Sodomy Trial- Islamic Views

Assalamu'alaikum wrt. wbt.

I’ve read a book entitled Anwar on Trial In the Face of Injustice written by Pawancheek Marican. This book explained in details the first sodomy charge against Anwar where Anwar and Sukma was acquitted…Alhamdulillah. It is stated in the book page 367, “As the offence with which Anwar was charged was also an offence under the Syariah , it would be appropriate for him to obtain the Islamic Perspective on the decision from a highly –respected Muslim scholar. Those close to Anwar agreed that Dr. Sheikh Tahar Jabir Al Awani be requested to issue a fatwa (legal opinion) on the trial and decision. Dr. Sheikh Tahar holds the Imam Al-Shafii Chairat the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS) in Lessburg, Virginia in the US and is Chairman of the Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Council of the United States and Canada, Founding Member of the Muslim World League (Makkah), a Member of the International Fiqh Council (Jeddah) and a Member of the Fiqh Council of Europe.

Among Professor Sheikh Tahar’s conclusions on the legality and validity of the proceedings and the ensuing verdict are:

1) The alleged offence of sodomy is a crime of honour and character and like zina (adultery), it requires four credible witnesses who have witnessed the act first-hand with no barrier or obstruction. If there is the slightest discrepancy in their testimony, the whole case is to be dismissed and the witnesses or accusers are guilty of slander and libel;

2) The Syariah takes special note of the case where a commoner accuses a person of high rank, recognizing the possibility of human weakness, greed and envy and the mean motive of embezzlement. Islam requires proof that goes beyond personal admission of an alleged victiom and if the slightest discrepancy is detected in the testimony, the case is dismissed and the accuser is to be punished. This is an effective and fair protection for society;

3) The court should not have denied the accused the right to call and cross-examine a key witness in the person of Prime Minister as this witness had the following material evidence :

a) He, at first, publicly announced the innocence if the accused;

b) Later, Tun Mahathir emphatically and repeatedly announced in public that he was convinced that the accused was guilty;

c) Being the PM and Home Minister at that time, he had access to all police and intelligence reports;

d) He had met privately with the alleged victim and key prosecution witness Umi Hafilda;

e) He was the direct “boss” of the accused and his immediate superior for 17 years and was the most substantial character witness as the case involved the issue of character

4) The Quran commands that no witness shall withhold testimony when asked to do so. It is tantamount to obstruction of justice, which is a major sin in Islam;

5) The accused was denied the request to have the “victim” and key prosecution witness medically examined for signs of sodomy. This is all the more important because medical evidence proved beyond doubt that the other defendant, Mr. Sukma, had no signs of sodomy and this substantiated his claim that his confession was extracted from him forcibly.

6) There was a lack of specificity in the date of the alleged crime. The prosecution’s key witness –cum victim stated a date of the commission of the offence that could not stand the proof of alibi, changing it by years and months. In any fair court, this would have been enough for the judge to declare a mistrial and render the witness-victim guilty of slander (qazaf).

7) There was witness tampering in the case. It became evident in the hearing that Mr Azizan admitted that the police had coached him in changing the dates mentioned above. No court would regard such a witness as credible.

8) The court should have dismissed the case outright. The burden of proof under the Syariah is on the prosecution and as it had failed to prove the commission of the alleged crime beyond any doubt, the judgment was a violation of justice and a gross violation of the accussed’s human rights;

9) The accused should be declared innocent; he should be released immediately and his accusers should be tried for slander and libel.

Thus, it can be argued that in Sodomy case 2 where Anwar was alleged to sodomise Syaiful Bukhari…such allegation is malicious and Syaiful can be charged for slander (qazaf). Anwar’s case has been littered with the questionable rulings of the judges. What sort of legacy would the judge leave. The answer comes from Anwar’s resonant remarks in his first case.

So, if I may add, what is a judge’s legacy? Surely, nothing, if not his judgments. If his judgments be just, then they would be remembered for generations. Otherwise, his injustices will stink till kingdom come”

Hopefully….Justice Zabidin will give his sweet ruling for Anwar on 9 January 2012….don’t give up no matter how hopeless….However, I am touched by Anwar’s statement that he will not give up to seek truth and justice even though he will be imprisoned for the second time….JUSTICE FOR ANWAR!!!

Wassalam