Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
Are the 222 MPs listening to the rakyat (people) or have they all gone deaf?
Mufti bill infringes Constitutional rights, but are the 222 MPs listening?
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30, 2024: Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa says while it is debatable whether the mufti bill is Islamically right or wrong, it is definitely unconstitutional as it stands.
“The restriction on the interpretation of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah in the controversial Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024, to only those adhering to a certain school of thought, can be challenged in the spirit of constitutional flexibility and the diverse Islamic interpretations.
“Article 8 of the Federal Constitution states that there shall be no discrimination against any person, and that all persons are equal before the law,” he added.
But, is Malaysia’s 10th Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim anfd his so-called Madani Unity Government (UG) and the 222 Members of Parliament (MPs) listening?
No News Is Bad News reproduces below what Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa pnned for a second time on the issue and published by Free Malaysia Today (FMT):
Mufti bill infringes on freedoms protected by the constitution
-30 Oct 2024, 07:30 AM
While it is debatable whether the mufti bill is Islamically right or wrong, it is definitely unconstitutional as it stands.
From Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa
The restriction on the interpretation of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah in the controversial Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024, to only those adhering to a certain school of thought, can be challenged in the spirit of constitutional flexibility and the diverse Islamic interpretations.
Article 8 of the Federal Constitution states that there shall be no discrimination against any person, and that all persons are equal before the law.
How then can only persons of certain denominations within Islam be appointed to the position of mufti in the federal territories? This definitely defies Article 8, thus making the bill unconstitutional.
Granting the mufti excessive power also has constitutional implications. We feel that this provision is ultra vires in view of the constitution’s provisions which stipulate that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the head of Islam in the federal territories.
While it is debatable whether it is Islamically right or wrong, it is definitely unconstitutional as it stands. This remains the case unless there is a debate on whether the Yang di-Pertuan Agong should be the head of Islam in the federal territories.
Personal liberty, religious freedom
Furthermore, Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty, while Article 11 protects freedom of religion.
However, the bill states that fatwas shall be binding on every Muslim without exception. This clause contradicts Articles 5 and 11, which makes it unconstitutional.
Making fatwas binding on all Muslims infringes on the rights of individuals insofar as making decisions regarding their personal beliefs and religious practices are concerned.
Undoubtedly, this bill does not celebrate the idea of diversity in Islam.
This quality was obvious even among the first generation of Muslims. It is mind-boggling that some lawmakers could think that having such a retrogressive and restrictive bill would bring unity among Muslims.
Political expediency
Finally, some have argued that the bill contains a veneer of religiosity to pander to the more conservative camp. However, we do not think that the bill will achieve this aim if that was a prime motive.
Lest we forget, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang was the first to go against this bill. Sadly, he is an ulama who is more cherished internationally than domestically. As the saying goes, no man is a prophet in his own land.
If Hadi himself was against this bill, then how would this bill pander to the political conservatives? Therefore, that argument doesn’t hold water.
Of course, we have heard that one of the reasons to come up with the bill was to curb extremism. We think it was a convenient excuse to make this bill more relevant.
Terrorism laws
Suffice to say, there are so many laws in Malaysia — such as the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act — that were meant to curb extremism, and they have been vehemently criticised by human rights advocates.
Human rights advocates have referred to the current terrorism laws as unjust, regressive violations of basic human rights and called for the laws to be abolished immediately. The reformists in Pakatan Harapan used it as a battle cry during the last general election, only to renege when they ascended to power.
Why then do we need the mufti bill? In what sense can it curb extremism? Let us add here that this whole agenda of “countering violent extremism” is a western construct, crafted by the west, especially the US, to tarnish the image of Islamic resistance against foreign occupation, subjugation, and oppression.
Extremist groups such as Isis were created and funded by the west to fulfil their agenda to “liberate” (read: occupy) Muslim lands. We naively swallowed this rhetoric and came up with laws like Sosma and Pota. Enough is enough; there should be no more repressive laws to curb these fanciful and imaginary extremists.
Broken promises
In conclusion, I have expounded on the problematic issues relating to the mufti bill beginning from the fundamental rights of human liberty in terms of freedom of conscience, to the debatable constitutional issues contained therein.
While the prime minister sought neutrality by passing the buck to the religious minister to answer any criticisms against the bill, in the end, it is within the domain of parliamentarians to vote with their conscience.
They have failed many of us with their broken promises to repeal all the repressive and regressive laws such as the archaic Sedition Act 1948, which is a violation of international standards on the rule of law and freedom of expression; what more of the newer undemocratic laws such as Sosma and Pota.
While we are moving towards a more progressive and democratic version of governance; any controversial new laws that disrespect basic fundamental human rights should be prevented from seeing the light of day. We do not want to be seen as replacing one oppressive regime with another.
This article is the second of two letters from Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa about the Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024.
Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa holds a PhD in Surgery from Monash University Australia and is a doctoral candidate in Islamic Studies at Universiti Muhammadiyah Malaysia.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
‘New Malaysia’ but same old mentality against Shias, other Muslims, says activist
-11 Nov 2018, 07:00 AM
Ahmad Farouk Musa urges the PH government to depart from the old ‘supremacist’ narrative.
Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa calls for a new narrative of freedom in post-BN Malaysia.
PETALING JAYA: Vocal Muslim activist Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa says Muslim bureaucrats in post-Barisan Nasional Malaysia have still not changed their ways, as they continue to demonise and clamp down on religious minorities, especially those from the Shia school of thought which is labelled “deviant” by local Islamic authorities.
Farouk, whose outfit Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) have frequently spoken out against Islamic enforcement agencies, said while the Pakatan Harapan government did well in terms of weeding out corruption and reviving the economy, Islamic administration still suffered from the same weaknesses.
He said Shia Muslims, for example, continue to be demonised through the weekly Friday sermons as well as raids on their gatherings.
He said it has come to the stage that Muslims, who do not subscribe to the official interpretation, have it worse when compared to non-Muslims.
“If you say that Christians are restricted from erecting crosses on their buildings or that their right to express their faith in open spaces are curbed, then the Shias and Ahmadi Muslims have it much worse,” he told FMT on the sidelines of a forum on religious extremism and minorities yesterday.
Farouk said the government has yet to be firm in dealing with the demonisation of Shia Muslims, adding that they have the same constitutional rights to practise their faith.
“Under the constitution, every person has the right to profess and practise his religion. So it’s wrong and unconstitutional to restrict Shia Muslims from practising their faith,” he said.
“We live in the 21st century. If we think our faith is the most correct faith, why are we so afraid to let other people practise their beliefs?” he asked.
He urged PH not to go down the previous administration’s path of “double-speak” in religious matters.
He said such was the case when the Najib Razak administration was promoting moderation on the international stage but at the same time bankrolling right-wing religious groups.
“This government must not fall into the same habit,” said Farouk.
Farouk said the current state of affairs is the result of a gradual perversion of the constitution, despite its “secular, plural and democratic” foundations.
He said the “new Malaysia” should now move away from a “right-wing and supremacist” narrative to one that is based on universal human rights.
Farouk said he still does not think such a new narrative could come from politicians.
“It is we the people who must fight for this. We cannot rely on politicians who care more for their own self-interests.”
No comments:
Post a Comment