PETALING JAYA: The Education Ministry has clarified that students from a vision school in Kampung Jawa, Klang, were disqualified for taking a short cut during a cross-country race and not for wearing shorts.

Deputy director-general (schools) Datuk Noor Rezan Bapoo Hashim said students had to pass through three checkpoints and collect a band at each point but those who reached the finishing line first only had one band.

“It had nothing to do with the students wearing shorts,” she said.

Source: The Star

If this is true, then I guess the school administrators did the right thing by disqualifying the runners. After all, there are rules to abide by when taking part in a sports event.

Earlier I wrote a post about these runners being disqualified for wearing shorts and ranted against school administrators who were too zealous in trying to dictate what the students could or could not wear to school.

There could have been a misunderstanding. The students could have misunderstood when they heard “shorts” instead of “short cuts”.

Why did it have to come to this? The teachers could have been clearer and explained why the students were disqualified!

Instead they got all this unwanted attention!

KUALA LUMPUR – A HINDU woman has spurned an offer by Malaysia’s Islamic authorities to settle a dispute over her dead Muslim son’s insurance policy in a case that highlights growing conflicts over religious rights, a lawyer said on Wednesday.

The Federal Territory Islamic Council offered Tuesday to give Rukumony Muthiah two-thirds of the 56,300 ringgit (S$24,178) death insurance of her son, a Muslim convert who died in 2000, Rukumony’s lawyer Darshan Singh Khaira said.

In his insurance policy, Rukumony’s son, Ragu Ellaiappan, whose Muslim name was Mohamed Redzuan Abdullah, named Rukumony as his beneficiary, Mr Darshan said.

But Islamic authorities have argued in court that under the country’s religious laws for Muslims, a non-Muslim cannot claim inheritance from a Muslim, he said.

Full story here.

This story is simply outrageous!

First of all, why is the The Federal Territory Islamic Council involved in the case? Was the insurance policy held by the deceased an Islamic insurance?

Is there any other party who is contesting the sole right of the mother to the whole amount of the insurance money? No? The state?

What a lot of crap!!

So the state is the beneficiary if the mother is denied the right to the whole sum of the insurance settlement? Or the balance of whatever the mother is “entitled” to?

Give the whole sum of money to the poor mother! That was what the son wanted!

Just cut the religious crap!

I have been following the debate on the prohibition of the term “Allah” by non-Muslims in Malaysia especially in their religious publications. According to the Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, “The use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims may arouse sensitivity and create confusion among Muslims in the country.”

It seems that the issue of the ban has to do with the ability of the term, when used by non-Muslims, to confuse the Malay Muslim population in Malaysia. It has long been feared that Christian literature using the term “Allah” for God is a ploy to proselytize the Muslims. A reader at Malaysiakini.com said as much. According to this reader, Muslims have to be vigilant and the use of the term “Allah” in Christian literature is a guise for evangelizing to Muslims. This evangelizing and attempt to apostatize Muslims will “undermine the constitution and damage the fabric of the country.”

Many Muslims in Malaysia are unaware that the term “Allah” has been used by Christians and pagans long before the advent of Islam. Many Muslims in Malaysia are also unaware that the term “Allah” has been used in the Malay language Bible since the first translation of the Gospel of Matthew in 1612.

It is amazing to me that of all things to worry about in Malaysia, the issue of the term “Allah” as used by non-Muslims, is a forefront issue especially in a country that prides itself as being a model for racial harmony and religious and cultural tolerance. Not only does the prohibition imply that Muslims in Malaysia are simple minded and easily confused but it also implies that Malaysia is backward, and intolerant of the religious freedoms of the non-Islamic faiths.

Backward? Yes, backward, because in Indonesia, where the majority of the world’s Muslims reside, the term “Allah” used by non-Muslim faiths does not cause any controversy, let alone cause confusion among the Muslims!