Saya mendapat email daripada sahabat karib, Dr Farouk Musa, seorang pakar bedah jantung yang terlibat aktif di dalam sebuah NGO, Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF). Beliau membidas pendapat Mufti Perlis, Dr Asri Ibrahim yang menulis baru-baru ini di dalam kolum mingguan beliau, Pena Mufti. Pada saya pendapat Farouk menampakkan kematangan beliau sebagai seorang Muslim yang berpegang teguh kepada prinsip dan mempunyai asas ilmu yang kuat. Tidak perlu saya, seorang peguam syarie menjawab, ku hantarkan doktor sahaja untuk menjawab sang mufti.
Jazakumullahi khairan kathiran.
Komen anda ?
“Justeru itu, Sayidina ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan bersumpah dengan nama Allah ketika dia dikepung oleh pemberontak yang ingin membunuhnya. Kata Sayidina ‘Uthman: “Demi Allah, aku tidak pernah berzina sama sekali semasa jahiliah, ataupun Islam. Tidak pernah aku ingin menukar agamaku sejak Allah memberi petunjuk kepadaku. Tidak pernah aku membunuh satu nyawa pun tanpa sebab yang benar. Mengapa mereka ingin membunuhku?” (Riwayat Abu Daud, al-Nasai, al-Tirmizi dan Ahmad). Adakah ‘Uthman berdosa kerana bersumpah tidak pernah berzina sedangkan pihak yang ingin membunuhnya belum mendatangkan empat saksi? Tidak! Sumpah ‘Uthman bukan di mahkamah, tetapi sumpah mempertahankan diri.” [Dr Mohd Asri: Hilang Halatuju, Tenggelam Dalam Isu, 13 Julai 08]
To comment on the whole article of the erudite Mufti of Perlis would require a lengthy writing and it is not our intention to do so. In his article, the Mufti had gone into great length to defend his position on the issue of “mubahalah”. This is in response to the fatwa being issued by a renowned Islamic scholar, Dr Sheikh Taha Jabir al Ulwani. The fatwa must have put him in a defensive position and have obtunded his normally sharp and astute responses.
Instead of being magnanimous and subsequently RECANT his initial assertion about “mubahalah’” as what great scholars of Islam would have done as attested from history; he went on the onslaught and in trying to defend his now challenged position on this issue, he committed this erroneous depiction regarding the turmoil during Uthman’s reign as the Caliph.
His writing on this topic has given an impression that one of the main reasons for the rebels’ action against Uthman was their allegation that Uthman had committed adultery. And that Uthman had sworn in the name of Allah even though the rebels failed to produce four witnesses. Obviously this is a very misleading statement.
As history has it, the rebels have never accused Uthman of adultery. Uthman’s statement was basically in self-defense in wanting for a clear reason for the rebels’ intention of neutralizing him. It was a figure of speech in saying, what rights do you possess to take a human’s life when there was no transgression that would have resulted in a hudud punishment being invoked.
Let us travel back to the year 655 where revolts were breaking out throughout the Muslim lands against the Caliph’s incompetent and often corrupt amirs. In Medina, Uthman was openly despised. Some companions banded together to beg the Caliph to recall his corrupt governors, cease his nepotism, and repent before the entire community. However members of his own clan, and especially his influential and power-hungry cousin, Marwan, pressured Uthman not to look weak by humbling himself.
Things came to a violent end for Uthman a year later, when a massive delegation from Egypt, Basra and Kufa marched to Medina to present their grievances directly to the Caliph. While refusing to receive the delegation personally, Uthman sent Ali to ask them to return to their homes with the promise that their grievances would be addressed.
What happened next is unclear; the sources are muddled and contradictory. Somehow on their way back home, the Egyption delegation intercepted a messenger carrying an official letter that demanded the immediate punishment of the rebel leaders for their insubordination. The letter was signed with the seal of the Caliph. Enraged, the delegation reversed course and returned to Medina, where with the aid of the Basran and Kufan rebels, they laid siege to Uthman’s home, trapping the Caliph’s inside. Most historians are convinced that Uthman did not write that letter. He may have been a poor political leader, but he was not suicidal. What happened after that was history…
Now having said all these, let us come back to our modern time. As we had insisted in our previous statement, there was no precedence in Islamic history regarding “mubahalah” except issues concerning creed or aqeeda. Ibnu Kathir in his commentary on the verse concerning “mubahalah” has stated the reason for the call to “mubahalah” and the revelation of the verse from the beginning of Surah ali-Imran until the specific verse on this issue, is that a delegation from the Christians of Najran (in Yemen) came to Medina to argue about Jesus claiming that he was divine and the son of Allah. Allah sent down the beginning of this Surah until verse 63, to refute their claims, as Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq and other scholars stated.
We feel that what the learned Mufti should have done in the first instance was to remind everyone, the ruler and the ruled; the perils of slander and the importance of defending any man’s honour from false accusation. That a person should be presumed innocent, unless proven otherwise. That any investigation into the alleged accusation should conform to the highest standard of integrity and transparency considering the last time such spurious charges were leveled against the embattled ex-DPM, our international reputation took a huge battering. We believe that if he had taken that course of argument and had shown impartiality, he would not have been construed as being a mouthpiece of the ruling regime, and all the confusion would not have arisen in the first place.
Dr Sheik Johari Bux
Dr Farouk Musa
Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF)
14th July 08