In this 5th installation of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan, David Teoh, Nurul Izzah, Politics 101, Sharizal Sharaani, Emmanuel Joseph, Tauke Fooji, Zulhabri Supian, Rajan Rishyakaran, Ong Boon Keong and Fathi Aris Omar discuss the role of Islam in the administration, as well as if Hudud should be seen as part of freedom of religion.

Shin : Liberals and fundamentalists have different interpretations on the role of Islam in the Constitution, in which its role was not clearly defined. Does Islam as the religion of the federation is only ceremonial and symbolic, or it should be the basis for all laws and policies ? In some countries for example Pakistan, it is stipulated in the Constitution that any article in the Constitution will be automatically invalid if it clashes with Al-Quran or Sunnah. Do you think we need to include this in our Constitution too ?

Between Constitution and Al-Quran, as well as human rights and Al-Quran, which is superior ? Constitution and human rights safeguard freedom of religion. Instead of being just a way of thoughts and rituals, Islam is also a way of life (ad-deen) and has its own legal system. Is the National Front (BN) government, which continues to forbid the enforcement of Hudud, Qisas and Takzir while claiming that Malaysia is a “Negara Islam”, infringing its citizens’ constitutional rights and human rights by restricting them from practising their religion ?

Fathi : The Federal Constitution or Perlembagaan Persekutuan (there is no Malaysian Constitution, only the Federal Constitution) is vague. Islam, according to our first Prime Minister, is ceremonial only but the practice of the religious hegemony (Islam over other religions) is so extensive and tight.

The constitution protects Islam and allows privilleges of Islam over other religions. I don’t think it is fair. If we value religion, we should treat all religion equally. We can’t - for example - obstruct the teachings of other religions to Malays and Muslims.

Without further ado, please refer to this book Malaysia: An Islamic State? Secularism and Theocracy: A Study of the Malaysian Constitution (edited by Abdul Razak Baginda and Peter Schier).

I basically believe, religious or not a state is, when corruption or abuse of power (like Pakistan) is rampant, when there is no sense of justice and fair play, let us topple such governments. Let us throw it over, not only the leaders, the ruling parties but also the religious ideologies.

Any religion can be manipulated, so can Islam. What is so special about Islamic ideology? Tell me, what? Do you think PAS in Kelantan and Terengganu (1999-2004) do not practice corruption, nepotism and cronyism (KKN)?

See my analyses here ‘KKN Kelantan T’ganu macam Umno‘ (22 August 2002) and ‘Media bebas sorok KKN PAS?‘ (15 November 2002).

Ideology, whatever it is, can be manipulated. Idealism is good on paper (in theoritical persuasion) but once it is politically practised, it will have some problems. Let us deal with ideology or political idealism that give freedom (that is democracy) and stop propagating ideas, ideology and idealism that will benefit some people only.

BN’s ‘Negara Islam’ - like ‘Islam Hadhari’ - is a window-dresser for the stupids. Why should we bother to think about that? Let us get to the crux of the matter, not the labelling. When there are no democracy, freedom and human rights, then the state is not fully “legitimate” (according to Jurgen Habermas’s Legitimation Crisis, 1975).

BK : Actually the Constitution foresaw only a ceremonial role for Islam, apart from some specific areas reserved to the States. But this is different from the demand to introduce religious values into government - I think this demand is the same as Christians
conservatives who oppose abortion in the US, for instance. It is out of religious values, not necessarily from the Constitution. They may incidentally invoke the Constitution to support their case.

In Malaysia of course it is unwise to arrange the different authorities in any order. Problems : 1. There are many different interpretations in Islam for example some African Muslims perform genital mutilations on females. But not other Muslims. Even in Pakistan I heard there are so many differences that the implementations are problematic for instance allow many male-prejudices to creep into the religious laws. Not wise to bring the chaos into Malaysia.

2. The holy books are not legal documents - they impart knowledge on numerous areas - so they should be respected as such. Where there are areas the holy book can be useful to strengthen such as social justice, the holy book can be helpfully utilized by people who are into it, to promote the concept of social justice. Since their roles are different it is not a good idea to incorporate any religious document into or over the Constitution.

Since they are different none is superior to the other - just like a swimming manual is not comparable to a football rules book ! There is no need to compare them with possible undesirable results of undermining the values of each. Not enforcing certain Islamic laws does not equate to infringing on the citizens’ constitutional laws because even in Koran there are instances where Islamic laws are suspended or superceded.

So the laws should be seen as laws which need to suit historical circumstances. This is different from the religious requirement (kewajipan) of praying 5 times a day etc. In fact even praying 5 times a day can have some acceptable excuses. So Islamic laws cannot be implemented mechanistically. However the government do infringe on citizens’ constitutional rights in many areas such as lack of social justice in many areas and corruptions are rampant - when this is against all religious values !

Rajan : The Medina Compact made no mention of the state religion. Neither should our’s.

Human rights.

And practicing religion doesn’t entail haven’t a separate legal system, in the same manner freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can rob, murder, and rape in the name of religion.

Habri : Tidak, selagi mana negara ini ditadbir dengan adil dan saksama serta dijaga kebajikan rakyatnya, saya berpendapat ia sudah cukup Islam.

Inilah yang menjadi masalah bila mana agama begitu dipolitikkan, bercelaru jadinya. Sebagai umat Islam sudah tentulah Al-Quran yang lebih tinggi namun di dalam negara yang berbilang kaum dan agama, umat Islam harus lebih berhikmah dan meletakkan prioriti pada perkara yang lebih utama.

Fooji : Of course no. The Muslims in this country already have the Syariah court. During the forging of Malaysia, no one fought hard and cried for such Islamic penetration to our laws and policies, and it should stay that way.

I think we cannot blame BN entirely here. If they regard us as a Negara Islam because the majority are Muslims and we have a Muslim Sultanate, then so be it, but God forbid, never because we are going to be Islamic in very thing that we do, even for the non-Muslims. I think Badawi administration is clear about this.

However, there are many Muslims holding administrative positions in various government agencies that seemed to be zealous in their Islam thinking that many regulations and rules are made that could restricted other from practising their religion. For example, it is always difficult for Christian groups to organise meeting in the campus, as compared to their Muslim friends. This is not Badawi’s policy, but the biased policy of the university’s HEP (Office of Student Affairs).

Emmanuel : No.If we have that, you are directly infringing upon the rights of other people who do not believe in Islam. I would say, Islamic law should be used to govern its people, on matters pertaining to religion. An acceptable secular law, one governed by common values should be used to govern the rest of us.And both parties should adhere to the common law as a higher law, lest there be a double standard.

Sharizal : It all depends on that type of Malaysia you want. I believe we need to be flexible enough to allow for any type of government that is elected by the majority. However the constitution needs to safeguard the basic rights and

Freedoms of ALL no matter what political party we vote in.

Poli : When there’s a need to have a legal interpretation of the constitution, it’s for the court, not the executive or Attorney General, to interprete it. In Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988), five-man Federal Court panel, headed by the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas held that the Constitution and the legal system are “secular” and held that the meaning of the expression “Islam” or “Islamic religion” in Article 3 “means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies“.

During negotiations for the formation of Malaysia in 1963, Sabahans and Sarawakians were assured that Article 3 of the Constitution “does not imply that Malaysia is not a secular state.” (Cobbold Commission Report).

There’s got to be give-and-take. We are a plural society and it’s not right that one community should live under a different set of laws as that will lead to polarisation, which is what we are facing now.

Countries like Turkey and Iraq have 95% or more Muslim majority and yet they are still governed by secular laws. There must be clear separation of church and state. That’s the cornerstone of our forefathers’ social deal.

Nurul Izzah : Of course as a Muslim, I will try my best to live up with the responsibilities that are expected of me, and I also recognize that it does not contradict my support for the constitution.We have to accept and work within the main constraints of our society and common aspirations.

The main teachings of Islam which promote tolerance, peace and the importance of safeguarding justice and upholding human dignity is very relevant to our constitution. We should formulate policies using the framework of our constitution and in eradicating existing laws that contradict the spirit of the constitution and work towards maintaining the basic tenets of safeguarding democratic rights for each citizen.

David : No. We have a constitution that has worked for 48 years. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Everyone is free to practice their religion. Faith is a communication between each soul and God. It need not be legislated. Faith directed towards God is each individual’s journey, and should not be a subject of enforcement.