KUALA LUMPUR, March 27 — A former Chief Justice’s assertion that laws contradicting the Quran are null and void has no constitutional basis, progressive lawyers said.

In fact, they argued that Tun Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim’s reading of the law was simply flawed and incredible.

Former Malaysian Bar president Christopher Leong asserted that while Article 3 of the Federal Constitution may state that Islam is the religion of the Federation, it is only intended to describe the country’s official faith.

“Although Article 3 of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation, it goes on to state that all other religions may be practised in peace and harmony,” Leong said to Malay Mail Online.

“It can thus be seen that Article 3 speaks only to the spirituality of the nation, and is an expressed recognition that it’s a multi-religious country and all religions teach good and must be permitted,” he added.

The former Malaysian Bar president also said that if Shariah or Islamic scriptures were to be the supreme law, it would have been clearly outlined in the Constitution.

“It does not state that Islamic scriptures or laws are the supreme laws,” he said.

“If it was intended that Islamic scriptures or laws were to be the supreme or overriding law, then the constitution would have plainly and simply stated so.

“(But) The constitution does not state so,” he added.

Ahmad Fairuz had told a lecture on “Islam as the law of the land” Saturday that the supremacy of Shariah law was only second to the Federal Constitution.

He also said anything that “is in contradiction to Islam is unconstitutional”.

Constitutional lawyer Syahredzan Johan, in an immediate reaction, said the former CJ’s views were wrong, pointing to a past precedent in a drug trafficking case where the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty on religious grounds.

In the 1988 Che Omar Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor case, the defendant had argued that because Islam is the religion of the Federation as per Article 3, any law contrary to Islam would be unconstitutional.

The counsel in that case had argued that since the death penalty for drug trafficking is not hudud or qisas punishment, it is hence contrary to Islamic injunctions, making it unconstitutional.

“(But) The Supreme Court rejected this argument and further held that if this was the case there would be a provision stating that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam would be void,” Syahredzan wrote on his Facebook page.

“The Supreme Court held as well that ‘not much reliance can be placed on the wording of Article 3’ to sustain the submission that the death penalty is unconstitutional vis a vis Islamic law,” he added.

He further noted that the ruling is still binding and subsequent court decisions are based on the precedent.

Ahmad Fairuz had based his argument on a privy council ruling in Singapore which said that a law can only be valid if it conforms to the fundamental rules laid down by English law.

“However, as Islam is the federal religion, surely the fundamental principles of the law should be based not only on the English common law, but on the Shariah,” he said.

But Lawyers for Liberty chairman Eric Paulsen said it was unbecoming for a former CJ to make such an assertion since the Constitution is clearly secular as spelled out in the provisions.

“I am not sure why the ex-CJ would say that as an honest reading of Malaysia’s history and Constitution would clearly show that his claim is rather incredible. I can only assume that he is grandstanding to the crowd in order to hit home a political point,” he said.

“Our Constitution is secular in nature and founded upon parliamentary democracy, fundamental liberties, equality and the rule of law… (it) does not derive its ultimate authority from the Quran”.