The Fear of Holy Books


By Farish A. Noor

Not too long ago, a certain Dutch politician – Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Dutch Freedom party – caused a stir in that rather flat country by suggesting that the Quran should be banned on the grounds that it was a ‘dangerous book’ that spread the message of hate and violence. As the rather pointless and tiresome debate took its course, other right-wing politicians chipped in, suggesting things such as new laws that forbade the reading of the Quran in public, limiting the sale and dissemination of the Quran in Dutch society, controlling the number of Qurans being brought into the country, etc. Needless to say, Geert Wilders got what he wanted, which was to project himself yet again on the national stage as a rather loud and outlandish advocate of far-right causes.

Predictably, the Muslim community of Holland and other European countries were upset by Wilders’ remarks. Many came to the fore to insist that all this talk about banning Qurans was part and parcel of a wider trend of Islamophobia in the EU; that it was essentially racist and that it was an attempt to rob Muslims in Europe of their fundamental rights and liberties. What offended many Muslims was the suggestion that the Quran could be seen by some as a ‘dangerous text’ which Wilders even compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf: An ironic comparison to say the least considering Wilders’ own far-right political leanings.

That Muslims would be offended by such claims and demands is understandable as no doubt most faith communities regard their sacred books as precisely that: sacred arks that bear the message of God and divine revelation. To even suggest that the Quran could be read profanely as some terrorists’ manual or guidebook for fanatics was to demean the text, and by extension Islam and Muslims.

Yet the question remains: If Muslims can get so worked up by the fact that some right-wing Dutch politician hungering for publicity can stir up a debate by demeaning the Quran, why is it that so many Muslims remain indifferent to how their fellow Muslims treat the holy texts of other faiths and belief-systems?

A case in point is the recent seizure of thirty-two Bibles from a Malaysian Christian who was on her journey back to Malaysia from the Philippines. Upon arrival in Malaysia, her bags were checked by the customs authorities and all of the Bibles were confiscated, on the grounds that they had to be vetted by the Ministry of Internal Security. But since when were Bibles deemed a security threat in Malaysia, and to whom might they pose a danger?

More worrying still is the fact that the customs officers – who we were told were Muslim – had seized the Bibles on their own initiative, despite there not being any formal ban on Bibles in the country. (After all, there are literally millions of Christians of all denominations in Malaysia and they have lived there for decades if not centuries, so why the fear of Bibles now?)

In the event the Bibles were eventually returned to the Malaysian Christian in question, but worrying doubts remain. What will be the fate of other books of other religions and belief-systems? As a scholar who teaches comparative religion, I have in my collection not only numerous editions of the Bible but also Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Tantric, Animist and Jewish texts. Are these to be screen and vetted too? And on what grounds; that as a person born to the Muslim faith (a contingency of history that I did not decide or determine, I might add) I am not allowed to read such texts for fear that I may be ‘contaminated’ by alien ideas of alien creeds?

Predictably the first to react to the seizure of the Bibles were the Christians of Malaysia. But it is sad to note that the same level of anger and outrage that was expressed by Muslims over the Muslim-bashing sentiments of a Dutch politician thousands of miles away was not evident when this outrage was perpetrated on their own shores.

Universally this has become the norm, where religious communities the world over have grown more introverted, inward-looking and consequently selfish in their motives and concerns. In the same way that non-Muslims seemed relatively indifferent to the constant Muslim-bashing that is taking place in places like Europe today; Muslims are equally indifferent when injustices such as the seizure of holy books are meted out to those who are not of their flock. Should this trend continue then we are certainly on the verge of a balkanisation of the religious communities of the world, and this spells trouble for multi-faith nations like Malaysia and the countries of the West.

The remedies are primarily political ones, which include controls on hate-speech and fear-mongering by far-right demagogues like Wilders in Holland and other equally right-wing demagogues in other communities, including Muslim communities too. But all this can only work if we begin with the fundamental premise that sacredness is not something exclusive to ourselves and our own faith community. When Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists alike realise and respect the sacredness in the other, and drop the claim that they alone monopolise all that is good and holy; perhaps then we will be one step closer to recognising the fundamental humanity we share with each other – whether we like it or not.

Dr. Farish A. Noor is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University of Singapore; and one of the founders of the www.othermalaysia.org research site.

  1. #1 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 12:15 am

    “Yet the question remains: If Muslims can get so worked up by the fact that some right-wing Dutch politician hungering for publicity can stir up a debate by demeaning the Quran, why is it that so many Muslims remain indifferent to how their fellow Muslims treat the holy texts of other faiths and belief-systems?”

    The short answer to that? Muslims are a minority in Holland. They are a majority in Malaysia.

  2. #2 by ERNEST on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 1:07 am

    The above short answer is not always right. Obama’s experience proved that brute majority did not always guarantee support for one of its kind in some states in America.

    A couple of days ago, it has just been reported in CNN news that a UK’s leading Christian leader has drawn fierce government criticism after he suggested that Islamic — or Sharia — law be used to resolve financial and domestic issues between UK Muslims.

    We in Malaysia will know first hand how accurate UK’s Culture Secretary Andy Burnham’s inductive reasoning is when he spoke on BBC1’s Question Time programme, “You cannot run two systems of law along side each other. That in my view would be a recipe for chaos, social chaos”.

    The political solution suggested by Farish A. Noor is like taking painkillers when you have toothache. The long term permanent solution is to yank off the bad tooth, which is to abolish the Muslim Affairs Dept. from the Government, and go back to the constitutional guarantee of a secular state for Malaysia.

    But, the somber reality is that with the PM’s background in Islamic studies, Malaysian society is sinking deeper into the religious quagmire, with Hindu NGOs demanding the setting up Non-Muslim Affairs Dept., and some Ministers of component parties being appointed Ministers of various religions of their respective ethnic groups, without their being aware of it. All these are compounding the problem.

    Unless we have a new progressive group of Muslims and non-Muslims in power who could work together in respecting the constitutional guarantee of a secular state for Malaysia, the social chaos will be perpetual, and the pain akin to that of toothache will get from worse to worst. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.

    Will we see a non-Muslim leader (if Obama, a leader of a minority ethnic group (12.4%) in the US can seemingly do it, Malaysia surely boleh) or a Muslim leader, the like of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk rising up and leading Malaysia without krises soaking up in blood in our lifetime?

  3. #3 by trashed on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 1:31 am

    To add to Dark Horse’s comments, non-Muslims could also face the ISA in Malaysia and the politicians have all been muzzled. Remember the “petition” to the PM from the non-Muslim component parties of the BN a couple of years ago?

    Nonetheless, a balanced article from Farish Noor which relevant to all communities.

  4. #4 by I Malaysian on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 3:07 am

    I fully agree with Dr.Farish. Whether Holland or Malaysia those who instill this ill-feeling and animosity among different religions are mostly politicians. Divide and Rule is the name of the game and for the last 50 years this has been the mantra for BN in Malaysia. In order for “all the religions to respect the sacredness in the other, and drop the claim that they alone monopolise all that is good and holy” as mentioned by Dr.Farish we need to get rid of the paranoiac leaders, be them in BN, Opposition or anywhere in our community. As responsible citizens we could make the difference only if we wanted.

  5. #5 by BoycottLocalPapers on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 4:10 am

    Muslims are allowed to propagate their religion freely in the West despite what Mr. Farish said about Geert Wilders. As far as I know, no Western country is stopping Muslims from propagating their religion in the West yet.

    Sadly, what is really happening today is that Muslims are demanding to be treated equally with the non-Muslims in non-Muslim majority countries and would cry injustice or jihad if they perceive that they were mistreated by the non-Muslims BUT at the same time Muslims do not give this same freedom (that they are demanding from the non-Muslims) to the non-Muslims in Muslim dominated countries.

    Lets say if US or UK legislators decided to ban propagation of Islamic religion to the non-Muslims in USA or UK tomorrow. I am very sure our PM, the OIC chairman would be the first one to shout injustice and demand for equal rights to the Muslims in USA or UK.

    What if a Hindu in India wanted to leave Hinduism for Islam but is not allowed to do so by Indian law? Will Muslims consider this as injustice?

    The ethic of reciprocity or “The Golden Rule” whiich is the most essential basis for human rights seems to be a foreign concept to the Muslim leaders. This hypocrisy among Muslim leaders is what make non-Muslims in this country fear Islam.

    If Muslim leaders in this country could be guided by tbis fundamental moral principle which simply means “treat others as you would like to be treated,” then there is no reason for non-Muslims in this country to fear Islam or fear that this country being called Islamic.

    The non-Muslim Malaysians have been in this country for many generations and yet we are still treated as second class or third class citizens. Try to be in our shoes for a moment and look at non-Muslim’s point of view. How do you feel if you have to pay extra for your apartment because your religion (or race) is different than the official religion (or the majority supreme race)? Do you want to be in our shoes?

    Can UMNO and PAS leaders grasp this simple concept that is commonly called “The Golden Rule”?

    “Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.” (Pittacus)

    “Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” (Thales)

    “What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them.” (Pythagorean)

    “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.” (Isocrates)

    “What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others.” (Epictetus)

    A key element of the ethic of reciprocity is that a person attempting to live by this rule treats all people, not just members of his or her in-group, with consideration.

    If Muslim leaders in this country could embrace this ethic of reciprocity, then there is no reason for non-Muslims to fear Islam or Islam Hadhari (or whatever version of Islam you wanted to call).

    If Muslim leaders in this country could grasp and apply The Golden Rule, then there is no need for DAP, PKR, etc as we all would be Bangsa Malaysia.

    All we asked of you UMNO and PAS leaders is that NEVER IMPOSE ON OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD NOT CHOOSE FOR YOURSELF.

    Political parties that advocate the supremacy of one race or one religion above all others will never be fair to all Malaysians. Malaysia is not Saudi Arabia where 100% are Arabs and 100% are Muslims. Malaysia is truly Asia!

    PLEASE PUT THE GOLDEN RULE IN OUR PERLEMBAGAAN/CONSTITUTION as that is what I find lacking in the constitution and for this reason it has caused injustice to many in this country!

  6. #6 by max2811 on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 7:50 am

    Can we blame him? Look at Msia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia and many more..

  7. #7 by waterfrontcoolie on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 8:52 am

    The golden rules as expounded by boycotlocalpapers are rules expounded by those who have CONFIDENCE and CLEAR VISIONS of what they wanted. Rules which are inwards looking and meant to prevent discussions of any controversy are designed to lead those who follow them by their nose. So unless the followers are awaken to this simple thinking, all explanations will not be of any use!!

  8. #8 by cemerlang on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 10:04 am

    Religion is considered sensitive to many people because it takes a whole lot of themselves to believe in what they are believing. The self is composed of the body, the mind and the heart. In most cases, when the meaning of the particular religious teaching touches the heart, it is almost a point of no turning back. Therefore religion can be emotional.

    The ideal situation is when I can read the Quran but I do not have to believe that Prophet Mohammad is my Lord and Saviour. Similarly for the Muslims, they can read the Bible and it is up to them to decide if Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour. Or I can read about the Hindu religion because of its’ ties with ancient Indian history. Or I can read about Buddhism and its’ much admired teaching of no killing. Or I can read about other religious books to find out what sustaining teachings on life are available. This is democracy of religions. It takes an open mind to read all the religious books or any books for that matter.

  9. #9 by Bigjoe on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 11:05 am

    When will people learn that universal justice and equality is a modern concept at least popularity NOT historical ones. Religion is old and inherently universal justice while not alien is NOT the highest priiorities.

    Those who have read the Old Testaments would be horrified of the acceptability of slavery, abuse, violence etc. The New Testament while better does not obligate universality severely. More like best-effort basis.

    What is so surprising about religion being prejudicial against others inherently if its main purpose is spread its influence. Why do you think the West thought up the idea of secularity and separation of powers between religion and state?

    When I head the PM said in Penang this CNY about its’ God’s will that he be PM, it just rang out loud to me how lost he is to look to God as an excuse. I have nothing against a leader looking to god for strength and guidance, I have a huge problem when he qoutes it as an excuse and authority to do his thing.

    It alarmed me that this PM think God tells us what to do, not because God doesn’t have the answer but he assumes we deserve it. Implicitly it assumes that divinity bless him and us so that he and we would be given the answer and lessen our burden and obligation to struggle for it.

    Frankly, we don’t need to have God guide us, not because there isn’t, but we would be ungodly to assume we deserve it and cannot find our answer without divinity and somehow get lost. Are we pathetic and blasphemous at the same time?

    Well, the PM sounds like it.

  10. #10 by xpainxgain on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 11:40 am

    Actually if we talk about islam, UMNO is so scared because some of them may have done so many things against islamic law such as corruption, discrimination, extremism, racism, fanatism……etc. That’s why when they face the allegations from opposition parties especially PAS, they got more ‘headache’.

  11. #11 by RGRaj on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 12:11 pm

    The utmost question is: Why only the al-Quran? Why don’t somebody come out with a film documenting the violence in, let’s say, the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Granth Sahib and/or Torah?

    If the Muslims react violently towards Geert Wilders’ film, doesn’t it mean that they’re actually proving him right?

    Only people who are afraid of the truth hide their holy books from public scrutiny. And they protect (hide) their people from the holy books from other religions. So far, I only see Muslims behaving thus.

    So the Q everybody needs to ask is: WHY?

  12. #12 by scorpian6666 on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 12:43 pm

    Damn… why can’t the Muslim see if the Quran law is the law from God, then people should be judged by God himself not by mere human ..the cleric ?
    ultimately all human die ..that’s our final punishment on earth whether you like it or it which make us all, inperfect for the job as chief judge or any judge at all.
    “let those who never sinned cast the first stone !!!”

    Human Laws are all we needed..

  13. #13 by Saint on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 2:54 pm

    Muslim law is “Islamic Law”, and it cannot be compared with the “Golden Rule” as it is a universal rule. The Muslims do not consider people of other religion as “legitimate”. There is nothing others can do to change this; except the Muslims themselves..

  14. #14 by kaytee moc on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 3:24 pm

    Any religious issue involves irrational emotion, and when that issue is also identified with a disliked or feared race/ethnic group (another irrationally emotional issue) and thus bigotry, it’s a situation for intolerant fireworks.

    Take the case of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The subsequent ruckus has been all bigotry, prejudice and intolerance with no careful consideration or evaluation of what was said by Rowen Williams.

    In a BBC interview on Thursday, he had merely touched on the possible (and unavoidable) use of the syariah to resolve some personal or domestic issues among Britain’s Muslims, much like the way Orthodox Jews have their own courts for some matters.

    Two items he mentioned slipped by either unnoticed in the eagerness to ‘attack’ or dleiberately ignored.

    (1) “… much like the way Orthodox Jews have their own courts for some matters.”

    That seems OK to those British conservatives. But when it comes to matters Islamic or Muslims, the usual mob would go on a rampage. In Malaysia, it’s the same, except the table is then turned around, with some local Muslims wishing to go on a violent jihad, either with their keris-es or mouths.

    We saw that Western double standard hypocrisy when David Irving was hounded for his crazy revisionist book on the Holocaust deaths whilst the British press went into overdrive pontificating on Western values re freedom of expression when the Prophet Mohamad caricatures were published.

    Likewise poor Prince Harry was equally persecuted when he wore a swastika armband to a fancy dress party (a fancy dress party, for God’s sake, where one could have met someone dressed as Dracula or Stalin) until he was forced to apologise and his dad had to publicly announced the poor lad (then still young) would be sent to Auschwitz to study (or repent?), all that to appease the ‘gods’.

    What happened to that vaunted Western value of ‘freedom of expression’?

    (2) “… to resolve some personal or domestic issues …”

    Is this so bad? How about some intelligent debate/discussion before yelling about Muslim terrorists ‘chopping hands’ or ‘stoning someone to death’?

    Re the topic Uncle Lim has posted, it has been a case of petty officials masquerading as religious zealots. But this is a common occurrence in Malaysia when zealous officials would act beyond policy boundaries.

    What is far more troubling has been the lack of promptness by ministers, including the prime minister, in publicly disowning such illegal/unauthorised actions by their officers. There’s too much politics in religion and vice versa. The ministers are scared that they may be seen to give way to the non-Muslims.

    So lacking the necessary leadership and courage, they would go into elegant silence and act dunno, hoping it will go away or be eventually solved once the emotions of their constituencies have settled down (ie. once the ‘faithful’ believe they have the ‘upperhand’).

  15. #15 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 5:20 pm

    “The long term permanent solution is to yank off the bad tooth, which is to abolish the Muslim Affairs Dept. from the Government, and go back to the constitutional guarantee of a secular state for Malaysia.” EARNEST

    “Go back to the constitutional guarantee of a secular state”? Since when was there a guarantee of a secular state?

    Article 3 of the Federal Malaysian Constitution 1957 opens the door to a less than secular state. With one foot in the door so to speak, it was easy to introduce Article 121(1A) which then creates a double track system of justice. It is the scope of this Article that has to be limited, a matter on which the courts are reluctant to do so which some say for political reasons. The jurisdictional nightmare that it has caused can only be ended if a new government takes over which under the present circumstances is unlikely.

    “Abolish the Muslim Affairs Department”? The Opposition is a lot smarter than you think! Your condescending attitude towards the opposition party leadership is uncalled for. If it was unintentional then perhaps you should take a reality check before you get YB Kit into hot water with your remarks.

  16. #16 by mickey01 on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 8:28 pm

    Muslims only have to read and accept the holy book without any doubt, questioning, rebuttal, accusation etc and they are not allowed to let any article/book they read to influence them. If Muslims quote some verses like all infidels should be terminated, they cannot refused but to follow. It’s madness.

  17. #17 by ihavesomethingtosay on Sunday, 10 February 2008 - 9:39 pm

    The rise of CHRISTIANOPHOBIA.

  18. #18 by BlackEye on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 1:07 am

    “You cannot run two systems of law along side each other. That in my view would be a recipe for chaos, social chaos” – a comment attributed to UK’s Culture Secretary Andy Burnham.

    But then what differentiates and sets apart mostly Muslim Malaysia from many other countries is the fact it has a seemingly secular and non-secular Constitution. I do not think any other country has a double tracked system of justice.

    It sure is a recipe for chaos, social chaos but the the U.K. is a Christian nation with a Christian majority and a Christian tradition. Malaysia though its people are not all Muslims is predominantly Muslim and government business is conducted with all the trappings of a Muslim nation.

    The double tracked system of justice i.e. civil law based on the English common law and syariah law, is supposed to apply to two different sets of people – non-Muslims and Muslims. The mess it has created today is due to the political unwillingness to act to define the gray area over jurisdiction, and not so much to the secularity or lack of it of our Constitution.

  19. #19 by undergrad2 on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 4:16 am

    “The double tracked system of justice i.e. civil law based on the English common law and syariah law, is supposed to apply to two different sets of people – non-Muslims and Muslims.”

    The problem is how do you identify those two groups of people.

  20. #20 by ktteokt on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 10:29 am

    How can Malaysia claim to be an “Islamic nation” when the government is made up of “rojak”, with MCA, MIC, Gerakan, PPP and other non-Muslim component parties? Kick out these “non-Muslim” elements before declaring anything of that nature!!!!

  21. #21 by limkamput on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 11:55 am

    Yes, article 3 might have opened the door or allowed one foot in, but Malaysia still has the choice not to walk in until 121 (1A) came along. The question I wish to ask is: is it the intent of article 3 to give birth to 121 (1A) in the first place?

  22. #22 by undergrad2 on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 9:13 pm

    It is best to start with a warning and a caveat!

    The question which it raises is not easily answered as it raises a host of other complex issues (complex because they are not easily answered, and that in turn relates to the central issue of the supremacy of the Constitution vis-a-vis Parliament) among which is the intent of Parliament when it passed the Constitution in 1957 and Article 3(1) has remained unamended since.

    As to Article 121(1A) our courts have chosen a narrow approach and have apparently left it to Parliament, without deciding on its constitutionality or lack thereof.

    About the intent of Parliament regarding the meaning of Article 3(1) I could only offer my personal opinion. Reading it in isolation or/and in the context of other provisions, it is my opinion that the expression “Islam is the religion of the federation” is meant to ensure Malay and Muslim trappings in all functions of state i.e. nothing more than that. If so then Article 121(1A) is in danger of being void ab initio or voidable unless there is another provision in the Federal Constitutional that allows it; and there is, according to some lawyers. But I could be wrong like all who support a wide interpretation of Article 121(1A) would say.

    Assuming Article 121(1A) is not unconstitutional, but drafted the way it is and given the reluctance of our courts to use their powers of interpretation to the full, it has muddied the waters even more. I do not think it will get repealed but an amendment is over due.

  23. #23 by undergrad2 on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 9:21 pm

    The issue may be over legality or constitutionality or lack thereof; but the solution to the problem lies in the political will of a government to amend an Article that has been interpreted in a way that gives rise to conflict with the other provisions.

  24. #24 by ktteokt on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 9:25 pm

    Before long, all religious books would have to subjected to “censorship” before they appear on the Malaysian market!!!

  25. #25 by limkamput on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 9:40 pm

    Thank you, granted the complexity of the issues you tried to explain, I like two things you said: (i) it has muddied the waters even more. I do not think it will get repealed but an amendment is over due; (ii) the solution to the problem lies in the political will of a government to amend an Article…..provisions

  26. #26 by BlackEye on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 10:23 pm

    Someone is at last talking constitution here. LOL.

  27. #27 by shamshul anuar on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 10:57 pm

    Dear Farish Noor,

    Many thanks for the comment on the incident in Holland and also in Malaysia.

    Religious extremism is actually alive and kicking throughout the world. No religion is spared. Some justifications are given but actually they reflect lack of understanding , hatred or plain ignorance.

    Muslims like Christians, Buddhists, Hindus are of course upset if some politicians uses religion to garner votes. Surely, a religion deserves respect. Never mind if we do not believe the principles. But do remember that other people believe in it .

    As for Mr Ktteok, Malaysia is a unique country ruled by Muslims. At least this is what world recognises as Malaysia. The reason is quite simple. The largest etnique group is malay professing Islam while the leaders( King, Sultans and majority of leaders such as Prime Minister, Menteri Besar) are Muslims.

    As Muslims do not subscribe the separation of state and religion like Westen world, Mr Ktteokt is advised to accept reality that Malaysia is not a secular country like Singapore or USA. However, the freedom to practise freely the religion of choices are accorded by the Constitution. So, there is no problem here.

    As for Mr Undergrad2, I am sure he realizes that Malaysia has been practising 2 different systems in education, a rarity in this world indeed. In fact, the only one in this world all in the name of respecting the wishes of non malays for education in mother tongues. Surely, insistence of Malays for implementation of legal system based on Syariah can be accepted by non Muslims.

    As for Kaytee Moc, double standard do exists. In the name of freedom of expression, Satanic Verses which portrayed Lady Aishah, wife of Prophet Muhammad, as a prostitute was hailed as a brilliant novel. Muslims reaction was deemed as irrational and incapable of accepting the sacred freedom of speech.

    However, British Press was hysterical when the then PM of Australia, Paul Keating put his hand around Queen Elizabeth 11 waist during royal visit to Australia.

  28. #28 by limkamput on Monday, 11 February 2008 - 11:36 pm

    Someone is at last talking constitution here. LOL. Blackeye

    Why is this person LOL at almost at everything. Does she/he have a mental problem that needs attention.

  29. #29 by DarkHorse on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 - 1:49 am

    “…Malaysia has been practising 2 different systems in education, a rarity in this world indeed. In fact, the only one in this world..” Shamshul Anuar

    Practicing two different systems of education?? Not sure what you mean. There is the vernacular and there is the national. Is that what you mean. They are not different ‘systems’, just different schools with a different medium of instruction but with a ‘national’ syllabus.

    The only one in the world? In countries like the U.S. ethnic schools are unpopular and are privately funded and independent.

  30. #30 by DiaperHead on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 - 2:50 am

    “Satanic Verses which portrayed Lady Aishah, wife of Prophet Muhammad, as a prostitute..”

    Aishah was not a prostitute and Salman Rushdie is not the originator of the Satanic Verses! Aishah the youngest wife of the Prophet was said to have committed adultery.

  31. #31 by DiaperHead on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 - 2:56 am

    Mary was the prostitute in one of the Gospels in the New Testament, whom Jesus forgave. Some believe this was Mary Magdalene. Others do not. But there are five Marys in the Bible. Was it one of these five Marys, Jesus was said to have married and started a bloodline which could be traced to the late Princess Diana??

  32. #32 by kaybeegee on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 - 2:30 pm

    Saudara Shamsul,
    Where does it say that Malaysia is ruled by Muslims? The BN rule this country. You suggesting something like all the cabinet Ministers are MUSLIMS?
    It is only the Muslims that say we are a Muslim country. A new generation of non Muslims will reject your statement.Why should Sabah and Sarawak who could have been sovereign non MuslimNations with equal status with Malaya be subjected to statements like Islamic country,Muslim Nation. Did UMNO ask the Orang Asli for permission to call Malaya a Malay country?
    You talk of freedom of religion. Accept the fact that it does not exist in Malaysia. Ask Lina Joy. Accept the fact that Body snatching is going to be a reality in Malaysia and also accept that fact that not all non Muslim families are going to keep quiet when body snatching should happen again.

  33. #33 by jedyoong on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 - 10:05 pm

    are we surprised by how the dutch feels and what their politicians did in the above incident after the Danish Cartoons controversy?

    i am dismayed that someone who is supposed to be educated/modern like Farish is wrote about criticism against islam as “demeaning”, “hate-speech”, etc and labeled critics as “islamophobes”.

    for a long, long time atheists have called religion a man-made means to controlled the masses. to them, it’s just another ideology.

    what’s so special about islam that we can’t criticise it? pls get off your pedestal and realise that Islam after all may just be an ideology like communism.

    is this also HATE SPEECH? i hope u don’t quote betrand russell, farish…

  34. #34 by limkamput on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 - 12:41 am

    shamshul anuar Says: Malaysia is a unique country ruled by Muslims. At least this is what world recognises as Malaysia.

    Sure Shamshul, but don’t forget what mahathir said recently, if Malaysia has no Non-Malays (which means no Non-Muslims) the GDP of Malaysia will be akin to a failing Africa state.

    shamshul anuar Says: However, the freedom to practise freely the religion of choices is accorded by the Constitution. So, there is no problem here.

    Sure, no problem here unless one is blind.

    shamshul anuar Says: Muslims reaction was deemed as irrational and incapable of accepting the sacred freedom of speech.

    When Da Vincci code was published, the Christians did not try to kill the author of that book.

  35. #35 by BlackEye on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 - 3:56 am

    Limkamput,

    Don’t tell me you’ve read Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses”. You telling me you can get a copy of this book in Malaysia? Gimme a break!

  36. #36 by limkamput on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 - 1:30 pm

    Blackeye are you alright? Who is talking about satanic verses other than YOU. Seriously you got a big problem with your brain. You better resolve it fast before it “implodes”

You must be logged in to post a comment.