Swearing on the holy book. Don’t.
On Malaysiakini, there was this news item which said that Tun Dr. Mahathir (TDM) is willing to swear on the Qur’an on the claim that Malaysia offered air space and sand for sale to Singapore as part of the negotiations for the (now rapidly becoming infamous) bridge to replace the Causeway. He’s convinced he’s right and the proof is in “black and white”. Further, he challenged the government leaders who had refuted him to come along with him to the mosque and swear on the holy book together.
Don’t la like that …
For the sake of simplicity, let’s assume there’s only one government leader who is willing to “take on the challenge”. For further simplicity, assume that the government leader is Pak Lah.
Next, let’s assume that Pak Lah is also convinced that he (i.e. Pak Lah) is right.
Now, imagine the scenario where both TDM and Pak Lah are at the mosque, each with a Qur’an, swearing that the offer of sand and air space was/was not first broached by Malaysia. They are both convinced that each is right.
What happens then? One of them has to be wrong, since the two protagonists are on opposite ends. There’s no middle ground. No maybes.
Will lightning strike to one who is wrong? Will the ground open up and swallow him up whole? Will the one who is right (and obviously feeling righteous at that point) be surrounded by a glowing nimbus?
What I predict (and I’ll stake my reputation, or what’s left of it, on this) is that should the above actually occur, nothing will happen. That’s right.
If both TDM and Pak Lah swear on the Qur’an with regards to their opposite view on the sand sale and air space issue, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN.
Any sane person will expect that, though. Ok, to be fair, the point about the swearing challenge is that if you do that and you’re lying then you’re no longer a good Muslim (or even a Muslim anymore, I guess). So, essentially, what TDM is saying is that he knows he’s right and as a Muslim, by swearing on the Book, he proves that he is right. And because of that, the government must be wrong.
However, all it does is prove his conviction and not the truth of the matter. Similar to Pak Lah in the example above. Swearing on the Book only does the same to him.
Everything else is status quo.