The rights and wrongs of sumpah laknats

Let us debate the proclaimed right of a person to do a sumpah laknat or mubahalah. The PM says anyone has that right. It's dangerously becoming an everyday occurrence that the somberness and the solemnity that go along with that conduct seem to be lost. Any Tom Dick and Harry can do the sumpah laknat

It's the arrogance of human beings thinking that God's retribution does not come immediately which encouraged some people to carry out sumpah laknats. It's the jom heboh of religious trial by ordeal.

Yes, everyone has the right to do a sumpah laknat. It's a special oath taking affirming one's innocence or guilt by beseeching god to deliver instant punishment. Yes, everyone can do a sumpah laknat especially if doing that involves Anwar Ibrahim and slows down the declining fortunes of UMNO.

What if RPK does the same thing- he does a sumpah laknat somewhere in Regents Park Mosque in London or some mosque in Patani? It's equally right and capable of producing the same conclusions. That the object of that sumpah laknat has actually done what is prayed for. What if P Bala converts to Islam and carries out a sumpah laknat. Then he invokes god and says Rosmah was present as the grisly scene. What then?

They can't, not because they don't have the same rights- but they must fulfill some conditions precedent. If we demand these requirements in hypothetical situations involving RPK and PI Bala, then the same mandatory requirements must be accorded to the accused in this case.

The whole mess we are in at the moment is because we take up and crusade on a moral issue. We are then caught up in our own moral morass. The BN people are gunning for Anwar's morality when they are themselves soiled. We must come with clean hands or not come at all. I am sure these 3 people behind the smut filming have serious moral issues not unearthed yet or not interesting to other people to be worth their effort.

Can Najib himself trust these 3 fellows? If they can do it to Anwar, they can one day do it to Najib himself. There is much dirt and money to be made digging up the PM's own morality issues.

We are in full agreement that everyone has that right- but it must be done in accordance to the rules laid down by Islamic law. It's not done and never done in a circus like atmosphere like the one we were told done by Dato Eskay. He was flanked by the two clowns. One an UMNO MKT member, the other a Perkasa reject.

There must be some conditions precedent. This sumpah laknat is not a trivial matter. The requirements are absolutely strict. Consider the requirement of 4 witnesses. Rahim and Shuib Lazim are not witnesses. They are more like accomplices.

Did Eskay bring with him 4 righteous witnesses? Were Rahim and Shuib Lazim present during the filming of the video? If Eskay swears that it was him who made the film, the police should not wait any moment longer. If making a smut film is a punishable offense, arrest him.

When they showed the film to reporters and private viewers did they commit a crime? I am not sure about this. They said they have not distributed the film and therefore haven't committed the offense of distributing pornographic material. They can be caught out on the offense of making the film and showing it. But they say they are willing to suffer the consequences. This is because their aim was never to distribute the film.

Their aim was to expose Anwar's moralities and to show the world that Anwar is an immoral person. In order to show that to the world, they had to show the video.

Now that's a catch 22 situation. How do you prove that Anwar is a bugger and an immoral person? You have to show evidence in the form of a film. The film will of course be subject to intense credibility challenge. That challenge is done in a court of law- so far there is none. So why is Eskay jumping the gun and doing the sumpah laknat?

You see, the real objective of the whole thing is politics. Politics is judged in a general election. That's a tricky situation. Najib knows he needs more time for the voting public to buy this story about Anwar. My thinking is that the GE is not going to be held this year? The hooray for our side boys didn't see how dangerous the situation was for BN in the recently concluded Sarawak elections. The DAP sapu-ed almost all urban seats making the call by the PM for the Chinese to choose BN a futile academic exercise. But the more dangerous thing is this: Anwar with all the problems he has, can win 3 seats? That's sending shivers down the spine of Najib which nowadays is becoming increasingly difficult to locate.

Some modern Islamic jurists say a video or films are good substitutes for 4 upright witnesses. In my mind videos or films lack the important ingredient of being alive and imbued with righteous qualities demanded. A film or video is a technical thing subject to manipulation and is unreliable. They are inanimate objects and if conferred with living attributes, that can become ungodly or shirik. They are the products of living persons which therefore require the persons involved in filming and making the video having the necessary moral attributes. If its Eskay or Rahim doing the film, the accusation lacks integrity. Any judge will throw their submissions out.

There must be a full court case first preceding a sumpah laknat. Arguments must have been exhausted such that an impasse is reached. The judge is at wits end. The only choice opened is to invoke God. It's a form of religious trial by ordeal rarely done and sanctioned by rational judges.

We want to finish off Anwar, let's do it using the right methods. Our Islamic judges were deafeningly silent when Saiful took the oath. He did it before any court case and did not produce 4 witnesses. If after the present court case, Saiful takes the oath; his conduct would be more credible. He did it before any court case and before all legal debates is exhausted. Islamic experts said nothing of that.

Why do you insist on procedural matters and the requirement of righteous witnesses? Because that's what Islam demands and the requirements are strict. Because Islam sees accusing a person of serious moral misconduct as something serious.

Was there a court case involving the allegations about Anwar as represented by the Dato T Trio? No, right? This is a requirement in the dispensation of Islamic law- you do a sumpah laknat after the full legal debates are exhausted. Once that point is reached, then the two legal combatants are called before a Sharia court judge to utter their sumpah laknats. The accuser has to produce 4 upright witnesses to support his accusation. If he can't, then the value of his sumpah laknat is nil.

This is not a defence of Anwar. I have said that many times. The last time, a smart alec from the Star newspaper asked me, in a sweet taste of premature victory manner, now how would you defend Anwar? So to humor that fellow, I wrote an article on that.

I have not seen the further installations of the Anwar tape. From the tape I saw on the web, since when does Anwar spot a crew cut style hairdo? The person looked more like a Siamese actor and anything to do with things Siamese, Eskay should be an expert. One of his parents is Siamese and the other Indian. Is he Malay in the first place? What are his Islamic credentials?