History  of  Islamic  Law  in  Malaysia-

A  Critical  Reconsideration

See  Hoon  Peow

(Ph.D student in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, International Islamic University Malaysia)

Abstract

Implementation of Islamic law in Malaysia has always been a debated issue in Malaysia since independence. Every now and then the issue will be debated publicly. One interesting argument that is often put forward in the debate to support the implementation of Islamic law is Malaysia is that Islamic law was already implemented before the British came. It was the British that have done away with Islamic law in Malaysia. So, to call for implementation of Islamic law is actually to call for reverting back to old policy. This paper would seeks to establish the factual issue. Was Islamic law really implemented in the Malay States?

Introduction

Implementation   of  Islamic   law   in   Malaysia   has   always   been   a   debated   issue   in Malaysia  since  independence.  Every  now  and  then  the  issue  will  be  debated  publicly.  PAS (Pan Malaysian Islamic Party)  has always called  for  implementation of Islamic  law  in  every aspect  of  Malaysian’s  life.  Recently,  PAS  has  again  called  for  implementation  of  Hudud, the  Islamic  criminal  law.  One  interesting  argument  that  is  often  put  forward  in  the  debate to  support  the  implementation  of  Islamic  law  is  Malaysia  is  that  Islamic  law  was  already implemented  before  the  British  came.  It  was  the  British  that  have  done  away  with  Islamic law   in   Malaysia.   So,   to   call   for   implementation   of   Islamic   law   is   actually   to   call   for reverting  back  to  old  policy.

Although logically, to show that, Islamic Law was implemented in the pass does not necessarily means it can/should be implemented now; this paper would seeks to establish the factual issue. Was Islamic law really implemented in the Malay States?

Before exploring the issue further the writer wants to make an important point here. The supporter of implementation of Islamic law have never made it clear in their arguments, are they arguing that the law before the reception of English law was Islamic Law or are they arguing that Islamic Law would definitely become the law of Malaya if not for the British Intervention? The difference between the two arguments is that the former claim is factual and the later is speculative. The former is clearly flawed, the later to be arguable. Ahmad Ibrahim, who is an authority in administration of Islamic Law in Malaysia claims that the law before British influence was Malay-Muslim Law, which the present writer believes he means both Malay customs and Islamic elements, can be found in the Malay legal digests¹. Such use of term is factually more accurate. However when the Muslim scholars, including Ahmad Ibrahim, claim that the Malay-Muslim law will eventually become purely Islamic, it is very arguable.

This paper will assess this type of arguments for Islamisation of Malaysian Law, with particular reference to Hamid Jusoh’s book, The Position of Islamic Law in the Malaysian  Constitution  with  Special  Reference  to  the  Conversion  Case  in  Family  Law².

Hamid    Jusoh’s    book    is    chosen    for    the    discussion    mainly    because    it    is    the    only comprehensive book on this issue. Other writers, such as Ahmad Ibrahim³, normally take for granted in their papers or articles that the history of Islamic law in Malaysia is a well-established fact, so there is no need for them to prove it.

Hamid  Jusoh  is  clear  in  his  approach.  He  alleges  that  there  are  Islamic  elements  in the various Malay Legal Digests ⁴ and this is evidence that Islamic Law was widely implemented in Malaya. He argues that when the British colonised Malaya, Islamic Law was limited to a status of Personal Law and mainly in the area of Family Law, Succession and  religious  observances⁵.  This  situation  continues  till  today.  Therefore,  if  not  for  the British Intervention Islamic Law would become the law of Malaysia6. In conclusion, he argues that Islamic Law was implemented and accepted by the multi-racial societies in Malacca and elsewhere in the Malay States. Therefore, it should not be a problem to implement Islamic Law in the present multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysian society7. This paper maintains that Hamid Jusoh’s understanding of the Malay Legal Digests is too superficial. To show how Hamid Jusoh’s argument is flawed the paper will examine the various legal digests, the factual conditions of the administration of justice before the British Rule and the general development of the administration of justice.

Law  in  the  Legal  Digests

According   to   Hamid   Josuh   the   Malacca   Laws   and   other   legal   digests   are   the earliest   evidences   of   the   implementation   of   Islamic   Law   in   Malaysia;   in   Family   Law, Criminal Law,  Law  of Sales  and  Evidence⁸.  While  it  is  true  that  these  legal digests  contain various  Islamic  elements,  the  legal digests  cannot  be  regarded  as  “Islamic”.  Even  more  so, they cannot  be used  as evidences  of the  existence  of an  Islamic  legal system.  These  digests are  not  drafted  in  a  systematic  and  consistent  manner,  far  from  comprehensive  to  indicate an established  legal system⁹.  Thus,  Richard  Winstedt  observed  that:

 

The Malacca digest exhibits no clear division between Constitutional, Criminal and Civil Law. It jumbles regulations for court etiquette, Criminal law, the jurisdiction of the ruler and his ministers, the law for fugitive slaves, the law of libel, the law of contract affecting the hire of slaves and animals, the penalties for lese majeste and the breach of betrothal agreements, the usufruct (sic) of fruit-trees and rice-fields, trespasses and wounding by domestic animals, the offense of selling into slavery a person who has entered service to escape death from starvation or shipwreck, the fencing and dyking of fields, the law of debt, the penalties for stealing the slaves of owners of various ranks.¹⁰

M.  Y.  Hashim  also  points  out  a  noticeable  syncretisation  of  Islamic  law  and  “the  root  of the  Malacca  laws,  i.e.  local  and  indigenous  elements  together  with  some  traces  of  Hindu influence”¹¹.  These  factors  make  the  Malay  Legal  Digests  very  complex  and  very  difficult to  understand.  Therefore,  Richard  Winstedt  is right  in his observation.

According   to   M.   B.   Hooker,   these   legal   digests   cannot   be   read   like modern legislations  or  law  codes.  They  are  sui  generis.  Therefore,  they  must  be  discussed  as  an entry in its own right and as part of general jurisprudence¹². This paper does not propose to discuss the contents of these legal digests in detail, save to those parts and features of the legal digests, That is enough to achieve the main purpose of this paper. The discussion will concentrate more on the Malacca Laws for two reasons. Firstly, the Malacca Laws is the most original among the Malay legal digests, and many other legal digests are more or less a duplicate of the Malacca Laws. Secondly, Hamid Jusoh has relied on this digest heavily.

The digest is a hybrid consisting of four main elements plus two sub-sets of laws, as follows:

I)  The Malacca law “proper” (called  previously “general law”).

ii)  The Maritime law.

iii)   The Muslim marriage law.

iv)  Muslim law of sale (and  interpolated  sub-sets).

v)  The Laws of the “States” (undang-undang  Negeri).

vi)  The Johor  laws.

The first two sections were in existence in the reign of Sultan Muhammad Syah (1424-1444) and completed in the reign of Sultan Muzaffar Syah (1445-1458). The Muslim law sections were compiled later. The compilation process began from the sixteenth century onwards to a later date. The compilation process of the two sub-sets began in the mid-eighteenth century. Thus the digest took a span of 300 years or so to be completed, after the then departed Malacca Sultanate¹³. The dates are interesting here, for Hamid Jusoh claims that the influence of Islamic Law is more and the influence of Adat is less in the Pahang Laws, which is based on the Malacca digest. The Pahang Laws were prepared   during   the   reign   of   Sultan   Abd   al-Ghafur   Muhaiyyudin   Shah   (1593-1614)¹⁴ . Echoing Ahmad Ibrahim, this is to show that Islamic Law was getting more influential¹⁵. In fact this is misleading.

The Muslim marriage law and  the Muslim law of sale present  the Islamic  influences at its optimum. The laws set out a simplified version of Shafi`i principles¹⁶. There are also Islamic influences in the Malacca Law Proper. The difference here is that in the Malacca Law Proper there is a serious effort to reconcile Islamic and indigenous elements¹⁷. The Maritime Law shows no Islamic influence. Islamic elements are very little in the law of the state and the Johor law, mainly an invocation to God as its Islamic element¹⁸. This shows that Islamic influences are not linear to time as implied by Hamid Jusoh.

Furthermore M.  B.  Hooker’s commends are significant  as he stated  that:

 

Text originality does not of course mean just the oldest - it means that which is significant, the fons et origo, from which the rest follows. In the Malacca the first twenty-three chapters of the forty-four are the original in this sense.

 

These twenty-three chapters appear to date from the late 15th century. Crudely broken down, they deal with the following topics;...

 

These subjects are all treated in the later Malacca Mss though with an increasing degree of artificiality and rather strained sense of elaboration. This is particularly noticeable in the treatment of Islam; in the original twenty-three chapters the Islamic reference is short but fundamental to the meaning of the text. In the later recensions, and in the later succeeding law texts of the 18-19th century the Islamic element becomes increasingly elaborate and increasingly non-fundamental being derived from standard books of the Middle East whose cultural relevance was never more than minimal in Malaya. The same tendency toward artificiality is also true for the indigenous element - again a straining for effect, rather than a true substance, is characteristic¹⁹.

 

Hooker’s observation is plausible.  As an example,  the Pahang  Law,  a  legal digest  based  on the  Malacca  law,  provides  that  the  punishment  for  wounding  shall  be  a  fine  payable  by camels²⁰.  This  is  clearly  an  unenforceable  provision,  derives  directly  from  a  Middle-East source.

It  is  clear  at  this  point  that  the  digests  are  neither  purely  “Islamic”  nor  “Malay”, rather  it  is  “Malay-Islamic”.  They  are  unique  products  of  two  civilisations.  While,  Islamic law’s   influence   is   obvious,   the   indigenous   elements   remain   strong   and   predominate   in almost  all criminal and  civil cases,  even  in  matters  on  family law  where  Islamic  law  has  the greatest  influence.  There  are  at  least  25  Fasals  in  the  44  Fasal  Malacca  Laws,  in  which Adat  is  distinct  and  definite.  Hence  the  basic  law  that  prevailed  in  Malacca  was  customary law  together  with  a  large  proportion  of  Islamic  law,  and  with  some  elements  of  Hindu law²¹. This is shown clearly in the Malacca law proper. There are a series of alternative punishments to different crimes, according to Adat and then according to Islamic law. However there is no statement stating which is to prefer. By looking at the digest itself we would not be able to tell which was actually implemented. However, there are indications that the judges are given the authority to make the final decision on sentencing ²² . Furthermore, as noticed by Hamid Jusoh himself some of the provisions in the legal digests actually contradict Islamic teaching²³. An example of this kind of provisions is provisions for homicide. The Pahang Law, which Hamid Jusoh relies on to proves the gaining acceptance of Islamic Law, is tolerant of homicide in cases not condoned by Islamic Law. It also prescribes tortures and punishments that are a legacy from Hindu times ²⁴  .   Malacca   law   also   allows   killing   in   some   circumstances,   although   killing   is generally   forbidden ²⁵ .   The   Ninety-nine   laws   of   Perak,   another   important   legal   digest, which was brought to Malaya in the 17th century,²⁶ fines a murderer and requires him to provide a buffalo or a white goat for the funeral feast, instead of the usual death penalty prescribed   by   Islamic   Law ²⁷ .   In   terms   of   the   influence   of  Islamic   law   in   the   criminal provisions  of  the  Malay  legal  digests,  M.  B.  Hooker’s  statement  in  “A  Note  the  Malayan Legal Digests” can be a good  conclusion.  He states that:

The degree of Muslim penetration seems to be in direct proportion to the type and severity of penalty imposed for criminal offenses. In other words, many texts retain non-Islamic [pre-Islamic?] penalties of public law from which it might be surmised that degree of Islamic influence varied from district to district in Malaya. Against this can be argued that on the contrary Islamic influence was strong, but that the texts themselves were not altered. However, in view of about five hundred years of supposed Islamic influence and the importance attached to written scripts, this seems unlikely²⁸.

Islamic   law   influence   is   largely   limited   to   family   law,   while   having   some   influence   in criminal  law  and  commercial  law.  However  law  relating  to  land  is  indigenous  by  nature  in the   Malay   states ²⁹ .   M.Y.Hashim   points   out   that   “it   is   rather   interesting   to   note   that sometime the so-called  hukum Allah”,  in the Malacca Laws,  “is not  Islamic Law at  all”³⁰.

In fact  we  can  see  an  uncompleted  effort,  if not  a  failure,  in  Malacca  law  and  other legal digests,  to  reconcile the Islamic Law with the existing  Malay Adats.  Undang  Undang Sungei  Ujong,  a  digest  not  mentioned  by  Hamid  Jusoh,  appears  to  show  another  example of  attempted  syncretism  between  Islamic  Law  and  Adat.  The sources  of  law  are  given  in Section 6:

 I)  Ancient  Custom;

ii)   Created  Custom;

iii)   Inherited  lore;

iv)  Decisions of common accord;

v)  Ancient  lore that  awaits ratification;

vi)  Decisions to  be reached  by later  deliberation.

Section 8 states that as long as there is due ceremony “Created custom” may contradict Islamic Law. However, the so-called “due ceremony”, such as the sprinkling of rice paste or  the slaughtering  of buffaloes,  may not  be Islamic as well³¹.

However this type of admirable intellectual efforts will not be accepted by people like Hamid Jusoh, who wants to apply Islamic Law in its “pure” form in Malaysia generally. To us, the spirit of the digests should be advanced by adding into it new elements from later cultures practised in Malaysia. Our existing laws are to some extent similar in nature with the Malay Legal Digests, a reconciliation of major civilisations. However the English elements need to be limited to some extent, while the Chinese, Hindu,  Adat  as well as Islamic elements need  to  be strengthened³².

Now we need to answer an important question, i.e. what do the digests in fact tell us about the administration of justice before the British rules? There is no indication that these digests are laws that are enforceable ³³ . In fact, we noticed that some of their provisions are unenforceable in Malaya (See the above discussion for the punishment for wounding). In fact they were in a way, merely a reference book kept by “legal advisers” of the  sultan³⁴.  As  stated  earlier  the  digests  cannot  be  read  like  modern  legislation  or  law codes, they are in fact a kind of political documents, as well as statements of law³⁵. The real concern of the digests is to indicate the sources of law and the sovereignty of law. In short, to define what is law³⁶. If one takes the digests as they are, they can be regarded as a kind of jurisprudential work³⁷, demonstrating various responses to Islam³⁸, attempting the reconciling of the “dual references of sovereignty” of the Malay people of the time³⁹. Therefore, far from being evidence of an existence of an Islamic Legal System, they are evidences of an effort to reconcile Islam with the existing indigenous cultures.

The  Fate  of  Islamic  Law  but  for British  Intervention

It is undeniable that the influence of Islamic Law on the pre-colonial (pre-British rule) Malaya is great. However, it is also undeniable that Malayan law has never been purely “Islamic”. Adat still plays an important role till at least in pre-independent Malaya. The question is what will be the fate of Islamic Law if the British had never interfered? In this section the writer tries to assess the possibilities of Islamic Law being implemented in its pure form generally through out Malaya.

It is merely a speculation to say that Islamic Law will definitely be implemented in its pure form generally through out Malaya, at best. The fact is that pure Islamic Law has never been implemented in Malaya. The strength of this speculation depends on whether its propagandists can meet a few serious problems. We will deal with some of these problems to show that this speculation is unlikely to turn reality.

1.  Law in action:

We are very sure that the Digests cannot give an accurate picture of actual administration of justice in Malaya prior to British rule. In fact, as stated above the digests are, in one sense, merely reference books for private use. There are assertions that these various digests purposely leave gaps to enable the autocratic rulers to apply rules that favour them. These may not be a fair comment on the digests, but it was a fact that the rulers had been arbitrary in many occasions. Historical account indicates that there was no proper system of administration of justice in most of the Malay states, before the British came to set up one. There is no proper system of administration of justice because there was no check and balance of the power among the local chiefs and the rulers. Thus, it was open to abuses

Historical  sources  also  reveal  that  the  administration  of  justice  was  entirely  in  the hands of the rulers and the local chiefs⁴⁰. There was no special staff, special place of trial, proper rule of procedure, and expert assessor or adviser learned in law. There was no obligation to hear from both sides as well. The rulers and the local chiefs normally decide cases  as  they  think  fit⁴¹.  The  only  control  is  the  pressure  from  the  people,  as  popularity means  wealth  to  the  rulers  and  the  chiefs⁴².  However,  how  strong  was  this  pressure?  How critical  can   these   agrarian   peasants   be?   These   are   factors   to   be   considered.   Therefore justice  depends  very much  on  the  person  administering  it.  Some  of the  rulers  may  take  the administration  of  justice  seriously  like  Baginda  Omar  of  Terengganu,  who  administered the  law  in  person  and  apply  the  Hukum  Syarak  in  the  strictest  spirit⁴³.  But,  generally,  the other  rulers and  local chiefs may not  take thing  seriously.

J.    M.    Gullick’s   comments   reveal   very   much   the   nature   and   features   of   the administration of justice during  the late nineteenth century,  as he states that:

If there was a complaint (poor people knew better than to make one) and the parties were hailed before some chief or raja ... the result was usually that everybody returned poorer than he went.” The law was arbitrary and uncertain. “The penghulus and datuks fine whenever they like, and with no regard to the law, pocket the fine, or if large ones, give part to the Sultan.” Even the ruler of Johor, who prided himself on maintaining a European style of government “confessed that there were no rules, and that sentences were passed according to his own judgment⁴⁴.

 

When Hsieh Ch’ing-kao  (1765-1821),  a Chinese traveler  from China,  described  the eighteenth  and  nineteenth  century  Malaya  for  the  benefit  of  traders  he  gave  no indication that    the    Malay    rulers    implemented    the    Islamic    law    strictly.⁴⁵    He described    the administration of justice in Kalantan as follows:

 

The government is simple. Every day the king sits in court, and the chief-tains, called wan and tuan, all enter the court and sit in a circle to discuss governmental matters. People who have recourse to the law do not use petitions; they only carry a pair of candles in raised hands, and enter with bent bodies. On seeing the candles, the king then asks what the affair is about. The person making the accusation enters his plea, and the king then orders the ching-tzu to call the one who has been accused to present his evidence. Using a few words, the king decides the case and nobody dares to disobey.

 

If [the case] is difficult to decide, then [the king] orders the ordeal by water. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are instructed to go out, find young boys along the way, and bring them to the water. A ‘foreign’ priest⁴⁶ is engaged to chant incantations. The two boys are each ordered to grasp an end of a bamboo pole and immerse [themselves] in the water while the ‘foreign’ priest chants on the bank. The young boy who comes to surface first represents the guilty party who will not dare to press his suit again. The parents of the young boys [know the] custom and do not regard it as strange.

 

There is another, more severe test: the ordeal by thrusting the hand in oil. A cauldron is filled to the top with oil and heated [to boiling]. A ‘foreign’ priest stands nearby and chants. A piece of iron...is selected. This is placed in the cauldron and the plaintiff and defendant are ordered to try and pull it out. The person who is right can put his hand into the boiling oil and pull out the iron rod without the slightest injury. If he is guilty, when he begins to put his hand into the oil, it will injure him and he will not be able to take out [the rod]. Unless a person can reflect [upon his actions] without any sense of wrong doing, even if he initially argues his case with force, he always admits guilt in front of the cauldron. As the country has such tests, disputants are never very stubborn, and the sovereign and people are all very religious⁴⁷.

We   can  see   that   the   system  of  trial  given  in  the  above  account   is  not   Islamic.  Similar procedure  is  followed  in  many  other  states.  The  rulers  and  the  local  chiefs  normally  hear cases   personally,   and   usually  decide   there   and   then.   In   fact   various   kinds   of  “trial  by ordeal” was common in the nineteenth century Malay states⁴⁸.

Clifford  who  lived  in  Pahang  as  a  British  agent  for  a  year  before  the  British  rule also  observed  that  the  chiefs  and  Bendahara  are  more  interested  to  increase  their  wealth than  anything  else⁴⁹.  Fine  was  very  common,  even  for  murder  in  the  Malay  states  then⁵⁰.

For  example  the  penalty,  in  1904  in  Kalantan  for  murder  was  a  fine  that  values  between $50  and  $1,000⁵¹.  The  practice  of  doubling  the  fine  is  also  common  for  late  payment,  and this  is  enforced  by  indefinite  imprisonment⁵².  An  aristocrat,  who  had  committed  serious crimes,  such as murder,  can also  receive royal pardon without  great  difficulty⁵³.

However,   Clifford   also   pointed   out   that   the   kathis   who   administered   personal law-marriage, betrothal, divorce- were mostly conscientious and hardworking ⁵⁴ . It is interesting to note that in fact before the British rule kathis, who were selected locally for their personal status or their knowledge of the Koran and shari’a⁵⁵, were administering personal law. Therefore, Hamid Jusoh’s claim that limitation of Islamic law to a personal law is the consequence of arbitrary British policy may not be accurate. The British colonial religious policy was to avoid any meddling with such issues, and it might have caused the British to follow common practice and to let the kathis handle these matters ⁵⁶ . This observation is supported by the fact that the trial of “ordeal by oath” was accepted by the then British administrators of justice⁵⁷.

It should be pointed out that those kathis stated above are local officers, selected from among local people. Otherwise there are generally no organised and high ranking ulama  prior  to  British intervention⁵⁸.

In conclusion for this part, it seems safe to say that the administration of justice was arbitrary and inconsistent, and Islamic public law was not administered seriously. The nineteenth century Malay rulers had generally shown more interest in building up their own wealth than in implementing Islamic law.

2.  Adat  vs Islam:

Although the Malays have long professed the Islamic faith they have never implemented Islamic law to every aspect of their lives. Adat has placed an equally strong claim for royalty and obedience on the Malays as Islam does. This is especially true in Negeri Sembilan where the Adat Perpatih is practised; although it is also true in other Malay states. Besides the social and geographical conditions of the Malays are very different from the Arabians, this renders some laws formulated in Arabic culture, especially laws concerning land and property, totally unsuitable for the Malays⁵⁹ . The Adats whether Adat Perpatih or Adat Temenggong, are coherent systems that reflect better the local social and geographical conditions especially in matters concerning property. The various legal digests are good evidences of struggle of the Malays between Islam and Adat. We can in fact see an incomplete effort to reconcile Islamic Law with the Adats in the various legal digests.

The dichotomy between Islamic Law and  Adat  is real.  Some  issues  in  conflict  were matters of marriage, postmarital residence, and especially property, and inheritance.⁶⁰ This was not a conflict in principles only; it had aroused actual confrontations in three occasions in 1951, 1957 and 1968⁶¹. These incidences showed how strongly the Malays believe in Adat: as the saying goes, “Biar mati anak, jangan mati adat” (We rather see the death  of  our  children  than  our  custom).  Without  some  form  of  coercion  the  Malays  will not forgo their Adat easily. Generally speaking the Negeri Sembilan Malays are more protective of their Adat than Malays in other states. This is evidenced in the failure of the expansion common law to eliminate Adat Perpatih altogether⁶².

However, interestingly the Malays often ignore the conflict between the two systems and regard them as compatible. The various Malay legal digests are again good evidence of the fact. The arguments put forwards by the Adat traditionalists during the incidences of conflict in Negeri Sembilan also support the argument. In fact, conflict between the two systems is often avoided through the separation of jurisdictions. The jurisdiction to administer Islamic law is granted to the kathis. They are responsible for matters concerning marriage, divorce and alimony (see above for Clifford’s comment). Power to distribute property is in turn granted to others ⁶³ . In this sense modern legislations have further improved the conditions to avoid conflict by defining the authority of the kathis more precisely⁶⁴. What interest us is that, if this is the case, then Islamic law will never be implemented in its “pure” form as Hamid Jusoh wants it to be in Malaysia.

We can safely make the following conclusions. First, there was no proper system of administration of justice in the modern sense, as in check and balance of powers, before the British rule ⁶⁵ . Secondly, the Malay rulers are not serious about administration of justice. Thirdly, weaknesses in the legal system, together with the strong competition from Adat, even if the British had never interfered with the administration justice in Malaya the claim that Islamic Law (in its pure form) will definitely become the general law in Malaysia is weak at best.

In fact  the British interference has strengthened  Islamic law at  the expense  of Adat. This phenomenon is demonstrated clearly in Negeri Sembilan⁶⁶. The British Residential System curtails much of the power of clan leaders. The introduction of a Torrens System in the Land Enactment in 1887 diminished the jurisdiction of the clan chiefs and Undang over property matters. The establishment of the office of kathi limited the Undang to a ceremonial involvement in proceeding involving marriage and divorce. In short Adat was made informal⁶⁷.

On the other hand, in all Malay states Islam and Islamic institutions were encouraged by British policy. When the Sultans lost much of their political power they turned their attention to issues of faith. Pilgrimage to Mecca was furthered, religious education was established in Malay schools and more importantly the idea of Islam as the official faith was introduced. A new class of ulamas, imams and kathis was organised and recognised from 1880 onwards. All in all, British policy institutionalised, organised and bureaucratised the informal and unorganised Islam⁶⁸. These changes strengthened Islamic Law at the expense of the gradually informalised Adat.

A  Concluding  Note

The  Malays  were  not  Muslims  at  the  beginning  of  the  Malacca  Sultanate  and  were governed  by  the  Malay  Adats.  Later,  when  they  became  Muslims  some  Islamic  elements were adopted  into  the legal system.

The   integration   between   Adat   and   Islamic   law   is  an  established   fact.   Although there  are  conflicts  between  the  two  systems  the  Malays  have  shown  admirable  efforts  to accommodate  Islamic  legal  principles  into  Adat.  This  was  regarded  as  legitimate,  as  they seem  to  understand  that  no  legal  system  is  operating  in  a  vacuum.  All  legal  systems  have to   operate   under   a   set   of  culture.  Our  Muslim  countrymen’s  desire  to   live  under  their religious  law,  to  show  their  conviction  to  their  religion,  is  admirable  if  the  convictions  of other   fellow   countrymen   are   taken   into   serious   consideration.   It   must   be   considered legitimate  to  construct  our  public  policies  in  a  way that  adopts  the  rich  variety  of  cultures, as   integration   of   Adat    and   Islam   was   considered   legitimate.   Muslim   scholars   must understand  that  in  a  pluralistic  society,  they  must  adopt  a  concept  of    “share  history”  as put  forward  by Ng  Kam Weng:

 

Such a view would emphasize the retrieval of a sense of common history, and demands a national vision worthy of rich diversity of our nation. “Share history” requires the process of nation-building to maintain continuity with the historic achievement of the Malaka Sultanate and perhaps even the contributions from earlier communities if they are uncovered by future historical research. “Share history” requires that the ongoing task of nation-building will be open to change (how else can we achieve vision 2020?). It will value and strive for a national consensus hammered out on the basis of a mutual agreement by leaders from all the diverse communities. After all, historical continuity includes acting consistently     with     the     achievement     of     our     founding     fathers     during Independence (1957) and the formation of Malaysia (1963). In this regard, [Chandra] Muzzafar’s inability to include the diverse ethnic communities from East Malaysia in his account represents a glaring and fatal weakness from his view of history⁶⁹.

The   above   comment   is  also   relevant   to   Hamid  Jusoh’s  case.  Therefore  Hamid  Jusoh’s argument  is not  only flawed  in facts and  speculations,  but  it  is also  flawed  in  understanding the  implication  of  history.  In  his  assertion  that  non-Muslims  should  accept  Islamic  law,  he has to  take into  consideration seriously the interests of other  communities in Malaysia⁷⁰.

 Footnotes:

¹ See Ahmad Ibrahim, “The Introduction of Islamic Values in the Malaysian Legal System”, Jurnal IKIM, Vol. 2, No. 1 p. 27.

² Hamid Jusoh, The Position of Islamic Law in the Malaysian Constitution with Special Reference to the Conversion Case in Family Law. Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1991.

³  Ahmad  Ibrahim,  op.  cit.  n  2.

⁴ Hamid Jusoh, op. cit. n 3, p 1-12.

⁵ Hamid Jusoh, op. cit. n 3, p 12-23.

⁶ I take it that he is not arguing that the law of the Malay states was Islamic Law, but for the British intervention, it would continue to be so, because this is a weaker argument. The law recorded in the various legal digests is clearly not exclusively Islamic, as Hamid Jusoh has noticed.

⁷  Hamid  Jusoh,  op.  cit.  n  3,  p  96-104.

⁸  Hamid  Jusoh,  op.  cit.  n  3,  p  2.

⁹ P. P. Buss-Tjen, “Malay Law”, in the Journal of American Comparative Law, Vol. 7, 1958, p. 258. See also, M. B. Hooker, “A Note on the Malayan Legal Digests”, JMBRAS Vol. xli, Pt 1, July 1968, p. 168.

¹⁰ Richard Winstedt, “Digests of Law”, JMBRAS, Vol. 31, Pt 3, 1958, p. 136.

¹¹ M. Y. Hashim, “Legal Codes of the Melaka Sultanate: An Appraisal”, Malaysia in History - Journal of the Malaysian Historical Society, Vol. 26, 1983, p. 103.

¹² M. B. Hooker, “The Oriental Law Text: With reference to the Undang-undang Melaka and Malay law”, in M. B. Hooker (eds.), Malaysian Law Essays, MLJ, 1986, pp. 432-433.

¹³  Ibid.,  p.  434.

¹⁴  Hamid  Jusoh,  op.  cit.  n  3,  p  6.

¹⁵  Ahmad  Ibrahim,  “Islamic Law in  Malaysia”,  JMCL,  vol.  8,  1981,  p.  23.

¹⁶ M. B. Hooker, Islamic Law in South-East Asia, Oxford University Press: Singapore, 1984, P. 11.

¹⁷ M. B. Hooker, “The Oriental Law Text”, op. cit. n 13, p. 436.

¹⁸  M.  B.  Hooker,  “The Oriental  Law Text”,  op.  cit.  n  13,  p.  439.

¹⁹  M.  B.  Hooker,  “The Oriental  Law Text”,  op.  cit.  n  13,  p.  435.

²⁰ See, Fasal 48 and 92 , J. E. Kempe & R. O. Winstedt (ed.), “A Malay Legal Digest Compiled For ‘Abd al-Ghafur Muhaiyu’d-din Shah Sultan of Pahang 1592-1614 A.D. With Undated Additions”, JMBRAS, Vol. 21, 1948.

²¹  M.  Y.  Hashim,  op.  cit.  n  12,  p.  89.

²²  ibid.,  p.  95.

²³  Hamid  Jusoh,  op.  cit.  n  3,  p  5.

²⁴ The Pahang digest prescribes for a traitor three hundred and sixty tortures, to be followed by quartering. See, Reginald Coupland, Malaya and Its History, Hutchinson’s University Library, 1935, p. 100.

²⁵  M.  Y.  Hashim,  op.  cit.  n  12,  p.  89.

²⁶ Richard Winstedt, op. cit. n 11, p. 138.

²⁷ Reginald Coupland, op. cit. n 25, P. 101.

²⁸  M.  B.  Hooker,  “A Note on  the Malayan  Legal  Digests”,  op.  cit.  n  10,  p.  164.

²⁹  M.  B.  Hooker,  Islamic Law in  South-East  Asia,  op.  cit.  n  17,  p.  16.

³⁰  See,  M.  Y.  Hashim,  op.  cit.  n  12,  p.  98-99,  for  details.

³¹  M.  B.  Hooker,  “A Note on  the Malayan  Legal  Digests”,  op.  cit.  n  10,  pp.  159-160.

³² See, R. H. Hickling, “Origins”, in Malaysian Law, Professional (Law) Book Publishers, 1988, pp. 84-115, for the various influences on the present Malaysian Law. See also, R. H. Hickling, “The Influence of Chinese Upon Legislative History in Malaysia and Singapore”, in Essays In Malaysian Law, Pelanduk Publication, 1991, pp. 41-75, for the contribution of Chinese Malaysian to the development of Malaysian Law. See also, Joseph Minattur, “Indian Influence on Malay Customary Law”, in Journal of Indian History, Vol. 42, 1964, pp. 783-800.

³³  P.  P.  Buss Tjen,  op.  cit.  n  10,  p.260.

³⁴ Moshe Yegar, Islam and Islamic Institutions in British Malay 1874-1941, Magries Press, 1979, p. 122.

³⁵ M. B. Hooker, “A Note on the Malayan Legal Digests”, op. cit. n 10, p. 170.

³⁶ M. B. Hooker, “The Oriental Law Text”, op. cit. n 13, p. 445.

³⁷ M. B. Hooker, “The Oriental Law Text”, op. cit. n 13, p. 449.

³⁸  M.  B.  Hooker,  Islamic Law in  South-East  Asia,  op.  cit.  n  17,  p.  36.

³⁹ M. B. Hooker, Islamic Law in South-East Asia, op. cit. n 17, p. 130. Theoretically, according the Malay culture, the Malay rulers had virtually absolute power over the kerajaan. Meanwhile, Islam also claims absolute obedience to Allah from the Muslims. This to some extent creates some tension among the Malays.

⁴⁰ Emily Sadka, The Protected Malay States 1874-1895, University of Malaya Press, 1970, p. 250.

⁴¹ J. M. Gullick, Indigenous Political System of Western Malaya, the Athbone Press, 1956, p. 117.

⁴² Ibid. pp. 117-119.

⁴³ His nephew, Sultan Zainal, who succeeded him had left the administration of justice to the hand of other. See, J. M. Gullick, Malay Society in the Late Nineteenth Century, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 246.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 244. Gullick seems to change his mind from the opinion stated in Indigenous Political System of Western Malaya, op. cit. n 42, pp. 117-119.

⁴⁵ J. W. Cushman and A. C. Milner, “Eighteenth and Nineteenth-century Chinese Accounts of the Malay Peninsula”, JMBRAS, Vol. LII, Pt 1, 1979, p. 9.

⁴⁶ [original note] A fan seng (Giles, nos. 3383, 9617). We cannot be sure if the term refers to Buddhist priests, Islamic religious officials, Malay magicians or Brahmans. Although Islam was, of course, the professed religion of the people of Kalantan, other religions played a role in the state. Hsieh refers later in the text to the Hindu priest in Goa as a fan seng (HLC, p. 32) and the same term was used to denote Spanish priests in Luzon (Medhurst, The Chinaman, p. 76). See also Wang Gungwu, ‘The Melayu’, p. 4. For a discussion of Buddhist priests in Kalantan see R. J. Farrer, ‘A Buddhist Purification Ceremony’, JMBRAS, 11.2 (1933), pp. 261-263; Graham, Kelantan, p. 33. The role of both Brahmans and magicians at Malay royal ceremonies has been discussed by Richard Winstedt, ‘Kingship and Enthronement in Malaya’, JMBRAS, 20.1 (1947), pp. 129-139. (Emphasis added).

⁴⁷ [Original Note] Literally, ‘the sovereign and people revere the Buddha devoutly’. As was indicated in note... above, Islam was not the only religion practiced in Kelantan, but it is unlikely that the people of Kelantan would appear devoutly Buddhist. We have, therefore, adopted a less precise translation of the expression. [Present author note] The influence of Siam (Buddhists) upon Kelantan should not be taken lightly. Quotation taken from, J. W. Cushman and C. Milner, op. cit. n 46, pp.17-18. (Emphasis added).

⁴⁸ J. M. Gullick, “Malay Society”, op. cit. n 44, pp. 247-248. ⁴⁹ Emily Sadka, op. cit. n 41, p. 250.

⁵⁰ J. M. Gullick, “Malay Society”, op. cit. n 44, pp. 248-249. ⁵¹ Ibid., p.238.

⁵² J. M. Cushman and A. C. Milner, op. cit. n 46, pp. 19-20. ⁵³ J. M. Gullick, “Malay Society”, op. cit. n 44, p. 249.

⁵⁴ Emily Sadka, op. cit. n 41, p. 250. ⁵⁵ Moshe Yegar, op. cit. n 35, p. 92.

⁵⁶  Ibid.,  p.  263.

⁵⁷ J. M. Gullick, “Malay Society”, op. cit. n 44, p.248.

⁵⁸ Moshe Yegar, op. cit. n 35, p. 92.

⁵⁹  E.  N.  Taylor,  “Malay Family Law”,  JMBRAS,  Vol.  XV,  Pt  1,  1937,  pp.  4-5.

⁶⁰ For a clear discussion on the conflict between Adat and Islamic legal principles, see Michael G. Peletz, Social History and Evolution in the Interrelationship of Adat and Islam in Rembau, Negeri Sembilan, Research Notes and Discussion Paper No. 27, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1981, pp. 19-20. See also, M. B. Hooker, “Law, Religion, and Bureaucracy in a Malay State: A Study in Conflicting Power Centers”, The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 19, 1971, pp.266-270.

⁶¹ See, M. B. Hooker, “Law, Religion, and Bureaucracy”, Ibid., for discussion on all three occasions, and for a detail discussion on the 1951 occasion see, P. E. De Josselin De Jong, Islam Versus Adat in Negeri Sembilan (Malaya), Photocopy in University Malaya Law Library.

⁶² Moshe Yegar, op. cit. n 35, p. 133. ⁶³ E. N. Taylor, op. cit. n 60, p. 4.

⁶⁴ M. B. Hooker, “Law, Religion, and Bureucracy”, op. cit. n 61

⁶⁵ J. M. Gullick, “Malay Society”, op. cit. n 44, p. 114.

⁶⁶Adat had the strongest influence in Negeri Sembilan among the Malay States. So if Adat could be weakened, then it would be difficult for other states to escape the same fate.

⁶⁷Michael G. Peletz, op. cit., n62, pp. 26 – 28.

⁶⁸Moshe Yegar, op. cit., n35, pp. 92 – 93, pp. 261-270.

⁶⁹Ng Kam Weng, “Flawed History cannot support Universalism.”

⁷⁰Hamid Jusoh, op. cit., n3, p. 96.

Bibliography

Buss-Tjen, P. P.. 1958. “Malay Law”, Pp. 258-267 in the Journal of American Comparative Law, Vol. 7.

Coupland, Reginald. 1935. Malaya and Its History, New York: Hutchinson’s University Library.

Cushman, J. W. and Milner, A. C. 1979. “Eighteenth and Nineteenth-century Chinese Accounts of the Malay Peninsula”, Pp. 1-56 in JMBRAS, Vol. LII, Pt 1.

De Josselin De Jong, P. E. Undated. “Islam Versus Adat in Negeri Sembilan (Malaya)”, Photocopy in University Malaya Law Library.

Gullick, J. M. 1956. Indigenous Political System of Western Malaya, London: the Athbone Press.

Gullick, J. M. 1989. Malay Society in the Late Nineteenth Century, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Hashim, M. Y. 1983. “Legal Codes of the Melaka Sultanate: An Appraisal”, in Malaysia in History - Journal of the Malaysian Historical Society, Vol. 26.

Hickling, R. H. 1988. “Origins”, in Malaysian Law. Kuala Lumpur: Professional (Law) Book Publishers.

Hickling, R. H. 1991. “The Influence of Chinese Upon Legislative History in Malaysia and Singapore”, in Essays In Malaysian Law. Subang Jaya: Pelanduk Publication.

Hooker, M. B.. 1968. “A Note on the Malayan Legal Digests”, Pp. 157-170 in JMBRAS Vol. xli, Pt 1, July.

Hooker, M. B. “Law, Religion, and Bureaucracy in a Malay State: A Study in Conflicting Power Centers”, Pp. 266-270 in The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 19, 1971

Hooker, M. B. 1984. Islamic Law in South-East Asia. Singapore: Oxford University Press.

Hooker, M. B. 1986. “The Oriental Law Text: With reference to the Undang-undang Melaka and Malay law”, in M. B. Hooker (eds.), Malaysian Law Essays. Kuala Lumpur: MLJ.

Ibrahim,  Ahmad.  1981.  “Islamic Law in Malaysia”,  JMCL,  vol.  8.

Ibrahim, Ahmad. 1994. “The Introduction of Islamic Values in the Malaysian Legal System”. Pp. 27-45 in Jurnal IKIM, Vol. 2, No. 1.

Jusoh, Hamid. 1991. The Position of Islamic Law in the Malaysian Constitution with Special Reference to the Conversion Case in Family Law. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Kempe, J. E. & Winstedt, R. O. (ed.). 1948. A Malay Legal Digest Compiled For ‘Abd al-Ghafur Muhaiyu’d-din Shah Sultan of Pahang 1592-1614 A.D. With Undated Additions. Kuala Lumpur: JMBRAS.

Minattur, Joseph. 1964. “Indian Influence on Malay Customary Law”, Pp. 783-800 in Journal of Indian History, Vol. 42.

Michael G. Peletz, M. G. 1981. “Social History and Evolution in the Interrelationship of Adat and Islam in Rembau, Negeri Sembilan”, Research Notes and Discussion Paper No. 27, Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Ng, Kam Weng. 1994. “Flawed History Cannot Support Universalism”. Appendix to “Peoplehood Hermeneutics and Political Hegemony in a Democratic Society”, Occasional Paper, Kairos Research Centre.

Sadka, Emily. 1970. The Protected Malay States 1874-1895. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.

Taylor,  E.  N.  1937.  “Malay Family Law”,  Pp.  1-78  in JMBRAS,  Vol.  XV,  Pt  1,  1937.

Winstedt,  Richard.  1958.  “Digests of Law”,  Pp.136  in JMBRAS,  Vol.  31,  Pt  3.

Yegar, Moshe. 1979. Islam and Islamic Institutions in British Malay 1874-1941, Jerusalem: Magries Press, 1979