Tuesday, February 28, 2012

The Strange Case Of Ustaz Dr Badrulamin Bahron Unplugged

These are points raised, according to the clarification by Dr. Badrulamin Bahron the Ustaz from the Selangor PKR, in his version of the khalwat controversy the good doctor is embroiled in.

1. He denies in the strongest terms, media allegations that he was caught committing khalwat by the Pahang religious authorities, Jabatan Agama Islam Pahang, JAIP.

2. He was contacted by the woman concerned on the evening of 24 February.

3. The woman, in a desperate tone, told him, fearing for her safety she intended to run away from her home to which he advised her against doing so.

4. The woman contacted him in the following early morning of 25 February, 2.00am to be precise, informing that she had arrived at the location of a PKR party leaders' encounter ((24 - 26 February) he was attending.

5. He has known the husband and wife couple for over a year when the woman together with her family had accompanied the good doctor's group performing an Umrah.

6. The couple had often communicated with him for advice to family problems including (a case of) domestic violence.

7. In efforts to help the couple, the good doctor and his wife had visited the couple in Rompin.

8. Out of feelings of responsibility for the woman and her child in an early morning the good doctor helped them get accommodation.

9. At precisely 2.30am, the woman's husband and about 20 unidentified men (raided) and attacked him.

10. The woman's husband then forcibly took his wife and child away.

11. The men in gangster manner stopped assaulting him when hotel security arrived to prevent them.

12. However, the men did not allow him from leaving the room.

13. Only after 20 minutes confined by the gangsters, did officers of the JAIP arrive and detained him, alone, in the room.

14. The statement by the Deputy Director of JAIP, that he was detained for committing khalwat, is therefor altogether untrue.

15. He considers the incident a planned action to trap and discredit him.

16. He was only asked to assist in a JAIP investigation.

It is to Point 15 that I address.

Whether it is in a political or personal context, points raised by Dr. Badrulamin Bahron's expressed statements, simply do not support the good doctor to consider the incident as an entrapment to discredit him (sopo articles interpret this statement to mean political conspiracy to discredit him).

For all intents and purposes, Dr. Badrulamin Bahron implies that the woman at the centre of this controversy is innocent. One may not agree but it would not be of any consequence.

As a political leader or a religious personality, a planned action to discredit him by being alone in a room with a woman and worse if the woman was married, and in Islam is seen and can be charged for committing khalwat, the woman bringing a child along totally nullifies that contention.

Politically, if the woman was in concert with the husband in a planned action to discredit the good doctor, there would NOT have been any reason to assault him.

The husband having suspicions of impropriety on the part of wife, and been implied by the good doctor to be violent prone, the husband's action explains the assault. But if the good doctor also implies that it was all an innocent act on his part, the woman cannot be said to be in concert with the husband, again the notion of a planned action for entrapment is dismissed.

Politically, if the woman was in NOT concert with the husband, the husband somehow having obtained information of his wife's innocent meeting with the good doctor, again a planned action to discredit the good doctor would NOT have necessitated an assault.

The good doctor's clarification, Point 1 and 16, expressly stating that he had NOT been caught by JAIP officers committing khalwat and that he was only asked to assist in investigations, absolves JAIP of being complicit of a planned action, whether the statement by the Deputy Director of JAIP is true or not, Point 14.

This is strengthened by his statement that when he was detained by the JAIP officers he was alone in the room, Point 13. To be complicit, the JAIP officers would have found the good doctor together with the woman in the room.

To place the woman together with the good doctor in a same room would not have been difficult seeing that he was confined in a room by unidentified gangsters. He would then be detained by complicit JAIP officers finding him to have committed khalwat witnessed by the 20 unidentified gangsters.

If planned, the woman in concert with the husband, would have certainly sealed the good doctor's fate.

The woman, and their child, was however forcibly taken away by the husband, Point 10.
This greatly diminishes any case against the good doctor.

Whether it was a political or personal agenda for a planned action, the husband had already involved his wife in a sordid affair. To forcibly place his wife, because she was not in concert, together with the good doctor cannot be beyond the husband. The good doctor together with a married woman, confined by 20 gangster witnesses, then detained by JAIP officers, complicit or not, finding him to have committed khalwat.

The woman, any man and woman for that matter, will not be able to refute the words of 20 complicit men, even worse complicit gangsters in any court of law.

Let me be clear that I am only addressing and rubbishes what the good doctor sees as an entrapment, or conspiracy in the political blogosphere.

While it may look that I have already decided that the good doctor is guilty of a serious transgression, that would not be true.

To reach such a conclusion would also mean that the woman is just as guilty. In both cases, it would be wrong if not unwise.

The guilt and innocence of anyone is not implied or expressed here by any means.

But the good doctor's clarification leaves much to be desired. It falls very much short of a satisfactory explanation.

It begs more questions than it answers. I am sure many will agree.

For example "location" raises but a few.

In that I mean how did the other persons know where the good doctor was.

Also, Rompin is mentioned by the good doctor. Rompin to Kuantan and one goes on a mental journey.

Whose "room''? Not specific, surely, for obvious reasons.
Be, all of the above questions, as it may, for such serious statement of facts, being assaulted and unlawful detention. These are serious offences.

Nowhere in the clarification is there any mention or intention to lodge a police report.

Surely, with the hotel security as witness, 20 men assaulting a single person should be ample grounds to establish a criminal offence committed.

As time of posting according to the Police: No report from Badrulamin over assault in khalwat case.

That also raises another question.

It is a trend nowadays for the opposition and their cohorts to blame UMNO and by extension the government for every contretemps.

In all fairness, the good doctor did not specifically UMNO or the government in his clarification.

But even the slightest hint of blame on the government conspiring to bring about the downfall of someone through nefarious means, especially by anyone in the opposition, when they are to be blamed for their own downfall by their own dastardly deeds, it is incumbent in me to expose hypocrisy and confront as aggresively as the opposition do.

Be fair to me.


Anonymous said...

one uses the term a good doctor in cases where the person is a doctor in medicine...this so called good doctor if I am not mistaken obtains his PhD in law. Coming from a rural and poor background and with a bit of grey matter this good person was able to go to good school, thence to good college, thence to a good University I suppose, obviosly from the generous policy and support of the current Govt he despises

Freddie Kevin said...

Anon 21:25

Doctor of Laws. Secular or Islamic?
Either way whatever bit of grey matter the "good doctor" has left is running on empty.

Dunggu really.

Thanks for the comment.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous 21.25

How do you know that he is from a rural or poor background? All the malays suppose to be poor is it?

By the way, doesn't he have to earned his Phd?

In America, Presiden Obama probably went to University when Republican ruled. Do you think that the republican would say, "hey, the goverment was gracious with you, you should be supporting the goverment that ruled when you were in the university."

They did not say that because they had matured as politics is concerned.

We have a long way to go.


The good doctor was not dumb enough to meet the person all by herself. A child was with her, so he is "covered", as far as the syariah law is concerned.

Of cause you want to believe that the Dr. is dumb.

From what I read somewhere , some newspaper even put a fake (beautiful) woman picture so that the reader will get the "idea" , the fabricated one of cause.

I don't get it, why the "impartiality'?


Freddie Kevin said...


The good doctor is dumb.

With his Islamic credentials and whatever PhD, at an ungodly hour meeting with a woman.

While wanting to help, there are a lot more ways appropriate to the situation. For example calling a female hotel staff to accompany the woman and call the police, domestic violence and woman "fearing for her safety"

No, I don't want to believe, I know he is dumb.

If he is not dumb then he must be guilty, no?

Sorry Hashimoto, you missed the point big time.


Anonymous said...

Bro Hashim(naik)moto..honestly I just make a deduction.One can tell from the body language,the facial expression the way he dresses and the way he speaks and carries himself, he comes from a poor family but not so poor lah..mana ada very poor people unles they are really really lazy and good for nothing..
Mana ada anak Melayu macam muka si Bad ni masuk U sampai buat masters and PhD dengan duit sendiri??You dont compare America lah..compare dgn dekat aje to Spore .Mana ada Melayu yg banyak, in relations to % the Malays in Spore's population( which is slightly more than the Indian pop in Malaysia)yang ada
Petrol Kiosk,businesses in the cities and towns, clinics and shops and commercial enterprise like factories, businesses, law firms, dentists, doctors own clinics
Engineers,lawyers that can dominate the bar councils at it.This list can go on and on until the cows come home..definately the Affirmative action through the NEP have done so much good to people esp the good doctors folks too..whatever their political leanings

Br Kevin whether the "good doctor" is secular or Islamic i dont know but I gues he is now very much on the pluralisme/LBGT side now in line with his big boss!!!..

Anonymous said...


You are a catholic yes? So you do not understand how a muslim think. I am not trying argue with you, just relate you how a muslim think.

If the Dr. receive a distress call in the middle of the night. He have to evaluate the situation.

According to Syariah law, he is forbidden to see a woman alone unless it is a public place.

In this case, this person is with a child.

If there is a child, then the khalwat charge will never stick.

He knew that beforehand. There is nothing, as religion is concerned that prevented him from attending to the distress demsel. In his mind, it is either "haram" or "halal". That is all that mattered to a Muslim.

So, he goes to the rescue. That is what I think, as I am a muslim what had occured in the Dr's. mind.

All we have here is all the negative talk about him but in the end of the day, He will be free because he is not guilty of anything as Islam is concerned.

Once the Dr. is free, then this thing could get backfired.


Anonymous said...

To Anonymous,

Your comment,

"Bro Hashim(naik)moto..honestly I just make a deduction.One can tell from the body language,the facial expression the way he dresses and the way he speaks and carries himself, he comes from a poor family but not so poor lah..mana ada very poor people unles they are really really lazy and good for nothing.."

My comment,

I think this is quite a disturbing thing for me.

When I see a fellow Malay, I never judged him whether he is from a poor background or from rich. They are all the same to me. The difference between a good malay and a bad one is his/her morality, the perception on what is right and what is wrong.

What about the rich malay? only they have the right to choose which party to side on is it? You are rich malay?

So, are we going to back to Hang Tuah time when there is the rich malay and servant malay. In those caste society, the servant malay have to serve the rich (bangsawan) malay.

Those days are gone brother.

Now Malay is not stupid and subservient as before.

We are loyal to the country and to the people not any party.


Freddie Kevin said...


"So you do not understand how a muslim think."

Are referring to Malaysian Muslims or ALL Muslims?

Never mind.

I may be Catholic but for your information, my elder brother is a Muslim, two aunties one on my mother's side (dah arwah) and one on father's side, nephews and nieces, numerous cousins and an adoptive grandmother who are Muslims.

I was born and raised in Kampong Pandan for 18 years, even though Govt quarters neighbours, to the left, right and back, (the front was an empty padang) all were Muslims.

I worked and stayed in under one roof for a year, in Johore, with colleagues ALL Muslims except me.

All Malay muslims except my adoptive grandmother Mak Tah (also arwah), Indonesian.

If you were to see and speak with me,you would certainly mistake me for a Malay.

Be that as it may, it is true I cannot know and understand 100% how they think, individually or collectively.

But this a specific common sense matter, an Ustaz and PhD holder, who could have taken more appropriate steps in the whole affair, pun not intended.

I stand by what I say, he's a dunggu.

For your information the child is two years old.

Whether that makes any difference to your position is of no consequence because it makes a heck of a difference to me.


Anonymous said...

Freddie Kevin,

I am a Malay. I attended 3 types of school. First, chinese in primary, Second, Islamic religious school and third Malay high school. Then I go further.

I know Chinese culture and Malay culture as I can speak both languages.

I know how a chinese or a non-muslim think as I mixed a lot with non-Muslim.

What I am referring earlier is that there is a religious dimension in this issue.

Unless you attended an Islamic religious school, then it is impossible for you to put yourself in the good doctor's place.

Even you stayed with Malays, there are a lot of Malays who are ignorant of their own religion.

Most of Malay thought that "caught khalwat" means that one is caught pants down. That is not "khalwat" means.

Lets wait and see what is the outcome of the investigation.



Freddie Kevin said...


Try as I might you still don't get anything I have been trying to get across to your good self.

Khalwat is the least of the good doctor's worry.

If events unfold do not fall in the good doctor's version of events, questions of Zina would arise, if it already haven't.

And fitnah.

Yes, let's wait.


Anonymous said...


Fitnah probably yes, but Zina, I think you are taking this a bit too far.

It will require 4 witness to actually see the act, just a man with a towel will not suffice.

The conditions for the charge of "zina" is heavy because in Islam, the punishment for zina (for married individuals) is death.

Truth be told. I am not siding with anybody. It is just that most of the accusations towards opposition that is sexual in nature do not turn out to be true. (In the court of law)

It would be interesting to see this turn out to be otherwise. Else, news from anti-opposition spreading these kind accusations will lose credibility.