Be Assured that Syariah Law WILL be Imposed on non-Muslims

PAS politicians and some UMNO government officials repeatedly assure non-Muslims that that Syariah law will not be applied to them even as Abdul Hadi Awang tables the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Bill 2016 to widen the scope of the criminal jurisdiction of Syariah Courts. However, non-Muslims have reasons to doubt whether the assurance is empty, if not disingenuous, when the authorities in Kelantan and officials in various government departments repeatedly impose public policies that infringe on the fundamental liberties of non-Muslims. It is the duty of every conscientious Member of Parliament to reject any proposed legislation that violates the provisions in the Federal Constitution that protect the rights of non-Muslims and Muslims against punitive criminal actions based on religious precepts.

Beware when the wolf ‘courteously’ invites the lamb for supper in his den when it is seen sharpening its claws and teeth.

Read also Shad Faruqi’s analysis on the wider implications of the Syariah Courts Amendment Bill given below: Enhancing Syariah Courts’ Powers.


Shop selling beauty products in Malaysia mall fined for displaying ‘indecent’ posters

Kelantan Poster Banned

KOTA BARU (THE STAR/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) – A second business operator has been slapped with a summons for putting up posters that do not adhere to the Islamic dress code.
This time, it is a businesswoman selling skincare products at Aeon Mall in Kota Bahru.
She told China Press online that she was issued a RM150 (S$50) summons from the Kota Baru Municipal Council (MPKB) on July 26 for posters that featured a woman who was not wearing a tudung (headscarf).
“The enforcement officers just came in and gave me the summon without any warning,” she complained, adding that the posters were eventually removed.

On July 25, a watch retailer in the same mall was also fined for displaying two “sexy” posters, supplied by the brand manufacturers, in his shop.

Kelantan Poster Watch
The posters of Aishwarya Rai (above ) and the models are deemed sexy in the MPKB summons.
One poster featured Bollywood star Aishwarya Rai and another showed a female model wearing a strapless dress, with her arms interlocked with a man.

MPKB president Zamri Ismail has defended the council’s move in issuing the summonses.
He earlier told Sin Chew Daily that outfits which did not abide by the Islamic dress code were deemed “indecent” and that the council did not allow the display of posters with sexy models at public areas.
According to the council’s terms of business permits, owners are not allowed to display sexy photographs at their shops.

Related News: Shop Fined for ‘Sexy’ Watch Ads

Related News: Kelantan Salons Ordered To Remove Posters of ‘Sexy’ Hair Models
Kota Bharu Municipal Council gave verbal warnings to salon operators to take down the “sexy” posters

Kelantan Poster Hair Salon
Hair salon operators here are fuming following verbal warnings from the Kota Baru Municipal Council to remove posters featuring models who did not cover their heads (tutup aurat).
One salon operator, who only wanted to be known as Ong, said they had been told by enforcement officers that the posters placed in front of their salons were deemed “too sexy”.
According to China Press, the officers took photographs of the salons before they left. It also quoted a salon operator as saying that he had been told that the posters should not be placed on the glass window or doors facing the road.

Enhancing Syariah Court’s Powers

Shad Saleem Faruqi The Star 9 June 2016

UNDER the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, the sentencing power of the syariah courts is limited to RM5,000 fine, six lashes and three years’ jail. This power is equivalent to the power of magistrates in our civil courts.

It is understandable therefore that PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang wishes for a law to enhance the status of syariah courts by increasing the penalties they can impose. However, the Private Member’s Bill he is promoting has more to it than catches the eye.

It re-ignites some critical issues of constitutional law, Islam and justice.

Criminalisation: Under the Constitution’s Schedule 9, List II item 1, state assemblies have power to enact Islamic law on 24 civil matters (like succession, marriage, divorce and Malay custom) and on one criminal matter, that is, “creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion”.

The power to impose criminal penalties appears to be confined to offences against the precepts of Islam. But under the “Hadi Bill” the criminal jurisdiction of the syariah courts is not limited to the violation of the teachings of Islam but can extend to “offences relating to any (of the 25) matters enumerated in item 1 of the State List”.

This appears to be a significant enhancement of power. Many matters like Malay custom which are not criminalised now, could possibly be criminalised in the future!

Federal-state division: Another issue is the demarcation of penal power between the Federal and state legislatures as outlined in Schedule 9, Lists I and II. States have legislative authority to create and punish offences against the precepts of Islam.

But in Schedule 9, List II, item 1 and List I, Item 4(h) this penal power of the states is limited by the words “except in regard to matters included in the Federal List” or “dealt with by Federal law”. Among the matters included in the Federal List are “criminal law and procedure”.

Most criminal offences like murder, theft, robbery, rape, incest, unnatural sex, betting and lotteries are in Federal jurisdiction even though they are also offences in Islamic jurisprudence.

Murder is covered by sections 300, 302 and 307 of the Penal Code. Theft is dealt with by sections 378 – 382A; robbery by sections 390 to 402; and rape in section 375 – 376.

Incest and homosexuality are covered by sections 377A to 377C. State Enactments on these Federal matters are ultra vires (beyond the powers of the states).

The Merdeka Constitution’s scheme was that the states are permitted to punish wrongs like khalwat, zina, intoxication and abuse of halal signs as these are not covered by Federal laws.

Unfortunately, most states are trespassing on Federal jurisdiction by punishing crimes like homosexuality, incest, prostitution, enticing a married woman, betting, lottery and gaming even though these wrongs are clearly part of the Federal Penal Code.

States are also setting up rehabilitation centres even though this power is solely Federal.

Regrettably, such ultra vires state laws are hardly challenged in the courts. In the rare application for judicial review, the superior civil courts are generally reluctant to invalidate laws passed in the name of the syariah.

The Hadi Bill must be seen in this light: it is enhancing penalties for crimes, some of which are far beyond the powers of the states.

Another unresolved issue is that state laws often criminalise acts that are sins, not crimes in Islamic theory. For example, Islam does not mandate criminal sanctions against those who skip Friday prayers or who in honest disagreement, question the desirability of a fatwa (juristic opinion).

Hudud punishments: Under the Bill, what penalties can the syariah courts impose? Specifically, can states impose “hudud punishments” prescribed in classical Islamic law?

The Bill is clear that syariah courts cannot impose the death penalty. Therefore, the non-Quranic penalty of stoning to death is impermissible.

But as the Bill permits “any sentence allowed by Islamic law” (without mentioning these sentences), there is a real possibility in the future of amputations, crucifixions, whipping up to 100 lashes, forfeiture of property, and imprisonment for unspecified periods till the accused repents.

No uniformity: In criminal law there should be uniform application of the state’s coercive powers against delinquents. In the Hadi Bill there is no emphasis on uniformity from state to state. Each state can pick and choose which penalties to impose.

This is a regression from the present position that only three types of penalties (lashes, fine and imprisonment) with strict upper limits can be prescribed in all states.

Kelantan Code: Due to the provision for “any sentence allowed by Islamic law” the Hadi Bill is clearly an adroit attempt to revive the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code II (1993) which has been lying dormant because of constitutional hurdles.

It is noteworthy that the Kelantan Code of 1993 extends to consenting non-Muslims. This is a serious violation of the Constitution which proclaims that syariah courts have no jurisdiction over non-Muslims.

Jurisdiction is a matter of law, not of consent or acquiescence.

Fundamental rights: As our Constitution is supreme, all Federal and state legislation is subject to judicial review on constitutional grounds. Even if the Hadi Bill crosses the parliamentary threshold, if its content or its consequences are violative of fundamental liberties, judicial review is a distinct possibility.

Thus if two criminals in Kelantan, one a Muslim and the other not, are caught for stealing, the non-Muslim will be tried under the Penal Code.

The Muslim will face the music in the syariah court and may be liable to amputation. Unequal punishments for the same crime would violate the equality provision of Article 8 of the Constitution.

In sum, even if the Bill to amend the 1965 Syariah Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act secures a simple majority in Parliament, a Pandora’s box of questions and issues will continue to haunt the legal system.

We can only hope that before the Bill is passed there will be a thorough inquest in our Parliament of the constitutional implications of the Bill.

Shad Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM. The views expressed are entirely the writer’s own.


One Response to “Be Assured that Syariah Law WILL be Imposed on non-Muslims”

  1. Krisis & Praxis » Blog Archive » Be Assured that Syariah Law WILL be Imposed on non-Muslims Says:

    […] To read the full article, visit a new post at Religious Liberty Watch: Be Assured Syariah Law WILL be Imposed on non-Muslims […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: