JANUARY 23 — In Malaysian political discourse of the last few decades, the question of whether Malaysia is a secular or Islamic state has been a perennial one. 

This is owing to the fact that Islamofascists are now trying to expand their remit and the tool which would enable them to achieve total dominance is Islamic law. Thus it is expedient for them to resist secularity in order to boost their own importance. 

The rakyat must realise this chicanery in order to oppose this territorial expansion before our nation is lost to Talibanism. 

Aidil Khalid’s rebuke of Professor Clive Kessler’s essay affirming Malaysia’s secularity is one such manoeuvre. Aidil considers Kessler’s comment to be audacious, where Kessler dismissed Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar of the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association and Azril Mohd Amin of the Centre for Human Rights Research and Advocacy, as mere “creative legal innovators and myth makers.”

This implies Aidil’s own support of a religious state. However, I found his criticism of Kessler’s essay to have blatant logical flaws. In other words, Aidil fatally shot himself in the foot when making his arguments. My contentions are as follows:

Firstly, Aidil pointed out that Kessler “disingenuously add(ed) words that are not there just to satisfy a certain ideology that (he) believes in.” Aidil uses the legal precedent “[r]espect must be paid to the language which has been used and to the traditions and usages which have given meaning to that language.” Brilliant. 

The word in question here is obviously “secular” and its derivatives. This word is not explicitly in the Constitution and hence is added to the discourse. This is actually a function of language. Language is the medium of communication and words are used to efficiently describe any phenomenon. 

If one is asked whether the Malaysian Constitution is religious or secular, then the descriptive word would definitely be secular regardless whether the word is actually there or otherwise. Reason being, religious law only extends to Muslims and that too to only a portion of Shariah’s legal framework. In the totalitarian nature of Shariah, this is unacceptable. One cannot reject portions of the law and still claim to be religious. So secular is not an unfair description. 

Let us now turn Aidil’s demand for linguistic accuracy unto himself. Indeed the word “secular” is not there but neither is the phrase “Islamic state.” We must remember, Aidil demands that respect must be paid for the traditions and usages of terms. By that measure, the term “Islamic state” (ad-dawlah al-islamiyyah — a state which fully practises Shariah law) is a clearly defined term in the Islamic religious tradition and yet is glaringly absent from the Constitution! 

“Islamic state” is not synonymous with the religion of Islam and it is the “religion of the federation” which was mentioned in the Constitution! Aidil must therefore take heed of his own principle and acquiesce that the Constitution is also not proposing an “Islamic state.”

Furthermore, as Aidil rightly pointed out that Article 3(1) of the Constitution says that “Islam is the religion of the Federation.” He seemed vehemently recalcitrant at Kessler’s interpretation that this meant that Islam is the “official emblematic religion.” His reason was that the words “official” and “emblematic” were not there. 

He called Kessler’s interpretation “constitutional fraud, not to mention intellectual dishonesty.” What then should we call Aidil’s own interpretation that “the religion of the federation” actually means “Islamic state”? Aidil must also pay the same linguistic respect to the word “religion” as stated in our Constitution. It must be understood within its own tradition. Since it was written in the British English of the time which had clearly experienced the separation of church and state, “religion of the federation” cannot mean “religious state” any more than the Queen being the defender of faith implies that Britain is a Christian state. Aidil must not make fish of one and fowl of the other. 

The second point follows from this. Why was the wording of the constitutional provision constructed as such? Islam is the religion of the federation. The federation is not a sentient being that can profess a religion! Hence it is the interpreters of the Constitution who will decide the Islamic religiosity of the federation. 

Let us employ an analogy to shed light on this. If we say “Islam is the religion of Mr Ahmad”, what does this mean? It can mean a number of things. It could be that Ahmad was born into a Muslim family but never acknowledged his faith instead just carrying on with his life. He may engage in unIslamic activities as well. Ahmad could also be practising aspects of Islamic culture such as praying and fasting. He may well be a socialist or nationalist without losing his Islamic identity (like Umno practises Malay-racism while claiming to champion Islam). Ahmad could also be an activist for the establishment of an Islamic State. All these descriptions are possible by the statement “Islam is the religion of Mr Ahmad.” Such is the ambiguity and expansiveness of language. 

What then should we do? This brings us to the third point — application of the Constitution. Aidil should be in full support of application as a measure of interpretative correctness if he wishes to remain true to Traditional Islam. This is owing to the fact that in Traditional Islam, the Prophet and later the companions are hailed as the true interpreters of the Quran. 

Hence, the initial interpretations of the Malaysian Constitution could not have been different from its intent. If it was, legal disputes would have arisen. So while Aidil rightly pointed out the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, he could not come up with any judicial statement disclaiming Tunku Abdul Rahman’s affirmation that Malaysia is not an Islamic state. Tunku was right in the middle of these events and so for him to reject the notion of an Islamic state would be tremendously egregious for the judiciary had they truly supported an Islamic state. In fact, they never did. 

These manoeuvres attempting to depict Malaysia as anything other than a secular state must be recognised and the rakyat must be well educated in the arguments. For example, they must ask the Islamofascists if they are allowed to support Malay-racism. 

In reality, the Islamofascists are doing nothing more than to attempt to exaggerate their own importance by expanding their territorial remit. We must stand firm and defend the secularity of the nation before they bring it down to the level of the Talibans. Malaysia would truly be lost then. 

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.