Agnes Monica & Allah Peduli
Mar 16th, 2009, in Celebrities, News, by Patung
Agnes Monica annoys Malaysians for unusual reasons, with her new hit song Allah Peduli.
The province of Selangor in Malaysia has banned pop singer Agnes Monica’s latest tune “Allah Peduli” (God Cares) because of its use of the term “Allah” to refer to the Christian God, possibly including Jesus Christ/Jesus of Nazareth/the prophet Isa.
Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa, the head of the Religious Court in Selangor, says the song must not be played or sung anywhere in the province. Non-Muslims who say “Allah” to refer to their god(s) are subject to a 1,000 ringgit (about $300) penalty, he says. antara
Our Agnes
There has been a long-running dispute in Malaysia as to whether non-Muslims, particularly Christians, are permitted to say “Allah” for “God”. The dispute began when authorities objected to the Catholic daily the Herald using the word, with this case currently going through the courts.
Meanwhile, the offensive song, Allah Peduli by Agnes Monica:
255 Comments on “Agnes Monica & Allah Peduli”
-
diego says:
@andrey
Ho ho ho…, and what about throwing rocks to the big kabah? That’s soo 24th centurious.
@BK
My response is just to keep the game going…. Nyaa… nyaa… nyaa.
And yes, I already did my tasks, and I’ve sent my monthly report. -
Burung Koel says:
Sort of relevant:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7964880.stm
The subby had a bit of fun with the headline, too.
-
Mike Oxblack says:
-
hary says:
Enhance group survival or increase areas of conflict between groups…
-
Oigal says:
Audrey…Are you on drugs? I cannot believe anhy follower of any religion/cult would have the nerve accuse the other of having silly traditions ..it really opens the doors..FGM..Some jewish forskins with ketchup perhaps…outstanding!
-
Well that’s a good question. There are those, such as Dawkins, who essentially see religious belief as a meme that is propagated throughout the population due to a misfiring of our tendency to follow instructions from the time we are born (e.g. ‘Don’t eat the fruit from that bush, don’t swim in that river’ etc.) Such deference to experience has an evolutionary survival value and religion rides for free on the back of this tendency, ‘infecting’ generation after generation.
As for morality though, there is now no question that it is an innate and evolved quality of our species that pre-dates religion. People don’t like to hear that their ethics are a mathematical end product of competing game theories but all available (scientific!) evidence would suggest that this is the case. In any event religion would appear to outlived any use value it may have once had in our scientific epoch of nuclear weapons, global warming and this current possibly terminal phase of our species. Time to move on and take a good hard look in the mirror… -
Agree. Religion in the 20th C has brought more grief than good. My OP only.
People can be moral and decent without a belief in G-D. -
People don’t like to hear that their ethics are a mathematical end product of competing game theories but all available (scientific!) evidence would suggest that this is the case.
On the contrary, I would rather have my ethical values field tested over millennia as part of a human survival strategy, compared with those ‘revealed’ to a random Bronze Age or Medieval schizophrenic suffering from voices in his head.
-
Absolutely they can. Doing something because it’s the right thing to do seems more noble than doing something because you’re afraid of some cosmic retribution and the fires of hell.
-
My opinion… Well, I’m a Muslim. Non-Muslim Arabs use the word “Allah” to refer to God, also. Christian and Jewish Arabs call God “Allah”. I don’t really see the problem with that.
But it’s a bit weird seeing non-Arab non-Muslims call God “Allah”… I mean, what’s the point of that, why can’t they just say “Tuhan” in Malaysia?
It all comes down to respect of other religions, really.
-
On the contrary, I would rather have my ethical values field tested over millennia as part of a human survival strategy, compared with those ‘revealed’ to a random Bronze Age or Medieval schizophrenic suffering from voices in his head.
Well that’s the sensible line to take I think. Others though will be sharpening up their knives and fatwas upon reading that the great prophet may have been a schizo rather than a messenger of God. There is however nothing in our religious texts that couldn’t have been written by a late bronze age man for whom a wheel barrow would have been an emergent technology. If there was something in the Bible or the Koran that a medieval dung shoveller couldn’t have known (i.e. E=MC2 or something of the like) then maybe their divine origins would seem more plausible….
-
People can be moral and decent without a belief in G-D.
What Mike O said. Or in another way:
Example 1: The people I work with in aid projects are mostly non-believers. They feel that it is their responsibility and their obligation to either help the less fortunate or to make the world a better place.
Example 2: Any case of where a religious leader has taken advantage of their position to acquire money, molest children or commit other crimes. The newspapers are full of these people.
Conclusion: Being religious is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a decent human being or living an ethically based life.
-
Conclusion: Being religious is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a decent human being or living an ethically based life.
Exactly, however there are many of faith who believe that without it we’d all be going around murdering and raping people which seems to me a terribly abject and negative view of humanity.
-
schmerly says:
MO and BK.. Be careful what you say yeah, he’s watching you!!! and even Father Christmas is in on it.
-
Personally I find that the Children of God have a creed worth exploring:
-
andrey says:
Conclusion: Being religious is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a decent human being or living an ethically based life.
Exactly, however there are many of faith who believe that without it we’d all be going around murdering and raping people which seems to me a terribly abject and negative view of humanity.
you conveniently forget that most of the ethic you are talking about developed inside a 1000 years plus of religion dominated history. it is easy for you to say today that you do not need religion to be a good person, because, after 1000s of years, many good values from religious teachings are now seamlessly embedded in the society and every body take it for granted without any need to reference a religion.
take incest for example. are you sure people will develop strong repulsion to this practice without the strong rules against it in many religion?and about diego’s pissing contest: he started it with his 7th century values claim.
I was just reminding him to look at the mirror.
There is a bbc news link about indian hindu marrying his daughter to a dog (true story) some where in google. try to search it just for a laugh. -
Lairedion says:
MO and BK,
I agree wholeheartedly with your viewpoints but for you guys being Westerners it is easier.
We still have trouble to discuss such matters in Indonesia, both in the public and private domain. Unfortunately this country is obsessed with religion and a honest debate on agnostic or atheist matters is next to impossible, sometimes even with the people most dear to you (e.g. my relatives). Indonesians are more willing to accept from Westerners being atheist or agnostic but a fellow Indonesian being non-religious is frowned upon.
Relatives and neighbours will start asking and gossiping why you don’t attend church or mosque…
-
Cukurungan says:
take incest for example. are you sure people will develop strong repulsion to this practice without the strong rules against it in many religion?
Why do you think incest is problem for the non-believer because under the non-believer premise every person have full right and privilege to decide which is wrong and which is right as long as everyone are happy, the sex between mother with son or father with daughter or even father with son are no problem for them as long as the activities does not involve violence and enforcement
Relatives and neighbours will start asking and gossiping why you don’t attend church or mosque…
It is not gossiping just we want confirmation whether we should sing Jingle Bell or MAMamia or reciting Al-Fatihah if some day we find you death.
-
it is easy for you to say today that you do not need religion to be a good person, because, after 1000s of years, many good values from religious teachings are now seamlessly embedded in the society and every body take it for granted without any need to reference a religion.
take incest for example. are you sure people will develop strong repulsion to this practice without the strong rules against it in many religion?Yes that is exactly what we’re saying. Religion was born out of our innate sense of morality (which has been in evolution for millions rather than thousands of years) rather than vice versa. That’s not to say that religion doesn’t contain good moral teachings, just that they’re the product of well proven scientific, evolutionary principles such as reciprocal altruism and group natural selection. The incest taboo that you mention, for example, exists in many, many cultures and is not tied to any single religion. How come all religions manifest the same taboo? Answer: the taboo evolved before religion (and of course it makes sense genetically that such a taboo would evolve). Philosophically there’s no split between essence and experience. Rather our essence evolved from our experience. Our repulsion to murder, etc. predates religion by several orders of magnitude.
Conversely religious practice around the world contains much that is morally abhorrent- our morality has continued to evolve and is more advanced than it was 2000 years ago. Example – emancipation for women and homosexuals. The attitudes of certain religions towards these issues grates terribly with modernity and moreover our monotheistic religions, by trying to arrest morality at some arbitrary point in the past, do our species a great disservice.
I realise these ideas are hard to take for many people in the world however this is at least partly due to them being the product of education systems that fiercely resist such ideas (evolution being a natural law that is to be denied at all costs). In highly fundamentalist countries such as Pakistan or America, for example, the entrenched religious orthodoxies are hardly likely to endorse ideas that undermine their very power. Religion is about power too of course but that’s another thread… -
Cukurungan said:
It is not gossiping just we want confirmation whether we should sing Jingle Bell or MAMamia or reciting Al-Fatihah if some day we find you death.
Is that so? I’m more inclined to believe in that way you can separate the kaffir from the Submitters to lend Allah a hand.
…cukurungan deng ngana arab…
-
@ cukie and andrey
How do you think human societies managed to survive long enough for your ‘prophets’ to emerge only a few hundred years ago? These ‘prophets’ should probably pay royalties to human evolution for stealing our common intellectual property.
Australian Aboriginal society survived for more than 60,000 years in one of the harshest environments on earth. They had (and still have) an extremely complex set of laws designed to prevent incest, which would have been vital for a people living in small groups. My particular favourite is the rule that a man is not allowed to speak to his mother in law!
@ lairedion
I understand how hard it is in Indonesia. Living in Lombok over 20 years ago I told everyone I was an Anglican, and my nearest church was in Jakarta, therefore I had to spend my Sunday mornings at Sengiggi Beach. The good thing about Anglican theology is that it allows agnostics to remain within the church*. As an alternative, you could become a Buddhist, maybe an adherent of Zen, which means that you can ‘practice’ on your own.
One day it will become easier. They can’t regulate your mind and heart.
* Apologies – I stole that line from an old episode of Yes Minister.
-
How do you think human societies managed to survive long enough for your ‘prophets’ to emerge only a few hundred years ago? These ‘prophets’ should probably pay royalties to human evolution for stealing our common intellectual property.
Ask to Cow and Cat how they could manage to survive without any religion, the basic premise of the religion mostly is not about mandkind survival but to understand purpose of our life.
Call you tell me what is purpose of your life? To save earth or to find happiness or to breed as much as you can?
Australian Aboriginal society survived for more than 60,000 years in one of the harshest environments on earth.
But without a strong religious guidance the aboriginal were vanish only few decade after arrival the white predator on their land
Conversely religious practice around the world contains much that is morally abhorrent- our morality has continued to evolve and is more advanced than it was 2000 years ago. Example – emancipation for women and homosexuals.
Therefore under banner of the milineum morality so it is no problem for you to have sex with your mother in law or even with your own mother as long as it be performed under win-win solution because today morality value is evolving…oh my Gun
-
Therefore under banner of the milineum morality so it is no problem for you to have sex with your mother in law or even with your own mother as long as it be performed under win-win solution because today morality value is evolving…oh my Gun
No that’s not what I said at all. The incest taboo remains as strong as ever in fact. The evolution of moral and ethical ideas certainly does not imply some kind of random free for all but rather what is best for human society as a whole and not just for one exclusive privileged group.
Call you tell me what is purpose of your life? To save earth or to find happiness or to breed as much as you can?
Each to his own purpose Mr. C. Many have been educated to find such philosophical freedom frightening but, according to many philosophers such as Sartre, the fact our lives are constituted by our own choices is a hugely liberating fact. Enjoy the ride. Yes life is essentially meaningless, it’s up to each of us to search for our own meaning. Perhaps better than having one imposed.
But without a strong religious guidance the aboriginal were vanish only few decade after arrival the white predator on their land
Many deeply religious peoples have been invaded, vanquished and colonised over the centuries. In the Aborigines case I think that perhaps that not having guns and stuff may have been a factor.
The good thing about Anglican theology is that it allows agnostics to remain within the church*.
…it positively encourages them I’d say. Old Rowan Williams is definitely one in my opinion.
-
Australian Aboriginal society survived for more than 60,000 years in one of the harshest environments on earth.
But without a strong religious guidance the aboriginal were vanish only few decade after arrival the white predator on their land
Two per cent of the Australian population would object to you assuming that they no longer exist.
-
Pakmantri says:
@Burung Koel,
My particular favourite is the rule that a man is not allowed to speak to his mother in law!
Our brothers and sisters from north Sumatra, Batak Karo, have similar traditional rule (hukum adat).
A man is not allowed to speak or in the same room alone with any opposite sex in law, if it is unavoidable he should turn his back while he speaks.Salam.
-
Our brothers and sisters from north Sumatra, Batak Karo, have similar traditional rule (hukum adat).
A man is not allowed to speak or in the same room alone with any opposite sex in law, if it is unavoidable he should turn his back while he speaks.Salam.
Is there any special reason for this? Bernard Manning would be proud.
-
Bernard Manning would be proud.
That reminds me, Bernard Manning ridiculed the Queen Mothers death in 2002, saying that the Royal Corgis were happy to hear about her death as they would no longer be blamed for pissing on the settee!! LoL.
-
No that’s not what I said at all. The incest taboo remains as strong as ever in fact. The evolution of moral and ethical ideas certainly does not imply some kind of random free for all but rather what is best for human society as a whole and not just for one exclusive privileged group.
Could you please enlighten me why the incest is not good (taboo) under the new logical morality if the incest is committed under mutual circumstances and no violence in it.
Please do not use the word of Taboo anymore, because A taboo (often spelled “tabu”) is a moral or cautionary restriction placed upon certain actions by authorities (kings, priests, shamans, etc.) of a people, which if ignored will result in specific negative consequences. In other word Taboo is non-logical thing, how come the legion logical morality embarrassed them self by referring to the non-logical thing.
Each to his own purpose Mr. C. Many have been educated to find such philosophical freedom frightening but, according to many philosophers such as Sartre, the fact our lives are constituted by our own choices is a hugely liberating fact. Enjoy the ride. Yes life is essentially meaningless, it’s up to each of us to search for our own meaning. Perhaps better than having one imposed.
So we agree that every people and community has their own version of purpose of life while the most morality standard is derived from the people perception of the meaning of life, therefore, any attempt to fully standardize the value of morality between the believer and the non-believer will become never ending story.
Two per cent of the Australian population would object to you assuming that they no longer exist.
What does mean of 2 percent if most of them have no-job, drug & kerosene addicted, tend to take their own life because the white predator forced them to come on the time not still belonging to them.
In the Aborigines case I think that perhaps that not having guns and stuff may have been a factor
Of course gun and stuff is important for survival but the most important thing is the aboriginal has no strong religius doctrine like us to counter the religius doctrine brought up by the invader
-
therefore, any attempt to fully standardize the value of morality between the believer and the non-believer will become never ending story
Or even between one set of believers and another set of believers. That is, if they haven’t killed each other first.
NB: I’m exagerrating for effect, like you’ve been doing with your ridiculous claim that non-believers all think incest is OK. The reason incest is taboo is not because ‘God said so’, but because it is detrimental to human survival. It corrupts the raising of children and leads to genetic disorders.
Comment on “Agnes Monica & Allah Peduli”.
Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-2025
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact
“My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.
Nyaaa nyaaa nyaaa.”
Stop it you kids and get back to your homework. Now!