Welcome to the Net Muslims Forums.
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default Indo - Malay News

    US Prepares to Overthrow Malaysian Government

    Key to encircling and containing China, US sets proxies in motion for color revolution in Malaysian streets.

    US-funded opposition fronts have vowed to overthrow the Malaysian government via disruptive and potentially violent street protests in the wake of general elections that saw their leader Anwar Ibrahim soundly defeated despite massive support from Western media, NGOs, and direct government intervention. Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reported in their article, “‘BN will be toppled this year’,” that:

    Pro-Pakatan Rakyat groups have vowed to overthrow the Barisan Nasional government this year through a massive street rally. Speakers at a forum held yesterday unanimously agreed that waiting for five years until the next general election was too long, and vowed to overthrow BN this year through “force”.

    FMT also added that:

    Electoral watchdog group Bersih 2.0 steering committee member Hishamuddin Rais pointed out that it was useless to take their unhappiness to the courts as he claimed the justice system was being controlled by the government.


    “That is why we must take to the streets. We have to come out. What Najib likes is wrong, and what he doesn’t like is what we have to do,” he said. “We will mobilise a big group and rally on the streets. This is not a threat, this is a promise,” he stressed.


    Bersih, of course, is a US State Department-funded opposition front aimed to bolster US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim, formerly of the IMF and World Bank, and a frequent visitor to the insidious National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington D.C. It is in fact, NED that funds Bersih through its subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

    The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan:

    “…admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march.”

    A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization – before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI’s rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something far more sinister at play.




    In addition to Bersih, other faux-electoral monitors are also directly funded by the US government. While the Western media attempts to portray such organizations as “independent,” the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research, for example, is likewise funded directly by the US through NED.


    Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy’s “Democracy Award” and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony - the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih and so-called “independent” election monitor Merdeka – paints a picture of an opposition running for office in Malaysia, not for the Malaysian people, but clearly for the corporate financier interests of Wall Street and London.


    Without a doubt, this premeditated sedition aimed at Malaysia’s ruling government has been designed, funded, and directed from Washington on behalf of Wall Street and London, not by the Malaysian people on behalf of Malaysia’s best interests.


    The street protests conducted by Bersih have all the hallmarks of US-backed “color revolutions,” and this recent attempt to overturn election results that do not favor an overt US-proxy, foreshadows the same destructive, divisive, violent, and regressive unrest that has plagued Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria after US-engineered uprisings have left each in turn destabilized, failed states overrun by extremists, dictators, and traitors many times worse than the governments activists sought to overthrow.


    And with Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and Syria in hindsight, will Malaysians fall into this same familiar trap? Whatever discontent Malaysians may have with the current government, it is all but assured Bersih and US-proxy candidate Anwar Ibrahim will compound perceived injustices while compromising Malaysia’s political, social, and economic stability, and begin channeling Malaysia’s resources and energy toward foreign interests and designs, particularly those involving the encirclement and containment of China.


    An Alternative to the Tired Ploy of “Street Protests”



    For the average Malaysian seeking progress, a better bet than joining US-funded sedition would be to turn their attention toward organizing locally and focusing on pragmatic, rather than political, goals. Education, local economic development, health, and local infrastructure are all areas Malaysians, regardless of political affiliations, can work together on and improve regardless of who holds public office.


    And while special interests, both foreign and domestic, can indeed hinder such progress, they do not make such progress impossible. What is certain, is that corruption amongst Malaysia’s ruling party pales in comparison to that of Wall Street and London – and Malaysians will place themselves in the path of guaranteed destruction by inviting in the very people who dominated them before achieving a hard-won independence.


    Democracy, in reality, is supposed to be a bottom-up exercise drawn from the grassroots. Bersih is clearly a vehicle for Anwar Ibrahim and his political machine – one whose message is funded, crafted, and declared from Anwar’s political advisers and foreign backers, and disseminated across the movement – however cleverly “democratized” Bersih may attempt to appear.


    Malaysians do not need a political party to improve education, to grow their own food, to develop business locally by leveraging technology, or to improve local infrastructure and strengthen local communities. The time being wasted to assist Anwar Ibrahim’s worming back into political power at the cost of peace, stability, and prosperity could be better spent developing truly grassroots pragmatic power.


    Real revolutions do not happen out on the streets – they are manifested in our schools, across industry, and within our communities. They are marked by pragmatism and true, enduring technological and socioeconomic progress – none of which are even promised by Bersih and Anwar Ibrahim’s “People’s Alliance.” If the people of Malaysia truly want “change,” they are going to have to do it themselves by building local institutions that technologically and pragmatically solve real problems rather than simply craft slogans and campaign promises that merely pander to the concerns of the people. Following the flags of Bersih into the streets will undoubtedly begin instability and division across Malaysian society that will jeopardize, not spur, real and very necessary pragmatic progress.


    http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/15/us-prepar...an-government/


    Comments:



    Few months back I posted an article about how Obama plans to destroy the economy of this region in order to bring jobs back to USA. With four more years of Obama, you can bet we will see more turmoil in the Middle East, Asia (Iran & Pakistan), Africa, and this malay region.

  2. #2
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    Padmaavat banned over film's depiction of Muslim ruler

    2/3/2018

    Malaysia has banned a controversial Bollywood film, citing its negative portrayal of a Muslim ruler.

    The release of Padmaavat has already caused mayhem in India.

    The 14th century period drama focuses on the tale of Muslim King Alauddin Khilji, Rajput ruler Ratan Singh, and Hindu queen Padmavati.

    Hindu groups in India alleged the film distorts history by depicting Rajput queen Padmini - the protagonist of the film - in a poor light.

    Protesters in the South Asian country took to the streets to demand the movie was not screened there, but eventually lost their bid after the Supreme Court rejected a bid to ban the film.

    In an unexpected twist, Malaysia's Ministry of Home Affairs on Friday said the film would not be screened in nationwide cinemas, rejecting the way in which Alauddin Khilji was depicted.

    "He is portrayed as a sultan who is arrogant, cruel, inhumane, devious with all kinds of trickery, unreliable and who does not fully practise Islamic teachings," the ministry said in a statement, according to The Straits Times.

    Malaysia's Film Censorship Board ruled that the movie was "not approved for screening".

    A trailer for Padmaavat shows the Muslim sultan as a man with an aggressive expression, his face dirtied by blood and mud.

    Bollywood films are popular in Malaysia. Ethnic Indians comprise 7 percent of Malaysia, a majority Muslim country of 32 million people.

    The censorship board has previously banned films with religious themes, such as the 2014 biblical drama Noah, and movies with sexual content, such as Fifty Shades of Grey in 2015.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/0...063058138.html

    comments:

    How many "Muslim" countries will also ban this movie?!

  3. #3
    Member Array
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,987

    Default

    The intolerant reality of Indonesia’s ‘religious harmony’: Christians block mosque construction in Papua

    Apr. 18, 2018

    A Christian group in Jayapura, the capital of Papua province, recently issued a stark 14-day ultimatumto municipal authorities: Dismantle the minaret of the city’s Al-Aqsa mosque by the end of February or the group would “take their own action.”


    The source of the Jayapura Churches Association’s anger? The mosque’s minaret was higher than any of the church steeples in the surrounding neighborhood.


    The bad news for the Al-Aqsa congregation is that the law is on the Jayapura Churches Association’s side. That’s because the 2006 government regulation on “religious harmony” gives “majority religion” adherents the right to block construction of “minority religion” houses of worship.


    The irony is that in Muslim-majority Indonesia, the regulation is overwhelmingly used to block the construction of non-Muslim houses of worship, including Christian churches. For example, the Taman Yasmin Indonesia Christian Church congregation in Bogor, outside Jakarta, had acquired government approval to build a church in 2003, but opposition from Muslims in the area stalled construction and eventually forced the church’s closure. Despite successful legal appeals — the congregation won a Supreme Court decision in 2010 — local authorities have refused to enforce the decision and the church remains closed.

    But Papua province remains a Christian-majority region, meaning that Christians have the legal right to block construction or renovation of non-Christian houses of worship. The Al-Aqsa mosque’s minaret problem reflects the danger of the 2006 regulation in that it overrides the rights of religious freedom and leaves religious minorities hostage to the discriminatory whims of their “religious majority” neighbors.


    The 2006 regulation requires each local administration in Indonesia to have a “Religious Harmony Forum” to approve the construction of houses of worship. The composition of the membership of these forums are “proportional” with the religious population in each area, allowing majority religious adherents to effectively have veto power over the construction of houses of worship of religious minorities.


    It is one of many discriminatory regulations that hinder the religious freedom rights of Indonesia’s religious minorities. Those laws include the 1965 blasphemy law, which punishes deviations from the central tenets of Indonesia’s six officially recognized religions —Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism — with up to five years in prison. The others include the 2008 regulation on the Ahmadiyah, which makes proselytizing by members of the Ahmadiyah community a criminal offense.


    Those laws are backed by a government infrastructure that supports and perpetuates those discriminatory laws. They include the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) under the Attorney General’s Office, and the semi-official Indonesian Ulema Council, which has eroded religious freedom by using their position of authority to press for the prosecution of “blasphemers.” In predominantly Christian Papua, that infrastructure of course includes the Jayapura Churches Association.


    The Jayapura Churches Association demands didn’t end with its ultimatum for the dismantlement of the Al-Aqsa mosque’s minaret. They submitted a laundry list of demands that included government action against “noisy loudspeakers” during the daily Islamic call to prayer, restrictions on Muslim missionaries in Papua and a restriction on mosque (but not church) construction inside government facilities.


    The Jayapura municipal government responded to the ultimatum by establishing a six-member team that included three Muslims and three Christians, representing both governmental and nongovernmental organizations. The government has tasked the team with brokering a compromise between the Jayapura Churches Association and the Al-Aqsa mosque congregation. They have held several closed-door meetings since March but have yet to announce any breakthrough agreement.


    Meanwhile in Jakarta, the Communion of Churches of Indonesia, an umbrella organization of Protestant churches in the country, and the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI), the semi-official umbrella organization of Islamic groups, have become involved in the controversy. According to an MUI spokesman, the two organizations have agreed that the Muslim minority in Papua should respect the Christian majority’s demands if they are “appropriate.” The demands that they agree are appropriate include reducing the height of the Al-Aqsa minaret as well as limiting the volume of mosque loudspeakers. That means the Jayapura Churches Association will get the demolition it demanded of the Al-Aqsa minaret and its reconstruction to a height that the association’s members apparently won’t find offensive.



    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia ratified in 2005, states that “persons belonging to…minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion.” President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo should endorse religious freedom as a fundamental principle of his administration and ensure that government officials are not promoting abuses against religious minorities. The Jayapura case should be an opportunity to educate the Indonesian public that this majority-minorities regulation is nothing less than a legal tool to discriminate against religious minorities that erodes, rather than strengthens, Indonesia’s pluralism.

    https://coconuts.co/jakarta/features...ruction-papua/


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •