http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=346380

The statements made by Shabery were over-emphasized and exaggerated but little evaluation on the Anwar’s opinions.

Play one Act one

Silence…..CAMERA

Putera Umno president Azeez Abdul Rahim had challenged Anwar last Friday to swear on the Quran.

And Anwar said : “I have sought the advice of ulama and they told me that it is unnecessary to swear on the Quran to prove my innocence,” said Anwar, stressing his decision not to respond to the call.

“They have also strongly advised me against doing so as it will transgress Islamic rules. This is a criminal act and it must be investigated. There’s nothing in Islamic law that allows you to take an oath under this provision.

“If it is a criminal offence, the burden of proof is with the accuser. Otherwise you could be involved in a murder and you (could) swear on the Quran and you would get off scot-free.”

Source Malaysiakini report by Syed Jaymal Zahiid | Jul 9, 08 12:27pm.

If one scrutinises the last sentence, what Anwar said is correct – that a murderer could get scotfree if being a murderer he has no qualms in swearing on the Quran to get scotfree against a charge of murder based on our Penal Code!

However if religious beliefs, rituals or methods like swearing on Koran should have no part to play in the Criminal Justice System (that appropriately ought to rely on normal evidential rules and forensics) then why does Anwar - in relation to Sodomy allegations and charges - turn to Syariah and file a complaint, referred to as qazaf in Islamic law, to request a probe into ‘false allegations’ pertaining to adultery or sexual misconduct by Saiful when Anwar could proceed to sue Saiful for defamation under civil law and also lodge police report complaining Saiful’s making false report?

It has the appearances that he wants to take advantage of the syariah laws requiring production of four credible witnesses to back up his claims of sexual misconduct by Saiful and yet when it comes to allegations of others implicated in murder or covering up of murder, he conveniently says that sharia and the swearing on the Quran should not have a part to play in a prosecution under normal laws (presumably under Penal Code).

This is subtle but clear application of selective and different standards of syariah for sodomy and civil law/normal prosecution for murder, which there can be no rationale to support such different approaches (except of course self interest). This is because sexual misconduct is also prosecutable under our secular Penal Code to which all persons of Muislim or non Muslim faiths are subject!

On the no-confidence motion against the PM moved by Opposition Leader Wan Azizah, well I wish PR the luck because that’s what it really needs. Based on the numbers and the anticipated and much touted defections, I have serious reservations whether PR could pull through the motion of no confidence especially when recent statements by its defacto head on the selective application of Sharia does not help on issue of credibility before those of two minds and deliberating whether to remain within and vote for BN or defect and vote with PR on its motion.

It is interesting that the PKR de facto leader has now announced that he is turning to the Syariah court to clear his name over the sodomy allegation against him by his former aide Saiful Bukhari Azlan”. He is doing this by filing a complaint (qazaf in Islamic law) of slander relating to sexual crime against Saiful if Saiful is unable to produce four credible witnesses to back up his claims. See malaysiakini’s report by Syed Jaymal Zahiid | Jul 9, 08.
Sodomy & other sexual crimes are under our “secular” Penal Code applicable to both Muslims and Non Muslims.

The defacto head is sending out a very wrong signal that Muslims prosecutable by the state for crimes under Penal Code could circumvent and neutralise the rigours of the law just be unilaterally opting for Syaraih if it suits his convenience of raising the standard of proof to require 4 witnesses.

People are entitled to ask if Pakatan Rakyat on day rules the country what would happen to (say) a girl victim of rape relating to which DNA proves under our Penal code that the accused is the rape perpetrator but the accused being a muslim could escape the conviction and the law under penal Code by opting for Shariah that acquits him just because there were no 4 witnesses.

For a sexual crime how does one get even 2 witnesses let alone 4???

Is the defacto head of PR ushering us into an Islamic theocratic state that administer Sharia for Muslims in ordinary crimes otherwise covered by the seclar Penal Code all along???

And if one denies the accused the way to resort to Shariah, he could just defend himself by citing the precedent of the PR’s chief who did precisely that to circumvent the prosecution under the Penal Code.

The Pakatan Rakyat coalition has announced that it planned to move a motion of no-confidence against Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

Is this a bluff or what? The last time SAPP/ Yong Teck Lee talked of the same thing but when Shahrir moved his government motion, PR were defeated by BN majority. That was even before Saiful’s allegations. From then until now you mean there are substantial defections unknown to the public that have been stitched for a motion of no confidence to be carried?

I am skeptical. It sounds like a desperate throw of dice on the Roulette table.

What you have painted is more of an unholy alliance of the 3 component partners in PR and any keen observer in the Malaysian political scene would not fail to concur with your observation.Their public actions and pronouncements displayed at times are glaringly telling that the union is founded on very poor foundation.Looks like Anwar hasn’t really got them stitched together properly and if it should come asunder then it would take another 50 years probably to have a next crack at regime change or maybe never!