If homo imam start gay mosque, you support, ah?
Malaysian media provided saturation coverage and overflowing opinion-editorials when Rev. Terry Jones of Florida threatened to set fire to a stack of Qurans some weeks back.
However, our MSM is conspicuously silent on Saudi Arabia which doesn’t create a media circus like Rev. Jones but has, with quiet determination, carried out an agenda of religious suppression.
The Arab country has consistently over the past decade topped the rankings as one of the most repressive countries in the world.
- The Saudi government tightly controls the content of domestic media and dominates regional print and satellite television coverage.
- Government officials have banned journalists and editors who publish articles deemed offensive to the ruling authorities or the country’s powerful religious establishment.
- Academic freedom is restricted, and informers monitor classrooms for compliance with limits on curricula, such as a ban on teaching secular philosophy and religions other than Islam.
(‘Freedom in the World 2010’ report, Freedom House)
But while Malaysian media, blogs and liberals feel completely free to slam one side, it is — as expected — conspicuously silent when it comes to the other. The liberals are the mirror twins of Perkasa, really, only waving ribbons instead of keris.
The Centre for Policy Initiatives has the story below today:
A test for the liberals, then, is whether there is any parity and consistency in their advocacy.
The English-speaking middle-class are cosy in their safe and snug Ketuanan-protected political correctness when they lash out at against those they call ‘Islamophobes’. But these same non-Muslim liberals fail to point out that Saudi Arabia — the holy of holies land of Islam — does not allow religious diversity at all.
The 2010 annual report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom noted: “… the Saudi government persists in banning all forms of public religious expression other than that of the government’s own interpretation of one school of Sunni Islam.”
The report further says that “The Saudi government continues to engage in an array of severe violations of human rights as part of its repression of freedom of religion or belief”, and adding that Saudi Arabia has been designated as a ‘country of particular concern’ by the US State Department annually since 2004.
Meanwhile, according to the Freedom House’s ‘Freedom in the World 2010’ survey, Saudi Arabia has for the past 10 consecutive years been given the survey’s worst possible rating for political rights denied its people.
Freedom House noted that “Religious freedom does not exist in Saudi Arabia. All Saudis are required by law to be Muslims, and the government prohibits the public practice of any religions other than Islam.”
It also noted that the Saudi “regime has blocked access to over 400,000 websites that are considered immoral or politically sensitive”.
The day has still not come when our Malaysian liberal elites have the nerve to be as critical of abuses in the Islamic world as they are in their ad hominem attacks on Christian conservatives.
The same imbalance applies to their defence of those pushing the boundaries of ‘diversity’ ala Idris Jala.
Not too long ago, the establishment of a gay church in Kuala Lumpur caused some consternation. Nonetheless, a number of self-professed heterosexuals — who pontificate that ‘love thy neighbour’ (be he/she gay or lesbian) is God’s first commandment — had declared themselves more than willing to embrace differences.
In fact, they had argued vehemently in support of this contentious gay church. And not only that, they were quick to label anyone voicing reservations as being ‘homophobic’, ‘bigoted’ and ‘full of hate’.
This is the quite-typical vocabulary of those whose narrow argumentative itinerary gives the lie to their liberal pretensions.
The million-ringgit challenge remains whether these celebrants of diversity would be just as vocal and enthusiastic in their support if it was a homosexual imam who had wanted to start a gay mosque.
(For the links to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom report, and the Freedom House international survey, please revert CPI.)
hartalmsm.wordpress.com 
wahabi mah !
“If homo imam start gay mosque, you support, ah?”
U nie pejabat nie apalah pasal Hassan Nasrallah pakaian secara-cara pompuan ??
Too late laaa…Nasrallah, Khamanei, Qaddafi made Islamic transvestitism
fashionable long long long before it entered the global ‘material’ realm…
To even use “homo imam” might sound blasphemous to some…so don’t play play eh….
Ever heard of Rushdie Rules? I copy this article over from ME Forum!
“Rushdie Rules” Reach Florida
by Daniel Pipes
Washington Times
September 21, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/8881/rushdie-rules-florida
Send Comment RSS Share: Facebook Twitter Google Buzz Digg del.icio.us
Pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn copies of the Koran at his church in Gainesville, Florida, let it be emphasized, is a distasteful act that fits an ugly tradition. That said, two other points need be noted: Buying books and then burning them is an entirely legal act in the United States. Second, David Petraeus, Robert Gates, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama pressured Jones to cancel only because they feared Muslim violence against Americans if he proceeded. Indeed, despite Mr. Jones calling off the Koran burning, 5 Afghans and 14 Kashmiris died in protests against his plans.
Palestinians desecrated the Tomb of Joseph in October 2000.
That violence stems from Islamic law, the Shariah, which insists that Islam, and the Koran in particular, enjoy a privileged status. Islam ferociously punishes anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who trespasses against Islam’s sanctity. Codes in Muslim-majority states generally reflect this privilege; for example, Pakistan’s blasphemy law, 295-C, punishes derogatory remarks about Muhammad with execution.
No less important, Shariah denigrates the sanctities of other religions, a tradition manifested in recent years by the destruction of the Buddhist Bamiyan statues and the desecration of the Jewish Tomb of Joseph and the Christian Church of the Nativity. A 2003 decree ruled the Bible suitable for use by Muslims when cleaning after defecation. Iranian authorities reportedly burned hundreds of Bibles in May. This imbalance, whereby Islam enjoys immunity and other religions are disparaged, has long prevailed in Muslim-majority countries.
Then, in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini abruptly extended this double standard to the West when he decreed that British novelist Salman Rushdie be executed on account of the blasphemies in his book, The Satanic Verses. With this, Khomeini established the Rushdie Rules, which still remain in place. They hold that whoever opposes “Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran” may be put to death; that anyone connected to the blasphemer must also be executed; and that all Muslims should participate in an informal intelligence network to carry out this threat.
Self-evidently, these rules contradict a fundamental premise of Western life, freedom of speech. As summed up by the dictum, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” that freedom assures protection for the right to make mistakes, to insult, to be disagreeable, and to blaspheme.
If the Rushdie Rules initially shocked the West, they since have become the new norm. When Islam is the subject, freedom of speech is but a pre-1989 memory. Writers, artists, and editors readily acknowledge that criticizing Islam can endanger their lives.
British Muslims burned “The Satanic Verses” in January 1989.
Western leaders occasionally stand with those who insult Islam. British prime minister Margaret Thatcher resisted pressure from Tehran in 1989 and stated that “there are no grounds on which the government could consider banning” The Satanic Verses. Other governments reinforced this stalwart position; for example, the U.S. Senate unanimously resolved “to protect the right of any person to write, publish, sell, buy and read books without fear of violence.”
Likewise, Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen stood strong in 2006 when disrespectful cartoons of Muhammad in a Copenhagen newspaper led to storms of protest: “This is a matter of principle,” he stated. “As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press – nor do I want such a power.”
Both those incidents led to costly boycotts and violence, yet principle trumped expedience. Other Western leaders have faltered in defense of free expression. The governments of Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Great Britain, Israel, and the Netherlands have all attempted to or succeeded in jailing Rushdie-Rule offenders.
The Obama administration has now joined this ignominious list. Its pressure on Mr. Jones further eroded freedom of speech about Islam and implicitly established Islam’s privileged status in the United States, whereby Muslims may insult others but not be insulted. This moved the country toward dhimmitude, a condition whereby non-Muslims acknowledge the superiority of Islam. Finally, Mr. Obama in effect enforced Islamic law, a precedent that could lead to other forms of compulsory Shariah compliance.
Mr. Obama should have followed Mr. Rasmussen’s lead and asserted the principle of free speech. His failure to do so means Americans must recognize and resist further U.S. governmental application of the Rushdie Rules or other aspects of Shariah.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. His article, “Two Decades of the Rushdie Rules” will appear in the October issue of Commentary magazine.