www.wansaiful.com

I had a (very) long telephone conversation last night about why Conservatives, and not Labour.

My decision is based on the answer to one question: "Which party is best for Britain?"

If you compare this, this and this, I think it is obvious that smaller state, greater trust and freedom to the people (to look after local services, the environment, the local community, etc) lower taxation, and stronger economy will bring the most benefits to everyone living in this country.

I was repeatedly asked why not the LibDems? They were the one who went all out to oppose the Iraq invasion. My answer to this question is, I do not support a party based on just one decision they may have made. To argue that everyone must go with the LibDems just because of their policy on Iraq is extremely short-sighted.

And then there was the compulsory question "Isn't Labour more friendly to the Muslims?". To that question, my answer is that being friendly to Muslims is not necessarily being friendly to Islam, nor does it imply that they are doing the right thing. Muslims and Islam are two different entities. Do not confuse the two terms for Muslims are not necessarily Islamic (should I give an example of how a Muslim can use Islam as a veil for devious behaviour?).

I have been following news on how Luton Borough Council plans to redevelop the former Vauxhall site (Napier’s Park). I was alarmed to learn that the Council is considering opening a large casino there. I am most disappointed to learn that the Liberal Democrat Council Executives have already submitted an application to the Department of Culture, Media and Sports back in March 2006.

A new large casino will only create more social problems to Luton, Dunstable and nearby areas. More casinos will obviously lead to more gambling, which in turn will increase the risk of addiction to gambling. Should this proposal proceed, there will almost definitely be other associated problems like broken families, debt-related depression, and many more.

There are already two casinos in Luton, in addition to several betting shops. Surely these are enough. We do not need a new large casino.

The Liberal Democrat councillors tried to justify the new large casino by saying that it will create job opportunities for Luton. They played down the risks of crime and anti-social behaviour.

I attended the Council Executive meeting yesterday. When asked what research they have done to investigate the potential social impacts, Cllr Franks (Council Leader) said that social implications of the project will only be considered when they receive a proper casino license application.

Surely they should have conducted a proper study before submitting any application to central government! And I simply do not understand why they limit the potential impacts to just crime and anti-social behaviour. Do they not realize that gambling-related problems are more varied than that?

Yesterday, Sunday 23 April, was St George's Day.

I went to the St George's Day Festival in Luton, which was a rather small do, with shows mainly for children. We should have had a bigger celebration to commemorate the life of this great man.

Excerpt from April 2006 Emel Magazine:

"St George was born in Cappadocia, in modern day Turkey to an army soldier and a mother from Lydda, now known as Lod in Palestine. After his father's death, George's mother took her infant son back to her home town of Lydda where he grew up to serve as an officer in the Roman army, like his father before him. When ordered by a pagan ruler, the Emperor Diocletian, to pay tribute to Roman gods, he refused and faced prolonged periods of torture - in some stories as long as seven years, ending with a gruesome death: sliced in half and beheaded…

… George's death occurred around the fourth century AD, some 300 years before the last prophet of Islam completed the Message of God to His creation with the Qur'an. Thus as a true follower of monotheism Muslims regard him as dying in a state of submission to the One Creator. Or in Arabic - of dying in a state of Islam"

I said in my previous post that recent events taught me two valuable lessons, viz.:

1. before you decide whom to trust, think carefully.

2. if you want to be evil, put on a religious mask. It is the best disguise ever.

The entry generated many comments, some of which are rather irresponsible. Quite a few people are a bit over-excited.

It is easy to say “Trust others”. But I believe it is important to know who you can trust. Not everybody is trustworthy.

Let me tell you why.

Not long ago, I was chair of a committee whose members I assume are all trust-worthy. I did not see any reasons to not trust anyone.

But that was until I received written evidence showing how two members of the committee have been plotting to remove those who saw them as friends. I myself don’t have a problem to step down. I have been putting in place a succession plan since December. And other members are keen to step down too as long as succession is done properly.

But it soon transpired that the very person I named to replace me cannot wait another six weeks before taking over. He wanted it done now. And he actively plotted with another member to force through a quick and immediate change.

The evidence I received, which I immediately presented to the whole committee, contains discussions of the points that could be used as “weapons” to force an immediate reshuffle. The plan was, the two of them would continue raising “issues” and one will back the other.

As I said, I have no problem with a quick succession. In fact, I would have preferred a quick succession too. But I have serious problems with the method being used.

If you cannot wait (less than six weeks left) to be in charge, at least be man enough to speak up. Don’t be cowards who only plot behind the scene. In an environment where people operate on trust, these two people betrayed the trust by plotting behind the backs of others. If you make a mistake, they don’t correct you. They use mistakes as “weapons” for back-stabbing.

What made it worse was that when we convened a meeting to discuss the issue, there was not even any sign of embarrassment!!! Not wanting to pursue things further, out of the seven people in the meeting, four people including myself decided to resign immediately (one was asked to stay). Two said they did not want to look for other options. The two plotters were, of course, adamant to hang on.

And that, people, is why I believe you must choose carefully whom to trust. There are people who are two-faced. There are people who will stab you in the back. There are people who, while unashamedly putting on a religious mask, are simply devious.

(I won’t bother you with info about how they put a spin on what happened. The way they create a way to put halos on their heads after that meeting was classic!)

I learnt two main lessons.

First, as I have already said, before you decide whom to trust, think carefully.

Second, if you want to be evil, put on a religious mask. It is the best disguise ever.

David Cameron spoke about the importance of trust in the recent Conservative Spring Forum.

A good friend of mine also spoke about trust when I last saw him.

I am contemplating a post about my experience with the "trust" issue. I have an interesting experience with "trust" but I am not sure if I should post it.

Give me another one or two nights.

Just got back from the Spring Forum in Manchester.

Just one line for now: "The fire of hope is burning bright once again"

I had a very interesting discussion earlier today. Someone called me to ask why I organise events / circles / usrah that focus almost totally on “Western” ideas. The phrase used was “konsep Barat yang terlampau” (extreme Western concepts?). Why do I not bring in Islamic concept.

I have two problems with this statement.

First, what is “extreme Western concepts”?.

Secondly, since when do we separate things into Islamic and Western? Is this not the basis of secularism? Labelling one chapter of knowledge as Islamic, while the other as “Western”?

Then it dawned onto me that the guy was actually talking about the references I use. I prefer to use texts produced by the likes of the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute. Rather than quoting Hayek and Smith, he preferred if I quote from some Arabic names.

What an idiotic argument!!!

I refuse to divide knowledge into Islamic and Western. I refuse to be secular.

If Arabic words are taken to be more Islamic than “Western” ones, it would be extremely easy to fool us Muslims. If I quote from an Arab name like Ibn Waraq, would he believe me more?

And, Arab / Malay names, qualifications in Islamic studies or knowledge of Islam are not necessarily indications of piety / taqwa. Some Muslims, under the guise of their previous education in Islamic studies, are far more evil than the crooks and thieves out there. At least when thieves steal, they do not use religious arguments to justfify the theft. But some Muslims shamelessly use their knowledge of Islam to justify their evil deeds.