He said based on the same grounds of judgment, religious laws enacted by states are also in jeopardy of being declared unconstitutional, even though the constitution supposedly empowers the states to enact such laws.
"The grounds given by the court has wide implications.
"When Islamic laws can be declared unconstitutional based on liberal interpretations from the courts of secular countries (India and USA); when Islamic laws are measured against liberal Western-style values; when Islamic laws can be challenged on grounds that it is 'unreasonable' to a judge, including those who are not Muslim, then Islamic laws will be constantly exposed to the possibility of being declared invalid," he said in his blog.
Among the religious laws that are threatened, he said, include laws that allow Muslims to marry more than one wife, and make it illegal for Muslims not to pay zakat (tithes), to consume liquor and to have extra-marital sex and sodomy.
"Moreover, this judgment will pave the way to same-sex marriage. It seems that what I had feared has started," he said.
Our values
He said it is inappropriate to cite Indian and American precedents as “they do not share our values".
"The Court of Appeal judges are clearly very influenced by the Western interpretation of human rights," he said.
He added the judges had erred in ruling based on "unreasonableness" of the law, as their ambit is only to judge if it is "unconstitutional", not if it is reasonable or not.
On Nov 7, the Court of Appeal ruled that Section 66 of the Negri Sembilan Syariah Enactment which bans cross-dressing is unconstitutional.
It ruled that the evidence show the appellate, three Muslim transgender individuals, suffer from Gender Identity Disorder which has no therapy or cure.
Therefore, the Section 66, which opens them to arrests, condemns them to a life of “indignity” and “uncertainty”, the judgment grounds reads.
The Negri Sembilan government said it will appeal the decision at the Federal Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment