The national interfaith conference was never on Islam-bashing, a practice of "selective constitutionalism" nor motivated by a "sinister" intention, the organiser of the two-day meeting insisted today.

One of the participants was quoted in malaysiakini yesterday describing the conference proceedings and outcome as confirming fears felt by the Muslim majority that it was an Islam-bashing session by liberal-minded Malaysians, including Muslim individuals and organisations.

The charges leveled by Marzuki Mohamad based on the views of several participants which echoed the grounds for the boycott by detractors were firmly denied by Bar Council-led steering committee chairperson Malik Imtiaz Sarwar.

In a written response today, he said the characterisation of the proceedings was "unfair and substantially inaccurate".

"There was no 'Islam-bashing' as such a thing would not have been in any way condoned by the organisers or the participants," he said.

Malik Imtiaz said participants raised a few issues "but these were limited to the individual's right to pursue a way of life in this country.

"(It) did not extend to disparaging Islam or its tenets."

He reiterated that this would not have been condoned as "none of the presentations focused on Islam" and that examples of interfaith conflicts involving other religions had also been discussed.

No 'selective constitutionalism'

Referring to Marzuki's point on partial reproduction of the relevant constitutional provisions, he said it was stated out of context.

He said the draft bill's preamble was about all religions being practiced in harmony in the country followed by a statement concerning the individual's right to profess and practice his religion, cross-referred to specific provisions in the Federal Constitution.

"The latter provision was not included in its entirety for purely simplicity of drafting and on the understanding that the constitution would prevail at all times.

"There was no 'selective constitutionalism' and it is a concept that legally cannot stand when construing any law by reference to the constitution," he explained.

Malik Imtiaz, a member of the Bar Council human rights sub-committee that has been coordinating the interfaith initiative, also explained the omission of the proviso to Article 11(1) on propagation of Muslims.

"(It) was not included only because the sentence would be left hanging, referring to a sub-clause," he said.

A draft for discussion

Denying suspicions of an ulterior motive behind the entire interfaith process, he said the final version of the statement was arrived after debating on the subject.

"It does not in any way go to suggest anything contrary to what the constitution says, that is, in Malaysia all religions may be practiced in harmony.

"There was no agenda or intention behind the drafting of the provision as it originally stood and the draft bill was just that, a draft for discussion."

He insisted that Marzuki's assertion about a deliberate attempt to omit the provision was "completely unfounded" because otherwise, it would have defeated the purpose of debating the draft in order to obtain views, feedback and endorsement.

Malik Imtiaz said the matter on the preamble was resolved the following day when participants unanimously endorsed the final version without any objections despite being given the opportunity.

Refuting observations made with regards the conference, he said the proceedings were "not pressed on the participants for an intended outcome" as both the issues raised had been addressed.

"Debate was encouraged to the extent that time constraints permitted. There was further opportunity for informal discussions outside the formal scheduled events."

The latter route, he said, was used to discuss "other significant issues" but no further explanation was provided.

Referring to observations on the conduct of the proceedings, he admitted that there were "administrative hiccups" which were settled on the second day to the participants' acceptance.

Prominent individuals stay away

He said the conference was organised around the draft bill because supporting organisations attending a Bar Council-organised workshop in 2003 had endorsed the idea based on a six-point agreement which forms the crux of the proposal.

"To describe it as too legalistic a programme is therefore incorrect. My apology was aimed at addressing more the way in which the draft bill had been presented in the earlier sessions (on the first day).

"The draft bill was in fact circulated to supporting organisations during its evolution for feedback," he said, adding that the conference was presented with the third draft.

About 200 representatives from various religious, civil society, political organisations as well as individuals attended the national interfaith conference which sought to establish a statutory body to address grievances arising from religious plurality in the country.

Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Dr Rais Yatim opened the conference and delivered a keynote address urging detractors adopting a hardline stance not to pre-judge the initiative.

Several Muslim groups and prominent individuals, including Dr Chandra Muzaffar who first publicly mooted the idea for an inter-religious initiative, stayed away from the conference for various reasons.

Among them, as voiced by a loose coalition of 13 bodies known as the Allied Coordinating Committee for Islamic NGOs is that the proposed commission was anti-Islam and is a threaten to Islam's constitutional status.

Malik Imtiaz could not be reached for further comment today.