October 24, 2012
‘Islamic-secular state’ wrangle caused by semantics
by Terence Netto@http://www.malaysiakini.com
COMMENT by Netto:
The wrangle over whether Malaysia is an Islamic country or a secular state that has welled up again in the public arena in recent days is more a matter of semantics than it is due to conflicting apprehensions of relevant clauses in the Federal constitution.
Words are so chameleon-like they can take on slightly different meanings in the course of history or even in a protracted argument.
When the constitution was drafted in the immediate prelude to the proclamation of Merdeka on August 31, 1957, the words “official religion” and “secular” – though the latter term, as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz pointed out, does not appear in the wording of our constitution – were not considered antithetical.
Then, the meanings conjured up by both terms were not understood as being diametrically opposed as they are now.
A country could be Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Protestant, Catholic or Islamic in the sense that a distinct majority of its citizens profess one or the other of these religions and still the same nation would be considered secular if its written constitution made the proper obeisance to what is considered church-state separation.
Pakistan was not considered an Islamic state – as distinct to an Islamic
country – when it was created in 1947. It was only in 1978 that General Zia ul-Haq proclaimed the country an Islamic state, contrary to the aspirations held for it at its birth by the country’s founder, Mohamed Ali Jinnah.
The separation between church and state, in countries that otherwise were considered partial to the religion of its majority, merely meant that the state would disdain taking sides in religious disputes should they arise, that it won’t be unduly influenced by the precepts of the religion in its administration, and that it won’t allocate an undue amount of the country’s resources for the sustenance of the practices of the majority religion.
These caveats were the fruit of the Enlightenment philosophy of John Locke, who in the late 17th century erected the ideological scaffolding on which were built the concept of church-state separation.
The notion that a country could have an official religion, such as Anglicanism in Britain, and still be secular in its politics was held to be not only feasible but also desirable.
Things changed from 1979, with the establishment of the Islamic regime in Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The blood that flowed in the immediate prelude and aftermath of Khomeini’s rise to power and the totalistic view of the Islamic conception of life under a clerical regime (“Islam is politics or it is nothing,” Khomeini said) induced a revulsion among non-Muslims, especially those resident in Muslim-majority countries, against the notion of an “official religion” or anything that smacked of theocracy.
‘Secular state’ and sexual orientation
Paralleling the growth of this aversion among non-Muslims was the rise 
among Muslims of Opposition to the notion of a “secular” state when it became evident to them that such secularity as is envisioned by the term entailed the lifting of prior legal disbarments on homosexuality and consequent recognition of same-sex marriages.
Muslims consider the latter practises anathema. When it became obvious in recent decades that what is encompassed by the meaning of “secular state” with regard to the sexual orientation of citizens and the state’s neutrality in respect of differences flowing there from, Muslim opposition to the term hardened into an article of faith.
Hence now you have a situation where, generally, non-Muslims are opposed to the notion of an “official religion,” that they take to mean a theocracy, while Muslims find the whole notion of secularism repugnant.
This gulf in apprehension of the terms “secular” and “official religion” has been influenced by world history of the last half century, specifically the lifting of the legal disbarment on homosexual conduct by British Home Minister Roy Jenkins in 1966 and the establishment by Khomeini of rule in Iran by Islamic jurists in 1979.
Thus when proponents of the “secular” and “Islamic” standpoints clash over such terms as the meaning of “secularism” and “official religion,” it is akin to the effect of an argumentative voice on the deaf.
Would things have been so had not arch-liberal Jenkins led the liberalisation of sexual mores in mid-1960s Britain and arch-Islamist Khomeini not come to power in Iran more than a decade later?
Hey Netto, stop this spinning.
Just ask PAS, especially Pakatan Rakyat’s Imam, Nik Aziz. that senile and incoherent Menteri Besar of Kelantan to state clearly their stand on Huddud and their vision of an Islamic state. We should be very concerned about the state of Islam and the Ummah, instead of this political game of using religion under rubric of an Islamic state. Even Anwar is scared to come out strongly on this issue. He too is scared of losing Malay support.
Nazri Aziz is trying to make Pakatan Rakyat edgy. The Minister in charge of Parliament does not care about the Islamic state. All he cares is about having fun at Pakatan Rakyat’s expense.
No merit in this discussion. Period.
Leave the Constitution alone.
Octo’ism is the road to perdition. It’s the difference between Fascist Racist Caste-like Feudalism and Enlightened modernity. It is certainly not the difference between conservatism and liberalism or even right from left.
If and when the Opposition comes to power, it is incumbent they uphold the Law and precedents in separating secular law and syariah law into their own respective compartments – as had been done before the advent of Octo’ism.
Ghoulish cadaver snatching, state enforced dhimmihood, religious fascism/fanaticism and militant Islamist Fundamentalism should be buried henceforth. So much for Locke-isms.
Ahmadi Hussein,
Netto has no legal training and so he has no alternative but to assume his role as a talking head. And talking heads do what talking heads do – they spin. Especailly with Netto who loves to hear the sound of his own voice.
“Hence now you have a situation where, generally, non-Muslims are opposed to the notion of an “official religion,” that they take to mean a theocracy, while Muslims find the whole notion of secularism repugnant.” — Net-0
Now this is a stretch bordering on intellectual masturbation on the part of the writer.
A student of Malaysian constitutional history would tell you that the difference is not over semantics when it comes to Article 3 of the Federal Malaysian Constitution. There is a clear choice in the use of ‘state’, ‘official’ and ‘religion of the federation’. The reason for the draftman’s choice for the term “religion of the federation” under Article 3 lies in its intent. It should be apparent that with a 50% non-Muslim population in the 1950s the intent is not to create anything but a secular state.
The worry among the Malays who are Muslims then was that they were fast becoming a minority in their own country. Their concerns about the impact uncontrolled migration of races with little in common with their values, customs and religion had to be addressed. To allay their fears constitutional safeguards were introduced in the Federal Constitution of 1957. Religious freedom was guaranteed for non-Muslims: Article 11. But this Article was qualified by sub-clause (4).
The intent of Article 3 is clear. The religion of Islam is given a constitutional status and constitutional safeguards are incorporated into the Federal Constitution of 1957. State ceremonies are to be given a Malay and Muslim flavor. Malaysia is meant to be a secular state but with state funding allowed for religious education of the Malays, building of mosques and religious schools
Non-Malay and non-Muslim friends who grew up with me in school questioned the vast sums of money being spent on the building of mosques. But that is only because they have no knowledge of the Federal Constitution of 1957.
We had the right balance under the first three Prime Ministers. But this was to change when the Old Goat flanked by Anwar Ibrahim as his sidekick stepped up the process of Islamization, a process which is for the most part politically motivated and calculated to wrest control from PAS.
Fast forward some 30 years the country is now on a different trajectory.
A prominent Malaysian wrote this about 13 years ago.
Quote: “A strong revival Islam has swept across the world. This is a force that cannot be ignored.
In this country, it has gathered its own momentum during the last 30 years. It has enveloped Malay professionals in spite of their western education overseas.
The government has been directly involving in building mosques all over the country, the Islamisation of banking and insurance and the spread of Islam to the world. It took the initiative of establishing an International Islamic University in Malaysia.
The propagation of Islam is no longer the preserve of the ulamas in the kampungs. Indeed, today’s ulamas are better educated, holding university degrees. They speak English, Arabic, Malay and other languages as well.
The government (may have) embarked on a policy of the revival of Islam, but in the process it has unleashed a force that has gathered momentum and there is no turning back. We all have to live and deal with this aspect of our society, both by Muslims and non-Muslims.
Just look at the number of city Malays women with covered heads, the Halal signs on food products in supermarkets, restaurants and five-star hotels, the Qiblat signs in hotel rooms.
In a very short space of time, the mosques have been filled to capacity with Muslims of all ages during Friday prayers, compared with the congregation of old people and pensioners only as late as the early 1970s. When the Shah of Iran was asked whether he had an ulama as a Member of Parliament, he replied: “Yes, one, but that is one too many!” Unquote.
Hussin,
You are all over the map here. What’s your point?
The process of Islamization has been at the expense of religious freedom. It has entered into all spheres of public life and private life of Malaysians. It has entered in the living room of all Malaysians – even into our bedrooms. Is that good or bad??
Religion is most divisive. Hence over here we separate religion from state. Government cannot makes laws establishing and promoting one religion over another referred to as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and the other is the Free Exercise Clause (one has the right to believe in any religion and there is no such thing as a thought crime).
I would take a stand that secularism does not have an absolute right either to dominate or ridicule and abuse the sacred territory of Islam. As an example hudud. If it does, conflict, then, is writ large in this dominating vision of secularism.
Mr. Bean mistook me for hasan above – I haven’t said anything yet on what Netto wrote.
Netto seemed to be giving too much significance to the liberal Jenkin’s lifting of the legal disbarment of homosexual conduct in his writing. Wonder whose interests he is trying to promote & fight for in this respect.
I would say a truly Islamic state would require no man-made written constitutions as the Quran is available for the ummah and Islam does not separate “church & state” as it is all encompassing. Malaysia with its written constitutions is not truly an Islamic state. The so-called Constitutions of Medinah (Yathrib) were really the intial agreements between the various groupings of its population then before the Quran was complete.
“We all have to live and deal with this aspect of our society, both by Muslims and non-Muslims.” — Hussin
Says who??
We certainly do not have to put up with the body snatching, the incarceration of apostates who are only exercising their freedom to choose what to believe, the forced conversion, the right of converts to Islam to return to the religion of their birth.
These are serious infringements of our fundamental liberties guaranteed under the country’s Federal Malaysian Constitution of 1957.
This is one hot potato that even the DAP which takes pride in its record of safeguarding fundamental liberties will not touch.
“I would take a stand that secularism does not have an absolute right either to dominate or ridicule and abuse the sacred territory of Islam” – hasan
“Ridicule and abuse the sacred territory of Islam”?? That’s a load of gibberish. Try to at least sound intelligible.
“Says who??” – Mr Bean
His full article ‘What Ails Our Society?’ appeared in The Edge in December 1999. It is too long for me to cut paste it here. Try google lah.
Islam would not go the way of Christianity. Secularism should incorporate this realization into its vision, and conflict then would give away to mutual learning.
“The status of Islamic law as the best we can achieve in the name of Islam is the Muslim aspiration for the future; to denigrate its clear guidelines with their emphasis on justice, equity and fair dealing is to denigrate the law and present Islam as an obscurantist faith to the eyes of the world.” [sic]
“That’s a load of gibberish. Try to at least sound intelligible.” – Mr Bean
I would suppose we have equal freedom to interpret and criticize or even condemn any viewpoint.
I have my own cherished values.
How about giving us in your own words? Plagiarism is serious. Cut and paste doesn’t help readers understand your thoughts on the issue..
Hello, Mr. Bean, you have misquoted me at your @5:13am remarks and mistook me for hassan at your @8:51pm earlier. Please take more care. Thanks.
The origin of modern Islamic state ideas and opposition to secularity came from India-Pakistan first and then Iran with starting inspiration in failing of Ottoman Empire – they came from failed/failing states, not really about sex.
Its why UMNO/BN corruption, abuse of power and mismanagement is a bigger threat to possible Hudud than PAS will ever be in this country..PAS did not lose to UMNO for decades because UMNO got more Islamic, UMNO got more successful running the country first..Its no coincidence that UMNO loses in states where it also does the worst administratively..
This argument, while important and will be critical eventually, is important only in decades to come when only the Malays who will dominate the demographic must decide on their own…
God does not rule Man. Man rules Man.
Man is Fallible in the name the Law he imposes on others.
So why must your version of ‘God’ and Religion impose on my conscience?
Sacred Law is written in the Heart, and not of Stone.
the choice between Secularism and Theocracy is like choosing between the D or R in your Proton Saga.
the dividing of India and Pakistan according to religion is a good example, the latter will forever be on the drip from the US of A (the biggest recipient of aid from the haram USA). islamic state my foot, they can’t even solve their own problems since 1947.
malaysians got to keep their heads screwed on and follow the 1957 malaysian Constitution as it is originally meant.
Pardon me for saying this, the law minister is cheeky and making the statement he made a big joke : ” nowhere in the Constitution does it state that ours is a ‘Secular’ Constitution ” = cheeky, b’coz he leaves it hanging there. Does he mean if not Secular therefore the corollary should be that Malaysia is an Islamic state ?
Its clear that he was deliberate, being a crude ‘ politician’ he is. My take : he wants PAS followers to abandon ship, and come back to shore of ” UMNO ” and be part of his ” Islamic state ” which UMNO is projecting – crude political propaganda….and our friend Netto fell for it….spinning round & round unable to come to centre…
Big joke, no ?
Where’s on earth a nation with 60% muslim majority population isn’t an Islamic state…??!!
Poor tony doesn’t know his geography, nor anything about geopolitics.
Suggest he take up the cheapo Airasia X or budget Mas tours more often.
Try Indonesia, Turkey, Lebanon, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and all the other ‘tans except Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even Oman has a more liberal Islamic stance than the madly hypocritical Mullahs of this country.