Abu Mubarak seems to need several classes on constitutional law. First of all, the principle of constitutions is that they are to be read down, not read above and beyond what they say.
Constitutions are also statutes, and as such are to be read from their literal meaning, or what they says, not what they don't say. With that in mind, I will go through what Abu Mubarak has said.
Section 3 of the Malaysian Constitution states that 'Islam is the religion of the Federation'. This does not mean that Islam is to be given 'superior importance', as Abu Mubarak put it, to other religions.
This probably means that the Federation will represent Islam, and I do not doubt that. Our membership to the Organisation of Islamic Conference clearly shows that. The fact that our King, as the supreme head, will represent Islam is also testament to the fact that 'Islam is the religion of the Federation'.
But where does it say that Islam is to be given 'superior importance'? Section 3 continues to say that 'other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation'. With that statement, it seems to push the 'superior importance' argument right out.
Abu Mubarak goes on to claim that where there is any conflict, Islam will 'prevail'. Once again, I invite him to show me the relevant section, bearing in mind that he now knows that the Constitution is only read for what it literally states, not what it does not state.
I also invite Abu Mubarak to visit Section 8 of the Constitution which states that 'all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law'. If everyone is equal before the law, how can one state that Islam should be given 'superior importance'?
I cringed at Abu Mubarak's claim that 'we must respect the fact that Islam is the official religion of this land and Muslims still form a majority of the Malaysian population'. Does Abu Mubarak mean that because Muslims form a majority, every other person must be subject to the majority's wishes? I beg to differ.
This would mean that America and Europe being predominantly Christian, could begin to enforce 'Christian' laws upon their minority Muslims. Perhaps America would like to limit the number of mosques then.
In actuality, the rights of the minority should be the ones being protected. Considering that our King and prime minister are Muslim, it is fundamental that minority rights be protected to ensure the continued survival of the non-Muslims in Malaysia.
I know of no other country besides Zimbabwe which is explicit in its quest to protect the rights of the majority race. It is disheartening to note that some of our citizens seem bent on emulating them.