Yoursay Did The Rest Of The World Misinterpret Mahathir

---

 


YOURSAY | 'I cannot see how the meaning of the first sentence is changed by the remaining sentences.'
Dr M claims 'kill millions of French' remark misrepresented, expresses disgust
6th 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 exact reciprocity.
You seemed pretty absorbed in grudges, revenge and inflicting pain as a way of life - this is no different, generally, to the practice of all terrorists, irrespective of their subscriptions and beliefs.
How can you be speaking up for Muslims and the Islamic world when it is believed that holding grudges and being jealous or envious creates friction among people and leads them to commit sins.
In Islam, it is greatly encouraged to forgive those who have angered them - "If he saw anyone in difficult circumstances he would say to his children, 'Pardon him his debt, perhaps Allah will pardon us’."
Beman: This is what Mahathir wrote, “Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past. But by and large, the Muslims have not applied the 'eye for an eye' law. Muslims don't."
Yes, it is true that most Muslims, in general, do not kill innocent people for what had happened in the past. But I cannot see how this negates what he wrote in the first sentence that some people have the right to kill French people.
I cannot see how the meaning of the first sentence is changed by the remaining sentences. Either my command of English is inadequate to comprehend fully what he wanted to say or he is now trying to wriggle his way out of what he had written.
Léon Moch: There is no misrepresentation. He did indeed say that Muslims have a right to kill millions of French people.
That he said right after that sentence that Muslims usually don't do that sort of thing doesn't negate the fact that he said they still had the right to kill French people.
Does anyone actually 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", whatever you wrote subsequently in your posting 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 the Malay, or more Muslim than the Muslim".
Your “right to kill” statement is exactly the reason for the creation of fanatics among us.
MS: Mahathir, to rephrase what I've said elsewhere, you have brought shame to and embarrassed at least some Malaysians with your self-serving public statements laced with venom.
Like a scavenging vulture swooping in to pick at rotting carcasses it chances upon, you have always used international tragedies involving Muslims to keep yourself in the headlines by baiting your rabid followers with half-truths and distortions - be it Palestine, Bosnia or Kashmir.
Your outrageous tweet was clearly calculated to justify the recent killings when you said Muslims have a "right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past".
Subsumed below that incendiary line, you snuck in your "by and large, the Muslims have not applied the 'eye for an eye' law. Muslims don't."
So, as you clearly intended, what stands out (for your detractors, supporters and the weeping families of those killed) is your foolish justification citing historical massacres, which really do not explain why 44 million Muslims have flocked to these liberal, Christian-majority countries with norms and values seemingly contrary to their own – and despite those massacres. Mudah lupa (easily forgotten) maybe?
In any case, instead of demanding that the French teach their people to respect other people’s feelings, you should have - as you have always done here - told the Muslim emigres to adjust to the norms and values of the countries which have given them succour and refuge. Or leave.
You have always positioned yourself as their champion, leader and spokesperson - a stance which should make you more persuasive among them than the permissive French establishment, which has historically not spared any faith from its version of free expression - artistic or political.
By refusing to do so, it is you who has fuelled international condemnation of Muslim leaders like yourself and brought the country into disrepute.
Jaded: Whether taken out of context or not, there is no justification for committing violence and murder against innocent people. Period.
If you don't understand that, perhaps you should go back to retirement. If people are offended, sue them in court, not go around killing people.
Coffee Break: Dear Mahathir, perhaps you need your beloved wife Siti Hasmah or daughter Marina to proofread and edit your future articles.
It would have been better received to simply delete that unnecessary line "Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past.”
Let bygones be bygones. Would more killing in present times heal the wounds of the past? Only forgiveness can do that and bring peace to humankind.
Clever Voter: Many years ago, he was quoted to have said that we would shoot the Vietnamese refugees if they landed on our shores, only for Mahathir to say he was misquoted.
He meant to “shoo” them, not “shoot” them.
AnotherKomentar: "Believe me, he (Mahathir) loves buying luxury goods from LVMH in Paris. He's a pious hypocrite," said Brendan Berne (former Australian ambassador to France) in a comment to a newspaper. - Mkini

---