International religious freedom: A threat to muslim countries
Islam as the religion of the Federation
Malaysian Constitution promotes the establishment of Islam as the religion of the Federation. The provisions were inserted by our forefathers themselves and never did any of the members of the Commission say with any regards to giving effect of disestablishment of the religion, which is Islam. The provision of Islam as the religion of the Federation is contended to “cast upon the ‘Federation’ a positive obligation to protect, defend and promote the religion of Islam”.(1)
It is noteworthy that it would have been much easier and clearer to make such declaration in the Constitution itself. If it is not meant to give special position to Islam, why is it the only religion that is specified in the provision or at least, why don’t we have a provision which guarantees the right to practice and profess religions in general without reference to any specific religions?
Secularism in the US
The US strict secular nature does not last for long. The government and the courts are becoming more adaptive and accommodative of religious belief and practices freedom to the extent of granting the individual the right to practice their beliefs on case by case basis in their recorded legal history, to mention a few the right to exclude their children from education upon reaching the age of 13 when the law guarantees compulsory education until the age of 16, the right to have a beard and still be able to continue servicing in the army, and few others.(2)
It is noteworthy that the US strict secular nature is strict in itself in terms of institutional separation of the State and religion, and not in terms of the substantive mixtures of the two. As the Puritan theology claims, both should remain distinct but ‘close and compact’ with one another which means that the secular practice and governance of the State in some ways are still related to the religion and that the State and religion may be seen as co-existing even if their ends are purportedly claimed to be different.(2)
Comparing Malaysian Constitution with the US and India secular model of constitution, the US and India do not specify any particular religion as the religion of the States. In fact, the US preamble of constitution captures the sense of ‘God’ which leaves us the question of whether the US is truly secular.
It is claimed that, quote, “On their face, certain kinds of anti-sharia laws single out Muslims from all other religious adherents who choose religious arbitration. This creates stigma and relegates Muslims as political outsiders, which, according to David Yerushalmi – the author of template anti-sharia bills used around the country – is the main intent of these laws.”(3)
It is also reported that “From 2010 to 2013 at least 32 states introduced anti-sharia bills. Of the 92 bills identified as introduced during that time, 21 expressly mentioned sharia … “(3)
The relevance of sharia would not be able to be considered, say, in a matter of an employment contract where an employer allows a Muslim employee to work different hours during the month of Ramadhan, but the judge would not be able to consider what Ramadhan is in enforcing the employment contract.(3)
Similar to situation in adjudicating over custody matter of visitation order, fairness of which would be considered based on obligation to perform religious duties, the judge would not be able to consider the content of sharia obligation.(3)
Freedom of Religion
In the US, the free exercise (of religion) clause requires the sense of “public forum” for the erection or display of religious sculpture, memorial or symbol, otherwise it would be rendered as establishment of religion, whatever religion it could be.(2)
With the Obama administration claimed to be directly interfering or rather infringing the free exercise clause, Obama changes the notion of freedom of religion to freedom of worship.(4) This can only be understood as one could not practice or profess his or her religion outside of the place of worship, in other words in the public. Comparing with Malaysian context, there should be no claim of oppression or infringement of the freedom of religion because what Obama tries to do is not what is happening here.
However, in the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Annual Report 2014 on Malaysia, it recommends Malaysia to undertake commitment to conform to international standards on freedom of religion.
It includes but not limited to the rights of any person to practice and profess the religion of his choice and it also extends to the right to be free from religious authority or police and be excused from rehabilitation and counselling sessions which are deemed detention and deprivation of personal liberty in the eyes of human rights activists, and the right to willingly enter into and exit out of a religion without undue influence and authoritative policy to dictate the decision making.
Unsurprisingly, in the last paragraph or point in the said report, the Commission ends with a recommendation for Malaysia to join TPPA as an avenue to promote international standards of freedom of religion for the benefit of religious and ethnic minorities from the purported freer and expanded trade.
There is more than meets the eye
It transpires that any calls heard over from the Western countries, in the name of freedom and human rights, it aims to decentralize and weaken the power, position and sanctity of Islam and the existing Muslim government in Muslim-majority states. We have seen how one country becomes Christianised, we have seen how Muslim country fails in its establishment supported by domestic Christian entity, and we have seen how Ottoman Empire falls by the work of Evangelical Christians.(6)
Despite countless efforts to propagate their vicious call, say the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and succeeding international covenants on human rights, the worldwide movement initiated and carried out by Evangelical Christians has now come on our doorstep to force us to take one step back, to give them way to execute modern colonization fabricated in the name of freedom and human rights.
If only Muslims in Malaysia would stand together and be cleansed from internal conflict, to resist and withstand the external pressure of the international organizations and powerful states, Malaysia would do better to stand on its own and to stand by its principles and autonomy to govern its own resources and to achieve its own mission.
Reference:
(1) Mohammad Imam, “Freedom of Religion under the Federal Constitution: A Reappraisal”.
(2) The Boisi Center Papers on Religion in the United States, “Separation of Church and State”.
(3) Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, “Religious Freedom and Discrimination in America – Then and Now: Lessons Learned for American Muslims and their Allies”.
(4) Alliance Defending Freedom, “The Obama Administration’s Attacks on Religious Freedom, Sanctity of Life, and Marriage and Family”.
(5) The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Annual Report 2014.
(6) Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, “Sharing Lessons on Religious Freedom : US and Muslim-Majority Countries”.
Danial Ariff Bin Shaari
Bachelor of Laws (LLB)
The University of Adelaide
Australia
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of, and should not be attributed to, Isma or Ismaweb.