Saturday, November 15, 2008

Cui Bono

Remember Ustaz Ramlang Porigi?

The junior mufti who claimed he was not political but yet, went on an extensive PKR campaign for Anwar Ibrahim against Saiful Bukhari Azlan, the alleged sodomy victim.

And what was Ramlang’s main point against Saiful?

My answer lies in what I had posted as Ustaz - Saiful's dodgy Arabic renders oath dodgy - wakakaka!

I wrote: During the swearing, Saiful mispronounced one of the Islamic words because he had it written down in Malay instead of Arabic.

Now, I would be hilarious over this point if I can be sure I won’t offend my Muslim friends. But I need to ask: would Allah (swt) have cared one iota if one of his creations had mispronounced an Arabic word in a supposedly serious undertaking, a sumpah laknat (swearing in the face of divine retribution)?

This is precisely the sort of irrelevant hair-splitting arguments which ignored the solemn religious nature of the oath-taking that trivializes the majesty of Islam – and, alas, it’s by a cleric.

I also asked in that post: Ramlang admitted he wasn’t the Imam Besar of the mosque or an ulama, yet he raised an issue of a mispronounced Arabic word, which we note that even the PAS ulamas didn’t raise ..... which has been why I reckon the ustaz has trivialized an oath taking.

But this seemed to be the straw PKR was looking for, given that Anwar Ibrahim had (embarrassingly for PKR) refused to take an oath he didn’t sodomize Saiful as alleged. If I recall correctly, the oath challenge was thrown into the arena by none other than the former Mufti of Perlis.

Do you think he would have done that if oath-taking wasn't allowed in Islam?

I had also wrote in The influence of the 'Oath' in Permatang Pauh:

I did a bit of research on the taking of oath by the Qu’ran, and these are what I have obtained:

(1) Scholars, looking at the fact that the Qur’an is also an attribute of Allah, considered an oath taken by the Qur’an to be valid.

Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him), said in his Durr: “Kamal (ibn al-Humam, the great Hanafi Mujtahid) said: “Let it be known that the taking of an oath by the Qur’an is something that has become customary, thus it would be considered a valid oath.

Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explained the above by stating: “This is based on the fact that the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, thus it will be considered to be one of His attributes.” (Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 3/712)

Of course there are other scholars like Gus Dur who disagreed. And he has a PhD from Iraq.

(2) Swearing in the Quran as taught by Surah An-Nur is to swear 4 times in Allah's names, with the fifth invoking the curse of Allah if they tell a lie.

However, the surah specifically states that this kind of swearing is only when a husband is accusing his wife of adultery but can't find 4 witnesses; the oath is also used by the wife to defend herself.

Does this mean that the oath is a substitute for the 4 required witnesses?

But as I mentioned, even with a win and a seat in parliament, Anwar has to live with this accusation for the rest of his life … unless of course he becomes PM … or

…… now this has nothing at all to do with legality or law, but it’s about perception of morality through the eyes of the religious kampong people in the heartland, and in politics, perceptions are everything

…… he takes the oath to neutralize Saiful’s declaration to Allah (swt).

Malaysiakini was obviously right there when Ustaz Ramlang criticized Saiful and his imperfect Arabic pronunciation. The Ustaz said all these in a PKR press conference news, and Malaysiakini published the news item Ustaz puts BN campaign in tatters at the amazing time chop of 3:33 a.m!

That wasn't unlike private detective Balasubramanian revealing to the press his SD, also at a PKR conference.

… and strangely, unlike Anwar Ibrahim who would have been accompanied by a battery of lawyers when he visited a police station, the day following the SC, Bala went alone, yes, alone to a police station (can you believe this was allowed to happen?) at the request of the police, where he submitted another SD reversing his original SD, and subsequently disappeared!

So, when Bala disappeared, who was blamed? Or, who would be blamed for Bala’s disappearance? Mind you, not just him but his entire family – that’s a whole lot of expenses, man. How can Bala maintain such an expense account without any income?

… and following Bala's mysterious disappearance, the question we must ask is cui bono?

Cui bono?


  1. Balasubramaniam was invited to have fish-head curry by former colleagues, whom he obviously trusted. He went quite willingly, and he had a head transplant the next day.

    Your intense dislike for Anwar Ibrahim is (AGAIN) discounting your intelligence down to circa 70....

  2. kt

    your dislike for anwar is well known.
    one question, can a 60 year man rape a healthy young man? if it is possible, pigs can also fly.

  3. One of the best advice my lecturer on Logic gave me, oh, some 40 years ago was If it is important for you to able to rationally assess a person or issue, stay away from emotions of either intense admiration or intense dislike.

    For most ordinary people, its practically impossible to give an objective assessment given such attached emotions. You may think you can be objective, but you are deluding yourself.

    I'm no Anwar supporter or admirer.

  4. Bala had a ball transplant, NOT head transplant. He had lost his balls the previous day immediately after his SD witnessed by Anwar. Operation costs paid by BN

  5. ... paid by BN? to make themselves look bad?

    Cui bono?

  6. BN is BN. Its primary concern was and is power and control, by any means

    So don't be surprised when BN does things which make you think - how can they be so stupid ?

    BN is pretty expert at making itself look bad. Witness the Neanderthal-like attack on a peaceful candle-light vigil.

  7. one question, can a 60 year man rape a healthy young man? if it is possible, pigs can also fly.

    You have discounted the capability of people , there are many unrecorded and recorded cases of much older people raping their nieces or granddaughters , of women above 70's and 80's still giving births . And there are cases of young people below 35 can't have an erection . Your logic is way way out .

  8. One fact to consider after Bala's disappearance is that the authorities obviously either know where he is or they know who knows it.

    Applying Occam's razor would lead to the conclusion that either the authorities are involved in his disappearance or know who made him "disappear"

    It is unnecessary to apply Cui Bono to come up with far-fetched, wild and wooly conspiracies.

  9. anon of 2:59 PM, November 16, 2008 - I believe you don't even know what is Occam's razor - wakakaka.

    Can one say that the party (could be but not necessarily the authority) that benefits most from Bala's mysterious but highly publicised disappearance has nothing to do with his disappearance and the associated explanation?

    In fact given that the authority suffers most (as being most blameworthy) from Bala's disappearance, and that he went to the police station inexplicably without any lawyer accompanying him (why? why? why?), should obligate us to ask "cui bono"?

  10. Ktemoc,
    The police have been able to take Bala's statement, wherever he is.

    In terms of the Malaysian authorities , Bala has not disappeared. It is to the rest of the Malaysian public that he has "disappeared".

    They know where to find him, or at least they know who knows where to find him.

    Stands to reason, the authorities are either involved in his "disappearance" or people linked to the authorities are involved.

  11. Again, it is unnecessary to talk about Cui Bono.

    Simple facts will do.

  12. Kind of sad that Ktemoc, once fearless champion of the truth, now applies his wordsmith skills just as an apologist for the regime...

    I don't intend to visit your blog again.

    Good Bye...enjoy your erm...benefits...