Excellent,

Now they have antagonised the Chinese in Malayasia, who in turn will inform their Chinese bretheren in Singapore and then the Chinese in China.

Posted by: apostate_islam at January 1, 2008 8:41 AM

The state mufti (Muslim scholar) last July followed up with a religious decree that the statue would offend Islam.

Posted by: Crusader at January 1, 2008 9:22 AM

We've still got big chunks of Nevada and Arizona for the detritus of western culture. Put it out there by the London Bridge. Anything but giving it the Afghan Buddhas treatment.

Posted by: Beagle at January 1, 2008 9:39 AM

Just wondering but if giving offense to a religion is getting to be a standard by which to judge behavior, what happens when Islam offends me? And it does.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at January 1, 2008 9:48 AM

Everything "offends islam".

Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at January 1, 2008 10:00 AM

"The state mufti (Muslim scholar) last July followed up with a religious decree that the statue would offend Islam."

"Offending Islam" is as meaningless a phrase as "The War On Terror", and for the same reason.

How can Islam, a thing, a concept, be offended? Some Mohammedans might be offended, but I'm sure some of them couldn't care less about a statue in Borneo.

Note also the poor crafting of the sentence from the article. Is it a warning from the mufti about an expected result caused by the completion of the statue?

Is it an order to Islam to be offended by the statue? You may laugh at the idea, but it's also ridiculous that Islam has sensibilities to be offended. The use of the word "decree" makes this confusing.

As another poster noted elsewhere on this site, Islam is a pathetic thing. It's so vulnerable, so easily wounded. Something so fragile should be locked away from such a cruel world as ours. It belongs in a snow globe, it belongs in a safe.
It belongs in quarantine.

Posted by: Abscedere at January 1, 2008 12:08 PM

Islam OFFENDS ME

Man of the year sings out 2007 at The Sheraton Tel-Aviv

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/12/islamic-rage-boy-sings.html

Posted by: shiva at January 1, 2008 12:57 PM

would offend Islam.
so what its a cult that should be shutdown like the profit of bountiful was here in bc

Posted by: grizlybear at January 1, 2008 1:19 PM

More religious statues!

Fewer Radical Jihadist Islamofacists!

Posted by: tanstaafl at January 1, 2008 1:38 PM

I remember a similar incident from around 25 years ago. The Penang Chinese were constructing themselves an enormous Kwan Yin (Goddess of Mercy) statue. Until the local Muslims realized that it would actually be taller than the main mosque and put a stop to it. That statue stood headless for a while and eventually the Chinese built a new smaller version.

The thought of having female dieties towering over them must be doubly offensive to Muslims.

Posted by: zaltys at January 1, 2008 5:04 PM

Assumably the offend is the height ( and femanine)..again this is an example of the failure to separate State and Church..and the lack of Government will in slapping down small poisonous religious subgroups with a political agenda who seek to enflame division to their own advantage. It is not unique to Islam , the construction of the Hindu temple at Ayodhya in India promoted by nationalistic Hindu's was pathway to political power. The race riots that followed were terrible. Here though in Malaysia there is a legal action. The world , through better Government and increasing Westernisation of these Governments is getting safer and saner!

Posted by: David Xavier at January 1, 2008 6:51 PM

Up is down, down is up, left is right, right is left. When will this monstrosity ever end???

Abscedere, you are 100 percent spot on.

It is a f***ing statue for crying out loud. Surely, the will of Allah shall not be impeded by a mere icon????

Posted by: ThinkForYourself at January 1, 2008 11:09 PM

Yet another story to make the blood boil.

We have a lot of work ahead of us.

Posted by: alexon at January 2, 2008 12:12 AM

There is also a very large Christian population in Malaya.

When She danced on the water and the wind was Her horn
The Lady laughed and everything was born,
And when She lit the sun and the light gave Him birth
The Lord of the Dance first appeared on the Earth.

"Dance then, where-ever you may be,
For I am the Lord of the Dance," said He,
"And I'll lead you all, where-ever you may be,
And I'll lead you all in the Dance," said He.

I danced in the morning when the world was begun,
I danced in the Moon and the Stars and the Sun,
I was called from the darkness by the Song of the Earth,
I joined in the singing and She gave me Birth.

"Dance then, where-ever you may be,
For I am the Lord of the Dance," said He,
"And I'll lead you all, where-ever you may be,
And I'll lead you all in the Dance," said He.

I dance at the Shabbat when you chanted the spell,
I dance and I sing that everyone be well.
When the dance is over do not think I am gone,
I live in the music, so I still dance on.

"Dance then, where-ever you may be,
For I am the Lord of the Dance," said He,
"And I'll lead you all, where-ever you may be,
And I'll lead you all in the Dance," said He.

They cut me down but I leap up high -
I am the Light that will never, never die:
I live in you if you live in me -
"I am the Lord of the Dance", said He.

"Dance then, where-ever you may be,
For I am the Lord of the Dance," said He,
"And I'll lead you all, where-ever you may be,
And I'll lead you all in the Dance," said He.

"Dance then, where-ever you may be,
For I am the Lord of the Dance," said He,
"And I'll lead you all, where-ever you may be,
And I'll lead you all in the Dance," said He.

Posted by: OliverPCamford at January 2, 2008 1:53 AM

With reference to David Xavier's comments'It is not unique to Islam , the construction of the Hindu temple at Ayodhya in India promoted by nationalistic Hindu's was pathway to political power. The race riots that followed were terrible'...

This comparision is odious to the say the least.The temple movement in Ayodhya itself is a result of the usual barbarism of Mohammedans everywhere. There was no 'construction' of temple in Ayodhya--not at least in the recent centuries. There was only a 'destruction' of a disputed structure. Also there were no 'race' riots as Hindus and Muslims in India are not of different races. The only valid point in the comment of David was about the political gains that BJP(the polictical party) gained out of it. But that in anyway does not take away the legitimate demand of a majority of Hindus that they be given the place that they consider one of the most sacred in their religious life. If anybody wishes to know the background/legitimacy of the demand of Hindus they can get it from here.

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/ayodhya/evidence1.html

To compare this to the actions of temple destroying/idol hating Malaysian Muslim society(including Govt and the general public) is laughable.

RT

Posted by: RT at January 2, 2008 2:03 AM

Just a ahort musical interlude:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c0aEHw3vKLg

to give you a flavour.

Posted by: OliverPCamford at January 2, 2008 2:17 AM

Hmm! They think that they can win against us? Christian, as I am, secularist, as many of us are, they can never defeat the freedom in God, or in Conscience, that we enjoy.

They claim, these silly Islamists, the moral high ground - a ground (a field of battle) which is not theirs - in which they claim, by virtue of their so called prophet, the right to kill. We do not claim such a right - secular, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Shintoist, Animist or whatever, we do not claim the right to kill, to kill in God's name - only they do!

That should tell you all which you need to know. No other condemnation of Islam is needed.

Dance. Dance on.

For the secularist, or the believer, the dance goes on.

Posted by: OliverPCamford at January 2, 2008 2:50 AM

'david xavier' - are you posting from Malaysia, perchance?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 2, 2008 5:54 AM

David Xavier,

Im from Malaysia & events like this dont happen by accident.

The case for Ayodhya is misconcepted.

In malaysia, its a different story, a dhimmitude procedure is in place for every non-muslim religious activity.

Some years ago, in a bhuddist community in a small town in borneo were baffled with a new mosque with extra loud loud speakers, prompting someone from the neighborhood to shoot the speakers.

He was arrested for offending islam, after much pressure, he won the case.

Think about it, everything non islamic offends islam anyway, so anything a non-muslim initiates from temples to statues to religious studies will get the nod from the state department justified as it will naturally any muslim.

Talking or challenging the idea is always wrong and its viewed as offending islam again.

So, this is only unique to islam.

Posted by: tjwork at January 2, 2008 6:37 AM

"The state mufti (Muslim scholar) last July followed up with a religious decree that the statue would offend Islam"

.....it is evident that this Muslim scholar (just like most Muslim scholars) do not study other religions to any extent....these narrow minded buffoons are blinded by the hate written in the Qur'an.....Islam is truly an intolerant religion.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 2, 2008 6:37 AM

OliverPCamford,

Love the song. Thanks for providing the link with the tune.

Posted by: Abscedere at January 2, 2008 1:58 PM

RT & tjwork is right, and David Xavier is either completely mistaken, or making things up. While there was and is a demand to construct a temple in Ayodhya, (which at one time looked like a vote getter for the BJP, but no longer does, since the BJP government couldn't follow up on it due to alliance constaints) the real problem was the continuing existance of a mosque on the site of the birth of Shri Rama. To flip the coin, just imagine if the Kaaba was demolished, and in its place, say, a church, or a Hindu temple was built: you think even moderate Muslims would stand for it? Or if someone demolished the tomb of Mohammed, Abu Baqr and Umar I, and built a synagogue over it? Here you have the destruction of a temple commemorating the birthplace of one of our major gods, and replaced by a mosque, and Hindus are expected to simply let it remain?

As a Hindu, I'm glad that that mosque was levelled, but whether a temple is built, or instead, say, a Ramayan theme park, I don't care. Just don't want a symbol of Islam atop one of our holiest sites. And lest one thinks that Hindu fanatics want Ayodhya to be a Rama-only city, the city has 2 Jain temples, and 2 Sikh gurudwaras, none of which was built by destroying pre-existing memorials to Shri Rama. If Bajrang Dal sevaks were as fanatical about Shri Rama as one is expected to believe, all of these monuments should be in their crosshairs.

As it is, none of them are.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 2, 2008 11:11 PM