https://www.ucanews.com/news/what-kind-of-religious-society-do-we-want-to-become/115152
What kind of religious society do we want to become?
n.d.
Kelantan’s attempt to rebuild its Syariah criminal code after a landmark Federal Court ruling raises a wider question
Kelantan has passed a new Syariah criminal law, reopening a debate that reaches far beyond the northeastern Malaysian state.
The Syariah Criminal Offences (Kelantan) Bill 2026 introduces offenses relating to Islamic dress, gender change, cross-dressing, alcohol consumption, marriage and public morality. It is intended to replace provisions of the state’s 2019 Syariah criminal code that were struck down by Malaysia’s Federal Court.
For Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), which has governed Kelantan for decades, the legislation reflects its continuing effort to shape public life according to Islamic principles.
But behind the legal and political arguments is a more human question: how should deeply held religious convictions be expressed through the power of the state in a country where people of different faiths live side by side?
The lesson of the Nik Elin case
The background matters.
In 2024, the Federal Court struck down several provisions of Kelantan’s Syariah criminal legislation following a challenge brought by lawyer Nik Elin Zurina Nik Abdul Rashid and her daughter.
The case was sometimes presented as a confrontation between Islam and secularism. That interpretation missed the central issue.
The court was not deciding whether Islamic principles were valid. It was deciding whether the Kelantan state legislature had the constitutional authority to create particular criminal offenses.
Malaysia’s Constitution divides legislative powers between the federal government and the states. Although Islamic affairs involving Muslims fall substantially within state jurisdiction, that authority has constitutional limits.
The ruling therefore affirmed a principle that applies beyond religion: public authority must operate within the constitution.
For many Malaysians, this distinction can seem technical. But laws affect how people dress, worship, marry and conduct their daily lives. Constitutional limits exist partly to ensure that the exercise of state power remains lawful and accountable.
Kelantan’s new legislation now tests that principle again.
When morality becomes criminal law
The new law contains provisions that supporters regard as necessary to uphold Islamic morality.
Muslims are required to observe Islamic standards concerning modesty and the covering of aurat. Certain forms of cross-dressing and gender expression are criminalized. The legislation also prohibits Muslims from changing their gender except where permitted under Islamic law.
It criminalizes the consumption or attempted consumption of intoxicating drinks by Muslims, with penalties that can include whipping, fines and imprisonment.
For Muslims who believe government has a responsibility to discourage behavior regarded as sinful, such provisions may appear legitimate and compassionate. They may see the law not simply as punishment, but as a way of protecting individuals and society from conduct considered harmful.
That conviction deserves to be understood rather than caricatured.
Religion has always shaped ideas of morality and the common good. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other traditions have offered societies teachings about justice, family, responsibility, compassion and human dignity.
The difficult question begins when moral teaching becomes criminal law.
A religious community may teach that drinking alcohol is sinful or that particular forms of dress are inappropriate. But when the state imposes imprisonment, fines or whipping, it is no longer simply teaching morality.
It is exercising coercive power.
That power must therefore be tested against the constitution, due process and human dignity.
PAS and the challenge of governing
The question is becoming more significant because of PAS’s growing political influence.
Once largely identified with Kelantan and Terengganu, PAS now governs Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis and has emerged as one of Malaysia’s most influential political parties.
Its approach to Islamic governance therefore deserves examination not merely as party politics, but as part of a wider national conversation.
PAS has every right to articulate an Islamic vision for society. The democratic question is whether that vision can be pursued while respecting constitutional boundaries and the rights of citizens.
That is a test faced by any religiously inspired political movement.
Governing is different from preaching. A religious teaching may speak to the conscience of a believer. A law speaks through the authority of the state and applies within a defined legal system.
The challenge is to ensure that the transition from faith to public policy does not diminish either religious conviction or constitutional freedom.
A lesson for Catholics too
For Catholics and other Christians in Malaysia and Asia, the debate should not be approached simply through fear of Islamization.
There is a deeper question about religion and political power.
Christian history offers reminders of what can happen when religious conviction becomes too closely identified with coercive authority. The Church has known periods of political privilege as well as persecution. Christians have also sometimes been tempted to use political power to impose religious conformity.
The lesson is not that religion should withdraw from public life. Quite the opposite.
Catholic social teaching calls Christians to contribute to the common good, defend human dignity and stand with the vulnerable. Faith has something important to say about poverty, corruption, family life, justice, peace and care for creation.
But religious witness is not the same as political control. Faith can persuade, accompany and inspire. The state, by contrast, can compel. That distinction matters in a plural country.
A plural Malaysia cannot afford zero-sum religion
Malaysia’s constitutional settlement is complex.
Islam is the religion of the Federation, while the constitution protects freedom of religion. States have authority over Islamic affairs involving Muslims, while the federal government retains authority over criminal law and other areas.
These arrangements are often contested. Yet constitutional boundaries can serve an important purpose: they provide guardrails so that no community can exercise unlimited political power over another.
This is why the Federal Court’s decision in the Nik Elin case remains significant.
The court did not tell Muslims what they should believe. Nor did it say Kelantan could not uphold Islamic values.
It reminded the state legislature that even a legitimate religious objective must be pursued through legitimate constitutional means.
That need not be understood as hostility towards Islam.
Indeed, constitutional limits can protect religious freedom itself. A system that prevents one religion from exercising unlimited state power also protects other religious communities from arbitrary government action.
For ordinary Malaysians, this is ultimately less about constitutional theory than about living together with confidence.
A Muslim should be able to practise Islam without fear. A Christian should be able to live his or her faith openly. A Hindu, Buddhist or follower of another religion should enjoy the same security.
That is the promise of a constitutional society.
The real test of religious governance
Kelantan’s new legislation will inevitably face scrutiny over whether its provisions remain within the state’s constitutional powers. That legal question belongs to the courts.
But the larger question belongs to all Malaysians: what kind of religious society do we want to become?
One possibility is a society increasingly defined by prohibitions, punishments and regulation of personal behavior.
Another is a society in which religious ethics inspire justice, compassion, honesty, care for the poor, protection of families, stewardship of creation and resistance to corruption.
These visions need not be enemies.
Islamic teaching contains a profound concern for justice, mercy, charity and human dignity. Those values can contribute greatly to Malaysia’s common good. Christianity and other faith traditions have their own rich moral resources.
Perhaps the greater challenge is not how to make religion more powerful through the state, but how to make its values more persuasive through the lives of believers and the quality of governance.
Kelantan’s new Syariah law brings that challenge into sharp focus.
The issue is not whether Islam has a place in Malaysia’s public life. It clearly does.
The deeper question is whether Malaysia can remain faithful to both parts of its constitutional identity: a country where Islam has a special constitutional position, and a country where people of different faiths must live together under a common constitutional order.
*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.
（End）
