YOURSAY ‘Ibrahim Ali, don't even try to justify the terrorists’ wrongdoing.’

'This is what happens when you insult the Prophet'

Proarte: Ibrahim Ali is riding on the publicity of the Charlie Hebdo atrocity to spew his usual warped logic and inane comments. The subtext of his argument and the view which Islamist want to project, is that perceived insults to Islam will justify murder.

Muslims must be very clear about this : are they on the side of terrorism and murder or are they not? If they are, then Islam is an immoral religion and must be rejected by society. If they are not, then it is incumbent on Muslims to condemn violence and murder.

Allah does not need to be defended by murderers. The problem with many Muslims is that they want to have their cake and eat it. They must not deify Muhammad as he is merely a messenger.

The only reason why Muhammad is insulted or satirised is because some Muslims murder, terrorise, discriminate and insult in his name.

Ferdtan: Compare the statements made by former PM Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali. Any difference? It is only in the subtlety of the distinctions they drew.

"Former premier said that we should bear in mind that one should not purposely provoke others." What did it imply? Of course, he was not stupid enough to elaborate further. It was a no­brainer for us not to know what he meant actually.

On the other hand, the much cruder Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali, sharing the same sentiment with Mahathir, said something similar. It was only that he went further than Mahathir to say, "The killings of the innocents was the result of people insulting Prophet Muhammad."

The exemption clause both declared that they don’t support killings do not make them any less culpable. Any difference to say it this way, "As the result of the insults, don’t fault the terrorists for the killing of the innocents?" I think not.

Dalvik: Ibrahim Ali, don't even try to justify the terrorists’ wrongdoing. When Perkasa or Isma condemned other races and religion, would that give others the right to kill? Clearly no.

Because Malaysians in generals, are not extremists like you. We value both freedom of speech and lives more than you do.

Oh Ya?: Charlie Hebdo is just a satirical publication that pokes fun on anything, be it religion, public persona and even animals. Whether it is right or wrong depends on the society in which it operates.

In the western world, it may be perfectly acceptable by the majority of their people as they may value freedom of the press and liberalism more than anything else. However, those who cannot accept it may be angry but they would not resort to killing and other violence to get even. This is only right of any civilised human society.

To think otherwise is reminiscent of barbarous and brutality, which is affront to civilisation. If Ibrahim Ali’s view is acceptable, does it mean that those who are offended by his call to burn the Bible can take the laws into their own hand, as not only the ruling elite did not lock him up but had exonerated him from any offence?

What then is the point of having these draconian Sedition Act? To protect the ruling elite?

The Analyser: It's incredible. Once again the clerics, the sultans, the Islamic PM say nothing. It's left up to the radical, fundamentalist, hate filled, divisive, intolerant members of Islam to stand up for their beautiful religion.

And this man is naive enough to expect the French government to be as besotted with his religion to expect everyone to bow down to his imposed delusions.

Fairnsquare: "The Charlie Hebdo attack in France was the result when people insult Prophet Muhammad, and thus hurt the feelings of Muslims," said Ibrahim Ali.

Based on your sick rationality, the United States could drop an atom bomb on Afghanistan and other Muslim countries since Osama Bin Laden, a Muslim, engineered the attack on New York. Thankfully, this world is full of rational people and not illiterate idiots.

Malaysia Ku: Charlie Hebdo also insulted the Pope, Christianity, Jews, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus. The Christians and the Jews did not threaten violence.

Imams around the world denounced the heinous acts of those Muslim terrorists, without ifs or buts. Yet Ibrahim Ali and his sponsor, Mahathir, imply that murder is justified because of the "sensitivities" (again!) of Muslims.

David Dass: Excerpt from the web: Arab governments and Muslim leaders and organisations across the world have condemned the deadly attack in Paris, but it was praised by jihadi sympathisers who hailed it as "revenge" against those who had "insulted" the prophet Muhammad.

Saudi Arabia called it a "cowardly terrorist attack that was rejected by the true Islamic religion". The Arab League and Egypt’s al­Azhar university ­ the leading theological institution in the Sunni Muslim world ­ also denounced the incident in which masked gunmen shouted "Allahu Akbar".

Iran, Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria and Qatar all issued similar statements.

TehTarik: Let’s use Ibrahim Ali's reasoning to rationalise the Paris murders: Ibrahim Ali has repeatedly insulted the Chinese, Indians, Christians and other minorities, and thus deeply hurt the feelings of the minorities.

The Malaysian government has not taken any action to stop Ibrahim Ali or Perkasa. So does it mean that "those insulted should take the law into their own hands".

According to him "taking the law into ones hands" includes murder.

Then we can also say that "Although we condemn the attack, this is what happens when you insult others". What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Vgeorgemy: Ibrahim Ali, we don't condone Israeli terror campaign against people of Palestine. Same was communist terror against free people of Malaya.

No amount of terror will subjugate free people and free expression. We salute the Christains in Malaysia when they met Ibrahim Ali's taunt peacefully.

Pakatan­Ku: Perkasa Ibrahim Ali should find out why Muslims are so easily provoked. When the Taliban blew up the 1,000 year old Buddhist temples in Afghanistan, did the Buddhists attacked any Muslims.

When Salman Rushdie wrote a book ‘Satanic Verses’, Muslims went amok and many were killed. When Dan Brown wrote a book ‘Da Vinci Code’ saying Jesus married Mary Magdalene which is the pure blasphemy, the Christians did not go on rampage but conducted seminars to explain the lies contained in the book.

When the High Court decided that Catholic magazine can used the word ‘Allah’, churches were firebombed but when the appellate and Federal Courts decided otherwise, did the Christians go amok?

When Muslims carried a cow's head in a protest at the Selangor MB office, did the Hindus go berserk?

Perkasa, Isma, etc, should sponsor a research paper to study why Muslims are so lacking in faith, so sensitive and easily provoked unlike followers of other religions for better harmony in Malaysia.

Touche: Next week, Charlie Hebdo will print one million copies to be circulated worldwide. What say you, Ibrahim Ali? Those insulted Muslims are going to massacre a million French?

We’re definitely not the Kouachi brothers

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.