Skip to content

Malaysia silent on Paris press killings

Thu 2015-Jan-8 @ MYT 15:12:54 pm


The Malaysian government remained silent today about the horrific killing of French cartoonists, with prime minister Najib Razak issuing a bald one-line statement that essentially said nothing.

Killing bad. Extremism not good. Moderation better. That’s what it said. It’s just a sales pitch for his campaign to be seen an a global “moderate” leader, whatever that means.

Not a word about the murderous attack on free speech or freedom of the press.

Not a word about the senseless slaughter of journalists exercising the power of their pens.

Here is the Malaysian response in all its glory:

Malaysia condemns in the strongest terms all acts of violence. We stand in unity with the French people. We must fight extremism with moderation.

Malaysia's stand on press freedom

Najib’s remark was just another public-relations image-building exercise for his laughable campaign to be seen as a global “moderate” Muslim leader — while the rest of his party and government, and sub-contractors of his party, are merrily attacking citizens for exercising their rights to speak and denying other citizens of their right to their own beliefs.

Citizens such as Malaysiakini journalist Susan Loone, arrested on a meaningless charge of seidition by Penang police who lack the moral fibre or courage to stand up against Umno’s sub-contracted bullies.

Citizens such as University of Malaya’s Azmi Sharom, also arrested and charged on another senseless count that basically amounts to not showing enough deference to an elite that has preyed upon the people for generations.

Not to mention all those robbed of their civil rights by the Islamisation process.

Najib’s telling statement, for what it fails to say, is merely an unstated endorsement of the Malaysian government’s longstanding attitude towards the press and free speech.

As everyone knows, the Umno-driven federal attitude is: Say nice things or else.

Take it a step further: Malaysia is making an unstated endorsement of the bullying of journalists, if not of actually killing them.


Anwar: killing journos can never be condoned

By contrast Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim said the “brutal killing of the 10 journalists and 2 police officers can never be condoned”, also calling it “horrific murders” and a barbarous attack.

He also covered his bases with all religious groups, urged Muslim leaders and clerics to “denounce these acts of terrorism”, and called for continuing efforts against intolerance and bigotry.

Azmin also condemns ‘depraved’ killing

Selangor mentri besar Azmin Ali also said “we strongly condemn the senseless and depraved killing of the cartoonists and policemen in the name of Islam”, and said the killers were in reality “enemies of Islam” who must be brought to justice.

DAP’s Zairil says attack on journos ‘barbaric’

The MP for Bukit Bendera, Zairil Khir Johari of the DAP, calling it an act of barbarity, said: “Although we do not agree with the magazine’s often-questionable satire, there is nothing that justifies extremism, much less cold-blooded murder, especially against media practitioners.”

  1. Shadaan permalink
    Thu 2015-Jan-8 @ MYT 22:55:27 pm 22:55

    Muslims must condemn this kind of senseless killing, and not be intimidated with the general view of fellow Muslims. How is all this kind of violent actions helping fellow Muslims? What happens if there is a organised backlash? The consequences will not be good for anyone and everyone. Muslims must deeply look into the nature of religion from all accepted view and ask relevant questions. There seem to be a deep sense of doubt with everything that has been put together. Religious fundamentalist and politicians who use religion seem to be our destroyers or exploiters rather than advisers as they claim. We say there is a meaning for life but there seem to be no meaning the way we live with violence and terror. Don’t let religious leaders and politicians maintained that you must toe the line while they destroy the earth.

  2. Eric permalink
    Sat 2015-Jan-10 @ MYT 10:13:36 am 10:13

    Why Militant iSLAM = NAT-Z!$

    The author of this email is Dr. Emanuel Tanya, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true NAT-Z!$, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
    ‘Very few people were true NAT-Z!$,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the NAT-Z!$ were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come.’
    ‘My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

    We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.’ ‘History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.’
    ‘The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.’
    ‘The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ‘silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China ‘s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.’
    ‘The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

    Other Sources:

    To understand how, it’s important to see how it looks from the other side.
    Tell me if this sounds familiar:

    (1) A moderate Muslim states that ISIS is wrong, they aren’t “true” Muslims, and Islam is a religion of peace.

    (2) A questioner asks: what about verses in the Quran like 4:89, saying to “seize and kill” disbelievers? Or 8:12-13, saying God sent angels to “smite the necks and fingertips” of disbelievers, foreboding a “grievous penalty” for whoever opposes Allah and his Messenger? Or 5:33, which says those who “spread corruption” (a vague phrase widely believed to include blasphemy and apostasy) should be “killed or crucified”? Or 47:4, which also prescribes beheading for disbelievers encountered in jihad?

    (3) The Muslim responds by defending these verses as Allah’s word — he insists that they have been quoted “out of context,” have been misinterpreted, are meant as metaphor, or that they may even have been mistranslated.

    (4) Despite being shown multiple translations, or told that some of these passages (like similar passages in other holy books) are questionable in any context, the Muslim insists on his/her defense of the Scripture.

    Sometimes, this kind of exchange will lead to the questioner being labeled an “Islamophobe,” or being accused of bigotry.But put yourself in the shoes of your non-Muslim audience. Is it really them linking Islam to terrorism? We’re surrounded with images and videos of jihadists yelling “Allahu Akbar” and quoting passages from the Quran before beheading someone (usually a non-Muslim), setting off an explosion, or rallying others to battle. Who is really making this connection

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: