The influence of the 'Oath' in Permatang Pauh

In the Malaysiakini news article VIP hospital patient says 'Back Anwar' Pak Haji Nik Aziz, even as he lies in a hospital bed, has called on voters for the Permatang Pauh by-election not to believe the sodomy allegations against Anwar Ibrahim, and to support the PKR de facto leader in the polls.

You know, I have come to be fond of Pak Haji because of his steadfast loyalty to Pakatan (unlike the other Pak Haji), though I wonder why Pak Haji Nik has an obsession with women being less than wrapped up like a potato sack?

Like the Indonesian former president, Gus Dur, Pak Haji believes in the innocence of Anwar. He said: "I am convinced Anwar is a victim of political conspiracy. I also hold to my opinion that the recent oath taken by his accuser is questionable and doubtful."

"Even though he has been humiliated and persecuted in the worst manner 10 years ago, I see his enemies are inhuman and never satisfied with their evil treatment of him. Using the same methods, they have once again accused him of that deed that I am too disgusted to state."

Now, tell me whether this is true! I vaguely heard that in 1998 or so, a PAS and a DAP MP were the first two to raise (with the PM then) the sodomy allegation against Anwar Ibrahim, but Dr Mahathir rejected it.

Of course this was before the Anwar faction in UMNO attempted (in vain) to compromise Dr M through insinuated cronyism-nepotism, and Anwar was a rising unstoppable star in UMNO, the PM designate, the heir apparent, the Crown Prince on the eve of his coronation.

I actually heard but couldn’t and can’t confirm that those two persons were Pak Haji himself and Karpal Singh – if I am incorrect, I apologize unreservedly to those two gentlemen.

But if true, then what an ironical seachange it has been - yes indeed, politics sure make strange bedfellows (no pun intended).

It seems that the sodomy allegations/accusations have been shadowing Anwar Ibrahim for the last decade.

I am afraid even if he wins the by-election in Permatang Pauh, and he should, the accusations will continue to dodge dog his footsteps.

I know that the allegations don’t mean anything among the Chinese, who couldn’t care less about his private sexual life. But alas, the conservative and more senior members of the Malay community may!

… which explains why the video clip of Saiful Bukhari Azlan taking an oath
that he was sodomized, has been playing virtually non stop at the UMNO ops room centre in Permatang Pauh.

You know that old story, to keep throwing poo and surely some will eventually stick!

And in the Star Online news item Anwar asked to explained the S-I-L rubbed this in, as to be expected of an aggressive bloke like him.

He asked Anwar to explain why a mere party unpaid volunteer like Saiful, who was described by PKR officials as nothing more than a coffee boy (and I recall my matey kittykat asserting this to me as well), was taken along by Anwar on the de facto leader’s overseas trip?

Then KJ defended Saiful’s oath taking the Quran, that it shouldn’t be questioned as it was a sumpah laknat (swearing in the face of divine retribution). Those who made such an oath do so at their own peril as any lies would result in several of their generations being cursed.

I wonder how much effect the oath taking issue will raise doubts among the voters in the heartland as to Anwar's innocence.

I did a bit of research on the taking of oath by the Qu’ran, and these are what I have obtained:

(1) Scholars, looking at the fact that the Qur’an is also an attribute of Allah, considered an oath taken by the Qur’an to be valid.

Imam al-Haskafi (Allah have mercy on him), said in his Durr: “Kamal (ibn al-Humam, the great Hanafi Mujtahid) said: “Let it be known that the taking of an oath by the Qur’an is something that has become customary, thus it would be considered a valid oath.”

Allama Ibn Abidin (Allah have mercy on him) explained the above by stating: “This is based on the fact that the Qur’an is the Speech of Allah, thus it will be considered to be one of His attributes.” (Radd al-Muhtar ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar, 3/712)

Of course there are other scholars like Gus Dur who disagreed. And he has a PhD from Iraq.

(2) Swearing in the Quran as taught by Surah An-Nur is to swear 4 times in Allah's names, with the fifth invoking the curse of Allah if they tell a lie. However, the surah specifically states that this kind of swearing is only when a husband is accusing his wife of adultery but can't find 4 witnesses; the oath is also used by the wife to defend herself.

Does this mean that the oath is a substitute for the 4 required witnesses?

But as I mentioned, even with a win and a seat in parliament, Anwar has to live with this accusation for the rest of his life … unless of course he becomes PM … or …

… now this has nothing at all to do with legality or law, but it’s about perception of morality through the eyes of the religious kampong people in the heartland, and in politics, perceptions are everything …

… he takes the oath to neutralize Saiful’s declaration to Allah (swt).