[ad_1]
YOUR OPINION | “I don’t see how the meaning of the first sentence changes with the rest.”
Dr M claims ‘killing millions of French’ comment is misrepresented
Sixth generation immigrant: Former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, an ‘eye for an eye’ principle, which is supposedly preferred by some people, as in your statement and quoted by you, is actually the famous legal code written by Hammurabi, the principle of reciprocity exact.
You seemed quite absorbed in grudges, revenge, and inflicting pain as a way of life; this is no different, in general, from the practice of all terrorists, regardless of their subscriptions and beliefs.
How can you be speaking for Muslims and the Islamic world when it is believed that holding a grudge and being jealous or envious creates friction between people and leads them to commit sins?
In Islam, they are greatly encouraged to forgive those who have angered them: “If I saw someone in difficult circumstances, I would say to their children: ‘Forgive him his debt, maybe Allah will forgive us.’
Be a man: This is what Mahathir wrote: “Muslims have the right to be angry and kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past. But in general, Muslims have not applied the law of “tit for tat”. Muslims don’t. ”
Yes, it is true that most Muslims, in general, do not kill innocent people because of what happened in the past. But I don’t see how this denies what he wrote in the first sentence that some people have the right to kill French people.
I can’t see how the meaning of the first sentence changes with the remaining sentences. Either my command of English is inadequate to fully understand what he wanted to say or he is now trying to get away from what he had written.
Léon Moch: There is no misrepresentation. In fact, he said that Muslims have the right to kill millions of French people.
That he said right after that sentence that Muslims do not usually do such things does not negate the fact that he said that they still had the right to kill Frenchmen.
Does anyone have the right to kill another person even if the latter is evil? Probably not, according to the law.
Caripasal: Mahathir, by stating that “Muslims have the right to kill millions”, what you write later in your post would not alter or justify your intention.
No matter how sore you are with your DNA of different origin, it is absolutely unnecessary for you to prove that you are “more Malay than Malay, or more Muslim than Muslim.”
His declaration of “right to kill” is exactly the reason for the creation of fanatics among us.
EM: Mahathir, to rephrase what I have said elsewhere, you have embarrassed and embarrassed at least some Malaysians with your selfish public statements laced with poison.
Like a scavenger vulture pouncing on the decomposing corpses it finds, it has always used international tragedies involving Muslims to stay in the headlines by taunting its rabid followers with half-truths and distortions, be they Palestine, Bosnia, or Kashmir.
His scandalous tweet was clearly calculated to justify the recent killings when he said that Muslims have a “right to be angry and kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”
Subsumed below that incendiary line, he snuck into their “in general, Muslims have not enforced the ‘eye for an eye’ law. Muslims have not.”
So, as he clearly intended, what stands out (to his detractors, supporters, and the mourning families of those killed) is his silly justification citing historical massacres, which doesn’t really explain why 44 million Muslims have flocked to these liberals. , majority Christian. countries with norms and values apparently contrary to their own, and despite these massacres. Easy to forget (easily forgotten) maybe?
In any case, instead of demanding that the French teach their people to respect the feelings of others, it should have told the Muslim émigrés, as it has always done here, to conform to the norms and values of the countries that they have helped them refuge. Or go.
He has always positioned himself as their defender, leader and spokesperson, a stance that should make him more persuasive among them than the permissive French establishment, which has historically spared no faith in its version of free expression, artistic or political.
By refusing to do so, it is you who have fueled the international condemnation of Muslim leaders like yourself and discredited the country.
Jaded: Whether taken out of context or not, there is no justification for committing acts of violence and murder against innocent people. Period.
If you don’t understand that, maybe you should go back to retirement. If people feel offended, show it in court, don’t go around killing people.
Break: Dear Mahathir, maybe you need your loving wife Siti Hasmah or your daughter Marina to review and edit your future articles.
It would have been better received to simply remove that unnecessary line “Muslims have the right to be angry and to kill millions of French for the massacres of the past.”
Let the past be past. Would more murders in the present times heal the wounds of the past? Only forgiveness can do that and bring peace to humanity.
Smart voter: Many years ago it was said that he had said that we would shoot Vietnamese refugees if they landed on our shores, only for Mahathir to say he was misquoted.
I wanted to “scare” them, not “shoot” them.
Other Comment: “Believe me, he (Mahathir) loves to buy luxury goods from LVMH in Paris. He is a pious hypocrite,” Brendan Berne (former Australian ambassador to France) said in a comment to a newspaper.
YOURS | Perhaps France is practicing its version of ‘supremacy’
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the last year, Malaysians have posted more than 100,000 comments. Enjoy the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Sign up now.
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini it is not intended to represent these views as fact.
