Five days after the national interfaith conference, the proceedings and objectives are still being discussed and criticised by some of the participants.

One of them, Marzuki Mohamad, a political science lecturer at the International Islamic University, was unhappy that the majority will had prevailed despite 'legitimate concerns' raised about 'Islam-bashing'.

"Despite allaying fears among the Muslim majority that the conference is not a form of 'Islam-bashing', the outcome has but confirmed such fears," he told malaysiakini .

The Allied Coordinating Committee of Islamic NGOs, a coalition of 13 groups, have condemned the proposed formation of an interfaith commission as the first step towards weakening Islam, and boycotted the national conference.

A number of participants, Marzuki said, had raised legitimate concerns during the conference on the tendency to undermine the position of Islam as the religion of the federation.

'Far-reaching repercussions'

Citing one of two most contentious provisions in the draft bill, he said, the subsequent amendments to both had 'far-reaching repercussions' on the mood and direction of the conference.

Several participants questioned the partial reproduction of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution in preamble 2 of the original draft bill, he added.

While religious freedom is guaranteed, Article 11 affords protection to Islam as the religion of the federation by prohibiting the propagation of other faiths among Muslims. Its application is also subject to other laws on public order, public health or morality.

"It was obvious that the words in (Clause 4) on propagation were deliberately excluded from the preamble... as was first pointed out by a participant," said Marzuki, who is currently pursuing a doctorate at the Australian National University's Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies

The other bone of contention, he noted, was the deliberate exclusion of the same clause with regards to the definition section in the draft bill.

"Due to this obvious and deliberate deletion of important constitutional safeguard for Islam from the draft bill, there were suggestions to cite the particular provisions in full," he said.

Echoing constitutional law expert Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi's remarks during the particular session, he said the deletions "did not reflect the proponent's transparency and honesty".

He said some participants were worried that if such concerns were not taken seriously, it would further alienate the various mainstream Islamic groups from the (interfaith) effort.

Marzuki also noted arguments by proponents for a more liberal draft bill that any mention of limitations to the guaranteed freedoms would be counter-productive.

'Selective constitutionalism'

He also regretted the practice of "selective constitutionalism" by proponents of a more liberal view in the drafting of the interfaith commission bill.

"Under the veil of freedom of religion lies (an) 'Islam-bashing' undertone," he said.

He said this could be seen, for example, in the wish of a Muslim participant who wanted the constitutional limitation to be omitted as "it did not cater to the needs of a person like her".

"The lack of willingness, particularly on the part of the steering committee, to admit as legitimate the concerns about 'Islam-bashing'... has led to the culmination of the proposed bill in its present form."

Marzuki was convinced that the draft bill will not see the light of day in the Dewan Rakyat given the resistance from mainstream Muslim groups and political leaders.

"Unless the proponents galvanise sufficient counter-forces, there will be a lack of political will to do so (table the bill).

"But remember, it is extremely weird to push for the formation of a body whose function is to promote harmony in an unharmonious way," he said, adding that no one disputed the need for an interfaith mechanism to deal with matters pertaining to interfaith relation in the country.

Concerns were also raised with regards to the composition of the proposed interfaith commission or the appointments panel, namely the suitability of civil servants and political leaders.

Marzuki suggested that the steering committee either work out a "compromised version" of the bill or first initiate "a new round of dialogues involving various parties".

"(This should be the case) unless parties are more interested in wining the debate rather than promoting religious harmony," he said.

"It is extremely important that both parties start to accept each other's legitimate concerns before a meaningful dialogue can be initiated."

He said a more meaningful approach to moderating the contending views would be to work within the parameters of a constitutional framework.