Stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism. It's bigoted and Islamophobic.

It seems that whenever a terrorist attack happens, Muslims and Muslim organizations are expected to say: "As a Muslim, I condemn this attack and terrorism in any form."

This "expectation" that is placed on Muslims, to be absolutely clear, is Islamophobic and bigoted. The denunciation is a form of apology: an apology for Islam and for Muslims. The implication is that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion.

This sort of thinking — blaming an entire group for the actions of a few individuals, assuming the worst about a person just because of their identity — is the very definition of bigotry. It is also, by the way, the very same logic that leads French non-Muslims, outraged by the Charlie Hebdo murders, to attack French mosques in hateful and misguided retaliation. And it's the same logic that led CNN host Don Lemon to ask Muslim-American human rights lawyer Arasalan Iftikhar if he supports ISIS, as if the simple fact of Iftikhar's religion — despite the fact that he is exactly the sort of liberal human rights activist whom ISIS hates most — made him suspect.

It is time for that ritual to end: non-Muslims should finally take on the correct assumption that Muslims hate terrorism just as much as they do, and cease expecting Muslims to prove their innocence just because of their faith.

Many Western media, (and unfortunately some local online media/articles in TMI like this one) has shown that they are prejudiced against Muslims, as they think that Muslims bear collective responsibility, that Muslims are presumed terrorist-sympathizers until proven otherwise — this is a flatly bigoted ideas that has no place in our society.

We should treat people like the Charlie Hebdo attackers as what they are: monsters who kill both for the simple sake of killing and to provoke exactly the sort of religious conflict that mosque-attackers are indulging.

Please treat Muslims as what they are: normal people who OF COURSE reject terrorism and murders of innocent people, instead of expecting them to denounce violence and terrorism based on twisted belief every time it happens.

<Extracted and paraphrased based on article written by Mr. Max Fisher from vox.com>

"An amicable resolution..."

Well done to all parties involved - Selangor MB, Sultan, BSM and JAIS for coming to agreement.

This is a big win for Azmin. Keep up the good work.

Limiting the term is a good idea. No matter how good a leader is, the longer that person is in power, the more temptation to corruption there will be (speaking in general). Besides, Malaysia should stop the practice of Chief Minister holding to power for a very long time, like in Sarawak where the CM held on to power for close to 30 years.

Two terms (10 years) is a good duration, and it is long enough for the CM to make real changes to the State. Plus it will give a chance for future leaders to rise and shine as well. DAP should lead by example, show that it is not afraid to make great changes that will help the state and the country.

Let's look at this rationally. Imagine if Penang State Government wanted to disclose to the public an agreement between the state government and a private party, say, a multinational there such as Seagate, or Intel. Penang would need the consent from the other signatory first (i.e. Seagate or Intel must agree first), otherwise it would be a breach of the (standard) confidentiality clause that is present in all contracts.

Not only that, it would also affect the confidence of international investors if they see the government (either state ot federal) would not honour the terms agreed in (government) contract, including the confidentiality clause, and that the government can simply disclose to the public an agreement that they (a private party) had signed. That is why the Maximus said all parties must agree to disclose first, before the agreement can be made public.

Even if Putrajaya and Selangor State Government agreed to disclose to the public, they still cant do it until the other parties/signatories of the agreement also agreed. Some of these signatories are public listed companies. So they may not want to not disclose as it might affect their share prices (especially if they are not getting a good deal, which may result in their prices falling). There is also governance and regulations to consider when it comes to public listed companies, which need to be adhered to.

In any case, the water agreement does not necessarily need to be disclosed to the public. Azmim can ask for the agreement to be disclosed to the parliment, or to a select group of (opposition) MPs. Or at least the key gist/terms of the agreement only. Let parliment or these small group of MPs review the deal and see if anything is amiss. Azmin also has copies of the agreement and his team can also say (generally) if the agreement appears to be lopsided or not. There are other ways to achieve the same objectives, if willing to try.

An occasional bad review is part and parcel of a restaurant/cafe business. The owner need to handle this better. Attacking a customer online will only drive customers away from your cafe.

As a Muslim, I have no problems with a church (or other religious buildings such as temples) being built in my area. Everybody has the right to practice their religion.

From this article, there seems to be 2 groups of people who had protested on the construction of this church.

The first group of demonstrators is by residents of the nearby Damai Apartment complex in PJS 8, who raised concerns about traffic. The church said they immediately met the residents to allay their concerns about traffic congestion. The meeting ended on a good note, said the church, which is good.

The second group of demonstrators is from Pertubuhan Sahabat, who raised concerns that the church is being built in an area with 70% majority Muslims, and the fact that there are already 3 churches in the vicinity. The group also claimed that they were not aware of any consultation sessions that were done with the public previously. I have never heard of this group before, but to give them the benefit of the doubt (that they were not aware of previous consultation session), the church should do exactly what they did with the first group of demonstrators, which is to send the church's representatives to meet with this Pertubuhan Sahabat and discuss the matter, instead of going to the media directly.

If the church can send representatives to meet with the first group of demonstrators, why not meet with this one? The church can listen to their concerns and address their concerns. From the meeting, the church can also determine if this Pertubuhan Sahabat have genuine concerns (which the church can address) or they have other agendas. But meet them first, don't assume they have bad intentions from the get go.

Plus, the face to face meeting (especially if Pertubuhan Sahabat contain representatives from nearby surau and mosques) will also help both parties to get to know each other and build trust, which will help to alleviate concerns from both sides. Explaining through media will not have the same effect. As corny as this may sound, there is an old saying "tak kenal, maka tak cinta". Meet them first, and hopefully the meeting can also end on a good note like the first group.

Well, Azmin is doing something about it. Let's wait for the outcome.

"Sisters of Islam fries Azmin...."
"With all due respect,..."

Well, that's not exactly how I would describe one party "fries" another party.

On a more serious note, the best course of action that Sisters in Islam should take is to seek clarification from MAIS what part of SIS's activities or stand that supposedly made them "deviant". Then SiS should explain and counter point for point. This is the best way to let the public know the truth.

You can go to their website. Info on their CEO, Senior Management and Board of Directors are there.

BN is digging itself into a bigger hole.