Posted in Evangeliblis

Hanana

The screenshot bottom of page is taken of reader comments to http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/280759

Please look at the two commenters calling themselves AkuMelayu-tetapi ABU jugak, Don’t PlayPlay !!!’ and ‘Melayu Tulen‘.

Referring to Umno Cheras division chief Syed Ali Alhabshee, the Malaysiakini regular commenter – who uses the moniker “AkuMelayu” -wrote:

“Tapi yg bahaya, dia ingat Allah saw ber-etnik Melayu atau Arab… Entah lah, budak kacukan Arab dengan Anjing ni…. asyik main isu perkaumnan”

If the person was really a Melayu, he’d know that lafaz Allah is suffixed “swt” whereas the “saw” is for Nabi Muhammad.

Not only am I sceptical that the person is a Melayu, I’m even guessing he’s a Christian.

http://www.malaysia-today.net/hate-and-vilify-the-sinner/
http://www.malaysia-today.net/hate-and-vilify-the-sinner/

Meanwhile the Malaysiakini commenter who styles himself ‘Melayu Tulen‘ wrote:

“Saya Cina niaga untung pun bayar income tax.”

Okay, so this guy with the atrocious command of BM but nonetheless uses the pseudonym ‘Melayu Tulen’ has accidentally blurted out that he is a Chinese who does business and pays income tax.

My guess is that he’s a Christian too.

And then there is the doyen of commenters ‘Malaysian 1st‘ who remarked:

“This Syed is not of Malay origin by the look of it.”

I recall coming across this ‘Malaysian 1st‘ mentioning in some other comment that he/she is a Christian (or alluding to something that indicated he/she is a Christian).

Why does a reader who (mixes up) is unaware that the Arabic term “saw” is used for Nabi Muhammad and “swt” is to glorify Allah Most High wish to call himself “AkuMelayu-tetapi ABU jugak“?

The “ABU! ABU! ABU!” mantra is a giveaway to his identity and motive, is it not?

Christian quartet tudung

Why is it that Hannah YB Tudung, Nie Ching YB Tudung, Elizabeth YB Tudung and Bee Yin YB Tudung (four DAP and PKR Aduns and MP) are all of them evangelical Christians?

For the 60 years that MCA has rubbed shoulders with Umno, you never got Wanita MCA leaders pulling this trickery. Neither do Wanita Gerakan.

All these chameleons are infiltrating every nook and cranny of our Malaysian cyberspace as well as Occupying Mosques – What kind of people are they?

When the Quran warns against the munafiq, it does not mention Buddhists or Taoists or Hindus or Sikhs.

Previously in my blog, there was a slimy Subang Jaya commenter ‘Ravin’ who also masqueraded as ‘Mohd Aziz’.

Lim Guan Eng has 41 Special Officers in his Chief Minister’s office.

No, I’m not connecting AkuMelayu‘ and ‘Melayu Tulenspecifically with Lim’s Team but I’m suggesting that (1) there are a lot of chameleon cyber characters around, and also separately asking (2) What work do Guan Eng’s Special Officers do?

Chinese can do business

'Chinese can do business1

Related:

Umno Cheras warlord detonates sticky bomb, Chinese go ballistic

Author:

I have no Faceook or Twitter.

45 thoughts on “Hanana

    1. Adakalanya muslim yg kerap pi surau atau mesjid kalau lihat perkara2 yg kurang manis, depa tak tegur pasai not nice to be rude dalam kawasan semejid.

      Masjid kawasan saya zaman UMNO dulu, magrib dan.isyak selalunya penuh termasuk dari golongan kanak2 dan kaum wanita. Sekarang tinggal satu dua barisan aje. Yg tak suka tengok pelik2 mereka quietly berpindah pi semejid lain, jauh sikit asalkan hati tenteram dan khusyuk semasa mengerjakan solat mereka.

      Tu pasai la Dandy, perlu identify kita ni dari bangsa dan Agama apa. Kalo Apek, Ahkow masuk semejid pakai seluar pendek duduk terkangkang kita akan faham kenapa perangai biadab sangat. Pasai mereka bukan Islam tak faham dan mendalami cara2 betoi serta adab masuk surau atau semejid. Mak ayah pun taktau nak ajar mereka macam mana depa nak faham.

      Nah I bagi kat you link, baca ya jangan tak baca… lain kali Tembam gi masuk, ajar2 dia sikit how to show respect bila nak masuk. Kalo dia taknak dengar habaq kat dia doksah dok pi menyusahkan orang yg nak bersolat; Orang tak tegur bukan bermakna orang beri restu ya;

      http://rashidjaisdarulnaim.blogspot.com/p/adab-adab-ketika-ke-masjid-dan-semasa.html?m=1

      1. Christians juga ada garis panduan tersendiri adab dan sopan yang peerlu dijaga pabila masuk gereja;

        …..Church etiquette is a set of rules that govern behavior in the house of God. It comes from the same principle as the etiquette that governs behavior in polite society…

        Here;

        Church Etiquette: A Handbook for Manners and Appropriate Behavior in Church : Linda J. Williams.

        I am sure the Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Saibabas etc etc too have their own set of.practices and attiquette one should respect and observe? Betoi tak Dandy.

        Dandy,
        Mai kita baca sini juga bantu Tembam memahami kenapa perlu menghormati rumah Ibadat. Mana tau pasai tak faham dengan ajaran Agama dia sendiri, satni pi dok promote buku dia kat semejid pula nanti?

        .

  1. Saya malas hendak marahkan Christian Evenglistas atas perilaku mereka yang melampau lampau. Salahnya orang Melayu Islam sendiri yang membiarkan diri mereka dipergunakan sewenang wenangnya oleh pihak ini.

    Siapa yang membenarkan golongan ini masuk ke dalam masjid dan Surau?. Bukankan golongan PAS/PKR dan mahasewel? Bagi Christian Evenglistas, pelawaan ini bagai pucuk dicita, ulam mendatang!

    Kalau orang Melayu Islam sendiri yang membenarkan peristiwa itu berlaku berleluasa, saya takut pihak Christian Evenglistas makin ‘naik toceng’

  2. “When the Quran warns against the munafiq, it does not mention Buddhists or Taoists or Hindus or Sikhs.”

    How many Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and Sikhs were there in Arabia around 650AD?

    That has not stopped centuries old conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India.
    Or conflict between Muslims and Sikhs.
    And conflict between Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar.

    1. Quran is a universal and not parochial book. Buddhism, Taoism and Hinduism were already in the world around 650AD.

      Why? Makan cili rasa pedas?

      1. There is no mention of Buddhists, Taoists, or Hindus in the Koran. Even though they already existed. Out of sight, out of mind.

        However that did not stop the Muslims from invading eastward towards India.

      1. Rina,

        The verse you provide (copypasted below) does not specify “Buddhists” or “Hindus”. It talks about idols.

        The Arabs in Mecca of the Prophet’s time were idol worshippers.

        Comparatively, there are many verses in the Quran that specifically mention “Jews” and “Christians”.

        29.17. “You worship only idols instead of God, and thus you invent a mere falsehood (by deifying some things and beings such that it is impossible for them to be Deity). Surely those (beings whom you deify and make statues of, and idols) that you worship instead of God do not have power to provide for you; so seek all your provision from God, and worship Him and be thankful to Him. To Him you are being brought back.”

        1. “The verse you provide (copypasted below) does not specify “Buddhists” or “Hindus”. It talks about idols.

          The Arabs in Mecca of the Prophet’s time were idol worshippers.”

          Earlier you said ‘Quran is a universal and not parochial book’. If one takes your logic, then that verse about idol worshippers being ‘inventors of falsehood’ also covers Buddhists and Hindus, not just the Arab idol worshippers in Mecca. And Rina seems to think so.

          1. Correct, universal.

            However talking about specifics, I’m disputing Rina because “Jews” and “Christians” are specifically mentioned while “Buddhists” and “Hindus” are not.

            1. If it was universal as you claim, then those verses about ‘idol worshippers’ also apply to the Buddhists and Hindus even if they are not mentioned in the Koran, as they were not present in Arabia in 650AD. Rina, and a large number of conservative Muslims do not seem to have much trouble using it to refer to Buddhists and Hindus.

              universal[yoo-nuh-vur-suh l]: applicable everywhere or in all cases

              1. The Quran calls Christians “munafiq” in many verses.

                The Quran does not mention “Buddhists” and “Hindus”.

                  1. But you agree with me that the Quran is universal?

                    If the Holy Book of Islam had wanted to mention “Buddhists” and “Hindus”, then the adherents of both these religions would have been mentioned specifically (by name) due to the transcendent nature of the Quran’s universalism.

                    1. No I do not agree it is universal. And there is no mention about Hindus and Buddhists in it, as both religious groups were not present in Arabia during that period.

                      If you claim it is universal, then the verse about idol worshippers being inventors of falsehood also applies to the Hindus and Buddhists, as idols feature prominently in both religions. Rina does not seem to have a problem interpreting it as referring to the Hindus and Buddhists.

                    2. Well, since you object to Islam’s universalism, then there is no point in continuing this discussion any further.

                      It is like you forcing me (or Muslims) to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. We’re only arguing from two different and separate planks. You find it impossible agree to the universalism of Islam while (for example) the rest of us find it impossible agree that God beget a Son.

                      We’ll only be talking at cross purposes until the cows come home. I’ve stated plainly that the Quran has specifically called Christians munafiq … period … and Muslims – if they believe in the Word of the Quran – believe this.

                      As a non-Muslim, you do not believe in the words of the Quran. So what more can there be to say or add?

                    3. “Well, since you object to Islam’s universalism, then there is no point in continuing this discussion any further.”

                      Religious debates only go around in circles. The debate ends up debating about which teachings of flying blue unicorns are correct.

                      “I’ve stated plainly that the Quran has specifically called Christians munafiq”

                      And yet you went on to add that “When the Quran warns against the munafiq, it does not mention Buddhists or Taoists or Hindus or Sikhs.”

                      Which of course is because these religions, while already existent, were in lands thousands of miles away from the Middle Eastern sphere. Sikhism did not exist yet. No community of Buddhists, Hindus, or Taoists were present in Arabia and vying for space.

                      “and Muslims – if they believe in the Word of the Quran – believe this.”

                      And they, or at least a considerable portion of them also believe that Buddhists, Hindus, and any other religion that includes idols, are mentioned under 29.17… as inventors of falsehood.

                      That partly explains why the likes of Ridhuan Tee and Isma become uneasy when they pass by Batu Caves, the Kek Lok Si, or a Hindu temple in Klang.

                    4. It’s quite straightforward. The Quran, specifically and in more than one surah, calls out the Christians as munafiq.

                      The Muslims will follow the religion of their Holy Book because these mentions are explicit.

                      Rina has pointed out a verse. It does not mention “Buddhists” and “Hindus”. So that leaves it still up to a matter of interpretation.

                      What is explicitly stated, i.e. “Christians are munafiq”, is unequivocal. What you’re conjecturing about “idol worshippers” but at the same time Buddhists and Hindus were out of sight of Arabia, remains a case of you taking the liberty of joining the dots.

                    5. “Rina has pointed out a verse. It does not mention “Buddhists” and “Hindus”. So that leaves it still up to a matter of interpretation.”

                      And a lot of Muslims, such as Rina, interpret it so.

                      “What you’re conjecturing about “idol worshippers” but at the same time Buddhists and Hindus were out of sight of Arabia, remains a case of you taking the liberty of joining the dots.”

                      Regarding the ‘idol worshippers’, don’t blame me. Rina brought it up, and she plus a lot of conservative Malaysian Muslims think that verse applies to the Hindus and Buddhists. And if we applied your logic of Quranic universalism, then it would certainly apply to the Hindus and Buddhists. Being universal means it applies everywhere and in every cases.

                      As for me, I do not believe that the Quran is universal, and that Buddhists and Hindus are not mentioned because they were non-existant in the Middle East in that time.

                    6. Universalism would I-M-P-L-Y what you’ve interpreted whereas those verses in the Quran which state that “Christians are munafiq” are plain and clear.

                      Why do choose to quibble over something never mentioned at all (“Buddhists”, “Hindus”) when on the other hand, “Christians”, “Jews” are already spelled out?

                    7. “Universalism would I-M-P-L-Y what you’ve interpreted whereas those verses in the Quran which state that “Christians are munafiq” are plain and clear.”

                      Universalism means it is applicable everywhere and all situations.

                      “Why do choose to quibble over something never mentioned at all (“Buddhists”, “Hindus”) when on the other hand, “Christians”, “Jews” are already spelled out?”

                      So why bring up Buddhists and Hindus as a comparison in the article?

                    8. re: “Universalism means it is applicable everywhere and all situations.”

                      You are not a Muslim. So why do you persist in imposing your “universalist” interpretation and then proceeding to connect the dots for a Holy Book that is not yours?

                      In contrast, with the “Jews and Christians” verses, their meaning is already clear and explained by the annotation of the verses themselves in the Quran as well as being the subject matter of khutbah Jumaat by Jakim and booklets published by MAIS.

                      re: “So why bring up Buddhists and Hindus as a comparison in the article?”

                      Because the fast expansion of Christianity in Singapore correlates with the huge drop in Buddhist numbers.

                      This is what the data from the S’pore national census reveal. Same with Korea that used to be known as a (syncretic) ‘Buddhist’ country.

                    9. “You are not a Muslim.”

                      Are you? You were lecturing Rina about what the verse relates to.

                      “re: “So why bring up Buddhists and Hindus as a comparison in the article?”
                      Because the fast expansion of Christianity in Singapore correlates with the huge drop in Buddhist numbers.”

                      And the Sikhs?

                      Your article here is not talking about Singapore or South Korea.

                    10. re: “Are you? You were lecturing Rina about what the verse relates to.”

                      Rina pointed out a specific verse. So I obliged her by reading the particular verse that she highlighted. The verse does not mention “Buddhists” and “Hindus”.

                      Unlike you, you want to insert the implication/interpretation of “Buddhists” and “Hindus” into the Quran when the Holy Book does not mention them.

                      I’m not at all surprised that your kind (of people) will go to such lengths of putar-belit in order to kebas kalimah Allah. I’m sure that you will employ the same method of connecting the dots.

                      re: “Your article here is not talking about Singapore or South Korea.”

                      I said, “When the Quran warns against the munafiq, it does not mention Buddhists or Taoists or Hindus or Sikhs.”

                      So what’s your problem with the statement? The religious fault line in Malaysia is obviously Christian-Muslim.

                    11. “Rina pointed out a specific verse. So I obliged her by reading the particular verse that she highlighted. The verse does not mention “Buddhists” and “Hindus”.”

                      Your own words:

                      Rina,
                      The verse you provide (copypasted below) does not specify “Buddhists” or “Hindus”. It talks about idols.
                      The Arabs in Mecca of the Prophet’s time were idol worshippers.

                      You are telling Rina what it is about, contrary to her interpretation. Then you have the gall to accuse me of trying to impose my ‘interpretation’ when all I did mention was that if it was universal as you claim, then that verse on ‘idols’ would apply to both Hindus and Buddhists.

                      “Unlike you, you want to insert the implication/interpretation of “Buddhists” and “Hindus” into the Quran when the Holy Book does not mention them.”

                      Rina does not have a problem doing so. Same with a large number of Muslims.

                      “So what’s your problem with the statement? The religious fault line in Malaysia is obviously Christian-Muslim.”

                      Wah, dari Singapura ke Korea Selatan ke Malaysia pula. Tony Fernandes memang betul… ‘Now Everyone Can Fly’.

                    12. re: “Your own words: Rina, The verse you provide (copypasted below) does not specify ‘Buddhists’ or ‘Hindus’. It talks about idols. The Arabs in Mecca of the Prophet’s time were idol worshippers.

                      (1) She asked me to read and so I read, and I responded to her that the verse she provided does not specify ‘Buddhists’ or ‘Hindus’.

                      How else could I have framed my answer to her? I do not see “B-U-D-D-H-I-S-T” printed on the page, do you?

                      (2) “It talks about idols.”

                      Well, that’s what it talked about. If someone asked me to read John Keat’s poem ‘Ode on a Grecian Urn’, then I will have to respond that it talks about Grecian urn.

                      (3) “The Arabs in Mecca of the Prophet’s time were idol worshippers.”

                      re: “You are telling Rina what it is about, contrary to her interpretation.”

                      I’m telling Rina what I see on my computer screen (1) and (2), while (3) is a historical fact which anyone who reads history will know.

                      In a previous comment, I’ve already acknowledged that my opinion is in “dispute” with Rina’s. So what’s your beef?

                      re: “Then you have the gall to accuse me of trying to impose my ‘interpretation’ when all I did mention was that if it was universal as you claim, then that verse on ‘idols’ would apply to both Hindus and Buddhists.”

                      So you’re connecting the dots. How many times do I have to say that “Hindus and Buddhists” are not mentioned by name, not even in the verse Rina cited?

                      If the Quran had wanted to say that “Hindus and Buddhists” are munafiq, then the Holy Book would have said so, just as it says many times “Jews and Christians” are munafiq.

                      re: “Rina does not have a problem doing so. Same with a large number of Muslims.”

                      Rina seems to think so, okay, I can accept that. Now show me the rest of the “large number of Muslims” who claim that the Quran says “Buddhists and Hindus” are munafiq.

                      I’ve already said that Jakim in its khutbah Jumaat and MAIS in its booklet warned umat Islam against munafiq (enemies of Islam) and accompanied their warnings with the specific Quranic verses which stated “Jews and Christians”.

                      re: “Wah, dari Singapura ke Korea Selatan ke Malaysia pula. Tony Fernandes memang betul… ‘Now Everyone Can Fly’.”

                      You’re really showing your kiasuness. Isn’t Malaysia a SE Asian country? And one for which I provided the data, along with the data for the rest of our 10 neighbouring countries. If I don’t use Malaysia as our reference base, then what? You want me to reference Greenland?

                      I’d strongly encourage you to keep on revealing yourself like this. There’s nothing more convincing than a Show & Tell demo.

                    13. “So you’re connecting the dots. How many times do I have to say that “Hindus and Buddhists” are not mentioned by name, not even in the verse Rina cited?
                      If the Quran had wanted to say that “Hindus and Buddhists” are munafiq, then the Holy Book would have said so, just as it says many times “Jews and Christians” are munafiq.”

                      The original thread was Rina pointing out that Hindus and Buddhists are referred in the Quran, using verse 29.17 as reference in response to my post that they are not mentioned as they were not in Arabia.

                      “Rina seems to think so, okay, I can accept that. Now show me the rest of the “large number of Muslims” who claim that the Quran says “Buddhists and Hindus” are munafiq.”

                      Where did I claim that a large number of Muslims think the Quran says Buddhists and Hindus” are munafiq? What I did say is that a lot of them think that verse 29.17 on idol worshippers can be applied to Hindus and Buddhists.

                      “re: “Wah, dari Singapura ke Korea Selatan ke Malaysia pula. Tony Fernandes memang betul… ‘Now Everyone Can Fly’.”

                      You’re really showing your kiasuness. Isn’t Malaysia a SE Asian country? And one for which I provided the data, along with the data for the rest of our 10 neighbouring countries. If I don’t use Malaysia as our reference base, then what?”

                      And is South Korea part of South East Asia? You sure know how to attempt to shift the goalposts as you like.

                      Helen: ‘Excuse me stewardess, how long is this flight?’

                      Stewardess: ‘About 7 hours miss. We will land in Inchon Airport at…’

                      Helen: ‘Adoi! I thought it would be 3 hour flight! South Korea not in SE Asia meh? Must be Hannah Yeoh’s fault!’

                    14. re: “The original thread was Rina pointing out that Hindus and Buddhists are referred in the Quran, using verse 29.17 as reference in response to my post that they are not mentioned as they were not in Arabia.”

                      You’re interpreting that Hindus and Buddhists are not mentioned in the Quran because Hindus and Buddhists were not in Arabia – “out of sight, out of mind” you had commented earlier @ https://helenang.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/hanana/#comment-137742.

                      Like I said, AC-DC lagi pandai tafsir Quran berbanding orang Islam.

                      re: “What I did say is that a lot of them think that verse 29.17 on idol worshippers can be applied to Hindus and Buddhists.”

                      Okay, aside from Rina, please show at least some of the rest of the “large number of Muslims” who think that verse 29.17 on idol worshippers can be applied to Hindus and Buddhists.

                      re: “And is South Korea part of South East Asia? You sure know how to attempt to shift the goalposts as you like.”

                      South East Asia is the most significant Christian growth country and it shows up most obviously in the 2010 Christian demography map. How is mentioning South Korea shifting the goalpost when the map displayed?

                      I wrote solely about Christianity but you want to kick Islam and that’s why you dragged in the Indian sub-continent where you said Islam was spread “brutally” by force. Who’s playing football with you? You’re the one putting up your own Islam goalposts in response to my article on Christianity.

                      Fine. You’re showing the Malay readers of this blog how Islamophobia operates.

                      Helen: ‘Excuse me stewardess, how long is this flight?’

                      Stewardess: ‘About 7 hours miss. We will land in Inchon Airport at…’

                      Helen: ‘Adoi! I thought it would be 3 hour flight! South Korea not in SE Asia meh? Must be Hannah Yeoh’s fault!’

                      How childish.

                    15. “You’re interpreting that Hindus and Buddhists are not mentioned in the Quran because Hindus and Buddhists were not in Arabia – “out of sight, out of mind” you had commented earlier @ https://helenang.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/hanana/#comment-137742.

                      That is right. In reply to your own earlier statement that “it does not mention Buddhists or Taoists or Hindus or Sikhs”.

                      “Like I said, AC-DC lagi pandai tafsir Quran berbanding orang Islam.”

                      Wah, Cik Helen mentafsir Quran dalam blognya, berlakon ustazah kepada Rina, kemudian menuduh orang lain mentafsir al-Quran pula.

                      “South East Asia is the most significant Christian growth country and it shows up most obviously in the 2010 Christian demography map. How is mentioning South Korea shifting the goalpost when the map displayed?”

                      Are you now mistaking South Korea for South East Asia? Or including South Korea in South East Asia? Or mistaking SE Asia for a country, not a region?

                      “I wrote solely about Christianity but you want to kick Islam and that’s why you dragged in the Indian sub-continent where you said Islam was spread “brutally” by force. Who’s playing football with you? You’re the one putting up your own Islam goalposts in response to my article on Christianity.”

                      No I did not ‘kick Islam’, and you are ‘fitnah’-ing me of doing so.

                      You mentioned that Christianity is not indigenous to Asia.
                      You also stated Christianity was imposed on the subjugated Asian peoples by the colonial masters.

                      I pointed out as counterpoints the facts… that Islam, like Christianity, is also not indigenous to Asia. And that it was also spread through invasion and colonialism, in the South Asian Indian subcontinent.

                    16. re: “Wah, Cik Helen mentafsir Quran dalam blognya, berlakon ustazah kepada Rina, kemudian menuduh orang lain mentafsir al-Quran pula.”

                      Cik Helen said that Jakim and MAIS have highlighted to the ummah verses of the Quran which say that Christians are munafiq. You have a problem with those verses. Siapa makan cili dia rasa pedas agaknya.

                      re: “Are you now mistaking South Korea for South East Asia? Or including South Korea in South East Asia? Or mistaking SE Asia for a country, not a region?”

                      You forgot to take your medication today, obviously.

                      re: “No I did not ‘kick Islam’, and you are ‘fitnah’-ing me of doing so.”

                      Classic display of Porky Principle … Bak Kut Teh is not pork.

                      re: “You mentioned that Christianity is not indigenous to Asia.”

                      I stated a fact.

                      re: “You also stated Christianity was imposed on the subjugated Asian peoples by the colonial masters.”

                      I stated another fact.

                      re: “I pointed out as counterpoints the facts… that Islam, like Christianity, is also not indigenous to Asia.”

                      I concurred. When did I ever quarrel over this point?

                      re: “And that it was also spread through invasion and colonialism, in the South Asian Indian subcontinent.”

                      Yes, it was. You insisted it was spread “brutally” through invasion of Hindu India.

                      However Islam was spread to Tanah Melayu peaceably through trade, and neither the Ottoman empire nor the Mughal empire invaded Tanah Melayu.

                      So the Malay experience of the pendakwah Islam has been positive while the Malay experience of the pendakwah Kristian is ambivalent laced with suspicion.

                    17. “Cik Helen said that Jakim and MAIS have highlighted to the ummah verses of the Quran which say that Christians are munafiq. You have a problem with those verses. Siapa makan cili dia rasa pedas agaknya.”

                      Cik Helen also accused a non Muslim of lecturing to a Muslim, while she herself was lecturing a Muslim about what verse 29.17 was about.

                      “You forgot to take your medication today, obviously.”

                      That is quite funny, considering it is coming from a person with paranoiac obsessions about Christians and a certain assemblywoman from Selangor.

                      “Classic display of Porky Principle … Bak Kut Teh is not pork.”

                      Point out where did I insult Islam. If somebody wrote about how Hinduism is a religion with features of idol worship in Asia, and someone added that Buddhism is also an Asian religion with elements of idol worship, certainly he is not being Buddhophobic, right?

                      “re: “You mentioned that Christianity is not indigenous to Asia.”
                      I stated a fact.
                      re: “You also stated Christianity was imposed on the subjugated Asian peoples by the colonial masters.”
                      I stated another fact.
                      re: “I pointed out as counterpoints the facts… that Islam, like Christianity, is also not indigenous to Asia.”
                      I concurred. When did I ever quarrel over this point?
                      re: “And that it was also spread through invasion and colonialism, in the South Asian Indian subcontinent.”
                      Yes, it was. You insisted it was spread “brutally” through invasion of Hindu India.”

                      Good, we both agree with these points.

                      “However Islam was spread to Tanah Melayu peaceably through trade, and neither the Ottoman empire nor the Mughal empire invaded Tanah Melayu.”

                      In the scope of the Malay Archipelago, yes, it was spread relatively peacefully. But in the scope of Asia, it was also spread through invasion.

                    18. re: “Cik Helen also accused a non Muslim of lecturing to a Muslim, while she herself was lecturing a Muslim about what verse 29.17 was about.”

                      Unlike AD-DC who ran around like a headless chicken yesterday with his more than 40 comments over the last 24 hours, Rina-the-Muslim does not see any need to be ultra kiasu over the “worship idols besides Allah” verse. She has not made any further comment to quibble unlike you.

                      re: “That is quite funny, considering it is coming from a person with paranoiac obsessions about Christians and a certain assemblywoman from Selangor.”

                      The Christians are the only one who want to kebas kalimah Allah. The Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Sikhs, Bahai, animists and sun worshippers do not have any intention of stealing God’s name from the Muslims.

                      A certain assemblywoman from Selangor is the Mother of All Munafiqs.

                      re: “Point out where did I insult Islam.”

                      When did I ever say you insulted Islam? I said you are Islamophobic.

                      re: “If somebody wrote about how Hinduism is a religion with features of idol worship in Asia, and someone added that Buddhism is also an Asian religion with elements of idol worship, certainly he is not being Buddhophobic, right?”

                      It is not written in the Quran about the “Hindus” and the “Buddhists” by name despite that idolatry is mentioned as forbidden. You are very licik to attribute to the Quran – through joining the dots – something that is not explicitly mentioned in the Holy Book.

                      re: “And that it was also spread through invasion and colonialism, in the South Asian Indian subcontinent.”
                      Yes, it was. You insisted it was spread “brutally” through invasion of Hindu India.”

                      re: “Good, we both agree with these points.”

                      (1) I am in agreement with you that Islam is not indigenous of SE Asia.

                      (2) You claimed that it was spread “brutally” through invasion. I never said I agreed with the way you described the brutality (“brutally”) of the invasion. Read carefully the quoted passage above – Yes, it was (spread through invasion and colonialism). YOU INSISTED it was spread “brutally” through invasion of Hindu India.”

                      You’re the only one who is obsessed with how Islam is spread in India

                      Don’t be conniving and extend it to saying that “we both agree”.

                      re: “In the scope of the Malay Archipelago, yes, it was spread relatively peacefully. But in the scope of Asia, it was also spread through invasion.”

                      And it is precisely for this reason that you have been harassing me for mentioning China and Korea (eastwards) in my article on Christianity in SE Asia.

                      Your mind is in the opposite direction (towards India) and on the opposing topic (Islam). You do not care about the peaceful spread of Islam in our region but are obsessed with its “brutally” (your word) spread in the Indian subcontinent.

                      Your Islamophobia is showing.

                    19. “The Christians are the only one who want to kebas kalimah Allah. The Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Sikhs,…”

                      http://www.voiceonline.com/sikh-group-joins-protest-against-ban-on-use-of-word-allah-in-malaysia/

                      re: “Point out where did I insult Islam.”
                      When did I ever say you insulted Islam? I said you are Islamophobic.
                      re: “If somebody wrote about how Hinduism is a religion with features of idol worship in Asia, and someone added that Buddhism is also an Asian religion with elements of idol worship, certainly he is not being Buddhophobic, right?”

                      “It is not written in the Quran about the “Hindus” and the “Buddhists” by name despite that idolatry is mentioned as forbidden. You are very licik to attribute to the Quran – through joining the dots – something that is not explicitly mentioned in the Holy Book.”

                      Here you go again, trying to change the discussion. I am talking about an example of a person mentioning Buddhism as another Asian religion with elements of idol worship. You now try to conflate it with our other debate in another article.

                      re: “And that it was also spread through invasion and colonialism, in the South Asian Indian subcontinent.”
                      Yes, it was. You insisted it was spread “brutally” through invasion of Hindu India.”
                      re: “Good, we both agree with these points.”
                      (1) I am in agreement with you that Islam is not indigenous of SE Asia.
                      (2) You claimed that it was spread “brutally” through invasion. I never said I agreed with the way you described the brutality (“brutally”) of the invasion. Read carefully the quoted passage above – Yes, it was (spread through invasion and colonialism). YOU INSISTED it was spread “brutally” through invasion of Hindu India.””

                      Yawn, now you are trying to nitpick in an attempt to shift it. Nice try, but no credit.

                      “You’re the only one who is obsessed with how Islam is spread in India

                      And it is precisely for this reason that you have been harassing me for mentioning China and Korea (eastwards) in my article on Christianity in SE Asia.
                      Your mind is in the opposite direction (towards India) and on the opposing topic (Islam). You do not care about the peaceful spread of Islam in our region but are obsessed with its “brutally” (your word) spread in the Indian subcontinent.
                      Your Islamophobia is showing.”

                      Nope, I bring it up as a point to your idea that Christianity is not indigeneous to Asia, and was spread via colonialism and subjugation of the Asian peoples.

      2. Ya ke? Ia hanya merujuk kepada pengikut agama berhala. Jika awak melihat ia merujuk kepada orang Buddha dan Hindu, maka ia menggelarkan mereka ‘pencipta kepalsuan’.

        1. ‘Christian priests and ministers have added so many corruptions and disagreements to their religion that Christianity no longer became a valid absolute pure religion from GOD Almighty. Man’s corruption and disagreements in the Bible had devastated the Bible’s purity and accuracy. The religion of Islam on the other hand is a pure uncorrupted religion of God. Muslims respect GOD Almighty way better than Christians do in their worship. The religion of Islam is an organized uncorrupted religion of GOD, and it’s prophecy of remaining like that until the day of judgment is still fulfilled. I welcome you to open your heart to Islam and to follow it.’

          http://www.answering-christianity.com/worship.htm

          1. Which religion of Islam?

            The Shia of which there are many sects?
            The Sunni of which there are many sects?
            The Hanafi?
            The Shafii?
            The Sevener Shias?
            The Twelver Shias?
            The Alawis?
            The Ahmadiyyah?
            The Ismaili?
            The Wahabbi?
            The Sufis?
            The “Islam Cap Jenis ISIL potong kepala”?

            Right now in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, Sunnis kill Shias with car bombs, beheadings, and AK47s. Shias kill Sunnis with AK47s, knives, and car bombs. Shia and Sunni conflict is growing worse in the Middle East. Iraq and Iran fought a war in 1980. Islamic fanatics in Africa attack and destroy mosques. Shia and Ahmadiyya followers are being attacked by fanatics in Pakistan.

            In Malaysia Facebook posts are spread telling you how you should not pray with your feet facing this or that way, lest you become a Shia’. On the bigger picture anti-Shia’ sentiment is spread on the mainstream newspapers.

            What was that about being organised and uncorrupted again?

            1. ‘What was that about being organised and uncorrupted again?’

              G-d begets a son, became a son and put on cross to die as the son, alleged forgotten by the god the father, to purify humanity from sins!

    2. The Prophet s.a.w. specifically said: “(The marks of) A Hypocrite (munafiq) is that person who when he speaks he lies; or when he promises he does not fulfill it; or when he is entrusted with something he betrays the trust.”

Comments are closed.