All 11 MCA ministers and deputy ministers will focus their fire on 20 ‘winnable’ parliamentary constituencies in the next two months in an attempt to retain at least 15 seats in the next general election.

  Presiden MCA Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek.Sexiest man of all time


The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. It feels no jealousy. And among people who consume pork, the practice of wife swapping and other forms of promiscuous behaviour is common.relatewd article


KIWI SEE: 誰會知道幫個忙就矛頭轉向讓自己變成了千古罪人?我也不知道會是
All beings created by god have a purpose. The pig was created to clean the earth of shit, rubbish, carcass, etc. they are not meant to be consumed by humans. Pls check the old testament or Quran. The bible was amended by the Jews to trick the Christians to eat this forbidden dirty animal. That’s why the Jews and Muslims don’t eat pork. Other animals like cattle were created to feed humans but never the pig. That’s why when you eat pig you behave like pigs, anything goes even eating your own kind. Now you know why Chinese behave like pigs, why they are uncouth and have filthy habits.
Ever heard of gentrification? Those pigs do not, wait till China gets the Boars crossbred with humans then send an army of PC Pig-human hybrids to sue Muslims and their beliefs for the insult. Who knows maybe a state of ‘Pigsrael’ (Introducing the : Khinzirim!!!) will be created beside their most hated enemies by Pig-Boar-human hybrids?
Lets say we keep an open mind and go along with the pig creation story. But IF the pig does not eat rubbish the nature of the pig cannot be fully realised or transferred to the consumers.
This sort of comment is as inaccurate as the Hindus or Taoists saying that Muslims are damned because they eat beef, even properly domesticated cattle. If this is just trying to insult other peoples dietary habits, you are shaming Muslims instead by this sort of post. Live and let live, we each have out own districts etc.. so why attack pork eating? Quite offensive especially when the rationale is not even logical or accurately applicable.
Finally please don’t go ‘China babi, China bodoh,’ you don’t know how primitive that sounds, don’t even have to be Malay to cringe in embarrassment FOR the Muslims who talk like that, if trying to provoke a food fight, then total fail, we’re too civilised .

Hwa Beng

has appealed to Christian sentiments when he suggested on Twitter yesterday that a state based on Islam would ban all other religions.


“As Christians, we should fear Islamic theocracy nation more than anything. Why is DAP helping PAS to achieve it?” questioned Lee in a response to DAP supporters on the micro-blogging site.
Saying religions other than Islam would not be tolerated under what he coined “Islamic Theocracy State” and that Islamic laws would be imposed on non-Muslims, Lee even went on to claim that it was “God’s command” to fight an “Islamic Theocracy State”
Hwa Beng 

I should have stuck your photo above. You get the idea.
How stupid can you get? Or do you expect us be even more stupider than you, expecting us to buy your theology ? From who’s behind did you pull out this explanation – that God commands Christian to fight an Islam theocratic state?
Chua Soi Lek’s Labis flower behind?
Who is sending Muslim chaps to the Orang Asli, Sabah, Sarawak native women folk, charming them, marrying them, converting them to Islam, and then dumping them after that? The women folk, having converted, cannot return to their original religion?
Who forced Revathi to stay in a “Faith Rehabilitation Centers” when she didn’t want to remain a Muslim? Your mother, is it??!!!
Who gives benefit to the Muslim orang asli by building them brick houses; whilst the non-muslim orang asli has to remain in wood huts, right next door to his Muslim Orang Asli brother?
Who has held up Bibles and banned Allah?
Who swore in a mosque that he “never met that girl”, but is afraid to stand and face a public enquiry re: his possible role in the Mongolian Murder Mystery?
Who threatened civilians with severed cow heads?
Who damaged Indian temples?
Who caned the student for bringing non-halal food to school?
Are you so intoxicated by glue sniffing the smell emanating from Chua’s behind – what is it? Some kind of spaced out effect on your brains – cheaper than LSD is it?
Time and again you MCA butt smelling jokers keep proving that you guys are clear running dogs to UMNO.
“One of God’s command is to fight against Islamic Theocracy State,” he said.
He added that UMNO, unlike PAS, did not want to establish an “Islamic Theocracy State”.
Lee however was quick to add a ‘disclaimer’ stating that his remarks were his personal opinion.
“I never say I am against Islam but cannot accept PAS objective of Islamic Theocracy State. In fact I accept Islam as the official religion.”
“Sorry I bring this theocracy topic up. Getting out of hand. I am quitting.”
The latest remarks by Lee followed similar comments by MCA president Chua Soi Lek in August, in which he suggested Muslim-majority nations were naturally corrupt in an attempt to urge Malaysians to shun PAS.
Chua also claimed that it was UMNO’s competing with PAS over Islam which had caused the country to be trapped as a “middle income” nation for more than 10 years.
The comments drew strong reactions from both side of the political divide, and had left the one time Health minister blaming online portals Malaysiakini and The Malaysian Insider for ‘misquoting’ him.
At a time when our nation is seeing a rise in intolerant behaviour, crossing every cultural line, whether based on race, religion or sexual orientation, we seem simultaneously stuck with a national news media that is preoccupied with conflict and controversy when we desperately need one that weighs facts and reports fairly. A recent national news programme reinforced these concerns. Let me explain what I mean.
Imagine a respected television show or news magazine article with the title, Should Americans Fear Black People?
Imagine staccato hip-hop music for the teaser, with clips of black gang members toting guns, hanging around urban scenes, looking scary. Imagine the zoom-in close up of a shoulder tattoo, proclaiming “Thug for Life”.
As the host (some household name) opens the show, imagine that the white expert opining about the root causes of urban decay is a nationally recognised racist like, for instance, David Duke, a former Louisiana State Representative and a leader in the Ku Klux Klan – a once widespread white supremacy movement. With a straight face, and no sense of irony, the host solicits Duke’s views, and he proceeds to declare, “When the American people saw the Los Angeles riots, they received a peek into their future”, referring to the 1992 riots that erupted following the acquittal of four white police officers who were on trial for beating Rodney King, an African American motorist.
Imagine the television cameras going in search of voices of “real” black people. Where do they go? The ‘hood of course! I mean, where else do black people live?
The intrepid host invites regular Americans to ask the experts to explain black pathology: “Why is their rap music so degrading to women?” Cynthia from Wyoming wonders. “Why are so many blacks at the bottom of the economic and educational ladder?” Chuck from New York muses.
Is this starting to get a little uncomfortable? Of course it is. Just ask Don Imus, an American radio host fired in 2007 for making racist and sexist remarks, about the wisdom of indulging in racial stereotyping against blacks. Add Jews, Catholics, gays and others as well. Not a good idea.
Now replace black with Muslim, and that’s just about how ABC News treated Islam and Muslims on the recent television shows 20/20 and This Week with Christiane Amanpour.
There were the obligatory clips of terrorist training camps, the planes flying into the Twin Towers, the victims of so-called “honour killings”. The Muslim experts – looking officially “Islamic” in their long beards and hats – included one who declared that one day the flag of Islam would fly over the White House. The non-Muslim experts – Robert Spencer (a leading anti-Muslim advocate in the Park51 Islamic centre controversy), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a prolific anti-Muslim writer) and Franklin Graham (who has said Islam “is a very evil and wicked religion”) – are well known, even famous, for spewing anti-Muslim hate.
Of course, these characters emphatically agreed with the caricatures with long beards and white hats, repeating the propaganda that Islam requires its adherents to dominate people. Among the “normal” Muslims interviewed were a woman in niqab (fewer than one per cent of Muslim women in America wear the full face veil and accompanying robes), and Muslims in the Muslim ”hood”, cities like Dearborn, Michigan and Patterson, New Jersey.
Do some Americans fear black people? For sure. But we don’t validate those fears by allowing them to be expressed with fake innocence on respected news shows. Why are fears of Muslims validated by television airings?
Are there criminals in America who are African American? Yes, again. But they’re not presented as representative figures of the community by reputable news programmes. Why do such shows go out of their way to find the scariest, most cartoonish Muslims possible and present them as spokespeople for Muslims?
No serious journalist would ask a random black guy with a briefcase on the street to explain the pathology of an African American criminal because of the coincidence of shared skin colour. But serious journalists called on ordinary Muslim Americans to explain the behaviour of homicidal maniacs and extremists, thereby making the link between the crazies and the mainstream community.
Are there people willing to offer all sorts of racist theories about black crime, from problems in black genes to deficiencies in black culture? Plenty. But the only time they show up on mainstream news shows are as examples of racism, not as experts on race.
We are having a national conversation about belonging. The threatened Qur’an burning in Florida and the controversy over the proposed Islamic centre in lower Manhattan are examples of this national conversation about whether America can stretch her arms wide enough to embrace Muslims too. Irresponsible and sensational depictions of Muslims in the popular media are not the cause of Islamophobia, but they certainly can make it worse. Recent news shows and media reports do nothing to shed light or understanding on this national conversation, which is too bad.
But the conversation must continue. And I hope it continues in our mosques, churches, synagogues and other holy places, with Americans of all faiths talking face to face about differences and about our shared humanity – free of the stereotypes that lately are so prominent in our television shows and magazines.
Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) was the first Muslim elected to US Congress. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) with permission from the author.

Sex is unholy unless preceded by kisses and sweet words. Killing one person is tantamount to the murder of all humanity. Those with financial means have a duty to give money to charity. The ink of a scholar is more holy than the blood of a martyr.
These provisions are all in Islamic law, known as Shariah, which derives its legal basis from the Koran, the Sunnah (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) and Ijma (scholarly consensus). These religious texts are far-reaching, covering topics from private affairs to methods of warfare. In fact, they are so extensive that followers of the conservative Hanbali school of Islam believe the Koran and the Hadith (teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) are the only two things anyone needs to understand Shariah, or indeed Islam.

Shariah is a controversial topic in the Western world, where it is often depicted as violent — although in truth, the Koran only authorizes physical punishment in five cases. But Islamic law is also controversial in the Muslim world, where people today continue to debate its application in the modern era, its interpretation, its sources and its legal implications. In the book “Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Sharia Law,” author Sadakat Kadri takes us on a journey through Shariah’s evolution in Islamic history as well as his own personal journey through Muslim communities where the law is practiced. Kadri provides an especially vivid picture of Shariah’s early evolution, as he traces the debate about whether the Koran was created or came into being through God’s revelation.
This is a serious debate because the Koran is the most authoritative source of any Islamic text. Indeed, when Al-Ma’mun, who ruled the Islamic caliphate of Abbasid from 813 to 833, announced that the Koran had been created and that reason should instead govern matters of Islamic practice and belief, fury erupted in his empire. A similar debate emerged on the status of the Hadith’s origins. The teachings, which some say once included more than 600,000 verses, were condensed into 2,762 verses by the Islamic scholar al-Bukhari. As Kadri explains in his book, the debate is of particular interest because these verses were mostly gathered by men, a process that all but guaranteed a male bias.
While the Koran and the Hadith are accepted as the key sources of Shariah, the Islamic community continues to debate whether they should be treated as literal texts or as products of a particular social and historical context. Above all, the question remains of whether the meaning of these texts are open to interpretation. Kadri’s book also excels in demonstrating Shariah’s political journey. Islamic law, he explains, has been politicized to strengthen the power base of political leaders who enforced it to ensure their own legitimacy.In the early days when Shariah was first institutionalized, ulamas (Islamic scholars) were reportedly forced to become Shariah kadis (judges of Shariah law). They had to be forced into the new role, rather than willingly accepting it, because many of them were terrified to judge, denounce and punish the sins of their fellow human beings — a job they believed belonged to God. Shariah law took a revolutionary step when the imperative to command good and punish evil became more radical. This interpretation of the duty to reinforce Islamic values threatened to replace legal order with pious anarchy. Today, this same threat continues to confront certain parts of the Muslim world, including Indonesia, while some radical Islamists eagerly denounce other Muslims as un-Islamic or even apostates.

In the modern era, the rise of self-proclaimed Islamic defenders has challenged the rule of law, the building of a democratic society and the development of tolerance. In the name of Shariah, these defenders are willing to unilaterally force their own interpretation of Islam on others. Their crusade is risky because many Shariah issues are still under debate, as are some interpretations of the Hadith. This risk becomes apparent in the second part of the book, as Kadri travels through different parts of the Muslim world and sees how Shariah is implemented in practice. In Pakistan, he sees how it has been abused through the country’s blasphemy law, and then to further his understanding, he travels to Egypt, Iran and India. Had he traveled to Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, he would have surely witnessed the hazards of some Muslims trying to act as defenders of Shariah and pompously reinforcing it on behalf of God.
The debate on Shariah will continue within and outside the Islamic community. Unfortunately, as Kadri says in the book’s introduction, the debate will likely be an irrational one, as fiery preachers and random Muslim youths make bellicose assertions about the holy texts, producing noise rather than information.

There are other writers who have also attempted to fill the void of information, but Sadakat Kadri is among the best. “Heaven on Earth” is an outstanding book for anyone who wants to understand how Shariah and many great aspects of the Islamic legal system have evolved and interacted with Greek philosophy, logic and rational discourse — and how that journey has led to its tragic transformation into a simplified dogma.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s