Would UMNO, Including Ministers Like Khairy Jamaluddin, Dare To Lodge Police Reports And Condemn Sarawak Chief Minister(e/c)

Press Statement By Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng In Komtar, George Town On 16.12.2014.

Would UMNO, Including Ministers Like Khairy Jamaludin, Dare To Lodge Police Reports And Condemn Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem For Opposing Hudud And That Religious Fatwas Are Not Applicable On Non-Muslims?

I am not surprised that an Oxford University graduate like Youth Minister Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar continues to adopt the extremist and fundamentalist position to condemn me for my statement that syariah laws and fatwas are applicable on Muslims but non on non-Muslims. Non-Muslims can be charged for religious offences such as preaching to Muslims, but only under civil laws such as Penal Code, but not under syariah laws because to do so would be a dangerous and unacceptable imposition of Islamic laws on non-Muslims.

UMNO must realise the implications of insisting that non-Muslims are subjected to fatwas. If non-Muslims are subjected to fatwas, then they can also be subjected to hudud laws or that non-Muslims cannot drink alcohol. That fatwas is not applicable to non-Muslims but only on Muslims, is the accepted law in our Federal Constitution and from repeated rulings by our highest courts. In a Malay Mail online report on 15th December 2014, three legal jurists confirmed that I had not overstepped my powers nor interfered in Islamic affairs, but merely stated the law.

Constitutional lawyer New Sin Yew even quoted the Federal Court’s decision in Sulaiman bin Takrib v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu [2009] 6 MLJ 354, which solidified the claim that fatwas do not apply to non-Muslims. Lawyer and adjunct professor Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu and Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee chairperson Firdaus Husni also confirmed that Islamic fatwa only applies to Muslims and is not a law for non-Muslims. Previously the late Karpal Singh had also arrived at the same conclusion.

Even the Administration of the Religion of Islam(State of Penang) Enactment 2004 bears me out where Section 49(1) of the Enactment states that a fatwa shall be binding on every Muslim in the state…, without mentioning non-Muslims, clearly restricting its application on Muslims. By wanting to impose syariah and Islamic laws on non-Muslims, Khairy has shown his real extremist self and torn to shreds, his carefully cultivated mask of tolerance, rational discourse and moderation.

Would UMNO, including Ministers like Khairy Jamaluddin, dare to lodge police reports and condemn Sarawak Chief Minister Tan Sri Adenan Satem for opposing hudud and that religious fatwas are not applicable on non-Muslims? Why is Adenan Satem not condemned when he has essentially adopted the same position as me? Clearly UMNO is trying to bully me the way that UMNO has bullied MCA and Gerakan in the past of accepting fatwas or Islamic laws to be applied on non-Muslims.

I wish to reiterate that if UMNO is sincere and serious about defending Islam, then UMNO should be condemning and lodging police reports against MCA for demanding that the Administration of the Religion of Islam(State of Penang) Enactment 2004 be repealed. This is gross interference and insult into the affairs of Islam by MCA because to repeal the Enactment is to also abolish the Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Pulau Pinang.

Clearly it is all about double-faced and dirty politics that I am targeted when both the DAP and Penang state government opposes MCA’s move to repeal the Enactment. I am merely stating the legal position that the Penang state government has no statutory powers to apply fatwas on non-Muslims. If Khairy and other UMNO Federal Ministers wish to, they can seek to extend or impose Federal laws to compel non-Muslims in Penang to comply with Islamic laws or fatwas as UMNO have done so in BN-controlled states, which would be subject to the purview of the courts.


—- Mandarin Version —–



我一点也不惊讶牛津大学毕业生如青年部长凯里加玛鲁丁继续拥护极端及原教旨主义来谴责我,因为我说过伊斯兰法律(syariah, 以伊斯兰教教义为准则的法律体系)及伊斯兰法规(fatwa, 伊斯兰教法学家所作的裁决)适用于穆斯林而不适用于非穆斯林身上。非穆斯林可以因向穆斯林传教这类宗教罪行而被提控,但这是在民事法律之下如:刑事法典,而不是伊斯兰教法律,因为将伊斯兰法实施于非穆斯林身上是危险及不能被接受的。


宪法律师New Sin Yew甚至引用联邦法庭的裁决,在苏莱曼达克立V登嘉楼政府(2009)6MLJ 354一案中,已经坚定表示伊斯兰法规不适用于非穆斯林身上。律师兼教授拿督巴尔吉星及律师公会宪法委员会主席菲尔道斯也确认,伊斯兰法规只适合穆斯林而不是非穆斯林的法律。之前,已故卡巴星也如此总结。