Secular in spirit

IS Malaysia a secular or an Islamic state?

With the current debate over PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang’s Private Member’s Bill to amend syariah laws – which some see as a backdoor attempt to push for hudud and make Malaysia an Islamic state – the perennial issue has resurfaced yet again, and again.

For former Malaysian Bar president Ragunath Kesavan, the answer is clear – Malaysia was founded on secular principles.

The word “secular” may not appear in the Federal Constitution, he says, but it can be traced back to the 1957 report of the Reid Commission, which was tasked to prepare the supreme law of the land.

“In a memorandum submitted by the Alliance (predecessor of Barisan Nasional) it was stated that the religion of Malaya shall be Islam. The observance of this principle ... shall not imply that the state is not a secular state,” he quotes from the report.

Islamic Renaissance Front founder Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, who has written extensively on the issue, says he has also noted that.

When challenged on the point in 2014, he had stated that it was not only the Reid Commission which asserted that Malaya was not to be an Islamic state: “It is an assertion made by the very people who were to become the government of the newly independent nation. As we can see in the report, the Alliance had this to comment: ‘... in an independent Malaya, all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed ...’”

Both Ragunath and Dr Ahmad Farouk were speakers at a recent forum organised by the Council of Churches Malaysia and Wesley Methodist Church Kuala Lumpur which posed the questions, “Malaysia: secular or religious? What is our future?”

Before this neverending contention can be resolved, however, says Dr Ahmad Farouk, it is important to understand why the idea of secularism strikes such great resentment and fear among most Muslims in the country.

He points at world history.

Political secularism only emerged after the Wars of the Religion in Europe in the 16th Century between the government and different Christian churches, he tells.

To end the fighting, secularism – separation of state and religion – became the answer.

“Prior to the 17th century, Muslims never had a need to think about secularism. The religion-state relations in both Western and Muslim societies were quite similar,” says Dr Ahmad Farouk.

Consequently, in the Muslim psyche, secularism carries a negative baggage as it is linked to Western colonial rule and postcolonial Muslim tyrant leaders like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who is also held responsible for the end of the last Islamic caliphate, the Ottoman Caliphate, in 1923.

Dr Ahmad Farouk also draws attention to how the word “secular” is tainted with the connotation of being anti-religious and has even been wrongly defined as atheism, while noting that France’s brand of secularism is increasingly perceived as anti-Muslim.

“That’s why some Muslims have a problem with secularism, or when another person tells them that religion is between you and God only, or you and the mosque...”

What many don’t realise is that Islamic State is also a “modern concept”, says the reformist Muslim intellectual.

“How many times do you think the term ‘Islamic state’ is mentioned in the Quran? Zero,” he highlights, pointing out that it was the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate that led to some Muslim scholars pushing for a new entity known as the Islamic state.

“The concept of an Islamic state was not known in the Islamic world before that. The main intention of the scholars who touted the idea was to stem the onslaught of Western imperialism.”

What about the future?

To reconcile secularism and religiosity – crucial for a diverse country like Malaysia – Dr Ahmad Farouk strongly believes that we can learn from Tunisia, which is recognised as the first Arab-Islamic democracy.

Its brand of democracy, or “twin tolerations” as described by political scientist Alfred Stepan, prescribes to a mutual respect but clear separation between political authorities and religious leaders and bodies.

Under twin tolerations, religious institutions are given the freedom to exercise their religious authority, but within the boundaries – they do not wield direct political power.

He explains, “Basically it means religious authorities should not ‘interfere’ in the governance of the state and public policies; anyway, we have already elected people to represent us in Parliament and form public policies.”

This is the most amicable way to get Malaysians of all races and religions to unite, Dr Ahmad Farouk asserts.

“I think if we can negotiate this, we will all be able to live happily, because the Muslims will not feel threatened that their faith is being ‘diluted’ with the infusion of this separatism idea, and the non-Muslims or minorities will not feel threatened that their rights are being trampled on or feel persecuted because their lives are infringed upon.”

After all, he reiterates, “Malaysia was built on the concept of separation of state and religion – that was the intent of our forefathers who basically wrote our constitution.”

Civic group Bebas member Azrul Mohd Khalib agrees that secularism is the best approach to govern Malaysia.

Muslims here have nothing to fear about secularism, he stresses.

“Secularism does not mean atheism. A secular state is a state that purports to be neutral in the matters of religion and it supports neither religion nor irreligion. When we look at the nature of a secular state and the relationship between the state and religion, what we are talking about is the separation of the state and religion...”

He adds, when you talk about a secular state, it also claims to avoid preferential treatment to citizens of a particular religion or non-religion.

Secularism protects both believers and nonbelievers, he says.

“It seeks to ensure that there is freedom of religion for all citizens and ensure that freedom of thought and consciousness is applied to both believers and nonbelievers.

“It is not about catering to any religious groups or leaders, and it doesn’t seek to challenge or debunk any tenets of religion or impose atheism on anyone.”

He adds, secularism also provides a framework of equality throughout society – such as equal access to education, public services and in law, for believers and nonbelievers.

For those who fear that Malaysia is straying from the “Islamic path”, Azrul points to the syariah-compliant provisions in our laws, policies, institutions and other daily practices and transactions.

He relates his experience working with the Health Ministry, where a Jakim (Department of Islamic Development Malaysia) officer is always present at their administrative meetings.

“No decisions (on policies and programmes) are finalised without seeking the advice of the Jakim officer.

“It is with his ‘yes’ or ‘no’, that any suggestion or plan flies or dies.”

Azrul suggests there is a need to examine if the religious authorities are overreaching and breaching the Federal Constitution.

“If you look at the original understanding of where syariah should be (in the Federal Constitution), it is strictly limited and defined. Today, they (the religious authorities) are involved in everything. They are not stopping at what the Federal Constitution has declared to be their jurisdiction,” Azrul claims.

Ragunath stresses that the supremacy of secular law in Malaysia was upheld in the landmark case of Che Omar bin Che Soh vs PP, in which the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the death penalty for drug trafficking was unconstitutional for offending the principles of Islam.

The court upheld that while Article 3 of the Federal Constitution recognises Islam as the religion of the federation, it does not allude to Malaysia being an Islamic state, confirming that the country is secular, he says.

Crucially, we need to remember the second part of Article 3, which reads: “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Azrul alleges that Article 3 is being used to impose dominance and insist on superiority in the country.

“If we are talking about infringement of people’s freedom of religion in the country, it is already happening and has been happening for a long time.

“For example, today there are state enactments that allow religious authorities to enter places of worship of other religions like temples and churches in their effort to protect the Muslims from the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs, such as the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Among Muslims) Enactment 1988,” says Azrul. He evokes the words of the country’s Father of Independence Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra who had said in 1983, “In my previous statement about religion, I have said that this country is secular, not an Islamic state.”

Quips Azrul, “If anybody is to know the intent or identity of the country, wouldn’t it be Tunku Abdul Rahman?”

What we need is the moral leadership, specifically in the judiciary, to ensure that the integrity and sanctity of the Federal Constitution is protected.

Ragunath attests, “In any civilised country, it is the court that provides the direction and interpretation of the requirements of the Federal Constitution.”

Azrul urges all to defend Malaysia’s secular identity and preserve the diverse makeup of our nation.

“The country is now already very religious. I strongly believe that it is with the secular model that we have the best chance of creating a society where people of all religions or none, are able to live together in harmony and unity.

“We need to ask ourselves, what kind of Malaysia do we want, for our children, and their children?”