Monday 5 February 2007

Our Constitution and Islam

Constitution of Malaysia
PART I - THE STATES, RELIGION AND LAW OF THE FEDERATION

3 (1) Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

This is our constitution. What do you guys think?

This whole discussion is rather fragmented. Just random things that come to mind.

What is the purpose of having a national religion? It is just a pointless statement, or does this imply that there is a hierarchy of religions in Malaysia? Or does it mean that the constitution should be read from an ‘Islamic’ point of view? Lets assume the constitution writers did not put it in for fun. What did they aim to achieve from this provision?

From the wording, Islam is the religion of the federation. Firstly, can a state adopt a religion? I’m not too sure what this means. It doesn’t say Islam is the official religion. It says it IS the religion. Secondly, it says other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony. Does practice here mean merely privately, or openly? There is a ban in propagating other religions other than Islam to Muslims, a fundamental part of some religions. Is this a justified limitation of our freedom to practice religion? Thirly, what is ‘other religions’? Is Scientology a religion under out constitution. Malaysia has banned books by Shi’a Muslims, and has restricted their practices. Is this a restriction against religion?

Islam is the religion practiced by the majority, around 60%. However, this can be misleading because Malays are required to be Muslims by the constitution Article 160. This effectively means that Malays may not convert out of Islam because without losing their status as a Malay, and will have to forfeit all their privileges. Similarly, it is legally possible for a non-Malay to enjoy Bumiputera status under Article 153 of the constitution if they convert into Islam. Special rights for Muslims then, not Malays? Orang Asli’s are usually animist. What about them?

In practice, for Muslims to convert out of Islam is extremely difficult, and the legal process uncertain. In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts. Perlis passed a Shari’a law subjecting Islamic "deviants" and apostates to 1 year of ‘rehabilitation’. Negeri Sembilan is the only state which allows Muslims to convert into another religion. No other state allows Muslims to officially convert. In five states, Perak, Melaka, Pahang, Sabah and Terengganu, conversion is a criminal offense which can be punished by a fine or jail term. In Pahang, convicted converts may also be punished with up to six strokes of the cane. (wiki)

In my personal opinion, the constitutional writers did not intend to imply anything. They did not intend to give Malaysia a religion, or expect it to make a difference. I think the only reason it is there was to appease the Malays at that time, who feared their land and religion were being taken away from them. In my opinion, government and society has put more than deserved emphasis on this clause. It is in my opinion, the constitution of this country should remain secular. People can practice whatever they want, but the government should not interfere with this. As it is now, the government is active in infusing Islamic values into the administration of the country.

Note : Issues regarding religion and Islam is under the authority of the state, and not the federal government.

3 comments:

Ang Choon Seong said...

keep on posting!

KPUM said...

Issues relating to Islam is up to the individual states to decide. It was meant to be decentralised, and I think for good reason. Firstly, I don’t think the central government should get involved with religious issues. Personally, I think they should remain secular. We are a multi-religious community, and having a government actively promoting a religion would be imposing that religion on others. Also, lets not forget this whole arrangement was a compromise between UMNO and the sultans. Sultans surrender most of their administrative power to the central government, and in return, to preserve whatever use and dignity they have, they were allowed ‘govern’ Islamic issues. This is a fact.

The problems is that states should have authority within bounds. Freedom of religion is part of our constitution. People should be allowed to hop in and out of whatever religion they want. Personally, I think its fine to impose some sort of restriction on apostasy. The state should be able to intervene to an extent, just like they impose counselling on divorcing couples. But for states like Pahang to actually declare apostasy a criminal offence is against any practice of freedom of religion anywhere in the worlds. This should not happen.

The central government should intervene. But in Malaysia, the central government is more fundamentalist than most states. So that’s a dead end. We need the people to do it… but why should they? Apostasy in Islam is really a big deal, and to support it would be to ‘undermine’ the religion. But look at it this way, as Muslims, do you want these bitter non-believers to still declare themselves as muslims? Islam is about ‘niat’, about intention. If they have no intention to remain as muslims, let them go somewhere else. Just because Islam is still on their IC, it doesn’t mean they are muslims at heart. And consider the image of Islam. A religion that has no way out, except with death. What happened to the tolerant friendly religion we learnt about in schools? Having rules like this seems like it’s a punishment to be born a Muslim. You think this encourages anyone to convert into Islam? So as idealistic as this may sound, it is the Muslims of Malaysia who needs to make the first step. Fight to get rid of this rule, and people will be more willing to stay. And who knows, some will be more willing to join.

KPUM said...

woi people... comment la!