Mediaboss Marketing

October 16, 2013

"Allah" means God, unless you are a non-Muslim Malaysian, in which case you have to find another word.

After a recent court ruling in the country, Allah can now be used only to refer to the Muslim God, and non-Muslims (mainly the Malaysian Christian Catholic community and press) have been banned from using it.

It is a decision that has inflamed opinion among minority religions and disheartened Muslims.

Apart from all the practical implications of this (re-printing Bibles and so on), there are other intangible but more heartfelt grievances.

At first glance it looks like a petty scuffle over semantics, but the roots of the dispute go deep into the issue of national identity.

The ruling was flimsily justified by the "risk" of conversion. Announcing the change, the judge said: "It is my judgment that the possible and most probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religions to the followers of Islam."

But the ban is less about religion than about putting non-Malay minorities in their place, subordinating their status to that of Muslims, the majority population.

The issue is made more complex by the fact that "Allah" is an Arabic loan-word and, when imported into other languages, can come to be thought of as a proper noun.

On my first day at a British school, a teacher going around the class and asked us what our respective non-Christian gods were called. When I floundered, she exasperatedly told me that my god was called Allah, and I couldn't quite explain to her why that felt wrong.

See original here:
The Malaysian “Allah” ban is about putting minorities in their place - Nesrine Malik

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter who has herself come under fire from the right for her past blanket support of perceived Republicans In Name Only has come out swinging against GOP leaders she accuses of hijacking the party.

On Ms. Coulters list: Liz Cheney, for mounting a primary challenge against incumbent Republican Sen. Mike Enzi in Wyoming.

SEE ALSO: House GOP unity breaks down over latest shutdown offer

Also on her list, Politico reported: I would put Todd Akin, Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Mark Sanford all in the same boat, and the consultants who persuaded Linda McMahon and John Raese to run. She said, during a recent appearance on Fox News Sean Hannity talk show that the problem is we have hucksters, shysters, people ripping off the Republican Party for their own self-aggrandizement, for their own egos, to make money.

Mr. Hannity defended Ms. Cheney, saying shes not a shyster, so lets be clear.

But Ms. Coulter nonetheless said the Republican Party was facing a host of problems and many, from within its own ranks.

Why should we be having and I love Liz Cheney but why should we be having a rancorous primary against a good Republican senator other than for Liz Cheneys ego? Ms. Coulter said.

The conservative icon isnt above criticism from within, either.

Over the past few years, many on the right, especially of tea party ideology, wondered why Ms. Coulter was so supportive of Mr. Christie for president, when the New Jersey governor touted views that were far from right on climate change issues, and even gun ownership. Mr. Christie also made waves among conservative communities for his blunt praise of President Obama after hurricane-gale winds decimated the New Jersey boardwalk.

PHOTOS: Civil disobedience: Angry Americans flout shutdown rules

Go here to see the original:

Ann Coulter rips Liz Cheney, ‘hucksters’ who are 'ripping off' the GOP

During one of her trademark head-spinning rants, Coulter tells Hannity the first chapter of the book addresses the "hucksters, shysters, and people ripping off the Republican party for their own self-aggrandizement, for their own egos, and to make money." Not only that, but she's naming names: Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Todd Akin and Mark Sanford.

Hannity immediately picks a fight with Coulter over whether Cheney is one of the a "shysters" throwing the GOP under the bus.

Coulter says the "people looking for TV shows" are effectively sabotaging the GOP's House and Senate elections for the sake of their own egos.

"Every time Republicans lose, for whatever reason, somehow it's the pro-lifers who get blamed," Coulter says, before adding that "it varies from race to race, and conman to conman."

Coulter says there is also a chapter in her book on Christianity, and another on Amanda Knox. Will you read it?

Photo/Video credit: YouTube

Excerpt from:

Ann Coulter calls Newt Gingrich and Liz Cheney Republican 'shysters'

(UPI) -- Conservative columnist Ann Coulter discussed some of the mistakes Republicans have made in recent elections while discussing her new book during an interview with Fox News's Sean Hannity.

Coulter specifically said some GOP consultants are not looking out for the future of the party.

Weve lost a lot of Senate elections, she said. This is not a party that seems overly concerned with winning elections.

Coulter went on to say that GOP consultants, prominent Republicans and members of the Tea Party were all to blame for the party's losses. Specifically those who mounted primary attacks on those GOP office holders who are more likely to win elections.

I love Liz Cheney, Coulter said, But why should we be having a rancorous primary against a good Republican senator other than for Liz Cheneys ego?

When Hannity challenged her comment by saying that Cheney was simply "more conservative," Coulter disagreed.

We are not concentrating on winning. We are allowing shysters to take advantage of the Republican Party, she insisted.

Read this article:

Ann Coulter blames Gingrich, Cheney, Sanford for Republicans losing elections

Last night, Ann Coulter joined Sean Hannity on Fox News to discuss her new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three Especially a Republican. In Coulters newest collection of political essays, she targets the Tea Party, establishment Republicans, news media, and liberals, of course.

Coulters main focus in last nights discussion with Hannity was the topic of Republican elections. In Coulters opinion, Republicans have focused too much on being ideologically pure and not enough on actually winning elections: Weve lost a lot of Senate elections. This is not a party that seems overly concerned with winning elections.

So what does Coulter blame for this lack of election-winning? Tea Party members, establishment Republicans, and Republican consultants: My argument is that, in chapter one here, is the problem is we have hucksters, shysters, people running off the Republican Party for their own self-aggrandizement, for their own egos, to make money. I would put Todd Akin, Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Mark Sanford all in the same boat. Oh, and the consultants who persuaded Linda McMahon and John Raese to run

Coulter had an exceptional vendetta against Liz Cheney, stating, Why should we be having and I love Liz Cheney but why should we be having a rancorous primary against a good Republican senator other than for Liz Cheneys ego? Sean Hannity took exception to this statement, stating that Liz Cheney had to run because she was more conservative, another point to which Coulter disagreed.

In a book review on HumanEvents.com, a site that frequently hosts Coulters articles, the authors states that Coulter urges Republicans to stop focusing on the ideological purity of its candidates, and simply focus on winning elections instead. This viewpoint is also reflected in her interview with Newbusters, in which Coulter blasts Mark Sanford for running for Representative when he had a tarnished reputation and could have potentially cost the Republicans a seat.

The book review also stated that Coulter is essentially asking Republicans to adopt Democratic tactics, such as the creation of strong narratives instead of talking points, without adopting their ideologies. Coulters call for winning more seats also stems from the experience with a Democratic super-majority at the beginning of Obamas first presidency.

In the interview with Hannity, Coulter lambastes Obama and the Democrats for pushing through the vote for the ACA when they had 60 members in the Senate. Coulter believed that the move went against the majority of American beliefs. However, Coulters move to win more elections to be able to control the government represents the same ideology she is criticizing.

Moves like this demonstrate the fact that Coulter simply seeks to take advantage of any opportunities which come her way. Another prime example of Coulters shameless opportunity-grabbing deals with her stance on affirmative action. On her website, Coulter states, Merely to be eligible for millions of dollars in grants from the federal government under Obamacare, education and training programs are required to meet racial, ethnic, gender, linguistic and sexual orientation quotas. Thats going to make health care MUCH better!

Yet, in the before-mentioned interview with Newsbusters, Coulter praises Nixon for instituting quotas to hire blacks in the 1960s: Reading about the building trades back them, once you get to the part of Nixon saying, Thats it. Ive had it. Were imposing quotas, timelines, on the building trades or theyre not going to get federal contracts, Im suddenly totally on his side.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Visit link:

Ann Coulter Discusses Newly Released Book