Thread by @walski69

Among the arguments used by ISMA to promote their “Negara Islam” initiative is Article 3 of the Federal Constitution. Tonight, I will present what the Reid Commission had to say in their report about this. And therefore, this will be a thread.

How ISMA uses Article 3 is to conflate the article to mean more than it was meant to mean by the framers of the Federal Constitution. The copy of the Reid Report I quote in the following tweets may be found here: catholiclawyersmalaysia.org/sites/default/…

The report, on p 75, states thus (any emphasis by me):

State Religion
169. We have considered the question whether there should be any statement in the Constitution to the effect that Islam should be the State religion. [cont.]

There was universal agreement that if any such provision were intended it must be made clear that it would not in any way affect the civil rights of non-Muslims. In the memorandum submitted by the Alliance it was stated the religion of Malaysia [sic] shall be Islam.

The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non Muslim nationals professing and practicing their own religions and shall NOT IMPLY that the State IS NOT A SECULAR STATE.

There is nothing in the draft Constitution to affect the continuance of the present position in the States with regard to recognition of Islam or to prevent the recognition of Islam in the Federation by legislation or (cont.)

(cont.) otherwise in any respect which does not prejudice the civil rights of individual non-Muslims. The majority of us think that it is best to leave the matter on this basis, looking to the fact that Counsel for the Rulers said to us - (cont.)

'It is Their Highnesses considered view that it WOULD NOT BE DESIRABLE to insert some declaration such as has been suggested that the Muslim Faith or Islamic Faith be the established religion of the Federation. (cont.)

(cont.) ‘… Their Highnesses are not in favour of such a declaration being inserted and that is matter of specific instruction in which I myself have played very little part.’ (cont.)

(cont.) Mr Justice Abdul Hamid is of opinion that a declaration should be inserted in the Constitution as suggested by the Alliance and his views are set out in his note appended to this Report.

The dissenting opinion came from Justice Abdul Hamid from Pakistan, who was a High Court Judge, and one of the framers of Pakistan’s constitution. I will present, from the same report, the Justice’s dissenting note in the following tweets.

I will only transcribe an excerpt (pp. 103-104) relevant to the discussion:

Islam as a State Religion

11. It has been recommended by the Alliance that the Constitution should contain a provision declaring Islam to be the religion of the State. [cont]

[cont] It was also recommended that it should be made clear in that provision that a declaration to the above effect will not impose any disability on non-Muslim citizens in professing, propagating and practising their religions, [cont]

[cont] … and will NOT PREVENT the State from being a SECULAR STATE. [cont]

[cont] As on this matter the recommendation of the Alliance was unanimous their recommendation should be accepted and a provision to the following effect should be inserted in the Constitution either after Article 2 in Part I or at the beginning of Part XIII. [cont]

Islam shall be the religion of the State of Malaya, but nothing in this article shall prevent any citizen professing any religion other than Islam to profess, practise and propagate that religion, nor shall any citizen be under any disability by reason of his being not a Muslim.

[cont.] 12. A provision like one suggested above is innocuous. Not less than fifteen countries of the world have a provision of this type entrenched in their Constitutions. [he goes on to list the countries] [cont.]

[cont.] If in these countries a religion has been declared to be the religion of the State and that declaration has not been found to have caused hardships to anybody, no harm will ensue if such a declaration is included in the Constitution of Malaya. [cont]

[cont.] In fact in all the Constitutions of Malayan States a provision of this type already exists. All that is required to be done is to transplant it from the State Constitutions and to embed it in the Federal.

Justice Abdul Hamid’s dissent was on the INCLUSION of the article, but reiterates the State shall be secular in nature. And I believe he did it in good faith, and not to imply the State would be anything else but secular in nature.

ISMA, on the other hand, believes Article 3 to mean more than it does. But you know what all their efforts in creating this initiative, writing a petition, etc., will result in? Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

And you know why?

Simply put, ANYONE can make any declaration they want. I could, if I wanted to, declare that Earth is subservient to the Supreme Ruler of the Solar System, currently ruling from Mars. It wouldn’t mean jack (and is ridiculous), but I can declare it if I want. It won’t hold water.

I believe all this is being done to prop up their image as a self-declared “protector of the faith”. Ok, so the petition will be presented to the YDPA, at some point. So what? What then? What changes?

Again, NOTHING.

ISMA’s campaign will not change the Federal Constitution, nor will their “declaration” hold any legal standing.

The only party that may provide a legal standing to their claim is the judiciary, and to date, no judicial decision has been written to state Malaysia is not secular.

Yesterday, I retweeted something from @afiqmnoor, which stated something to the same effect, and his thread contains references to support what he tweeted:

https://twitter.com/afiqmnoor/status/1080384382790131712

I urge you to read the whole thread.

So, back to ISMA. Here you have an organization that has repeatedly proclaimed they are against Liberal Democracy. Which, incidentally, is the kind of democracy Malaysia practices. But at the same time, they are not against ‘democracy’ per se

What they want - and I’m guessing here - is something called a “guided democracy”. What this means is a council of clerics that sits above the elected members of government, acting as the ultimate gatekeepers and arbitrators of all that is permissible or otherwise.

Something, in fact, like what Iran practices. According to ISMA, this is the “Islamic” way.

Be that as it may, their campaign and any declaration they may make amounts to a whole big ZERO.

Sorry, but even a petition of a gazillion signatures won’t change the constitution.

Ok, enough for one evening. It’s been something I’ve been wanting to get off my chest for a while.

[End of Thread]

@threadreaderapp unroll