Thursday, December 08, 2016

Dodgy Khalwat laws, dodgy JAIS raiding break-ins

MM Online - Ex-minister claims khalwat law ‘vague, arbitrary and subject to abuse’

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 8 ― Malays should stand up for their rights against “vague” khalwat laws that allow Islamic religious officers to conduct raids that breach their privacy, former minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said today.

The one-time de facto law minister claimed that the Islamic law that penalises close proximity between Muslims has been abused by religious enforcers to collect large amounts in fine from couples involved would rather pay up than get embroiled in the lengthy process of the Shariah courts.


The former Kota Baru MP also said Islamic religious officers should use their energy and resources on more important matters, such as the cleanliness of toilets in mosques or going after leaders who give logging rights to “rich towkays” at the expense of the Orang Asli community.

“Instead of feeling shame for such things, it would be better for Malays to contest the constitutionality of the offence of khalwat itself. The definition of khalwat is vague and enforcing it violates privacy, which is an important legal principle in law. Malays must fight for their rights.

“They are only human like everybody else, so they will commit the odd sin here and there. But must all sins be a crime in this country?” Zaid asked.

He was referring to reports of a police officer who died yesterday while fleeing a vice raid by religious enforcers from the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) and another auxiliary policeman who was injured in a separate raid.

The conduct and lawfulness of Jais’ raids against the offence of khalwat has been in the spotlight following several dubious break-ins and arrests in the past few years.

Just April this year, actress Faye Kusairi became the victim of false accusation of khalwat, after Jais officer broke into her family duplex condominium in the wee hours of morning. She was not even home at that time.

sayang saje, kami tak sempat menyaksi ........ 

As of September this year, internal probe by Jais decided that its officers did not breach any standard operating procedures, a volte-face from its previous stance. Faye will now proceed with a civil suit against the religious enforcers.

Three issues here.

(1) If the khalwat is between unmarried couple, then there's no need to feel any shame. OK, I'm speaking as a non-Muslim but why should my Muslim friends be scared of JAIS. If one breaks a traffic regulation one does not jump out of a window to his death.

Zaid Ibrahim who was the acting Law Minister and knows something about such issues, said the current laws on khalwat is vague.

Yes, you may end up being fined or dragged to the syariah court, but until Pak Haji's RUU355 Bill to amend the syariah laws to increase flogging from 6 to 100, so what - it may involve a fine of some sort or 6 strokes of the rotan on your backside (not your prick).

OTOH, if you're screwing someone's wife or husband, much as civil laws have nothing against adultery, I won't be sympathetic with your itchified naughtiness if JAIS lashes at your lil' johnny, wakakaka. Moody?

(2) As can be seen, JAIS has been so arrogant that they broke into the home of actress Faye Kusairi on a false charge but remained unrepentant on a dodgy JAIS internal probe on matter.

In 2006, we read in NST about the lustful leery lascivious behaviour of a JAIS officer who caught an unfortunate woman for khalwat.

The following day the poor sweetie went to the JAIS office in Gombak in a vain hope to 'settle' the case amicably. However, she claimed she got more than she bargained for.
Said JAIS officer molested and forced her to perform oral sex on him 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.

So much for these 'warriors' of Islam. Obviously they loved to flex their muscles.

But would those lustful JAIS people be punished?

(3) Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the Chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, an international organisation devoted to improving West-Muslim world relations, and author of “Islam, A Sacred Law, What Every Muslim Should know about the Shariah”.

On July 29, 2009 he wrote the following in the Star Online about Islam and its stand on the imbibing of alcohol:

“…Neither the Quran nor the Hadith invokes a penalty for alcohol consumption. The sin of consuming alcohol is described in the Quran in the mildest language of prohibition. When it comes to dietary laws, the Quran commands the believers in Sura 5:3: “forbidden (hurrimat) to you is the dead animal, loose blood, and the flesh of the pig.”

“… Some legal scholars suggest that the divine command ijtinab, to avoid something, is milder language than tahrim, prohibition. A Muslim consuming a glass of wine with a pork chop commits a more serious offence in eating pork; yet as there is no Quran or Hadith penalty for consuming pork, there is also none for alcohol consumption.”

If that’s the case, then how did the punishment for drinking alcohol in Malaysia come about?

Rauf wrote, “It occurred during the time of the second Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab. There was a companion of the Prophet (sahabi) who had fought on the Prophet’s side in his battles. A heavy drinker, he would walk the streets of Madina drunk at night and loudly shout scandalous things about people. The inhabitants of Madina complained, and Umar formed a committee to decide what to do.”

“Imam Ali, based on the man having committed slander, suggested the penalty for slander, whose maximum penalty is 80 lashes."

"Since that time, this has been considered the maximum penalty for alcohol consumption, based on utilising the Syariah concept of ta`zir (deterrence).”

“I disagree with this being the mandatory sentence for the offence of wine consumption, because it is the maximum sentence for another, separate offence – slander – albeit committed under the influence of alcohol.”

Thus we learned the real reason for the punishment from a learned person like Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was really about 'slandering' rather than 'drinking alcoholic beverage'.

And in the 2009 case of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno who was sentenced to six strokes of the cane for drinking beer, we get a seditious mufti, one who nearly caused racial-religious riots through SMS-ing unsubstantiated information several years back (later proven to be not true at all, but lies), who insisted Kartika Sari Dewi should have been 80 lashes instead of a mere 6 – see Malaysiakini Mufti: It should be 80 lashes, so why the fuss?

must be wonderful to wanna whip a mum 

Hmmm, how many strokes does one get for telling fibs that could have gotten innocent people killed through riots? Surely the punishment for 'slandering' was defined by Imam Ali, so why wasn't that seditious mufti flogged?

But he was not alone. At that time PAS Youth wanted Kartika punished kau kau! Why should I be f* surprised?

That the seditious mufti highlighted the scenario of Kartika getting 80 lashes for imbibing alcohol showed:

(a) Malaysian clerics would interpret syariah laws as they like, like quoting 80 lashes for slandering as the punishment for yamseng-ing,

(b) our founding fathers were brilliant in their wisdom in restricting the subordinate syariah courts to only 6 strokes of the rotan (probably knowing and anticipating some Malayan (now Malaysian) clerics could be nasty). So why should we support Pak Haji Hadi Awang's RUU355?

To reiterate, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said the punishment was more about slander than partaking of alcohol.

And the Prophet Mohamd (pbuh) said: "Every important matter which is not begun with, ‘In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful’ is maimed."

So why have JAIS, JAKIM, JAWI etc and PAS ulama seen fit not to emulate what the Prophet (pbuh) said, that when one talks in the name of Allah (swt), one should be mindful of His Compassion and Mercy?

Well, Art Harun described it well in (now-defunct) The Malaysian Insider’s article Will the real PAS please stand up? where he wrote:

PAS’s real nature is more like the Lernaean Hydra, the fearsome water serpent with nine heads.

This is a party which is so full of itself. It is filled with people who believe that Islam needs their help and assistance all the time. With people who believe that God is so meek and weak that He needs defending by them.

Ya, I agreed (and still do) with Art Harun's explanation from what I have observed, that many PAS people possess such a mentality.

Well, it's hard for a vicious tiger to lose its stripes. Deep inside and within, PAS is still PAS. History would show that they have jumped in and out of the Umno bandwagon for the sake of nothing more than political aspirations and desires. It is almost a vehicle for political expediency.

Ho hum, hyper hypocrites!

Friedrich Nietzsche once said: "Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful".

I believe the unseemly lust to punish, as exhibited by many clerics (government, state and PAS), is very much against Allah’s (swt) twin pillars of compassion and mercy.

Is that unseemly lust to punish in reality a need to slap down those who dare to imperil the punisher's status (his edicts, beliefs) and position in society (his authority, ulama-ship)?

It's the old tale of the use of overpowering dominance, with the weapon of religio-teflon-ised intimidation without fear of any retribution (or pubic repentance in apologies), against those who would dare to not conform or who refuse to toe the line.

Yes, I suspect it's more about the clerics' (and their organizations') self interests.

But my point in jumping from khalwat (which we just heard overpowering fear of JAIS policing killed one policeman and seriously injured another, ...

... to the haram alcohol imbibing, is to show that punishments as exercised by Malaysian clerics might have been based on dodgy interpretations of Islamic laws and probably based more on the lust to inflict punishment on victims, and ...

... that most Malaysian clerics most certainly lack the Compassion and Mercy of Allah swt and his last Prophet (pbuh).

As Zaid Ibrahim advised, the clerics should be challenged.


  1. 1. no, ali bin abu tholib did not prescribe any punishments for any offenses. in the case mentioned above, he rather applied allah swt's command as follows;

    “and those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses – lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after. and those are the defiantly disobedient.” – quran 24:4 (this is a criminal act).

    2. yes, dead animal, loose blood, swineflesh.........are forbidden as per quran 5:3 and no punishments ever prescribed in it neither are they defined in the syariah law but how do alcohol drinking & gambling become a criminal act in the latter since all those are sinful acts. no consistency.

    3. to my understanding, the mat skodeng activity is prohibited. refer quran 49:12, 24:27,28 & 29.

    4. this zaid ibrahim, kenapa dia tak sentuh benda2 ni semasa dia ada kuasa.

    1. zaid ibrahim was our (Pakatan) greatest loss, but he lost himself first. Also, he was sabo kau kau by azmin but Zaid himself was too much of a loose cannon, but at heart a very good man

  2. What the "F*CK" is Jais officers job or responsibilities anyway?To check on the ordinary law abiding Muslim citizens having quality time?What about the Muslim ministers and politicians,who have mistresses here and abroad.And many went to casinos and getting drunk like crazy horses abroad?Jais is a horny dog with no balls.

    1. bruno matey, you're absolutely spot on. Like all bullies, they only harass ordinary citizens with no extraordinary powers but have no balls when it comes to powerful people like ministers. Typical bullying assholes and we're paying their f**king salaries

  3. from lebai google, i come across a story as follows;

    Hadrat Umar bin Khattab, the second caliph, was roaming in
    the city one night when he heard shouting and cursing
    coming from a residence; he then peeked over the perimeter
    and started admonishing the man: ‘You, the sinner, do you
    think that God will ignore your sins, as you’re sinning
    against him?’ The man replied: ‘Woe, commander of the faithful, do not rush to judgment; if I sinned once, you sinned
    three times. God has forbidden you to look into someone’s
    fault and you have done otherwise. God has commanded you
    to enter peoples’ homes through the front door, and you have
    intruded over the fence. And you have approached me
    without salutation, and God has commanded you not to enter
    into other peoples’ home without their permission, and
    without saying greetings (salam) when you enter their

    now, if you were the judge, what would your verdict be, punish the man once and the caliph thrice?

    1. 1)look at the big picture, within the confinement of that tribalistic period

      2)triple checks the 'commands' of the god, whether it's correctly stated. If it's, then is it humanely sound

      3)If it's involving the zombie class, then all things r off. Let the zombie instincts dictate

      BTW, what's the final verdict of yr lebai google?

  4. Muchos Bigost Napoleon harass Big Napoleon
    Big Napoleon harass Little Napoleon.
    Little Napoleon harass Dalits.

    That is the rule of the world, everywhere.
    Has been like that for 3,000 years.
    If humans survive another 3,000 years on this planet Earth, it will still be the same.