Islamisation in Malaysia

Islamisation in Malaysia : its impact upon our system of governance and way of life.

If by the “ process of Islamisation” is meant increasing or heightening the awareness and inculcation of the precepts of justice, equality, kindness, charity, forgiveness, compassion, love and humility within our society and our governmental authorities, I would join Azmi in calling for the continuance of this endeavour.

Unfortunately, I do not think that this is what Azmi means.

Let me say it again: 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.

It may be helpful to recall Azmi’s quoted statement and the questions I posed earlier in relation thereto.

Azmi’s statement: “We have every right to seek the continuation of this process of Islamisation”.

My 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 will try to assess the impact of the ‘process of Islamisation’ unfolding in our country on our system of governance and way of life by a reference to these questions.

Azmi’s Islamisation

The Malaysiakini report dated 24^th July, 2006 referred to earlier is most informative. It reports that at the forum that Azmi chaired, it was resolved that the mass media ‘should not advocate the view of Malaysia as not being an Islamic state and Islamic practices as merely a matter of private morality’.

From this, we may surmise two assertions by Azmi and the participants at that forum:

Malaysia is an Islamic state; and
Islamic practices is a matter of public morality.

Malaysia is an Islamic state

By Islamic state, does Azmi mean our secular state which is on the whole consistent with Islam of the Holy Qur’an as I have suggested earlier?

Again, I do not think this is what Azmi means.

I repeat: 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.

And if I am right that this is not what he means, must not Azmi then tell us, given the assertion that Malaysia is an Islamic state, what has become of the secular state that the Reid Commission and the Supreme Court in Che Omar Che Soh and Teoh Eng Huat spoke of?

Can Azmi point out to us some amendment to the Federal Constitution, pursuant to Article 159, by which our ‘Islamic’ secular state has been lawfully replaced with this non-secular Islamic state that he now speaks of?

Will Azmi point to us the one successful model Islamic state in existence today upon which the ‘Islamic state of Malaysia’ has been fashioned? Pakistan? Sudan? Afghanistan? And if he will concede that, as I contend, there is no such model, will he then tell us the nature of Islamic state that has been fashioned in Malaysia?

Let’s set the record straight once and for all.

This ‘process of Islamisation’, as Azmi puts it, in our Malaysian context, had been going on for some time. My guess is it would have started round about the early 80s. About the time that Anwar Ibrahim was roped into the Barisan government.

Then, this process was never alluded to as part of a move to change the nature of our country from being secular into a theocratic regime. The reality, then, as it is now, is that no government of the day, even if it wished to, could hope to persuade 2/3 of the total number of parliamentarians to amend the Constitution and set in motion the lawful transformation of this country into an Islamic state.

In September, 2001, Dr. M made his now infamous declaration that Malaysia is an Islamic state (or country, I am not sure). Barisan component leaders were deathly silent, possibly perceiving this as mere political rhetoric to thwart PAS’ ‘Islamic state’ agenda, or simply unaccustomed to disagreeing with their boss, in public at least.

Non-Muslims may also have perceived this ‘are we or are we not an Islamic state?’ debate as being one between Muslim factions that need not concern them.

In the result, except for the odd protest, the most notable being from YB Lim Kit Siang, Dr. M’s declaration was not met with the condemnation it roundly deserved.

That first silence in September, 2001 was perceived by Azmi and the ‘we’ as the first hairline crack in the wall of our secular state. Push hard, they first thought, and then did, in the belief that if they pushed hard enough, the wall would crumble. They had good reason to trust they would prevail, given that they were being agitated, aided and abetted by those in the highest offices, men and women who had sworn to defend the Constitution but who now were on a course to rip it apart.

As they pushed with all they had, the silence of all other Malaysians, Muslim or not, which continued until of late, would have given hope of a nation about to capitulate and surrender. That which the government of the day could not hope to achieve through due parliamentary process was thought might be achieved by a few through the damning silence of the majority.

The ‘we’ that Azmi speaks of are still pushing. This push to change our system of governance otherwise than by due parliamentary process is categorized in our statute books as offences against the state, or commonly referred to as treason. Measured against the Holy Qur’an and the sunnah of the Holy Prophet, it is unIslamic.

God commanded the Holy Prophet in respect of alliances entered into with the non-Muslims:

"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.

The sunnah of the Holy Prophet in relation to any Command from God was:

“I hear and I obey” – Surah 2 verse 285

Will Azmi and the ‘we’ now tell us in what way the Constitution has been breached such that they are entitled to now abandon the same?

The truth is we are still a secular nation. The truth, also, is that the push to bring the secular wall down continues.

Islamic practices is a matter of public morality

This assertion, like an orange stripped of its peel, exposes the ‘process of Islamisation’ of Azmi and the ‘we’ for what it is.

By this assertion, does Azmi mean the practice of the several precepts that I alluded to as defining, for me, Islam, the way of life of peace through surrender to the Almighty, as laid down in the Holy Qur’an?

Does he mean that the practice of justice and equality by the government must be matters of public morality and hence open to public scrutiny? Does he mean that kindness to parents and provision of maintenance for children should be made legally obligatory? That laws be put in place to ensure wildlife and eco-conservation? Breach of trust and cheating be made offences in our statutes? Libel, slander and breach of contract should not go without compensation? Human rights precepts be given the fullest protection of the law?

I wish it were so but, no, I do not think that this is what he means.

Let me say it again: 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.

You will recall that at the very outset, I mentioned laws that prohibit me from trying to live the Islam that I have come to understand. Let me illustrate this point now by reference to several offences on the statute books applicable in the Federal Territories. These illustrations may also go some way to shed some light on the question I posed earlier: in our Malaysian context, when did this process start?

In Surah Al-Baqara verse 183, God prescribes the ‘saum’ for the believers. This is elaborated in verses 184, 185 and 187.

‘Saum’ is generally translated to mean ‘to fast’ or to abstain from, generally, food, drink and coitus during the daylight hours in the month of Ramadhan.

In all humility, I have to say that I do not share this understanding of ‘saum’. So I do not fast.

Now verses 184 and 185 are generally translated to read that if one is on a journey, one may defer the fast and make up for it on another day. This part of verse 185 is followed with;

“God intends every facility for you and does not want to put you to difficulties”.

Every authorized translation of the Holy Qur’an translates verses 184 and 185 to mean that the fast may be postponed if on a journey.

Section 15 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act, 1997 (after this referred to as the “FT Offences Act”) makes it an offence, during the hours of fasting in the month of Ramadhan, to sell to any Muslim any food, drink, cigarette or other form of tobacco for immediate consumption during such hours, or for a Muslim openly or in a public place to be eating, drinking or smoking.

You will note from the terms of section 15 that even for one who subscribes to the general understanding of ‘saum’, if he were on a journey and chose to defer the fast, yet he would be prohibited from eating, drinking or smoking openly or in a public place, even though God has given him leave to defer the fast.

“Why do you forbid that which God makes lawful?” – Surah 66 verse 1.

“Has God permitted you this, or do you forge lies and attribute them to God?” – Surah 10 verse 59.

“And, for what your tongues describe, do not utter the lie, saying, ‘This is lawful and this is unlawful’, in order to forge a lie against God. Surely those who forge lies against God shall not prosper.” – Surah 16 verse 116.

Take also the matter of consumption of intoxicants.

Most who profess a faith in Islam take the view that consumption of intoxicants per se is a sin. I do not share this view. I am particularly guided by Surah 5 verse 93.

“On those who believe and do good there is no blame for what they eat, when they are careful, believe and do good deeds. God loves those who do good.”

It does not matter that you do not share my understanding of this verse and all of the others that may or may not have a bearing on the issue of consumption of intoxicants. What does warrant constant remembrance is that all of us have been given Divine leave to study the Holy Qur’an and to take such guidance therefrom as we will.

As always, I am mindful that I could be wrong in my understanding.

I am also mindful of the Divine Command with regard to this difference in understanding.

“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.

Section 19 of the FT Offences Act provides, though, that any person who in any shop or other public place, consumes any intoxicating drink shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM3,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

God says that He will judge us on matters on which we differ. For those who authored and championed section 19 of the FT Offences Act through Parliament, God’s Word is plainly not enough!

Are you now getting a sense of what Azmi and the ‘we’ mean by ‘Islamic practices is a matter of public morality’? Still unclear?

Let me then tell you about the Friday congregational prayer.

‘Salat’ in the Holy Qur’an is generally translated and understood to mean the obligatory prayers. Prayers, for me, have come to mean my quiet, private, intimate communion with God. ‘Salat’, for me, encompasses this time of communion, and yet represents far more.

‘Salaati-min yaumi-l-juma’ati’ in Surah 62 verse 9 is generally translated and understood to mean the congregational prayers on Friday.

I do not share this view. Consequently I do not partake of this congregation. If I am wrong in my understanding, God will tell me and judge me accordingly.

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.

What have the ‘we’ that Azmi speaks of done?

Section 14 of the FT Offences Act provides that any male person, being baligh, who fails to perform the Friday prayers in a mosque within his kariah for three consecutive weeks without uzur syarie or without any reasonable cause shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Now, assuming I am wrong in my understanding and that the congregational prayer on Friday is indeed obligatory, can Azmi and ‘we’, by the sanction of man-made law, compel the performance of this duty owed to God and to no other?

See what God Commanded the Holy Prophet:

“O Prophet! Surely We have sent you as a witness, and as a bearer of good news and as a warner, as one inviting to God by His permission, and as a light-giving torch. And give to the believers the good news that they shall have a great grace from God. And be not compliant to the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and leave unregarded their annoying talk, and rely on God; and God is sufficient as a Protector.” – Surah 33 verses 45-48

“Surely We have revealed to you the Book with the truth for the sake of men. Whoever follows the right way, it is for his own soul and whoever errs, he errs only to his own detriment. You are not a custodian over them. ” – Surah 39 verse 41

“Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them. Whoever turns back and disbelieves, God will chastise him with the greatest chastisement. Surely to Us is their returning back, and surely upon Us is the taking of their account.” - Surah 88 verses 21-26.

“Most surely there is a reminder in this for whoever has a heart or who gives ear and is a witness. And certainly We created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods and We were not fatigued. Therefore be patient of what they say, and sing the praise of your Lord before the rising of the sun and before the setting. And glorify Him in the night and after the prayers. And listen on the day when the crier shall cry from a near place, the day when they shall hear the cry in truth. That is the day of coming forth. Surely We give life and cause to die, and to Us is the eventual coming. The day on which the earth shall cleave asunder under them, and they will make haste. That is a gathering together easy to Us. We know best what they say, and you are not one to compel them; therefore remind him by means of the Quran who fears My promise.” – Surah 50 verses 37-45

“Hearken to your Lord before there comes the day from God for which there shall be no averting. You shall have no refuge on that day, nor shall it be yours to make a denial. Yet if they turn aside, We have not sent you as a watcher over them. You are only to deliver. When We make man taste mercy from Us, he rejoices thereat; and if an evil afflicts them on account of what their hands have already done, then-surely man is ungrateful.” – Surah 42 verses 47-48

“Say: O people! indeed there has come to you the truth from your Lord. Therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright only for the good of his own soul, and whoever goes astray, he goes astray only to the detriment of it, and I am not a custodian over you.” – Surah 10 verse 108.

“I am commanded only that I should serve the Lord of this city, Who has made it sacred, and His are all things; and I am commanded that I should be of these who submit. And that I should recite the Quran. Therefore whoever goes aright, he goes aright for his own soul, and whoever goes ' astray, then say: I am only one of the warners.” – Surah 27 verses 91 and 92.

“And your people call it a lie and it is the very truth. Say: I am not placed in charge of you.” – Surah 6 verse 66.

“To every nation We appointed acts of devotion which they observe. Therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter. Invite them to your Lord, for most surely you are on a right way. And if they contend with you, say: God knows best what you do. God will judge between you on the day of resurrection respecting that in which you differ.” – Surah 22 verse 67-69.

The response of the Holy Prophet to these Commands, as confirmed in the Holy Qur’an:

“I hear and I obey” – Surah 2 verse 285

Can you now see why I contended earlier that Islam of the Holy Qur’an that enjoins justice, equality, kindness, charity, forgiveness, compassion, love and humility has long been displaced by Islam fashioned by man?

Let me now share with you two narratives from the Holy Qur’an. One is about Prophet Abraham, the other about Prophet Moses. The first gives an insight into the vitality of the process of ‘ijtihad’ or what I call the application of the God-Given power of reason in the appreciation of the Signs of God. The second puts into perspective how men who hold themselves out as being exponents in the understanding of God’s Will, by dictating unto others how, when, where and what they are to believe and disbelieve, firstly forbid the process of ‘ijtihad’ which I understand to be a duty owed to God alone, and then dupe those others, firstly to breach the Command of God ‘that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than God’ (Surah 3 verse 64) and then to ignore the warning of God of the folly of earlier generations who ‘have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides God’ (Surah 9 verse 31). I share these with you in the hope that you will begin to comprehend how un-Qur’anic the fatwa process in this country is, and the real purport behind the assertion by Azmi and the ‘we’ that Islamic practices is a matter of public morality.

Surah 6 verses 75-78 beautifully depict the process of ‘ijtihad’ by Prophet Abraham as he moved from being one who ‘follow the ways of our fathers’ to one who had come to discover and understand the truth of God.

Surah 6 verse 79 bares for us his proclamation of faith upon enlightenment.

"For me, I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to God."

Pause here just to note that Abraham by the application of the God-Given power of reason in the appreciation of the Signs of God, had come to the truth as he understood it.

Surah 6 verse 80 tells us that the people disputed with Abraham on his new-found faith. He responded:

“Do you dispute with me respecting God, when it is He Who has guided me. I do not fear in any way those that you set up with Him, unless my Lord pleases. My Lord comprehends all things in His knowledge. Will you not then also give thought? And how should I fear what you have set up, while you do not fear that you have set up with God that for which He has not sent down to you any authority? Which then of the two parties is surer of security, if you know? Those who believe and do not mix up their faith with iniquity, those are they who shall have the security and they are those who go aright.” – Surah 6 verses 80-82

Let me move now to the account of Prophet Moses.

Surah 7 verses 103-126 describes the encounter between Moses and Pharaoh. Moses and Aaron were sent by God to Pharaoh with a message that Pharaoh should set free the children of Israel who Pharaoh had long held in bondage. Thinking that Moses was in fact a skilled sorcerer, Pharaoh summoned his best magicians to pit against Moses. When those magicians found themselves soundly beaten by Moses at their own game, they fell prostrate and proclaimed:

"We believe in the Lord of the Worlds, the Lord of Moses and Aaron." - Surah 7 verses 121 and 122

For this proclamation of new-found faith, the magicians received the following rebuke from Pharaoh:

“Do you believe in Him before I have given you permission? Surely this is a plot which you have secretly devised in this city, so that you may turn out of it its people, but you shall soon know. I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and then will I crucify you all together.” – Surah 7 verses 123 and 124.

Please remember this opening castigation of the magicians by Pharaoh as we turn now to look at the fatwa process in this country.

“Do you believe in Him before I have given you permission?”

A fatwa may be translated as an ‘opinion’ or ‘view’.

Section 34 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act, 1993 (after this referred to as the “FT Islamic Admin Act”) confers on the mufti the power to make fatwa. Subsection (2) provides that no statement of the mufti shall be taken as a fatwa until it is gazetted. By subsection (3), once gazetted, a fatwa shall be binding on every Muslim resident in the Federal Territories as a “dictate of his religion” and is under a duty to uphold that fatwa, save and except where Islamic Law permits of a departure from the fatwa in matters of personal observance, belief, or opinion.

Section 39 of the FT Islamic Admin Act is significant. Subsection (1) provides that in issuing any fatwa under section 34, the mufti shall in the first instance adhere to the accepted views of the Mazhab Syafie .Subsection (2) allows the mufti to disregard the accepted views of the Mazhab Syafie and to follow the accepted views of the Mazhab Hanafi, Maliki or Hanbali when adherence to the accepted views of the Mazhab Syafie would be repugnant to public interest . Subsection (3), on the other hand, provides that when the accepted views of the 4 mazhabs would lead to a situation repugnant to public interest, the mufti may disregard all of those accepted views and resolve the question according to his own judgment.

The significance of these provisions of the FT Islamic Admin Act only become apparent when seen in the context of the offences under sections 9 and 12 of the FT Offences Act.

Section 9 of the FT Offences Act provides that any person who acts in contempt of religious authority or defies, disobeys or disputes the orders or directions of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong as the Head of the religion of Islam, the Majlis or the Mufti, expressed or given by way of fatwa, shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

Section 12 of the FT Offences Act provides that any person who gives, propagates or disseminates any opinion concerning Islamic teachings, Islamic Law or any issue, contrary to any fatwa for the time being in force in the Federal Territories shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

Sections 9 and 12 of the FT Offences Act read together with the mufti’s powers in the matter of fatwa effectively outlaw ijtihad, make it imperative that the mufti is ‘erected from among ourselves’ as lord and patron other than God and ensures that we go the way of those before us and take the ‘doctors of law and their monks for lords besides God’. The only difference between these provisions and the decree of Pharaoh is that the first threatens jail and a fine whilst the second seeks to enforce obedience with the threat of crucifixion. The purport of both are, otherwise, identical.

“Do you believe in Him before I have given you permission?”

This is the intent of the assertion by Azmi and the ‘we’ that Islamic practices is a matter of public morality. The process of Islamisation that Azmi wishes to see continued is in reality a process of ‘Islam-as I say-tion’.

It is a process that has buried a way of life of justice, equality, kindness, charity, forgiveness, compassion, love and humility under accumulations of lies and distortions by its proponents who are intent on contriving it into a mindless system of rituals as a means to dominate and subjugate the masses.

‘Islam-as I say-tion’: You will believe only 'as I say' you have leave to believe. You will do only 'as I say’ you have leave to do. You will say only 'as I say' you have leave to say.

Let me now re-state what I have been saying all along: the process of 'Islam-as I say-tion' that Azmi wishes to see continue offends the Islam that I have come to understand from the Holy Qur'an.

I can do no better in responding to the process of ‘Islam-as I say-tion’ of Azmi and the ‘we’ than to quote Abraham and the magicians in Pharaoh’s court.

“And you wreak your vengeance on us for no reason except that we have believed in the communications of our Lord when they came to us! O Lord, pour out upon us patience and cause us to die in submission to Your Will.” – Surah 7 verse 126.

Islam-as I say-tion : its impact upon our system of governance and way of life.

If my narration above on what in reality is the ‘Islam-as I say-tion’ of Azmi and the ‘we’ gives the impression that this process has only impacted those who profess Islam as their faith, I would urge all non-Muslim Malaysians to put a stop to their ‘ostrich head in the sand and you-know-what in the air’ stance and wise up to what is happening in our country.

The Federal Constitution set in place a three-armed government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. It also gave to us, you and I, rights. Let’s examine the impact on these institutions and our rights.

Executive

Dr. M’s infamous declaration was made, as we know it now, at the tail-end of his office. Rightly or wrongly, this appears to have been with a view to thwart PAS’ propaganda to establish an Islamic state.

The present PM, though, is in his first term of office. He was given a resounding vote of confidence at the last election. Yet he is traversing the world, touting Malaysia as a model, moderate Islamic country. At home, he displays a seeming unwillingness to deal effectively with aggressive ‘Islam-as I say-ists’. He openly states that a cabinet-approved policy to distribute free condoms and syringes to drug addicts to deal with an increasingly worrying Aids problem in the country was to be first referred to the National Fatwa Council for consideration! He applauds the decision in Nyonya Tahir and suggests that this is the solution of non-Muslims in ‘Moorthy’ and ‘Syamala’ type of cases: submit to the jurisdiction of the syariah courts.

Other Muslim ministers from time to time assert that Malaysia is an Islamic state. Non-Muslim ministers are shamelessly silent. When they do muster up enough gall to take a stand, it will not stand the test of time. Their gall will not see them or their memorandum of complaint through even one miserable day!

The IC Department refuses to allow for a change of particulars in the IC if it relates to a renunciation of Islam. Their rationale: get confirmation of this from the Jabatan Agama Islam or the syariah courts as a prerequisite. Never mind that the individual concerned has exercised a constitutionally guaranteed right.

The officers from the chambers of the Attorney General have, over the years, been consistently submitting in court that in the light of Article 121(1A), the jurisdiction to deal with several thorny issues, previously handled by the civil courts, now rests with the syariah courts. They have also been putting forth arguments as to the status of Islam in this country, in the light of Article 3(1), plainly at odds with the pronouncement of the law on the same by the Supreme Court in Che Omar Che Soh.

Legislature

Recall the bill to amend the Islamic family law that was tabled before Parliament in late 2005? Recall the strong objections to the same by members from the upper chamber of Parliament? Remember what happened finally? They bowed to the will of the Barisan whip. The bill was passed on the promise to review the same thereafter. We must be the only country on the face of this earth that passes a bill into law on the promise to revise it thereafter!

The IFC draft bill has been circulated to all MPs. Nobody has raised it in Parliament, with the exception of YB Lim Kit Siang. Why? Afraid that Jerai may demand that they leave this country!

Article 121(1A). Dr M responded last year that he did not realize its implications. He than says that no one objected so ‘I guess I got away with it’. Yes, no one was paying attention so that no one in Parliament realized that the real mischief was in the amendment to Article 121(1) and not the introduction of the innocuous Article 121(1A)! Why was no one paying attention? Because the opposition was in Kamunting and Barisan MPs do not question a Bill if it has the slightest whiff of Islam! See for yourself in this clip.

Judiciary

In 1987 and 1992, by which time, Article 121(1A) was already part of our law, the Supreme and Federal Courts confirm that in our jurisdiction, where there is a right there must be a remedy and the two are not separable. Consistent with this principle, in 1993, the Supreme Court in Tan Sung Mooi pronounces the law to be that where one party to the dispute is non-Muslim, justice demands that the matter remain within the jurisdiction of the civil courts, given that the syariah courts jurisdiction is only over persons professing the religion of Islam. Yet in 2003, 3 judges of the Federal Court countenance the notion that a citizen may have a right infringed but might not receive his remedy in the courts.

In the late 80s, a High Court judge ordered the release of a born Malay-Muslim who had embraced Christianity and had been detained under the ISA for allegedly propagating Christianity amongst other Malays. In the course of his judgment, the judge clearly held that the ISA could not be used to interfere with the right to profess, practise or propagate one’s religious beliefs. Throughout the court proceedings, no-one questioned the right of the former Muslim to renounce Islam. In 2001, a High Court judge now declares the law to be that a Malay can never renounce Islam.

In the early 90s, two High Court judges heard and determined on the merits whether deceased individuals were or were not Muslim at the time of death. One of those two judgments of the High Court was appealed to and affirmed by the Supreme court. In 1996, a High Court judge now says that the civil court has no jurisdiction to determine such a question, it being a matter for the syariah courts. 3 years later, the Federal Court lends support to the 1996 High Court judgment on the most dubious of grounds.

In 2001, a judge of the High Court looks at Che Omar Che Soh and says that the Supreme Court did not deal with Article 3(1). Was he right? Go check for yourself.

In that same year, another judge, then in the High Court, looks at Article 11 (1) and pronounces that the right to profess a religion does not include the right to renounce, ignoring that in Teoh Eng Huat, the Supreme Court recognized that a non-Muslim who reaches the age of majority also attains to the right to choose his own religion!

Of late, judge after judge of the civil High Court rests on the premise of ‘may have right but no remedy’ countenanced by the Federal Court to deny non-Muslim litigants their remedy in matters, very often of grave constitutional importance but involving some aspect of Islam, where the other party is Muslim, because, so it is argued, jurisdiction in the matter rests with the syariah court, ignoring Tan Sung Mooi.

There is now light at the end of this seemingly abysmal tunnel. Or so we are told. By a judge of the Court of Appeal who, it seems, has found the answer to the dilemma of non-Muslims caught up in litigation where the civil High Court has held itself to be without jurisdiction to offer that non-Muslim litigant the remedy sought. Submit to the jurisdiction of the syariah court!

One needs to be blind to not notice a marked change in the judgments being handed down by our civil courts in matters which touch upon, however peripherally, some aspect of Islam.

Has the written law related to these matters undergone a change between 1987 and now? If, as I contend, the written law has not been tweaked in the least, the question is, then what has?

Our rights

You’ve worked hard. Now you’ve bought land. Paid hard-earned money. Your building plans have been approved. The construction has been completed. The CF is finally in your hands.

Finally, the house is yours. Inside, no-one can dictate the colour of the walls, what kind of furniture you have, where you sleep, where you eat, what you wear. This is your space, to the exclusion of all others.

This is what the secular state guarantees us. Our space. Both in private and in public.

It’s what our forefathers worked for. That’s the house they built for us.

Our space is what’s at stake.

“We have every right to seek the continuation of this process of Islamisation”.

‘Islam-as I say-tion’: You will believe only 'as I say' you have leave to believe. You will do only 'as I say’ you have leave to do. You will say only 'as I say' you have leave to say.

No more mutual visits to friends houses during the religious festivities.

No more exchanging of best wishes for the others religious celebrations.

No more sitting with your wife, fiancée or girlfriend through a movie at the cineplex; now you part ways at the entrance and take your respective seats in a gender-segregated hall.

When you are re-united after the show, be careful that you do not show too much affection as you hold hands. That’s not allowed.

Banish the thought of stopping by the park to sit and watch the stars. That’s indecent.

Thinking of going dancing with her? Again, get ready to part ways at the entrance and head to the ‘same-sex’ dance floor.

No, you cannot have a Malay translation of the Bible. So what if you’re Kadazan-Christian and speak no other language?

Why are you wearing shorts?

You cannot eat non-halal food here.

Why aren’t you wearing a tudung? Who says it’s only required for official functions? That was then.

No dogs.

This bin is only for halal rubbish.

No lion-dancing.

So what if it’s not the faith of your family? Islamic religious classes is good for your son.

No, you cannot build a church here.

No, you cannot build a temple there.

No, you cannot build a gurdhwara anywhere.

You cannot use that greeting; it’s only for us.

No parties today; we are celebrating a very special birthday.

No parties, period.

No statues.

No music.

No life.

Previous Link - The system of governance under the Federal Constitution

Next Link - Will the walls of the secular state crumble? – You Decide

Back to Quick Links

Full Paper

Home