Posted in Evangeliblis

Bagi evangelista ‘Allah’ milik mereka tapi hukum hudud ditolak

Evangelista gayakan tudung, beriya-iya duduk Occupy Masjid

Hannah Yeoh

Mereka jaguh Twitter hashtag #sahur

Mereka lah yang paling asyik berbuka puasa di surau

Do big numbers equate great strength?
Hobi Hannah Yeoh bergambar di masjid dan surau

Ucapan “Insya Allah” tak lekang dari bibir mereka

Mereka menuntut hak milik bersama kalimah Allah

Tetapi sampai bab hudud … topeng mereka dah susah nak lekat

Hannah tudung red
Hannah Yeoh

Your God is my God, bukan gitu?

Bukankah evangelista sering mendakwa Tuhan mereka dan Tuhan orang Islam sama sahaja?

Kan “we’re all brothers and sisters”, orang Kristian and umat Islam satu keluarga?

Hannah hudud

Hannah Yeoh
Hannah Yeoh

Adakah Hannah Yeoh dah betul-betul baca Bible?

Ke Bible yang dibaca Hannah versi disusun semula oleh Gereja City Harvest?

Exodus 20:14

14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Deuteronomy 22:22

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Leviticus 20:10

10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Petikan dari


The following Verses are from the NIV Bible:

Matthew 19:9  “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 

(Wouldn’t this cause the man to be put to death?)

Mark 10:11  “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”  

(Again, wouldn’t he then be put to death since he would have committed adultery?)

Mark 10:12  “And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”   

(Same question I ask about the women who are considered have committed adultery.   Wouldn’t they be put to death also?)

Luke 16:18  “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” 

(My question here is: Would an adulterer in the New Testament be put to death?)

Keep in mind that when Jesus gave the above laws, he gave them during the time when he spoke highly of the Old Testament’s Law:

Jesus orders Christians to follow the Old Testament’s laws.

Matthew 5:17-18

“Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. 

It is quite clear from these verses from the New Testament that Jesus peace be upon him did honor the Old Testament and did say that every single ‘letter’ of it has to be honored, followed and fulfilled.


Hannah Dont say I am Muslim

Pengikut fahaman cult, gak?

Pompuan ni seorang preacher yang selalu berkhutbah di merata-rata gereja evangelis

Ada khutbah dia ikut hukum Islam?

Ataupun khutbah dia ikut hukum Bible?

Ikut tafsiran apa?

Hannah hudud umno


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

89 thoughts on “Bagi evangelista ‘Allah’ milik mereka tapi hukum hudud ditolak

  1. Do you notice that DAP evangelistas will visit the Masjids come bulan puasa to fool the Muslim, but they will never enter any Buddhist temples in any occasion? They call these temples houses of Devils

    1. re: “they will never enter any Buddhist temples”

      They already got rock solid 90 percent support from Chinese.

      Malay voters are the Blue Ocean. So the evangelistas will fish, using industrial trawlers. That’s why they’re going so heavy on the masquerade.

      1. Kak Helen,

        I’m so curious as to why the G25 “Moderate Eminent Malays” seemed to be so quiet about this hudud thingy? Or any Islamic values, mcm pakai tudung etc. By right, they should support it la kan coz even in Christianity it’s almost the same kan? Tak boleh zina, tak boleh rogol, tak boleh makan bah kut teh (read: oink-oink). So, bleh la jadi perpaduan sangat and “extremists” like Perkasa and ISMA, which the G25 really hates, will be put out of business kan?

        Why ar, the G25 “Moderate Eminent Malays” are so senyap sunyi sepi?

        Divisive Views, Dangerous Ideas.


        1. re: “By right, they should support it la kan coz even in Christianity it’s almost the same kan? Tak boleh zina, tak boleh rogol, tak boleh makan bah kut teh (read: oink-oink).”

          Don’t forget wearing tudung like the evangelical preacher Hannah Yeoh.

          Christian women in Malaysia should all start wearing tudung like her. After all, it was claimed that Hannah Yeoh is merely following Christian custom when she put on her tudung collection in visiting the mosques.

          1. i think we got the wrong target. kalau dia pakai tudung even jilbab going to churches, clubbing, shopping malls etc, itu dia punya kebebasan (dia nak pakai ‘one piece’ ka atau ‘two-piece’ ka, saya tak teringin nak kerling2 apatah lagi nak tengok). awat ajk (qariah) masjid/surau jemput atau terima kehadiran dia knowing damn well her intention. atas nama wakil rakyat? ada banyak tempat2 awam boleh diguna.

            1. re: “awat ajk (qariah) masjid/surau jemput atau terima kehadiran dia knowing damn well her intention”

              PAS people lah. Not Umno folks inviting her.

              1. Helen, are you aware that most mosques/suraus have been controlled by pas since 2008? ajk umno dah terkeluar ring.

                1. Yes, I’ve been told.

                  I’ve also blogged that Umno should recover their footing in the mosques.

                    1. Thanks. Helen gonna be taking a rest from the hard work.

                      The die is cast already.

                    2. RALAT

                      ‘UMNO dan PAS adalah common enemy’

                      ada common enemy…

                      Helen, permainan baru nak bermula..rugi la kalau you takde? National history in the making as we speak…

                    3. If things are already taking their course, then I can sit back and watch the show.

  2. Christians cherry pick the bible to suit their whims and fancies. By right they can’t consume pork.

    Leviticus 11:7-8

    And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

      1. They should also have ‘transformer’ jesus; the one which can transform to any of their likings.

      2. Lebih 1.5 b umat Islam ( kalau pamdai mengaji ) boleh membaca mana-mana ayat dlm Al Quran pada nada yg sama kerana tiada pengubahsuaian ( di larang sama sekali ) semenjak di turunkan kepada Nabi Muhammad sehingga kini.

        Agama Islam ialah agama yg “serious”.

        Sikap hari ini suka besok benci ,keluar masuk macam naik LRT amatlah di tegah . Sebab itu orang yg murtad dalam Islam ialah di hukum bunuh !
        Bunyinya terlalu extreme tetapi itulah hakikatnya .

        1. re: “Agama Islam ialah agama yg ‘serious’.”

          Agama evangelista ialah agama di mana gereja mereka kelihatan seperti sebuah casino.


          Agama evangelista ialah agama di mana ruang sembahyang mereka kelihatan seperti pentas bagi persembahan konsert pop.


          Agama evangelista ialah agama di mana pastor mereka kelihatan seperti seorang pop star ala Lady Gaga.


          Agama evangelista ialah agama di mana qariah mereka, terutamanya golongan belia dan remaja, menari gaya zumba.


          Tak terjadinya pertembungan tamadun ke?

        2. ‘Sebab itu orang yg murtad dalam Islam ialah di hukum bunuh’

          glory be to Allah.

          004.137 Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way.

          there are many other verses that recognize human rights and freedom of choice as far as belief is concerned i.e. there is no compulsion in religion.

          murtad kena hukum bunuh, then how do you explain ‘those who believe, then disbelieve and then believe (again), then disbelieve?

          hari ini dia islam (percaya), esok dia murtad (tak percaya), kena bunuh, jadi dia dah tidak ada peluang untuk percaya balik.

          show me what surah & verse no. that prescribes death penalty for apostasy. maybe i could have missed it. tq.

            1. tq LY, bukan dia sorang yg tulis benda tu. see following;

              006.114 Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained ? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers.

              009.031 They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

              so, you decide!

            2. Correct quran does not mention about murtad punishment. However for those in the dark Islamic teaching is based on quran and hadis. And there are lots of our prophet mohamad saying death as punishment for murtad even in the bible says the same what…

              1. azre, the collection of ahadith (plural for hadith) was done 200-300 years after the demise of the prophet s.a.w. those are the REPORTED sayings and deeds of the prophet. 200-300 years is equivalent to about 5 & 8 generations. can you recall what your grandfather or grandmother told you, say 10 to 15 years ago?

                you can refer to lebai google for the biography of each of the 5 to 6 so-called renowned collectors (not narrators), there you will see their origin, age, no of ahadith collected, methodology used etc, and you can do your own analysis. but there’s no mention of places visited for their tasks. remember at that time, bukan saja burung besi, basikal pun belum dicipta.

                disclaimer – i don’t reject ahadith

                1. ‘can you recall what your grandfather or grandmother told you, say 10 to 15 years ago?’

                  Memang lah tak. Tapi Nabi Muhammad SAW ni sama ke macam tok nenek kita?

                  1. adoi, was i talking about the prophet? REPORTED repeat REPORTED, kalau tak faham, baca slow slow my comments.

          1. ” i.e. there is no compulsion in religion. ” Then why is it in Malaysia, Muslims are not allowed to convert to another religion? Are you telling me that the politicians here have manipulated the religion for their own personal benefit?

            1. no, not telling you nothin’ neither implying nothin’. just quoted the verses and asking. that is all.

            2. The verse is meant for non believers, the verse sent when a conflict arises between a muslim father with his 2 sons who are non believer. He was talking with superiority of a father to his sons to embrace islam. Upon rejection by his sons, he brought the matter to Nabi Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. And this verse is revealed. (This is not in qur’an translation, it is in the Asbabun Nuzul)

              Hope this answer you.

              wallahu ta’ala a’lam.

              1. ‘The verse is meant for non believers’

                i take it that you fully agree with the interpretation. that being the case, i think such opinion is tantamount to claiming that ‘002.256 there is no compulsion in religion’ contradicts ‘004.137 Lo! those who believe, then disbelieve and then (again) believe, then disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them unto a way’.

                so, you also agree that the verse 002.256 is a license to put a murtad to death. yes?

                interpretations of this nature are the ones giving bad name to islam. ahadith are to affirm (validate, confirm) the quranic verses, never used for interpretations. Allah’s words are the ones that do the interpretation. this is an example. your prayer will not be valid without saying it;

                001.001 In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
                001.002 Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds,
                001.003 The Beneficent, the Merciful.
                001.004 Master of the Day of Judgment,
                001.005 Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.
                001.006 Show us the straight path,
                001.007 The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.

                some opine there are 3 routes, i.e. 1. straight, 2. favored and 3. disfavored. in fact, there are only 2, i.e. either you on track or derailed. so, the favored path is to interprete the straight one.

                steady la bro.

      3. And you condemn the Charlie Hebdo magazine for caricaturing a central figure of Islam?

        While it is ok to make fun of the way that Christ is depicted?

        That’s a low blow, even for you.

        As I posted before, it may be driven by your visceral hatred for Christians and Christianity.

        But history tells us that Christianity overcame greater persecutions than this and continued to thrive.

        1. re: “While it is ok to make fun of the way that Christ is depicted?”

          If you think that the various depictions of Jesus are “funny”, then you should address the artists who drew/sculptured them.

          And for your info, it is not the Muslims and the Buddhists who are disrespectful of Jesus. All the curses attached to Jesus’s name (for example, like those heard in the movies) are uttered by white men/characters in the Christian countries.

          You do not hear Jesus’ name being coupled with swear words in Arab or Chinese movies but in American and English movies.

          1. RE: “But history tells us that Christianity overcame greater persecutions than this and continued to thrive.”

            You sure Christianity can overcome Helen’s solo anti-crusade against all things evangelista? And still thrive in the face of Helen’s recycled tweets and photos?

            Bro, that’s setting a pretty low bar.

            1. :D

              The Hannah tweets on stoning punishment is recent, tweeted in the past couple of days or so.

          2. Betoi Betoi Betoi. The Rithmatist salah parking la brader. Kiasu sangat jadi macam tu la. Apasal Singapore sempit sangat ke brader, kalau tak apasal kau tak habis2 nak menyemak kat sini?

    1. Not true. This is why I don’t think anyone should comment on religious texts unless they have a detailed knowledge of them. As a Christian,I used to think that the Qur’an and Hadith were filled with violent texts, but then was told by my Malay friend that my interpretations were wrong.

      There were several foods under the Mosaic Law that Israelites were forbidden to eat. Pigs were just one of those things. The reason Christians can eat all of those things with only the prohibition on blood remaining is because we are no longer under this law. Jesus fulfilled the law when he laid down his life as the final sacrifice making him “The last Adam” and the “Lamb of God”.

      Also, if you read Acts 10:9-15, Peter was told in a vision that God had sanctified these foods.

      Acts 10:9-15

      The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour[b] to pray. 10 And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance 11 and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

      1. There is considerable scholarly evidence that the Acts of the Apostles was authored by Luke who also compiled his gospel on Jesus Christ. Luke was a disciple of Paul of Tarsus who is universally acclaimed as the source of Trinitarian Christianity. This was not the teachings of Yahshua the Messiah (Isa ibn Maryam) and Paul who was never a disciple of Jesus or Yahshua. Paul dogmatized Jesus into a God of sacrificial blood proclaimed as the atonement for all humanity’s sins until Day of Judgement! And Emperor Constantine sealed this reprehensible innovation into official Roman Catholic Church doctrine.
        The account of Peter’s dream in the Acts of the Apostles is highly suspect. He, like all Jesus’ apostles of the Jerusalem Church adhered strictly to the Mosaic law – pig meat and food offered to roman deities would have been definitely prohibited.

        1. The Dead Sea scrolls have been criticised by most Christian scholars, and similar texts in terms of content were not acknowledged as being inspired by the early Church. Remember, there were over three hundred books floating around at the time, and the Church only deemed twenty seven to be inspired and fit to make the New Testament collection.

          Anyway, the Gospels are filled with examples as to why the Mosaic Laws are no longer applicable. A few extracts below.

          Matthew 15: 1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

          What Defiles a Man?

          Matthew 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”12Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”

          As you can see from the last line, the Pharisees who were Jewish High Priests, did not agree with Christ’s teachings and got offended by them.

          There are many more examples where the old Mosaic laws were done away with in the New Testament. I ask people who are trying to discredit Christianity to do a bit more research into the matter and not just cherry pick verses that may be taken out of context to prove their positions.

          1. Please forward your evidence that the majority of Biblical scholars have been critical of the authenticity of Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts.
            Which gospels according to you are filled with examples that nullify the Ten Commandemnts or the Mosaic Law?
            Emperor Constantine’s Nicene Council of the 4th century canonized particular “gospel narrations” while discrediting others as apocrypha. So what are you trying to state about the authenticity your “New Testament”?

            1. Bro, I don’t have to prove anything to you. If you would like to do more research, use Google perhaps.

              The burden of proof does not lie with me. I am not trying to prove the authenticity of Biblical texts, I along with every practicing Christian clearly believe in its authenticity. You on the other hand are trying to discredit it, and that’s your prerogative, so go ahead. But you will find that countless scholars over the centuries have not found any inconsistencies or contradictions in the books of the NT and how they flow together.

              A study of typology might also interest you on how the OT is revealed in the NT and how the NT is hidden in the OT. This certainly gives a lot of credibility to the context of the NT and goes a long way towards proving its authenticity.

              All I was trying to do is to use the existing texts to prove why eating pork is no longer prohibited under the new law. Since the original poster made a claim that Christians cherry pick certain verses from the Bible, by quoting from the Bible to prove his point, I simply used verses from the same source to disprove his statement . As you can see from the Acts of the Apostles and the extracts from Matthew above, it’s clear that pork is not haram to Christians.

              1. Bro. rather than discrediting “Christianity” of which you accuse us, we are trying to establish the factual scholarship which you claim discredits the reliability of Dead Sea Scrolls evidence.

                In fact, if you had bothered to google for it, you would realize that together with the Nag Hammadi manuscripts in Egypt the archaelogical evidence points to the messianic character of Prophet Yahshua as the saviour of the religion of Moses and Aaron against the corruption and cruel intriques of the Roman conquerors and their Jewish stooges.

                The religion of Yahshua was inherited by his direct disciples, the Ebionites (lit. “poor ones”) and centered in Jerusalem with James the Just, Jesus’ brother as its leader.

                On the other hand, Paul’s highway conversion came about 20 years after the ascension of Jesus the Messiah. Would you not credit the testimony of James, Peter, John, Thomas, Matthew and the other apostles as authentic or would you discredit them for Paul’s religion as we know trinitarian Nicene Christianity today?

                (Mark 12:29)
                One of the (Jewish) scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that he (Jesus) had answered them well, asked him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’…

                (Quran, sura 19 Maryam, ayat 30-33)
                He (Isa) said: “I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (Allah) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!”

                As to the point you made above, I am not defending those who cherry-pick scriptural verses to prove their own biases, but neither do we make claims about religious truths without the illumination of reason upon authentic scriptural evidence.
                The link below may be useful background knowledge if you wish to understand how Prophet Jesus or Isa ibn Maryam, peace be upon him, is held in Islam:


              2. Hi Sudesh,

                your ‘the burden of proof does not lie with me’ statement reminds me of a conversation (not a debate) between an atheist and theist. it goes like this;

                atheist: you say that god exists, then prove his existence.
                theist: you insist that god doesn’t exist, then prove its non-existence.
                atheist: how to prove existence of a non-entity since it doesn’t exist.
                theist: you don’t make fun about my god, i can punch on your face you know?
                atheist: oh, mau tumbuk saya la, ok then what?

                very kelakar la. to me they are the believers, they have belief, only diff is one’s belief contradicts the other. but none can’t prove their claims. (its existence and its non-existence).

                1. Kampung lad, if you view my initial post, I was responding to the poster named g who questioned the Christian interpretation of Biblical scripture in its relation to eating pork. He did not question the authenticity of it, and hence I replied accordingly. Another poster decided to take the discussion somewhere else, and frankly I have not the time or the patience to go through that atm. And I also doubt that it can be done on a platform like this. So my statement that the ‘burden of proof does not lie with me’ on providing the authenticity of the text is perfectly reasonable.

                  1. sudesh, well it doesn’t matter where your response was directed at. just said that the statement reminded me of the conversations between the two individuals. so, my comments henceforth were in that context. no other meaning nor harm intended. cheers!

  3. re, bagi evangelist ,’Allah’ milik mereka ,tapi hukum Hudud ditolak.

    Tak ke pelik tu , takgitu ?.

    1. UMNO ADUNs must support hudud because a Muslim must support laws and principles of their faith.

      In fact all Christian ADUNs and MPs should not reject hudud which has its references in the book of Leviticus. By rejecting the laws of God related to Moses, Christian ADUNs and MPs violate the teachings of the Old Testament.


      (The outlines provided by commentaries are similar, though not identical; compare those of Wenham, Hartley, Milgrom, and Watts)[6][7][8][9]

      I. Laws on sacrifice (1:1–7:38)

      A. Instructions for the laity on bringing offerings (1:1–6:7)

      1–5. The types of offering: burnt, cereal, peace, purification, reparation (or sin) offerings (ch. 1–5)

      B. Instructions for the priests (6:1–7:38)

      1–6. The various offerings, with the addition of the priests’ cereal offering (6:1–7:36)
      7. Summary (7:37–38)

      II. Institution of the priesthood (8:1–10:20)

      A. Ordination of Aaron and his sons (ch. 8)
      B. Aaron makes the first sacrifices (ch. 9)
      C. Judgement on Nadab and Abihu (ch. 10)

      III. Uncleanliness and its treatment (11:1–15:33)

      A. Unclean animals (ch. 11)
      B. Uncleanliness caused by childbirth (ch. 12)
      C. Unclean diseases (ch. 13)
      D. Cleansing of diseases (ch. 14)
      E. Unclean discharges (ch. 15)

      IV. Day of Atonement: purification of the tabernacle from the effects of uncleanliness and sin (ch. 16)

      V. Prescriptions for practical holiness (the Holiness Code, chs. 17–26)

      A. Sacrifice and food (ch. 17)
      B. Sexual behaviour (ch. 18)
      C. Neighbourliness (ch.19)
      D. Grave crimes (ch. 20)
      E. Rules for priests (ch. 21)
      F. Rules for eating sacrifices (ch. 22)
      G. Festivals (ch.23)
      H. Rules for the tabernacle (ch. 24:1–9)
      I. Blasphemy (ch. 24:10–23)
      J. Sabbatical and Jubilee years (ch. 25)
      K. Exhortation to obey the law: blessing and curse (ch. 26)

      V. Redemption of votive gifts (ch. 27)

      Remember if these DAP Christian MPs and ADUNs reject the laws of God they are answerable to God. And we Man will reject them as Unbelievers.

      1. do the christians believe in allah, his messenger muhammad & the quran? do they acknowledge & recognize islam? same questions can be posed to the jews concerning the new testament. no way will they ever accept ‘hudud’.

        1. yo kampong lad; most of the religions and beliefs do believe in “Allah’ as the Most Mighty; THE difference is that they don’t believe in Muhammad s.a.w as His Prophet (and his preaches). That’s all. Read al Kaafirun verses. Simple.

          1. yo rtgbud, your comprehension skill is not up to mark la, do you want me to ‘translate’ for you? the context is hudud & allah. you said that most believe in allah, only diff is that they (non-muslims) don’t accept the prophet. well, who doesn’t know that?

            the syariah criminal law is based on quran & the deeds & sayings of the prophet. since they don’t believe in both the prophet & quran, ‘no way will they ever accept ‘hudud’ was my comments to the entry no. 30.

            now, i take it that you are a believer. naturally, you believe in allah & his existence, then prove his existence and is allah also a god?.

      2. re: UMNO ADUNs must support hudud because a Muslim must support laws and principles of their faith.

        Why limit to support? Should include implementation as well.

        UMNO/BN was commanding majority support in Parliament and many states since Merdeka till today. Yet with 2/3 majority, no effort to implement hudud by Umno. In fact, this majority was used to deny the hudud implementation of Kelantan by PAS in 1993.

        1. yo Canon, simple; UMNO (maybe, just maybe; with the exception of kelantanese umno) at large shiver with that Hudud word. Why? Simple. You ride a motorbike without license and road tax. how would you feel when you see a road block in front? Same with UMNO. Why scare when you did no wrong? (and would do further wrongs – in the eyes of laws and Islam) SIMPLE la weyy

        2. “Yet with 2/3 majority, no effort to implement hudud by Umno.” – Only one person strong enough during that period to sway Umno – TDM. He didn’t agree with hudud that is not comprehensive, that differentiated between the Muslims and the non-Muslims.

          1. re: “hudud that is not comprehensive, that differentiated between the Muslims and the non-Muslims”

            Hudud for all. Fair.

            DAP evangelistas and the PAS Pak Lebai’s are brothers and sisters, and DAP always fighting for equality.

            Since PAS hudud will be punishing apostasy, maybe they’ll add on the crime of blasphemy too. Death to those who blaspheme Allah by claiming He has a Son.

            1. “Death to those who blaspheme Allah by claiming He has a Son.”

              I really don’t know what you are trying to say, but I think you should really stop writing on anything to do with Christianity. You clear have no idea about the religion, its teachings, and its followers.

      3. Ooh….quoting from the Book of Leviticus, are we?

        How very convenient!

        It must be your credentials as a biblical scholar that allows you to post such informed opinions.

        Now, if you will excuse me, I believe that there is a tapas menu with Jamon ham as a specialty that I’ve been wanting to sample….hahaha.

  4. I remember watching on u tube a debate between ahmed deedat n jimmy swaggart in d mid seventies (in USA). d topic was “is d bible god’s words’. ahmad deedat proved that d bible contains : 1) God’s words; 2) Christ’s words ;3) words of historians n 4) pornography.

    in that debate many believed ahmad deedat won hands down.

    if u hv d time pls search d debate on u tube.

    1. Because she threatened to make a police report against anyone who mistakes her for a Muslim.

      1. Ms H. She is always seen in a Muslim dress eating haram food.. For this she should be banned from wearing a Muslim dress and doing something haram. Thus she decries the sanctity of the Muslim religion. Do we take it that she has the best of both World’s Muslim and Christian ? Or she is just a thick skin pol of the 4th Order ?

        1. re: “She is always seen in a Muslim dress eating haram food..”

          Not sure about that. She was driving around Subang Jaya looking for food and she tweeted that she ate dry Bak Kut Teh. No idea what she was wearing during the craving and food hunt.

          1. Everytime she tweets her Bak Kut Teh craving. Copy and paste excerpts from Leviticus.

            4 “‘There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. 5 The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 6 The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. 7 And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

            We can save her from temptations of the Devils and pagans who tempt and sell her the BKT.

        2. Really? Is the dress code Mafia in town?

          I wonder what is the de rigueur dress for eating bak kut teh? A cheongsam, samfoo or baju Baba?

          And I suppose that it is a no-no to enjoy a steak while wearing a saree?

          1. re: “And I suppose that it is a no-no to enjoy a steak while wearing a saree?”

            Not sure whether you (The Rithmatist) is addressing Uncle Ed or me but I’ll put in my two sen anyway.

            I’d like to see Hannah Yeoh eat Bak Kut Teh when she’s wearing baju kurung with the ubiquitous selendang draped around her head.

            1. Why can’t she?

              Do Muslims have a monopoly of the baju kurung and the selendang?

              You might as well stop them from wearing tight teeshirts, skinny jeans, sleeveless tops and such like!

              Anyway, Rithmatist was talking about wearing a saree and eating beef.

              I have seen Indian women doing this in Mumbai and New Delhi. No thought police around to clap them in irons.

              So what’s with the attempt to demonise Hannah Yeoh….again?

              Are you worried that all your diatribes isn’t impacting adversely her electability?

              That would be embarrassing, wouldn’t it?

              1. re: “Are you worried that all your diatribes isn’t impacting adversely her electability?”

                Of course she will be reelected. No doubt whatsoever. She’s very safe because her constituency is full of sheeple.

                There were people foolish enough to believe that a busload of phantom voters had stopped at their polling centre (Chee Wen school at USJ 1, Subang Jaya) around 4.00pm on GE13 polling day (5 May 2013).

                Hannah Yeoh’s constituency has 61,688 voters. She garnered 40,366 votes. Her majority was a whopping 28,069.

                Obviously the sheeple don’t have a brain. Why in the world would the ‘enemy’/opponent send phantom voters to a DAP stronghold where it is already known that the incumbent obtained a whopping majority of 23,459 votes in the previous election (GE12 in 2008)?

                If there really were phantom voters on standby, wouldn’t it have been smarter to deploy them to an area where an Umno minister lost narrowly?

        3. yo guys; why the need to label muslim dress? Is eskimo’s dress need to be labelled the same? HA HA HA a dress is a dress. Created and revolutionised vide racial/ethnic historical background. just from a highly-hormoned libido male view: the more a lady covers her body, the more luscious men could be (imagination baby! imagination!) that’s why a glimpse of a covered lady’s calf is more sensuous than a full naked one. SIMPLE. AND, if you buy a dress, do you buy the sample unit or the one covered by plastic? ha ha ha ha SIMPLE!!

  5. selamat pagi (chosan) Helen.

    depa tak mau hudud tapi nama Allah nak kongsi. i want to know whether they want to kongsi this too. 101% depa mau.

    muslims are subjected to both civil & syariah laws. e.g. alcohol drinking is an offense against the state according to syariah law but it is not in the civil law. so, non-muslims have no problems and neither do i. to be fair to the muslims, i would propose that payment of zakat would be made compulsory in substitution for civil income tax. zakat adalah salah satu dari rukun islam. present rate 2.5% flat.

    apa macam?

    1. “i would propose that payment of zakat would be made compulsory in substitution for civil income tax.”

      There are two forms of zakat. Not just only zakat for the individual. Remember there is also zakat perniagaan.

  6. (My question here is: Would an adulterer in the New Testament be put to death?)

    The answer is yes. The death of Anne Boleyn is due to her adultery and treason. Her death is due to canon law practiced back thrn.

    Treason laws do carry the death penalty. UK has abolished the desth penalty by head chopping but treason laws are still there.


      “For the suppressing of the abominable and crying sins of Incest, Adultery and Fornication, wherewith this Land is much defiled, and Almighty God highly displeased; Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament, That if any person or persons whatsoever, shall from and after the Four and twentieth day of June, in the year of our Lord One thousand six hundred and fifty, Marry, or have the carnal knowledge of the Body of his or her Grandfather or Grandmother, Father or Mother, Brother or Sister, Son or Daughter, or Grandchilde, Fathers Brother or Sister, Mothers Brother or Sister, Fathers Wife, Mothers Husband, Sons Wife, Daughters Husband, Wives Mother or Daughter, Husbands Father or Son; all and every such Offences are hereby adjudged and declared Incest: And every such Offence shall be, and is hereby adjudged Felony; and every person offending therein, and confessing the same, or being thereof convicted by verdict upon Indict ment or Presentment, before any Judge or Justices at the Assize or Sessions of the Peace, shall suffer DEATH as in case of Felony, without benefit of Clergy: And all and every such Marriage and Marriages are hereby declared and adjudged to be void in Law, to all intents and purposes; and the Children begotten between such persons, notwithstanding any contract or solemnization of Marriage, to be illegitimate, and altogether disabled to claim or inherit any Lands or Inheritance whatsoever, by way of descent from, or to receive or challenge any Childes Portion in any Goods or Chattels of their said Parents, or any other Ancestor of such Parents.”

      Incest, Adultery and Fornication = >Almighty God highly displeased => shall suffer DEATH as in case of Felony, without benefit of Clergy:=> to be illegitimate, and altogether DISABLED to claim or inherit any Lands or Inheritance whatsoever

      In the old UK laws, adultery is punishable by death and any bastards cannot inherit any property.

  7. yo Ms Ang, you really really mystifies me. Serious. Funny but unpredictable. Who the hell are you? What is your mission in Malaysia now? where did you really come from? wish could see you beyond your current skin. really. no sarcasm. Do you bathe in morning? do you wash after defecating? do you take ablution (your rite) after copulation? mein got… I am really really mystified..

  8. islam1st,

    ‘OK la, aku consider kau dah baca komen aku ‘slow slow’

    kalau gian sangat nak berdebat, stick to the topic, jgn terkeluar landasan. bila kita cakap berkenaan pinggan (collection of narrators’ words – your grandfather heard from his father who heard from his granduncle who heard from his grandmother, so on & so forth), hang cakap hal piring (comparison between the prophet & tok nenek hang).

    since you touched on the prophet (for no reason), let me tell you about him in case you don’t know; the name was muhammad bin abdullah, a human being, born, survived on food and water, lived, married and had children & had returned to his maker.

    he was appointed by Allah to be the last prophet whose sole duty was to deliver His message. that’s all. if he was ‘potraited’ (which he strictly prohibited) and have it plastered onto your house walls, what would you do, worship him?

          1. you moniker is islam1st, now tell me apa itu agama islam?

            liberalis & plularis hanya ciptaan barat, if you know the real meaning of islam, there won’t be any words and phrases such as unislamic, less islamic, liberal muslim, islam hadhari, islamic country, islamic banking & what have you. these are all product brands.

            tell me also, is allah similar to god & are they interchangeable? teringin la nak belajaq dari hang, islam1st, boleh?

Comments are closed.