Screenshots

What Rosmah said was ill-advised..but it wasnt ridiculously insensitive..im a proud Muslim and I thought she made a very valid point, it was just a slip of the tongue..

if our society cant forgive mistakes at the spur of the moment when ure passionately arguing one's opinion, then we have to look at ourselves.

in any case, regulating media, book publishing; any form of State control over information is in my eyes immoral. I dont believe in the random mutation of genes that Darwin writes of, but i will never disallow my child in the future to read it.

Everyone knows Voltaire no?

Hi Jeff,

Just on the Rosnah case, (again) two sets of laws are involved here.

What was Rosnah's crime? Speaking of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH and his wife Siti Khadijah RA in a defamatory manner. This could be regarded as blasphemous, as the Prophet (obviously) is the man that Allah Himself chose to lead the "perfected religion", i.e. Islam. His wife meanwhile, is the epitome of a woman who became a successful entrepreneur, an inspiration to many Muslim women (think Kelantan).

"Sensasi", and thus by association TV3 and ultimately Media Prima's crime was airing the interview itself. Did they completely and in detail inform/remind Rosnah and other guests on the issues that can and cannot be discussed? Did they do the same to the hosts, notwithstanding the fact that the program was designed to touch on sensitive and sensational issues?

In a perfect world, the parties should be sued both by MCMC as well as JAKIM. But this is unlikely.

When [ DELETED ] 's case confirmed that he owed million to a British casino, why didn't the religious department act? He is a Muslim, and yet his gambling will go unpunished, even though there are clear provisions under both syariah and common law in Malaysia that prohibits Muslims from engaging in such immoral activities?

Lets not even go to the isues of the wealth that he amassed to be able to gamble away millions...

Fact is Jeff, nothing much will happen. Remember Abang Zek, the ADUN who made headlines with his illegal palatial bungalow (no permit)? Was he ever prosecuted?

Sigh... it's just another day in paradise.

Good luck Malaysia.

bahaman,

once u start suing people for what they say..u set a precedent that will be regressive..

if rosnah is sued, or media prima or umno or whoever, what is going to stop me from being sued if we forget to say s.a.w. after
Muhammad? cant it be interpreted as blasphemous too?

let us be guided by moral principles of islam if need be. but as long as one does not infringe on another's rights, let there be no persecution. If that makes me a secularist Muslim, so be it. I dont apologise for how I interpret the religion.

Dear Vedderian,

Maybe you misunderstood me; I was answering Jeff's question actually.

Thus what I state are (I believe, as I am no lawyer) what is provided for under law.

I disagree that a person should not be sued for what he says. A man must be held accountable for his words; if the law is silent on issues of slander and false accusations, there would be a right royal riot across the world.

Even in Islam, it is a Muslim's duty (and don't interpret that as sword slashing defence of the religion) to uphold and defend the faith. Remember there are three ways to do so; if you cannot physically - either due to ill health or a greater danger to self, family or society - thus words are necessary. If words may then put you, the family or society in danger, the heart (prayer) comes into play.

For the record, nobosy should be sued for WHAT WAS SAID. If there was to be a legal wrangle, it should be as to why caution was not exercised that resulted in the airing of the views deemed deragatory to a member of the Prophet's family.

Not saying PBUH/SAW after the mention of his name is not blasphemous; by definition blasphemy is to deny what is accepted as a rule. But if one was to say that the Prophet was a lie, or that the Quran was a textbook written by an obscure Nepalese with time on his hands, I would take that as blasphemous. And the person has the right to defend his opinion in a court of law.

Remember to that a legal suit does not render a man guilty. The proceedings and then the decision will do so.

Lastly, let us not label ourselves as secular, sunni, shiite, hadhari etc. We are Muslims.

In case 1. As usual, in Bolehland, law and justice are always carried by wrong party with wrong outcome.

Actually I am not surprise since many gahmen officer/local councils crimes and political parties graft are never turn to the correct enforcement officer.

In case 2.
After watching Youtube clip, I learn the "crime" of the speaker. :p

---------
Offtopic :
My memory bring me to China Cultural revolution(1966-76) . In the history, Mao-Tze-Tung are portrait as God. Any sign or word that show the "disrespect" of Mao is deem
blasphemous and punish as criminal. It also come to an extend that accidentally tainted the Little Red Book about Mao idealism is consider a crime that comparable to murder.