Pigs are sweeties, camels are halal

Star Online - I am a pig, so what? (extracts) by June Wong:

June HL Wong

sweet and lovely - I always have an eye for her
wakakaka

you ain't no pig June but a Sweetie

PIG. Hog. Swine. By any name, poor Porky has endured insults through the ages. Because it is so maligned and misrepresented as a stupid, dirty and greedy creature, being born under that sign wasn’t something I was proud of. My young self found it an absolute embarrassment.

I envied my siblings who were born under “better” signs, especially my younger sister who was born in the year of the dragon and is a high achiever since her primary school days.

born in Year of Dragon 

It didn’t help either that over the years, the pig became the most detested animal in Malaysia. So detested that I think we can adopt the Bosnian expression “Feeling like a pig in Teheran” which means, according to Wikipedia, “being uncomfortable in a situation, presumably because a pig has no place in Islamic surroundings”. All we have to do is replace Teheran with Kuala Lumpur.

That’s why despite the Federal Territories Minister Khalid Samad saying there was no ban on using the image of the pig in this Chinese New Year’s decorations in public places, no shopping mall is willing to risk offending Muslim sensitivities by displaying anything remotely porcine.

Chinese (non-Muslims of course) love pigs especially the meat

wakakaka

After all, there have been enough incidents involving the animal to show it’s simply not worth trying to be culturally correct this CNY.

In 2014, Cadbury Malaysia had to recall two batches of chocolate products when the Health Ministry claimed two batches of samples were tainted with porcine DNA. This led to Malay-Muslim groups calling for a nationwide boycott on all Cadbury products to wage a holy war against the company for attempting to “weaken” Muslims in Malaysia. The dust settled when the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) subsequently said there was no such contamination and that the chocolates were halal after all.

The following year, an Australian company pulled the plug on its electronic billboard Hari Raya greeting in KL because its wombat mascot was mistaken for a pig.

wombat 

hippopotamus


In Malaysia in 2015 the wombat was mistaken for a pig

several thousands of years ago the ancient Egyptians (not today's Arabs) mistook the hippopotamus (an animal sacred to the God Seth) for a pig, and hence started the abstinence for pork and things piggy

that custom of abstaining from pork was adopted by the Hebrews-Israelites-Judeans-Jew and Muslims

Then in 2017, the Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry seized 2,003 paint brushes made from pig bristles that were not properly labelled in a nationwide crackdown.

But Muslims aren’t the only ones who want nothing to do with the pig. The Jews also don’t consume pork and in the Bible (Leviticus 11:7) Moses and his followers are forbidden to eat swine “because it parts the hoof but does not chew the cud”.

OK, so the Hebraic laws as espoused in Leviticus 11:1-7 goes as follows:

And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.

3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.

4 Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

5 And the coney [a rabbit], because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you..

Ad that's what June Wong meant on why Muslims (and Orthodox Jew and their Hebrew, israelite, Judean ancestors) don't eat pork, namely because the pig, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud , the exact opposite of the camel, coney and hare, which though cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof.

YHWH was/is an exacting God who demands all 'conditions', namely, Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, may then be eaten.

Also see my older post written in 2005 (14 years ago) titled Why Orthodox Jews Don't Eat Pork!

Stewart Lee Allen, author of 'In the Devil's Garden', all about 'haram-ish' food, after he had discussed a few other reasons (including a discussion on kosher split hoofed cud-chewing animals and the problem of trichinosis) says:

"Historians fancy the notion that Jewish pig phobia stems from their stint as slaves in Egypt during the time when the cult of the god Seth held pigs to be exalted beasts."

But while Jews and Shia Muslims don't partake of camel meat - the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you - Sunnis do.

Islam shares many similar beliefs with Judaism, among them belief in one god, same angels, same prophets (Yehoshua ben Yosef /Isa and Mohamad being the exceptions)*, circumcision and also dietary observance, to wit, what is kosher (halal) and what is not (haram).

* To Jews, Yehoshua ben Yosef or more commonly Yeshua ben Yosef was a Judean heretic whilst to Muslims, he was a prophet (Nabi). To Christians, he was Christ the son of the Christian god

To Muslims, Mohamad was god's last prophet, but Judaism and Christianity don't recognise him at all

Jesus as Europeans see him 

Jesus as South Koreans see him 

Commissioned by the BBC, forensic anthropologist Richard Neave developed a image of the Christian figure that is pretty far removed from the face we're used to—but one that was informed by historical evidence and computerised tomography.

Neave is an expert in forensic facial reconstruction, and by taking three Semitic skulls from Israeli archeological sites (near where Jesus is believed to have been born), he was able to use computerised x-ray and ultrasound techniques to construct a model of Jesus' face. Based on anthropological and genetic data, he came up with the image pictured above.

Orthodox Jews and Muslims don't eat pork but when it comes to camel, they differ.

Pig is an animal which has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud. Thus it fulfils only one of the two requirements for a 'clean' animal and must not be eaten.

In these respects, as mentioned above, the camel is the exact opposite - though it chews the cud, it does not have a divided hoof. Thus it too fulfils only one of the two requirements for a 'clean' animal and must not be eaten.

Jews and Shiite Muslims don't eat both the pig and camel.

But interestingly, Sunni Muslims do eat the camel. In fact during Eid al-Adha in Malaysia, in previous years it's known politicians donated camels to be sembileh and the meat distributed as part of the religious festival.

I was told by a Muslim that one of the aHadith (but not the Quran) authorises Sunnis to consider camel meat as halal.

Someone no laam-paah, macam air-kow

MM Online - It’s cronyism, says DAP man after wife of PM’s aide appointed as GLC head (extracts):

JOHOR BARU, Jan 22 — A former Johor DAP leader today has criticised the ruling Pakatan Harapan (PH) government for cronyism, following the appointment of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia’s (AIM) new chairman who is the wife of the prime minister’s political secretary.

Dr Boo Cheng Hau, in describing the news of the appointment as “amazing”, urged the PH leadership to adhere to its promise that no political figures, their political allies or relatives should ever be appointed to head or be part of a government-linked corporation’s (GLC) management.

“Those who are already appointed should relinquish their appointments on the grounds of advocating genuine reforms and avoiding ‘conflict of interest’.

“GLCs’ top management should be headed and manned by non-political professionals in the transitional process of restructuring them until the realisation of an anti-monopoly legislation and a free, race-blind market is created,” said Dr Boo in a statement on his Facebook page today.

The DAP grassroots leader was commenting on cronyism allegations related to Junaidah Kiting, the wife of the prime minister’s political secretary, Abu Bakar Yahya, following her appointment to the post. He, however, did not name her in his statement.

AIM is a microfinance agency established to help develop female entrepreneurs.

Dr Boo, formerly Johor DAP chief, claimed that PH under the present leadership makes no effort to reform the government, but instead allows the previous Barisan Nasional (BN)/Umno ways to manifest themselves into the new PH culture and policies.

He said cronyism now enters PH in sophisticated forms and alleged the ruling coalition’s top leaders are plagued by the “Denial Syndrome”, and allow the previous administration’s old political culture to plague its own rank-and-file.

“The admittance of cronyism is the first step to reform our economic model, and PH’s top leadership has shown less than a satisfactory commitment to stamping out cronyism,” said the 54-year-old former Skudai assemblyman.

Hair grow from/on his heart

MM Online - Death penalty opponents have no humanity, says Hadi (extracts):

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 21 — In his harshest condemnation yet of the move to abolish the death penalty, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang declared that its supporters lack humanity.

In a lengthy statement today, he said Islam upheld the practice of Qisas (retaliatory) punishment for crimes, including that of murder.

“The priority to preserve human life is a living principle to which even dietary laws are rendered secondary, permitting the consumption of prohibited foods rather than death by starvation,” Hadi said.

He said that according to Islamic teachings, the death penalty meted out to criminals gives life, as it saves the lives of countless others by eliminating said criminals who could have gone on to become a disease upon society.

I consider the above statement by Hadi Awang as nonsense and a deceitful twist of the instructions of Allah swt. But then Hadi Awang has been known to tok-kok.

While the above 2nd last paragraph of his 'extracted' speech, that regarding the permitting [of] consumption of prohibited foods rather than death by starvation is correct Islamic commonsense dictate, Hadi Awang has been very naughty to follow that up by slipping in a following paragraph in which he has the brazen thick-skin to say the death penalty meted out to criminals gives life, as it saves the lives of countless others by eliminating said criminals who could have gone on to become a disease upon society.

That's a BIG FAT LIE as a jailed criminal (eg. murderer, and those who would be convicted with capital punishment under current unamended laws) would be lawfully incarcerated (if necessary) for life, and not necessarily under the touted 30 years imprisonment.

How can then such a criminal jailed for life go on to become a disease upon society?

Hadi Awang himself lacks humanity in insisting on the state executing-murdering a convicted killer who could be confined under humane conditions so as to protect society from such a criminal.

I propose that the jail-term for a convicted killer to range from 20 years to real-life-imprisonment.

For example, a serial killer or a cold blooded murderer should be jailed for life and never to be paroled. OTOH, a person who kills someone in a moment of passion, like retaliating excessively against a robber who has just killed a 'loved one', could merit only a 20-year sentence depending upon the circumstances and mitigating factors.

There should NOT be a 'one size fit all' jail term like 30 years.

But back to my point, namely that it is Hadi Awang himself who lacks humanity to tok-kok and twist religious instructions into a single avenue of 'an eye for an eye', meaning the convicted criminal must be executed (state murder).

Mind you, it's not a monstrous mafulat-ish mentality exclusive to the religious clergy like hadi Awang in wanting to slay back at a criminal a la 'an eye for an eye'. There are all sorts of people who have that mentality, namely, Chinese, Indians, Malays, clergy, laypersons, and even an ex-IGP, etc.

I once had a Chinese FB acquaintance who dismayed, disgusted and sickened me with his very virulent venomous insistence on the death penalty.

He invited me to view some rightwing YouTube vidoes on serial killers to win over my support for retaining the death penalty. But alas for him, I have read and appreciated numerous neutral-sourced institutionalised criminology articles including statistics which show otherwise, namely, that the death sentence does not affect serious crime rates.

As a Chinese, there is an appropriate Penang Hokkien term to describe his venomous mentality, to wit, 'sim sare moh' (the word 'sare' is pronounced like 'care' but with a typical Penang nasal sound between 's' and 'are', something like 'snare').

'Sim sare moh', translated literally, means 'his heart grows hair' or more correctly 'hair grow from/on his heart'.

The figurative meaning for such a person described means 'he himself is murderous'.

And I wasn't surprised that he turned ugly against me when I did not agree with his poisonous attitude towards executing criminals. 

Outrageous Chong-ing re Sedition Act

Malaysiakini - Surendran hits out at 'outrageous' defence of Sedition Act:

Lawyers for Liberty advisor Surendran has hit out at "outrageous" defence of the Sedition Act 1948, including the claim by lawyer Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahman who said an attempt to abolish the law without consent from the Conference of Rulers, can in itself be seditious.

Abdul Aziz, who was involved in the amendment draft of the Sedition Act after the 1969 riots, based this on his claim that the law was enacted under Article 10(4) of the Federal Constitution.

Article 10(4) allows Parliament to pass laws prohibiting the questioning of the rulers' position, bumiputera special privileges and national language on grounds of public security and such laws requires involvement from the Conference of Rulers.

However, Surendran said this was impossible as the Sedition Act was enacted during the British colonial era, even before the Federal Constitution existed.

"The constitution only came into existence nine years later in 1957. It is simply astonishing that Abdul Aziz overlooked this simple fact in his zeal to uphold the oppressive Sedition Act.

"Further, if the Sedition Act was really enacted under a specific provision of the constitution such as Article 10(4), this would be reflected in the preamble to the Act.

"However, nowhere in the Sedition Act does it state that it is a law made under Article 10(4)," he said in a statement.

Surendran added that Article 63(4) of the Federal Constitution also categorises the Sedition Act as separate from laws passed under Article 10(4).

"The Sedition Act 1948 is thus, an ordinary legislation which can be repealed by a simple majority in Parliament, and without the consent of the Conference of Rulers.

Abdul Aziz 

"Abdul Aziz's claim that the Sedition Act is an 'extraordinary' piece of legislation does not have either a legal or historical basis. In fact, the Sedition Act is little more than a British penal ordinance carried over into independent Malaysia.

"Far from being an 'extraordinary' law, it is actually an inferior colonial law that was never passed by our Parliament.

"Secondly, it is the height of absurdity for Abdul Aziz to claim that calling for the repeal of the Sedition Act is itself a seditious act," said Surendran.

Surendran said Parliament has the power and duty to repeal or amend a law, therefore, it can never be seditious for citizens to call upon Parliament or the government to abolish any laws, including the Sedition Act.

"It is simply outrageous that Tan Sri Abdul Aziz, Umno and some other right-wing groups continue to defend this repressive relic of British colonial rule which is contrary to the aspirations of independent Malaysia," he said.

Arun Kasi 

Meanwhile, Lawyer Arun Kasi also echoed the view that the Sedition Act is a colonial-era legislation.

"It was one of the pre-Independence administrative ordinances made by the British government called Sedition Ordinance 1948.

"After Independence, in 1969, it was adopted in as law by the Law Revision Committee by virtue of powers conferred under the Revision of Laws Act 1968. It did not go through the parliamentary lawmaking process.

"The distinction between a law passed through parliamentary process and a law adopted by a committee is not one between apple and orange but one between marble and pumpkin," he said in a statement.

Arun said as the Sedition Act was not made by Parliament, it is not entitled to protection as a law made under Article 10(4) of the Federal Constitution.

"Hence, the question of two-third majority support at each House of Parliament and consent of Conference of Rulers, under Article 159, to amend or abolish it does not arise.

"In fact, the Sedition Act, being a law not made by the Parliament under Article 10, has at all times been unconstitutional as it was contrary to the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Article 10.

"Hence, any motion to abolish the Sedition Act cannot be seditious and in fact must be welcome for reasons aforesaid," he said.

Chef Wan's wanna-slap-Najib dish?

Malaysia's celebrity chef, Redzuawan Ismail, who is better known to us as Chef Wan, wants to slap former PM Najib Razak.

Chef Wan gesturing during a cooking programme for Felda settlers in Cameron Highlands today. With him is Economic Affairs Minister Mohamed Azmin Ali (second from left)

Azmin is sure THE 'new man' in town, wakakaka

The Malaysian Insight pic by Afif Abd Halim, January 20, 2019

Whatever the reason he has for wanting to take such a drastic step is, I believe, beyond the pale.

'Beyond the pale' is an English expression which means 'outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour.'

In Malay terms, it's an outrageous uncivilised biadab-ish expression of a violent intent. It doesn't matter Najib was the former PM as that intent to slap someone, anyone, is violent, abusive and despicable behaviour. Chef Wan should hang his head down in shame at his violent intent.

But I wonder whether it's a Malay attitude-behaviour in wanting to or actually slapping someone?

Hearken back to 1987, almost 32 years ago, when in September 1987, a Malay man who claimed to be a bomoh slapped (now the late) Karpal Singh as the latter emerged from a courtroom.

if our dear beloved Karpal was alive today he would have wept at Lim KS' treachery to DAP principles 

The bomoh as well as UMNO Youth Selangor were unhappy with Karpal for his decision to sue the late Sultan of Selangor, Salahuddin Abdul Aziz, for saying that he (HRH) would not pardon any convicted drug traffickers in his state.

While UMNO Youth did the usual stuff, lodging a police report against our Bhai for sedition and proposing he be banned from Selangor, the bomoh by the name of Kiai Arshad Mohamed Gamat showed he was no NATO (no action, talk only), wakakaka.

But the Police SB in those days (remember, we're talking about September 1987) were on the ball and an officer (not sure of what rank, maybe inspector?) by the name of Mervyn Fernandez warned Karpal of the bomoh outside the courtroom intend on violence.

Fernandez advised Bhai to leave by a side door but the Tiger of Jelutong (also Lion of Gelugor) wasn't one to creep away from a bully.

He told Fernandez it was the police's duty to protect him. To cut the story short, while a fairly worried Fernandez was outside busy taking down details of the bomoh, Bhai left the courtroom.

The bomoh, on seeing our Bhai coming out, moved towards the Tiger of Jelutong with a sly tiger's smiling face (probably more like musang, wakakaka), and even addressed Bhai as 'Yang Berhormat'.

Bhai thought the bomoh looked friendly enough so he might as well shake his hand; the bomoh made as if he wanted to reciprocate but suddenly swung his hand instead to slap Karpal.

Okay, Big, Strong & (by then) Unfriendly Karpal responded with his lawyer's briefcase which must have been voluminous with heavy law books, and the bomoh felt the full force of it. Tai-Chi-ed kau kau, wakakaka!

Thus it could be said, the assailant was brought down by the law (books), wakakaka.

Subsequently in court on a charge of assault, the bomoh claimed he was guided by a divine hand to slap Bhai and he had already placed a curse on Karpal where Bhai would go blind and die pretty soon.

Our beloved Bhai only left us abruptly in 2014, 27 years after that bomoh-ish curse.

Even though Bhai (at that time) laughed off the curse his supporters took no chance, and dragged him to a Sikh temple for a quickie purification rite.

Anyway, in April 1988 the 60-year old bomoh was found guilty by a magistrate court and fined RM200 which he refused to pay and went to jail instead, just for 2 days.

You know something? Today Kiai would have been hailed as a Muslim-bomoh warrior instead of being arrested by the police and hauled into court and then jailed. He would probably be rewarded wakakaka. He was a man born too early for his own advantage.

Then there was the 'Slap Teresa Kok' campaign in 2014.

Mustafa Hamzah, an activist with the Muslim Consumers Association of Malaysia (PPIM) NGO offered to reward anyone who slaps Teresa Kok with a sum of money, initially RM500 but subsequently raised to RM1200. On the PPIM website Mustafa Hamzah was named as the 'Pegawai Kerja' of its Board.

That bloke was not even hauled in for violent incitement, just like Chef Wan today. So the police under Pakatan Harapan is exactly like it was under BN.

It seems the remarkable IGP at that time was extremely busy at airports, seaports and land entry points from Thailand to prevent the return of Ong Boon Hwa's ashes into Malaya, wakakaka.

Then in May 2017, Sulaiman Yassin (more popularly known as Mat Over) slapped Datuk David Teo during a National Transformation 2050 (TN50) session which the PM then (wakakaka) attended.

David Teo had attempted to make a point to the stage moderator that participants at the back of the audience should also be given a chance to speak, instead of the then-PM hearing only undoubtedly-canned questions & answers coming from the 'prepared' front of the TN50 event.

That TN50 session was a round table discussion between the then-PM and the nation’s leading entertainers to find out their aspirations for the entertainment industry by 2050 but it seemed as if the forum organisers wanted the 'Chosen' to only say pleasing stuff a la 'the Emperor has no clothes'.

Obviously that Mat Over, defiantly proud of slapping Teo even after the unpleasant violence in front of a shocked then-PM, believed David Teo should not be allowed to say his 'piece' to the PM.

Obviously acting as judge, prosecutor and executioner he opined Teo had insulted (???) the then-PM, yes, as Ahok had insulted the Jakarta Muslims, and took drastic action.

David Teo should be thankful there was then no weapon nearby.

Anyway, it seems slapping someone not liked might (may) be a Malay habit, and if not satisfied, the escalation may be even up to May 13-ish actions as we have been frequently warned and threatened with.

But I hope Chef Wan's wanna-slap-Najib dish will at least have 'crispy skin' wakakaka.

A lighted cross sets our prejudices aflame

TMI - Despite survey findings, Pastor Koh’s wife insists Christians are being persecuted (extracts):

SUSANNA Liew, the wife of missing Pastor Raymond Koh, believes there is still not enough religious tolerance in the country with Christians still being subtly persecuted.

This comes despite the World Watch List 2019 survey stating that Malaysia was among three countries globally that show “signs of hope” for Christians in 2019. Malaysia scored 42 out of 50 countries on the difficulties of practising Christianity.

Susanna Liew opined Malaysian Christians are still being persecuted in Malaysia despite a recent survey showing improvement to the treatment of the religious community.

The recent brouhaha about a lighted 'cross' on the front of an apartment building in Jelutong Penang has impressed upon her the general Islamic intolerance in Malaysia, thus accentuating the perception of Islamic paranoia by some Malaysian Muslims with regards to Christian and Hindu beliefs (though strangely I have not heard of similar displeasures against Buddhist, Taoist or Confucian practices).

Yes, that lighted 'cross' on the building facade has had the underwear of PAS information chief Nasrudin Hassan (Mr Tantawi) all twisted up in Gordian-ish knots, when we heard him accusing one of the founders of Nova Mulia Development Sdn Bhd of promoting a Christianisation agenda.

While Mr Tantawi did not name the local person, most people believe he might have been referring to Annie Choo, who was named the Nehemiah Project (a Christian group) "rookie of the year" in 2015, according to a post on the company's Facebook page. That page is no longer available on the Nehemiah Project's web since three days ago after the brouhaha broke out, wakakaka.

Annie Choo with her cute dimples 

Recently I post From mere Cross to King of the World? in which I received the usual anti-Islamic (Islamophobes') rants against Islamist fascists, and childish and merajuk-ish provocations to remove the 'T' from my moniker of KayTeemoc, wakakaka.

Obviously none of my visitors-commentators have bothered to read what I wrote, to wit:

... based on DCM II Dr Ramasamy's chiding, in which he was reported to have said:

DCM II Penang Dr Ramasamy

"Why invite trouble by putting on a display that might just be used to provoke anger or concern? Developers in Penang must have some ethical and social responsibilities.

"If it is a religious place, say if it is a church compound, putting up or giving it a magnificent display is something acceptable in the country.

"However, if religious symbols are displayed in areas not designated for religious purposes, then there could be a problem."

I hope the Developer from now on will heed the wise words of Dr Rama and stop its silly onesupmanship, wakakaka again.

Nasrudin Hassan (Mr Tantawi)  

Wakakaka, in general I have would been the first, or among the earliest, to criticise any Islamist fascist for intrusive trampling on non-Muslim rights, but I have to concede this time that Mr Tantawi (PAS' Nasrudin Hassan) might have been correct (for once, wakakaka) for sniffing out a possible-alleged Christianisation agenda with the lighted 'cross'.

I based my belief not only on Dr Ramasamy's words but also those of Penang's Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow, who had stated (much earlier than Dr Rama):

"We have yet to get an explanation from the developer on why the lights were lit up in such a manner, but in the next picture when more lights were switched on, it shows a normal view or facade."

"I believe this is not a place of worship or church, but an apartment building."

If it's NOT a church or a Christian assembly building but just a mere apartment, why was there a lighted gigantic cross on that building's facade?

No doubt there was some pretty swift lateral thinking by some Chinese Confucians, wakakaka, who turned the 'cross' into the Chinese character 'ong' (2nd tone, meaning 'king', and Not the 3rd tone which would have meant to Lotto or 4-Ekor, "Watch out, here I come", wakakaka).

And it has to be said that with two mere horizontal strokes, those Chinese Confucians saved the asses of some Christians Hallelujah-ites, wakakaka.

Jesus promoted from a mere crucifix symbol to being "King' of the World (or Universe)

wakakaka

To remind you of the sage words of Dr Ramasamy, Malaysia's top Hindu advocate-defender:

"However, if religious symbols are displayed in areas not designated for religious purposes, then there could be a problem."

"Why invite trouble by putting on a display that might just be used to provoke anger or concern? Developers in Penang must have some ethical and social responsibilities."

So in ending this post, while I sympathise with Susanna Liew about her still missing pastor-husband, I do not agree with her belief that Muslim concerns about a lighted 'cross' on the front of an apartment building in Jelutong Penang demonstrated the general Islamic intolerance in Malaysia.

Though it may be difficult for Susanna Liew, sometimes we need to remember that Christianity comes from the Abrahamic group of religions as do Judaism and Islam. Thus it's not only Islam or Judaism but also Christianity which can be troublesome. 

Yes, these three religions are at times far from being pacifist, passive and peaceful.