This bloke is a wee too fond of quoting from this or that Enactment to threaten people. Recall seven years ago in 2006, when he (then only the deputy mufti of Kelantan) told Berita Harian that wives would be deemed to be unjust
and abusive if they cannot satisfy their husbands' sexual needs.
Abusive in sexual needs?
In his (note ‘his’ and not 'the') most brilliant
exposition of Islamic doctrines, he explained that in a marriage, it's not
always the wives who were abused as it could also happen to the husbands. He
advised that Islamic laws protect both women and men.
He warned: "Thus wives who do not
provide proper care for their husbands, including not fulfilling their sexual
needs, can be considered as being unjust and abusive towards their husbands."
"These women can be charged under
Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002, which provides for
a fine of RM 1,000 or jail of up to six months or both upon conviction."
But in a manner not unusual to either important big shots (CEOs, etc) or impossible big bullshitters, he skipped the details, yup, by neglecting to elaborate
on how the courts would determine any husband’s claims of his wife failing to
satisfy his sexual needs as per, wakakaka, Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002.
As we know, some men/husbands may have
excessive sexual needs, so the poor wives could be required to perform to
super-human standards, you know, 'above and beyond' the call of duty.
|
Dahleeng, use a Kryptonite to 'soften' his super sex needs, wakakaka |
If their wives cannot satisfy their super sexual needs, would those poor wives be still deemed as unjust and abusive as per, wakakaka again, Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002 by this mufti?
But truthfully, I would be very interested in how he would impartially gauge that a husband has attained sexual satisfaction in his legal act of consummation. I've been informed that in the West it's supposedly measured by how loud the man (or woman) screams 'OH GOD', wakakaka again.
|
perhaps inspiring the drafting of an Enactment, wakakaka |
Or would he just rely on the hubby's say-so, that the undutiful wife should be jailed for 6 months while hubby gets a new young doll of a wife, wakakaka again.
Can this bloke really expect us to take him seriously on a far loftier issue, namely the use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims, than a literally-f**king matter such as Muslim wives abusing husbands through not satisfying the hubbys' sexual needs?
But then, such a sensitive issue in Myrmidon Mafulat-ish Malaysia opens the door
for the loony right as well as the loony left to exploit the matter for their
own interests.
The politicians from both sides are having a gala time though I would say Pakatan and the not-pro-BN NGOs are having the better end of the stoush in driving UMNO into a corner especially with regards to Ah Jib Gor's 'fixed deposit' states.
But UMNO and its allies (including some PAS people) have also been very vocal, especially in their usual arrogant bullying and threatening behaviour. It throws a timely life-line to some used-by politicians like Nasharudin Mt Isa, Ibrahim Ali, Zulkifli Noordin, Hasan Ali, etc, and hey hey hey, even across the political fence, to Pakatan's Chua Jui Meng, wakakaka.
Strangely we have yet to hear from Harussani Zakaria, the Perak Mufti, he of the sms notoriety in spreading seditious nonsense about a non-event, the so-called proselytizing of hordes of Muslims. Though of course we can easily predict what he would say, wakakaka.
Lamentably, as a supporter of DAP politics and policies, I have to confess I've been deeply disappointed by Uncle Lim Kit Siang for raising the question What if the Allah issue had happened 50 years ago? because the Home Minister's decision was only to prohibit the Catholic weekly newsletter, The Herald, from using the Allah-word as a Malay equivalent to the Christian god in its Bahasa Malaysia section. Thus the ruling on the Home Minister's prohibition does not extend to Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians' use of the Allah-word.
Look mate, there are certain national interests like social peace and stability that should be above partisan politics politicking.
And we could again argue that the current acrimonious situation has been brought about by The Herald's obdurate intention to use an Arabic word that's widely known to be used in Peninsula Malaysia (Malaya) by Muslims for the Islamic god, and (I dare say) never by Peninsula Malaysia Christians. I challenge anyone to advise otherwise.
And why have I described The Herald’s intention as obdurate?
As I had written in a previous post, it seems that Father Lawrence Andrew, The Herald’s editor, had been dead set on using the Arabic word Allah to refer to the Christian god, in spite of the superior pedigree (in the Judeo-Christian context) of its god’s other names as revealed in the Bible, and their ready availability and extensive variety.
To remind us of the Christian god’s name as mentioned in the Bible, the first revelation of this god’s personal identity has been in the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) Book of Genesis 1:1 which says:
"In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth."
So, why did Father Andrew consider Elohim a foreign name as if it's alien to Christianity, while to him, strangely Allah is not? Hey, aren't we talking about the God of the Judeo-Christian faith? Or, are we discussing the God of the Islamic faith?
|
with so many choices (& much more), why insists on the Islamic 'Allah'? |
The second name of the Judeo-Christian Divine One as revealed to Moses was YVWH or Yahweh (later modified to Jehovah) which means 'I AM WHO I AM' or 'I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE'.
Yahweh is mentioned 6823 times in the Old Testament, while Elohim scores 2570 times. Can anyone please tell me how many times is Allah mentioned in the Tanakh or the Christian Old Testament as used in Peninsula Malaysia (Malaya)?
For your info, kaytee studied one for 13 years in MBS and several years after school. I have several copies of the Bible (of various versions) and still read selected chapters from time to time, wakakaka.
So, hasn’t The Herald or in the person of Father Lawrence Andrew been obdurate in insisting on using Allah (apart from Tuhan) as the Malay equivalent of the Christian god?
More importantly, why? Make that a big bold WHY?