news analysis

The controversy about an Islamic state has emerged once again. On Friday, a pro-ruling party English daily runs a headline which sounded like this: 'Collision course - Opposition Front partners DAP and PAS clash over (the) setting up of an Islamic state.

PAS, in the meantime, has indicated that it may sue the paper for what the party claimed as incorrect reporting. On Saturday, PAS spiritual leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat was reported to have chided DAP for making a fuss in public about the issue.

Two days before that public disagreement, DAP was reported to have criticised Keadilan, another partner in the four-party Barisan Alternatif (BA), over the remarks made by its president Wan Azizah on the issue. As reported in the press, Wan Azizah made quite a positive remark on the setting up of an Islamic state.

The furore erupted when PAS deputy president Abdul Hadi Awang said that if PAS comes into power, the party will set up an Islamic state. DAP secretary-general Kerk Kim Hock claimed that the statement has created a crisis within the coalition.

The party's deputy chairman Karpal Singh issued a strong statement that DAP would quit the BA coalition if PAS was adamant on its intention. However, DAP chairman Lim Kit Siang clarified that the withdrawal was only a possibility and that a national forum should be held to discuss the issue.

Meanwhile, Keadilan deputy president Chandra Muzaffar said that the creation of an Islamic state was not in BA's manifesto. Chandra said what was prominent in the manifesto was the creation of a just society based on democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution.

As expected, Umno came out with a statement which described the latest public squabble between DAP and PAS as just a drama, but nonetheless claimed that it had the potential of bringing about chaos and the destruction of the nation.

In a statement issued by its information chief Mustapha Mohamed, the main party in the ruling coalition further claimed that the Islamic state question was a non-issue as Malaysia is already a model Islamic country recognised by the Muslim world.

Perhaps it is worth mentioning what Umno deputy president Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said in wake of disastrous general elections results in November 1999; that Umno would continue to take the same approach and would not go down the road taken by PAS.

Shout loudly

Having examined the context in which the latest controversy took place, perhaps one needs to shed further light on the two parties in the BA.

For the record, DAP has been very quick to oppose any move to set up an Islamic state or to implement the hudud - Islamic penal laws. This is understandable as DAP has to compete with the Chinese-based parties in the ruling coalition, the MCA and Gerakan.

Indeed, it has been said that the reason for the DAP's poor showing in the 1999 general elections was its association with PAS and this has been used to the hilt by the MCA. But perhaps one needs to consider other reasons as well i.e. DAP's own weaknesses especially in terms of finance and organisational set-up.

It is quite apparent that DAP needs to shout loudly on issues which it perceives as important to the Chinese and non-Muslim community to make sure that it is still relevant in national politics.

As for PAS it is quite apparent that the Islamic state issue is the party's bread and butter. Even Umno finds it difficult to counter its arguments and choses to say that it (Umno) too, is committed to Islamic ideals.

However, it is now quite clear what PAS means by an Islamic state. And perhaps this is where Karpal's and Guan Eng's outbursts were rather misplaced. Kit Siang, on the other hand, appears to be more mellowed in his reaction.

Perhaps given his closeness to the BA leadership, particularly PAS president Fadzil Noor, spiritual leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat and deputy president Abdul Hadi Awang, Kit Siang could understand what the PAS top brass meant when they talked about an Islamic state.

To a certain extent, some of the principles have already been put in place by Nik Aziz and Abdul Hadi who both lead the Kelantan and Terengganu governments respectively. Abdul Hadi's administration was even given the transparency award by an international organisation one year after PAS was swept into power in Terengganu.

Violent, aggressive party

In a recent meeting, former Universiti Malaya (UM) deputy vice-chancellor (academic affairs) Osman Bakar, who now holds the Malaysian Studies chair at the George Washington University, floated the idea of an Islamic democracy which may fit or describe the form of government advocated by PAS.

The professor has also been asserting that Malaysian polity was not a secular one. Whether or not PAS believes this we do not know, but the fact is that PAS has been working within the system.

Some have argued that the party has shown its capability to rule and that it no longer has the tag of a violent and aggressive party. They seem to be busy running the states now, which is why it appears that it is Keadilan that is more prominent when it comes to demonstrations and protests.

This is quite natural as Keadilan has no states to run. But more importantly, PAS seems to believe that it could use the system to put its ideology into practice.

The latest statement about an Islamic state by PAS is essentially similar to what they have been saying thus far. Previously, the leaders of the party used to say that they would not force their notion of an Islamic state down the people's throat.

In the latest statement, they said they would do it if they win the general elections. Now, whether that will happen is another matter. PAS seems to be saying that it will establish Islamic state if they come to power on their own, not through the BA.

British legal regime

Having examined the circumstances and politics of the entire affair, one needs to see what the Constitution actually says about the issue. In his strong opposition, Karpal argued that PAS' notion is against the Constitution.

Karpal pointed at Article 4 of the Federal Constitution. However, there is nothing in that provision which could be said as prohibiting the setting up of an Islamic state. Article 4 is about the Constitution as the supreme law which by implication stands as the yardstick for the legality or otherwise of the laws in the country.

Having said that however, one must remember that the process is not automatic - one needs to persuade the court to make such a ruling. It is not like a litmus paper where it would change its color automatically depending on the nature of substance at hand.

One may argue that Article 4 could be read according to Islamic values or values that are acceptable to Islam. In one case Karpal himself has argued that Article 3 and 4, read together, would have the implication of making Islam as the pillar of test of constitutionality.

The court, however, rejected this argument. That notwithstanding, the court did not rule that the Constitution was a secular one. It merely ruled that the constitution retains the pre-Independence legal regime left by the British. On this point, views differ. But it not easy to displace the contention Islam still had a place even during the British rule.

That brings us to the most important point - the alleged secular nature of the constitution. Some lawyers seem to think that Malaysian Constitution was erected along the lines of the Indian Constitution. On some points, this may be the case.

Indeed, we have also brought in some English principles and practices. But when it come to Islam, the provisions have their roots here. Article 3 which declares Islam as the state religion has its roots in the past; something that is clearly from the 1895 Johor constitution as well as the 1911 Terengganu constitution.

And the present state constitutions, especially those with sultans, display a strong presence of Islamic principles. It is interesting to note that the definition of a Malay in the constitution today, which exemplifies the strong bond between the Malays and their culture, language and faith, has been around before 1957.

Historical perspective

These alone are good enough to negate the contention that the Federal Constitution is secular in nature. And when we examine further the provisions, we will find that there are provisions which effectively put Islam above other religions.

A good example would be the prohibition of propagation of religions other than Islam to Muslims as well as the permissibility of spending public funds for Islamic purposes. While it may not be correct to say that the Constitution is an Islamic one, it is also incorrect to say that the Constitution is secular.

For one thing, a secular state or secular constitution is one that outlaws or is indifferent towards Islam. It needs to be pointed out that the Constitution, despite the assertion to the contrary by people like the first premier Tunku Abdul Rahman, does not contain any word indicating its alleged secular nature. One may argue that the Islamic character or influence is stronger than the alleged secular nature.

Perhaps it needs to be said that Islam in Malaysia should be looked at from the historical perspective as well. The Constitution is essentially the continuation of the past. And we must not overlook the fact that Muslims and non-Muslims have a long history co-existence in the country.

To assert for a secular constitution in this country would invariably bring the impact of cutting off the country from its past; something which may have an adverse jolt on the country's stability and identity.

Another fallacy that underlines the basis for the argument of a secular constitution seems to be the allergy towards religion and spirituality. The desire to have a more religious society will always be perceived as a movement towards hatred, intolerance and even ethnic cleansing.

While this may be difficult to deny in some instances, one must not deny that religion has had a greater, positive impact throughout the history of mankind.

Crucial issue

While PAS might be blamed for failing to spell out Islamic state issues clearly, the greater portion of this blame must fall on the media, most of which are under the control of the ruling party.

Apparently, anything related to Islam has invariably been considered as opposed to multi-racial politics and is extreme, violent and anti-civilisation. While advocating an Islamic state may be said to be premature, the idea of an Islamic state is certainly a good point to discuss.

The non-Muslims ought to look at the other side of the coin and not just jump to the conclusion that Islam and Islamic states mean no liquor, separate lines for male and females, suppression of non-Muslim rights and so on.

Perhaps they should look at the merits of each and every measures instead of saying, 'Ah, this comes from Islam and thus it must be against us!'. The prohibition of gambling, liquor consumption and so on, arguably, go down well with the have-nots as they are the class of people who suffer from family crises and breakdowns.

Rather than looking at Islam as a menace, perhaps the time has come for non-Muslims to look at their own religions for there are issues on which all religions can agree upon.

That is why Kit Siang was right in calling for a national discussion on the issue and it is up to PAS to spell out its vision of an Islamic state. Having said that however, the issue is actually a concern for all Muslims, including those in Umno.

And the party, being the one that controls the government, should contribute by providing the freedom needed to deal with it. Given its position, Umno should not trivialise or reduce the question of an Islamic state to just a matter of political party debates.

Undoubtedly, given its frequent recurrence, the Islamic state issue is an issue that is crucial to national unity and understanding. And perhaps the time has come for us to give a thought to the idea that to be Islamic also means to assert the essence of the great religions.

From this point of view, one may say that the issue before us is not something that pits Muslims against non-Muslims, but rather religious and spiritual adherents against secularists and those who feel that religious values have no place in public life.

DR ABDUL AZIZ BARI is an associate professor of law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia where he specialises in Constitutional Law and Comparative Constitutional Law. A leading constitutionalist, he has published widely in law journals and the popular press. His Cabinet Principles in Malaysia - The Law and Practice is about to enter its second edition while his Perlembagaan Malaysia - Asas dan Konflik will be published soon.