vox populi big thumbnail ‘Such practice is not the norm in many Muslim countries and moral policing by state religious authorities has often led to rampant abuses of power.’

Sunny Dasingu: I believe this is absurd to charge a non-Muslim in a civil court for committing khalwat. Firstly, these so-called Muslim bodies should know there's no such thing as khalwat in non-Muslim religions.

If I were to have a sexual affair with a Muslim woman it's my prerogative and my affair is with the woman and not her religion. As such I believe the government or the court has no jurisdiction over this and my civil rights will be violated.

And furthermore, I guess the Islamic authorities are being very unreasonable to try a non-Muslim for khalwat in a civil court because a non-Muslim cannot set foot in a Syariah court. What about those cases of body-snatching and those cases where one parent converted to Islam and then also converted the child to Islam leaving the other parent without any avenue to fights for their rights?

I believe that if they want to try a non-Muslim for khalwat in a civil court then they should allow all other cases which involves a Muslim and a non-Muslim to be heard in a civil court.

Yih Feng Low: How is sentencing both the Muslin and the non-Muslim fair to both parties? The non-Muslim obviously holds no Islamic beliefs and thus should be left alone and not prosecuted under Islamic laws.

It is such acts by leaders of Islam that prejudice the rest of the world against them. By having selfish, draconian views, and forcing their beliefs onto others.

Ratormo: Khalwat is not a major crime and it does not bother the common man (unless he is a busybody). But Mat Rempits are a major problem in Malaysia. When are the religious officers going to tackle this Mat Rempit problem seeing that almost all the Mat Rempits are Muslim? Are these religious busybodies frightened of their motorcycle helmets?

Jane: What wonderful proposals from the bright sparks at Ikim and the Syariah judiciary department! Bravo to those brave souls who would do battle with us immoral/amoral lot who are destined for hell; it's guaranteed to send them straight to paradise.

They sure read the election results right: it was a wake up call to clean up this pit of immorality called Malaysia.

Sigh, will they never learn? And guess what? It's taxpayers money - including hard-earned cash from us amoral/immoral lot - that pays the salaries of some of these overfed guardians of public morality. Surely accepting such ‘tainted’ money disqualifies them from paradise?

Norhayati Kaprawi: Sisters in Islam wishes to reiterate our strong objection to the current practice of moral policing by the state. It contravenes the Qur'anic injunction laid out in various verses such as ‘do not pry into others' secrets" (Surah Al-Hujurat 49:12) and ‘Do not enter other houses except yours without first asking permission and saluting the inmates. If you are asked to go away, turn back. That is proper for you’ (Surah An-Nur 24:27, 28).

The practice of barging into people's houses, and bedrooms in particular, clearly violates an individual's right to privacy and human dignity protected by the Qur'an. SIS wishes to remind the authorities that khalwat raids were never carried out during the prophet Muhammad s.a.w.'s lifetime and it was reported that the second Caliph Sayidina Umar was rebuked for barging into a suspect's residence.

Such practice is also not the norm in many Muslim countries. Moral policing by state religious authorities has often led to rampant abuses of power and there have been many reported cases where the moral guardians themselves did not behave in a moral conduct in their treatment towards those detained.

The zealousness of religious officials in 'promoting good and preventing evil' has often led to public outrage because those arrested, especially women, were shamed and humiliated. Sisters in Islam calls on the religious authorities to instead focus their resources on chasing after errant fathers who do not pay maintenance to their children and ex-wives.

With the on-going debates on this issue amongst Muslims still unresolved, how then can it be extended to non-Muslims? ( The writer is programme manager, Sisters in Islam ).

Yow Lop Siaw: Although Muslims may not be comfortable seeing non-Muslims committing khalwat with Muslims, the authorities who advocated this new initiative must be mindful of the federal constitution. The Syariah laws are applicable only to cases within its ambit and to advocate something outside this is simply unacceptable.

The BN government has definitely not learnt its lesson from the GE2008. It should instead, as the report said, ‘focus its efforts on bigger and more serious issues such as corruption instead of criminalising moral issues’. Corruption, public security, and the rising prices of goods are much more pressing and serious issues that need immediate attention.

Rob: The Islamic authorities should put more effort in eradicating corruption rather then wanting to charge non-Muslims for khalwat . I am sure that the Islamic authorities would object very strongly if non-Muslim religious practices be forced upon Muslims and as such,they should not do the same to non-Muslims.

Corruption or rasuah is also haram and there needs to be even more emphasis to get rid of corruption and not spend time going around charging non-Muslims for khalwat .

Non-Muslim BR: There is no need for a rule for the Islamic bodies to arrest a non-Muslim person and charge them in court for khalwat . Why do these busybodies suddenly want to make a new rules?

There are lot of other issues that the government needs to pay attention to such as corruption and the increasing crime rate in our country. Why concentrate on this sexual issue now and involve non-Muslims at that?

Arianna: If anything, prosecuting someone for khalwat is tantamount to persecution. All the Islamic authorities need to do is catch a man and woman together and that's enough for a conviction, even if the two are merely friends and simply want to talk.

It is indeed a draconian law similar to that of the Internal Security Act, where the authorities concerned accept no explanations, no arguments. They need not have to prove that a crime or immorality has been committed but that you are already proven guilty because the authorities caught you ' berdua-duan '.

This kind of charges and accusations would never stand in a court of law but the overzealous Islamic authorities saw it fit to make it a crime without having to provide any proof. If indeed Ikim is concerned about the issues of immorality then there are a lot of immoral activities out there that is far more serious than khalwat and which warrants Ikim's immediate attention.

And why must non-Muslims be subject to this khalwat persecution? Should the civil courts be turned into a kangaroo court and simply convict a non-Muslim for being caught ' berdua-duan ' with a Muslim man/woman, on the weight of the one-sided Syariah ruling? If so, then our courts have simply gone to the dogs and the federal constitution rendered obsolete as it cannot guarantee the freedom and rights of the people, let alone justice.

Braveheart14: From where I see it, the motive is good, but the method and urgency is wrong. It is good to see people trying to groom a high-moral society, but charging them by ‘intruding’ into their privacy is at the corrective end and there is a high possibilty that it won't meet the objective.

How to charge someone who isn't expected believe the law in the first place? However, do similar raids and investigations related to corruption at the national level first. That is a far more serious offence that is undermining the nation's stability.

As for curbing immoral behaviour, try to think of a way to prevent it rather than concentrating on locating, detecting, suspecting and correcting once it has taken place.

Johari: We, the silent majority, reject the call for non-Muslims to be charged with a Muslim in a suspected khalwat case as it will allow abuse of power. This is an attempted 'rape' on the rights of non-Muslims.

We, the silent majority,a lso propose that a heavier penalty for syariah enforcement officers who intrude into premises without the proper respectful procedure and when they display violent abuse and assault against the suspected khalwat offenders. Try looking up the behavior of anti- khalwat officers in YouTube. They behave like terrorists.

Oddpapa: C'mon laaaa, how can you force a religious law onto a non-believer of that faith? Ain’t Malaysia a secular state? It’s stupid enough to be even discussing this what more than trying to implement it.

John Liu: Suaram is alarmed at this proposal. Khalwat is currently an offence under the various state Islamic laws but not the civil law. This in effect forcefully imposes the Syariah law on non-Muslims in Malaysia. For a non-Muslim to be charged with a criminal offence for his/her personal conduct based on principles of a religion that he/she does not subscribe to is unjustifiable. This is a clear infringement of freedom of religion and the rights of the non-Muslims, which is enshrined in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.

Further, it is also feared that such a law will lead to other serious human rights violations. The high probability of overzealousness of the enforcement authorities in carrying out their duties could, for example, lead to intrusion into rooms and houses, violating individuals’ rights to privacy.

In Malaysia, where ethnicity and religion are intertwined, the proposal of imposing laws on non-Muslims based on Syariah principles could cause ethnic relations to further deteriorate. In recent years, issues relating to religion have put ethno-religious relations and nation-building in Malaysia to a serious test. Forcing Islamic law upon non-Muslims will definitely not help resolve, and could even further worsen, the situation. ( The writer is Suaram coordinator ).