Zaid: Ahmad Fairuz’s Argument On Islamic Law Erroneous And Dangerous

Zaid: Ahmad Fairuz’s Argument On Islamic Law Erroneous And Dangerous - The remarks by former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim that any law contrary to Islamic scriptures is null and void has drawn flak from several senior lawyers and an ex-judge.

Civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan said Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, which Ahmad Fairuz based his argument on, did not make Malaysia an Islamic state.

“(It does not mean) Islamic principles having a force of law without going through the proper procedure of becoming law.

“At the end of the day, the only yardstick that laws have to measure up to is the Constitution itself and not other sources,” said Syahredzan here yesterday.

In a lecture on “Islam as the law of the land” on Saturday, Ahmad Fairuz had cited Article 3, which states Islam as the religion of the federation, as well as Article 4, which states that laws contradicting the Constitution are void, as the basis for his argument.

He also argued that anything that did not run along the lines of the Al-Quran and Sunnah was also against the Constitution.

Syahredzan said this had been decisively dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor in 1988, during which it was also argued that since Islam was the religion of the federation as per Article 3, any law contrary to Islam would be unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court rejected this argument and further held that if this was the case, there would be a provision stating that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam would be void.

“Subsequent court decisions have not departed from the interpretation of Article 3 as laid down by the case,” said Syahredzan.

Former Law Minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said there are no legal principles to back up Ahmad Fairuz’s argument.

“This is just an ideological construct, which is not only erroneous but also dangerous,” he said.

Zaid said it was important for those in the legal system, especially Chief Justices, to articulate legal principles that were in line and consistent with the Constitution and “not promote their own views.”

Former Bar Council president Christopher Leong said Ahmad Fairuz’s argument was without any constitutional basis.

“(Article 3 also) goes on to say that all other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.

“It can be seen that Article 3 speaks only to the spirituality of the nation and is an expressed recognition that it is a multi-religious country and all religions that teach good must be permitted.

“It should not and cannot be read to provide that Islamic scriptures or laws are the supreme or overriding laws of the federation,” said Leong.

If this were so, the Constitution, he said, would have plainly and simply stated so.

Leong said it should however be noted that the Constitution then went on to provide secular institutions, structures and frameworks, and principles for the nation, with predominantly secular laws, save for the limited exceptions.

Retired Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram said Ahmad Fairuz had misread the Constitution and ignored a judicial precedent.

Ahmad Fairuz, said Sri Ram should not have read a single provision in isolation to assert the applicability of Islamic law in Malaysia.

He said Article 4(1) had made it clear that any law, which came into force after Aug 31, 1957, and that was inconsistent with the Constitution, shall be invalid.

He said it was important to note that Article 4(1) stated “inconsistent with this Constitution” and not “inconsistent with any provision of this Constitution”.