special report The debate on the extent of an Islamic administration especially when it begins to intrude into the lives and rights of non-Muslims has touched the nerve of many Malaysians, including Muslims.

Citizens groups have gone public with a request for the prime minister's intervention to uphold and protect rights guaranteed under the constitution but the difficulty will be in balancing the opposing interests.

These concerns are elaborated further by Muslim Professionals Forum president Dr Mazeni Alwi, Jamaah Islah Malaysia president Zaid Kamaruddin and Article 11 coalition member/lawyer Haris Mohamed Ibrahim in a series of interviews with malaysiakini.

Malaysiakini: What do you think most bothers non-Muslims with regards to faith issues?

Mazeni: Two things. One is on the political front where Islam is much talked about by two main parties that want to be seen in some way as its champion. It is partly genuine, partly to gain votes as politicians need votes to survive. But I think the worry from that is overblown and has always been exploited by some other political parties saying that Malaysia is becoming a theocratic state.

To me, it's an exaggerated response about the worry that Malaysia is becoming an Islamic state. There is nothing to worry about. Just look at Bangsar, Bukit Bintang and anywhere in Kuala Lumpur. You don't really see Islam creeping into these places, do you? In fact, Islam is on the retreat in these kind of places.

Second is the administrative side of Islam with problems arising from people converting for marriage, which is the law as it stands. There will be friction that will arise out of that but what is good or bad I think is up to the people to voice out. We have the justice system and the forum for discussion which is not utilised as much as we'd like to. People prefer to air their opinions in ways that are not very fruitful.

In terms of administrative problems, a lot of Muslims and even of other faiths do not practise their religion. We don't really bother if a person with a Muslim name does a lot of things which Islam dislikes, discourages or prohibits but I think what Muslims find a bit difficult is when they make noise and generalise things and publicise them.

There are Muslims in KL who are very modern at the same time there are many more in the small towns and villages who are very conservative, very traditional where Islam is a huge part of their lives. So, when such matters are publicised it upsets people. It's a matter of sensitivity but if people want to do anything they want it behind closed doors, I think that's fine.

Haris: Between the Muslims and the non-Muslims, the problem arises simply because there is an attempt to enlarge the perimeters that the Supreme Court in the Che Omar Che Soh (1988) case said is allowed for the Islamic administration. The court was very explicit that Islam under the Federal Constitution is only envisaged as operating within a narrow corridor, personal law between persons professing the religion of Islam.

The moment someone says I do not profess, he's out of the fold. You cannot begin to impact those laws on this individual if you respect Part II of the constitution. The moment you want to start to tinker simply because you want to enlarge your scope, that's when you have a problem and that's happening now.

What's your take on the Article 11 campaign?

Mazeni: I think both sides have a right to express their ideas and arguments but in the end, we have the courts, both the civil and the syariah, which may not be perfect. I think both are capable of resolving the issues except that people should not be too emotional on either side.

We have to accept that the syariah system is fairly new in terms of dealing with this kind of problems and Moorthy's case shows that non-Muslims are unhappy and there are grounds for that. I think by the time the Nyonya Tahir case came, both sides were satisfied with the outcome although it was not favourable to Muslims. It is the right of non-Muslims to have that kind of judgment and I respect that.

A lot of these things can be resolved but we need to put our faith in the justice system especially in these types of cases which is really a non-political issue. It's only right that we put our trust and faith in the court system and if it is imperfect, hopefully as society matures and progresses we should be expecting a more just and better outcome.

I truly respect the right of non-Muslims to have justice by either the syariah or civil courts in matters that touch Muslim and non-Muslim interaction. I think non-Muslims deserve the same justice as Muslims. As for Shamala's case, I'm not exactly clear on the facts but I think in matters where it is difficult to resolve, we can't expect the court alone to come up with a decision that satisfies everyone, especially in a very complicated case like this.

I think there is room for prominent individuals, even the government to sit down and take this further. I don't think we should resort to name-calling and demonstrations. In this case, I agree there are areas where it is very grey and so complicated being neither here nor there that there is room for discussion and for the government to organise a forum or platform to resolve it. It won't be easy, I'm sure.

I think in the past we took for granted that the non-Muslims will keep quiet over such unfair judgments but things are a bit different now and Muslims should listen more but then again I'm not very sure whether or not a body like the IFC (interfaith council) is the right one especially when there has been a lot of bad feelings on both sides. Maybe the government should take it on a case-by-case basis but it's not that common an issue that happens every month.

I'm sure society will mature when these issues get discussed. In the beginning, there might be a lot of distrust and suspicion but eventually I'm sure we'll get there, it's just a matter of time. As long as this is not exploited for political purposes, I think we can leave it to the good sense of people. I have a lot of faith in people. We've done a lot better than other plural societies even though we're younger.

In our history, not very many have been killed for religion although even one death is bad but we're not as bad as, say, India, Bosnia, Eastern Europe or Somalia. I'm quite optimistic. You hear a lot of noises and angry reactions but it ends there. I don't think Malaysians are that stupid to go through a bloodbath over this issue. As I said, religion is in retreat so not many people are willing to die for it.

Why do you think the non-Muslim Malaysians are having it good?

Zaid: They can almost completely practise their religion and there are powerful symbols to rally people for support. Of course, they also have their complaints but even the Muslims have their own complaints for being unable to fully practise Islam.

We also have our surau and madrasah that are being demolished for the same reason, for being illegal structures and built without planning approval. Ours is also very well-regulated and people assume that the state carries Islam but they don't.

The government doesn't practise Islam. We have a Muslim leadership which actually practises the western values instead. The community's view is that the government is serving the interest of the non-Muslims fully but not the Muslims. If you want to put it in a very sensitive, emotional manner, we say that a Muslim has not been allowed to live by what his religion wants him to unlike the rights of other faiths in spite of the jagged edges like (the issue of) apostasy.

If the government wants to allow Muslims to run the country or live by the code of Islam, then they should allow the syariah to be applied to Muslims. We're not talking about applying the syariah to non-Muslims. At the moment, the syariah application is only selective not in full. Technically-speaking, the Muslims are losing out a lot.

Haris: I think it begs two questions, how they want to practise and in what way it is lacking. I agree that the system of government is unIslamic because it is so corrupt that it doesn't meet the requirements of any basic orthodox faith. Address corruption and I agree with them there is nothing Islamic about our system. Get corruption out and we'll be closer to Islam. But what else?

Let's make a distinction between the practice of Ali, Ahmad and Rosli and what is needed for an average Muslim. If they have no problems, why talk about weaknesses in the system. The Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are equally concerned about it (corruption). In the Quran, the foundational document and best evidence of the sunnah of the Prophet, there is no room for injustice in Islam. One looks at Shamala's case, there was injustice.

In one hadith, the prophet was approached by one of his companions who complained that a Jew had deprived him of his possession and requested that the prophet order for it to be returned. The response was 'how can I order him until I have heard him?', meaning that justice requires all parties to be fairly heard.

The prophet's court was not subjected to what the syariah courts here are subjected to, that is, a limitation to jurisdiction. Our syariah courts are governed by the Ninth Schedule which says the jurisdiction is only over persons professing the religion of Islam whereas the prophet's court didn't have that, so he could hear a Jew, a Hindu and adjudicate the problem.

Look at Moorthy's case when the religious authority took the application to the syariah court to have him declared a Muslim at the time of death. The syariah court couldn't hear his widow S Kaliammal who is not a Muslim but for the sake of justice, what the syariah court judge in my view should have done is tell them to take the matter to the civil court for all to be heard because Islam commands justice.

Zaid: Suraus and masjids at every corner are symbols that can be very delusive to us Muslims because the ability to live by the code of the Quran is more (important). Muslims can pray everywhere, there is no need for a roof. Very few Muslims realise the actual situation but it is all there in the Federal Constitution. For any scholar, Muslim or otherwise, they know that this is the total Islam.

We're not demanding Islam be enforced on others but give Muslims the opportunity to live by the code. This is an issue which we know is very sensitive and very difficult for the government to handle. In a discussion organised by Suhakam (Human Rights Commission), I said the assumption was that the government led by a Muslim performs the needs but in reality, the other religions can practise according to their faiths' demands.

We're not given the opportunity to practise our religion. At the same time, we should be very tolerant of each other and empathise and put ourselves in the shoes of others. If we keep on demanding things from the government, it can probably lead to a very negative outcome. Our attitude on Islam is that our conviction is the best system, which is why the government is not really desperate to force the issue and ensure that Muslims live by the code.

Do you think religious rights are irreconcilable with human rights?

Haris: There is no Muslim scholar who takes the position of punishment for apostasy who will not acknowledge that his contention rests on a weak hadith. They rely on one hadith and it's a weak one. Measure that against the numerous verses in the Quran which a great many scholars say are evidence that Allah never intended a temporal punishment.

In a nutshell, it is a civil society issue because there are enough number of Muslims who are just as concerned as non-Muslims when you have a court ruling which has the effect of denying access to justice. Shamala's and Moorthy's cases were about that, not about apostasy. The human tragedy here is that individuals were not given their day in court. Of course Muslims recognise the injustice there, which is why I said it is not a Muslim versus non-Muslim issue.

It is a clear civil society issue with citizens concerned that incidents like this might recur where an individual is denied access to justice and is not allowed to present their version of the facts in court before there is an adjudication. This is the concern, not of Muslim or non-Muslim rights but the issue of access to justice that affects all of us. It is in fact pitted against those who are more interested in pursuing their agenda of a theocracy.

Part 4 tomorrow

Part 2: Rationalising this complex issue called apostasy
Part 1: Muslim views: Resolving the interfaith stalemate