Denial syndrome

Well, Musa Hassan may deny this allegation, which he did. But Malaysia Today has produced nine witnesses (more than the four required for the allegation of adultery as stipulated in the chapter of The Light in the Quran) that Musa Hassan is guilty as alleged. And the oaths of these nine people (seven police officers and two underworld figures) were in the form of Affidavits or Statutory Declarations. That means these nine people have sworn that the ex-IGP Musa Hassan is guilty.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are many types of laws. We have criminal laws, civil laws, traffic laws, contract laws, banking laws, international laws, divorce laws, inheritance laws, and whatnot. And within these laws, at least as far as Malaysia is concerned, are Shariah laws, also known as Islamic laws.

Shariah laws are broken down into Qisas, Diyya, Tazir, and the most controversial of all, Hudud. Most Shariah laws are already implemented in Malaysia save Hudud. Currently, common laws override Hudud laws.

Hudud, again, is broken down into six or seven (depending on which sect of Islam is doing the interpreting) serious crimes that include rebellion, robbery, theft, drinking alcohol, illicit sexual intercourse, apostasy/blasphemy, and, strangely enough, false accusation of adultery.

Now, amongst this list of serious crimes includes the crime of making a false allegation of adultery against someone. This is considered a serious crime in Islam and some scholars even say that a false allegation against someone is more serious than murder (taking someone’s life).

In fact, there is a whole chapter in the Quran to address this matter, Surah An-Nur (chapter 24), which goes as follows:

[Noor 24:4] And those who accuse chaste women and do not bring four witnesses to testify – punish them with eighty lashes and do not ever accept their testimony; and it is they who are the wicked.

[Noor 24:5] Except those who repent after this and reform themselves; so indeed Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[Noor 24:6] And those who accuse their wives and do not have witnesses except their own statements – for such the testimony is that he bear the testimony four times by the name of Allah that he is truthful.

[Noor 24:7] And the fifth time, that the curse of Allah be upon him if he is a liar.

[Noor 24:8] And the punishment shall be averted from the woman if she bears the testimony four times by the name of Allah, that the man is a liar.

[Noor 24:9] And the fifth time, that the wrath of Allah be upon her if the man is truthful.

In short: if you accuse a woman (or your wife) of adultery, make sure you have four witnesses. If you do not have four witnesses then swear five times that the allegation is true. And if a woman wants to defend herself against this allegation, then she too can produce four witnesses or else swear five times that the allegation is false. And if she does not have four witnesses but instead swears five times that she is innocent then she is free of the allegation and cannot be punished.

This means both the accuser and the accused do not have four witnesses to back up his/her allegation and denial. Hence they both have to swear five times that they are telling the truth and the rest is left to God. Clearly, one of the two must be lying. However, since both have sworn five times that they are telling the truth, only God will know who is the liar and it is left to God to punish the liar.

That is how simple it is. I make an allegation then I either produce four witnesses or else swear five times. The person I am making the allegation against can also put up a defence by producing four witnesses to back up that denial or else also swear five times.

Then the matter ends there and thereafter it is in the hands of God.

I know some idiots (non-Muslims in particular) argue that Islamic laws are stupid because you need four witnesses to prove rape. These are statements made by ignorant people who think they understand Islamic laws but actually know nothing. They are only pretending they are learned. Rape and allegations of adultery are two different matters.

Anyway, the point is, allegations are treated as serious matters, in particular allegations of adultery, which comes under the serious crimes category of Hudud. That is how serious this matter is treated. And the fact that there is a whole chapter in the Quran (chapter An-Nur or The Light) just reinforces the seriousness of this matter in the eyes of Islam.

Okay, that is as far as the allegation of adultery is concerned. What about other types of allegations? Well, An-Nur just deals with allegations by a man against a woman (or a husband against a wife) regarding adultery. And in the event there are no witnesses but is just one person’s word against another, then you solve the ‘stalemate’ by swearing fives times and then leave the matter to God to solve.

Now, what about other types of allegations other than adultery? How do we handle these? For example, the ex-IGP Musa Hassan (plus the AGC and MACC) denies the allegation against him that he is linked to or is the boss of the Chinese underworld crime syndicate that controls drugs, prostitution, gambling, loan sharking, etc. 

Well, Musa Hassan may deny this allegation, which he did. But Malaysia Today has produced nine witnesses (more than the four required for the allegation of adultery as stipulated in the chapter of The Light in the Quran) that Musa Hassan is guilty as alleged. And the oaths of these nine people (seven police officers and two underworld figures) were in the form of Affidavits or Statutory Declarations. That means these nine people have sworn that the ex-IGP Musa Hassan is guilty.

Musa Hassan has said he is not guilty. Since Malaysia Today has produced nine witnesses who have sworn an oath that he is guilty, can Musa Hassan then swear fives times in the name of Allah that he is not guilty? I doubt he would dare do this, which should be a public oath sworn in front of witnesses and in the name of Allah.

This is the trouble with Malaysia. Malaysians suffer from a sickness called denial syndrome. They just deny, deny, deny whenever an allegation is made against them. But it is their word against the accuser. How can their denial be accepted as true when it is just a denial not backed by an oath or witnesses?

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad put it very aptly when he said: no one will admit that he or she is guilty. Of course the guilty person will deny guilt. Who is going to admit guilt?

I suppose the saying that the prisons are full of innocent people is very true. No one in prison will admit guilt. Everyone in jail claims that he or she is innocent. It would be very difficult to find even 1% of those in prison who will confess to their crimes. How in heaven’s name did the court find all these innocent people guilty is beyond me. Only 1% of people in prison are guilty if you go by their confessions.

Can we take your pleadings of innocence and your denial of the crime as proof that you are innocent? The answer is either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If ‘yes’, then we must assume that Najib Tun Razak is innocent, Anwar Ibrahim is innocent, Dr Mahathir is innocent, Daim Zainudduin is innocent, Ling Liong Sik is innocent, Shahrizat Jalil is innocent, Rosmah Mansor is innocent, Razak Baginda is innocent, the two police officers are innocent, the AG is innocent, the ex-IGP is innocent, Khalid Ibrahim is innocent, the PKR lawyers are innocent, the Malaysian Bar Council is innocent, Azmin Ali is innocent, Rafidah Aziz is innocent, Ibrahim Ali is innocent, Tajuddin Ramli is innocent, the Perak government is innocent, the Selangor government is innocent, and so on and so forth.

You see: we can’t apply double standards here. Everyone and more mentioned above have all pleaded innocence. None of them have admitted guilt. So, if their claim of innocence is proof enough of their innocence, then the matter ends there. They are all innocent.

None have offered evidence of their innocence. None have produced four witnesses to support their claim of innocence. And none have sworn five times in the name of Allah that they are innocent of all allegations made against them.

If mere denials are not valid and can’t be accepted, then no matter whether you are pro-government or pro-opposition, you are deemed guilty of the allegations against you. That would be how it works. However, if mere denials are good enough and hence you are deemed innocent by virtue of your denial, then everyone accused of crimes would be deemed innocent.

So what is it going to be? All innocent? Or all guilty? Or only those who are pro-government are guilty while those who are pro-opposition are innocent?

That’s not what the Quran said.