Raja Petra Kamarudin says Malays are fake Muslims Malays are such suckers for PAS

PAS started this sort of communal polarisation,  to appeal to Muslims to vote for the DAP. The other is more disingenuous. How can asking people to exercise their ballot be considered hate speech? Even US President Barak Obama has called upon voters to seek revenge by going out to vote. Neither form of defence stands scrutiny.
When the mahant of temple not just exhorts his followers to vote PAS but is himself  Member of Parliament and a candidate in the forthcoming elections, is he being communal? When 

Abdul Hadi Awang Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat calls upon his followers to vote DAP, is he communally polarising voters? When the entire Perkasa mobilises countless sadhus, sants and godmen of varied description in the cause of mobilising votes for UMNO, does that amount to communal polarisation?The answer is in the negative. They do, indeed, mobilise a specific community, defined, in most cases by religion. But that does not make these acts of mobilisation communal.  a party of Muslims, to look after the interests of Muslims. But this does not make either party communal. In short, mobilising a community for its own sake does not constitute communalism.Then, what is communalism? Mobilising one community in hostility towards another community is communalism. Mobilising Muslims positing Hindus as their enemies would be communal. Mobilising Hindus, and calling upon them to unify, by invoking a threat from Muslims and rallying then against Muslims would indeed be communal. And this is precisely the difference between the Shahi Imam’s exhortation to Muslims to vote the Congress and Amit Shah’s call to wreak vengeance on those who had defiled Jat honour. The Shahi Imam’s call was community-based mobilisation. Amit Shah’s call, soliciting support for three candidates of the party who are also the prime accused in the riots, calling for revenge against the community’s enemies, amounted to communal mobilisation.As for Obama’s revenge remark, let us appreciate that the context was altogether different. He was urging voters in Ohio, who were booing his opponent Mitt Romney for his scare tactic that Chrysler was going to ship jobs to China, to vote and not boo. The best revenge for such scaremongering would be to go out and vote, was Obama’s message.

The Muzaffarnagar context is something else, one altogether less anaemic. It is one in which blood has been shed, women have been raped and tens of thousands have been driven out of their homes and rendered refugees in their own land. Here, revenge is not an anaemic metaphor, but blood-thirsty invocation of violence against an enemy community, a call to rouse smouldering anger to new incendiary levels. To call this an attempt to channel anger towards a non-violent, electoral route is sheer sophistry.

If those leaders of the BJP who defend Amit Shah are truly convinced of the pacific intent and import of Shah’s comments, let them advise their supremo Narendra Modi to go and make the same speech in Muaffarngar. Or let them act as apostles of peace themselves and do this duty in Muzaffarnagar. Just to be doubly peaceful. 

Are Malays, therefore, real followers of Prophet Muhammad? I fear the Malays are doing precisely what Prophet Muhammad told them not to do. And some of these people claim to be upholding Islam and are supposedly members of an Islamic party, PAS.



 these Malay-Muslims are no different from the Jews that they condemn. They fight for power and abuse the name of Allah in doing so. Oh, and in the Qur’an these people are referred to as the Hypocrites. Well, at least this is what the Qur’an says unless the Qur’an is a fake.

What precisely is secular?
State conduct can be religion-neutral in two conditions. One, a strict separation of religion from the affairs of the state; and, two, equal respect for all religions in state affairs.

While secularism is defined, in the western canon, as separation of religion from the state, it has not been achieved in full anywhere. So long as religion remains an active part of society, the state cannot but interface with religion. When the US president urges God to bless America or when states wrestle with opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools, or to abortion, the state has to contend with religion.

When traditional codes of ethics, morality and the meaning of life are enmeshed in and derived from religion, to say that public life should exclude religion is to call for a politics that is deracinated of all that is noble or good. This is why the Hindi term coined for ‘secular’, dharm-nirapeksh, sounds hollow and facile.

Fairness mattersSo, it is more realistic to plump for equal treatment of all religions. This fits in rather easily with Indian tradition as well. This comes from Hinduism being a polytheistic religion.

The Hindu pantheon is supposed to have 33 crore gods  — they outnumbered Hindus at Independence. This lived polytheism is reconciled with the philosophy of advaita, or unity of what would normally be called the creator and the created. Such reconciliation implies that seemingly diverse pursuits of spirituality seek, in reality, the self-same goal. In other words, deviance in spiritual pursuit does not exist. Hindus are more than happy to pray at dargahs or churches or to worship a Sai Baba who probably was a Muslim.

This does not make Hinduism a tolerant religion. Hinduism has been particularly intolerant of violations of caste codes. Rather, it does away with the need for tolerance of deviant religions, because no religion is deviant. Monotheistic religions, on the other hand, need to be tolerant of those who follow other, definitionally deviant, faiths, for peaceful coexistence to materialise.

In practice, all religions, polytheistic and monotheistic ones, have patchy histories of tolerance and intolerance. The Sufi tradition melds well with the theological eclecticism of traditional Hinduism as well.

So does material advanceIt is for the secular camp to own up India’s syncretic tradition and adapt it to contemporary times. A colonised understanding of modernity that equates it with westernisation would lead secularists to leave all of tradition to be appropriated by the forces of communalism.

The upshot of all this, of course, is that the bedrock of secularism in India has to be the conduct of the majority community. The vast majority of Hindus never had much time for Hindutva as propounded by the Sangh Parivar. Until now.

Modi campaigned on a platform of development. The campaign carried a subtext of Hindutva, amplified or hushed to suit the audience.

The UPA was perceived as deviating from fair treatment of all religious communities when it declared that the minorities had the first claim on the nation’s resources. This was said after the Sachar committee findings, which showed social backwardness among Muslims to be high enough to pose a threat to national security via manipulation by India’s enemies. The Modi government also has promised to make resources available to the minorities, where their fair share has eluded them.

While the UPA’s promise sought to curry favour with the Muslims, and did not bother about fairness as perceived by the majority, the Modi government’s promise appears to be fair — secular, in fact.

The Congress brand of secularism addressed only the minorities and ignored the fairness expectation of the majority. Especially when it condemned majority communalism but chose to be silent on minority communalism. This ultimately only serves to discredit secularism per se and to harm the minorities.

To redeem secularism, the Congress must respect the fairness expectations of all communities while being committed to safeguard the minorities against the vulnerabilities that haunt their existence.

Neither the minority nor the majority can feel they are being served, if the secular project does not include material advance. This is where a positive agenda of inclusive growth comes in. Growth, not patronage. Growth, via empowerment. Redistribution only as a means of empowerment, not as an end in itself.

It is on these lines that secularists have to rethink and refashion their mission.

Why we Malays are such suckers for all sorts of conmen

The doctor you go to, and whom you trust literally with your life, is probably totally ethical. However, the medicines your physician Datuk Dr Haron Din prescribes for you, in all good faith, could end up harming you much more than helping you.famous local Quranic healer is Datuk Dr Haron Din How come? Because almost all doctors, in Malaysia , are hugely funded in terms of anarchy. In what has widely been seen as a veiled reference tor Haron Din`s“popu-list anarchy cannot be a substitute for good governance Was party's deputy spiritual leader Haron Din referring to the constitutional propriety — or impropriety — of a duly elected chief minister  recalcitrant Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim sitting in dharna in effect against his own administration?  President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang  has picked up the gauntlet and said that he would welcome a national debate on the subject, which hinges around PAS’s style of functioning which an increasing number of commentators — including former supporters — are describing as being ‘anarchic’.Former professor Datuk Dr Haron Din so called Islamic scholar conman why was he not elected in any election he cannot even win a seat in numerous elections in the past

How do someone like that judged the capability of Wan Azizah who not only graduated as a doctor but won the elections several times PAS responsible for 3 failed States previously held by Pakatan Rakyat. Your stupidity is unmeasurable, you have definitely grown too big for your hat. You insult your Allah, disgrace to your race and a political pimp to UMNO! How low will you go? Hadi & Harun, you are breaking up your own party, why not let PKR decide who is better candidate for the MB post. You gain nothing & allow UMNO to have an upper hand by continuing to make noise on your disagreement. Why are you still stomping aimlessly while Azizah has clearly got the support from the majority.
.readmorehttp://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com/2014/09/traitorouspas-president-hadi-awang.html PAS an innate genius for anarchy, for operating without any rules at all. We call this lack of rules by various names, our famed knack of ‘jugaad’ being one of them. Men find it difficult to deal with strong, capable women colleagues! But is this really a gender issue?Datuk Dr Haron Din you are http://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com/2014/08/equal-freedoms-for-men-and-women-pas.html religious bigots really believe that Hadi qualified to be the MB of Trengganu or Azizan qualified to be the MB of Kedah. These guys are failed MBs - even lost the states to UMNO. You guys have therefore lost the authority to be judges of the competency of Wan Azizah. You are only trying to camouflage your gender discrimination. Shame on you, as if your mothers were not women.Unqualified statements coming from a PAS Muslim manufik snake have show its full colors! How qualified for the matter, Self-appointed  Haron Din: Islamic mullah’ — a euphemism for goons and thugs — assert his‘right’ to beat up anyone whose dress or behaviour offends against ‘Malay culture’, whatever that convenient catchphrase means  for multi-crore scams will proclaim his ‘right’ to be tried only by the ‘court of the people’.Wan Azizah is more qualified that any of you in PAS Syura council. PAS has been failure in administering all the states they hold, even Kelantan. And if thing goes as it is, PAS would lose Kelantan in GE14. Tok Guru was the reason Kelantan still belongs to PAS.Pas choices of candidates for MB have been a failure in the past. Kedah PAS MB was an absolute disaster, and kedahans had no hesitation in kicking him put in the GE. Hadi was not any better. He lost Trenganu despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly a Malay and Muslim state. Now, can we trust PAS choice of candidate again as MB in selangor? Never. PAS is not good in choosing talent . If Wan Azizah is not qualified who else is more qualified? How come all these PAS socalled leaders can't even understand the requirement of the law ie the Constitution of the State of Selangor, which only requires that the person to be appointed as MB needs to command the support of the majority among the State Assemblymen which YB Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah had already obtained/secured. HRH the Sultan is required/obliged to appoint that State Assemblyman who commands/secures that majority support. My considered understanding of the Selangor State Constitution is that the appointment is not based on or at the discretion of HRH but based on the majority support. Since that is the rule, law or legal requirement, PAS therefore absolutely has no basis to keep questioning and disputing the appointment of YB Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah as MB. No wonder it is said that politic is not dirty but its the politicians who made it dirty. As PAS is a religious party, it should lead and show good example by playing by the rule.redmore http://themalaybusinesstribune.blogspot.com/2014/08/pas-male-chauvinist-pigs-happy-as-pig.html