NOTE: This is a 23 June 2014 article on the earlier Federal Court verdict
Below is a parallel story for you to ponder.
Aziz M. Osman is a famous Malaysian film director whose popular movies include the Senario series, XX Ray and its sequel, Puteri Impian and its sequel, Fantasi and many others.
His ex-wife is Chinese Muslim convert Nur Aliah Lee bt Abdullah. Her showbiz name was Vianney Anastasia Lee and she is nicknamed Vee in the artiste circles.
She wore the tudung litup when she was married to Aziz.
Off with the tudung
After her divorce from Aziz, Vianney’s tudung came off almost immediately.
You can see from the picture below sourced from http://ohartis.com/2009/01/gambar-nor-aliah-lee-kekasih-tengku-y/
BELOW: Suddenly single Vee baring her shoulders
And the tudung is back on again
Then Vee remarried to a Malay Datuk businessman.
“Saya memakai semula tudung tahun lalu selepas berkahwin,” she was reported as saying in a 2011 interview.
BELOW: Photo shoot of Datin Nur Aliah aka Vianney Anastasia aka Vee, who was the cover girl for an issue of Nona women’s magazine
It’s a ‘people’ thing
When Vee was/is in the state of matrimony, the tudung was/is on. But when she was in the state of swinging single, the tudung was off. Many Malay entertainment reporters and writers/bloggers had remarked on this with some wonder.
Vee’s on again, off again tudung saga is a “people” issue, isn’t it? Because for some other Muslim women who observe tutup aurat strictly, on means on, and no such thing as pakai ikut musim.
Similarly with the people in the state of Sabah and the state of Sarawak , the ‘Allah’ bible is permitted by the authorities. In the Klang Valley full of evangelistas, the same bible is not. Hence this too looks like a ‘people’ issue, doesn’t it?
BELOW: Hannah Yeoh in tudung
DAP Christian chameleons and their faux ‘Islamic’ biawak skin
So why is the niat of the peninsula Christians suspect whereas the niat of the Sabah and Sarawak native Christians is not?
Why is Madame Speaker Hannah Yeoh wearing a tudung in the scene above? In many of the photos, she was not within the prayer hall of a surau or a masjid where women visitors are required to cover their head. So why is she masquerading a Muslimah look?
Is it any wonder many Muslims are suspicious of the niat of the Chinese Christians?
The judgment on the Herald‘s ‘Allah’ appeal was read in the Federal Court today. There have been loud, nasty and hostile reactions from the Chinese DAP supporters to the judges’ 4-3 decision.
Does it cross anyone’s mind that it is their – referring to the “What kind of people are they?” crowd – attitude that is the problem? But they (the Born Agains) keep demonising the Malays in this ‘Allah’ issue.