Constitutional law expert Abdul Aziz Bari today called into question the source of the authority and appropriateness of the Selangor Sultan's recent decree that "Allah is only for Islam".
He also asked in what capacity did the Mufti and others from the state religious council, plus a lawyer, sought an audience with the Sultan, which led to the issuance of the decree?"
Abdul Aziz said: "It is true that the sultan has the discretion to issue decrees as head of the religion of Islam. Such is provided for under the constitution."
The provision, however, is to be read in the context of the relationship between the Sultan and the government of the day.
"One must not lose sight of the fact why the constitution allows the sultan to retain his position as head of Islam, first rooted in the Malacca Code and eventually to Islam itself."
He added that the sultan can use his discretion to safeguard and protect Islam, but it is also linked to Islamic law as defined in the Quran and by the edicts of Ulamas.
As for the issue at hand now, Abdul Aziz contends, that it is pretty clear that the use of Allah by Christians has some basis in the Quran.
This is strengthened by the exposition of eminent scholars, including Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi (Maal Hijrah award recipient 2009) who said that Christians, as part of the Abrahamic faiths together with the Jews and Muslims, can use the name 'Allah'.
Home Ministry secretary general Mahmood Adam told reporters yesterday that the practice here in Malaysia was different from those in other countries.
The UIA professor asked is: "Can this practice or culture override the clear text in the Quran. Culture or practice, as far as the law of Islam is concerned, merely explains or supplements, not overrides over the Quran."
'It's against Constitution'
While state religious council chairman Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa said that he was asked by the sultan to convey that there is law to prevent such usage, Abdul Aziz contended: "The problem is, that law is just an ordinary law"
"State enactments against the propagation of non-Muslim religions to those who professed the Muslim faith "cannot override the constitution".
Above all, the law in question also seems to be inconsistent with the substantive law of Islam. A more interesting question, Abdul Aziz said is: "Why only now is this law suddenly mentioned?"
Despite being formulated in 1988, the enactment has never been enforced before this case. To date, 10 states have enacted similar enactments, including Selangor.
The preamble to the enactment mentions specifically that the law is meant "to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam."
This as was mentioned in the High Court Judge Lau Bee Lan's judgement in overturning the Home Ministry's ban on the use of 'Allah' by the Herald.
She made it clear that publications or use of the word 'Allah' is only prohibited by the said law if it is meant to propagate non-Islamic faiths to Muslims.
As the learned judge indicated, the law makes no mention nor does it prohibit the use of the word 'Allah' and 24 others defined in the act, in publications meant for those who are not Muslims, especially in the freedom to practice their religion which is guaranteed under Article 11 of the Federal constitution.
On Monday, the Selangor Sultan issued a decree that "Allah is only for Islam". The decree came after the Sultan granted an audience with a deputation from the state religious council.
US religion watchdog expresses concern
No comments:
Post a Comment