Are Malays easily 'confused' as claimed?

From FMT - A sad day when logic goes to the dogs (extracts):

It’s downright confusing how the religious authorities in our country believe Muslims can be so easily confused these days.

After eons of ordering “Hot Dog satu, adik!” from roadside stalls manned by Malays, it’s mind boggling how Pretzel Dogs can be confused all of a sudden as dog meat, mixed into dough, twisted and baked for human consumption by a trusted and well-loved international pretzel chain.

wakakaka - JAKIM's hot dog 

Yet, that is precisely what the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) was concerned over when they refused halal certification for Auntie Anne’s recently.

While members of the public voiced their bewilderment at this move, the Federation of Malaysian Consumer Associations (Fomca) stepped right in to support Jakim, saying the decision was in line with the teachings of Islam and the word “dog” in the menu, was inappropriate.

Seriously?

In July 2013 I posted The truth behind the Alvivi bah-kut-teh in which I wrote (extracts only - you can read the entire post via the link provided):

I read RPK's Chinese hypocrisy at its best and Bak-kut-teh is NOT chik-kut-teh with much amusement and, alas, a wee spot of shame because RPK's condemnations of the hypocrisy of some Chinese Malaysians have been spot on.

The issue revolves around the notorious Alvivi Duo who recently stirred steamy shit with their bah-kut-teh buka puasa provocation.

Some Chinese Malaysians in a kniasu attempt had jumped swiftly into defending the naughty duo, arguing pathetically on semantics, namely that the Chinese-Hokkien word 'bah' literally means 'meat' and should not be taken to imply 'pork' whence it could then have meant 'chicken' or even 'beef', and thus there was no insult in the duo's Facebook greetings to Muslim to buka puasa with a bowl of delicious bah-kut-teh.

One of the kniasu group had even argued that bah-kut-teh refers to the herbal ingredients rather than the meat they flavour.

Wakakaka, you see, it's not only some Malay-Muslims who would defend ulamas blindly despite the clerics deserving condemnations. Some Chinese also did and will do that for what they believe to be 'their side'.

I haven't considered the Alvivi pair ever as on 'my side', wakakaka. But that's besides the point. We must not defend the wrong.

I then argued that bah-kut-teh should NOT be disguised in debates as NOT pork (unless it's stated clearly as chi-kut-teh), because in Penang Hokkien, the word 'bah' has traditionally and by convention been accepted as pork (and not generic meat, unless it is said so), and I provided several examples in that post The truth behind the Alvivi bah-kut-teh.

lor bah (sometimes spelt as lor-bak)

does any Chinese Penangite believe 'bah' or 'bak' is not pork?  Wakakaka

Yes sir, it's part of the continuous war of words between Muslims and non-Muslims, brought to a dangerous boil in recent years by new political in-your-face mentality on both sides of the fence, a dispute emphasized since Anwar Ibrahim led PKR, PAS and DAP into a formidable coalition to frighten BN.

And when both sides of politics have been equally frightened and threatened with political loss, the political debate on policies and leadership inevitably degenerated into insults, including racist insults.

DAP Chinese have become DAPigs (a wasted effort as Chinese actually consider pigs as cute and even name children as piggy) while UMNO and PAS Melayu were sneered at as blur-sotongs. Mind, it's not due to Malaysian love for nature's creatures, wakakaka, but have been downright silly racist insults. I suppose those racist invectives have been substitutes for angry masturbations, wakakaka.

Both ethnic groups involved in spate of words or insults were equally kniasu, wakakaka.

But while I had been frank about bah-kut-teh being cooked with pork, there should be a limit to nonsensical conjuring up of food names per se as animals haram to Muslims, such as 'hot dogs'.

JAKIM has been the silly boy alluding to such a moronic insinuation, but if it thinks hot dogs are made up of dogs, it is being stupid, but you know something, I reckon it's not and I'll shortly tell you why.

Hot dogs have existed in Malaysian for eons, with even Muslims operating hot dog stalls. Ditto root beer (sarsi).

Now, why is JAKIM being seen to be so silly or moronic?

It's a government agency with a RM1 billion budget, which has been why it is frantically looking for a noticeable role in society, to wit, their survival as a government useful organization.

From questioning (or more probably, angry) remarks by even HRH Sultan Johor about its nonsensical billion ringgit budget, it fears being disbanded.

So we should expect it and similar organizations such as JAWI and JAIS to cari pasal (find fault, look for a role) such as creating a mobile phone application for reporting khalwat, adultery and such like, or harassing people like Nik Raina and Kassim Ahmad, in order to justify their bloody existence, or harassing Bangladesh (or Paki) Shias when the Malaysian government has said foreigners who are Shias, have been exempted from prosecution.

The JA-organizations have been simply useless in their role (whatever that might be) but ugly in their frantic efforts in looking for one, always blaming Malays for being easily 'confused'.

BTW, an advice for JAKIM - if you want Auntie Annie's Pretzel Dogs to be changed to Pretzel Sausage, so as not to confuse the easily 'confused' Malays, be aware that at some hot dog stalls (not Auntie Annie) not all hot dogs or sausages are pork-free, wakakaka.

Some hot dogs may be beef sausages but wrapped with bacon, while others could well be chicken, pork etc sausages.

Incidentally, the author of the latter have been good with her English puns (and proverbs) in titling it A sad day when logic goes to the dogs wakakaka. Or, was it one of FMT's editors?