Thursday, July 31, 2008

Sworn Innocence or Sworn Guilt?

A Tale of a Murderer & Rapist.

Once upon a time, a murderer was charged for the murder of a politician. In the peoples' court he swore that he did not kill the man. The peoples' court decided to accept this sworn statement as swearing is accepted by the institution as a divine rule of truthful self-declaration. He died many years later.

When he met St. Peter at Hellcourt, St. Peter asked him: "Why did you swear that you didn't commit the crime when the truth is we know that you did? Do you know you would be sent to hell for lying?

The man replied: "Tell me, St. Peter, would a murderer be sent to hell after he died on earth?

St. Peter: "Yes, of course!"

The man asked another: "Tell me, St. Peter, will a liar be sent to hell for lying about his crime?"

St. Peter: "Yes, of course!"

The man asked again: "Tell me, St. Peter, would a murderer who told the truth and wouldn't lie to the earthly court, when he died, would he be sent to heaven for telling the truth?

St. Peter: "Definitely No! He is a murderer and he can be truthful but he remains a murderer and it would be injustice to the victim to have this murderer share the same place in heaven. He must be sent to hell for his crime."

The man asked again: "Tell me, St. Peter, is there two different hell - one for an honest murderer and one for a murderer who lied and who swear falsely?"

St. Peter: "There is only one hell and one set of rules for those in hell; all who are sent to hell have the same fate and punishment; they are all equal."

The man said to St. Peter: "I lived my last few years in a liberal world enjoying all the freedoms and pleasures of life. I know I would be punished when I come here, but at least I don't have to suffer my last few years in a jail."

Tale ends!

A brother confessed to the court that he did rape his sister after watching porn. He was sent to jail. He should accordingly be sent to hell hereafter.

A girl alleged that her brother raped her in their parents' bedroom. If the boy is willing to swear that he did not commit the heinous act, will he be incarcerated or exonerated or exculpated?

News from Malaysiakini

Saiful lawyer Zamri Idrus said he Saiful is willing to publicly swear by the Quran soon that he was sodomized.

Zamri read Saiful's handwritten note which called on Anwar and the public to not interfere with police investigations into the matter.

In the three-paragraph note, Saiful, 23, also said he was waiting for the police to complete their investigations before he swear by the Quran.

Zamri said Saiful was also waiting for the police to wrap up their probe before doing so.

Zamri also revealed that Saiful is still motivated to seek justice.

Saiful just wants everyone to leave this case to the police. "Let the police investigate..." he pleaded.

Malaysiakini posed this question to Zamri: "We don't understand why you are holding this press conference?"

(It is uncommon for a sodomy victim to request for a press conference to plead to the public to leave everything to the police and it is puzzling that a victim who suffered a sexual crime would prefer to swear after the police had completed the investigation to the crime. What if the police say: "No case?" Does that mean he would use the Quran to testify to persist on such a crime? What if the police say there's sufficient evidence of a crime committed; the swearing becomes irrelevant unless the victim wants to confer something else that is metaphysical)


This is another article at Malaysiakini:

Experts: First medical report relevant

According to a medical expert, the police cannot ignore Dr Mohamed Osman's report especially if it conflicts with another medical examination done at the Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) several hours later.

"Dr Mohamed Osman's observation showed no obvious physical evidence to support such a claim which could raise a reasonable doubt if the doctor in HKL observed the opposite...," said the doctor who has years of experience in handling rape and sodomy cases.

"Dr Mohamed Osman is experienced enough and couldn't be wrong not to notice the obvious signs like bruises, tenderness, swellings, scratch marks, fissure and bleeding per rectal and so on," said the doctor who requested anonymity.

"To associate tenesmus with sodomy, the complaint has to come after the event, and there would be evidence of injury to the anal mucosa like fissure or scar should be seen (to cause the pain) and there may be also some traces of blood seen."

But she said that since Saiful had alleged that he was sodomised two days before he was physically examined, it would be "almost impossible" to have any trace of material for DNA identification be available unless he used the same underwear that was not washed since the alleged event.

"There would be impossible also to find any recognisable material for DNA identification as well. Thus, asking for a fresh DNA sample is highly questionable because it is not a fresh sodomy/rape case where the evidence is still available."

Another medical expert told Malaysiakini that based on Mohamed Osman's medical report, Saiful had complained about being assaulted by a piece of plastic.

"There cannot be a charge of sodomy unless there is actual contact between the penis and anus. If an object was used, then the charge has to be assault," said the retired medical doctor who had carried out medical examination involving rape cases in a government hospital.


Anonymous said...






SayOh said...

I bet Saiful would sworn innocnet. Care to bet?

Of course the charge of sodomy is in the context of the penis and anus. If an object was used, then the charge has to be assault.

I guess then the authorities have to find the dildo. But Anwar is using the islam laws based on adultery context? Is he so stupid or he think we are stupid for him?

SayOh said...

I bet Saiful would sworn innocnet. Care to bet?

Of course the charge of sodomy is in the context of the penis and anus. If an object was used, then the charge has to be assault.

I guess then the authorities have to find the dildo. But Anwar is using the islam laws based on adultery context? Is he so stupid or he think we are stupid for him?

Tabobo said...

I'm more inclined to think that this swearing business is part of the fan-fare. I'd rather them adress the issue of HOW Anwar got him to be sodomized? Since brute force is unlikely, other types of sedatives? Power and positions? And then what happened?

Tabobo said...

I'm more inclined to think that this swearing business is part of the fan-fare. I'd rather them adress the issue of HOW Anwar got him to be sodomized? Since brute force is unlikely, other types of sedatives? Power and positions? And then what happened?

GobloKing said...

Dear St Mav
You seem to have omitted the category of Not volunteering the Truth & telling White Lies..

Will someone still get into Heaven if they have not exactly lied but

1. They did not volunteer the truth?

2. If nobody has asked the PRECISE right question, the sinner can keep quiet?

3. No solid proof or evidence can be produced?

4. In telling a white lie the sinner's family will not be hurt
Let's say, for example this scenario

Did you order AhMoiBehTahan to be killed?

NO I did not order her to be killed.

What eactly did you say to MatTembak that day?

I think I said Get rid of this problem and don't tell me how because I do not want to know"

Then alamak!

If not volunteering the truth or telling white lies disqualifies one from Heaven, Hell will truly be over crowded !!!

Anonymous said...

wats goin on in tis country??? one side DPM dent any relationship wit altanuya when all the evidence direct to side police, hospital and higher autorities deny to acept the truth d dat saiful not sodomised.... one day god wil sworn dat he nvr create tis world...bcoz he would regret to create tis worl....

Anonymous said...

"Saiful had complained about being assaulted by a piece of plastic."





Maverick SM said...


Is it?


I won't know.


You may not understand about this ritual which had been around for centuries. I also do not know how Anwar got him to be sodomised.


Ya, it didn't cross my mind about this category. But it wouldn't matter at all as white lies are meant for white people; we are now with brown lies and half-truth which are not regulated as yet.

St Peter would have to pass a new law on brown lies.


Maybe, Anwar's dick is ade of plastic? I don't know!

denzook said...

you should use the story lie to save thousand, izzit still ok for heaven...

dat saiful swear on the day, at night plead to almighty that he has to do it to save malaysia! so his sin is pardoned, and he got ticket for heaven...

reminds me in primary skool days betting with frens, then tell him that I have cross fingers when I lose to nulify that bet....

ceria! said...

i bet Saiful gonna swear by Quran the sodomy incident did takes courage to do so (to swear by Quran) because if you lie then it's sinful.heavy one.

artchan said...

Saifooool probably doesn't know you cannot thread a moving needle, unless the eye of the needle is like an elephants arse.

CK said...

seems like the more they spin, the clearer it is who's spinning...

amitabha..... god bless

Maverick SM said...


Maybe it is ok.


How sinful it can be if one had committed rape and then murder? Is there two hells - one for 1st degree sin and another for a lesser degree?

Do you call this courage after you had claimed to have sodomised 8 times? And why meet Najib to tell him and seek advice when the right thing to do is to go to the police.

Do all those who had been raped go to the deputy prime minister to seek his advice? Do you remember the girl who had to do a blowjob and was rape by the police officer? Did Najib assisted her and did the government put in as much effort on that case? Did the IGP act? I am puzzled by such simplistic and frivolous type of courage.




I said before, we will get to observe the parody.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mave, it is like this with us Malay Muslims when it comes to swearing on the Book.

I may not observe my prayers ALL the time so that makes me not such an exemplary Muslim. But because I am Muslim, brought up to be one, I do hold such reverence for the Quran. And I would fear, truly, honest-to-goodnes fear divine retribution if I did something wrong and then deny it by swearing in the name of Allah. What I'd do is I can deny that I did it, hire lawyers to fight my case, but I won't dare swear in the name of Allah to prove my innocence.

That's how it is for me. It's that simple. Really.


Maverick SM said...

Dear Believer,

I agree with you about the fear of divine retribution which is much feared by good Muslim.

Let's share a discussion topic below:

If you had committed a heinous crime (such as murder or rape), by acting consciously to commit that crime you would also had accepted that after-life consequences; so what's there left about swearing on a Quran? By willingly and knowing committing a crime, you had accept to defy Allah. So swearing on a Quran to cover a lie would mean nothing.

Tell me please, why are those many still taking corrupt money if they knows the divine retribution? Didn't they know that Allah would punish them? Do you think they ever feared to swear on a Quran if it could save them from going to prison?

What about the murderer of Altantunya and the rapist of Shalinie and Nurul? Don't they fear the divine retribution? Do you think they fear swearing and lying?

PurpLe~MuShRooM said...

Dr, whats the difference between exonerated and exculpated?

Anonymous said...

Dear mave,
That's the thing. These are hardened criminals that you are talking about and i wd include the bribe takers.
I do not think they fear retribution here or in the Hereafter.
When i wrote you earlier, it's to tell you how it is for me. No, I won't take the name of the Lord if I AM guilty of a crime just to save myself.
I can also put it this way: If I am accused of a crime I didn't do, then I would swear in the name of God that I wasn't guilty. Even if the secular, heck even the Syariah court, finds me guilty because the evidence is stacked up/conspired against me. I would go down in this world as a criminal. But I should be at peace.
There's also another layer to this: In so doing (swearing in the name of God), I am sending a message to the Believers -
those who share the Faith and fear the Lord - that despite your laws, evidence etc, you have done me wrong.
Hey, a bit like guilt trip.

So that is how it is for me. I know you will say how simplistic this all seem. Indeed it is. You know sometimes it really is quite simple. If you have Faith.


Maverick SM said...


Exonerated implies a complete clearance from an accusation or charge and from any attendant suspicion of blame or guilt.

Exculpated implies a clearing from blame or fault often in a matter of small importance.

Exculpated is used in matters that are usually not a legal criminal; it can be just moral accusations or alleged of breach of company rules or breach of social conventions.

Exonerated is clearance by the legal authority such as the court, the attorney-general.


From your statement and explanation above you derived my utmost respect for a Muslim, a good Muslim.

I do agree on your point of views and you have my respect and adoration.