Posted in Evangelista Bintang Tiga

Deranged Dapsters defend their Hannah delusion

The attack by Hannah Yeoh cult followers on Dr Kamarul is quite, quite demented.

And the deplorable pro-DAP media deciding to canonize Hannah is beyond disgusting.

I will say to them only this:



I have no Faceook or Twitter.

54 thoughts on “Deranged Dapsters defend their Hannah delusion

  1. Helen,

    Those who support DAP usually are unable to think rationally.

    By the way, here are names of Malay politicians whom I believe strongly will not survive the next election.

    1) Khalid Samad, MP for Shah Alam
    2) Mujahid Rawa, MP for Bagan serai
    3) Mahfuz, MP for Pokok SEna
    4) Nizar

    All of them won PAS tickets. With them joining PAN or supporting PAN while still carrying PAS card member, they certainly lost the Malay votes from PAS side.

    5)Muhyiddin , MP from UMNO side.
    Muhyiddin’s days as politician is coming to its end.

    Those in danger zone including Azmin who lost vital support from PAS. Not to mention Rafizi. Rafizi is much more popular among non malays but without significant malay votes.

    But the “CROWNING GLORY” would be MOHD SABU. He lost elections 3 times consecutively. And I know and I am sure he will still be rejected in next election.

    AND UMNO, please replace Tengku Adnan. Carilah yg muda sikit.

    1. quote,”AND UMNO, please replace Tengku Adnan. Carilah yg muda sikit.” unquote.

      You should have named Najib, instead.

  2. “But the “CROWNING GLORY” would be MOHD SABU. He lost elections 3 times consecutively. And I know and I am sure he will still be rejected in next election.”

    LKS and LGE will put Mat Sabooo in Chinese majority area to ensure their puppet will remain alive. And easily pull the strings..

    1. Doubt it! DAPig LGE is tto racist to allow Mike Syaboo to stand at Chinese majority constituent!

  3. Kamarul, for a dr, he’s quite stupid and insecure……well, this is what NEP produces besides rich umno politicians…..

    1. Dr Kamarul’s reasoning is perfectly sound. It is Hannah who’s manipulative.

      1. Hannah may be manipulative but she’s perfectly entitled to write about her faith in her autobiography. She hasn’t insulted other religions in her book as far as I am aware. If some moozie bigot gets offended by it, it’s his problem.

        In which universe is Kamarul’s reasoning perfectly sound?

        Before we know it, Helen and Kamarul will be asking the film board to ban the Fast and Furious movies because Vin Diesel has a crucifix around his neck.

        1. Dr Kamarul’s initial FB post that went viral contended that she’s bringing her ‘pentecostal’ (my word to describe Hannah’s brand of evangelical Christianity) into her politics.

          If DAP is indeed secular, then Hannah should not be campaigning like Hadi, all religion-infused.

      2. some may found this kamarul reasoning is fine, personally i think his reasoning sound like communist n taliban, though not all communist n taliban r stupid n extreme.

        1. i thint kamarul have only one reason? or many? i dun really know. taliban claim buddha statute as idolisation, n communist china wan to ban winnie the pooh to limit foreign influence. dun u think they all sound similar?

          1. Dr Kamarul’s viral FB post and police report on Becoming Hannah are both on record and available to the public.

            What exactly did he say about Hannah that you find unreasonable?

            1. His initial post on Hannah mixing her religious convictions with politics may have been fair, but he needs to back it up with evidence otherwise he is liable for defamation.

              His police report however is extremely unreasonable and idiotic. He claims to have a great admiration for the Christian God after reading her book and constitutes this as proselytising. Using his silly argument, any bookshop that sells the Bible to the public could also have police reports made against them for proselytising.

              1. re: “(He claims) to have a great admiration for the Christian God after reading her book”

                Where is the source material?

                1. This is what I found:

                  “Kesemua cerita ini boleh dorong pembacanya, termasuk saya, merasa kagum dengan kehebatan Tuhan Hannah. Sedangkan pada masa lain beliau selit pula catatan mengenai ajaran Kristian yang bertentangan dengan Islam.”

                  The phrase he uses is “boleh dorong”, i.e. conditional or speculative. Dr Kamarul did not claim that he was turned over by Hannah’s book to become an admirer of her God.

                  It’s the media doing its usual spin … sigh.

                  1. Parallel example: Even I (“termasuk saya”) might be tempted to order an air-flown turkey after watching that scrumptious X’mas ad.

                    “Might” = “boleh didorong” doesn’t mean that Helen Ang actually went and ordered that turkey.

                    1. Regardless, it’s an absolute silly reason to make a report. She wrote a book about her life, in which her religion plays a big part. Big deal. It’s an autobiography, people tend to write about what’s important to them and what shaped them. Don’t read it if you are so easily influenced.

                      By stating that he and others could be drawn into admiration of Hannah’s God based on the biblical verses she quoted, he is implying that he finds the Christian scriptures to be more inspiring than his own.

                      Anyway, how far is this going to go when Muslims are going to take offence to just about every damn thing that’s said or published. It’s beyond ridiculous already.

                      I don’t even know why they are so afraid. There is zero chance of Muslims deflecting to Christianity when the country’s laws clearly prohibits conversion to other religions. They have nothing to worry about.

                    2. It was frivolous and vexatious of Hannah to make a police report against Dr Kamarul.

                      She can’t even take the slightest bit of criticism before siccing the Rottweilers on her critics.

            2. “coax, influence and instigate non-Christians to convert or deepen their interest in Christian teachings.”

              1. It’s a fair comment since the term ‘non-Christians’ applies to the Chinese Buddhist and Indian Hindu demographics that are being targeted by the evangelistas.

                In your quote, Dr Kamarul did not specify or particularize that the coaxing, influencing and instigating were being applied on Malays/Muslims, which would be against M’sian law.

                1. i never claim kamarul comment unfair or unreasonable, thats y I said “some may found this kamarul reasoning is fine, personally i think his reasoning sound like communist n Taliban”

                  just curious, could it be u think what the communist n taliban did is not fair and not reasonable?

                  1. I think the Bintang Tiga and the Red Guards who terrorized the Chinese countryside have found their legacy heirs today in the Dapsters.

                    I strongly condemn the Taliban, especially their blowing up of the Bamiyan statues.

                    1. Prophetic Teachings:
                      On being a faithful Muslim:

                      “An ideal Muslim is one from whose tongue and hands mankind is safe, and a true emigrant [muhajir] is one who departs from what God has forbidden.”

                      The Messenger of God, pbuh said to me (Anas), “Son, as much as you are able to, keep your heart – from morning till night, and from night till morning – free from malice towards anyone; then he exclaimed, “Oh my son! this is one of my laws, and he who loves my laws loves me.”

                      “The best of God’s servants are those who, when they are seen, reminds one of godliness; and the worst of God’s servants are those who carry tales about to cause mischief and separate friends, and who seek out the defects of good people.”

    1. at least he walk the talk, unlike many that move to / seek asylum in kafir land.

      1. hhmmm….i agree

        muslims should move to muslim land while kafirs should move to kafir land

        so DAPs and HINDRAFTs please walk the talk and move out from muslim land

        1. aiyo kawan, u must learn how to infer my implied message. tis zakir naik choose sa bec msia is not a muslim land la. if u oso prefer a muslim land, y not u follow suit?

          just kidding la, of course u n me will stay here bec we r all msian mah.

          1. malaysia is muslim majority country

            you need to know the diffrence between islam and muslim so next time tak silap buat comment

            P/S: malaysia is a muslim majority country and the official/state religion is islam…….no kidding

            1. truth,

              The federal constitution does not say Islam is our “official religion” (agama rasmi).
              It says “Islam is the religion of the Federation”.

              The wording has been interpreted as meaning M’sia itu Islam, jiwa dan raga. This is even stronger than official religion designation.

              1. Spot on, Helen.

                Islam is not the official religion… it is just the religion of the federation.

                In other words, the constitution is secular. So lets live with it

                1. Don’t be facetious.

                  Islam is THE Religion of the Federation takes the faith more seriously than mentioning it as “official religion”.

                  Some countries have two or more official languages. What is there to stop a country from having a second official religion?

                  On the other hand, Islam as “the” religion indicates one and only. Islam is the lifeblood of the nation.

                    1. Sure, it’s called secular laws (criminal and civil laws). And these laws are enshrined in our constitution.

                      In order for our constitution to NOT be secular, we have to abolish secular laws and replace it with… religious laws?

                      Therefore, our constitution is actually very secular. We just have a dual justice system; secular for non-muslims and sharia+secular for muslims…haha

                    2. If Malaysia were truly a secular country, our Muslims need not be subject to any kind of religious law at all.

                    3. Yes, they do have to live their lives under secular laws plus religious laws.

                      For non-muslims it is strictly just secular laws, no religious laws applicable

                    4. If Malaysia were truly a secular country, our Muslims need not be subject to any kind of religious law at all.

                      Which part of the above sentence do you fail to understand?

                    5. Prophetic Teachings:
                      On Islam:

                      “Every religion has a distinctive virtue, and the distinctive virtue of Islam is modesty.”
                      “Anyone who walks with a wrongdoer in order to strengthen him knowing all the while that he is a wrongdoer, has departed from Islam.”

                    6. “I’m an atheist…I regard religion with fear and suspicion. It’s not enough to say that I don’t believe in God. I actually regard the system as distressing: I am offended by some of the things said in the Bible and the Koran, and I refute them.”

                      – Emma Thompson

                    7. “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
                      “Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of values.”

                      – Albert Einstein

                    8. “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”

                      -Albert Einstein

                    9. “In my experience, eloquent men are right every bit as often as imbeciles.” -Tyrion Lannister

            2. nope, thats y u need to use the word majority, pas have to talk abt 2/3 n 355, even the constitution have to stress the federation religion. u dun need all this if msia a muslim land.

              1. PAS talks about RUU355 simple majority because parliament requires 112 MPs voting ‘Yes’ in order to amend a law. This is legislative procedure pertaining to one particular Act of law.

                They’re not voting to determine whether M’sia is Muslim or not.

                In fact, some of the laws are basic structure. So I doubt that even with a 2/3 majority – and putting aside the other matter of rulers’ assent – I doubt that Article 3 can be touched.

                  1. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Its cabinet ministers are the royal family and princes.

                    If we were like Brunei, then the Sultan can unilaterally decide on the shape which the country’s syariah should take.

                    1. i can agree we r not secular, but we r still more secular than islamic, especially in the context of law.

        2. you want the cinas and indians to move out, you gotta start a civil war. The cinas and indians are Malaysian citizens……are you up to it?? or is this the usual “just talking cock”?

          1. Why are you people so extreme ?

            HY was the one who asked me to move to muslim land. This land Malaysia is muslim land. I am muslim so there is no need for me to do so. the kafir ones who need to move to kafir land (based on her own statement). I was agreeing with him/her, so what’s wrong with that ? I was supporting his/her own statement.

            Now you come with ‘civil war’ idea (another extreme comment)
            Fikir la sikit, what ethnics are there in the armies and police force ?

            HY and you started it first then nak jadi kurang ajar pulak. Tak perlulah nak guna dirty words.
            Tak perlu nak halau sesiapa pun.

            Civil war konon…..fikir la sikit

            Bangsa yang paling tak takut dengan civil war adalah bangsa melayu…baca balik what I wrote above. Tak perlu lagi I nak ulang

            1. surrhead where got extreme, his is obviously a if then statement, u dun twist each n every sentence n still use a nick like truth, its malukan, i suggest u chng to false.

              1. Not extreme when he said ‘WAR’ ???

                who twist the sentence ?

                you wrote this,
                “at least he walk the talk, unlike many that move to / seek asylum in kafir land”

                when i agree, then only you realized of your failure to walk your own talk then you came out with,

                “aiyo kawan, u must learn how to infer my implied message”
                (twisting your own word so that the earlier statement looks good, in fact it looks more twisted – sama macam FMT & malaysiakini)

                then twist lagi,
                “just kidding la”

                lepas tu tuduh I pulak….memang typical Hannah Yeoh

                I think you are the one TAK MALU

                1. false, i am referring to that shit stirrer that have to move n seek asylum in other countries, what tis have to do with hindraf n dap? of course if this 2 wan to move, i would say the same. u have reading deficiency kah?

                  1. HY,

                    No western nation will accept that shit stirrer so he has no choice but to hide in a Muslim country.

Comments are closed.