The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia,
Re : Restoration Of Faith Bill ( Rang Undang-Undang Pemulihan Aqidah )
We, the undersigned, all professing the religion of Islam, hereby make complaint that the abovereferred proposed legislation, should it become law, would constitute an infringement of our constitutional right, as enshrined within the terms of Article 11(1) 0f the Federal Constitution.
1) On Sunday, 17th September, 2000 and Monday, 18th September, 2000 it was reported in several of the daily newspapers that a Parliamentary Bill aimed at restoring the faith of Muslims and prohibiting deviant Islamic teachings was in the final stages of preparation and would be submitted to the chambers of the Attorney-General for scrutiny before it is tabled in Parliament. Quoting the Parliamentary Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Department, Noh Omar, the reports detailed some of the contents of the Bill as follows :-
(a) provision would be made to empower the religious authorities to detain those Muslims involved in
deviant teachings and practices for up to a year at faith rehabilitation centres; and
(b) provision is made to empower the religious authorities to check incidences of apostasy amongst
Muslims in the country.
2) Sometime in February and/or March of this year, a number of websites on the internet carried summaries of a proposal of a similar nature which was intended to be tabled before the Selangor State Assembly ( hereinafter referred to as the “Selangor Bill”. Those summaries alleged that the Selangor Bill was intended to provide for the rehabilitation and determination of the faith and/or belief of a Muslim. Those summaries further allege that the Selangor Bill, when read as a whole, lays down that the faith and belief of a Muslim must be in conformity with the tenets of the Mazhab Shafie, Hanafi, Maliki or Hanbali. It was further alleged that the Selangor Bill made provision to authorise the summoning to appear before the judge of the Syariah Court of a Muslim who was suspected of attempting to change his faith and thereafter to order his detention at a faith rehabilitation centre for a period not exceeding one year. The summaries further allege that upon expiry of the period of detention, should the detainee refuse to recant from his views and beliefs, he will then be declared an apostate and, where applicable, his marriage dissolved.
3) Sometime in June or July of this year, the Perlis State Assembly tabled and
approved a Bill which is rumoured to be somewhat similar in content to the
Selangor Bill.
In 1996, the Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia ( JAKIM ) defined deviationists as being those who professed the religion of Islam but whose practices were “contrary to Islam which is based on the Al-Quran and al-Sunnah and against the teaching of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah”.
The Faith Of The Complainants
The complainants, as Muslims, premise their faith entirely on the Al-Quran and the sunnah of the final prophet. However, the complainants do not subscribe to the points of reference of the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah to ascertain the sunnah of the final prophet. Whilst the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah rely on several other books together with the Al-Quran, the complainants rely only on the Al-Quran as their point of reference to ascertain the sunnah of the final prophet. The Al-Quran is, for the complainants, the only point of reference upon which they profess and practice the religion of Islam.
The difference in the point of reference between the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah and the complainants does give rise to differences in the practice, faith and beliefs between the former and the latter. Some of these differences are fundamental and have in the past caused and would now cause the complainants to be perceived as deviationists by the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah.
Article 11(1) Of The Federal Constitution
The abovementioned Article, without any qualification save that in clause (5) therein, guarantees unto the complainants their unfettered right to profess and practice their religion. The religion of the complainants is Islam which, as is stated in Article 3(1), is the religion of the Federation. The Constitution, however, does not define Islam, nor delimit Islam to the perceptions of the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah.
The guarantee afforded to the complainants pursuant to Article 11(1) effectively entitles them to peacably practice Islam as they, in good conscience, understand the precepts of that religion to be, premised on the Al-Quran, without any interference of any nature from any quarter, so long as their religious practices do not occasion a contravention of any general law relating to public order, health or morality. This right must, of necessity, allow for a difference of religious perceptions of Islam, subject only to the restrictions imposed by clause (5). This is clearly embodied in Article !8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which unequivocally provides that “ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in a community with others and in public or private, to manifest his belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” It is noteworthy that the very Act which gives life to this Honourable Commission requires that regard shall be had to the provisions of the abovementioned Declaration and, more particularly relating to the instant complaint, Article 18 narrated above.
The Complaint
The Proposed Bill, should it become law, would strike at the very heart of the fundamental liberty guaranteed under Article 11(1), to every Muslim whose faith and belief is not in total accord with the perceptions of the Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah. Firstly, such a law would allow for the interference with a person who is intent on renouncing Islam. This is the first strike at the liberty guaranteed under Article 11(1) and emphasised in Article 18 of the said Declaration : the freedom to change one’s religion or belief. Secondly, this intended law would clothe the religious authority with power to interfere with the complainants unfettered right to profess and practice their religious beliefs and expose them to the possibility of incarceration without trial for no reason other than that their religious beliefs do not accord with that of the mainstream.
The inherent dangers posed, should the Proposed Bill become law, is aptly described by Justice Jackson in the U.S. Supreme Court case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 63 S Ct. 1178 (1943) when he stated thus : “Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. ….freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.”
For the above reasons, the complainants ask that this Honourable Commission make due inquiry into the matters hereinstated. The complainants are prepared to appear before this Honourable Commission to assist in the inquiry of the matters complained herein, should this Honourable Commission so require.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,