— Joshua Woo
Malay Mail Online
February 19, 2017
FEBRUARY 19 — There were about 25,000 people gathered for the RUU355 rally yesterday. Non-Muslims were among the supporters for the proposed amendment.
One of the non-Muslims, who self-identified as a Roman Catholic, was recorded saying that he was there because he believed that we should “respect each other’s religion”.
(https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=2qWPAGzeTnM) One Muslim participant pleaded with non-Muslims to “respect the Muslims. Do not protest Act 355.” (https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ruu-355-rally-kelantan-mb-094420651.html)
They are right that we should respect each other’s religion. Unfortunately, supporting RUU355 is nothing of that sort. Therefore those who are pro-RUU355 have wrongly imply that anyone who does not support the motion are not respecting others’ religion.
What I want to point out here is that the support for RUU355 is not only disrespectful of Islam but actually approves and respects at least 6 extremely intolerant and fanatical practices that are detrimental to many, including Muslims:
1. Supporters of RUU355 are approving and respecting the distortion of Islam through its politicisation. Muslims such as Perlis Mufti Dr Mohd. Asri Zainul Abidin and former law minister Zaid Ibrahim have remarked that RUU355 is not about the religion Islam but an exploit of politicisation of Islam, which distorts the religion.
Therefore, pouring support for RUU355 is not respecting other’s religion but approving the continual distortion of Islam. This is disrespectful of the religion.
2. Supporters of RUU355 are approving and respecting inhumane cruelty. The proposed amendment will increase penalties up to 30 years’ jail, RM100,000 fine, 100 strokes and potentially leads to amputation.
There are ways to confine and rehabilitate offenders back into the society as functional citizens. But RUU355 is not about giving people second chance and improving lives. It is about deterrence by shedding blood, blood, and more blood. Very much like how Syrian ISIS militants behead their hostages to deter others from going against their version of Islam. Supporting RUU355 is approving, respecting, and endorsing the deterrence logic and method of ISIS militants.
3. Supporters of RUU355 are approving and respecting regression in Islamic thinking. As already being pointed out by various Islamic scholars, the future of Islamic legal system is not to go back to the past when Muslims construed the society into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War”, where Muslims and non-Muslims were governed by different laws and treated unequally.
An Islamic legal system that is just for all must take into account the multicultural dimension of the society of nation-states such as Malaysia. Supporting a dual legal system such as proposed by RUU356 is approving and respecting regression in the evolution of Islamic thoughts.
4. Supporters of RUU355 are approving and respecting the robbing of the civil court’s power to protect all Malaysians as equal before the common law and God. RUU355 will expand areas where civil court will not be able to make judgement, especially over inter-faith cases like children custody between parents from different religion, burial rite, inheritance dispute, and conversion decision.
All these matters can be solved rather straightforwardly and fairly via civil court. RUU355 will disrupt and diminish the mechanism for justice in the country for all, as ably argued by constitutional law expert Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi. Thus, to support RUU355 is to approve and respect an unjust legal system.
5. Supporters of RUU355 are approving and respecting deeper fragmentation between different religious communities. As the proposed amendment subjects the Muslim and non-Muslim under different legal system, it will further deepens the differences between us.
Differences in religion will then become differences in law, and thus alienating the communities further. This will increase the possibility and propensity for misunderstanding, making it much more difficult for live together.
6. Supporters of RUU355 are approving and respecting the hegemony of a regressive and cruel version of Islam over other more moderate understanding and expression of Islam. The fact that there are Muslims who are against RUU355 should have cautioned all of us from naively thinking that to support the proposal means we are respecting Islam, while disagreeing with means that we are being disrespectful.
Although the proposal is being promoted as an Islamic matter, it should not cloud us from the fact that the RUU355 is an aggressive attempt by PAS to save whatever goodwill it has left by boosting its Islamic credential in implementing its hegemony over other Muslims. As a political move, it distracts from the dire flooding and illegal logging issues hurting the people in Kelantan.
In conclusion, no doubt that many non-Muslim supporters of RUU355 believe they are respecting other’s religion, and many Muslims believe their desire for the implementation of the amendment should be respected. Yet, if we examine the whole proposal carefully from the angle of law, sociology, political science, and Islamic theology, we will discover what a Trojan horse it is to bring down our country’s legal system, social cohesion, and Islamic thinking.