The hudud issue is a contentious and confusing one, with Malaysians arguing over whether their country is a secular state.

Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) chairman and director Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa is one who believes that hudud cannot be implemented in Malaysia due to the country being a secular state.

This has prompted a coalition of Muslim non-governmental organisations (NGOs) Pembela (Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Pembela Islam) to issue a seven-day challenge (from June 1) to Ahmad Farouk to prove that the word “secular” appears in the Federal Constitution.

A statement on its website attributed to its chairman Mohamad Hafiz Mohamed Nordin said Ahmad Farouk must stop all debates on whether the country is a secular state should he fail to meet the challenge, adding that the latter’s action amounted to sedition.

It is believed the challenge is an attempt to stop Ahmad Farouk from taking part in a debate concerning the topic of a secular state scheduled in Kota Baru for June 7.

In response Ahmad Farouk said Pembela’s challenge was a non-issue.

“Anybody who reads the law and constitution would know that the word ‘secular’ was never mentioned in the constitution. Ipso facto the word secular does not need to appear in the federal constitution since the interpretation is made by the contents of the constitution,” he told theantdaily.

Ahmad Farouk cited Article 4 (1) of the Federal Constitution which says: “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.”

“Now compare this statement to that of an Islamic State, where the Quran is supposed to be the highest authority. Instead the validity of the laws is measured upon the yardstick of the constitution and not on Islamic principles, thus making the constitution a secular one,” Ahmad Farouk said.

He also cited Article 3(1) of the Constitution which reads: “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

“Now, does this phrase mean that Malaya was to be an Islamic state? The answer is clearly in the negative,” he added.

Another example he provided was the Reid Commission Report of the Federation of Malaya, where he said on page 73, the Constitutional Commission upon examining the drafted constitution said: “The observance of this principle … shall not imply that the State is not a secular state.”

Ahmad Farouk said it was not the Reid Commission that made the assertion that Malaya was not to be an Islamic state.

“It is an assertion made by the very people who were to become the government of the newly independent nation. Furthermore, when we examine the Reid Commission report once again, we see that the Alliance had this to comment: ‘… in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed …’

“Such advantages given to the Malays (the Borneo natives were included only in 1963 when Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak and Singapore created Malaysia) were meant to be a ‘stopgap measure’ to aid the economically disadvantaged Malays,” he said.

Ahmad Farouk pointed out that Article 3 with regard to Islam being the religion of the Federation was taken to mean that as far as official ceremonial matters are concerned, Islamic form and rituals are to be used.

“The rulers were constitutional monarchs with limited real power but tremendous symbolic strength and Islam was given special symbolic recognition as well as real authority over the personal laws of Muslims.

“This does not in any way take away from the fact that a secular pluralistic system of governance, one that valued fundamental liberties, in particular equality was the aim of the constitution and also the leaders of the time,” he said.

The landmark case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor was also cited by Ahmad Farouk, where he said the Supreme Court held that laws in Malaysia do not have to conform to Islamic principles, thus confirming Malaysia as a secular state.

Using the same case, Pembela argues that Tun Salleh Abas never decided as such, arguing that the judge instead was of the mind that the laws in effect, and not the country, were secular.

Ahmad Farouk countered this, saying Pembela’s argument is wrong as the judge had clearly stated the country is a secular state against Ramdas Tikamdas’ (the appellant’s counsel) argument that death sentence by hanging is un-Islamic and contravenes the principle of the country as an Islamic state.

He argues that the constitution has put in place a foundation to build a secular, pluralistic democracy with provisions to ensure not only equality, but also equity.

“Malaysia’s constitution does not define the country as secular as well as it does not call it ‘Islamic’… IRF argues that the history and destination of Malaysia are to be a secular state to ensure the rights of its citizens and integrity of the nation.

“And only a secular state alone offers them something most of us seem to badly want: freedom. Meaning to say, if there really is no compulsion in religion, only a secular society can provide that. And only in a secular system can Muslims be free to practice Islam exactly as they see fit and out of their own conscience, and not state coercion. And only in a secular system can non-Muslims be at peace without fear of their rights being compromised and eroded,” he said.

Ahmad Farouk’s parting shot to Pembela is this: “People in Pembela should understand that accepting a secular state will allow Muslims not only to follow Islam in the way they genuinely believe but also to eliminate the endless discussions over the ideal ‘Islamic state’ and its system like ‘Islamic economy’ or even the disputable hudud laws.

“We should instead focus on the fundamentals of a civil state such as justice, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, good governance, separation of power, rule a of law, respect for human rights and economic equality. And we have to honour the divine imperative to live justly, learn to be just to ourselves, and be just to others.”

(Source: www.theantdaily.com)