Najib's Sumpah Laknat - Someone's 'Hidden Fear'

FMT:

After Najib oath, Jawi warns against ‘misuse of mosques’

Jawi director Mohd Ajib Ismail and FT mufti Zulkifli Mohamad issued statements about misuse of mosques 

PETALING JAYA: Action can be taken against anyone who misuses mosques for personal or political reasons, the Islamic affairs department of the Federal Territories (Jawi) said today.

The warning comes in the wake of a statement by Federal Territories mufti Zulkifli Mohamad urging Jawi to enforce laws barring religious oaths or “sumpah laknat” in mosques on matters of public interest or court cases.

Last Friday, former prime minister Najib Razak took a “sumpah laknat” to deny allegations made by a former police commando that Najib had ordered the murder of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu. The ex-commando, Azilah Hadri, and a colleague were sentenced to death in 2015 for the murder.

After Friday prayers at Masjid Jamek in Kampung Baru, Najib had said in front of a congregation numbering about 500 that “I have never directed anyone to kill a Mongolian citizen named Altantuya Shaariibuu and I have never met nor do I know the deceased.”

He had made a similar oath 11 years ago at a mosque in Bukit Mertajam, Penang, denying claims that he had known Altantuya.

Jawi director Mohd Ajib Ismail did not make any mention of Najib or “sumpah laknat” in today’s statement but said the department took note of the misuse of mosques in the Federal Territories.

“The administration of mosques in the Federal Territories is subject to the Administration of Islamic Law Act 1993,” he said.

“As such this department wishes to remind all that action can be taken on any breach of the act, and all parties, regardless of their political and ideological backgrounds, are advised to always ensure that mosques are protected as an institution for the ummah.”

The FT mufti had earlier called for the enforcement of rules against “sumpah laknat” in mosques on matters of public interests or court cases to avoid mosques from being manipulated. He said the courts were the more appropriate platform to resolve legal issues and, if necessary, for taking an oath.

I am not interested in the 'sumpah laknat' made by Najib per se, as:

(a) I am NOT a Muslim and

(b) It will be the police's job to assess and determine the substance of the SD made by former Chief Inspector & now death-row-convict Azilah Hadri against Najib on the Altantuyaa Shaariibuu murder case, and if/where grounds are found to charge Najib for the murder, then the issue will make its way to the civil court, regardless of the 'sumpah laknat'.

former Chief Inspector Azilah Hadri
now on death row 

I am also aware that the 'sumpah laknat' made by Najib has been/is something personal & religious between him and his God (Allah swt), and it's nobody's business, not even the police's nor civil court's.

However, due to what I have read and what I see as the existence of some discrepancies, perhaps in my un-educated-in-Islamic knowledge, I would love to have some help & clarification from my Muslim visitors to improve my limited knowledge on the religious belief, culture & practice of our Malay co-citizens.

As per above FMT news article the following extracts are reproduced as follows for our easy perusal, reference and discussions:

(i) The FT mufti had earlier called for the enforcement of rules against “sumpah laknat” in mosques on matters of public interests or court cases to avoid mosques from being manipulated. 

(ii) Action can be taken against anyone who misuses mosques for personal or political reasons, the Islamic affairs department of the Federal Territories (Jawi) said today.

FT mufti Zulkifli Mohamad 

Pertaining to para (i) above, regarding the statement made by the FT Mufti, I have been confused by an extract from Astro Awani's article Apa maksud sebenar sumpah laknat?, to wit, its following sentence:

Berdasarkan penjelasan Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan, Datuk Seri Dr Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri di laman web rasminya, sumpah yang menggunakan kitab suci al-Qur’an, hukumnya adalah dibolehkan.

[Translation: According to the Federal Territory Mufti, Datuk Seri Dr Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri on his official website, swearing to use the Holy Qur'an, the law is allowed]

That has been my confusion. If the FT Mufti's website says "... swearing to use the Holy Qur'an, the law is allowed" then how does that gel with his subsequent contradictory call for "... the enforcement of rules against “sumpah laknat” in mosques on matters of public interests or court cases to avoid mosques from being manipulated"?

I made the remark of "... his [FT Mufti] subsequent call ..." because I observe that the news article in Astro Awani was made on 20 Dec 2019 whilst the apparent change of mind regarding making a 'sumpah laknat' was published by FMT three days later, on 23 Dec 2019.

PM Mahathir had supported 'sumpah laknat' when he was formerly an ex-PM, in a case of oath taking by businessman Shazryl Eskay Abdullah in implicating Anwar Ibrahim in a sex video incident

Mahathir said those who has (or have) been reluctant to participate in oath-taking could be feeling guilty 

wakakaka

To my puzzled confused mind, it lends the worrying impression that the FT Mufti might have been "under pressure" (during that 3 days, wakakaka) to reverse his policy. This uncomfortable impression has been reinforced by JAWI stating "... Action can be taken against anyone who misuses mosques for personal or political reasons ...".

Look, if the FT Mufti website says "... sumpah yang menggunakan kitab suci al-Qur’an, hukumnya adalah dibolehkan ...", then Najib's 'sumpah laknat' should be allowed, full stop.

And why has the HEAVY weight of JAWI suddenly come into play against the 'sumpah laknat'?

What is this about JAWI's warning on the misuse of mosques, when the FT Mufti's website says "... sumpah yang menggunakan kitab suci al-Qur’an, hukumnya adalah dibolehkan ...".

I am suddenly reminded of a Chinese equivalent of the religious oath-taking (if I may use the term 'equivalent' without any offence intended).

Most Malaysians (including non-Chinese) know of the sacred ritual 'potong ayam' or in Penang Hokkien 'cham3 peh3 kay1'.

destined for a 'sacred' role?

Wikipedia says (just substitute the word 'Taiwanese' or 'Fujianese' in Wiki with 'Penang Hokkien' for our discussion - it'll have same implications for the local scene as the Penangites have their folk religious-cultural roots in Fujian Province):

Chicken-beheading rituals have historical roots in the legal traditions of China's Fujian Province, where over 70% of Taiwanese citizens can trace their lineage.

In feudal Fujianese society, individuals who were suspected of theft were taken before images of judges and forced to proclaim an oath of innocence. Someone hiding behind the judge image would then point at the defendant who would supposedly break down and confess if they were guilty.

Legal trials were also often conducted in the presence of images of deities as a way of forcing individuals to be honest. Temple managers even sometimes acted as judges themselves.

These Fujianese trials have been embedded into Taiwanese culture and many other aspects of Fujianese tradition have also been transferred into Taiwanese chicken-beheading rituals, notably the use of oaths of innocence (赌咒, duzhou “oath－making” - literally meaning to gamble on an oath) and use of local deities to encourage people to fear breaking their oaths.

oath usually taken before the image of Guan Gong (Penang Hokkien pronounced the name as 'Kuan Kong')

a deity who brooks 'no sh*t' (wakakaka) and who is to the Chinese the very epitome of courage, honour, integrity & honesty

in Hong Kong, bizarrely both the Police and the Triads worship Guan Gong because of his qualities of courage, honour, integrity & honesty 

In a broader sense, the history of chicken-beheading rituals represents the important role that religion plays in Taiwanese society; Taiwanese citizens turn to their local city deity to arbitrate when the Taiwanese legal system is insufficient.

The exact dates of the first instances of chicken-beheading rituals in Taiwan are unknown, yet the rituals were frequently practiced ... [...]

In Penang and parts of Malaysia where Hokkiens live, the sacrifice of the chicken involves a white rooster. Religiously, the belief has been that the oath-taker will be damned by the gods if he/she lies.

Wiki continues (again just substitute the word 'Taiwanese' or 'Fujianese' for 'Penang Hokkien'):

Taiwanese chicken-beheading rituals have often led to the resolution of disputes because of what they symbolise.

Taiwanese chicken-beheading rituals are deeply laden with symbolism. The chicken is considered a representation of the human that is beheading it. The implication of beheading the chicken is that the human would be willing to die or lose their integrity if their oath of innocence was false.

In such a god fearing society, as Taiwan traditionally has been, the gravitas involved in symbolically killing yourself after proclaiming your honesty and innocence has a profound power in the cultural imagination of society.

The reasons for using chickens, as opposed to other animals, in this ritual are both symbolic and practical. Chickens symbolise the sun (陽) and positive forces of life and vitality in Chinese and Taiwanese culture.

However, it is commonly understood that the main reason chickens were used is that chickens remained extremely cheap and plentiful in both Southern China and Taiwan. As such, ordinary people could not only easily decapitate a chicken without much hassle but also conveniently buy one ...

I am not sure about this but I've heard that the 'potong ayam' ritual before a Chinese deity was held so sacred by the Chinese that during British colonial days, the British courts accepted such cultural rituals as kosher to the settling of disputes (only) among the Chinese even in civil courts.

Thus, if true, the Chinese 'potong ayam' ritual in British colonial days would have had great legal implications, far beyond what a 'sumpah laknat' has today.

Back to Najib and his 'sumpah laknat' - FMT has just published Najib: I wouldn’t have done it had they objected (extracts follow):

Former premier Najib Razak said today he would not have gone ahead with the Islamic oath he performed on Friday had the authorities objected.

Responding to statements today by Federal Territory religious officials, Najib said he had announced his intention of taking the oath two days beforehand to allow time for the authorities to state their stand.

“I purposely announced that I would take the oath two days earlier … to allow religious authorities like Jawi (the Federal Territories Islamic affairs department) and the Mufti to oppose or stop me,” he said in an online posting this evening.

“Had there been an objection, I would definitely have withdrawn,” he said.

On Friday, after prayers at at Masjid Jamek in Kampung Baru, Najib had taken a “sumpah laknat” to deny an allegation that he had ordered the murder of Mongolian woman Altantuya Shaariibuu in 2006.

Wakakaka.

But as we can see, there is no significance of Najib's 'sumpah laknat' to the common law, police or any likely civil courts' proceedings. Thus I wonder with the back-flipping by the FT Mufti and the now-intervention of JAWI, whether there is instead a fear somewhere that Najib could achieve his effort at MORAL cleansing, somehow successfully in the eyes of the Malays.

Hey, don't forget that Mahathir supported the ritual of 'sumpah laknat' some years back when the purpose of the oath-taking ritual was specifically against Anwar Ibrahim, wakakaka.