Orang Islam Berkontroversi, Kontroversi Dan Kontroversi Lagi Pasal Agama - Pakai Akal Semua Memang Tak Boleh Lah.

Ok it seems that there was an English debate among the sekolah asrama students. It appears that the topic of the debate has become extremely controversial. So the organisers of the debate have been made to issue an apology.

Here is the apology. Then after this there is another short note by some professor saying that this matter will be 'investigated' and then they will see what action to take - after next Sunday's FA Cup qualifier (Whithering Heights versus Baskerville Hounds). 

Here goes  (Interspersed my comments in blue) :

EXPLANATORY AND APOLOGY STATEMENT CONCERNING THE PRE-QUARTERFINALS  MOTIONS OF PIALA TUN RAZAK 2019

Written by Mohammad Aidil bin Ali and Iyad Zakiy Amal,
Co-Chief Adjudicators of PTR 2019

1. The 2019 edition of Piala Tun Razak 2019 has concluded on the 13th of October 2019, and it was yet  another successful edition of PTR. The participants, which were made up of SBP students ranging from 13 to 15 years old contended in the competition, and the race for the championship trophy was won by the defending victor, Sekolah Tun Abdul Rahman, Ipoh. In spite of the success of the tournament, there rose a concern pertaining the motions that were provided for the pre-quarterfinals round. 

(OSTB : Hello shouldn't it be Sekolah Tuanku Abdul Rahman or STAR?)

The theme of  the round was religion, and the motions read:

a) This House believes that secular democracies with substantial religious communities should not  allow a separate legal system for those communities (e.g.: Canon Law, Syariah Law, etc.)

(OSTB : Spot on. A great idea for a debate.)

b) Given the ability to rewrite the Quran, this House, as moderate Islamic scholars would republish a new version of Quran with contents vulnerable to radical misinterpretation removed.

(OSTB : You should have consulted me first. There is absolutely nothing radical in the Quran. But the simpler question is what is your guarantee that even after removing some contents, that there will be no more radical misinterpretation? For example, the Arabic word for "lower feet" or "ankles" (ka'abayni) in Surah 5:6 ("wash your feet to the ankles"). Please check this same word elsewhere.  How do you explain the difference? This is where YOU TOO will become insanely radical. 

c) A solid irrefutable evidence was found which proves that being homosexual is not a sin in Islam.  There is no direct commandment from God regarding this, and it is instead a law decreed thousands of years ago from ijtima whose judgements were clouded by inherent homophobia. This House would not disclose this evidence.

(OSTB : 'Ijtima'?? I say an 'ijtima' is a gathering of the tabligh cult lah. Dont you mean "ijma" or 'consensus' ? "Islam" as you know it is only 1,400 years old. So how did you derive an "ijtima" (or 'ijma' ??) decreed thousands of years ago?  The rasul was not even born yet lah Oi.  Anyway 'sin' is an English word, derived from the Christian Bible. The Arabic word dhanbi / zanbi is not the biblical 'sin'.) 

2. These motions, particularly the second and the third motion were deemed to be heavily controversial and insensitive to the religious belief of the participants who were majorly Muslims. 

However, there are several explanations as to why we as the co-chief adjudicators chose to run these motions.

a) These motions fall under the category of hypothetical motion, of which the debaters – should they debate the motions – are required to envision an imaginary world where the motions can take place.

b) In reality, particularly for the first motion, nobody has the right to rewrite the Quran, true to Allah’s commandment in the Quran which reads: 

And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, those who do not expect the meeting with Us say, "Bring us a Qur'an other than this or change it." Say, "It is not for me to change it on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed, I fear, if I should disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day." (Surah Yunus, verse fifteen).

This verse explicitly stated that should there come one time when doubters and non-believers came and demanded for the Quran to be modified, it is not of anyone’s accord including Rasulullah (PBUH) to create a new one. 

c) However, in the spirit of the motion, assuming there exists an imaginary world where Muslims can create a newer version of Quran in the same way how there exist many different versions of the Bible (Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox), should it be the duty of moderate Islamic scholars to do the job? 

(OSTB : What exactly is 'moderate'? What exactly is 'Islamic'? What exactly is a 'scholar'? But never mind, in my books you can debate anything you want. 

May I suggest your next topic for debate ?

1. Why does a "god" want to exist? Whatever answer you come up with, please ask WHY again. Please discuss within 20 minutes.

or, 

2. Why did 'god' choose the 'heaven and hell' business model wherein the good people go to a 'heaven' and the bad people go to a 'hell'? Why not karma, reincarnation etc? Whatever answer you come up with, please ask WHY again. Please discuss within 20 minutes. 

d) We have extensively discussed about this motion, and we have foreseen that this motion does not require anyone to demonize or assassinate Islam as a religion. Instead in the side proposition, the arguments that could take place are: 

i. What are the contents of the Quran that are vulnerable to radical misinterpretation? 

ii. Why must it be moderate Islamic scholars, not anyone else in the Muslim community, who should take this duty of rewriting a newer Quran devoid of these contents? 

iii. Is it a strategic thing for these scholars to do such thing? 

iv. What would it tell the doubters and non-believers of the Quran? 

v. What would be the reaction of the Muslim communities in the wake of the existence of a newer Quran? 

Meanwhile, in the side opposition, (OSTB : language, grammar??) the side which calls for this motion to fall, the arguments that could be executed are: 

i. Why is it not in the best interest of moderate Islamic scholars, or anyone else in the Muslim  community for that matter, to create a newer version of the Quran?

ii. What is the significance of these contents of the Quran, albeit them being vulnerable to radical  misinterpretation?

iii. If the goal of the creation of a newer Quran is for moderation, what should be the other alternative for the moderate Islamic scholars to take instead of coming with a newer Quran?

iv. What would be the adverse effects of the creation of this newer Quran? (antagonization of  radical ultra-conservative Muslims, fragmentation of the Islamic community, newer form of sectarianism, etc.)

e) Similarly, for the third motion, it is also a hypothetical motion which requires the debaters to imagine:  if ever such evidence was found, why should it not be disclosed? What would be the outcome of the disclosure?

3. These motions are not created with any intention to indoctrinate or brainwash the young debaters,   nor is it a form of liberal agenda by anyone. In the defense of debating a sport (OSTB : language error again?), debating has always been an activity where participants are required to think out of the box, to not limit one’s worldview while at the same time not sacrificing their faith and belief, and be ready to think critically. 

4. Furthermore, there are a lot of more debating competitions out there which would require debaters to  debate more interpretively controversial motions. Examples of such motions include “This House would  boycott Hajj and Umrah”, “This House believes that birth lottery should be a legitimate defense for the  non-believers in the Afterlife”, etc. 

5. Thus, we think that it is best to expose the young debaters to this type of motions so they would be aware of the reality of discourse that they would face in a lot more debating competitions, and learn from it the kind of arguments that they could run without having to jeopardize their faith in religion. 

6. At the same time, after the both of us have discussed on the possible arguments that could be run, we have concluded that these motions – albeit being interpretively controversial – are safe for debaters of  this group of age to debate about. 

(OSTB : In 5 and 6 above, it should be in the past tense 'we thought it was best'; it should be 'this type of motion - singular' or 'these types of motions - plural'. Language can be improved. Less wordy lah.)

7. This conclusion is also made out of our greatest confidence that although these debaters are young, they are a group of bright talented people who are capable of executing the motions properly without  having to fear that they would be indoctrinated into doubting their belief. 

(OSTB : He he he,)

8. As adults, while it is our duty to ensure that the young ones under our supervision are not exposed to bad indoctrination, it is also our duty to ensure that they are safely exposed to the reality of discourse so that they would be prepared for the real world in which they would be laid bare to a lot more things that would cultivate seeds of doubt and uncertainty. 

9. However, regardless of all these, things have happened, and if there is any party involved who find these to be insensitive and offensive, we and the organizing committee of PTR 2019 would like to profusely and wholeheartedly apologize for any discomfort that has been caused. We will take this as a precautionary lesson and would ensure that for the future edition of PTR, such motions would be avoided.

(OSTB : No need to apologise lah. A debate is a debate. Tell your superiors to grow up. Sampai bila nak jadi bangsa childish retards? Ini tak boleh, itu tak boleh. Semua tak boleh.)

10. It is a great honor and pleasure for the both of us to serve as the co-chief adjudicators, and having adjudicated all these young minds, we believe that there is a bright future for the debating arena of Malaysia in the future, and in SBPs we can put our confidence. 

(OSTB : "bright future .. in the future" ??  What language style is this? Tomorrow will come tomorrow? Again I will say it again?

Signing out,
Mohammad Aidil Ali and Iyad Zakiy Amal
Co-Chief Adjudicator (English category),
Piala Tun Razak 2019

OSTB : Here is a Kenyataan by the professors :

KENYATAAN MEDIA UNTUK SIARAN SEGERA ISU DEBAT BAHASA INGGERIS PIALA TUN RAZAK

Merujuk kepada isu tajuk Debat Bahasa Inggeris Piala Tun Razak di Sekolah Dato’ Abdul Razak (SDAR), Seremban Negeri Sembilan yang telah menular serta mendapat liputan media, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) ingin menjelaskan perkara seperti berikut: 
 

1. Saudara Mohammad Aidil bin Ali adalah seorang bekas pelajar UiTM yang telah mendapat status Gugur Taraf  

(OSTB : Huh? Gugur taraf?  Habis macam mana pula dia di lantik jadi adjudicator? Professor kangkung tidur ke? Sekarang bila sudah jadi kontroversi baru bangun tidur menjerit-jerit dia sudah kena gugur taraf. Suka mengaibkan anak muda. Professor tak tahu adab. Banyak cantik. Pi belajar adab dengan Syed Naquib.)

2. Saudara Iyad Zakiy Amal merupakan Pelajar Luar Kampus (PLK) di UiTM tetapi beliau kini sedang dalam status Cuti Khas 

(OSTB : Huh? Cuti Khas? Habis macam mana pula dia di lantik jadi adjudicator? Professor kangkung tidur ke? Sekarang bila sudah jadi kontroversi baru bangun tidur menjerit-jerit dia sudah kena Cuti Khas. Suka mengaibkan anak muda. Professor tak tahu adab. Banyak cantik. Pi belajar adab dengan Syed Naquib.)

3. Pihak penganjur pertandingan telah menghubungi kedua-dua individu berkenaan untuk menjadi Adjudicator (Ketua Juri) bagi petandingan tersebut secara terus. Oleh yang demikian penyertaan kedua-dua individu tersebut dalam pertandingan debat itu berlaku tanpa pengetahuan pihak UiTM   

(OSTB : Tanpa pengetahuan UITM. Ok. Main taichi ye? 

4. Sebagai sebuah institusi pengajian tinggi, UiTM amat memandang serius terhadap sensitiviti agama dan budaya masyarakat di Malaysia, serta tidak akan berkompromi terhadap mana-mana warga yang cuba untuk menganggu atau memperlekehkan perkara tersebut 

(OSTB : Eh leh pi dah mabok. Bebudak kangkung sudah terguris di kepala kon_k. Itulah sunat bro. Circumcision. Hilang kulop. Third World cry babies.)

5. Pihak pengurusan UiTM akan menjalankan siasatan dalaman secara adil dan menyeluruh, sekiranya didapati bahawa pelajar tersebut telah melakukan sebarang kesalahan yang bertentangan dengan mana-mana undang-undang UiTM maka pihak UiTM akan mengambil tindakan yang sewajarnya.  

Prof. Emeritus Ir. Dr. Mohd Azraai Kassim  Naib Canselor UiTM 15 Oktober 2019 

(OSTB : Huh? Undang-undang UITM? Wah - punya lah besar - ada undang-undang sendiri. Relak brader. Its just a brain situation. Depa budak-budak nak debate biarlah dia debate. Minum lah Tonik IQ Cepat. I just had some free time.)