‘Islam-as I say-tion’: The Slide Into Tyranny?
Introduction
I am not a scholar of Islam. I can neither read nor write Arabic. I have never received any formal training in the exegesis of the Holy Qur’an.
However, over a period of some twenty years, the last ten of them with the aid of dictionaries, concordances, lexicons and transliterations, I have ploughed through over 21 different translations of the Holy Qur’an.
I am now firm in my conviction that the Holy Qur’an is truly the inerrant Word of God.
In the last nine years to this date, I have tried to live the Islam of the Holy Qur’an.
As I understand it.
There are laws in this country, though, that prohibit me from trying to live the Islam that I have come to understand, if my understanding does not conform with the decrees issued by councils of men, known as the ‘Fatwa Committee’ or ‘Fatwa Council’. These laws, and these councils of men, are part of a process that has gradually begun to impact on the lives of all Malaysians. Those steering this process would have us believe that the ‘Islamisation’ of Malaysia is their goal.
In a Malaysiakini report dated 24th July, 2006 entitled ‘10,000 Muslims attend forum centred on apostasy’, Azmi Abdul Hamid of Teras is reported to have said:
“We have every right to seek the continuation of this process of Islamisation”.
Azmi’s quoted statement, for me, raises the following questions:
what does Azmi mean by this ‘process of Islamisation’?
Azmi speaks of the continuation of this process. When did it start?
who are the ‘we’ that Azmi speaks of?;
I have grave reservations about this ‘process of Islamisation’ that Azmi speaks of. I am very concerned about this ‘Islamisation’ that we see unfolding in our country.
For the moment, let me say quite simply that, in my view, the 'process of Islamisation' that Azmi speaks of and that which we see taking place offends the Islam that I have come to understand from the Holy Qur'an.
Through this paper, I will try to answer the questions I have outlined above and share my views on who is moving this ‘process of Islamisation’ in this country, what this process entails and why, in my view, it is at odds with the Holy Qur’an. In order that you may better understand the impact of this process and why I take the view that it offends the Holy Qur’an it will be necessary for me to briefly share my views on:
m as the way of life of peace through submission to the Almighty as I have come to u
Finally, I will share my thoughts on what Malaysians of all faiths must do if they are not in favour of any change brought about or sought to be implemented by this ‘process of Islamisation’ to the system of governance and way of life put in place by the Federal Constitution.
I must point out that in making numerous references to the verses of the Holy Qur’an, I do not always quote from a generally acknowledged translation More often than not, I have presented a re-work from such a translation premised on my understanding and interpretation. The reader is therefore urged to check verse references in this paper against a translation or translations of the Holy Qur’an which the reader is familiar and comfortable with.
Islam : the life of peace through submission to the Almighty
A. Reminiscing – my earliest views on Islam
When I left for England in 1984 to read law, it was with a sense of total disillusionment with Islam.
Why?
Islamic religious classes in school and on the odd Sunday at home, when my late father was able to get us to and keep us at the dining table long enough to deliver a sermon, left me with a sense that Islam was nothing more than a charter of some dos and many don’ts, with God lurking round every corner to punish you for every mistake you made.
God was to be feared, not loved.
Fearing God, though, was not enough.
If the prospect of the hell-fire in the hereafter could not secure obedience to the laws of God, the promise by state-appointed Islamic religious authorities of punishment and humiliation in this life for the disobedient was indoctrinated into young minds as the fulfillment of the duty owed to God by the Muslim community. Eat in public during the daylight hours of Ramadhan and you risk being paraded through town after Friday prayers in a cage!
The insistence that communion with God, in the form of prayer, had to be in a language that I did not understand nor was conversant in, seemed to me rather incredulous that during such intimacy with my God, I should be focused on the form of what I uttered rather than its ‘feel’ and substance.
Looking back, it is very possible that my perception of Islam then may have also been influenced by my exposure in my younger days, through my having Christian relatives, to the language of love so prevalent in the Christian faith, to the spirit of giving in which I celebrated Christmas with my Christian cousins, and the fun-filled fellowship ever present in the Sunday School programme for Christian youth that I had occasion to partake in.
It is also very probable that on account of my close ties with my Christian relatives that I had great difficulty accepting a precept that was always emphasized in religious classes in school and by my late father at home: only Muslims are going to heaven; everyone else is destined for hell. It seemed to me then rather unjust that I should get to heaven simply because I was born into a Muslim family whilst my cousins, however good they might be, were condemned to hell because of an accident of birth.
Until 1985, I was a person who professed Islam as my faith, not because I truly understood what it meant to be Muslim and believed in the same, but because I was born of a father who himself professed Islam as his faith. I accepted unquestioningly that my religion was that of my father’s and his forefathers.
“When it is said to them: ‘Follow what God has revealed’, they reply, ‘No, we shall follow the ways of our fathers’. What, even if your fathers were devoid of wisdom and guidance?” – Surah 2 verse 170.
B. Reminiscing – discovering Islam of the Holy Qur’an
I started to read the translation of the Holy Qur’an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali in early 1986. I had then just gone through a failed relationship with a Catholic woman and was devastated, and seemed to be fighting a losing battle in coming to terms with this. There was nowhere to turn to but God.
Truth be told, I turned first to Christianity. Try as I did, though, I was unable to overcome a huge difficulty I had long had with the foundational tenet of the Christian faith – ‘there is no salvation other than the blood of Christ’, a proposition not dissimilar with the precept drummed into my head in school and at home in relation to Islam referred to earlier.
To my brothers and sisters who have found their peace in Christianity, I hope that no offence is taken for my saying now that I did not find my comfort zone in the Christian faith.
Surah Al-Baqara is the second chapter in the Holy Qur’an. It is the longest, comprising 286 verses and is preceded by one of the shortest. This meant that soon after I started reading the Holy Qur’an, it did not take me long to reach verse 62 of Surah Al-Baqara.
“Those who believe, the Jews, Christians and Sabians - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord. They need not fear, nor shall they grieve.”
God through the Holy Qur’an had just put paid to years of indoctrination in school and at home. My late father and the ustaz in school were wrong. Heaven was not open only to Muslims but was open to all who believed in God and the Day of Judgment and did good works.
Or so I thought.
My initial impression as stated above of Surah Al-Baqara verse 62 set me on a path to re-visit everything I had ever been taught about Islam and measure the same against the text of the Holy Qur’an. It is an ongoing effort.
“Surely this Quran guides to that which is most upright and gives good news to the believers who do good that they shall have a great reward.” – Surah17 verse 9.
Today, I realize that my late father and the ustaz in school were right. Heaven is indeed open only to Muslims. Where my late father and the ustaz erred was in profiling the Muslim, not on the Qur’anic call to believe in God and out of love for Him, to adhere to precepts of justice, equality, kindness, charity, forgiveness, compassion, love and humility and to live in peace with all of creation, but on rituals and dogma handed down through the ages, a great many of which, if not all, have no foundation in the Holy Qur’an.
Today, both ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ are presented as pronouns rather than adjectives. They are labels appended in your official documents if you happen to be born of parents similarly labeled, or if you have uttered the requisite proclamation of faith, duly witnessed. That you do not have the faintest notion of the precepts of justice, equality, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, love and humility matters not.
Islam of the Holy Qur’an that enjoins the qualities I have mentioned above has long been displaced by Islam fashioned by man. This is the process of ‘Islamisation’ sought to be continued by Azmi.
I know now that my earlier perception of Islam was founded on an entirely erroneous approach and one which most non-Muslims, quite understandably, and a great many who profess Islam as their faith, similarly fall prey to – judging Islam based on the actions of those who profess a belief in the same rather than what is to be found in the foundational scripture of the faith: the Holy Qur’an.
I did not know it in 1986, but Surah Al-Baqara verse 62 has over the years proven to be the most significant influence in shaping my present understanding of the way of life that I am enjoined by the Holy Qur’an to embrace.
I have since ceased to follow the ways of my forefathers. I try to follow what God has revealed to me through the Holy Qur’an.
“I will withdraw from you and what you call on besides God, and I will call upon my Lord. Perhaps I shall not remain unblessed in calling upon my Lord.” – Surah 19 verse 48.
"Follow the revelation given unto you from God, and follow not, as friends or protectors, other than Him. Little it is that you remember of admonition." - Surah 7 verse 3.
C. Islam in the Holy Qur’an as I understand it today
“…This day have I perfected your way of life (ad-deen) for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you peace through submission to God (Islam) as your way of life (ad-deen).” – Surah 5 verse 3.
"If anyone desires a way of life (ad-deen) other than one of peace through submission to God (Islam), never will it be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost." - Surah 3 verse 85.
Surah 5 verse 3 bears out that God had perfected man’s way of life, that is, the attainment of peace through surrender and submission to God, during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet.
Surah 3 verse 85 makes it clear that God will not accept anything other than the way of life that He perfected.
“Let there be no compulsion in the way of life (ad-deen). Truth stands out clear from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks.” - Surah 2 verse 256.
“O, believers, enter into complete peace and do not follow in the footsteps of Satan; for he is truly your manifest enemy.” Surah 2 verse 208.
“O, you tranquil soul, come back to your Lord, well-pleased and well-pleasing Him. Enter then among my servants. Enter then My Heaven.” - Surah 89 verses 27-30.
My understanding of the 8 verses above is that even as God says He will not accept anything short of the way of life of peace through submission to God as He has ordained for us, adherence to the same by man must be of his own free will without any element of compulsion. If man is to submit to God, he must do so only through awe and love of God and a desire to be in harmony with God’s scheme of things, and not fear of his fellow man or of society, or the controls and potential sanctions that society might impose upon him. It is God, and not man, that will guide those who seek His guidance, to the path of peace.
“This is the guidance of God. He gives guidance to such of His servants as He pleases…” – Surah 6 verse 88.
What, then, is this path of peace?
“Come, I will tell you what God has made binding upon you. Make none the equal of God, be good to your parents, and do not abandon your children out of poverty, for He gives you food and He shall provide for them; and avoid what is shameful, whether open or hidden, and do not take a life which God has forbidden, unless for some just cause. This God has enjoined upon you. Hopefully you will understand. Do not spend the belongings of the orphans except for their wellbeing, until they come of age; and give full measure, and weigh justly on the balance. God does not burden a soul beyond capacity. When you say a thing, let it be just, even though the matter relate to a relative of yours, and fulfil a promise made to God. These are the things that He has enjoined, that you may take heed. This is my straight path, so walk along it, and do not follow other ways, lest you should turn away from the right one. All this God has commanded. You may perhaps take heed for yourselves” - Surah 6 verses 151 to 153.
"Righteousness does not lie in turning your face to east or west; righteousness lies in believing in God, the last day and the angels, the scriptures and the prophets, and disbursing your wealth out of love for God among your kin and the orphans, the wayfarers and those who ask, freeing the slaves, observing salat and self-purification, fulfilling a pledge you have given, and being patient in hardship, adversity and times of peril. These are the men who affirm the truth, and they are the God-conscious.”- Surah 2 verse 177.
Say: "O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we serve none but God; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God." If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we are submitters.” – Surah 3 verse 64.
These 5 verses, in my understanding, succinctly sum up the path of peace, full details of which are to be found throughout the Holy Qur’an.
Could I be wrong?
“God alone has knowledge…” – Surah 67 verse 26.
Of course I could be wrong!
And if indeed I am wrong, what, in that situation, is enjoined upon another who professes a belief in the Holy Qur’an?
“You shall invite to the path of God with wisdom and compassionate enlightenment, and debate with them in the best possible manner. Your Lord knows best who is deviating from His path, and He knows best who are guided.” – Surah 16 verse 125.
And if, after enlightened debate in the best possible manner, I am still firm in my view as stated above, what then?
“Whatever it be on which you differ, the decision is with God. Such is God, my Lord. In Him I trust, and to Him I turn. – Surah 42 verse 10.
“Shall I seek as my Lord other than God, when He is the Cherisher of all things? Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself. No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. Your return in the end is to God. He will tell you the truth of the things which you disputed.” - Surah 6 verse 164.
“If they do wrangle with you, say ‘God knows best what you are doing. God will judge between you on the Day of Judgment concerning your differences’”. – Surah 22 verses 68 and 69.
“O God, Creator of the heavens and earth, Knower of all that is open and concealed, it is You that will judge between Your servants in matters on which they differed”. – Surah 39 verse 46.
“…God will Judge between them on the Day of Judgment on matters on which they differed”. – Surah 45 verse 17.
These 6 verses leave me with the clearest impression that where there is a difference of opinion as to what Islam entails, or the meaning and purport of any of the verses of the Holy Qur’an, believers of this holy scripture must leave the resolution of that difference to God. It is important to understand and realize this aspect of the Commands of God, for what it bears out is that divergences of views will occur and must be accommodated in Islam.
Indeed, it must mean that I am entitled, by God’s Leave, to hold to a view contrary to that of all other believers of the Holy Qur’an.
What if I now turn to disbelief in the Holy Qur’an and God’s chosen and perfected way of life? Am I to be forced to believe? And if I remain unrepentant, am I to be punished by others who profess a belief in the Holy Qur’an and God’s chosen and perfected way of life?
“If it had been God’s Will, all on earth would have believed. Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?” – Surah 10 verse 99.
“Let there be no compulsion in the way of life (ad-deen). Truth stands out clear from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks.” - Surah 2 verse 256.
"Tell those who believe to forgive those who do not look forward to the Days of God. It is for Him to recompense each people according to what they have earned." – Surah 45 verse 14.
Premised on these 4 verses, I do not see how anyone who professes a belief in the Holy Qur’an could lay claim to divine authority to compel belief or inflict temporal punishment for renunciation of faith in the way of life as ordained by God.
This is the Islam that I have come to know from the Holy Qur’an.
Remember Al-Baqara verse 62?
“Those who believe, the Jews, Christians and Sabians - any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord. They need not fear, nor shall they grieve.”
Islam, the way of life of peace through submission to God, as I understand it, entails:-
· a sincere belief in God and the Day of Judgment and, premised on that belief alone and out of love for Him, without any compulsion from any quarter:-
· to not associate any with God;
· to not exalt any from amongst us as our lords;
· to be kind to parents,
· to not abandon our children on a plea of poverty;
· avoid all shameful deeds;
· respect all life forms;
· be just in your dealings with others and do not cheat;
· be trustworthy in dealing with the property of orphans;
· be just and honourable in speech;
· keep the covenants that you make with God;
· share God’s bounty bestowed upon you with your family, the orphans, the
traveler and those who ask;
· strive to free the oppressed;
· observe your salat and zakat;
· honour your pledges and promises; and
· exercise patience in the face of all adversity and hardship.
God says that these things he enjoins upon us “are surely difficult except for those who are humble, and who know that they shall meet their Lord and that they shall return to Him”. – Surah 2 verses 45 and 46.
When Islam is viewed in this way, I cannot in all honesty assert that I am Muslim. I profess a belief in the way of life of peace through submission to God alone. I would be Muslim only if I have attained and adhered to all that God enjoins upon me. Only God can confirm if indeed I am worthy of His Invitation to “Enter then My Heaven”.
Hence, these days, when I am asked if I am Muslim, my answer is that only God knows.
Similarly, when I observe the great many Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Sikhs who daily give of themselves for the betterment of the less fortunate, the poor, the orphans and the oppressed, I ask myself if they may not be more “Muslim” in God’s reckoning than those who profess Islam as their professed belief yet do little of these things. Again, only God Knows and only God Judges.
“Is not God the most equitable of all judges?” – Surah 95 verse 8.
2. The system of governance under the Federal Constitution
What is the Federal Constitution?
It is the document that evidences the agreement between, initially, the inhabitants of the Malay Peninsula and, subsequently, also of Sabah and Sarawak, which facilitated the process by which those inhabitants could achieve independence from the British colonial masters and thereafter collectively proceed to self-rule over these territories.
The Federal Constitution laid out the frame-work by which all peoples of different ethnicities and faiths might live in these territories in peace and harmony, enjoying equality and freedoms that are God-given.
It is this document which by consensus of the then leaders of the various segments of society that laid the foundation of the sovereign state of Malaysia.
Given the potential vastness of this subject, so as to avoid getting into areas not necessarily relevant to the issue at hand, I will state my propositions immediately and then explain and substantiate the same.
My first proposition is that the Federal Constitution laid the foundation for self-rule of, firstly, the Federation of Malaya and later, together with Sabah and Sarawak to make up the Federation of Malaysia, as a secular state.
My second proposition is that this secular, sovereign state of Malaysia was intended to be governed by the people for the people. Malaysia is a parliamentary democracy headed by a titular constitutional monarch where the real power of governance vests with the citizens. The Federal Constitution laid down the frame-work for just governance by fellow citizens, and made provision so that the citizens not involved in government might remain a free people by the entrenchment of fundamental rights that were, in times of peace, to remain absolutely inviolable and which, in any event, were always to be defended by citizens who made up the judicial arm of government.
My third proposition is that even as we speak of a ‘secular, sovereign state’ created by the Federal Constitution, we must not be so awed by this high-sounding term so that we lose sight of the fact that this term describes a body of human beings of diverse faiths, cultures and interests who have collectively agreed to rest their hopes of a fulfilled life on this artificial entity call a ‘secular, sovereign state’. The secular, sovereign state of the Federation of Malaysia, then, is not secular as an end in itself, but the means by which all Malaysians have the guarantee of an opportunity to realize their own aspirations.
Malaysia – a secular state
The Foundation
“The Malaysian Constitution was not the product of an overnight thought but the brainchild of Constitutional and administrative experts from UK, Australia, India and West Pakistan, known commonly as the Reid Commission… Prior to the finding of the commission there were negotiations, discussions and consensus between the British Government, the Malay Rulers and the Alliance party representing various racial and religious groups. On religion the commission submitted: We have considered the question whether there should be any statement in the Constitution to the effect that Islam should be the State religion. There was universal agreement that if any such provision were inserted it must be made clear that it would not in any way affect the civil rights of non-Muslims. In the memorandum submitted by the alliance it was stated: `the religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals profession and practising their own religions and shall not imply the State is not a secular State.' There is nothing in the draft Constitution to affect the continuance of the present position in the States with regard to recognition of Islam or to prevent the recognition of Islam in the federation by legislation or otherwise in any respect which does not prejudice the civil rights of individual non-Muslims. The majority of us think that it is best to leave the matter on this basis, looking to the fact that council for the rulers said to us - "it is Their Highnesses' considered view that it would not be desirable to insert some declaration such as has been suggested that the Muslim Faith or Islamic Faith be the established religion of the federation. Their Highnesses are not in favour of such a declaration being inserted ...It was in the above basis that our Constitution was drafted and promulgated”. – Justice Abdul Hamid Omar LP in Teoh Eng Huat.
“…it can be seen that during the British colonial period, through their system of indirect rule and establishment of secular institutions, Islamic law was rendered isolated in a narrow confinement of the law of marriage, divorce and inheritance only. In our view, it is in this sense that the framers of the Constitution understood the meaning of the word 'Islam' in the context of Article 3. If it had been otherwise, there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, Article 162, on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution, unless such law is contrary to the latter.” – Justice Salleh Abas, LP in the case of Che Omar Che Soh.
“Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that Malaysia is not the same as a Malay State prior to the coming of the British.” – Justice Abdul Hamid Mohamed, FCJ in the case of Meor Atiqulrahman.
Against the backdrop of these judicial pronouncements, I will contend certain basic premises.
First, the Federal Constitution, by Article 4(1), declares itself to be the supreme law of the land. Every law student understands this to mean that any laws, be they customary, statutory, civil, criminal or religious, which conflicts with the Constitution cannot stand.
Second, whilst the Constitution by Article 3(1) declares Islam to be the religion of the federation, this in no way was intended to detract from the secular nature of the federation. Tun Salleh Abas presided in the sitting of the Supreme Court in Che Omar Che Soh in 1988 that confirmed this. No subsequent sitting of the Supreme or Federal Court has held to the contrary. I have previously had occasion to summarise the findings and pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Che Omar Che Soh in a letter dated 15th July, 2005 to Malaysiakini entitled ‘Secular state: Karpal’s stand not personal interpretation’.
Third, whilst the Federal Constitution since its inception has been subjected to numerous amendments, it has not undergone such a transformation as to have altered the original secular state created.
Secular state explained and illustrated
The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary offers the following meanings:
secular : not having any connection with religion
secularism : the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and
political activities of a country
secularise : when something is secularised, religious influence, power or control is removed from it
If you googled the word ‘sekularisme’, you would find much writings which present a meaning plainly at odds with the dictionary meaning reproduced above. Invariably, these writings portray secularism as an ‘anti-God’ ideology. I managed to retrieve an article by one Abu Bakar bin Yang posted on the Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM) website entitled ‘Sains dan Sekularisme’ which offered the following interpretation:
sekularisme: konsep penyingkiran nilai ketuhanan
In this paper I use the word ‘secular’ in the sense that religion, or any one or more of the established faiths, should not reign supreme, wielding influence, power or control over the governance of the country. Any one or more religions ought not to be the basis for the formulation of national policy, national law-making or judicial interpretation of those laws.
By ‘secular, sovereign federation’, then, I mean a system of government where governmental policies and laws passed for application to the general public would not be ‘theocracy’ or ‘any-one-or-more-religion-based’. Let us call these policies and laws ‘secular-based policies’ and ‘secular-based laws’ respectively. Henceforth, every reference in this paper to ‘secular’ or ‘secular, sovereign federation’ is intended to mean a system of government where governmental policies formulated for general public application, laws promulgated for application to the general public and the judicial process of interpreting and applying those laws are not theocracy-based.
For instance, murder is an offence in our statute books not because it is a sin by the tenets of Islam and / or Christianity or all known religions but because it is essential to the very survival of the human race and hence for the common good of all mankind that homicide without just cause be prohibited.
Similarly, the judicial arm of government, in interpreting and giving effect to laws, must not overlook that as those laws must be ‘secular-based’, so too their interpretation and application. So, a judge, in passing sentence in respect of an individual convicted of a crime, must be guided by principles of sentencing adhered to by the judiciary as a whole, taking account of the general public view then prevailing in respect of such crime, and not his own personal convictions premised on his religious beliefs. As Tun Salleh Abas so aptly put it in Che Omar Che Soh:
“…we (meaning the judges) have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of law.”
Also, the executive, in formulating national policy on matters such as health and education, and local authorities in drawing up policies such as the placement of houses of worship within their jurisdiction, must be guided by considerations of well-being of the general public, and not the advancement of the precepts or cardinal beliefs of any one or more faiths.
Government of the People by the People
“Government by the people” flows from that most precious right reserved to citizens of the federation by Article 119 of the Constitution: the right to vote.
It is by the exercise of this right that periodically, Malaysians mandate a number of our fellow citizens to take their place in the lower chamber of Parliament and there to serve our best interests, principally in the law-making process but additionally to act as watchdogs for the citizens in respect of the formulation of policy by the executive.
These are the Members of Parliament, more commonly referred to as MPs.
It is from amongst the MPs that His Majesty the King then appoints one who is likely to command the confidence of the majority of the other MPs as the Prime Minister, or PM.
The office of PM is a critical position in the scheme of the Constitution.
Much of His Majesty’s functions under the Constitution are exercised upon the advice of the PM. These include the appointment of the members of the upper chamber of Parliament, the remaining members of the cabinet from either chamber of Parliament and the judges of the superior courts.
The theory of the scheme of the Constitution, then, is that national policies are decided by an executive led by our elected representative PM, federal laws are approved by two bodies, one elected by the citizens and the other appointed on the advise of our elected representative PM, and the administration of justice is overseen by the superior courts which are manned by fellow citizens appointed, once again, on the advise of our elected representative PM.
It is in this sense that the Constitutional scheme sets up a ‘government of the people by the people’. The legitimacy of federal laws passed to give effect to national policy formulated flows from the fact that we, the voters, are the authors of the same through our elected representatives.
This Constitutional scheme is at its best, though, when national policies or federal laws that offend the Constitution are struck down by the defenders of the citizens’ rights: the judges of the superior courts.
This is democracy at work.
Finally, it must be mentioned here that by Article 159, the framers of the Constitution vested to all generations of Malaysians, through their elected and appointed representatives in Parliament, the power to amend the Constitution. Except for a limited category of amendments narrated in that Article, all other amendments must receive the approval of not less than 2/3 of the total number of members in both chambers of Parliament.
The Secular Federation – the guarantee for all Malaysians
You will see below that even as the Federal Constitution guarantees us, the citizens, fundamental rights and liberties, very few of these are absolute, and, in my view, necessarily so.
Most, if not all, of the limitations to those rights and liberties guaranteed are constitutionally grounded on considerations of public health, morality or order or the security of the Federation.
Limitations imposed or permitted by the Constitution are ‘secular’ or ‘common good of all’ based and not ‘theocracy’ or ‘any-one-or-more-religion’ based.
What this means for us, you and I, is that we are free to fully exercise those rights and liberties, in pursuit of the way of life we aspire to, subject only to lawful restrictions thereon. If they are limited by the Constitution itself, it would generally turn on the considerations mentioned above. Similarly, if Parliament is constitutionally permitted and moves to legislate to impose limitations on any of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, those laws must also be similarly motivated.
We are guaranteed that our way of life will not be proscribed or interfered with for no other reason than that it does not coincide with the chosen way of life of others. As long as your way of life does not impinge directly on the ‘common good of all’, you may carry on.
Couple this with a Constitution which is the supreme law of the land and the guarantee is complete.
In this sense, our secular, sovereign state is, in my view, so much in harmony with Islam of the Holy Qur’an.
3. Is the Federal Constitution in complete harmony with Islam of the Holy Qur'an?
I have just observed that in one sense, the state created under the Federal Constitution is consistent with Islam of the Holy Qur’an.
I had also suggested earlier that the Federal Constitution is the document that evidences the agreement between the peoples of different ethnicities and faiths in present-day Malaysia by which they might live in peace and harmony, enjoying equality and freedoms that are God-given.
Put simply, an agreement was reached to provide for Muslims and non-Muslims to live peaceably within the territory of Malaysia.
Conceptually, would such an agreement offend Islam of the Holy Qur’an?
I do not think so.
“Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty…” – Surah 4 verse 90.
“…if they seek your aid in the way of life ordained, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom you have a mutual alliance…” – Surah 8 verse 72.
“…the idolators with whom you have contracted mutual alliances” – Surah 9 verse 1.
The Holy Qur’an plainly evidence that the Holy Prophet entered into alliances, on behalf of the believers, with the unbelievers.
In fact, there is Qur’anic evidence that God commanded the Holy Prophet that he was to abide by the terms of the mutual alliances so long as the other side did the same.
"Except those of the idolators with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you, so fulfill the agreement to the end of its term. Surely God loves those who are careful." - Surah 9 verse 5.
“How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with God and with His Messenger; except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them; surely God loves those who are careful (of their duty).” – Surah 9 verse 7.
Are the rights guaranteed to citizens under the Federal Constitution inconsistent with Islam of the Holy Qur’an?
Again, I do not think so except, possibly, for one.
Let me first refer to the guaranteed rights, which, in my view, are compatible with Islam of the Holy Qur’an.
The secular state under the Federal Constitution leaves its citizens free to pursue their guaranteed freedoms under Part 2, subject only to such limitations as are sanctioned by the Constitution, most of which, if not all, turn on considerations of public health, morality or order or the security of the Federation.
These rights would include the right to life and personal liberty, which in itself must include the right to marry and raise a family. Freedom from slavery carries with it the right to be engaged in lawful and gainful employment.
Every citizen is entitled to be treated equally before the law and to not be subjected to discrimination on grounds only of his or her religion, place of birth or gender, to move and reside anywhere within the Federation and to form associations.
Citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression. I suggest that implicit in this is the right to receive information and the freedom to give thought to the same with a view to an informed and reasoned exercise of the right of free speech and expression.
Finally, every citizen has the right to profess and practise his or her religion of choice.
The secular state under the Federal Constitution also gives to the citizens a say in the law-making process, through their elected representatives in Parliament, the MPs.
The one exception which, in my view, offends Islam of the Holy Qur’an, is the reservation of the special position of Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak in the matter of positions in public service, scholarships, educational privileges and facilities, trade or business licences or permits, as prescribed under Article 153.
God’s system in the Holy Qur’an turns on all of man being created equally from a lowly birth. From this common lowly birth, God distinguishes between men by their inclination to righteousness and justice.
“He created man from a drop of sperm…” – Surah 80 verse 19
“…The most honoured of you in the sight of God is the most righteous from among you…” – Surah 49 verse 13.
“What! Do those who do evil think that We shall make them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds, and that equal will be their share in life and death? Ill is the judgment they make!” – Surah 45 verse 21.
"God sets forth the parable of two men : one of them dumb, with no power of any sort. A wearisome burden is he to his master; whichever way he is directed, no good does he bring. Is then such a man equal to one who commands justice, and is on a straight way ?" - Surah 16 verse 76.
In the distribution of His bounty, God gives as He pleases, taking account of man’s efforts. Man must work for whatever he will have. God’s is a meritocracy system.
“Verily, We have created man into toil and struggle.” – Surah 90 verse 4.
“…It is We who portion out between them their livelihood in the life of this world. We raise some of them above others in rank, so that some may command work from others. But the Mercy of God is better than that which they amass.” – Surah 43 verse 32
“In no wise covet that which God bestows more freely on some of you than others. To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn. But ask God for His bounty. God has full knowledge of all things.” – Surah 4 verse 29.
For completeness, I must mention one other aspect in which, in my view, the system of governance under the Federal Constitution may not sit completely with Islam of the Holy Qur’an. It has to do with concepts of crime and sentencing and the precepts of forgiveness and pardon.
Our system of governance, like that of most other modern states, treats wrongdoings which are criminal as, in addition to offences against the individual victim, offences against the state. The implication that flows from this is that, in most cases, particularly homicide, even if a complaint of a crime by the victim or the next-of-kin of the victim of a homicide is withdrawn, that is not the end of the matter. The individual victim or the next-of-kin of the victim of homicide may have forgiven the crime, but the state has not.