How the world has changed. This is the first time to my reckoning where an alleged Victim of a crime (as opposed to the Accused or Tertuduh) in a sodomy trial has set up a Blogspot to keep us informed about the progress (or actually the long delays) in the dispensing of justice which he seeks over the wrong that was done to him.
I am referring of course to Mohamed Saiful Bukhari Azlan who says that he was sodomised by Brader Anwar Bin Ibrahim.
Saiful has set up a Blogspot named after himself.
http://www.mohdsaifulbukhari.blogspot.com/
In his Blogspot he writes very simply and quite frankly about what has transpired since the allegations of sodomy broke into the open.
No matter what anyone may think of Saiful (or of Brader Anwar), I find Saiful’s site quite courageous in the simplicity of his frankness. He speaks plainly.
For example I read his reply and his challenge to Imam Ramlang Porigi. Does anyone recall this character? Does anyone know where Ramlang Porigi is now? What has become of him? He was the “imam” who presided over the sumpah atas Quran thing which Saiful did at the Masjid. Ramlang Porigi went on to make Stage appearances on behalf of Brader Anwar. Saiful points out glaring inconsistencies in Ramlang Porigi’s statements both on and off Stage. It could be due to weak script writing or reading..
True to Brader Anwar’s predictable childishness, they made a fuss over the ‘manner’ Ramlang Porigi was ‘ordered’ to appear in the Masjid to administer to Saiful’s public oath. (Maybe in their version of doing things right, the correct method would have been for the Masjid to call for an open tender through the media for suitably qualified ‘religious folks’ to bid for the job of administering a public oath, in all of say five minutes. Or maybe it should have been debated in the United Nations General Assembly first!)
But todate neither Anwar Ibrahim nor Ramlang Porigi (or anyone else for that matter) has been able to punch any holes in the contents of Saiful’s oath. Do note that Saiful not only took an oath in public in the Masjid but he also took the oath on the Quran. Ini sudah tiga kali berani. Now Saiful cannot wait to appear in Court.
On the other hand, this is the second time that Brader Anwar has refused outright to take an oath on the Quran to deny sodomy. The first time around when there were “allegations” of sodomy against Brader Anwar, when folks asked him to take an oath, he said he had received a fax (!) from his Arab buddy Yusuf Qaradawi (one of the mentors of Hamas) that he need not do so.
Now the second time around, was there any fax from Qaradawi? I doubt it. Apa pasal takut mahu angkat sumpah atas Quran, bawah kubah Masjid, depan semua orang? Ini sudah dua kali tak berani.
At last, after so many delays, the trial finally starts on 1st July ’09. It was originally scheduled for August last year but Brader Anwar has quite cunningly (and successfully) delayed the trial by almost a year. Even now he is still trying to delay the trial or cast asperions on the conduct of the case by the Prosecution.
For example in the latest twist to this escapade, Brader Anwar has applied through the Courts that he should be given the original CCTV videos and the original DNA samples from the evidence docket! Wow ! ! Hebatnya brader kite!
The treatment meted out to Brader Anwar by the Courts so far also invites some scrutiny. Although this can be considered a serious criminal offense (isn’t sodomy in the same class of crime as rape?) Brader Anwar has been quite free on bail. He also still has his passport and has been quite free to travel in and out of the country.
Folks in the Blogs say that Brader Anwar will be traveling to the
I recall that when this sodomy story broke last year, Brader Anwar’s first reaction was to run. He ran to the home of the Turkish Ambassador in
But within hours of his own escapade, he started looking really foolish again (with Brader Anwar, appearing foolish seems to be an occupational hazard) because no arrest warrants were issued for him, there was no manhunt for him, there was nothing. So after having his Turkish interlude (don’t know about the delights tho), he had to leave the Turkish Ambassador’s house of his own volition and go home for ‘teh tarik’.
Then again most predictably, there started a string of conspiracy accusations, including against Dato Seri Najib who was not yet the PM at that time. Fortunately for Brader Anwar, Slumberjack was left out from the list of conspirators. It would have been too ridiculous to attribute anything to Slumberjack.
But Brader Anwar never expected the “alleged” Victim in a sodomy case to be so bold and start telling his side of the story in a Blog. How the world has changed. Saiful’s forthright manner is quite disarming too. His Blogsite has killed off many of these conspiracy accusations.
Before this Brader Anwar has done battle against many windmills. He has been cheered along by many tulips and daffodils. But the protagonist now is a 23 year old lad who seems to have a quiet tenacity.
When the Court first convicted Brader Anwar for sodomy, he was jailed for six years, as a first time offender. Since the Court of Appeal has acquitted Brader Anwar of the first charge, it also means that if he is found guilty now, again he could be jailed for another six years. With good behaviour, he could be released in about five years. So if guilty, Brader Anwar may be in jail until he is 67 years old. That is still a long time.
Oh well, as the stomach churns.. Folks here is some research from the Internet on the treatment of Sodomy (This is NOT my view but what others say):
From Fatwa On Demand http://sgrajeev.com/fatwa-on-demand/
(Fatwa: 371/B)
"Undoubtedly, sodomy (homosexuality) is haram and forbidden in Islam. Because of this sin, the nation of Hazrat Lut (Alaihis Salam) was punished by Allah in this world. There is no fixed punishment for perpetrator of this crime, but according to Imam Abu Hanifa such person should be pushed from a mountain to death."
I have heard this one before. One Muslim academic told me that in the modern “Islamic”
By: Shaheed Ayatullah Abdul Husain Dastghaib Shirazi
http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=7343
"Since sodomy is a greater crime than adultery and its evils are worse, the punishment for sodomy is also more severe than that of adultery according to the Islamic law. Islam prescribes capital punishment for the active as well as the passive partner in the crime. If both are major and sane, both of them have to be killed. The active partner is beheaded with the sword or killed by stoning or burnt alive or thrown from a height with the hands and the legs tied."
Burnt alive? Should the Bomba be on standby? Talking of running to
Here is another one:
Bible, Book of Leviticus 20:13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
The Bible says they must be put to death too.
What does the Quran say? The Quran does NOT specify the punishment for sodomy. This is a fact.
40 comments:
SALAM SIR, THAT IS THE REASON WHY I SUPPORTED SAIFUL, HE IS BRAVE AND SELALUNYA BERANI KERANA BENAR, TAKUT KERANA SUDAH BULAKANG MARI LA...MUAHAHAHHAAHA
I THINK AL JUBURI WILL RUNAWAY LA SIR...
Dear Sir,
Correct me if I am wrong, the quran also does not mention anything about swearing on the quran or swearing in the mosque etc. That to the best of my knowledge is also a fact.
And yet our PM first denied meeting him and then confessed later that he did! This is a fact published in our MSM.
And there are two conflicting medical opinions and yet again another 'clarifying' opinion by the Govt's Chief Medical Officer. How strange this happens everytime the BN Govt is involved!
And whatever happened to the law of sub-judice? Can the accuser present his case in blogs when he has filed a complaint and will have his day in court?
And the inconsistencies are enough to fill an encyclopaedia. All these guys claim sodomy and are just itching to confess to their crime because suddenly, after the event(s), there's a blinding flash of light and they step out of it with 'a higher moral ground' firmly in their mind.
Remember the previous occassion when in the middle of the trial the accuser was caught committing khalwat with a lady (and that case was disposed off in record time)?
And the very honourable and understanding judge ruled that did not mean he was lying or that we should doubt his higher moral ground defence? And the Fed Court eventually ruled otherwise?
And the devil can quote scriptures and swear on a stack of bibles. But if it looks like, feels like and smells like another goddamn conspiracy, then, correct, correct, correct, it is a conspiracy!!!
Saiful speaks at length in his blog about Anwar being a Zionist agent and traitor to the Malay race. All sodomy victims (99.9999%) would rather suffer in silence than to face the stigma the public have against them). But this sodomy victim is preaching Malaysians about the threat to the Malay race, Zionist conspiracy and so on...
"Slander is worse than a crime"
(al-Quran)
"Beating a suspect in prison in not Islamic"
(not from any holy book)
Ehem!
In this day and age bro, senang betul orang menggunakan perkataan konspirasi, to many Anwar supporters he can do no wrong, basically untuk Anwar yang betul itu betul tetapi yang salah itu pun betul, kalau salah tidak boleh di tuduh sebarang kerana ia nya satu konspirasi. Hebat betul brader Anwar dan penyokong dia ia. Kita tengok macam mana Anwar defend diri dia bulan depan dengan bukti yang sedia ada dan saksi yang tidak sabar untuk menceritakan alleged tabiat buruk Anwar ini.
Parpu : U have a way with words
Max : OK will corect you. Actually the Quran says a bit more. Here it is: "I swear by everything you can see. And by everything you do not see" 69:38-39. 'Everything you can see' should include Volkswagens, condos, buildings etc.
Don : Confessed? Our DPM at that time never 'met' him as in a scheduled appointment, sit down, have tea etc. In this country you can go to the homes of Ministrs and DPMs almost at will. But the question is : what does that have to do with the price of fish in Somalia?
To my knowledge his Blog so far does not discuss details of his case. But by the same token what about all the anti Saiful discussion going on in the Pakatan friendly Blogs? Be fair lah.
Evidence will be presented in court, not morality. Did it happen or did it not? Do not prejudge the Court. That may be subjudice.
One Pip : neither is sodomy Islamic
If there was no economic crisis in 1999 and if there was no perceived challenge to Tun Dr Mahathir's power - do u think there would be a sodomy case against Anwar? I remember reading newspapers in 1999in the aftermath of Anwar's sacking - the Attorney-General was considering a number of charges against Anwar - first, murder. second, being a spy for the USA. third, corruption. I was told the second charge was not instituted because the gvt. fears it might upset the US government. At that time, newspapers (English and Chinese) also played up stories about Anwar having links with Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan. Come on, how can one become a murderer, islamic extremist, CIA spy, homosexual rapist, IMF stooge at the same time? Had it been an ordinary crime case, the police would not dare inflict a physical injury on Anwar while in detention... and later the Umno president (Tun Dr M) suggested that Anwar had beaten himself up. The royal commission of inquiry was set up only after massive street protests. After Tan Sri Rahim Nor was convicted, the gvt. quietly saught the royal pardon for him so as to restore his pension. I saw Umno's hand in every aspect of it...
Of course, we should not pre-judge the court.
However, recent decisions such as the complete lack of reference to Artcle 72 of the Constitution places some question mark whether our judiciary chaps have actually read the constitution and therefore, conversant with interpretation. Plus, no written judgements ?
Justice may be blind, but at least provide the reasoning !
As for the price of fish in Somalia, maybe it has declined a little since Petronas paid plenty of US$ to the pirates doing business there. Of course, we cannot prove that there was a major economic impact but the fact is that Petronas did pay.
Bro
On matters of such national importance, a future PM does not play the 'apanama, I forget' game, like a famous ex PM. MahaRosemajibbed slipped, and slipped badly, scheduled meeting or not!
It's incredible you think that's something to be glossed over when the alleged incident occured a day or two later!
I have never found it easy to meet any Minister or MP at his house, unscheduled, all my life. My freinds and associates have similar experiences. Perhaps the M'sia I and my friends live in is actually in Thailand or out of this world.
Judging the court privately, is not sub-judice; but blogging about it might be. So, I'll shut up for now.
And you are right, we shall see what we shall see in Court.
With the increasing number of H1N1 cases recently, i wouldn't be surprised should the same flight BABI took upon returning from the US carries one suspected victim, or should i say confirmed babi influenza victim....and everybody gets quarantined. And the hearing postpones....
Dey Dontplaypuki,
Inconsistencies enough to fill an encyclopedia? Heck it doesn’t fill even half of my 555 buku hutang page. What the Dontplaypuki are you talking about? Your blind support for “Brader Anwar Bin Ibrahim” is so blinded by your inherent agenda that you blindly blurt out “Conspiracy” without even bothering to check the details.
So you think Saiful’s Blog is subjudice? When he doesn’t even mention at all the intricacies of the meat of the case? He is only giving a day-to-day detail of his wait for the Trial, commenting on all the other (subjudicial!!) comments people all over are making on the trial, his mom’s passing away, Birthday of the King, etc etc? If he is to “present his case in the blogs” we will certainly hear more juicy details there, and not in the courts. Contrast that to the many anti-government blogs you see all around, trumpeting (in advance!!) that the Malaysian Courts are not fair etc etc? Are you blind?
You mentioned a previous accuser caught in khalwat, and the case was “disposed of in record time”. Are you ignorant, or are you merely hiding the truth for your agenda? That guy who was caught was jailed laaa… together with his partner, in Syariah court. Even AFTER he wedded the girl. Jeeeeeezuz. This is what we get, folks, when we read only what we want and ignore anything else that doesn’t befit our case and arguments.
I don’t know what religion you belong to, Dontplaypuki. But last time I checked, none in this world would want a sodomite as a leader. Either you are one too, or do not mind your son or close family member to be one, or we might just as well bring in Jackie Chan now to school us a thing or two. Because people who resort to these kinds of things for their arguments definitely need some control.
Libation Bearer
I would like to see this IMAM Ramlang Porigi do a public oath himself to prove that he has been telling the truth all this while!
Dear DONPLAYPUKS, Saiful's meeting with Najib DOES NOT MAKE ANWAR innocent!
LB
First, don't get personal or vulgar. Just argue yor case. You know nothing about me, my family, children etc. So, keep it civil. I can donplaypuki you just as easily as you do here.
First, let's dispose of the old case. Are you seriously suggesting that we should be on the side of Azizan, the only and uncorroborated accuser? He committed khalwat in the middle of the trial while claiming to have confessed to sodomy (remember he, the so called victim, was convicted before Anwar) and then accused Anwar on higher moral ground?s
Oh, and when charged in the Syariah Court, this so religious driver married the girl. How convenient! If he was truly such an honest joe and so religious, he couldn't contain himself and marry first, especially when he was in the middle of the trial of his life? And the judge said Azizan's credibilty was not affected? You really buy that?
The Fed Court didn't think he could be trusted any further than you could throw him. You know better?
And people enagage in pre-marital sex, adultery, sodomy, homosexuality and deviant sex regardless of their religion. So, leave my religion out of it.
I supose you mean that incident in a Damansara School when you refer to Jackie Chan. Hey, I am presenting my views here in a peaceful and civilized manner. I am not the one who indulged in name calling and have not attempted to go over to your house and assault you wife, kids or parents for your views. So, I don't see the relevance or logic of your words.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will hurt me none.
Playshit:
You are absolutely right. Saifu's meeting with Najib may not mean Anwar is innocent. But equally, it does not mean Anwar is guilty.
Let the game be played out in Court.
Bro,
There is such a thing as going overboard, overkill, trying to pound in a thumbtack with a hammer. Hoping that repeating a lie long enough will make it true, sometimes backfires. Ask the Nazis.
Besides somewhere in the Quran, Luqman, I believe, is said: "And be moderate in thy pace, and lower thy voice; for the harshest of sounds without doubt is the braying of the ass."
Sometimes the blogsphere is a veritable Tower of Babel, a cacophony of sound and fury and people trying their best to parade which side of the fence they sit on.
Just legalise homosexuality and they can live happily ever after.
It takes two to tango.
We now have a situation where one says 'I do' and the other saying 'I don't'.
Whatever the case, the Rear Admiral followers will only believe one side of the story, ignoring the other.
These die hard followers will believe that Elvis is still alive and there is a conspiracy to hide the man.
And going to America days before the hearing?? Smells fishy.
A GOOD MAN DOES NOTHING.
If people always respected the law, then today the blacks in the US would still be slaves and women would not be able to vote. The court of law also tried and convicted Mandela but it is wrong to respect such laws. Bad people rule with law - Apartheid South Africa, Umno-ruled Malaysia etc etc
Sir,
Now, I am no Arabic speaker/ulama/scholar. Certainly, I do not have the ‘qualifications’ (to quote Hadi Awang lingo) to write a book about the Quran or anything relating to Islam for that matter.
However, armed with a dictionary, lexicon, various translations and the internet, I think with all due respect, you are quoting 69:38-39 out of context (note that I never say you were wrong):-
1. If one reads the whole surah (69), it starts off by talking about the people of the past that were punished for their sins, how those that do good were rewarded + bad were punished etc. Then comes 69:38-40: "I swear by everything you can see. And by everything you do not see". Who is "I" here? 69:40 answers this. “This is the utterance of the honorable messenger”.
And the surah ends by saying that if the messenger were to lie, “..we will seize him by the right, then we would have severed his lifeline….none of you will be able to prevent it..”.
So really, the context in which the swearing here appears is really the messenger telling his people that he swears “by everything you can see. And by everything you do not see” (ie the world, mountains, rivers god’s creation etc is what we see and those we do not ie heaven, the Unseen etc.) that he is telling the truth.
You are right, there is no prohibition of swearing upon anything, but this verse in no way condones swearing on the Quran or in a mosque.
2. The word “swear” appears in approx 27 different verses on my count. I am sure you can find these verses easily and verify yourself. What was really interesting to me (and thanks to u or I wouldn’t have known) was the context in which the word appeared. Just a few examples: -
[4:62-63] Why then, when a tragedy befalls them for what their hands have brought forth do they come to you swearing by God that they only wanted to do good and reconcile? These are a people whom God knows what is in their hearts, so do not mind them; advise them, and speak to their persons with a clear saying.
[9:96] They swear to you so that you would accept them. Even if you accept them, God does not accept the wicked people.
Notice the context in which these people are swearing in the name of God?? You may say I am data mining here, but there are many more examples, checkit out yourself…
3. In the Quran, there are examples of swearing by many things, by the stars (56:75), by Judgement Day (75:1), by dusk (84:16), Earth (90:1) etc. All these part of the seen and unseen (as quoted in 69:38-39). But never to the Quran or to/in the mosque.
Now I am just speculating here but I wonder where the habit of swearing in mosques came about if not the Quran? We do not have to look far:- see Matthew 23:16-23.
Apologies if there any mistakes above. Any misquotation / misinterpretation / misrepresentation is mine alone.
See- I told you all before what.
Talk about the Devil, the Rear Admiral,Al Juburi and whatever name you might call The Brader Anwar Ibrahim, a whole lot of anger and hatred and irritation and pain will be generated from people who do not even bray like asses.Thats the evil power that permeates Malaysia when The Brader is mentioned. No love at all. No harmony. No peace. Got sex la but that too backside. Where got good?
Bet nothing that the guys who are fighting over The Brader have not even met The Brader in the skin at all. Maybe they might have seen The Brader from afar. Maybe they have never spoken to The Brader personally and The Brader does not know who the hell they are!!And yet they can make fools of themselves for the good name of The Brader! With names like Dont Play Puki and the other Play Puki!!!
This country really going to the dogs la and we all sure the die standing la.
Very the sick feeling.
Anon 13.00 17 June
You mean when we mention the names of Najib or Badawai or Mahathir, a curtain of peace descends upon M'sian and we all wallow in milk and honey?
Now, who's braying like a donkey?
Ask yourself why there has been so much corruption, misrule and mismanagement over the past 40 years under BN rule and why UMNO and the Malays are so divided that Pakatan won 5 states at GE 2008.
Don't blame the Brader for it. UMNO/BN must take 100% of the responsibility for it!!
As for Brader, yes I have met him and spoken to him several times. I also have friends who schooled with him and they will tell you that all this talk of Brader being Rear Admiral during schooldays is a pure load of crock!
Not all of us shoot from the hip.
I keep teling you guys to stick to the blog topic, but no, you have to get personal. That tells me you have nothing upstairs but a one track mind.
Max, your research on the Quran is fantastic. If I may say so, 'way to go'. And I am so glad when you said: "(and thanks to u or I wouldn’t have known)". I am elated.
Dapatlah "pahala" sikit kat saya (unfortunately there is no such thing either).
I am just happy you took the time to check out the Quran. Its easy isnt it? And everything is avaibale at your fingertips.
Yes in the Quran, there is no "swearing on the Quran" per se. Or in the mesjid. That is not the purpose of the Quran either.
It is a book of guidance, an operations manual and not a holy talisman.
In Surah 69:38-39 it is actually God who is 'swearing'. In the Quran there is such a thing as swearing or taking an oath, especially to prove your innocence. That is what is shown by 69:38-39 for example.
The other verses you quote refer people who ABUSE their "in the name of God" oaths. It does not mean they can not or should not swear in God's name. Do read on.
Firstly the act of swearing or taking an oath is old. Everyone swears on something. Obama swore on the Bible, Najib swore in front of the Agong, Judges take oaths, MPs, ADUNs, school prefects raise their hands and take an oath, witnesses in Court all take oaths that they will uphold something.
Hence there is a vocabulary for swearing or oath taking in every language. With some people, there are even elaborate rituals for oath taking (raising the right hand is just one method - though the Martians do laugh at it, on Mars thats how you hail a taxi or bus).
No one questions all this. Hence I dont know why people question Saiful when he went to the masjid to swear on the Quran.
However please refer now to the Quran Surah 3:60-61. This is a very specific method in the Quran of handling a contentious dispute, in this case about the truth of the Quran itself. Here it is:
"This is the truth from your Lord; do not harbor any doubts. If anyone argues with you, despite the knowledge you have received, then say, "Let us summon our children and your children, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then let us invoke GOD's curse upon the liars."
So you can do this invoking 'God's curse upon the liars'. It is also a swearing in public because you must summon children, women, yourselves and ourselves.
Cont.
Altho it does not say more than this but I suppose you could do this swearing anywhere - including the masjid, get dressed for the occasion, call noteworthy folks to witness it (media, TV etc). It is a public event.
Then in the case of a woman who is accused of adultery or wrong doing by her husband, she can swear BY GOD to defend her chastity. The husband has the same right. Here is the reference:
Surah 24:6-8 "As for those who accuse their own wives, without any other witnesses, then the testimony may be accepted if he swears by GOD four times that he is telling the truth. The fifth oath shall be to incur GOD's condemnation upon him, if he was lying. She shall be considered innocent if she swears by GOD four times that he is a liar"
Note that BOTH the husband and wife have to swear by God. So you do have to swear by God. And please note that the Quran tells both sides to swear by God, despite the fact that one party must be lying. Its only fair.
Again the Quran does not say so, but I would assume that both the husband and wife would most likely do this in some place recognised as the Authority like the Mahkamah Syariah, Pejabat Ugama, local Masjid etc.
I have heard of cases in India where village Imam have handled this sort of bersumpah in the village masjid with village elders present. It is called a Mubalaha.
So swearing or taking an oath to prove your innocence or challenge someone to tell the truth about something is mentioned clearly in the Quran.
That is what Saiful has done.
The actual mechanics of the swearing by placing the hand on the Quran, in the masjid, at home, by raising the right hand, putting the right hand on the Bible (as Obama did), on your mother's grave, by everything you can see and everything you cannot see are just details.
If Saiful does the oath outside the masjid, without the Quran - does that make his oath any less than if he did inside the masjid and on the Quran? It simply means that he is not afraid of God's wrath because he feels he is telling the truth.
No point bickering or splitting hairs about that.
May I interest you in something else? Here is Surah 69 again from verse 38 to 49.
But nay! I swear by that which you see.
And that which you do not see.
Most surely, it is the Word brought by an honored Apostle.
And it is not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe.
Nor the word of a soothsayer; little is it that you mind.
It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,
We would certainly have seized him by the right hand,
Then We would certainly have cut off his heart.
And not one of you could have withheld our punishment from him.
And most surely it is a reminder for those who guard (against evil).
And most surely We know that some of you are rejecters"
These verses are very powerful. If you explain the correct meaning of these verses the turbanned terrors may come after you.
As reported by Malaysian Insider
"In an affidavit filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court yesterday to strike out the case against him, the Opposition leader said the report dated July 13 last year backed another medical report by private hospital, Pusrawi.
“No conclusive clinical findings suggestive of penetration to the anus and no significant defensive wound on the body of the patient,” read part of the report which was cited in the affidavit.
The HKL report was endorsed by three specialists from the hospital."
Based on the defence's submissions, both the Pusrawi and HKL report indicate that Saiful was not sodomised.
However, as this case is being heard in the Malaysian courts, it may not be a conclusion that Saiful was not sodomised despite medical evidence to the contrary. There may be other evidence to suggest that he WAS sodomised and that could be enough to convict the accused.
After all, in a 64 page written judgement, a Federal Court judge determined that Article 72 A of the Constiution was not even considered in the case of the powers of the Speaker of a Legislative Assembly, so what can we expect in a criminal case of this nature ?
I understand that there are folks who are suspicious of Anwar Ibrahim's intentions or methods and I am also one of them. But, let's not send the wrong person to jail based on what some powers-that-are-behind-the-scenes want us to think.
Jeng jeng jeng...
Atas perkembangan lapuran HKL semua ahli Kelab Anti Anwar dimintak membuat lapuran baru bagi Saifool. Gunakanlah klinik jana MC kali ini.
Jangan lupa 'backdate'. Harap maklum.
ka ka kah kah...
You are a disgrace to the Sharif's family. Take a look, sincerely and ask for forgiveness because this is deadly sin you are commiting (promoting the slander).
BTW, I sense that u are a syiah follower?
A leader - "Treat all people equally and do not be influenced by any person who deserves punishment, and take no notice of any person's censure provided you have pronounced a just sentence. Never allow your preference or partiality for any person to influence your judgement in the affairs of the people whom God has entrusted to our authority." Umar ALkhatab
On a certain occasion, the Caliph `Umar witnessed a man and a woman committing adultery, so he assembled the people around him and said : "How should the Caliph of the Muslims act when he witnesses the sin of adultery being committed ?"
`Ali ben Abu Talib replied : "There must be four witnesses to the sin of adultery and if he cannot present these witnesses and he accuses the man and woman of adultery, he must be punished for the sin of slander without sufficient evidence, as any other person would be punished in a similar situation".`Ali ben Abu Talib then recited the following Quranic verse: "And those who launch a charge against chaste women and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), - flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after ; for such men are wicked transgressors" [2].
The Caliph `Umar did not reply nor did he reveal the identity of the man and woman whom he had witnessed committing the sin of adultery.
That is real ISLAM.
Alsy I am not a disgrace to the Sharif's family simply cos I am not of that family. Ayah saya bukan Sharif.
The Sharifs I knew were nice people whose sons went to school with me. They are now doing well in their careers. So you got the wrong guy here ok.
No I am not a syiah follower. I think just like you, they are totally lost too. But just out of curiosity why do you slander the Syiahs? Would you like to see them punished? For what reason?
Now please read this carefully. It is from the Quran, therefore it is the real Islam:
Surah 24:2 "The adulteress and the adulterer you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes. Do not be swayed by pity from carrying out GOD's law, if you truly believe in GOD and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their punishment."
See the last line : "And let a group of believers witness their punishment"
To be very precise, there is NO mention of FOUR witnesses for adultery (zina) in this particular ayat. This is a statement of fact.
Surah 24:4 "Those who accuse chaste women, then fail to produce four witnesses, you shall whip them eighty lashes, and do not accept any testimony from them; they are wicked"
In this verse the four witnesses are mentioned quite specifically in the case of accusing chaste women (muhsanaati). The word adultery (zina) or lewd behaviour (faahishatan) is also not mentioned here. This is factual, you can check yourself.
See also Surah 4:15 "Those who commit lewdness (faahishatan) among your women you must have four witnesses against them, from among you."
Again FOUR witnesses are required against women who commit lewdness (faahishatan) among the women. 4 witnesses are specifically mentioned in this ayat. Lewdness among the women could be lesbianism?
Now see the next verse: Surah 4:16
"The two men (wal la-dzaani) who commit indecency (ya'tiyaaniha) from among you shall be punished.."
Here it refers to two men who commit an indecency (homosexuality?). Notice that the word zina or faahishatan does NOT appear in this verse. Notice also that in this verse there is no mention of FOUR witnesses.
One more: the story of Joseph (Nabi Yusof) in Surah 12:26 and 27
Surah 12:26 "He said, "She is the one who tried to seduce me." A witness from her family suggested: "If his garment is torn from the front, then she is telling the truth and he is a liar."
12:27 "And if his garment is torn from the back, then she lied, and he is telling the truth."
12:28 "When her husband saw that his garment was torn from the back, he said, "This is a woman's scheme. Indeed, your scheming is formidable."
In the story of Nabi Yusof in the Quran, there were no FOUR witnesses. But the shirt that was torn from behind (forensic evidence) served as the evidence to prove that he was innocent. There were no FOUR witnesses here either.
I hope you will be succesful in your search for real Islam. Dont take too long. Cheers.
Salam to all believers,
As far as I am concern, its a slander, and whosoever promotes these slanders are part of the wrongdoers.
If you are not the sharif’s, its much better. Let the sharif’s be sharifs. And may Allah protect them in their lives.
U quoted Syiah scholar about homosexuality but you at the same time argues the response given by Saidina Ali r.a, thats contradictory. What Saidina Ali r.a says is final, period, no arguments. The syiah practises the Mutaah marriages, do you condone that ? The Syiah slander the Caliph Abu Bakar r.a and Saidina Umar r.a, and Aisha r,a, do you condone that too. They committed the greatest treachery by murdering the 70 ancestors of our beloved Prophet (the sharif’s) in Karbala, and practises Asyura as remembrance to that, what a hypocrate action. Why don’t you quote Yusuf Qardawi and most of the Alim in the Sunnah class. That is why I suspect u are either a syiah or a anti hadis (the like of Kassim Ahmad) condone by Dr M.
To Continue next comment......
One characteristic of liars is engaging in slander. In the Qur'an, Allah defines slanderers in the following terms:
Anyone who commits an error or an evil action, and then ascribes it to someone innocent, bears the weight of slander and clear wrongdoing. (Surat an-Nisa', 4:112)
Our Prophet (saas) also had words about people who slander others:
"If a man uses a word in order to disgrace an innocent man [Muslim] in this world, Allah will burn him in Hell-fire on the Day of Resurrection."14
The Qur'an also discusses slander directed against believing women, and informs the believers of how they should behave when confronted with such abuse. For example:
There is a group of you who propagated the lie. Do not suppose it to be bad for you; rather, it is good for you. Every one of them will incur the evil he has earned, and the one who took it on himself to amplify it will receive a terrible punishment. (Surat an-Nur, 24:11)
Those who [falsely] accuse chaste, unaware and believing women are cursed both in this world the Hereafter, and they will have a terrible punishment on the Day when their tongues, hands, and feet will testify against them about what they were doing. On that Day, Allah will pay them in full what is due to them, and they will know that Allah is the Clear Truth. (Surat an-Nur, 24:23-25)
Allah tells the believers that they should not condone slander; rather, they should protest it by identifying it for what it is. Many people love to listen to and pass on sensational news, even when they know it is gossip and lies. Allah informs us of such people in the following terms:
They are people who listen to lies and consume ill-gotten gains. If they come to you, you can either judge between them or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot harm you in any way. But if you do judge, judge between them justly. Allah loves the just. (Surat al-Ma'ida, 5:42)
Allah mentions those believers who heed Him in this matter in the following terms:
Why, when you heard it, did you not, as male and female believers, instinctively think good thoughts and say: "This is obviously a lie?" Why did they not produce four witnesses to it? Since they did not bring four witnesses, in Allah's sight they are liars. Were it not for Allah's favor to you and His mercy, both in this world and the Hereafter, a terrible punishment would have afflicted you for your plunging headlong into it [slander]. You were bandying it about on your tongues, your mouths uttering something about which you had no knowledge. You considered it to be a trivial matter, but in Allah's sight it is immense. Why, when you heard it, did you not say: "We have no business speaking about this. Glory be to You! This is a terrible slander!"? (Surat an-Nur, 24:12-16)
In addition, Allah orders the believers to scrutinize carefully each report they receive from a person of doubtful faith or an unbeliever. Otherwise, a lie or a slanderous accusation may damage an innocent person. With the mercy of Allah, such a risk is removed.
O you who believe! If a deviator brings you a report, scrutinize it carefully in case you attack people in ignorance and so come to greatly regret what you have done. (Surat al-Hujurat, 49:6)
Salaam
The questions asked by Alsy are pertinent. The reply by Syed Ali is not correct. If we were to apply what Syed Ali is stating as the 'absolute' resultant of the accusation of homosexuality, then it would be a great injustice indeed. Why? There must be witnesses to judge someone accused of rape or sodomy or fornication and adultery.
Syed Ali mentions Surah 4:16 and states that there is no mention of 4 witnesses hence the need to 'punish' the accused unilaterally! That is not how Islam judges people. That is not how 'intelligent' people judges people and that is also not how even savages would judge people. That is 'unilaterally'.
The Islamic facts remain that in many historical situations like these, the accused (here Saiful) have to show that he has been sodomized or he has to bring witnesses to that effect. Failing which he risks being condemned for lewdness simply for having participated in the act. Why? Because as a man, you are supposed to defend yourself if an attempt of sodomy is being made on your person! Saiful being a healthy, young and strong person has failed - if that is the case - to protect himself hence according to Islamic beliefs, he is to be condemned for participating in the act! Thus the question arise: Was he a willing partner in the act? That is what the Judges should ask if it was in a Syariah court.
Thus my question to this Syed Ali is: What would you do if Saiful was actually a willing partner in the act? Still defend him and state that he is right in doing what he did simply because the other party was Anwar Ibrahim?
I am not saying Anwar did it and Saiful was a willing partner. Based on the analysis above - which is done according to the statement by Syed Ali and his quoting of the Ayat in Surah 4:16 as a 'definitive' answer to the punishment that Anwar deserves, I have the feeling that Syed Ali is trying to 'nail' Anwar on a very flimsy point by protecting Saiful at all cost. 6:28 PM
The Ayat mentioned by Syed Ali is actually supported by many other Ayat which Syed Ali is refraining from mentioning because he surely thinks the Muslims are not clever enough to find the other Ayats or that if he mentions them here, he will lose his point!
Wasalam
Ali I did not say anything like this "'absolute' resultant of the accusation of homosexuality"
Firstly what does this mean? I dont even understand what you are trying to say. Dont be creating words that I did not say. That is njot Islamic at all.
You say "There must be witnesses to judge someone accused of rape or sodomy or fornication and adultery"
Ali, do not say the obvious. Of course there must be witnesses and evidence. Forensic evidence was acccepted in the case of Nabi Yusuf's torn shirt.
By your confused logic, if a girl was raped and there were no four witnesses, then her rapist cannot be charged, even if the girl can identify her rapist. In fact by your poor logic, if she identifies her rapist, but she does not have four witnesses, then she can be accused of slander.
How do you measure that in terms of your understanding of civilised?
I say Ali, when did I ever say "Surah 4:16 states that there is no mention of 4 witnesses hence the need to 'punish' the accused unilaterally!"
This is pure invention. I never said such a thing. I just pointed out that factually in the Quran there is no mention of four witnesses for zina or when two men commit an indecency. If there is please show me the verse. I will wait for you.
And I did not say at all if four, seven, one or two witnesses are needed. I did mention that in the story of Nabi Yusuf forensic evidence was accepted to free Nabi Yusuf of the charge of trying to seduce a woman.
You are neither being intelligent or too civilised - from an Islamic point of view.
You say : "the accused (here Saiful) have to show that he has been sodomized or he has to bring witnesses to that effect"
I say man, this is exactly what is happening lah. It is called "Perbicaraan di Mahkamah". The case is starting on July 1st '09.
You say "Because as a man, you are supposed to defend yourself if an attempt of sodomy is being made on your person!"
Why dont we wait and see what happens in the trial? But please think, even if someone does not defend himself, it does not cancel any sodomy that has taken place.
The question here is was there sodomy between A & B? Lets estbalish that first.
Cont
Cont.
You say "Was he a willing partner in the act? That is what the Judges should ask if it was in a Syariah court"
In the Syariah Court they will first ask for four witnesses. No four witnesses, no case.
In any court, they will try to establish what really happened. Dont worry - Anwar's lawyer will be doing his best to prove exactly what you are saying. Everyone will have their say in Court.
You say : What would you do if Saiful was actually a willing partner in the act?
I cant do anything. That is the job of the Court. But Saiful does not go around saying he is an Islamic leader. Saiful does not go around saying he wants to be the PM of Malaysia.
Saiful does not go around sodomising people and then deny it and say 'It is a Mahathir conspiracy, a Najib conspiracy, a Daim conspiracy, a Tamby Chim conspiracy' etc etc.
I really cant be bothered about who liwats whom, tapi kalau dah liwat, janganlah nak bohong. Sumpah atas Quran also tak mahu.
You said "quoting of the Ayat in Surah 4:16 as a 'definitive' answer to the punishment that Anwar deserves"
I dont know what you mean. 4:16 merely says the two men who commit an indecency must be punished. It does not say what the punishment is, neither does it say that four witnesses are needed. This is factually speaking from the Quran. I am merely pointing out to you that in the Quran there is no mention of four witnesses for zina or for men who commit indecency.
In the Quran you need four witnesses when you accuse chaste women of faahishatan or lewdness.
You said "other Ayat which Syed Ali is refraining from mentioning because he surely thinks the Muslims are not clever enough to find the other Ayats or that if he mentions them here, he will lose his point!"
I really dont understand this point at all. But if that were the case, then I should not even be letting your comment thru, isnt it? But what ayat are you talking about?
If you are a Muslim, can you show me this ayat you are talking about. How much time do you need? The usual time is 6 months.
What ayats are these anyway? If you have them, do show them to us.
Tuan Syed,
Until today, no medical report produced for defence, as these are real evidence of "no penetration" on his ass... why should the prosecutors delayed the report...
any prosecutor would throw this case, no evidence..
Saiful was ok when he was in the ofiice before he went to Pusrawi, at the end of checking, only he mentioned he was sodomised, then asked to go to HKL, same thins.. no penetration on his ass... hahha..aparahh...
Produce the report to be used...
Mo evidence.. but intended to kas malu Anwar
Mr SAS ..
Siapa mau kasi malu sama itu al juburi??
Lu Hakim pencen? President Session Court pencen atau Majistrate pencen? Atau AG Pencen or PP Pencen? Polis Pencen atau Lawyer pencen .. how much u know about the Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act???
You ingat Hakim, AG/PP, and a dozen of lawyers tu bodoh macam awak ker?? mau proceed case without evidences?? Itu medical report is only part of the evidence, yet banyak benda lagi lagi yang hanya akan keluar dalam mahkamah. Ini kes mahkamah, mau bukti atau mau lawan, masuklah mahkamah bukan cari sebab untuk tangguh.
Anwar memang tak salah, bukti pun langsung tak ada...pergi mahkamah..kasi hantam semualah, hantam Saiful kaw kaw, hantam itu hakim sama itu DPP dan polis cukup cukup, hantam habis habis 3 hari 3 malam..dia orang kasi 3 minggu untuk bicara tapi pasal tak ada bukti 3 hari pun sudah lebih ..
Pergilah hantam .. kasi satu dunia tahu an war bersih punya orang .. lain orang semua tipu... APA PASAL TAKUT MAHU HANTAM?? TEPI JALAN HANTAM APA BIKIN, COURT DALAM HANTAMLAH ..
SUMPAH PUN TAK MAU, PIGI COURT PUN TAK BERANI .. HANTAM ORANG PUNYA BELAKANG BANYAK BERANI????
Post a Comment