of serving bishops supported gay marriage but were unable to say so publicly.

Prime Minister David Cameron said last week that he believed same-sex marriages should be allowed in churches - but only if there was a "100%" guarantee that no church, synagogue or mosque would be forced to hold one against their wishes.

A number of other senior Tories, including Education Secretary Michael Gove, London Mayor Boris Johnson and former Prime Minister John Major, have also backed same-sex marriage by religious bodies.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights organisation Stonewall, said: "We're delighted about the government's statement today and welcome the promise to legislate for equal marriage as warmly as on the three previous occasions that this announcement has been made.

"We're particularly pleased that ministers have been persuaded to extend their original proposal in order to permit same-sex marriages for those religious denominations that wish to hold them. This is an important matter of religious freedom."

'Husband' and 'wife'

The consultation on plans for same-sex marriage received 228,000 submissions.

In its response to the consultation the government says it has no plans to change the definition of adultery or non-consummation of a marriage - which means neither could be cited as grounds for divorce in a same-sex marriage, unless the adultery was with someone of the opposite sex.

They also dismiss the fear that the terms "husband" and "wife" could be removed as a result of same sex marriages. The government says: "That is not the case - on the contrary these proposals will allow more people to use those terms.

"Couples will continue to be able call each other whatever they wish in their personal life, and in legal and official documents, the terms husband and wife will continue to be used."

They also say that teachers "particularly in faith schools will be able to continue to describe their belief that marriage is between a man and woman whilst acknowledging and acting within the new legislative position which enables same sex-couples to get married".

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20680924

Supreme Court will hear DOMA, Proposition 8 cases

By Ben Johnson.

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – All nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that they will hear two cases dealing with same-sex “marriage” in 2013, examining whether the U.S. Congress or the voters in any state have the right to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.

Both the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8 will be on the docket next year. The plaintiffs claim the U.S. Constitution blocks both laws.

The justices agreed to hear Windsor v. United States, which challenges DOMA’s right to define marriage for the purposes of the federal government, since some states like New York have redefined marriage.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the 1996 law, signed by President Clinton, was “consistent with our principles of federalism,” allowing states to define marriage their own way, while DOMA sets the standard for the federal government.

Harry Mihet, senior counsel for Liberty Counsel, told LifeSiteNews.com this argument contends that “somehow the federal government does not have that same freedom to decide for itself …what marriage means.” 

“Should the Supreme Court decide to overturn the marriage laws of 41 states, the ruling would become even more divisive than the Court’s infamous Roe v. Wade decision,” Perkins warned. “Marriage, unlike abortion laws in the 1970s, has been incorporated into the state constitutions of 30 states. Voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution.”

The High Court will also hear Hollingsworth v. Perry, to determine whether the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the people of California from amending the state constitution to protect marriage. The state’s voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008 by a 52-48 margin.

The amendment’s defenders were confident they will prevail.

“We believe that it is significant that the Supreme Court has taken the Prop 8 case,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage. “We believe it is a strong signal that the Court will reverse the lower courts and uphold Proposition 8. That is the right outcome based on the law and based on the principle that voters hold the ultimate power over basic policy judgments and their decisions are entitled to respect.”

“It’s a strong signal that the justices are concerned with the rogue rulings that have come out of San Francisco at both the trial court and appellate levels,” he said. He added that the author of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down Proposition 8, Stephen Reinhardt, is “the most overruled judge in America.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put a stay in place on issuing same-sex “marriage” licenses. The High Court did not reverse that order, so the plaintiffs would have to prevail before such ceremonies could gain legal standing. Authors on the SCOTUS blog say they believe the justices will hear the cases March 18-27.

It is not known how many justices will issue the decision. Some argue Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the DOMA case. In 2009 as Solicitor General, she participated in the Obama administration’s response to a DOMA lawsuit in the Gill case. Although that petition was not granted, Republican senators at her confirmation hearings believed she had been too involved in the administration’s legal procedure to issue an opinion without the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

In both cases, the justices may deny that the plaintiffs have the legal standing to file a lawsuit, dismissing the challenges without deciding the merits of either law.

Homosexual activists also greeted the news with optimism. “These big steps in the Supreme Court cap a transformative year in which we paved the pathway for President Obama’s support, led the campaign to secure a freedom to marry plank in the Democratic Party platform, and won the freedom to marry at the ballot in Maine, Maryland and Washington while defeating an anti-marriage amendment in Minnesota,” Evan Wolfson, an activist who favors marriage redefinition, wrote. “We now must turn this irrefutable momentum into more wins.”

Link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-supreme-court-will-hear-doma-proposition-8-cases

Love Scam Syndicates

Published by The StarOnline on 4 December 2012.

Love scam syndicate members are trained in the art of sweet-talking potential victims into parting with their cash in the name of love. They select their targets, especially lonely women, and flirt with them online for several months before conning them.

Federal CyberSecurity and Multimedia Investigation Division director Asst Comm Mohd Kamaruddin Din said these syndicates would train new recruits on how to ensure victims fall in love with them. “These syndicates comprise mostly African students who recruit members from their homeland to enter Malaysia with the promise of easy money. These recruits speak fluent English and are trained for about a week or two on how to make their victims fall in love with them in just a few months,” he said.

Link:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/12/4/nation/20121204071530&sec=nation

Related report:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/12/4/nation/20121204071448&sec=nation

She had not met him in person but she was willing to give him RM1mil after he told her sob stories about being in financial difficulties. Sarah (not her real name) met John Smith, who claimed to be an offshore engineer in Terengganu, online. Both hit it off right from the start.

Months later, John claimed he was in financial difficulties. His family's construction business in Texas was not doing well due to the global economic slowdown and his company in Malaysia was downsizing. Being “in love”, Sarah, 40, agreed to help him by wiring more than RM400,000 to an account which he claimed was in his mother's name.

No money and nothing to eat at times

Published by The StarOnline on 3 December 2012.

Manizel Mazano, from the Philippines, has only one wish – she just wants to be in a place where she can put her miserable experience at a maid agency behind her. “It was terrible. I had no money and nothing to eat at times as the bosses ordered me to work for the past six months. I have not seen any of my salary as well. The worst part is when they (maid agency owners) locked me in a room with other maids after work. I don’t have much to ask now. I just hope we are placed in a much better place after this,” the 22-year-old woman said yesterday at the district immigration office."

Mazano said she paid for her own travel expenses when she came to the country several months ago.

Adinda Tanas, 20, an Indonesian helper, said the agency owner was indifferent to their health. “I once complained of a swollen leg because I was standing too long but they did not care,” she said.

Adinda, who entered Malaysia on a social visit pass in May, also claimed she had not been paid her wages. When she questioned the agency about this, Adinda said she never got a proper answer.

Another Indonesian woman, Yusnida, who arrived here six months ago, said the agency had been bringing her and other women to different homes to work as maids from 5am to 8pm daily. “My hands and legs were swollen from the long hours of work every day. The agent only provided us with two meals a day. There was not enough food and the workload was heavy,” she said.

Yusnida had once asked to go home but was told by the agency that she could only leave once she could settle the cost in agency fees to bring her here.

Link: http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/12/3/nation/12404814&sec=nation

Related report:
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=44629:105-foreign-maids-rescued-in-klang&Itemid=3

The Port Klang Immigration rescued 105 foreign women confined in a four-storey building of a maid agency in Bandar Baru Klang near here after raiding the premises yesterday. Selangor Immigration director, Amran Ahmad said the raid at about 7.45am found the women aged between 18 and 25 years, locked on three floors of the four-storey building, occupied by the maid agency.

"The women comprised 95 Indonesians, Filipinos (six) and Cambodians (four) who only had social visit passes and were believed to have entered the country between one and six months earlier," he said in a media conference here today.

He said 12 people were arrested, three of them were local men believed to be the agency employees, as well as nine foreign women supervisors, comprising five Indonesians, three Cambodians and one Filipino.

"Based on investigations, all women rescued were believed to be tricked into becoming maids on monthly and daily basis and were not paid wages after working for the past six months. All the women were sent by van every morning to houses around Klang to work as maids and would be confined in the building after work," he said.

Amran said the women were promised a salary of RM700 per month but have not received any money as the agency had claimed that their seven months salary would be charged as payment for working in the country. He said the licensed agency, believed to have been operating for the last five years, would be committing an offence for recruiting the women who have only social visit passes.

He said rescued women alleged they were roughed up and had their food rationed by the agency. Amran said the department was looking for a local man who is the owner of the maid agency to assist in the investigation. The operation was led by Immigration deputy director M. Chandran with 20 Port Klang immigration officers.

– Bernama