I see the case of ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor as like looking at a case of ‘Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution v Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution’ or ‘Freedom of speech v Religion of the Federation.’
(Please read MMO Did Not Apologise For Boo Su Lyn’s Seditious Article).
A Muslim named Mohd Ezra bin Mohd Zaid was charged before the Syariah Court of Selangor for publishing a book which is contrary to Islamic law.
The petitioners, ZI Publications Sdn Bhd (first petitioner) and Mohd Ezra bin Mohd Zaid (second petitioner) were seeking for a declaration that section 16 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) Enactment 1995 is invalid.
Ezra fought that according to the Federal Constitution, the Selangor State Legislative Assembly has no power to legislate a law that “has the effect of restricting and/or has the potential to restrict freedom of expression” as stated in Article 10.
The book, “Allah, Kebebasan, Dan Cinta”, a Malay translation of, “Allah, Liberty, and Love” is written by Irshad Manji, a person who does not understand Islam, and her interpretations of Islam and the Islamic law is contrary to the teaching of Islam.
The Federal court ruled in a unanimous decision that the section 16 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Selangor) is valid and not ultra vires the Federal Constitution.
In his judgment, President of the Court of Appeal Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:
“Thus, in the present case, we are of the view that Article 10 of the Federal Constitution must be read in particular with Articles 3(1), 11, 74(2) and 121. Article 3(1) declares Islam as the religion of the Federation. Article 11 guarantees every person’s right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it. With regard to propagation, there is a limitation imposed by Article 11(4) which reads:-
“(4) State Law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.””
So, it is very clear that Article 10 must be read harmoniously with Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution since Article 3 is placed in Part I, while Article 10 was placed in Part II of the Federal Constitution.
Logically, the Articles that are placed in Part I should be of more importance than the ones in Part II.
In his conclusion Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif said:
Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law.
Pingback: A Hidden Treasure Of The Federal Constitution | Ahmad Ali JetPlane
Pingback: Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School | Ahmad Ali JetPlane
Pingback: Datuk Noor Farida And G25 Must Go Back To School | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog
Pingback: Act 355: Answering “CCM Says Hadi’s Bill Will Radically Rewrite Constitution” | Ahmad Ali JetPlane
Pingback: Act 355: Another Baseless and Illogical Arguement from G25 | Ahmad Ali JetPlane
Pingback: Act 355: Another Baseless and Illogical Arguement from G25 | Ahmad Ali Karim's Weblog