Proponents of an interfaith commission have argued that this would be a timely mechanism to create, given the rising incidents of social conflict resulting from complexities in Islamic legal administration.

But detractors, while acknowledging past injustices, feel that this is merely a ploy to reduce the special significance given to Islam in the Federal Constitution. They want the status quo retained.

Article 11 coalition member/lawyer Haris Mohamed Ibrahim debunks 'fallacies', while Jamaah Islah Malaysia president Zaid Kamaruddin, International Islamic University law lecturer Dr Abdul Aziz Bari and Muslim Professionals Forum president Dr Mazeni Alwi feel that the time is right for civil society action.

Malaysiakini: Is Islam under threat in Malaysia?

Haris: This is another fallacy that need to be debunked. You'll repeatedly hear this criticism about human rights and western values, constitutional rights and western values. It's a joke and I'll tell you why. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the Federal Constitution 1957, the Bill of Rights in England 1688, the Magna Carta 1258 all present human rights. But there is a document that preceded all of these, the Holy Qur'an. If you measure human rights in the Holy Qur'an against these documents, they pale in comparison.

In my view, these documents were borrowed from the revelation to an Arab man in the desert 1,400 years ago. The so-called western concepts today are Qur'anic, Islamic but because you give it the adage western values without recognising and realising that in substance they are the same as what God had commanded in the Qur'an, you get away with this argument that these are western values to be rejected.

Based on Malaysia's reality, what should apostates do in a legal quandary?

Zaid: I think we need to have proper laws. I don't think Malaysia has yet to handle cases such as technically opting-out of Islam. Actually, even the Muslims or Muslim groups like ours are not concerned with the statistical count of Muslims because in Islam there are certain things that make you a non-Muslim by the things you do, you profess and so on. We have a responsibility towards them.

If they are already non-Muslims, we should not be performing religious rites over their body. It's not that we want to defend them as being Muslims or non-Muslims but it's about the truth of the matter. If he is a Muslim, then we perform (the burial) according to Islamic rites but even if his name is Ahmad or Muhammad and he is in fact a non-Muslim, no Muslim would want to pray over him because he is a renegade.

Do you see civil society playing a role in handling contentious interfaith issues?

Mazeni: Like you said, I wish more Muslims are able to express their opinions frankly in public even though their opinions might be looked down or initially seen as very fundamentalist, very fanatical. But as we interact more, we tend to modify our views, we tend to respect each other's position. Then again, the Islamophobia in the media is there and a lot of Muslims are affected by that although many feel they are clever to avoid it.

There is a lack of civil society leadership because Muslims feel that everything is being taken care of by the government, the religious affairs ministry and each state with its own religious affairs councils and the muftis. Maybe they feel that is good enough but their initiative as people, as ordinary citizens is lacking and I totally agree that Muslims should have more. There should be more Muslims voicing out their opinions in a more civil manner.

It's a yes and no on religious understanding. The 1970s were the beginning of a resurgence of Islam. It's different now where Muslims are more conscience of their religion. Maybe that brings it into prominence. You have to understand that not everyone is highly-educated or used to interacting with non-Muslims while the Malays are fairly new to living in urban areas, causing a bit of dislocation.

In the past, very few Malays and only urban Malays mixed with non-Malays in schools or workplace so there wasn't a lot of interaction as there is now, so you have to expect more of such conflicts. I think it's not purely religious. It's also race, politics and culture. I'm afraid we have to accept that politicians like to make use of sentiments, whenever it's convenient they like to say one thing only to change it later. Proper understanding is not there and I'm afraid its largely due to political expediency and has very little has to do with religion.

JIM has suggested a general platform for dialogue. Are you game for this?

Haris: If Abim and I agree that (Everest hero and Muslim convert M) Moorthy's case was a tragedy from an access to justice point of view, that it reflects an injustice, we could put our differences aside because we believe Islam extols justice. We must work within the system that we have to find a solution so that there is never a recurrence of this injustice. I think it's possible. I think we must be objective and keep our minds clear on the issues we're addressing.

Unfortunately, the issues have become convoluted where post-Moorthy, people began to see it as a Muslim versus non-Muslim divide and a clamour by one to protect their rights. I think that was an unfortunate turn of events as it clouded the issues. If people began to see it as a civil society access to justice issue across the board, then Article 11 coalition, Teras (Malay empowerment group) and Accin (coalition of Muslim non-governmental organisations) could actually sit at the same table to work out a solution because we all agree that this is an injustice that should never have happen again.

Does anyone have a right to stop an open discourse on public interest issues (as happened in Penang)?

Zaid: They (the protesters) can express their feelings and ask anyone to stop but it's up to the other side (organiser) whether or not they want to stop. Everyone has a right to discuss issues that affect them but our society is such that it may not necessarily work well here. The bad thing about making such issues public is that it forces people to take sides because the line is drawn and the issue is forced to the front, when you should be more sophisticated than that. If similar situations keep occurring in our community, the progressive elements that can work together for better change will end up exhausted, creating a bad relationship.

The problem is people cannot stand differences in opinion and we have a lot of sensitive issues, so we have to be very realistic in what we demand. We can continue demanding but there should be wisdom involved. Probably engaging people in discussion would be good as the government generally doesn't give a damn for the opinions of the people.

To me, the bigger picture is to make the government more responsive to the rakyat's feelings. We have to be strong together and go for the thing that is more definitive in our demands. Civil society activists should find a forum, perhaps a manifesto similar to the BA's election in 1999. Let's talk and agree on a few common campaigns of what improvements we want for society so we can identify a few to persistently pursue and avoid those that divide us.

Maybe Anwar (Ibrahim) can pull it off but it must be based on consensus, maybe work towards a Malaysian reform charter outlining several areas including human rights, religion, equal distribution of wealth, anti-corruption and social ills. In order not to get stuck on points of religion or human rights, you have to discuss these issues and share a common ground. The group should promote good values like transparency and accountability, and gain a high moral ground in terms of idealism and sincerity and practising it, not moral policing-type.

Abdul Aziz: The government should make a clear stand on this issue and be judged by it, popular or otherwise, or people will continue to fight over it. The government should tell us what Article 11 is all about regarding the issue of people who want a spiritual life against those who want to be free. As long as it is done quietly, it's fine but the moment it becomes public, there will be problems. The constitution says so because it's related to Malay identity. The law is there to protect the community, not an individual.

Don't make a mockery of the religion. It is possible for certain segments of society to get confused because not all can understand religion properly and the state has the responsibility, even during the Prophet's time. In Indonesia, however, it is different where they choose to close their eyes to marriage without converting to Islam but it's in small numbers. Many who don't understand the basics of Islam such as khalwat (close proximity) want to start talking about freedom now.

Besides the stated objectives, what else do you hope to achieve through the Article 11 campaign?

Haris: I've realised for a long time that the constitution has remained a decorative piece in our history. It hasn't begun to play a real role in our daily lives. People are completely ignorant about rights that our forefathers intended us to have, guaranteed and to be protected by the courts.

One of the objectives, certainly mine, is that the rights guaranteed under Part II becomes so widely known so that Malaysians must begin to understand the rights guaranteed within the system, the nature of the system that was intended, the nature of the system that we that we have and importantly, the attempts by certain quarters to take us away from that intended system.

I'll be explicit, the constitution was never intended that our system be theocratic but you look around us and see what's been happening over the last two years. There is a clear attempt by certain quarters to pretend as if our constitution is non-theocratic. Citizens must know what's happening. They must be aware of the danger and most importantly, citizens must be emboldened through this exercise to speak up so that they no longer become the silent majority. We hope this becomes an empowering exercise to encourage people to speak up and to register their sentiment with the government.

Do you think the constitution caters for the needs of Muslim Malaysians?

Haris: Those merely pursuing this for political ends and others who have not examined the implications and ramifications truly believe that this is necessary for Islam to flourish. They have to ask themselves if, in the last 50 years of independence, Muslims have faced difficulty in finding a place to pray or of performing the haj which is handled efficiently by Tabung Haji and Baitulmal to attend to zakat.

So, what aspect of the aqidah (faith) or the amalan (practice) is lacking that we now need to push for an Islamic state? If one finds that everything is in order, why this push? Or are they the ones with the hidden agenda? I believe the Qu'ran is the final revelation of God and I try to discover the Sunnah of the Prophet by trying to practise Islam as I understand it.

If JIM, Accin and all the Muslim NGOs can persuade me that the constitution is not Islam-friendly, I will join them in the quest to change the constitution. So will other Muslims if they can be convinced so. But I say they are on a hidden agenda of their own. As we see so often, Islam is being so politicised in the quest for power. My contention is there are enough mosques and surau all over the place even when one is on a journey that it makes the practice of Islam for the average Muslim very easy.

If all things pertaining to the five pillars of Islam are adequate in Malaysia, why need to push on this Islamic state agenda? Over the last 30 years, have we seen a successful Islamic state anywhere? We've seen how Afghanistan, after they threw out the Russians and declared themselves an Islamic state, was shouting glory to God but a year later it was a different tune. The people realised that the notion of Islamic state that the Taliban had brought them was nothing short of a denial of basic fundamental rights.

Why will we not keep the status quo which has allowed Muslims to practise Islam freely and allow the other religions to co-exist? If you ask me honestly, I think there is a need to aid the other religions because be frank about it, we have seen numerous problems that the other religions encounter in getting their houses of worship established. As a Muslim, I think it is wrong.


Part 1: Muslim views: Resolving the interfaith stalemate
Part 2: Rationalising this complex issue called apostasy
Part 3: Islamic administration: Two sides of the coin
Part 4: Interfaith - of sincerity, concerns and distortion