Minorities in Muslim Countries

Prof. Salbiah Ahmed is a human rights activist even while teaching Islamic Sharia Law in International Islamic University (IIU) Malaysia. She had been engaged in the comparative study of modern civil law and Sharia law for over two decades. Having done her LLB (Hons) from Singapore University and Masters in Comparative Law from the IIU, Ms. Ahmed is currently examining the constitutional provisions in relation to Islam and Islamic law in the context of Malaysia as a modern nation state with a written Constitution which spells it as the supreme law of the land. Currently working on the project, she is probing whether Islam should be so privileged in a multi-cultural society that civil law and the Constitution itself be subjected to Islamic law. And also what are the approaches or framework to be developed for managing differences and the conflicts that arise in this situation? Against this background, the project will focus on the role of the civil superior courts in the adjudication of fundamental liberties.


Maqbool Ahmed Siraj spoke to Ms. Ahmed for Islamic Voice while she was here in Bangalore in March 2006. Excerpts from the interview.


How does Malaysia manage to have parallel civil and Islamic law?

It is better to have an overview of Malaysia to begin with. Malaysia is a multi-cultural society with Muslims having a scrape-through demographic advantage. It has several repressive laws. For example, people could be detained without trial. Police is not disciplined. It has been federally ruled by United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) since its formation and independence. Elections are though held regularly, they are not fair. Electoral laws have been made in such a way that they always favour UMNO. Former Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad launched the Islamisation drive and consequently IIU was formed to train the bureaucrats, Islamisation of banks was started and Institute of Islamic Understanding was set up. Over the years, several such ‘Islamic’ laws were promulgated that overlap the civil law or clash with it with undesirable implications in a multi-cultural society like Malaysia. For instance, Khilwat Law prohibits two Muslim individuals from opposite sexes to hold hands in public. This actually is how close proximity has been defined. Under this you could be arrested if found with a stranger at home. A Muslim could be arrested for social drinking in public places. (But Muslim ministers have never been arrested despite violation.) Non-Muslim children are barred from bringing non-Halal food products to schools and non-Muslims wishing to keep dogs at homes are supposed to secure permission from Muslim neighbours while it is merely a question of training the dog.


How does the law look at the marriage question?

For a marriage to be valid, the law makes it imperative that if one spouse in the marriage is a non-Muslim, he should convert to Islam. So aspirants of marriage from two different faiths choose to migrate out of the country. This is highly undesirable from human rights point of view. Such laws do a disservice to Islam as they provoke anti-Islam hostility.


How should the Muslims in multi-cultural societies look at such conflicts between the civil laws and Islamic laws?

After 1988, a number of cases on religious freedom, conversions out of Islam, and conversions of minors to Islam, have arisen in the civil courts in relation to family law and fundamental liberties. These cases show that the attempt to demarcate Islam and civil laws and the agenda of Islamisation of laws have created more problems legally and politically. The Civil courts are in a conundrum in trying to interpret the 1988 constitutional amendment. Most judges see this as “divesting” the civil court of powers to hear any matter relating to Islamic law. This approach becomes problematic when the court has to adjudicate on fundamental liberties: while the civil court has jurisdiction to hear these cases, judges are reluctant to adjudicate on Islamic law matters which arise in these cases, like the freedom to convert out of Islam or whether Islamic apostasy laws or Islamic rehabilitation laws impinge upon religious freedom. As an important institution of democracy and an institution to determine fundamental freedoms, the court’s reluctance has created a stalemate. Many view the impasse as one which politics has to address.


Any theoretical framework to bring about the compatibility between modern civil laws and the Islamic laws?

Intellectuals like Prof. Abdullahi Naim of Emory University (Atlanta) and Mahmood Mohammad Taha have attempted this. They are of the opinion that the state must be slow in using religion as the basis of policy and stress ijtihad (application of independent reasoning.) They also plead against scarf being institutionalised and oppose laws that restrict the right of preaching the religion to non-Muslims alone. We have this law in Malaysia that says that if one parent converts to Islam, the minor children will automatically become Muslims. How could the children be automatically converted? Because of this, non-Muslims feel inconvenient in the country.


An Inter-faith commission is being mooted in Malaysia to look into such issues.