However, in this morning's segment before The Breakfast Grill, there was a brief interview with one Mr. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the President of Malaysian National Human Rights Society, discussing the current debate on the possibility of implementing Hudud Law in Malaysia.
Coming from a human rights lawyer, it's not surprising where he stands on this issue.
However, what made me nod vigorously in agreement and shouting "Yes" at the radio were some of the things that he said, and the way he said it.
"Faith is not about CONTROL. Faith is about self-fulfilment"
I wonder when will society wake up from its slumber and realises that religion has been hijacked by a minority to exert control and influence over the majority. This problem is not isolated to just one religion. From mosques to churches to temples, the lines between politics and faith has been blurred so much so that it is now easy for a politician to raise his profile. All he has to do is to choose between one of the many religion based issues and stir up the proverbial hornets' nest by playing to the peoples' emotions and blind faith and loyalty to their imams and pastors and temple leaders.
It is time for society to reject such posturing and recognise religion and faith for what it really is, a journey that can only be travelled by oneself, and not a tool to be misused by those with political ambitions.
Religion/race-based governance is becoming out of date, but in my opinion, just not fast enough.
"A secular country is not one which is empty, but one which is neutral. If the government can guarantee a secular state, then religion dialogue can be conducted in an amicable manner."
There is a growing need for dialogue among the various religions in the country. As the nation progresses, more and more issues on the co-existence of different religions are bound to arise. Based on the current emotionally charged environment, such dialogue is not possible, and will probably lead to some extreme sections screaming for blood and accusation of blasphemy or monarchy insults.
The government of the day must have the will to step in and ensure neutrality without fear of offending any of their voting base. I don't foresee this happening anytime soon though, since matters of religion have always been the easiest way to fish for votes, and you can see the same issues being highlighted and battled over the political sphere every time an election looms near.
A clear evidence of this is the current war of words over the implementation of Hudud Law. At first glance, most Malaysians seem horrified by the idea of our family and friends being subjected to a set of laws that includes stoning to death an adulterer, removing the hands of a thief, and a near impossible burden of proof on an alleged victim when he/she accuses another of rape. However, these negative views have been widely reported and propagated by the main stream media, which we all know is just another mouth piece for the ruling government, and may represent an unbalanced perception of the Hudud Law.
I challenge proponents of this law to come forth and explain to the masses what are the specific advantages of implementing a set of laws which will only apply to Muslims.
Thus far, the only defence I've heard is either:
- "To be a truly Islamic state/society, we need to apply the religion of Islam holistically, and that includes the application of Hudud Laws'. Any consequences or tangible benefits from its application is never mentioned, and remains vague at best; or
- "We suggest that those who do not understand Islamic laws refrain from commenting on it. Please enrol in any Islamic university and obtaining the relevant qualification prior to making any any comments against the implementation of Hudud laws".
The reasoned voices of people like Mr. Sarwar resonates loud and clear among the majority of Malaysians, and I hope, will continue to do so for as long as our Malaysian society of various background, race and religion, remains worthy of being fought for. If it ever gets drowned out by rhetoric from a few, then I guess it will be time to throw in the towel in your luggage bags, pack up and leave.
I pray that day never comes.
3 comments:
Justin,
Congratulations on a well-written article.
May I invite you to consider another perspective on the issue, as raised by the MP for Kota Raja in a letter which The Star (surprisingly) published on Sunday:
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/10/9/focus/9662360&sec=focus
Mr Malik Imtiaz is a highly respected human rights lawyer, and given his background, I agree with you that "it's not surprising where he stands on this issue".
I want to suggest, however, that this idea of defining faith as "self-fulfilment" and "secular state" are characteristic of an attempt to relegate faith to a strictly individual level, and to deny any role for faith in matters of government.
This originates from a classically Western conception of "separation of church and state", particularly as enshrined in the United States where of late the First Amendment has been interpreted to require that the state refrain from being associated with all things religious.
Separation of church and state is however not a feature of governments based on the Islamic model, where Islam is described as "syumul", constituting in and of itself a complete and exemplary way of life to be aspired to. For Muslim governments and governments that aspire to be Muslim, there is not the same aversion to mixing matters of religion and matters of government; indeed, government is required to be based on the tenets of religion.
And this also brings me to another point I wish to make, which is that liberal Western society has entrenched the exclusion of religious values from the sphere of public decision-making. This is classically conceptualised in exhortations not to "impose one's religious principles on others". This is one way of looking at things. It may or may not be the right way.
Should decision-makers in government not be allowed to resort to religious imperatives in deciding public policies? What if a religion articulates principles that serve the public good, such as deterring crime and promoting public health - should these principles be viewed negatively simply because they emanate from religious foundations?
Lastly, I think many participants in this debate, on both sides, are "talking past each other" simply because they start from very different premises. Opponents of hudud tend to start by presuming that law must have secular content. However, this is not necessarily so for a Muslim legislator such as the Menteri Besar of Kelantan. For either side to force the other to debate on its terms is akin to pushing a square peg into a round hole.
Brilliantly written, Wilson!
Therein lies the reason why you are the lawyer and I'm not.
Can I have your permission to repost your comment in my blog, with full credit and recognition given to you?
Thank you for your comments. You have been too kind. These thoughts have been expressed earlier and in more eloquent manner by people much wiser than myself. I have merely rephrased them for the purposes of this discussion. Therefore, permission is not really mine to give. Do carry on as you see fit.
Post a Comment