What is the role of non-Muslims in the political system under an Islamic state which enforces syariah laws? Can they make policies or are they mere implementors?

K Shanmuga, secretary in the legal think tank of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism, said the general view appears to be that only Muslims can make policy.

He said a draft constitution for an Islamic state found on the Internet stated that non-Muslims in the governing body (a Cabinet, legislative assembly or Majlis as-Syura ) are only allowed to participate in the execution of the policy and to raise objections on the implementation method.

He also presented excerpts from the draft in the website

of an organisation he described as "radical" called Hijb-ut-tahrir.

During a presentation at a recent seminar, Shanmuga noted that although the draft was an extreme version, the "underlying philosophy appeared to be essentially similar to those of other more moderate commentators".

Supporting role

Citing Abdur Rahman I Doi's book Non-Muslims Under Syariah , he said the moderate commentator had implied when discussing the political representation of non-Muslims under the syariah that they have "lesser right to take part in the governance of the country than Muslims".

"It seems that non-Muslims can act as lobby groups only in order to suggest measures to the Islamic state to implement, and the suggestions are not binding on the government," said Shanmuga in his paper 'Minority rights in Islam? A non-Muslim perspective', which reflected his personal views.

The one-day seminar, organised by Era Consumer Malaysia in Dungun, Terengganu, was attended by more than 70 participants, including members of PAS' legal bureau and representatives from civil society and women's groups.

He pointed to an Information Ministry booklet, Malaysia Adalah Sebuah Negara Islam (Malaysia is an Islamic State), which quoted Al Mawardi, a scholar of one of four Muslim sects, as saying that non-Muslim citizens must be appointed as ministers to implement policies made by Muslims.

Shanmuga interpreted this to mean that the role of non-Muslims in an Islamic state is at most limited to implementor.

He explained that the interpretation of the syariah provisions could be done, but only on matters where there is no explicit provision in the Quran or Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet's life and teachings), and only by those who are deemed to be learned and wise in Islamic law.

"Only such men are capable of governing the country either as legislators or as members of the executive," he quoted the scholar Abdur Rahman.

Shanmuga ( second from the right ) said this raises a host of concerns, including who decides whether a person knows enough about Islamic law in order to qualify him to rule or interpret the law, or the avenues available for a non-Muslim who is unhappy with a law made by the Muslim government.

"If non-Muslims are not allowed to make or even to participate meaningfully, by which I mean that their vote counts equally with that of a Muslim legislator, in policy in an Islamic state, can they be really considered equal citizens?"

Apart from asking whether Muslims and non-Muslims were equal citizens in Islam, he also posed the question of whether the latter merely had a contractual relationship with the state, and not as true citizens.

Referring to a Quranic verse, Shanmuga said the oft-quoted passage formed the basis for recognising non-Muslims as dhimmi , which in turn guarantees them protection and respectful treatment.

'Insulting to be a dhimmi'

However, he said, not only does the verse draw a distinction based on religion, it further divides non-Muslims into People of the Book, i.e. Christians, Jews and others.

The verse also suggests that non-Muslims must subjugate themselves to Muslim rule before they are considered citizens, and must pay the tax levied only on non-Muslims, called jizyah , while Muslims pay the compulsory zakat (tithe).

"Are non-Muslims expected to feel themselves subdued by Muslims in an Islamic state (if they pay the jizyah )? Does the theoretical and constitutional basis of an Islamic state enshrine the concept that one category of citizens is subdued by the other?"

Shanmuga argued that in an Islamic state, the status of non-Muslims appear to be more of a contractual relationship with the government (than citizenship) by the payment of jizyah .

But if non-Muslims choose to defend the Islamic state, then they are no longer obliged to pay the tax, he added.

"The clear implication appears to be that the dhimmi stay and live in an Islamic state due to the largesse of the Muslim rulers and polity, and as the dhimmi accept that they are conquered and tacitly accept the rule over them by Muslims, they are protected."

Malaysian non-Muslims who consider this their home, who feel a sense of patriotism and who see themselves as equal partners in national development, he believed, would be "insulted to become dhimmi in an Islamic state".

"The appellation itself implies a sense that non-Muslims have no right to be here, but are merely allowed to stay by leave and licence revocable at will by non-payment of tax, and that they cannot really be trusted to even have any sense of true loyalty to the Islamic state.

"This, is deeply offensive to Malaysian non-Muslims."

Shanmuga concluded that the 'Big Debate' on whether Malaysia was an Islamic state was "unnecessary, unproductive and potentially divisive" because the conditions are clearly set out in the Federal Constitution.