IN 2011, Islamic authorities raided a church suspected of proselytising to Muslims. In 2012, it was Borders as well as ZI Publications (ZIP), over Irshad Manji's book Allah, Liberty as well as Love. These institutions have been non-Muslim entities. Yet, since Islam or Muslims were someway involved, this seemed to give looseness to eremite authorities to enter non-Muslim premises, conduct searches, confiscate items, carry out interviews as well as charge individuals.
It would seem which over a past years, a powers of a Islamic eremite authorities have inexorably expanded. At a same time, non-Muslims as well as non-Muslim organisations, including a civil court, have been mostly told they cannot meddle in counts regarding to Islam.
But does a law give Islamic authorities an involuntary contend a impulse Islam or Muslims have been involved? Does only a syariah justice have bureau over Islamic matters?
Islam as well as syariah courts
To answer this question, let's demeanour during a Federal Constitution, a autarchic law of a land, as well as judgements by a Federal Court, a highest justice of a land.
The constitution tells us which not all counts relating to Islam fall underneath a sy ariah court's jurisdiction. The constitution gives states a energy to have laws upon Islamic law, as well as personal as well as family law of persons professing a sacrament of Islam. The constitution's ninth report spells out what this means by listing out counts such as succession, marriage, divorce as well as zakat. States also have a energy to set up syariah courts to arbitrate upon these laws.
But a constitution doesn't give syariah courts disdainful bureau over all Islamic matters. It only gives syariah courts powers to establish those counts spelt out in a ninth schedule, which states have legislated upon.
This was done transparent in a 2007 Federal Court preference of Abdul Kahar Ahmad v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor. The Federal Court was petitioned to acknowledgement several state enactments regarding to Islamic law shabby for being unconstitutional. The Majlis Agama Islam Selangor objected, stating this was a subject for a Syariah Court, not a Federal Court.
Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who was Chief Justice then, resolutely deserted this. He pronounced which nowhere in a constitution did it state which interpreting a constitution was something inside of a syariah courts' jurisdiction. Conversely, a constitution does give a Federal Court disdainful energy to establish either any law is invalid, including laws regarding to Islam.
The Majlis Agama had cited Article 121(1A), which states which civil courts will not have bureau over counts inside of a syariah court's jurisdiction. The Chief Justice pronounced yes, which was correct. But if a syariah justice didn't have bureau in a initial place, as was a case in Abdul Kahar Ahmad v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, afterwards which article could not apply. Article 121(1A) was never meant to reject a civ! il court 's bureau in existent areas in favour of a syariah court.
The subsequent indicate to cruise is which just since something is deemed un-Islamic doesn't automatically have it illegal. The constitution stipulates which a state needs to have a law job something an offence opposite Islamic precepts before it can be deemed illegal. And which offence needs to be inside of a state's powers underneath a ninth schedule.
Hence, a state, for example, cannot have laws which stipulate which hidden or attempted murder is an offence underneath Islamic precepts. Undoubtedly, hidden as well as attempted murder have been corrupted in Islam as well as other vital religions. But underneath a constitution, such crimes have been for Parliament to legislate, not a states. This is why both Barisan Nasional as well as Pakatan Rakyat politicians keep insisting which implementing hudud law would be unconstitutional.
Similarly, even though a Sisters in Islam-published book infringed Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim) guidelines, which didn't have it illegal. And which also didn't meant a Home Ministry could anathema a book, Muslim Women as well as a Challenges of Islamic Extremism, for being prejudicial to public order. Indeed, this was a High Court's preference upon twenty-five January 2010, which was upheld by a Court of Appeal upon 27 Jul 2012.
The High Court carried a anathema despite Jakim's perspective which a book should be prohibited since it would "confuse" Muslims, quite Muslim women. Jakim ! is, of c ourse, entitled to its perspective as well as ideally entitled to discourage Muslims from reading a book. But a constitution doesn't require a supervision to follow Jakim's lead as well as have a book illegal. If a supervision wants to acknowledgement something illegal, it still needs to bottom it upon established laws as well as procedures, not solely upon a fact which it is deemed "confusing" or un-Islamic by a single body.
Syariah offences as well as non-Muslims
Even if eremite authorities hold which a syariah enactment has been broken, they cannot act opposite non-Muslims. The Federal Constitution couldn't be clearer upon this. States might enact laws to set up syariah courts
which shall have bureau only over persons professing a sacrament of Islam.
The Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, enacted underneath a ninth schedule, is equally clear. Article 1(2) states which a act shall
apply only to persons professing a sacrament of Islam.
Other state enactments establishing syariah rapist offences have identical provisions.
Yet, you right away see Islamic authorities doubt non-Muslims as well as even summoning them to their offices for further interrogation. This is what a Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) did over a Manji book ban.
According to publishing house ZI Publications (ZIP), after a raid upon ZIP's office, between twenty as well as 30 Jais officers raided its printing company, which is primarily run by non-Muslims. Jais officers asked to go by a printers' bureau documents as well as demanded which a senior staff, a non-Muslim, go to a Jais bureau for questioning. In early August, Jais one after another to harass non-Muslims by summoning dual non-Muslim ZIP employees for doubt during a Jais office.
Merdeka
Then there have been articles 5 to 12 of a constitutio! n, which strengthen citizens' elemental liberties. They protect, among others, citizens' right to life, right to a satisfactory trial as well as a right to be treated equally before a law regardless of religion, race or gender. Nothing in a constitution says which syariah rapist offences enacted by a states might skip from these elemental liberties.
So, when legislating syariah offences, state assemblies should bear in mind which a offences must abide by these constitutional provisions, which were put in place during independence, to safeguard which Muslim citizens' elemental liberties have been respected.
Clearly, Malaysia is not as Islamic as you could be, according to some. If it were, there wouldn't be so most to debate about upon a Islamic state aspirations of PAS or Umno. But a first leaders recognised of a Malaya as well as Malaysia which was secular, in which Islam is acknowledged as a federation's religion, but with transparent demarcations of what can be legislated as well as when just citizens can be influenced by Islamic laws.
Increasingly, it seems which those in energy wish a state where eremite authorities as well as syariah courts can meddle a impulse an Islamic make a difference or a Muslim is involved. But that's not a state a Muslim as well as non-Muslim first leaders agreed to, as a constitution reveals.
And unless a constitution is changed, eremite authorities have no business unilaterally expanding their range of powers. 
Ding Jo-Ann is disquieted by a prosecution of Borders' Muslim store physical education instructor Nik Raina Nik Ab! dul Aziz by a Federal Territories Islamic Department.
Pengkalan Kubor..Gelombang Merah, TUKAR! Kerajaan PAS Kelantan kepada BARISAN NASIONAL .mp4
More Barisan Nasional (BN) | Pakatan Rakyat (PR) | Sociopolitics Plus |
No comments:
Post a Comment