Response to "Quotes From Malik Imtiaz Sarwar on Hudud Law"

The following is a reproduction of a comment from an old friend, Mr. Wilson Tay, a lawyer by profession, a fervent debater, and a fearless football goalkeeper, in response to an earlier post written by me.

I chose to re-post his comment verbatim for the excellent points that he made, and even though I may not agree with every single one of them, it provides an interesting insight on whether religion should play a role in governance of a country.

Thank you Wilson for sharing your thoughts, and thank you for allowing me to share it with others.

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.