Just wondering how these people think about it?
Look at the Haiti earthquake. If the religion or HIM can be that great, HIM should have save the thousands but alas HIM did not.
Religions are for the solace but not for political gains. In Malaysia, there is no place for racial based and religion based party to rule her future.
Just like this comment from malaysiakini.com very much about Z of PKR walked out of discipline board.
Thanabalan Gurusamy: Well then, if Zulkifli Noordin now wants a Muslim panel to hear his disciplinary case, then he should have asked the Election Commission to disregard the votes he had obtained from the non-Muslims in the election. He should have made it very clear to the non-Muslims during his election 'ceramah' that he did not want their votes.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/125725
Cala: Zulkifli Noordin argues that as one of the charges against him relates to the 'Allah' issue, by extension it is a religious issue and he ought to be given a fair hearing by a Muslim disciplinary board.
If his logic makes sense, say the next time an illegally-built Hindu temple is asked to be relocated, the case must similarly be presided over by a Hindu panel. Does this not make sense?
Look at the Haiti earthquake. If the religion or HIM can be that great, HIM should have save the thousands but alas HIM did not.
Religions are for the solace but not for political gains. In Malaysia, there is no place for racial based and religion based party to rule her future.
Just like this comment from malaysiakini.com very much about Z of PKR walked out of discipline board.
Thanabalan Gurusamy: Well then, if Zulkifli Noordin now wants a Muslim panel to hear his disciplinary case, then he should have asked the Election Commission to disregard the votes he had obtained from the non-Muslims in the election. He should have made it very clear to the non-Muslims during his election 'ceramah' that he did not want their votes.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/125725
Cala: Zulkifli Noordin argues that as one of the charges against him relates to the 'Allah' issue, by extension it is a religious issue and he ought to be given a fair hearing by a Muslim disciplinary board.
If his logic makes sense, say the next time an illegally-built Hindu temple is asked to be relocated, the case must similarly be presided over by a Hindu panel. Does this not make sense?
Comments