YOURSAY | ‘The statue was not constructed for worship but to inform tourists on the origin of Langkawi's name.’
Demolish Langkawi’s eagle statue? Kedah to consult fatwa council
Anonymous Hotplate: The eagle statue is one of the most famous and best tourist attractions in Malaysia and why is that suddenly, after Dr Mahathir Mohamad's formation of the Umno splinter new party, that everything is becoming ‘haram’ in Langkawi.
This is like 'marah nyamuk kelambu dibakar'. Already Malaysia has become world famous due to the alleged wrongdoings of our MO1 (Malaysian Official 1), and now these sorts of issues will worsen Malaysia’s image in the eyes of foreign investors and tourists.
Justine Gow: Laws do not come about in a vacuum. Perhaps at the advent of Islam, some followers might have persisted to create images of animals to worship. Thus, the building of images of animal was forbidden.
The eagle statue in Langkawi was not constructed for worship, but as an attraction to inform tourists on the origin of Langkawi's name. I cannot see how the faith of any healthy believer in Islam can be weakened by a mere statue.
CQ Muar: Honestly, I am amused by the attention and awareness displayed by those muftis in Kedah, whose interest could be drawn towards a landmark that had made Langkawi famous.
Is a statue, a symbol that depicts the prominent feature of this internationally known island, so disturbing as to cause them to contemplate demolishing it? So, what do they reckon is appropriate to replace the famous eagle, that is not considered "haram"?
Under the circumstances, would it be worthy of thought if I were to suggest or even propose a gigantic bust of our internationally famed prime minister to remember him by after all the "credits" he has contributed to the country?
Moreover, such symbol or statue to commemorate someone of fame has been a common feature in most countries; the least they could do as a reward and recognition for outstanding feats and "contributions".
Besides, the cost incurred in the reconstruction could be borne by taxpayers, or even from the billions allegedly siphoned from the country, right?
Kangkung: It looks like we have muftis and religious officials that could fit in so well in Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's group. Why are these people so extreme? It is beyond understanding.
They will next call for the National Monument (Tugu Negara) to be brought down.
RM2.6 Billion Turkey Haram: As long as Muslims do not pray to it, I believe the statue does no harm. If indeed, the statue of the eagle is haram, by extension, the national monument is haram as well.
Similarly, all the cenotaphs built to commemorate the heroic services of our armed forces are haram too.
Come on, muftis. The most clear-cut haram issue right now is the RM2.6 billion allegedly stolen from 1MDB. Bear in mind that a portion of it has been spent on some projects for the Muslims and as such it is more urgent to decide on this issue.
Baldev Singh: Indeed, any mufti before saying something is haram should first take up the issue of corruption and 1MDB.
If the mufti keeps quiet on this issue, then he has no moral right to comment on other issues as it shows he is merely a political crony.
GE14Now!: This goes to show that there is a large group of people who are being paid with taxpayers' money who have nothing else to do than to sit and pontificate.
Let me tell you what is haram - a sitting PM who has already been outed as MO1 and who admitted to receiving money in his own personal account.
That is grand corruption and that is haram. Don't waste our time with statues of eagles.
Noah: What next? The big cat at Jalan Padungan, Kuching, the Giant Marlin statue in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, or maybe Tugu Negara at Lake Gardens? The list goes on and on.
Dr M’s lawyer: What is the AG doing dancing with ministers?
Ipoh Pp: This is disgraceful to say the least – attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali dancing with the ruling party members.
Isn't he supposed to be impartial and carry himself with decorum, especially in public. He is also seen wearing the same uniform as BN politicians.
How do you expect us to hope for impartial decisions from the AG?
Tok Karut: Nothing in the constitution requires the attorney-general to keep his professional distance, although by norms of good governance he should, but he did not learn that in school - that is why we need the office to be answerable to Parliament by law in the next GE.
Demi Rakyat: The AG said that the billions of ringgit in PM Najib Razak's private and personal account were donations from some Saudi royalty. He apparently lied.
If the AG can lie, what use is he? He is totally useless and a disgrace all.
Baldev Singh: There is a need to review all judgments made by Apandi as a judge as it is shown that he is Umno's crony.
Indeed, he is a disgrace to the judiciary and a traitor to Malaysia for failing to carry his duties as required by the law.
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.
