A glimpse into the future of the West.
“False Islamic doctrines: Ibu Yati, two individuals claim trial,” Malay Mail, July 28, 2021:
SHAH ALAM, July 28 —Three individuals including a former journalist, well-known as Ibu Yati, pleaded not guilty in the Selangor Syariah High Court today, to expounding religious doctrines contrary to Islamic law and spreading them through Facebook between December last year until February this year.
The accused, Wan Norhayati Wan Alias, 42, Noorafiza Ahmad, 46 and Abdul Hamid Yeop Zainnuddin, 60, entered the plea after the charges were read out separately to them before Syarie Judge Mohammad Khalid Shaee@Shaii.
Wan Norhayati was charged with three counts and Noorafiza, one count, under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Enactment (Selangor) 1995, namely, teaching or expounding any Islamic religious doctrine, ceremony or act contrary to Islamic law.
Abdul Hamid faced two charges under the same section and another under Section 9 of the Syariah Criminal Enactment (Selangor) 1995 for deriding the verses of the Quran.
Section 7 of the enactment, provides a jail term of up to three years or a fine not exceeding RM5,000 or six strokes of the cane or all three, if convicted while under Section 9 any person guilty of the offence could be fined RM5,000 or jailed up to three years or both.
Wan Norhayati and Noorafiza were charged with committing the offences from December 2 last year until February 2, using their respective Facebook accounts, while, Abdul Hamid was alleged to have committed the offences at about 9 pm on Feb 2 at Taman Dato Razali, Kampung Melayu Ampang near here….
The court fixed a bail of RM11,000 for Wan Norhayati, RM5,000 for Noorafiza and RM9,000 for Abdul Hamid in two sureties each and they were ordered to report to the nearest District Islamic Religious Department and barred from uploading any status on social media….
SemiDave says
Muslims being muslims.
Ade Fegan says
wherever enablers allow
Emilie Green says
An ominous marker of any totalitarian regime is a set of laws under which a citizen, more accurately a subject, can be charged criminally at any time and/or on no basis. Such laws are intended to keep subjects wary and on guard at all times such that no mischief against the state can be generated.
In other words, “peace.” Stated differently, peace to the leftist means no opposition to the state. This explains why defending First Am guarantees is an essential in preserving liberty.
In any totalitarian regime the state is first and foremost, with individuals allowed to exist only to perpetuate the state.
Obedience-through-fright is the objective of these deliberately vague laws. JW readers may recall Section 301 of Turkey’s penal code which criminalizes behavior which “offends Turkishness.” Similarly with Pakistan’s infamous Section 295 which criminalizes various forms of “blasphemy.” [Section 295-A forbids outraging religious feelings; Section 295-B forbids defiling the Quran; Section 295-C forbids defaming Muhammad.]
In American jurisprudence such laws would be stuck unconstitutional under the due process clauses of either the 5th Am. (for federal behavior) or the 14th Am. (for state behavior) on the basis that these laws are void for vagueness.
I USED TO THINK THAT. TODAY, I’M NOT SO CERTAIN THAT COURTS WOULD SO RULE.. AND IF DEMOCRATS GET THEIR WAY, THEN THAT THAT CERTAINTY IS GONE, GONE, GONE.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine supports accepted American social policies, or more accurately what were once accepted social policies. {ASIDE: Bear in mind that in the American tradition federal and state constitutions are designed so that the people control their governments. That governments are increasingly and deliberately misreading constitutions (as in “war is peace” or “we’re going to strip search you before traveling for your own protection”) in order to assert more and more power over the people is a clear perversion of the original design.}
GreekEmpress says
My compliments on your very fine post.
gravenimage says
Malaysia: Three charged with expounding religious doctrines contrary to Islamic law and spreading them on Facebook
…………….
These poor people. And remember, Malaysia is “moderate”…
gregbeetham says
They are probably lucky that they didn’t get charged with spreading corruption in the land, that one can get you the death penalty.
Based on the performance of Islamic courts in Egypt; under Sharia Law if you get charged by the Islamic police you are considered guilty, obviously, because the police charged you, why would they cops charge you if you weren’t guilty?
The function of the Sharia court is mainly to determine punishment; concocted evidence and false witnesses can be presented to support the charges if necessary, or alternatively a ‘confession’ can be extracted beforehand.
gravenimage says
Too true, Greg.
tim gallagher says
And yet our western societies are so tolerant towards Islam and Muslims. The tolerance is always a one way street. In any Muslim country, there is so little tolerance ever shown towards freedom of speech which our societies value highly (although, then again, in our western societies, the fascist left would love to be able to crush free expression). Islam does not deserve to be treated with tolerance at all. Islam is the enemy of all our civilised values. Even in a reasonably moderate Muslim country, such as Malaysia, normal freedoms are stomped on, as shown in this report. I believe islam should be given no respect and Muslims should be kept out of our non-Muslim countries. It is a waste of time trying to get along peacefully with Islam.