IF history and world events have taught us anything, it’s that religious dogma does not a legal system make. Littered throughout the annals of time, we have seen that religion has been and is still employed by politicians (back then they were called warlords and kings) to impose their will on subjects and to further their agendas.
It can be seen in American politics where the Republican Party regularly engages in Christian populist rhetoric in order to drum up support for their “socially conservative” and “family-oriented” policies, which include and are not limited to: school prayer, embryonic stem cell research, homosexuality, abortion and contraception.
This is seen in Asia as well, whereby the Philippines is the only country in the world other than the Vatican where divorce is still banned. This can be seen as an enduring symbol of the power and influence of the Catholic Church in the Philippines.
Moving a bit closer to home, strict blasphemy laws have been abused to persecute minority religious groups and atheists. Recent examples that come to mind would be the persecution of Jakarta governor ‘Ahok’ and the incarceration of an Indonesian man who denied the existence of God on social media.
Now, let’s move to the crux of the issue that strikes home. The proposal to empower the Syariah Courts and long-term goal to implement Hudud law – first in Kelantan, then Malaysia – by PAS has rocked the very core of our nation’s identity and government. During last week’s parliamentary sitting, there was confusion on Wednesday as Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi suddenly summoned all Muslim MPs for a special briefing session on PAS’ private member’s bill to strengthen the Islamic Courts under Act 355.
A day after that, PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang read his motion for the amended version of the bill but deferred it to the next parliamentary sitting. Though a welcome respite, by no means have we seen the end of this. PAS’ proposal to greatly empower the Syariah Courts will set an ugly precedent that will become the cornerstone on which PAS and religious fundamentalists can use to press on for an eventual implementation of Hudud in Malaysia.
There is no denying that we cannot let these amendments past as it will embolden a certain minority group of religious fundamentalists to pursue Hudud law and the establishment of a Malaysian Islamic State, completely undoing our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of worship, secularism and pluralism.
Let us not forget that Malaysia was conceived with the intention of being a secular state with Islam as the official ceremonial religion. In the process of drafting the Malayan Constitution, the Alliance Party submitted a memorandum to the Reid Commission, “The religion of Malaya shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state.”
Now on to the founding of Malaysia, the Cobbold Commission in drafting the Constitution of Malaysia agreed with the earlier Reid Commission on the secularism of Malaysia, saying, “We agree that Islam should be the national religion for the Federation. We are satisfied that the proposal in no way jeopardises freedom of religion in the Federation, which in effect would be secular.”
In fact, Malaysia only experienced rapid ‘Islamisation’ in the early 1980s as the cleric-led PAS faced-off with Mahathir’s Umno in a battle to win the hearts and minds of the Malay rural heartland. In this vein, politics between both parties veered strongly into religious territory with both trying to be more ‘Islamic’ than the other.
PAS doubled-down on Islamic fundamentalism rhetoric and Umno countered by injecting Islamic values and principles into the bureaucracy, financially backing the growth of Islamic religious education and mosques, the development of Islamic banking, as well as expanding the powers of Islamic-based state statutory bodies such as Jakim and the National Fatwa Council.
Hudud was not part of the deal when the Federation of Malaysia was formed and it will absolutely infringe upon non-Muslim rights and our daily lives. A separate set of laws for Muslims will definitely affect non-Muslims because we don’t live in silos. Muslims and non-Muslims alike interact freely in everyday life and there are bound to be instances where crime is committed across religious lines. When that happens, there are no clear guidelines on whether non-Muslims would be subjected to civil courts or Syariah courts if Muslims are also party. Therefore, possibly exempting non-Muslims from punishments prescribed for Muslims would birth an unfair and discriminatory justice system. If this is the case, non-Muslims will ultimately be subjected to Hudud.
Besides, Islamic fundamentalists have already made the weight of Islamic law and norms felt even before Act 355 or Hudud is passed. For instance, who can forget the statements by the Kelantan mufti strongly urging non-Muslims to dress conservatively and not to eat or drink in front of Muslims throughout Ramadan as these actions may forfeit their fast. Quite erroneous to suggest that the actions of non-Muslims can affect the private faith of Muslims, no? This is just one example from a litany of occurrences where Muslim authority figures have encroached on the fundamental freedoms of non-Muslims. What more when Hudud is law?
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. Government and religion must be separate, if we wish to live our lives according to our fundamental and religious freedoms as well as to prevent leaders using God as a political tool. God is above politics, don’t mock Him.
Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].