If Muslims really want freedom of expression and the liberty to read whatever they want to read, then Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution should be abolished.
Boo Su-Lyn, The Malay Mail Online
I agree with the Federal Court decision to dismiss Ezra Zaid’s legal challenge against Section 16 of the Shariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 in the case of religious authorities seizing the Malay translation of Irshad Manji’s Allah, Liberty and Love.
Ezra, director of ZI Publications, and his company had tried to nullify Section 16 of the Selangor Shariah law that prohibits the publication of books or documents that are “contrary to Islamic law.”
The apex court rightly noted that Article 74(2) of the Federal Constitution allows states to enact Islamic laws relating to offences by Muslims against the precepts of Islam.
More importantly, Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution clearly states that federal or state laws may be enacted to “control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief” among Muslims.
Section 16 of the Shariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, thus, appears to be consistent with Article 74(2) and Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.
If Muslims really want freedom of expression and the liberty to read whatever they want to read, then Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution should be abolished.
Article 11(4) contradicts Article 10 that protects the right to freedom of speech and expression.
While liberals may argue that the Federal Constitution is supreme to Islamic law and point to the Court of Appeal decision in the transgender case — which ruled that Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Shariah Criminal Enactment 1992, which prohibits cross-dressing, was unconstitutional as it violated fundamental liberties like freedom of expression – Article 11(4) is a salient point in Ezra Zaid’s case.
We need to get rid of the idea that the Federal Constitution is an untouchable document that must be upheld at all costs, be it the provisions related to Islam or fundamental liberties. Law professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi reportedly said that the Federal Constitution has been amended 51 times since Malaysia’s independence in 1957.
The Federal Constitution is not perfect.
Aside from Article 11(4) that grants sweeping powers to the federal or state governments to control what Muslims read, Article 10(4) should also be abolished as it allows the enactment of legislation that prohibits one from questioning Part III (citizenship), Article 152 (national language), Article 153 (special position of the Malays and of Sabah and Sarawak natives) and Article 181 (rulers’ sovereignty).
The revision of Article 10 to allow the prohibition of public discussion on these so-called “sensitive” issues was done in 1971 after the May 13 race riots in 1969.
Not being allowed to talk about these issues hinders Malaysia from growing as a nation. It also allows state-sanctioned discrimination against minority groups, with no avenue for victims to seek redress as they’re not even supposed to question the so-called “sensitive” matter of Malay privileges.
In Ezra Zaid’s case, Muslims, like other Malaysians, may have freedom of expression, but there are a string of state laws, as empowered by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, that do not allow Muslims to publish books that are deemed unIslamic.
Article 11(4) doesn’t even specify that the control of religious propagation among Muslims covers non-Islamic faiths, but simply “any” religious belief. This means that the government can prohibit whatever philosophy or thought related to Islam as well. The government is allowed to decide what Muslims think about religion and God and how they should practise their faith. Article 11(4) is utterly abhorrent.
Who decides whether a particular book is “unIslamic”? That would be the state religious departments.
It’s unclear if the Selangor Islamic Religious Department or the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department (in Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz’s case involving the same book), had actually read Allah, Liberty and Love, or if the religious authorities merely opposed the book simply because the Canadian author Manji is a lesbian.
In an interview with US non-profit Center for Inquiry, Manji said: “I even accept the possibility that my creator reject my homosexuality as a sin, but only he can make that judgment.”
I’ve not read the book, but a review by Omar Sultan Haque, postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University, indicates that Allah, Liberty and Love questions “conformist religiosity” and that Manji believes having progressive ideas will allow Muslims to break taboos against things like killing apostates or gay people, or treating non-Muslims equally. Muslims can think for themselves and use reason to dissent from mainstream religious opinion, according to Manji, who’s also a feminist.
Seeing how Malaysia’s religious authorities (and the government) hate dissent and frown on people being able to think for themselves, it’s not surprising that they’d try to ban or seize Manji’s book (only the Malay translation since, apparently, they believe that Muslims can only read Malay, a point noted by the High Court in quashing the ban).
It’s a difficult balancing act — trying to balance between the fundamental rights of all Malaysians, including Muslims, and the various Shariah laws that control Muslims in almost every facet of their lives, from what they read to how they dress, pray, or have sex.
The best way to ensure that all Malaysians, regardless of religion, are free to think as they please is to eradicate the institutionalisation of Islam in the country.
Get rid of Islamic laws and Islamic government departments. Let Muslims live their lives according to how they personally see fit.
If the government is allowed to control what you think about religion, a fundamental issue that some use to find their purpose in life, then the government has carte blanche to decide how you should live. What a frightening idea.
- TMI
Ezra, director of ZI Publications, and his company had tried to nullify Section 16 of the Selangor Shariah law that prohibits the publication of books or documents that are “contrary to Islamic law.”
The apex court rightly noted that Article 74(2) of the Federal Constitution allows states to enact Islamic laws relating to offences by Muslims against the precepts of Islam.
More importantly, Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution clearly states that federal or state laws may be enacted to “control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief” among Muslims.
Section 16 of the Shariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995, thus, appears to be consistent with Article 74(2) and Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.
If Muslims really want freedom of expression and the liberty to read whatever they want to read, then Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution should be abolished.
Article 11(4) contradicts Article 10 that protects the right to freedom of speech and expression.
While liberals may argue that the Federal Constitution is supreme to Islamic law and point to the Court of Appeal decision in the transgender case — which ruled that Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Shariah Criminal Enactment 1992, which prohibits cross-dressing, was unconstitutional as it violated fundamental liberties like freedom of expression – Article 11(4) is a salient point in Ezra Zaid’s case.
We need to get rid of the idea that the Federal Constitution is an untouchable document that must be upheld at all costs, be it the provisions related to Islam or fundamental liberties. Law professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi reportedly said that the Federal Constitution has been amended 51 times since Malaysia’s independence in 1957.
The Federal Constitution is not perfect.
Aside from Article 11(4) that grants sweeping powers to the federal or state governments to control what Muslims read, Article 10(4) should also be abolished as it allows the enactment of legislation that prohibits one from questioning Part III (citizenship), Article 152 (national language), Article 153 (special position of the Malays and of Sabah and Sarawak natives) and Article 181 (rulers’ sovereignty).
The revision of Article 10 to allow the prohibition of public discussion on these so-called “sensitive” issues was done in 1971 after the May 13 race riots in 1969.
Not being allowed to talk about these issues hinders Malaysia from growing as a nation. It also allows state-sanctioned discrimination against minority groups, with no avenue for victims to seek redress as they’re not even supposed to question the so-called “sensitive” matter of Malay privileges.
In Ezra Zaid’s case, Muslims, like other Malaysians, may have freedom of expression, but there are a string of state laws, as empowered by Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, that do not allow Muslims to publish books that are deemed unIslamic.
Article 11(4) doesn’t even specify that the control of religious propagation among Muslims covers non-Islamic faiths, but simply “any” religious belief. This means that the government can prohibit whatever philosophy or thought related to Islam as well. The government is allowed to decide what Muslims think about religion and God and how they should practise their faith. Article 11(4) is utterly abhorrent.
Who decides whether a particular book is “unIslamic”? That would be the state religious departments.
It’s unclear if the Selangor Islamic Religious Department or the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Department (in Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz’s case involving the same book), had actually read Allah, Liberty and Love, or if the religious authorities merely opposed the book simply because the Canadian author Manji is a lesbian.
In an interview with US non-profit Center for Inquiry, Manji said: “I even accept the possibility that my creator reject my homosexuality as a sin, but only he can make that judgment.”
I’ve not read the book, but a review by Omar Sultan Haque, postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University, indicates that Allah, Liberty and Love questions “conformist religiosity” and that Manji believes having progressive ideas will allow Muslims to break taboos against things like killing apostates or gay people, or treating non-Muslims equally. Muslims can think for themselves and use reason to dissent from mainstream religious opinion, according to Manji, who’s also a feminist.
Seeing how Malaysia’s religious authorities (and the government) hate dissent and frown on people being able to think for themselves, it’s not surprising that they’d try to ban or seize Manji’s book (only the Malay translation since, apparently, they believe that Muslims can only read Malay, a point noted by the High Court in quashing the ban).
It’s a difficult balancing act — trying to balance between the fundamental rights of all Malaysians, including Muslims, and the various Shariah laws that control Muslims in almost every facet of their lives, from what they read to how they dress, pray, or have sex.
The best way to ensure that all Malaysians, regardless of religion, are free to think as they please is to eradicate the institutionalisation of Islam in the country.
Get rid of Islamic laws and Islamic government departments. Let Muslims live their lives according to how they personally see fit.
If the government is allowed to control what you think about religion, a fundamental issue that some use to find their purpose in life, then the government has carte blanche to decide how you should live. What a frightening idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.