Okay, Mahathir, we accept your challenge

By MT Webmaster Last updated Feb 27, 2016

The irony of Dr Mahathir’s challenge is that once both sides take this oath then the matter is settled and the issue can no longer be prolonged. Dr Mahathir can no longer raise the matter and keep repeating the allegation. And since Dr Mahathir has agreed that the matter be handed over to Allah to handle, then the file is closed and can get stamped NFA:RTA (No Further Action: Refer To Allah).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad said he would swear on the Qur’an if anyone felt that his claims against Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak were lies or slander.

“If what I say is considered slander or untrue, then ask me to take an oath. I will do it. If I ask others to swear, I myself must be ready to do it, with the right intentions,” Dr Mahathir said on Saturday.

Dr Mahathir added that the person making the oath should not try to cheat by vowing in his heart something else, and swearing aloud something else. “That would be a double sin. He will go to a worse hell.”

The issue of taking an oath or swearing on the Qur’an is a delicate matter that even Muslim scholars are divided as to the rules or hukum. Some scholars say there are three types of oaths (others say only two).

The first type of oath is the one you take to ‘prove’ you are telling the truth. For this type of oath you swear in the name of Allah you are telling the truth and that if you lie then you will receive punishment from Allah.

For this type of oath, those who swear in the name of Allah are considered telling the truth and the veracity of his/her statement should not be disputed or doubted. For example, say, someone accuses you of adultery and you swear in the name of Allah that you did not commit adultery. So the matter ends there and you can no longer be brought to trial and punished for adultery.

However, once the accused swears in the name of Allah that he or she did not commit adultery, the accuser would face punishment instead for the crime of making a false allegation — unless the accuser also swears in the name of Allah that the allegation is true.

So, we now have a situation where one party says the allegation is true while the other party says it is not — a he-says-she-says deadlock. That means, since both have sworn an oath in the name of Allah, then the entire matter is left to Allah to handle and humans no longer need to get involved in the issue.

The second type of oath is more in the form of a promise. For example, you swear that if your wife leaves the house without permission she can consider herself divorced. Your wife then leaves the house so she is technically divorced. But then you regret making that oath.

In this type of situation you can retract or break that oath by paying penance. You can fast for three days, feed or clothe ten needy people, or free a slave from bondage. This will replace the oath that you ‘cancelled’.

Then there is the third oath, which is merely a figure of speech, and which really has no strong bearing. For example, you might say, “I swear I have never seen a person more idiotic than Tony Pua.” Scholars, in fact, do not even take this as a real oath.

As for whether an oath can or should be taken on a Qur’an, the scholars are, again, divided about this issue. Some scholars say it is permitted while others say it is prohibited (haram). Some say you can only swear in the name of Allah and that swearing on the Qur’an is a Christian tradition where they swear on the Bible.

The Prophet said, “If anybody has to take an oath, he should swear only by Allah.” (Hadith Sahih Al-Bukhari 5.177, narrated by Umar)

Some scholars have interpreted this to mean that you must only swear in the name of Allah and not over a Qur’an (or over your mother’s grave, or on your son’s life, etc.). Others, however, say that since the Qur’an came from Allah, and in some communities they practice this, then it is not wrong to swear over a Qur’an.

Anyway, whether a Qur’an is present or not is not really as crucial as the fact that the oath must be taken in the name of Allah. And the oath must be clear, without hesitation (and without stammering and stuttering), and witnessed — with all the witnesses being satisfied that the oath was taken in the proper manner, using the proper words, and observing the proper protocol.

It is just like the akad nikah where if the witnesses are not satisfied then you have to repeat it again and again until every single person in the room nods their head in approval.

The issue that Dr Mahathir has raised is that Najib stole RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money and that RM42 billion has disappeared into thin air. So the focus of the oath should be on that allegation. And this oath can be taken in any mosque in front of an imam (who can guide you on the proper format/protocol for that oath) with witnesses present (to testify that the oath was properly taken).

So, Dr Mahathir will have to swear, “In the name of Allah, I, Mahathir Mohamad, swear that Najib Razak stole RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money and that the RM42 billion which Najib Razak stole has all disappeared into thin air.”

If Najib wants to respond, he, too, can take an oath saying, “In the name of Allah, I, Najib Razak, swear that I did not steal RM42 billion of 1MDB’s money and that the RM42 billion has not all disappeared into thin air.”

Raja Petra Kamarudin RPK