Time Putrajaya opens debate on Shariah law, say academics

Putrajaya can no longer ignore the debate on the role of Islamic law in Malaysia, say academics. – The Malaysian Insider file pic, January 19, 2015.

The entry of another group of Malay intellectuals and former civil servants in the public debate on the role of Islamic law in Malaysia is a sign that Putrajaya cannot ignore the issue any longer, say academics, pointing to the numerous cases where religious laws have conflicted with civil law and rights of non-Muslims.

Although the two groups – one made up of 25 former high-ranking civil servants and the other comprising 35 ex-civil servants, Muslim scholars and academics – hold different positions on Shariah law, they both want a relook at how the Federal Constitution and Shariah laws are supposed to function in Malaysia’s multireligious society.

The academics argued that instead of looking at these two groups as different camps and labelling them “moderates” or “non-moderates”, they should be looked at as representing different shades of the same spectrum.

The question is how Shariah law should complement the Federal Constitution and deal with the rights of non-Muslims.

The debate goes beyond party politics or who will win the next general election. It will determine what kind of country Malaysia will evolve into in the next few decades.

The academics said that instead of deciding on the issue behind closed doors, the ruling Barisan Nasional should open the door and manage this discussion so that it occurs rationally and freely.

To do the opposite and selectively use the law to silence critics of the issue while allowing religious incitement to continue would only worsen tensions, they added.

Different but also similar

To sum up, one group is termed the 25, because of their open letter published on December 8 that was signed by 25 former high ranking civil servants, including directors-general, secretaries-general, ambassadors and prominent individuals.

The other can be called the 35 and they wrote a January 12 open letter rebutting the arguments of the 25. The 35 are made of ex-civil servants, Muslim scholars and academics.

The 25 want Putrajaya to start open discourse and consultation to put an end to conflicts between state Shariah laws and the Federal Constitution.

They claimed that overzealous state religious authorities have breached their jurisdictions when implementing Shariah law. At the same time, extremist NGOs have been allowed to get away with inflammatory statements while dissenting voices are silenced.

The 35, on the other hand, argue that it is not religious extremism that is the biggest problem in Malaysia but the growing communal divide in politics, business, education and housing.

The 35 accuse the 25 of wanting to “roll back” the policy of integrating Shariah law into Malaysia’s legal system.

A close look at their two open letters reveals that they have some similarities despite their different views.

Political scientist Associate Professor Shaharuddin Badaruddin of Universiti Teknologi Mara said their letters reflected a deep frustration over the direction the country has been heading.

“There has been a feeling of frustration among intellectuals and the middle class about where the country is going. Where these two groups differ is in the source of the problem,” he said.

Another political scientist, Assoc Prof Maszlee Malik, felt it would be too simplistic to say the differences between the two groups mean that the Malay Muslim community is split between one group and the other.

Rather, they represent a diversity of opinion on the subject of Islamic law and communal relations instead, he said.

“Differences of view are not something to be perceived as something bad, however arrogant and adamant they are,” said Maszlee, of the International Islamic University.

A timely, necessary debate

The review both groups are calling for should be openly debated, said Shaharuddin, adding that after 57 years, Malay Muslim attitudes have changed.

In the early 1980s, the government introduced conservative Muslim practices and rituals in the civil service and public schools as a response to an emerging wave of Muslim groups that were influential in society.

A 2005 survey by Universiti Malaya of 1,000 Muslims found that a majority of them chose being “Muslim” as their primary identity followed by “Malaysian” and “Malay”.

“Religious authorities are also more assertive now in terms of moral policing. Some say that is their function. But when their work starts conflicting with the Federal Constitution, that becomes a problem,” he said.

Shaharuddin said the fact that these two groups are currently driving the debate about how to resolve these conflicts is a good thing since up till now Muslim voices were perceived to be coming only from the likes of Perkasa and Isma (Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia), both right-wing Malay groups.

“These two groups are rational, alternative voices that want the debate to be peaceful. Which is better than just having Perkasa and Isma.”

How that debate will be resolved and whose policy prescription ultimately gets adopted is a process that will be long and exhaustive, and which needs as much input from experts as well as ordinary Malaysians, said Shaharuddin.

“It cannot be done through open letters in the media. There must be actual discussion between the two sides that must be controlled so that it remains peaceful."

Valid points and blind spots

It would also be unwise at this point to say that only one of the two groups is right, said Shaharuddin,

“There are valid points that both groups make.”

The 25, for instance, are right to point out that there is selective prosecution. Voices who criticise policies on Islam and Shariah law (as opposed to Islam itself) are silenced.

“Whereas some extremist groups are not prosecuted under the same law,” said Shaharuddin.

The 35 are also right to highlight the very real ethnic divide that threatens communal stability.

But both also have blind spots. For all the publicity the 25 have received, Shaharuddin and Maszlee questioned their silence on Malaysia’s other critical problems.

“Where are they to champion other crucial issues in Muslim society, such as poverty, injustice, unequal opportunities, urban poverty, cronyism, corruptions, leakages?” asked Maszlee.

Shaharuddin also said neither group seems to pay attention to the problems in Malaysia’s economy which affect far more people and are a bigger worry for ordinary Malaysians.

This is why Shaharuddin believes it is important that the debate on Shariah law be properly and transparently managed.

A proper on-going debate or discussion would ensure only the best and most enlightening ideas emerge which Malaysians can either agree or disagree with.

Also, it prevents the issue from being hijacked by extremists to sow fear and intimidation, which distracts people’s attention from other pressing problems in the economy and politics.

- TMI