The Malaysian law clearly states that sodomy is a crime and that is the law Anwar Ibrahim is being charge with. It is a charge for consensual sex between two of the same gender. Now, if the act was forced upon Saiful then why not just charge Anwar with rape? If it's consensual sex then why not charge Saiful too? Isn't that the letter of the law and Malaysia does pride itself as being a nation that has laws, if not why bother telling America off when it commented on the events in Malaysia?

Still, why bother swearing on the Quran when there is no real provision for it (pertaining to sodomy) in the Syariah courts? And may I point out (I'm no expert) that producing four(4) witnesses is used in a case of adultery or rape. Now, sodomy is different (if you go literally), so does this mean in Syariah law sodomy amounts to rape and adultery? Saiful would need to produce four(4) witness and not swear on the Quran to prove his innocence because regardless of his swearing on the Quran, he still needs to produce the four(4) witness.

If you want to follow the Syariah way of doing things then better follow ALL the requirements. But then swearing on the Quran IN a mosque is not part of the requirement. So really, what is going on here?

It clearly points to one thing. The distrust, Saiful has for the function of Law.

If this case was as clear cut as it is supposed to be, then the Law would have been sufficient to prove the innocent from the guilty. So far, all we have are drama upon drama and the police seem to be cooking everything as they go along. Saiful made a police report first and by right, the Law takes precedence over all things. The Law swung into action, of course Anwar countered with the apparatus of the Law, while Saiful went into hiding (with aid from the police) and the courts took action. Yet Saiful pulls another stunt by initiating this swearing on holy book thing, obviously an attempt to gain what he wants since the Law was unable to swiftly do what he wanted. So now, which takes precedence - Syariah Law or Civil Law? Is this crime of Sodomy a case for Syariah or Civil courts? If Saiful treated it as a religious matter then he should have reported it to the Syariah court first and allow that court to take it due course. Yet he didn't and the whole thing is a muddle of sorts for me.

This then clearly points to an act of desperation by Saiful. Interestingly, Saiful's father now wants Anwar to follow suit and swear on the Quran that he never did commit Sodomy with Saiful. Again pushing something that is not asked for in Syariah law. Why? Why should Anwar even comply to such a request? Even if Anwar swears his innocence with the Quran in hand, what would it change? Nothing. It merely brings us back to square one - who is telling the truth? It merely points to the fact that someone is lying and the need to prove one's words is tantamount.

Who can prove better their case would win and that needs to be done in a court of Civil Law. Back to that place again, so this whole business of swearing on the Quran amounts to no more than a show of perceived innocence. It is unnecessary to do something that is not asked for by the Syariah Courts neither should statements be made in the public domain, challenging one another to prove one's innocence.

Ironically, I recall some BN ministers calling Anwar to swear by the Quran his innocence. I guess they too are ignorant of the fact that it is something that has no mention in the Quran.

It is sad to see that religion is used as a tool to validate a claim that could have been properly dealt with in the Civil Courts. Religion is used as leverage to twist the results of the Civil Courts to one's liking. If religious court, seemingly seen as higher due to its divine links, proves that Anwar is a sodomite than the Civil Court must follow suit even if the burden of proof say otherwise.

That seems to be Saiful's game.