Today, Hang Li Po, Hang Tuah, etc., are debunked. Tomorrow, it could be others whom are said to have also existed will be debunked. And, for thousands of years, millions of people have been killed for not believing in events that never happened and in people who never existed.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
History books to stick to facts
‘Hang Li Po, Hang Tuah did not exist’
I think it was probably ten years or so ago that I wrote about the probability of Hang Tuah and his cohorts being a mere myth. The other possibility is that if they did exist, then they were all Chinese and not Malays -- bodyguards of the Chinese princess, Hang Li Po.
Of course, the Malay ‘nationalists’ were outraged at my suggestion. Even renowned historians did not utter such a possibility. How can I, with no PhD to my name, come to that conclusion?
I suppose it is all about whether you have a PhD to your name. If you do not then what you say matters not and is of no significance. In fact, you are not qualified to make comments if you are not a certified ‘authority’.
My reasoning (yes, I apply reasoning, as what we were taught to do in the Philosophy of Religion course that I recently took) is that if Hang Li Po was Chinese then the rest of the Hang tribe must have been Chinese as well. If Hang Li Po was Chinese, how can Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekir and Hang Lekiu all be Malays?
The next point is on the special Silat (martial arts) that the five ‘Malay’ warriors were said to have practiced. It was a Silat that no one had ever seen before and is said to be more powerful than the traditional Silat that the Malays practiced.
My argument was that it must have been Chinese Kungfu and not Silat. That was why the Malays had never seen it before. And the fact that Hang Tuah and gang beat the shit out of the Malays was probably because it was a very unique form of Kungfu, more superior to Silat.
I mean, Silat is full of dancing before the exponent moves in for the kill. In Kungfu, you just step in and beat the daylights out of the dancer before he knows what hit him.
The next point is about the story regarding Hang Tuah going over to Indonesia as an envoy of the Sultan of Melaka. The story goes that when he was there they tried to get him drunk so that they can beat him up. However, never mind how much liquor they gave him, he held his liquor well and did not fall down drunk. When they made their move on him, Hang Tuah beat the shit out of his attackers, sober as hell.
Now, if Hang Tuah drank liquor and could hold his liquor well, this means he could not have been Malay. First of all, he drank. Secondly, he must have been a regular drinker to be able to drink so much and still stay sober enough to beat off his attackers.
Anyway, I was basing my reasoning on the stories that we were told. Now it appears that all these stories were myths after all. Yet, Malaysian historians and history being taught in Malaysian schools told us that all these stories were true and that all these people existed even though there is no tangible evidence to support the theory of their existence.
This is exactly what I have been saying about religion. Hang Tuah and whatnot are supposed to have existed a mere few hundred years ago when they already had recorded history. Yet, today, that has been put to question. What about stories of people and events that were supposed to have happened thousands of years ago at a time when there was no recorded history and when stories were passed down through the generations by word of mouth? Would there not be even more reason to question these so-called ‘facts’?
When I talk about religious history most would respond with dogma. They will quote verses from the Bible or the Quran to counter my arguments. What these people can’t seem to understand is that they are arguing theology. And there is a big difference between theology, history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, etc.
Theology is based on dogma, not on history or whatever. And the belief in dogma is based on faith, not evidence. If you demand evidence to support dogma, then the dogma would be demolished. You must accept dogma based on the lack of evidence. Hence it is called faith, the belief in the unseen or the unproven.
It will be impossible to engage when we are not on the same page. I talk about one thing and you talk about another. And you apply reasoning in circles to argue your case. I would be even more blunt in saying that you can’t use a lie to support a lie.
For example, you tell someone that Raja Petra Kamarudin says he is a Prophet of God. Someone then asks you: how do you know this? You reply: it is written in this book. This person then asks you: who wrote this book? You reply: Raja Petra Kamarudin wrote this book.
This would be called reasoning in circles.
Or, you reply: it is written in this book. This person then asks you: who wrote this book? You reply: it was written by someone 200 years after Raja Petra Kamarudin died. You ask: where did this person get the information since it was written 200 years after Raja Petra Kamarudin died? You reply: the information was passed down by word of mouth over almost ten generations.
If you want to believe that Hang Tuah, or whoever it may be, did exist and that this is what they are alleged to have said and done, carry on. No one is stopping you from believing what you want to believe even if you want to believe in the tooth fairy. Just do not force others to also believe the same thing and then arrest them and send them to jail on charges of heresy if they do not also believe what you believe.
That is the issue here.
Today, Hang Li Po, Hang Tuah, etc., are debunked. Tomorrow, it could be others whom are said to have also existed will be debunked. And, for thousands of years, millions of people have been killed for not believing in events that never happened and in people who never existed.
‘Hang Li Po, Hang Tuah did not exist’
I think it was probably ten years or so ago that I wrote about the probability of Hang Tuah and his cohorts being a mere myth. The other possibility is that if they did exist, then they were all Chinese and not Malays -- bodyguards of the Chinese princess, Hang Li Po.
Of course, the Malay ‘nationalists’ were outraged at my suggestion. Even renowned historians did not utter such a possibility. How can I, with no PhD to my name, come to that conclusion?
I suppose it is all about whether you have a PhD to your name. If you do not then what you say matters not and is of no significance. In fact, you are not qualified to make comments if you are not a certified ‘authority’.
My reasoning (yes, I apply reasoning, as what we were taught to do in the Philosophy of Religion course that I recently took) is that if Hang Li Po was Chinese then the rest of the Hang tribe must have been Chinese as well. If Hang Li Po was Chinese, how can Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, Hang Kasturi, Hang Lekir and Hang Lekiu all be Malays?
The next point is on the special Silat (martial arts) that the five ‘Malay’ warriors were said to have practiced. It was a Silat that no one had ever seen before and is said to be more powerful than the traditional Silat that the Malays practiced.
My argument was that it must have been Chinese Kungfu and not Silat. That was why the Malays had never seen it before. And the fact that Hang Tuah and gang beat the shit out of the Malays was probably because it was a very unique form of Kungfu, more superior to Silat.
I mean, Silat is full of dancing before the exponent moves in for the kill. In Kungfu, you just step in and beat the daylights out of the dancer before he knows what hit him.
The next point is about the story regarding Hang Tuah going over to Indonesia as an envoy of the Sultan of Melaka. The story goes that when he was there they tried to get him drunk so that they can beat him up. However, never mind how much liquor they gave him, he held his liquor well and did not fall down drunk. When they made their move on him, Hang Tuah beat the shit out of his attackers, sober as hell.
Now, if Hang Tuah drank liquor and could hold his liquor well, this means he could not have been Malay. First of all, he drank. Secondly, he must have been a regular drinker to be able to drink so much and still stay sober enough to beat off his attackers.
Anyway, I was basing my reasoning on the stories that we were told. Now it appears that all these stories were myths after all. Yet, Malaysian historians and history being taught in Malaysian schools told us that all these stories were true and that all these people existed even though there is no tangible evidence to support the theory of their existence.
This is exactly what I have been saying about religion. Hang Tuah and whatnot are supposed to have existed a mere few hundred years ago when they already had recorded history. Yet, today, that has been put to question. What about stories of people and events that were supposed to have happened thousands of years ago at a time when there was no recorded history and when stories were passed down through the generations by word of mouth? Would there not be even more reason to question these so-called ‘facts’?
When I talk about religious history most would respond with dogma. They will quote verses from the Bible or the Quran to counter my arguments. What these people can’t seem to understand is that they are arguing theology. And there is a big difference between theology, history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, etc.
Theology is based on dogma, not on history or whatever. And the belief in dogma is based on faith, not evidence. If you demand evidence to support dogma, then the dogma would be demolished. You must accept dogma based on the lack of evidence. Hence it is called faith, the belief in the unseen or the unproven.
It will be impossible to engage when we are not on the same page. I talk about one thing and you talk about another. And you apply reasoning in circles to argue your case. I would be even more blunt in saying that you can’t use a lie to support a lie.
For example, you tell someone that Raja Petra Kamarudin says he is a Prophet of God. Someone then asks you: how do you know this? You reply: it is written in this book. This person then asks you: who wrote this book? You reply: Raja Petra Kamarudin wrote this book.
This would be called reasoning in circles.
Or, you reply: it is written in this book. This person then asks you: who wrote this book? You reply: it was written by someone 200 years after Raja Petra Kamarudin died. You ask: where did this person get the information since it was written 200 years after Raja Petra Kamarudin died? You reply: the information was passed down by word of mouth over almost ten generations.
If you want to believe that Hang Tuah, or whoever it may be, did exist and that this is what they are alleged to have said and done, carry on. No one is stopping you from believing what you want to believe even if you want to believe in the tooth fairy. Just do not force others to also believe the same thing and then arrest them and send them to jail on charges of heresy if they do not also believe what you believe.
That is the issue here.
Today, Hang Li Po, Hang Tuah, etc., are debunked. Tomorrow, it could be others whom are said to have also existed will be debunked. And, for thousands of years, millions of people have been killed for not believing in events that never happened and in people who never existed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.