Monday, July 14, 2008

Najib telah bersumpah, Anwar bila lagi?

"Wallahi, Wabillahi, Wataallahi.."

Begitulah kata-kata yang dilafazkan oleh Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak berkenaan isu pembunuhan kejam warga Mongolia cantik jelita Altantunya Shaaribuu di mana beliau telah bersumpah tidak pernah berjumpa atau mengenali gadis itu. Ia dilakukan di hadapan 191 ahli bahagian UMNO Khamis lalu di Pusat Dagangan Dunia Putra.

Hampir sebulan lepas Raja Petra telah membuat akuan bersumpah (Statutory Declaration) yang isteri Datuk Seri Najib, Datin Seri Rosmah berada di tempat kejadian di mana Altantuya diletupkan hidup-hidup. Sesuatu yang saya rasa tidak selamat untuk dilakukan kerana setakat Raja Petra mendengar laporan daripada sumber yang dia percayai dan terus dia bersumpah.

Ia seolah-olah mengiyakan perbuatan gossip atau khabar angin dan terus mempercayai dan bersumpah. Seolah-olah kita dengar daripada seseorang tentang aib/fitnahan terhadap orang lain dan terus mempercayainya dan seraya bersumpah!

Kemudian wujud pula Pengakuan Bersumpah PI Bala bahawa Najib mempunyai hubungan seksual dengan wanita Mongolia itu tetapi menarik balik kemudiannya.

Isu sparring atau pertelegahan di antara bekas Timbalan Perdana Menteri dan Najib telah berjaya membuat saya berasa muak dengan keadaan politik di Malaysia. Walhal ada jalan yang sebaiknya untuk tidak mempersendakan atau memfitnah orang lain demi mendapat kuasa pemerintahan. Ini adalah perkara yang sangat memalukan dan mereka ini kesemuanya saudara Islam...

Kemudiannya kes liwat pula timbul. Bagaikan deja-vu Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim telah sekali lagi dilibatkan dengan kes liwat. Cabar-mencabar telah dibuat antara pengadu Mohamad Saiful Azlan Bahari dan Datuk Seri Anwar. Pengadu mencabar Anwar untuk bersumpah di hadapan mufti atau ulama (mubalahah) di laman web Friendster nya dan disokong oleh tunangnya.

Anwar pula berdalih dan menyatakan perlu ada empat orang saksi untuk mengesahkan bahawa isu liwat itu betul-betul berlaku.

Dalam keadaan politik fitnah yang dipelopori segelintir bloggers di Malaysia ini, saya sudah menjadi buntu sama ada mahu percaya atau tidak Anwar ini betul-betul bersalah atau tidak dalam isu liwat ini. Tidak tahu lagi untuk mempercayai siapa.

Namun, apa yang saya lihat ialah, jika benarlah Anwar tentang pendiriannya, maka mengapa takut untuk bersumpah sepertimana yang dicabar Saiful? Saya juga sendiri amat skeptik terhadap Saiful yang saya rasakan seorang pemuda yang mahu menjadi 'hero' kononnya, mahu menikam Anwar dari belakang.

Tetapi saya masih ternanti-nanti Datuk Seri Anwar bersumpah dengan Al-Quraan di hadapan saksi yang dia tidak terlibat langsung dalam isu liwat ini. Dia juga gagal memberi keterangan di balai polis mengenai isu ini dengan alasan berasa 'intimidated' dan 'harrassed' daripada pihak polis. I thought you said you are a fighter?

Berani kerana benar, Datuk Seri. Dan Allah sentiasa bersama orang yang benar. Dan jika benar Datuk Seri berkata benar, bersumpahlah dengan nama Allah. Tidak salah pun. Asalkan rakyat boleh berasa yakin terhadap apa yang kamu katakan khususnya orang-orang Islam.

Saya juga yakin setelah Datuk Seri Najib bersumpah tempoh hari, ramai umat Islam di Malaysia akan lebih yakin tentang kebenaran yang dinyatakannya. Atleast he has done something to assure the rakyat about his non-involvement in the murder case.

Anda bila lagi?

The way I see it, Najib has the upper hand now. Najib 1-0 Anwar.

Whatever it is, I still think Malaysia has got no true leaders at the moment.

10 comments:

sohas said...

I agree with your last sentence

Jeg said...

whats wrong with the rest of the sentences?

sohas said...

hahaha...just the last one had the impact! but good write up though!

Anonymous said...

muak mual dengan perkembangan politic malaysia? come on laa.. tgh best nih. kalah semua cerita hollybolly.

"truth is stranger than fiction", mark twain said it, i think. Very true in this case :)

i dont agree with ber-sumpah, why should anwar do that? the best strategy is to politicise the whole thing.

let's say he didnt do the liwat. And he bersumpah. Sometime later people accuse him of reporting to U.S. or Turkey, and ask him to ber-sumpah against that. People will expect him to ber-sumpah all the time.

Not good laa. sometimes as politicians u need to lie and play dirty without people knowing. If u make the habit of ber-sumpah, u cannot lie anymore la.

Waq.

Jeg said...

Well bukannya sumpah budak2 or main2 sumpah. I dont agree also that we can politicise the practice of sumpah.

But you know, in order to find the truth, we can use two ways in Islam. We need 4 witnesses for an allegation to be upheld. And that is not the case here.

SO now because of the degree of the allegations are very serious (murder+liwat+secret sexual affair), the persons accused can swear the oath (5 times according to some scholars), in front of clerics and ulama' while waiting for the case to be settled. Because finding 4 witnesses is never easy.

And I'm talking about Islamic way of swearing the oath (while it applies for Muslims and they are both Muslims). Not some bullshit statutory declarations used for politics nowadays.

Wallahualam.

JHaZKiTaRo said...

salam ziarah from dublin.. :)

Anonymous said...

Dear Jeg,

Whilst I recognise that swearing on the Quran is a legitimite Islamic decree, I must remind you that in every religion there will be a range of people and practices. Some more religious than others. etc.

Just because someone calls himself a Hindu or a Muslim, that does not make that person a Hindu or a Muslim. One needs to live a life of one, for religious decrees to bear any significance.

If a man who does not live by the principle of Islam swears on the Quran, does it hold up? What do you think?

Vix

Jeg said...

Swearing the oath in Islam is actually an alternative way to prove the innocence of someone while the first rule has not been satisfied.

The first rule is if someone was accused of zina/sex before marriage, the accuser must provide four witnesses for the case to be upheld.

Any muslim/muslimah will be subjected to Islamic rules and principles whether they actually practise ISlam or not.While Malaysia has the Syariah Law, which is applicable towards Muslims and Islamic-related affairs, swearing the oath can be made to convince the people (especially when the the matter is made into public) of their innocence.

While this can be done at anytime (before or after investigation), the practice of swearing the oath in the name of God or with the Quraan should never be politicised. i.e for the sake of a political career but only for the truth.

You can't never toy with God and it is a big sin to lie while swearing the oath. Even if you lie, God will not let you go away just like that. Then if investigation finds that the person is lying, he is subject to a hefty punishment (some say equivalent to the punishment laid down to an adulterer). To answer your question, as long as you are a Muslim, you can always swear on the Quraan. But it does not set as an evidence. It is like a normal conventional judiciary only that the element of Islam is included.

What Anwar should do is since he repeatedly said he is innocent, he can atleast convince the Muslims of his innocence by swearing the oath. There is no problem with that as long as he is saying the truth.

Now there are some quarters of Muslims in Malaysia think that Anwar 'berdolak-dalih' in the matter and did not show enough courage to prove his innocence.

Since Malaysians are fond with the Malaysian proverb "berani kerana benar", Anwar should be brave enough to do the right thing.

If you ask me, I am 50-50 with the question whether Anwar has committed homosexual activity or not. It may be possible, it may be not. I do not know Anwar, but I don't have to be 'taksub' or worship him. Everybody is subject to indispensability.

Anwar and myself included.

Anonymous said...

How valid is this swearing on the Quran, which Saiful conducted in the Federal Territory Mosque? Does such a thing exist in Islam? Apparently not, according to Perlis Mufti Dr. Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, PAS President Abdul Hadi Awang, PAS Spiritual Leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat, PAS Deputy Spiritual Leader Dr Haron Din, and the host of other Islamic scholars regarded as authorities on Islam by most Malays.

Let us reflect on what happened about 1,400 years ago when Prophet Muhammad’s wife, Aisha binti Abu Bakar, was accused of adultery with Safwan bin Al-Muattal. According to popular and accepted Islamic history, the whole incident happened as follows:

This story known as ”Cerita Dusta” whilst I was in Darjah 5 at Sekolah Agama that time.
Aisha was travelling with the Prophet and some of his followers through the desert and they had stopped to camp for the night. The following morning, when she discovered she had lost her necklace, Aisha left the camp and went to search for it.

No one realised she had ‘broken ranks’ and the caravan packed up and resumed its journey. When Aisha returned to the campsite, she found that the caravan had left without her. There was nothing she could do but to sit right there and wait, in the hope they would realise they had left her behind and come back to fetch her. But they did not return for her because they did not realise they had left her behind.

Later that same day, a young and handsome Arab man named Safwan bin Al-Muattal came along and spotted Aisha sitting all alone in the desert. Though he had never met Aisha before, he immediately recognised her as one of the Prophet’s wives because of the tudung that she wore. It seems, in those days, only the Prophet’s wives wore the tudung to distinguish them from the other women.

Apparently, the tudung was ‘decreed’ for only the Prophet’s wives and not for all women. Anyway, that is another topic for another time as, today, we wish to talk about Saiful swearing on the Quran and he does not wear a tudung, yet.

Safwan rescued Aisha and took her on his horse to chase after the caravan. It was when the caravan, again, stopped to camp for the evening did they realise that Aisha was missing. But there was nothing much they could do because it was about to get dark and looking for Aisha somewhere in the desert in the middle of the night was just not viable.

It was not until the following morning that Safwan and Aisha caught up with the Prophet’s caravan. The scene of Aisha returning to the caravan with another (young and handsome) man triggered rumours that she had committed adultery with Safwan. The Prophet’s enemies immediately spread the rumour faster than a special report on Malaysia Today could ever have done.

Prophet Muhammad never doubted Aisha. Nevertheless, he called for a family conference to discuss what to do and his adopted son, Zayd, defended Aisha. Ali, his son-in-law, however, felt that a Prophet can’t afford to be the target of rumours, especially one involving his wife, and he suggested that Prophet Muhammad divorce Aisha.

Aisha steadfastly proclaimed her innocence. Muhammad felt very troubled by the whole matter and it is said he left Aisha’s house and did not return for many days. Aisha was the Prophet’s youngest and favourite wife who is also the daughter of his most faithful comrade, Abu Bakar, who went on to become the First Caliph of Islam after Prophet Muhammad died.

Aisha was devastated. Shortly after that, Prophet Muhammad announced he had received a revelation from God confirming Aisha's innocence and directing him that adultery be proven by four eyewitnesses, rather than simply inferred from opportunity (The Quran Surah 24:4). Prophet Muhammad also rebuked those who had slandered his wife (The Quran Surah 24:11) and ordered them to receive forty lashes, among them his poet Hassan bin Thabit.

So there you have it. Prophet Muhammad did not ask Aisha to swear on the Quran in the mosque that she is innocent and did not commit adultery. And neither was Safwan, who was accused of ‘penetrating’ Aisha, also asked to swear on the Quran in a mosque that he had kept his pecker in his pants at all times when he was alone with Aisha. In fact, those who made the allegation were instead punished.

We must also note one very important point. The Quran, in the book form that we know today, did not exist yet at the time of Prophet Muhammad. It was Osman, the Third Caliph, who compiled the Quran into the book form that we know today, long after the Prophet had died. That is why the Quran is sometimes referred to as the Osmania Quran. Before that, the Quran was etched on pieces of tree bark and animal skin with the bulk of it memorised by hundreds of companions of the Prophet.

If Aisha had been asked to swear her innocence on the Quran, then they would have had to recall all the pieces of tree bark and animal skin from all over the Arabian Peninsular, plus they would have had to assemble the hundreds of men who had ‘recorded’ the Quran in their heads. These tree barks and animal skin, plus the hundreds of Quran memorisers, would then have had to be lumped into a huge pile in the middle of the mosque and Aisha would have had to place her right hand on this mountain of men, tree barks and animal skin with her left hand raised to the sky as she swore her innocence on the ‘Quran’.

Anonymous said...

azizan pun dulu sumpah jugak...