There are always excuses that the Non Muslims will not be affected. Affected they will be, as they would have to drive, walk or cycle further away to get their daily pints. It incurs extra cost, extra risks, especially so with the current crime trend. Getting drunk is usually done at night, until the wee hours of the morning. Selangor PAS commissioner Hasan Ali appears to have sparked discontentment by proposing to ban the sales of alcohol in Muslim majority areas. Can he actually define what are the areas?

It is always the minorities who are on the receiving end. There are personal laws that forbid Muslims from purchasing alcohol. Thus enforcement should be against Muslim wrongdoers and not against retailers. Not against the believers of other faiths. Later it will come to the way we dress and so forth. Remember, not too long ago. The police ordered non-Muslim policewomen to wear Muslim headscarves for their annual parade, something that many non-Muslims felt set a worrying precedent.

Many other infringements violated the rights of believers of other faiths in Malaysia. Well that is a start, to slowly infringe on the rights of the believers of other religions. Our constitution is a secular constitution. Well, others have the right to disagree with this. Before you realise it, Pas (the other side) will surely in cahoots with UMNO, try to impose their beliefs on all Malaysians regardless of religion. Why not they just ban the Muslims from drinking, alcohol?

Haris Ibrahim says, "And the Camel cigarette ad where you had a cowboy, looking weary from a long walk, enter the drugstore, buy a packet of Camels and then turn to the camera and say ‘I’d walk a mile for a Camel’? What’s the rationale of this proposed ban? To stop Muslims in those affected areas from consuming alcohol? That wouldn’t make much sense because, just like the affected non-Muslims, the Muslims in the areas in question too who fancy a beer, or a bottle of wine or any stronger stuff, like the non- Muslim in that same area or that weary cowboy in the ad, could just travel outside the affected area and buy whatever tickles their fancy.

Or is Hassan being a naughty boy and trying to stir up problems again for the Pakatan state government? Wasn’t Hassan the one offered the MBship of the state when UMNO and some in PAS, Hassan included, were committing khalwat just after the March 8th GE, meeting secretly to plot an unholy marriage of convenience to thwart the then imminent Pakatan state government being formed?

Finally, how would this work? If implemented, would the state government put up signages to declare that "You are now entering a booze-free area" and "You have just left a booze-free area"Hassan doesn’t wear a turban, right? Wonder then why he’s displaying signs of deprivation of oxygen to the brain? Hassan, how’s about just getting on with the job that the rakyat pay you to do, and leave God’s business to God?

Look at what is happening to Great Britain, shariah is slowly creeping in, deliberately imposing Islamic values on the believers of other religions, where the cultural heritage of the majority is Christianity. Here is a take on what the British are currently experiencing. Those of us who argue against Shariah are sometimes asked why Islamic law poses a problem when modern Western societies long ago accommodated Halakha, or Jewish law. In fact, this was one of the main talking points of those who argued that Shariah should become an accepted part of dispute resolution in Ontario in 2005. The answer is easy: a fundamental difference separates the two. Islam is a missionizing religion, Judaism is not. Islamists aspire to apply Islamic law to everyone, while observant Jews seek only to live by Jewish law themselves. Two very recent examples from the United Kingdom demonstrate the innate imperialism of Islamic law.

The first concerns Queens Care Centre, an old-age home and day-care provider for the elderly in the coal town of Maltby, 40 miles east of Manchester. At present, according to the Daily Telegraph, not one of its 37 staff or 40 residents is Muslim. Although the home's management asserts a respect for its residents' "religious and cultural beliefs," QCC's owner since 1994, Zulfikar Ali Khan, on his own decided this year to switch the home's meat purchases to a halal butcher.

His stealthy decision meant pensioners at QCC could no longer eat their bacon and eggs, bangers and mash, ham sandwiches, bacon sandwiches, pork pies, bacon butties, or sausage rolls. The switch prompted widespread anger. The relative of one resident called it "a disgrace. The old people who are in the home and in their final years deserve better. … [I]t's shocking that they should be deprived of the food they like on the whim of this man." A staff member opined that it's "quite wrong that someone should impose their religious and cultural beliefs on others like this."

Queried about his decision, Khan, lamely replied he ordered halal meat for the sake of (nonexistent) Muslim staff. Then he backtracked: "We will be ordering all types of meat" and went so far as to agree that religious beliefs should not be imposed on others. His retreat did not convince one former QCC staffer, who suspected that Khan "intended to serve only halal meat at the home but has had to think again because of the row."

A second example of imposing Shariah on non-Muslims comes from southwest England. The Avon and Somerset police force patrols the cities of Bristol and Bath as well as surrounding areas has just issued hijabs to female officers. The hijabs, distributed at the initiative of two Muslim groups and costing £13 apiece, come complete with the constabulary's emblem. Continued here.....