I thought we Malaysians had gone a long way in our methodology in seeking truth and justice. Apparently, I have been overly optimistic.
The Germanic people of the past subscribed to the idea of judicial duel. In absence of witnesses or a confession, they advocated the holding of a duel between the accused and the accuser to determine the status of a case. The winner will be acknowledged as being on the side of the truth. The loser meanwhile will be wrong.
After awhile and too many deaths later, enough individuals finally come to realize that this kind of trial is really about proficiency in weapon handling or strength rather than truth.
Not only law like this is barbaric, outcome of the duel has no bearing whatsoever on the truth.
In a more general sense and more widespread in other parts of the world in the past, trials by ordeal were favored. The status of the accused is determined by having him to undergo unsavory tests. Just like the judicial duel method, the result of any trial by ordeal has little correlation with the guilt or the innocence of the accused.
For the judicial duel, the accuser bears some cost in making any accusation without any proof since he could lose his life if he is not careful. This is a particularly important aspect of the method because the presence of cost acts to potentially discourage any accusation from being made so recklessly.
As for trial by ordeal, the accused cannot simply proclaim his innocence with impunity. There is no cost to the accuser however but at least, there is some still cost to one side.
Regardless, in both cases, words are not cheap and cannot be taken lightly.
In Malaysia at the moment, not only a number of individuals are mocking our judiciary system by debasing as well as preempting it, it has become a trend lately to swear on the Koran to prove one’s case. Somebody may argue that if the person lies, retribution may come in the afterlife but the reality is that, there is no cost in doing so in this life.
Hence, such oaths are cheap.
If such confessions are applied as the benchmark of truth, then desperate people could simply assert their innocence successfully even when all evidence clearly point to them. The acceptance of swearing on the Koran as the benchmark of truth is really about granting somebody a get-out-of-jail-for-free card.
Needless to say, it is impossible for justice to thrive in such situation; that card makes any judiciary system redundant.
On top of that, when such swearing and confession of innocence could be made so cheaply, is there a reason to trust the confession?
No, there is none.
If there were a reason, then we would probably be just as civilized as the barbaric society of the past in terms of dispensing justice. Just as the outcomes of judicial duel and trial by ordeal have little to do with guilt or innocence of a person, so too the oaths on the Koran.
In this imperfect world, it is only prudent to assume that every individual is interested in advancing his own interest. Whether we like it or not, it is safer to assume that the willingness to swear has more to do with promotion of self interest than anything else. Any more well meaning assumption only qualifies oneself as being naive.
Besides, does a person need to tell the truth only when he swears on over the Koran?
What an immoral world would we live in if the answer to the question is yes. Truly, the highest of all morals call upon all of us, Muslims or otherwise, to endeavor to be truthful even without the presence of the Koran or any scripture which any of us consider as holy.
It is possible that those whom swear on the Koran do not think much of the scripture but only do so to manipulate the masses. By merely taking an oath, the so-called confessors might believe that they could get away with anything.
If indeed this is what happening, it is no less than an insult to the Koran. This kind of insult is far worse than any cartoon or work of literature could ever throw to any Muslim.
The only way to know whether an insult has been committed is for Muslims to demand investigation into any oath made by citing the Koran. Any kind of serious investigation will impose a cost to the act of swearing on the Koran and this has the potential of discouraging brazen lies from being labeled as truth so publicly.
Moral and religion aside, apart from the obvious fact that these swearing and confessions are cheap, there are several reasons why swearing on the Koran or any scripture for that matter should be outright rejected in no uncertain terms.
One of them is the fact that such action, if it becomes accepted at the benchmark of truth, undermines our judiciary. What is the point of maintaining all the courts if the innocence and guilt of a person could be determined by a mere oath?
Surely millions of Ringgit could be invested elsewhere if we already had found a barometer of truth that is far more reputable than our jaded judiciary system.
Secondly, in a number of cases where the acts of swearing on the Koran have taken place, these cases do not exclusively belong to that of the Muslim community. Many of these cases are of national interests which cut well beyond boundary drawn by religions. The natural question arising from this fact is that why should any non-Muslim accept the Koran as the benchmark of truth?
Even if these cases were exclusive matters of the Muslim community in a way that both the accuser and the accused are Muslims, justice does not exclusively concern that of the accuser and the accused. A phrase commonly attributed to Edmund Burke puts it succinctly: all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
In the name of truth and justice, the issues should be brought to the courts. Let a neutral ground be the medium. Bring on the evidence, keep the Koran at home and let the jury deliberate earnestly.
A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.
