Monday, May 30, 2016

Absolute power corrupts absolutely

FMT - PAS: Bill intends to enhance shariah courts


KOTA BHARU: PAS Vice-President Mohd Amar Nik Abdullah said today the Shariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 2016 proposes to enhance the powers of the shariah courts.

He said those who spoke out against or criticised the Bill did not understand why it was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat.

He also said that the Bill only involved Muslims.

“We brought the Bill to enhance the powers of the shariah courts so that they can impose heavier penalties for offences.”

He said these courts could now only impose jail sentences of up to three years, a fine of RM5,000 and six strokes of the cane.


I wonder why PAS and people of their ulama ilk love, lust and salivate to punish others as heavily as possible?

recall when sweetie Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor was given 6 strokes of the rotan for yamsenging, the Islamic officers made a great show of demonstrating how light the caning would be, and the limiting extent to which the caning officer was permitted to raise the cane, and that the caning punishment was only symbolic, more about humiliating the offender so to make her/him repent rather than inflicting pain per se.



If that was the case, why then is there now a need to increase the hudud-ized flogging to as much as 100 lashes? And do you expect me to believe there won't be any pain involved?

If the aim is to shame the offender so as to make him/her repent, won't 6 strokes be as good (even better) than 100 lashes?

The underlying factor seems to be to punish, punish and punish as kau kau as possible.

We also know punishment usually follows prohibition and persecution (not prosecution), all on the say-so of the ulama, eg. reading the Quran must be in its original Arabic script, and that there will be greater merit for a Muslim in doing so than to understand what the Quran tells them to do so in any translation (into, say, Malay) of those script.

Really, is that what Allah swt wants of His human creations? To just read His divine teachings in Arabic even if the reader doesn't understand what He wants of the reader?

Did Allah swt say this? Who then said that?

Hundreds of years back, the Catholic Church used to do the same in Latin, thus preventing (deliberately or unbwittingly) ordinary Europeans and Latin Americans and other Catholics around the world from understanding the meaning of the biblical scriptures. Thus the priests were the sole link between their almighty and the ordinary people, by default holding and wielding enormous powers over the proletariat because of the latter's ignorance.

Quite frankly, I have never heard of any theocratic state which was tolerant, balanced or compassionate, not even in medieval theocratic (Buddhist) Tibet.

Invariably, lowly educated or/and young clerics or religious enforcement officers, given almost unrestrained powers, would sense an uncontrollable compulsion to prohibit, persecute (as mentioned, not prosecute, though that'd come subsequently), and punish - if anything, just to show their powers, and to invoke fears which they possibly mistake for respect.

That's right - punish punish and punish kau kau with enhanced powers given to syariah court officers until their victims quaked in holy terror, as was the case of the Qatif girl in Saudi Arabia.



She was a Shiite rape victim in Sunni Saudi Arabia. She was sentenced to 200 lashes of flogging after she was raped by 7 Sunni men, and when she wanted to appeal against her sentence, she was warned or threatened that her flogging would be increased if she did so.

That was the syariah court of Saudi Arabia.




The propensity for religious officers to bully bully bully was amply demonstrated in the infamous Zouk nightclub raid by JAWI officers, where and when we witnessed how supposedly trained JAWI religious officers behaved like savage predators.

Another cruel example was the arrogant kiasu mentality of JAWI. Its victim was another sweetie. Seems those religious officers like to bully women, sweeties like Nik Raina, Aisyah Tajuddin and as mentioned Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor.

I wonder whether you remember the JAIS Gombak lechery case in 2006 - we read in NST about the lustful leery lascivious behaviour of a JAIS officer who caught an unfortunate woman for khalwat.

The poor sweetie had gone to JAIS office in Gombak the day after her embarrassing encounter with JAIS, in a vain hope to 'settle' the case amicably. However, she claimed she got more than she bargained for.

She was molested and forced to perform oral sex on said JAIS officer as an inducement to let her off the hook. She also alleged the officer used criminal force to outrage her modesty by caressing her breasts and kissing her on the lips.

I wonder whether that binatang, a total disgrace to the good name of Islam, was ever charged in court?



Nik Raina

The persecution (not just prosecution) of Nik Raina is probably the worst case of misusing the name of religion to intimidate a woman. JAWI obviously wanted to punish her as manager of Borders KL for selling banned books even though JAWI's prohibition on those books was issued only 6 days after they had raided Borders and charged her.

Thus who the fuck knew the books were banned, certainly not sweetie. Maybe they had expected sweetie to see into the future, using Raja Bomoh's twin-kelapa crystal ball.




But both the civil and syariah court had the sense to dismiss the charges against her, though I questioned the syariah court's dismissal as 'qualified' that it did not amount to an acquittal, despite and in spite of the sequence of events which led to the stupid charge was evidently clear she was totally innocent.

Wait, there's more. FMT reported on another sin of the syariah court prosecutor, in personally serving notice of appeal directly to her in what was seen as a further act of intimidation.

Nik Raina, 38, broke down and wept in her office after she received the notice of appeal, which had been served on her instead of through her lawyer.

Her boss, Yau Su Peng, was quoted as saying: “I can’t help but wonder if that action was meant to further intimidate Nik Raina. She is understandably upset over this.”

Their aim seems to be to intimidate her even if that required breach of legal procedures - such was their arrogance. They didn't seem to care about the law unless the law allowed them to bully their targeted victims.

Yes, the aim would seem to be that, frightened the sh*t out of women, hopefully punished them to terrify the rest of the public into obeying, complying and stuff far worse, and not about legal justice which had already ruled Nik Raina was innocent.

Some people just cannot handle power, and as I have just mentioned, would feel an overriding compulsive and sometimes addictive need to exercise that power.

And as mentioned above, that’s exactly what occurred at the Zouk nightclub, where a religious departmental campaign to curb or stop un-Islamic, un-Malaysian behaviour, or that viewed as offensive to Asian values, degenerated into a disgraceful un-Islamic show of unfettered power and oppressive dominance by empowered officials.

Instead of counselling those young (and supposedly) social degenerates, the JAWI officials showed themselves to be degenerates when they arrogantly and lustfully exploited their position of religious power to humiliate and terrorize the victims.




Those co-called moral police immorally forced the young sweeties caught in the nightclub to urinate right in the open in front of their hot, hungry, lustful and ogling eyes.

Their barbaric bad binatang behaviour is guaranteed to happen again because the system provides near unbridled power to officials who lack knowledge in depth, and intellectual capacity or good moral character to handle such authority. Abuses are likely to occur when power is not moderated by knowledgeable, high moral behaviour and scrupulous responsibility.

The common denominator is the unauthorized and uncontrolled exercise of power by those in authority on their unfortunate victims, namely, the power to dominate the victims, to make them do what the authority so desires, sometimes to stretch the exercise of power as far as the oppressors' imagination permits.

In such an innocent matter as unisex hairdressing in Kota Bharu, and tentative attempts to curb Chinese koe-tai shows in Kedah, non-Muslims have already felt the adverse impact of Islamic rules, so what can we anticipate or forecast will be the case of the more punishing hudud for non-Muslims?

We now have to ask this question because it's evident from the Kota Bharu incident that we non-Muslims can no longer believe in PAS assurance the implementation of hudud won't affect non-Muslims.

When mortals lay claim to divine-sourced power, they become as what the old saying goes: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and divined-source power is absolute power. 


21 comments:

  1. Sorry, mate....my view is rather different...

    Islam is a reactionary, retrograde religion with a tendency to encourage and advocate some extremely nasty people.

    And many of those others who are not extremely nasty, have a tendency to sympathise with , succour, excuse or stay silent on those Nasties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Early this year I posted "Kill in God's name" [http://ktemoc.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/kill-in-gods-name.html] in which I penned Why is it that the most warlike religions or religions that encourage war and killing through several millenniums of their respective history (since around 1400 BC) have been the Abrahamic religions, the fearsome troika of Judaism, Christianity and Islam?

      I concluded by saying: My theory is that the belligerent bloodthirsty bellicosity of the Abrahamic religions might have their origin in (Middle-Eastern) tribalism, first among the Israelites, then among the Arabs, Turks, Persians, etc.

      Christianity just apes the territorial truculent tribal nature of Judaism.

      Amen!

      Delete
    2. How bout chinese or koreans in those days?

      Delete
    3. the Chinese had statehood 5000 years ago so had the advantage of time and duration to wean off their (if any) tribal instincts. The Koreans adopted Chinese Taoism and Confucianism and also Buddhism (originated in India), all peaceful religions or (virtually godless) ideologies

      Delete
    4. They did kill each other, didn't they? Whether it was (is) the perintah dari langit or protecting own turf or whatever justification, man are programmed to kill or be killed when situation & condition warrant it for own survival. No diff from the animal world.

      Buddha, tao, confucius etc did not possess ruling power nor given the mandate from heaven.

      Delete
    5. they didn't kill each other in the name of god.

      For example:

      Numbers 31:7-18

      7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

      And then those god's murderers saved soem virgims for their lustful cocks:

      17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Delete
    6. 1. That's what I said, whether in god's name or whatever reasons, killings will continue till kiamat.

      2. Budak cerdik selalunya nakal (bukan jahat). Emak tibai dgn lidi kelapa kerana dia sayang & for our own good, kena rotan pun ada tapi utk pengajaran so we don't. repeat the mistake. Punish yes, torture no no no.

      Delete
    7. I can't remember reading about any Christian or Buddhist suicide bombers, not in recent history anyway.

      Tamil Tigers suicide bombers went out of fashion after the end of the Sri Lankan civil war.

      Airport security authorities all over the world try very hard to avoid being accused of "racial profiling" or "religious profiling". But the fact is near 100% of recent aircraft hijackings or bombings have been the work of adherents of one religion.

      Delete
  2. 100 lashes - why rotan, lidi kelapa tak boleh ka? & 100 at one go?

    Both muslims and nons under civil.law must pay cukai pintu, cukai tanah & income tax besides other kinds of taxes & why pas & umno baru conveniently overlook these things?

    Nak hukum orang saja pandai.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. when I was a kid and a naughty one, my mum used to whack me with a bunch of lidi , right on the calves. When she was really angry, she hentam me all over my body as if she was Shintaro Katsu slashing away with a samurai sword, wakakaka

      Delete
    2. The severity of the maximum punishment which can be meted out by Syariah courts is a kind of Power Status.

      These guys are power hungry.

      Delete
  3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/30/recep-tayyip-erdogan-no-muslim-family-can-accept-birth-control

    Recep Erdogan, poster boy of the "Moderate" Muslims says no to birth control. All Muslims have the responsibility to go forth an multiply.

    Similar mentality in Malaysia.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/05/31/question-mark-over-new-cinemas-in-kota-baru/

    Kota Baru cinemas have segregated seating.
    How to take the whole family out for an outing ?
    Not seating together removes the meaning of a family outing.

    Anyone saying Islamic laws don't impact non-Muslims is lying.

    That is just step 1 - laws subject to Muslims
    Step 2 - in order to be "fair" - local government by-laws and Government policies , which apply to everyone , are aligned with Islamic rules.

    Presto ! Everybody subject to the same Islamic laws.


    ReplyDelete
  5. There is this CONSISTENT twisting of claim of huduh for muslim only within the ummat Islam in M'sia.

    '.. to reform the canning punishment meted out by the syariah court to muslim felons pun tak bole ker..??'

    '..The improvement on shariah law only for muslim and in no way will affect non muslim.'

    ‘It does not concern any non-Muslim individual. When something is not your concern legally, then your right to talk, debate, discuss, intervene, interfere, object and etc, is just not there.

    You can’t interfere in the matter of Muslims, just like Muslims do not interfere and determine how non-Muslims should carry out their religious practices.

    The interference in the Shariah court by anyone other than a Muslim is akin to interference in the religion of Islam itself.’

    Logical thinkings &/or misguided religious falsity?

    AND yet this argument has been consistently put forward by majority of the Malay muslim as their ‘pious’ right!

    Does such right exist, especially in the context of a multi culture & religion country like M’sia?

    Using the same ‘logic’ then why r the muslim object to religious practices of the Others?

    Erected religious statues r offensive & confusing to the muslim?

    Sounding of the Hindus bell during ceremony is not the same as the azan chant?

    Eating of khinzir food in front of the Malay muslim is no ok while eating of beef in front of the Hindus by muslim is ok? Ditto with Vegan/vegetarian.

    Could it be called a delusion of power as our Malay Muslims have ‘upgraded’ Islam to the pinnacle of the M’sian legal status, simply bcoz Islam is the ONLY religion mentioned as the religion of the Federation. Those readers have forget about the subsequent phrases of mentioning that other religions have EQUAL right to practice in the land of M’sia.

    In the 1st place, there is no such thing as one-system-two-laws for M’sia, with diversified cultures & religions, where equality is built into the very foundation of the FederalConstitution.

    Quantitative numeral superiority for one particular segment of the populace is NO excuse to enforce such majority requirement. True democracy doent sit well solely with might by number alone. It MUST also protect the intrinsic wellbeing of the minority, based on universal humane values. Thus, universal equality demands that ALL people r to be treated equally under the similar reward/punishment, regardless of that people’s gender, race & religion.

    Otherwise, any favours awarded to any particular group, by whatsoever reasons, will eventually lead to oligarchy.

    It also contradict the very foundation of a compassional religion!

    Ingat kan the thongkat culture of NEP?

    So, indeed, power corrupt. & misguided power corrupt absolutely, even among normally sane people when it involves religion.

    Do remember, yr rights end where other’s nose begin!

    Thus, for those ‘claimed’ Muslims, who want to retain the sanctity & sacrosanct of Islam, do AVOID using this twisted argument of Hudud for Muslim only.

    It doesn’t!

    & it cheapen yr religion’s true teachings!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not applicable to Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. HE lived a frugal life and died poor. If Hadi and PAS more than a million followers and also other Muslims/Malays want to follow the examples and the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w., so be it. You Nons must accept and allow Muslims to be governed by the Syariah Laws, if you challenged it, the Syariah Laws shall triumph over Civil/Western Laws too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not right to compare Hadi/Najib or Pas/Umno to the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. They are the extreme opposite with daily news of scandals and they are power hungry politicians riding on religion. Fighting corruption is less important than to them than fighting beer drinkers. The Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. would not have associated with someone who has 2.6 Bintang secretly until exposed. Hadi would.
      Hadi only inherited Pas from TG Nik Aziz, just to split it up into factions. His version of Huddud is just for political prudence. Not following in the footsteps of the Prophet s.a.w.

      Delete
  7. 1. Keep the streets of kota bahru relegiously clean first. Just got back yesterday after spending a couple of days there.

    2. Mentioned this before - muslims drinking alcohol is a criminal offence under syariah law (part of hudud). How many non-muslims kena tangkap? And what about khalwat & buying 4 nombor ekor?

    ReplyDelete
  8. So, it's still a might by number game? (Thus, the rabbit breeding mentality, yes?)

    Did yr good book/prophet says anything about such an approach to achieve the hudud dream?

    Or is it one of those diabolical & chronic contradictions that's been interwoven into the twisted understanding of yr religiosity by selective pick&choose?

    It's fine for syriah laws to triumph over Western/Civil laws as long as it don't drags the Nons into the failed state conditions. Unfortunately, it will as proven time & again in modern settings.

    Just like what u claimed about yr prophet's puritan or that decadence caliphs that built on the bloods of many - they r history, long gone & kaput.

    What is essential is here & now. Not reminiscing about a hideoud pasts of zero significance that CAN'T fit into a modern needs.

    & honestly, here lies that main ingredient of a ready-made failed state!

    Any wonder why u guys keep looking into the past for glorifying syok-sendiri doctrines, while the world runs past u at sonic speed?

    It might be correct to predict that the syriah laws can never triumph over the other modern universal laws, bcoz any country that practises such laws would self destruct before achieve anything.

    Sigh.....how pariah can pariah be...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please hands off the Malaysian constitution. It is the supreme "Holy Book" of all Malaysians regardless of race or religion. Do not amend the constitution to comply with any religious book, be it in Christianity, Buddism, Hinduism or Islam. Trust the drafters of the constitution for the provisions and limitations were there for a purpose. If you are a "Malaysian first" guy, you must accept the constitution as it is just as you accept your holy book as it is. How can the supreme constitution be made to comply with any religious or cultural law practiced by just a portion of the total population? If every religious group demands to amend the constitution to suit their own religious beliefs, then there will be chaos. Although Islam is given the status of the official religion, it's limitations and provisions are specifically and intentionally written on the wisdom of the forefathers. Hadi's Bill aims to remove such limitations, thus perverting the original purpose of the wise drafters of the supreme "Holy Book" of Malaysia. Would you agree if some people want to add, subtract or delete a text from your holy book? So please, hands off the constitution unless there is a total consensus by all Malaysians to amend it. Not just by a simple majority. What about the significant minority?(we are talking about a millions of constituents here) And please don't threaten the dissenting Muslim with Hell, unless you had gone to and return from Hell yourself to bear witness of Hell.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
    Say: Oh you who turn away
    I do not worship what you worship,
    nor do you worship what I worship.
    And I will not worship what you worship,
    Nor will you worship what I worship.
    Your way is yours, and my way is mine

    From surah Al Kafirun -The Unbelievers

    Enough said!

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, again what's good for the goose is good for the gander, comprehendi??

    Just in case u tak faham its applikasi macroscopically - what the gooses demand MESTI tak kenal ganders jelata within the animal farm. Otherwise it's 2x5=5x2, Napoleon in charge or not!

    Perhaps, u should search deeper into yr good book & find modern interpretations for a better enlightenment.

    ReplyDelete