Bersumpah - Apa Yang Mengelirukan?

(Kaki Kayu)

Aku sedikit terganggu dengan isu mubahalah (bersumpah) yang dilakukan oleh Saiful Bukhari. Aku cari rujukan dan bertanya, aku cari di pelbagai blog yang dapat memuaskan hatiku tetapi belum berjumpa. Apa yang aku kurang berpuas hati ialah persoalan "apa salahnya kalau DSAI juga bermubahalah?" Bukankah itu cara 'short cut' untuk bersihkan dirinya? Namun komen dari berbagai ulama' terkemuka di negara ini seperti Dato' Dr. Harun Din, Dato' Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, Dato' Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat dan Dato' Asri Zainal Abidin sendiri menyatakan Saiful Bukhari tidak mengikut Islam. Bagi Dato' Harun Taib pula apa yang dilakukan oleh Saiful adalah terbalik, sepatutnya dia membawa bukti dan saksi, bukan dia yang menuduh, kemudian bersumpah untuk membuktikan kebenaran tuduhannya. Bersumpah itu untuk orang yang dituduh, bukan si penuduh. Semua ini jadi bertambah pening kepalaku kerana persoalannya ialah bagaimana nak membersihkan diri DSAI dengan cepat bagi menutup mulut-mulut si penuduh dan menenangkan hati rakyat sepertiku. Walaupun Saiful Bukhari bersumpah tidak mengikut 'teknik' yang betul, apakah sah sumpahnya? Jika sumpahnya itu sah, bukankah yang terbaik ia perlu juga dijawab dengan sumpah? Aku rasa tak sampai 5 minitpun nak bersumpah ni. Biar DSAI sumpah ikut 'teknik' Islam kalau Si Saiful tu tak ikut cara Islam. Dengan ini akan segera meredakan kegusaran hati sebahagian besar rakyat Malaysia. Perasaanku terus membentak-bentak... persoalan terus menerjah-nerjah... kenapa dan mengapa...

Pagi ni aku bukak laman Malaysia Today, aku rasa lega dengan penjelasan yang dibawakan oleh RPK melalui kisah fitnah yang menimpa Siti Aisyah binti Abu Bakar As-Siddiq r.hma dan Safwan bin al-Muattal r.a.. Kisah ini adalah kisah masyhur yang aku memang ingat... sehingga disebutkan bermula dengan kisah inilah terjadinya salah faham antara S. Ali r.a. dengan Siti Aisyah r.ha. yang berakhir dengan tragedi peperangan Jamal yang sangat menyedihkan itu. Dengan kisah yang dibawakan ini, meskipun RPK bukanlah orang yang sepatutnya menjadi rujukanku, namun kisah yang dibawakannya itu benar dan boleh dijadikan pengajaran hukum untuk isu besar mubahalah ini. Mari kita lihat sebahagian tulisan RPK itu...

Let us reflect on what happened about 1,400 years ago when Prophet Muhammad’s wife, Aisha binti Abu Bakar, was accused of adultery with Safwan bin Al-Muattal. According to popular and accepted Islamic history, the whole incident happened as follows:

Aisha was travelling with the Prophet and some of his followers through the desert and they had stopped to camp for the night. The following morning, when she discovered she had lost her necklace, Aisha left the camp and went to search for it.

No one realised she had ‘broken ranks’ and the caravan packed up and resumed its journey. When Aisha returned to the campsite, she found that the caravan had left without her. There was nothing she could do but to sit right there and wait, in the hope they would realise they had left her behind and come back to fetch her. But they did not return for her because they did not realise they had left her behind.

Later that same day, a young and handsome Arab man named Safwan bin Al-Muattal came along and spotted Aisha sitting all alone in the desert. Though he had never met Aisha before, he immediately recognised her as one of the Prophet’s wives because of the tudung that she wore. It seems, in those days, only the Prophet’s wives wore the tudung to distinguish them from the other women.

Apparently, the tudung was ‘decreed’ for only the Prophet’s wives and not for all women. Anyway, that is another topic for another time as, today, we wish to talk about Saiful swearing on the Quran and he does not wear a tudung, yet.

Safwan rescued Aisha and took her on his horse to chase after the caravan. It was when the caravan, again, stopped to camp for the evening did they realise that Aisha was missing. But there was nothing much they could do because it was about to get dark and looking for Aisha somewhere in the desert in the middle of the night was just not viable.

It was not until the following morning that Safwan and Aisha caught up with the Prophet’s caravan. The scene of Aisha returning to the caravan with another (young and handsome) man triggered rumours that she had committed adultery with Safwan. The Prophet’s enemies immediately spread the rumour faster than a special report on Malaysia Today could ever have done.

Prophet Muhammad never doubted Aisha. Nevertheless, he called for a family conference to discuss what to do and his adopted son, Zayd, defended Aisha. Ali, his son-in-law, however, felt that a Prophet can’t afford to be the target of rumours, especially one involving his wife, and he suggested that Prophet Muhammad divorce Aisha.

Aisha steadfastly proclaimed her innocence. Muhammad felt very troubled by the whole matter and it is said he left Aisha’s house and did not return for many days. Aisha was the Prophet’s youngest and favourite wife who is also the daughter of his most faithful comrade, Abu Bakar, who went on to become the First Caliph of Islam after Prophet Muhammad died.

Aisha was devastated. Shortly after that, Prophet Muhammad announced he had received a revelation from God confirming Aisha's innocence and directing him that adultery be proven by four eyewitnesses, rather than simply inferred from opportunity (The Quran Surah 24:4). Prophet Muhammad also rebuked those who had slandered his wife (The Quran Surah 24:11) and ordered them to receive forty lashes, among them his poet Hassan bin Thabit.

So there you have it. Prophet Muhammad did not ask Aisha to swear on the Quran in the mosque that she is innocent and did not commit adultery. And neither was Safwan, who was accused of ‘penetrating’ Aisha, also asked to swear on the Quran in a mosque that he had kept his pecker in his pants at all times when he was alone with Aisha. In fact, those who made the allegation were instead punished.

We must also note one very important point. The Quran, in the book form that we know today, did not exist yet at the time of Prophet Muhammad. It was Osman, the Third Caliph, who compiled the Quran into the book form that we know today, long after the Prophet had died. That is why the Quran is sometimes referred to as the Osmania Quran. Before that, the Quran was etched on pieces of tree bark and animal skin with the bulk of it memorised by hundreds of companions of the Prophet.

If Aisha had been asked to swear her innocence on the Quran, then they would have had to recall all the pieces of tree bark and animal skin from all over the Arabian Peninsular, plus they would have had to assemble the hundreds of men who had ‘recorded’ the Quran in their heads. These tree barks and animal skin, plus the hundreds of Quran memorisers, would then have had to be lumped into a huge pile in the middle of the mosque and Aisha would have had to place her right hand on this mountain of men, tree barks and animal skin with her left hand raised to the sky as she swore her innocence on the ‘Quran’.

According to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar, this is what constitutes “religion”:

“If you are to write on religion, then you are supposed to touch on matters pertaining to:

- questions on rituals,
- adherence to God,
- followers and
- anything related to your divine mission.”

Okay, it is interesting that this ‘Arab’ has spoken out on what constitutes ‘religion’. Most Malays believe that ‘Syeds’ are descendants of the Prophet and, therefore, would be the most qualified to talk about Islam. But is it not strange that this Arab ‘descendant of the Prophet’ does not mention that corruption, fraud, wastage of public funds, abuse of power, racism, discrimination, persecution, injustice, and many more are also abhorred by Islam? Islam simply detests all those things perpetuated by the government and upheld by Umno.

The government and Umno do all those very things that Islam is against. Islam makes it mandatory for Muslims to oppose the transgressors of God’s commands. Muslims who do not oppose it are considered very weak Muslims who are accessories to these crimes. There are no two ways about it. Muslims who keep silent are endorsing these crimes. Islam is very clear about this matter. Nothing any Arab who pretends to be a descendant of the Prophet can say will change this.

Oh, and one more thing, Saiful also swore that this swearing ceremony, one day before the Permatang Pauh Nomination Day, is a coincidence as he did not know that Anwar was going to contest the by-election. Hmm…..is Saiful prepared to also swear this on the Quran? Earlier he had wished Anwar good luck in the Permatang Pauh by-election. Talk about making a mockery of Islam. Have I not always said that the Muslims are Islam’s greatest enemy? You still want to dispute this or can I now rest my case?

- RPK memang outspoken. Tapi jelas dengan peristiwa itu, Rasulullah SAW tidak menggunakan kaedah mubahalah untuk membersihkan diri Siti Aisyah r.ha dan Safwan r.a. Melalui peristiwa ini jelas bahawa Allah memerintahkan agar si penuduh perlu mendatangkan empat orang saksi untuk mensabitkan tuduhannya. Tanpanya tuduhan itu tidak sah dan si penuduh boleh dikenakan 80 kali sebatan rotan dan ia tidak boleh menjadi saksi selama-lamanya. Jadi sekarang, tindakan DSAI untuk tidak bermubahalah dan pandangan ulama' untuk mempertahankan DSAI adalah pandangan yang tepat untuk menjaga kesucian Islam daripada dipermain-mainkan dan dipermudah-mudahkan.

Kalau pihak kerajaan mahukan DSAI bermubahalah, maka mereka perlu melaksanakan hukum Islam dahulu, barulah isu mubahalah itu relevan kerana mubahalah merupakan sebahagian daripada hukum Islam. Jika mahu ambil separuh-separuh untuk kepentingan parti dan politik, ulama' yang faham dan muslim yang faham tidak boleh melayannya kerana ia akan menunjukkan bahawa mereka juga setuju dengan hukum Islam yang separuh-separuh itu... Akhirnya barulah aku merasa lega...