Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa tells NST about efforts to streamline syariah laws nationwide and discusses the controversial Dr Zakir Naik
Question: There are plans to standardise syariah law in Malaysia. Will there be an overlap with civil law? What issues are you facing now?
Answer: It is important for the people to know my vision and that I don’t act spontaneously or when pressured by certain parties. My vision is to reform all Islamic agencies and ensure that they become models based on three principles.
Number one is compassionate Islam, or rahmata lilalamin. Number two is maqasid, which is the greater objective of syariah, which is not merely punitive. Number three is the (adaptation of) a Malaysian model, that all these must be done within the Malaysian context. Not Arabic, Egyptian or Iranian. But our own context that is particular to us,
in line with our Constitution, democracy, Parliament, customs and traditions.
We have identified seven strategic clusters to execute
this plan. They are law and judiciary, education, dakwah and media, mosques, socio-economy, maqasid and human capital.
We have key performance indicators to achieve. One of it is to implement syariah laws that shift from punitive-based to rehabilitative. That is the philosophy. Under that vision, we need to relook at existing laws — not undo them, but improve them. Right now, the element of justice is lacking because every state has different punishments for the same crime. That is an injustice.
This could have been due to the states’ jurisdictions over Islamic affairs. That could be one of the reasons. So how do you solve the problem? How do you address it? We are embarking on a project on syariah law uniformity. It must reflect a just, compassionate Islam. How can you say it is compassionate if, for instance, I commit a crime here, but my punishment would be different if I commit a similar offence in another state?
This is, however, nothing new. The previous government tried to do it, which is good. I am trying to complete what was not completed. But I agree that it is a very difficult task. It is an uphill battle. Why? You are talking about the power of state rulers. There has always been this perception that the federal government interferes with the powers of the state, especially with that of the rulers. It’s not easy for me to do away with such a perception.
It is a tedious process. The rulers must first accept it (the proposed change), the (state) Islamic council must debate it, then the relevant executive councillor will bring it to the state assembly (for another round of debate) before passing it as law in the state enactment.
But nothing is difficult if you have a vision. We enlisted a Malaysian Islamic Development Department law adviser to help craft a roadmap. Alhamdulillah, we already have the map and we are continuing through a very important platform, which is the Technical Committee on Syariah and Civil Laws. This is the platform for all engagements with stakeholders to take place. We have plans for 2018, 2019 and 2020 on how to engage officials to responsible excos, and the most important thing is convincing the rulers. Alhamdulillah, we managed to pull it off.
Q: Have you sorted it out with the rulers?
A: I believe in diplomacy. So my first task is to meet all the rulers, and engage them on my role and vision. It is important to share with them before making proposals. When someone believes in a vision, they will then voluntarily act to fulfil it because they too believe in it. I have had a few audiences with the rulers since last year. I have a platform at the Conference of Rulers, which convenes yearly, during which we can bring up our agenda.
The pre-council meeting (before the conference) is when we have the opportunity to be present before the rulers and they can seek clarification if there are doubts about our objectives. One thing I presented recently was on syariah law uniformity and its importance. I have offered to present myself before the rulers if there is a need. Alhamdulillah, with the vision we have, it (proposal on streamlining syariah laws) was well accepted by the rulers and endorsed at the pre-council meeting. The rulers have been very receptive.
Q: Which type of offence in syariah law has the most disparity in terms of punishment in different states?
A: I give you an example of musahaqah, lesbianism. In Terengganu, you will be jailed. In some areas, (the punishment includes) rotan. For alcohol consumption, in some states, rotan is on the list. Caning is based on the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355), which provides for a maximum of six strokes of the rotan. Some (courts) have given out maximum sentences, some may only mete out two or three strokes of the rotan. Another example is homosexuality, which also has different punishments.
Q: Is there a need to make syariah laws congruent with the Penal Code? For example, the punishment for sodomy.
A: It can’t be done because of the Syariah Courts Jurisdiction Act 1976, which stipulates that no punishment by the syariah court should exceed a fine of RM5,000, three years’ jail and six strokes of the rotan. In any syariah court, you can’t have double jeopardy. If they (Muslims) are punished under syariah law, they can’t be punished under criminal law, as that will be double jeopardy.
Q: How do you determine which law should be applied?
A: If they are caught by the Religious Department, they will be punished by the syariah court. If they are caught by police, then it will be under the Penal Code. Moral-related offences are often handled by the former. There is no way you can be punished by civil law at the same time.
Q: What about making the punishments similar?
A: Again, it can’t be done because of the limitations.
Q: Can the limitations be amended?
A: Pas tried to do that. But the question remains whether a heavier set of penalties will solve the problem or should we opt for a rehabilitative approach instead to solve the problem in the long term. That is why you have to understand the philosophy here. Because if it’s not punitive, it’s rehabilitative. So we are working within that context, but with a different approach when it comes to sentencing. Number one is the uniformity (of syariah laws). It needs to be done to reflect the just values of Islam.
Number two, we are also moving towards bestowing the power of discretion to syariah court judges. At present, they have the power to jail, cane and fine. They do not have powers of discretion. When you are moving towards the rehabilitative approach, you need to have that authority. For example, if someone has been found guilty of consuming alcohol and it was his first offence, then the judge, through his discretion, can opt to rehabilitate him through community work, instead of punishing him.
Q: If we focus on values, it means we have to go back to the drawing board to inculcate a better understanding of the religion.
A: I agree with you. I’m in discussion with the Education Ministry on how we want to instil good values (among the young), instead of just focusing on exams. We want to try to do it in the primary years to get them to appreciate good values. We need to take a look at the curriculum. On my part, we have set up fardhu ain foundation classes. Through them, we want to instil compassion, respect and empathy. In the long term, we will have a compassionate generation through the education system.
Q: Do you think we need platforms for non-Muslims to voice out their issues or to facilitate interfaith talks?
A: Yes, definitely. One of my KPI in dakwah is to have a platform where people of different religions and faiths have a platform to talk about their problems to achieve peaceful coexistence. They can sit down, talk and discuss openly, and hold programmes that are structured and intellectual that reaches out to the grassroots. Simple things like interfaith cycling, picnics and solidarity (gatherings) for peace, which we have done before, are among those that can be held. Compassionate Islam calls on you to have dialogues with others, peacefully coexist and to talk things over.
Q: Is Indian Muslim preacher Dr Zakir Naik still an issue?
A:There’s nothing sensitive about it, which is in reference to the prime minister’s stand on it. His stand reflects the government’s position as discussed in the cabinet. Number one, if there is to be an extradition, there must be facts and proof.
Number two, extraditions must be based on justice and he or she must be treated justly. It must be guaranteed that he will be given a just and fair trial. And this is the prime minister’s concern. (Home Minister) Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin has said that he has yet to receive official letters (for an extradition). This is the main reason we have not extradited Zakir. It is not due to personal reasons.
Number three, Zakir, or anyone else in a similar position, must respect the laws and social fabric of a country.
Q: Some countries link Zakir to militant activities. How do we explain to the world that we don’t support terrorism when at the same time we have not extradited him?
A: We are with the world’s community against any form of radicalisation, terrorism and militancy. We have stringent and rigid rules on this. There’s no doubt about that. Anyone can be accused of anything, but it is also our right to define the situation and not just accept (accusations) blindly. There are things to be considered. We also want others to respect the law.