The Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court. The writer says in Malaysia, the interpretation of Islam is not monolithic. — AZHAR MAHFOF/The Star
THE DEBATE surrounding the politico-legal character of Malaysia – whether it is a secular or religious (Islamic) state – is both ongoing and complex. This discussion is far from new and is likely to persist due to several fundamental factors; the demographic composition, the Federal Constitution, the State Constitutions and varying interpretations of Islam itself.
This article will explore these four aspects with examples to address the question of whether there can be a true separation between the State and Islam in Malaysia.
Demographic Composition
Malaysia is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country where Muslims form the majority of the population, accounting for approximately 61.3% as of the last census.
This demographic reality shapes the nation's identity and the political discourse surrounding the role of Islam in governance.The influence of Islam on Malaysian society is evident in various policies and public norms. For instance, the government’s promotion of Islamic values through initiatives like the “Islam Hadhari” (Civilisational Islam) policy under former then prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Also, the presence of religious officers in almost every government department to ensure Syariah compliance.
Another example is the widespread implementation of Islamic banking and finance, which has become a cornerstone of the Malaysian economy, reflecting the religious leanings of the majority Muslim population.
However, the Muslim community today, particularly the youth, differs significantly from Muslims 40 years ago. Factors such as a deeper understanding of the Quran and increased exposure to religious texts and discussions on the internet have empowered them to be more critical and discerning.
This new generation may not be as easily influenced by religious authorities as before, leading to a broader spectrum of interpretations and practices within Islam. This shift could further reduce the State's ability to impose a singular, authoritative interpretation of Islam on the population.
The Federal Constitution
The Federal Constitution of Malaysia is central to this debate. Article 3(1) of the Constitution declares that "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation."
This has been subject to various interpretations, and how it is interpreted can have a profound impact on the relationship between state and religion.
The case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor (1988) is a landmark example where the Federal Court ruled that Malaysia was a secular state. The case involved the challenge of the constitutionality of the death penalty under Islamic law.
The court decided that the constitutional provision of Islam as the religion of the Federation does not imply that Malaysia is an Islamic state – in the sense of a theocratic state – but rather indicates that Islam holds a special position within a secular framework.
However, there are judicial pronouncements in the same judgment that could be used to further the argument that Article 3 ought to read broadly to give effect to the Muslim belief that “Islam is all encompassing”.
Hence, Article 3 has also been cited by Islamist lawyers to argue that the State should actively support and promote conservative Islamic views.
This interpretation has significant implications, especially considering that the Federal Constitution does not provide a specific definition of "Islam." This lack of definition allows for a broad interpretation of how Islam should influence state policies.
On the other hand, if the judiciary were to interpret Article 3 to mean that the State must protect the right to profess Islam in any form by the Muslims, it could lead to the State not endorsing or enforcing any particular interpretation of Islam. This could result in lesser state involvement in the private religious affairs of Muslims and potentially dilute the state's control over Islam.
State Constitutions
State Constitutions in Malaysia add another layer to this debate. In Malaysia, Islam is a state matter, as provided for under the Federal Constitution. Each state has its own authority over Islamic affairs, which means that the role of Islam and the implementation of Islamic laws can vary significantly from state to state.
The Federal Constitution grants the sultans or rulers of the respective Malay states the authority over Islamic matters within their territories. This includes jurisdiction over matters such as Islamic law, religious education and the administration of mosques.
For instance, the State Constitution of Selangor explicitly states that the Sultan is the head of the religion of Islam in the state, with the power to advise and regulate the practice of Islam, including the appointment of religious officials. Similar provisions exist in other states.
The degree of enforcement and interpretation of Syariah law can vary, depending on the state's religious authorities and the interpretations they adopt. These examples underscore that Islam in Malaysia is not governed by a single, centralised authority but rather by individual state governments.
However, it also creates a complex legal landscape where the relationship between state and religion can differ significantly across the country.
Interpretation of Islam
The interpretation of Islam itself is a crucial factor in this ongoing debate.
In Malaysia, the interpretation of Islam is not monolithic, and which interpretation gains mainstream acceptance will significantly impact the relationship between state involvement and the private affairs of Muslims. I cannot say for certain that we have a culture of open debate on diverse interpretations of Islam.
The diversity of Islamic thought in Malaysia can be seen in the differing stances of various religious scholars and political figures on issues like apostasy and religious freedom.
For instance, the case of Lina Joy v. Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (2007) the Federal Court ruled that the matter of apostasy fell under the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. I observe that increasingly in many Muslim circles there are discussions as to whether or not Islam allows the State to control what is seen as purely personal religious rituals, for example Friday prayers and fasting.
Moreover, there are interpretations of Islam, though currently a minority, that argue Article 11 of the Federal Constitution – guaranteeing freedom of religion – is consistent with the freedom of faith as taught in the Quran. Verses such as Surah Yunus (10:99) and Surah Al-Baqarah (2:256) emphasise that there is "no compulsion in religion" and that belief is a matter of personal conviction.
There are numerous other verses in the Quran that emphasise the personal responsibility and accountability of one's faith. Should these interpretations gain mainstream acceptance, it could lead to a significant shift in how the state engages with the private religious affairs of Muslims, potentially fostering a greater separation between state and religion in practice.
The debate on whether Malaysia is a secular or religious state is unlikely to be resolved definitively anytime soon.
The complexity of the issue, driven by the Muslim majority, the Federal and State Constitutions, and the interpretation of Islam, ensures that this topic will remain a subject of continuous discussion. Whether a clear separation between state and Islam can ever be achieved in Malaysia remains an open question, one that will continue to evolve as the nation's socio-political landscape changes.
The examples provided illustrate that while secular principles exist within the legal framework, the influence of Islam is pervasive, and any attempt to define Malaysia’s politico-legal character must grapple with these dual realities.
The future of this debate may hinge on which interpretations of Islam gain prominence and how they reconcile with the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and the application of Article 3.
