According to MS, “the shop is not a mamak shop. It is an Indian Banana leaf shop” meaning the eatery establishment is not a muslim one (though muslims may patronize it where it is pork free).

Now, the powers of JAWI officers too can only be exercised over Muslims as may be conferred under The Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (“Islamic Act”).

So what is the JAWI officer writing out a writ and giving it to the cashier for? Just throw it in the waste paper basket. What can they do? They can only prosecute the owner of the Indian Banana leaf shop in a Sharia court but if the owner is not a Muslim, the Sharia court has no jurisdiction to try him.

To not allow the shop owner to “have their little altars and pictures of their deities in their shop because otherwise, Muslims cannot come into their shops” is to infringe the owner’s constitutional right under article 8 of the Constitution to freedom of religion.

If anything like having “little altars and pictures of their deities” that may stop Muslims from coming into the eatery/shops were prohibited, what’s next – will owners of Chinese restaurants serving pork be issued a similar writ to stop serving pork for otherwise “Muslims cannot come into their shops”?

The government should keep these overzealous officers in check. I don’t think the Islamic Act confers them such powers. I believe these JAWI officers are misguided and had exceeded their powers.

Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship, in this case an Islamic dictatorship.

YB, you should establish with the Indian Banana shops whether what MS said is true and if so raise this in Parliament. Ask Samy Vellu what he thinks.

“……Except for the fact that Islam is the religion of the federation: Art. 3 Federal Constitution 1957…..Go amend the Constitution to make it secular….//….” – DiaperHead.

The Constitution may not be entirely secular – actually it is like a hybrid – in the sense that it allows the official religion Islam to be promoted by the government but this has always been taken to apply in the context of promoting it amongst those Malaysians of Muslim faith without encroachments and impediments being imposed on other Malaysians of a different faiths by virtue of article 8 of the same Constitution. Otherwise why have article 8?

If one compares the situation in 1957 until recently, notwithstanding article 3 of the Federal Constitution, one did not hear of altars and deities in Indian Banana Leaf have having been subject to such official harassment until this incident (if true). Are we saying that the incident reflects the true purport and meaning of Article 3 and that the tolerance of other faiths all this while is wrong or inconsistent with that article?

This cannot be. Like what I earlier said, if the promulgators of the Constitution had intended article 3 to pave the way to this country to become an Islamic State, why have an article 8 (Freedom of Religion) that an Islamic State does not ordinarily have – and why does this government keep preaching tolerance (whether or not the words were matched by deeds)?

It is article of faith and tenet upon which the multiracial harmony of this country is built that all should bear the responsibilities of sensitive and tolerant of each other faiths and no practice of faiths other than the Official religion may be otherwise suppressed or repressed even if the government utilises substantial resources to promote the Official faith amongst Muslims of this country.

From these perspectives the alleged act of JAWI officers, if true, are regressive and reactionary, contrary to ethos of tolerance for nation building adopted and accepted by all communities since the birth of this nation, and the fact that certain sections of the Muslim Community think differently and would like the complete Islamisation of this Country does not make it right, correct or justified by a selective citation of Article 3 without regard to why Article 8 is there!

As I have said earlier, JAWI can enforce laws and practices prescribed for Muslims but they have no jurisdiction or powers to do so in relation to non Muslims which is what this incident entails when a summon (described “writ” by MS) was issued.

If one is talking of the Banana Leaf restaurant owner is doing things (like having deities and altars) offensive to the sensitivities of Muslims, the owner should be taken to task by either MPAJA (municipal/licensing authorities) or even the police under sedition provisions) but certainly not JAWI officers who can only prosecute and charge a Muslim in a Syariah Court, which has no jurisdiction over Non Muslims.

Let us not use the authority of Article 3 to make an apologetic defense for the misguided acts of petty bureaucratic officials who deem fit to out their duties in an overzealous manner in excess of their powers and contrary to the very ethos upon which the fabric of multi-racial and inter-religious harmony is forged so far in the country.

Not everywhere is freedom taken away and religious fascism imposed as radically and drastically as the Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini ousting the Shah.

More, often the enemies of freedom seeking to subvert Constitution and thwart and redefine its framers’ intentions according to their agenda will advance their agenda piecemeal, inch by inch, pausing at each juncture to evaluate whether they can get away with that initiative/step un-resisted so that each little step advanced and marginal progress is used as a new starting point to take further steps nearer towards their final goal.

You see, the trick is a marginal advance in each instance is by definition too insignificant by itself and therefore has the advantage of the likelihood of being achieved quietly and impartibly un-resisted – so that over time, an aggregation of countless unremembered advancements would constitute major milestone attained, a reversal of which by those opposed to this ‘creeping’ agenda becomes difficult if not impossible short of subjecting the whole system to be on tethers and the brink of being torn asunder…..

It therefore behooves all peoples cherishing freedom to be vigilant of their rights and to resist passionately each initiative and to try stopping each marginal advance and if possible rolling it back.

Otherwise, the Constitution and the government will eventually be in the grasp and controls of religious extremist and fanatics to the detriment of all.

Undergrad2,

The Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (“the Act”) covers the establishment of the Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (“Majlis”), appointment of Mufti and establishment of Syariah Courts and their respective powers, maters of conversion and religious education.

The statutory duties of the Majlis are to “promote, stimulate, facilitate the economic and social well being of the Muslim community in the Federal Territories consistent with Islamic law” and for that purpose to promote the carrying on of such activities by such bodies or persons whether under the control or partial control of the Majlis or independently, and whether in association with other bodies or persons, including the departments or authorities of the Federal Government…and the Majlis has powers to appoint committees to assist his performance of duties and exercise of powers.

As far as I am concerned, I don’t see anything.

On the other hand all readers should take note that JAWI would be acting WITHIN ITS POWERS AND JURISDICTION if the Banana Leaf shop has, in the interest of commercial considerations, earlier applied for a “Halal” certification from JAWI for the shop and it is one of the conditions of such Halal certification (that the shop owner had prior accepted for benefits of this form of certification) that the decor and set up of the establishment should not be “un-islamic” including having deities and altars in it……