Here are three responses to the “717 Declaration” of Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak that “Malaysia is an Islamic state and had never been a secular state” which deserve serious thought and study by Malaysians concerned about the future of nation-building in Malaysia.

The first is by Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (Abim) that “Malaysia has been an Islamic state in practice ever since Independence” from the following Malaysiakini report:

Abim: We’re an Islamic state in practice
Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
Jul 21, 07 2:15pm

Notwithstanding the constitutional and theoretical debates, Malaysia has been an Islamic state in practice ever since Independence, said the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (Abim).

Its president Yusri Mohamad said the so-called Islamisation process has not introduced any significant novelty.

“On the contrary, it seeks to preserve the religious practices and values of its Muslim citizens.

“The only ‘changes’ that have occurred are in the attitude of those who cannot accept what has already been happening for a long time,” said Yusri when met at Abim headquarters yesterday.

He was commenting on the strong objections expressed following the statement of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak on Tuesday that Malaysia is not a secular state but an Islamic one.

Najib said Malaysia has never been a secular nation as the government has always been driven by the fundamentals of Islam.

“Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state,” Najib told reporters after he opened an international conference on the role of Islamic states in facing the challenges of Islamisation.

No drastic change

This was immediately opposed by various quarters, including BN senior partner MCA, who argued that historical facts and documents showed that Malaysia was a secular state, just as espoused in the Federal Constitution.

Yusri said these quarters fail, however, to acknowledge the fact that the Muslim population in Malaysia has always been sensitive and referred to Islamic laws with regards to such issues as custody over children of mixed-marriages, claims over the deceased, and apostasy.

“Opposition to apostasy, for example, is not anything new or unknown to be prohibited. There has never been a situation where it has been allowed to happen without significant opposition,” said Yusri.

“There has been no drastic change as far as Islamisation in principle is concerned,” he added.

In reference to the first premier Tunku Abdul Rahman, who is often cited as having called for a secular Malaysia, Yusri said the actions and practices of Tunku himself suggest that what he envisioned for Malaysia was far from what is conventionally understood as ‘secular’.

Tunku, who participated in the founding of the Islamic welfare and propagation organisation Perkim, had been actively involved in propagating the religion and facilitated the channeling of public funds to Islamic institutions.

“These are not the actions of a secular leader in a secular state. It’s very clear that his understanding of Islam’s position in the federation was far from what is secular in the conventional sense,” said Yusri.

On concerns that Najib’s statement would impact on the already controversial implementation of Islamic laws, Yusri said detractors of that process “pick and choose a few incidents” to paint a negative and exaggerated picture of the Islamisation process.

No real fear

“The implementation of Islam in Malaysia has always been autochthonous and informed by our own setting and circumstances. There is no real fear of Malaysia undergoing drastic changes on a daily basis and becoming a theocratic oppressive state,” he said.

That Islam as a religion informs and influences public policy in Malaysia does not automatically mean it is any less a modern state, said Yusri.

“An Islamic Malaysia is not the anti-thesis to our desire to be a successful modern state. On that contrary, it is one of the ingredients that can successfully bind the various elements together,” he said.

Yusri also said according to some scholars, Malaysia does fulfill the minimal requirements of an Islamic state in that the religion occupies a special position in the constitution, the Syariah family laws are in place, Muslims’ basic and external religious obligations are carried out, and public funds are used for Islam.

“It is not perfect, there’s a lot to improve upon, but just a Muslim is he who testifies he is so, we are also an Islamic state by the fulfilment of those basic requirements.”

The second is by Bishop Dr. Paul Tan Chee Ing, chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia, in a letter to Malaysiakini:

A constitutional democracy, not an Islamic state
Paul Tan Chee Ing
Jul 20, 07 5:25pm

The Christian Federation of Malaysia wishes to express its concern at the following remarks of Najib Abdul Razak in response to questions from reporters: “Islam is the official religion and Malaysia is an Islamic state, an Islamic state that respects the rights of the non-Muslims and we protect them.”

As he is the deputy prime minister of the country and for all Malaysians, he should not have made those remarks. The use of the term ‘Islamic state’ is unacceptable to Malaysians of other faiths, on three grounds.

Firstly, the term ‘Islamic state’ is not used in our Federal Constitution to describe the country. By citing Article 3(1) of our Federal Constitution to infer that Malaysia was meant to be an Islamic state runs contrary to the original intention of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide for a theocratic state.

Secondly, it was never the intention of the social contract entered into at the independence of Malaysia that Malaysia would be an Islamic state. The Constitution was structured to guarantee the right of all religious communities to co-exist and relate with each other on an equal basis as citizens of one and a united country.

Thirdly, to-date, the non-Muslim coalition parties that make up the Barisan National government had never consented nor officially endorsed the use of the term ‘Islamic state’ to describe the country. The deputy prime minister’s statement must therefore be viewed as lacking official endorsement by the government of the day.

We appeal to the deputy prime minister to retract his aforesaid remarks and to the government to refrain from the use of the term ‘Islamic State’ in the description of Malaysia and instead to vigorously advocate the description of Malaysia as a secular constitutional democracy.

The third item is an Opinion piece “Malaysia: A secular or Islamic state” by JUST President, Dr. Chandra Muzaffar in Malaysiakini:

Malaysia: A secular or Islamic state?
Chandra Muzaffar

Malaysia is not a secular state within the conventional use of the term. Neither is it an Islamic state in the classical sense.

It is not a secular state since the Malaysian state formulates policies and organises activities from the building of mosques and the administration of the Hajj, on the one hand, to the establishment of Islamic schools and the dissemination of Islamic awareness through public broadcasting channels, on the other, which demonstrate that it is actively involved in sustaining and strengthening the position of Islam in society.

Judicial pronouncements and political utterances from the past which suggest that Malaysia is a secular state do not in any way negate the fact that the state has functioned in a non-secular mode, especially in the last three decades.

Nonetheless, for the majority of contemporary Muslim jurists, Malaysia is not an Islamic state since its constitution does not state that governance is based upon the Quran and Sunnah (the way of the Prophet Muhammad). Neither is syariah the supreme law of the land. Hudud (the Islamic criminal code) is not in force anywhere in Malaysia. These are legal and political attributes of state which are found in almost all those countries that are acknowledged as ‘Islamic’.

More than the actual situation prevalent in Malaysia, there are perceptions of what a ‘secular state’ is, and what an ‘Islamic state’ will be, which have shaped the outlooks of both Muslims and non-Muslims in the country.

For a lot of Muslims, the term ‘secular’ connotes antipathy towards, or worse, rejection of, religion in the life of the nation. Since Islam encompasses all aspects of life, including government and politics, the idea of a ‘secular state’ has become anathema to them. Similarly, for many non-Muslims, an ‘Islamic state’ conjures up a frightening vision of Malay dominance reinforced by religious dogmatism. These perceptions – even if they are misconceived – carry tremendous weight and impact directly upon interethnic ties.

Go beyond labels
This is why it is unwise to insist that Malaysia is a secular state or an Islamic state. There is no need to do this. It will only widen the chasm between the communities. It will exacerbate ethnic tensions.

Why is it necessary to categorise Malaysia as a secular state or an Islamic state when the character of the Malaysian state, its guiding principles and goals, and its vision of the future, have already been spelt out with such lucidity and clarity in the three fundamental documents that were meant to be our signposts in the last 50 years? The most important of these – the Malaysian Constitution – embodies a dozen or so basic principles which tell us what this nation is. In a nutshell Malaysia means:
1. A parliamentary form of government based upon the concept of one person, one vote
2. A federal system of governance
3. A constitutional monarchy
4. The supremacy of the rule of law
5. An independent judiciary
6. Protection of fundamental liberties
7. Malay as the national and official language
8. The right to use and study other languages
9. Islam as the religion of the Federation
10. Recognition of the right of non-Muslims to practise their religions
11. The special position of the Malays and other indigenous peoples
12. The legitimate interests of the other communities
These principles enunciated in 1957 when we achieved Merdeka were reiterated in one form or other in the Rukunegara, the nation’s charter, in August 1970. It is significant that the first of the five principles of the Rukunegara is ‘Belief in God’.

Young Malaysians recite this and the other four principles in school every morning but what is not emphasised at all are the five goals of the Rukunegara – the goals of a united, just, democratic, liberal and progressive nation. Twenty-one years after the Rukunegara, its principles and goals were further elaborated in the nine strategic challenges of Vision 2020 which include the creation of a moral and ethical society.

Three guiding documents

If we reflected upon the Malaysian Constitution, the Rukunegara and Vision 2020, it would appear that they represent a trajectory in the evolution of the nation’s identity and character. It is as if the three documents embody the steady maturation of the Malaysian state and society.

It is important to emphasise at the same time that most of the principles and goals articulated by the three documents do not in any way contradict the universal values of the Quran and the Sunnah. Indeed, in certain respects, they seek to give meaning to some of the eternal concerns of the religion about justice, accountability and ethical conduct.

Likewise, those who subscribe to a secular vision of society which is not antagonistic to the Divine, would applaud the fact that the Constitution, the Rukunegara and Vision 2020 uphold such principles and goals. In other words, when we go beyond labels such as ‘secular’ and ‘Islamic’ and connect with the substance of our three principal documents we will discover that there is a degree of congruence between the two positions.

This is why as we observe the 50th year of our Merdeka, we should reiterate our trust and confidence in the three documents that speak to the spirit of the Malaysian people and their shared destiny. To embroil ourselves in the unending controversy about whether we are a secular state or an Islamic state is to forfeit our future.