By Baradan Kuppusamy
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 11 2006 (IPS)

Malaysia’s minorities are banding together to put up a united front against what they fear is a steady encroachment of Shariah or Islamic law into their lives.

Unsettled by the decision of a court, last month, that it had no jurisdiction in Islamic matters and that a non-Muslim has no remedy under common law, the minorities, led by moderate leaders, are putting up a surprisingly stiff protest.

Observers say the resistance has placed the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi in a delicate position because it would need to balance out competing demands from the majority Muslims. While non-Muslims want the common law and the secular constitution of Malaysia preserved and protected, Muslims demand a society based on shariah law.

Shariah (path to the watering hole) denotes the Islamic way of life rather any code of justice although some Muslim countries have instituted it as the law to be enforced the courts. But the actual application of shariah varies greatly from country to country and few enforce it on non-Muslims.

In Malaysia, while the protesters are themselves surprised at the support their movement has received, a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction has been building up among the country’s minority communities against fundamentalists pushing the Islamic way into many matters – from banking, and halal (kosher) food to family matters, education and personal issues such as religious conversion.

In effect, two parallel societies – Muslim and non-Muslim – have gradually replaced what was a pluralistic, secular Malaysian society, based on common law that was the legacy British colonials handed over on a platter on independence in 1957.

Indigenous Malays, nearly all of whom follow Islam, form 60 percent of Malaysia’s 24 million people while Chinese, who are mostly Buddhists, make up 30 percent and the largely Hindu Indians another eight percent. There are smaller racial groups such as Eurasians.

Malay is the official language and Islam the official religion but the constitution guarantees freedom of worship, although this provision, according to the minorities, has been gradually and systematically eroded.

The last straw was the forced burial in December of a 36-year-old soldier and mountaineer, M. Moorthy as a Muslim, over the protest of his Hindu wife. Judge Mohamed Raus Sharif ruled that his civil court had no jurisdiction to hear an application by S. Kaliammal, that her husband was Hindu.

Sharif refused to alter an ex-parte judgement, obtained from a shariah court by the Islamic Affairs Department Shariah, that deemed the dead man to have converted to Islam – in effect telling non-Muslims that they have no remedy in such cases.

The protest has, thus far, been peaceful – candlelight vigil at Sharif’s office, a signature campaign, and a memorandum to Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi.

Also about 30 influential Hindu organisations have formed an umbrella Hindu Rights Action Force (HRAF) to protect the rights of minorities to religious freedom. The HRAF mounted a protest outside the palace this week and petitioned the King, who is constitutionally the head of Islam, to intervene.

“The presiding judge, by refusing to dwell in the said matter has effectively failed to exercise his legitimate right as an umpire conferred upon him by the Federal Constitution,” they said in their petition.

“In our opinion this is nothing but a serious misconduct on the part of the judge,” their petition argued. “This practice cannot be tolerated and must never be encouraged in a multi-racial society, as it could have far-reaching effects.”

“The decision has tarnished the image of the judiciary and brought disrepute,” the petition said. “The public wants to have continued assurance that the judicial system would prevail and has supremacy over all other bodies, both Islamic and non-Islamic.”

The crux of their demand is a repeal of article 121 (1A) of the constitution that was amended in 1988 to state that the civil court had no jurisdiction on matters under the purview of the Shariah court.

Lim Kit Siang, the opposition leader, led calls for constitutional change at a forum attended by over 100 politicians, lawyers, activists and representatives of all the minority groups. “We would like to call for the repeal of the amendment and a restoration of the pre-1988 article,” he said.

However Muslim organisations have warned that any attempt to repeal article 121 (1A) would be strongly resisted.

Malay National Force or TERAS, a Malay non-government organisation, said in a statement that article 121 (1A) provided specific guarantees that the civil court will not interfere in Islamic matters.

“The shariah court should not be seen as an institution that denies justice to non-Muslims. On the contrary, if its laws are fully applied, there is an assurance of better justice here compared to civil laws, which are the heritage of British colonial rule,” said TERAS president Mohamad Azmi Abdul Hamid.

“How can anyone even suggest such a remedy to non-Muslims? What becomes of the civil law, the judicial system and the secular constitution,” said human rights lawyer P. Uthayakumar.

“We non-Muslims have suffered long enough. The government should intervene immediately and put an end to non-Muslim fears and misery,” he told IPS. “The uncertainties have gone on for far too long.”

The row has highlighted the long standing uneasy relationship that exists between the civil and the shariah court systems and the potential for an explosive encounter in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society showcased to the world as a tolerant isle of peace.

Some government ministers went against the tide arguing for a secular constitutional court to rule on matters involving conversion.

“If we let the Muslim court decide this, justice might not be served because it would decide in favour of Islam,” said Nazri Aziz, minister for parliamentary affairs.

Abu Talib Othman, chairman of the Human Rights Commission and former attorney general blamed the situation on judges who feared to apply the common law.

“The problem today is created by courts who have no courage to comply with the oath of office they took,” he told a recent public forum on the controversy, criticising justice Sharif for refusing to overrule the shariah court in the case of the dead soldier.

It is common knowledge, though rarely mentioned, that Muslim judges are reluctant to apply common law principles in cases involving Islamic matters.

“They fear Allah’s punishment more then the wrath of their country’s citizens,” said a lawyer who declined to be named. “It is a growing problem.”

Abdullah has offered a cautious response. “I am looking into the matter and hope to prevent problems like this from happening,” he told reporters this week.

But non-Muslims, who fear that shariah is becoming the supreme law of the land, want more than soothing words in their anxiety that the common law and civil justice system is under threat.

+ Once Taboo Islam Turns Hot Topic in Malaysia (https://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews31637)

Excerpt: