Watch:
Read:
- Kissing scene now on YouTube (Excerpt from The Malay Mail)
- Local Actress French Kiss?
First and foremost, the most important question: why should I care?
I’ll answer it right now: because it raises more important and interesting questions:
- If she really turns out to be Deanna Yusoff i.e. if she were Malay and Muslim, how should Malays/Muslims view it or react to it?
- If such acts of indecency (by Malay and Muslim standards) are caught on video, can it be used as reliable evidence for accusations?
- If yes, Is the Islamic rule which mandates “two male witnesses” still relevant?
Although the evidence so far is not 100% conclusive, I am inclined to believe that the two in the scene are really Deanna Yusoff and Alaric Tay, both casts of the MediaCorp TV series, “Random Acts”, although I really don’t know if this scene was aired on TV or not. I can recognise Deanna Yusoff’s face since I have seen her numerous times on television; I have cross-referenced Alaric Tay’s face in the video with his photo at his personal web site.
The best we know is that
When Weekend Mail contacted the actress resembling the woman in the clip, she declined to comment. (Source: Excerpt from The Malay Mail)
Of course, “guilty until proven innocent” doesn’t apply here, but if she were really innocent, why didn’t she just declare that the person in the video wasn’t her?
How exceedingly curious.
4 Comments
Oh cmon guys, it’s called a JOB. Same thing goes for Muslims in the Police Dog (K9) Unit, or Muslim vets, yada yada yada…
So what?
Damn, Alaric Tay is such a bad kisser! BOO *thumbs down*
“Same thing goes for Muslims in the Police Dog (K9) Unit, or Muslim vets, yada yada yada…”
Same thing? I beg to differ. People in the media particularly get much more public attention than the examples cited. For instance, try to find videos of Malay/Muslim dog trainers or Malay/Muslim vets on YouTube alone, as opposed to Malay/Muslim TV celebrities, and compare the numbers. Or try to quantify the airtime of these people on television, and again, compare the numbers. There is a difference. One obviously exerts a far greater influence over the others. Therefore, their impact towards the masses is different too.
That aside, on Muslims who train dogs or Muslim vets who might treat such najis animals as dogs, there is no controversy. It is fine to use dogs for relevant, necessary purposes, for example, Muslims can rear dogs to guard their property because dogs are such keen animals. This can be used to justify the training of the K9 unit. Of course, the smart among them wear protective clothing (e.g. boots and long gloves) to prevent from bites and direct contact.
Lastly, to make a comparison between the act of a married Muslim woman kissing a non-Muslim non-husband sensuously and the act of a Muslim training a dog (i.e. an animal)—I find it very naive.
“Oh cmon guys, it’s called a JOB. [...] So what?”
If one’s job has the potential to influence others for the worse, there is something to be done.
If we condone one example, there is a chance that others might follow suit, and that isn’t something we want. The above is such an example.
You are right but talking is easy.
And you use the context of “we”, I am curious though, who are you representing? If it’s you, just say it’s you and don’t beat around the bush.
Okay so you’re doing a favour for the Muslim society, or for whatever reason you have, I applaud you.
Is there anything else you could really do though?
1. “You are right but talking is easy.” I am not sure what you mean here. To me, talking is not easy. It requires much deliberation for me to speak.
2. By ‘we’, I represent a part of society that stands in rejection of indecency in public or the media.
3. “Okay so you’re doing a favour for the Muslim society” I cannot see how I’ve done a favour for anyone.
4. “Is there anything else you could really do though?” From (3), this is not applicable.