Just as the church-state divide is characteristic of Christianity, Islam in Malaysia should not enjoy state support in terms of 'policing' public morality, said several individuals representing those seeking a review of Syariah law.

According to those seeking to repeal enactments that allegedly infringe upon fundamental liberties, the blurring of lines between the state and religion has caused problems in the administration of Islamic affairs.

Businessman Redza Shahwis ( photo ), a speaker at a forum held yesterday in Kuala Lumpur, said the separation of powers should be upheld and strengthened. The event was organised by 'concerned citizens' who included a panel of speakers, headed by lawyer Haris Ibrahim.

"If there is already a division between 'church' and 'state', then let it be. But the problem is that division has been blurred and people are running all over the division. The state has been doing the 'church's' work, and the 'church' has been doing the state's work," said Redza.

Another speaker, Ismail Ibrahim, said Islamic religious authorities should not enjoy legislative or enforcement powers on matters governed by civil law.

"If you were a woman going through a divorce, would you prefer to come under Syariah laws governing maintenance or civil laws? Clearly, if I was a woman I would prefer the civil laws. If you already have civil laws addressing the issue, then why the need for Syariah enactments (on the same matter)?" he asked.

No compulsion

Elaborating, Ismail said that, just as military laws are overridden by civil laws when the two overlap, Syariah enactments should likewise be rolled back when they overlap with the civil laws.

"We have inherited the Victorian laws (from the British). If those laws are inadequate, we can all get together to strengthen them. If they are oppressive, we can also come together to change them. I don't have this luxury with the Syariah laws," said Ismail.

Ismail also cited Malaysia's first premier Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra who, in response to question as to whether alcohol and gambling should be made illegal, replied that this was a matter of personal faith.

"(Tunku) said, 'I am the prime minister, and I will answer to God'. These are words of wisdom in a country that is multi-racial and multi-religious," said Ismail.

Tengku A'mash Adnan ( photo ) echoed Ismail's statements by questioning the power of the religious authorities in enforcing Syariah law.

"Do these laws in fact run counter to the fundamental principle in Islam that there shall be no compulsion? That there shall be no compulsion and that man's surrender to God must be voluntary?" he asked.

"Do not some of these laws operate as a fetter on the Muslim mind with rules that regulate rational thought (and) making Muslims in this country subject to the dictates of man, not to the will of God?"

Review requested

A'mash then read out a letter, endorsed by about 220 individuals, that has been sent to the Council of Rulers requesting a review of Syariah enactments.

The letter highlights provisions that give muftis absolute power and render them an elite law-making body without recourse or accountability to elected representatives of the people.

"We will approach the sultans. From there we will decide what comes next. We do not want to replace one form of dominance with another form of dominance," he said.

"(We seek the Rulers' review of ) Acts that are characterised by compulsion. These include laws that give a status of immunity to muftis and members of the (National) Fatwa Council who issue oppressive fatwas that protect certain interests," said A'mash, reading from the letter.

"Many of these Acts clearly give absolute powers to dominate the minds of Muslims while restricting their rights to freedom of speech and to express one's opinion."

Certain punishment necessary

When contacted later, Haris denied that the group sought to end all 'policing' of public morality, as there should still be some form of punishment for serious crimes that threaten society.

The state should continue legislating and enforcing against such offences as murder and adultery as these could endanger the safety of people and lead to the breakdown of the family institution, he said [see clarification below] .

In response to suggestions that Prophet Muhammad had legislated public morality by, for instance, banning the consumption of alcohol, Haris said this issue could be settled by determining whether or not such legislation is in fact historical.

Such 'alleged' incidents can be compared to Quranic injunctions and repealed if the need arises, since Islam exhorts people to change society through moral education and persuasion, rather than by "fear of the law", he added.

Clarification: Religious offences and the state