Responding to the latest challenge by businessman Shazryl Eskay Abdullah on Anwar to join him at a mosque in Sentul to take an Islamic oath declaring innocence, the Islamic party's vice president Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man said the taking of oath is something to be formalised in the presence of a recognised Shariah judge and is done to guard one's dignity.
As such, he said, an accuser who resorts to such a method is not only triviliasing it, but also undermining Islamic laws.
"An oath must be taken in a court of law and by the instruction of the Shariah judge.
"What happens nowadays is that it has denegrated into a sort of trend and as a tool to accuse someone of wrongdoing.
"We cannot use the Islamic oath to legalise slander, something which is haram," Tuan Ibrahim told Harakahdaily, reiterating that the accusation against Anwar was under the category of qazaf (false accusation) due to failure by Datuk T to bring forward four witnesses as required by Islamic criminal law.
'Adhere to Shariah'
Tuan Ibrahim said Anwar should not bow to such demands and must only take instruction from a judge in a proper Shariah court.
"So what if Anwar takes the oath, does that mean the accusations against him are dropped?" he asked.
Muslim scholars, including Perak mufti Harussani Zakaria and former Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin, have been unanimous that there was no need for Anwar to swear his innocence.
“In this (pornographic) video, we don't even know who the person is. Even if (Anwar) were to take an oath, there should be first evidences. And without the four witnesses, Anwar is innocent," explained Tuan Ibrahim.
'Oath's value depends on oath-taker'
"He has been driven to announce this stunt because he knows that the general public disbelieves his claim that the person in the video is Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim.
"Eskay and others who make this scandalous allegation against Anwar Ibrahim have utterly failed to produce believable evidence in support of it," he said in a statement to Harakahdaily.
He reminded that an oath was meaningless if the person doing it lacked integrity.
"What is the value or reliability of an oath? It is only as good as the integrity and honesty of the person who makes the oath. Since the trustworthiness of Eskay is itself a key question here, an oath is a circular and meaningless way of trying to demonstrate that trustworthiness," said Surendran, adding that even if Eskay took "twenty oaths tomorrow, it would not make his allegation against Anwar any more believable."