This article comes in the wake of an intense debate on the compatibility and necessity of a massive demonstration in this country. Does it reflect our culture? Is it Islamic? Is it the only way for us to solve our problems? Is it compatible and necessary? Is it consistent with democratic principles? Is it possible for such demonstration to be held in a democratic society?

Indeed, those are a part of many more questions being asked to justify and consider the legality of holding and staging a public rally, especially if its size is enormous. Again, the notion of freedom of opinion and expression in this country – no matter from which dimension it is being perceived – is being tested, from end to end.

This article does not aim to give a spontaneous gesture of support or opposition on something without making a thorough consideration beforehand. It was therefore my interest to explore whether there is room for expressing our opinion, as far as human rights principles and Islamic law are concerned.

In addition, to me, whatever is good should be praised and supported and whatever is bad should be condemned and opposed - regardless of where it came from and who did it. The principle seems crystal clear but, after all, everything depends on how we draw the line between good and bad. As such, I am of the opinion that there is a need to examine the yardstick on which we have to rely to differentiate between good and bad in particular from an Islamic perspective.

To know where we should put the line between good and bad, we should, in the first place, know the whereabouts of the two. In Islam, to weigh and justify whether something is good or bad, one should look at the purposes and the methods or the ends and the means whether or not they are in line with the Islamic principles.

To be precise, Islamic principles are contained in Quran and Hadith as well as other recognised sources and not from any other consideration like political, economic etc. If the purpose is noble such as to help the poor but the method is bad such through stealing money, then it will not be a right thing to do.

In Islam, however good and noble the purpose is, the methods to gain such a purpose should similarly be good. The noble end does not justify the bad means. On the other hand, if the purpose is already bad from the very beginning such as to discriminate or oppress people, then whatever means being used to achieve such an aim will be similarly bad and invalid.

As such, if an opinion being expressed is aiming for a noble aim, then such expression should be allowed, provided that the manner of such expression being exercised does not contradict with the very idea of Islamic and democratic principles.

Islam and freedom of expression

The eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states: “Islam stresses the principle of freedom”. This is made clear in the well-known statement of Caliph `Umar Ibn Al-Khattab: "How dare you enslave people whereas they were born free?!"

This Islamic principle of freedom did not come as a result of some sort of development in the society or an evolution that requested it, but it was a heavenly principle that was revealed for the good of people and to elevate them on earth.

But this freedom is guaranteed on the condition that religion should not be toyed with, and people's honour and dignity should not be transgressed upon. In reality, Islam guarantees freedom of speech and criticism and even considers it obligatory when it concerns the interest of the entire ummah, or affects other Islamic morals or general ethical values.

In cases like these Islam makes it mandatory upon every Muslim to speak out, revealing the truth, fearing none but Allah; it makes it incumbent upon a Muslim to enjoin what is good and set right what is evil; and to encourage whoever does good deeds and blame whoever does evil deeds.

In this case, freedom of speech and criticism are deemed as an obligation and not merely a right one is entitled to. It is not a characteristic of Islam to muzzle freedom of speech and to prevent people from expressing their opinions freely.

The recognition of freedom expression under Islamic law as a birthright of every human being is confirmed by the Quran, in Surah Al-Rahman verses 1-4 which state that: “[God] The Most Gracious!; [He] has imparted this Quran (unto man); [He] has created man; and [He] has imparted unto him articulate thought and speech”.

Professor Mohammad Hashim Kamali, in his masterpiece on freedom of expression in Islam has observed that “it is generally acknowledged that freedom of expression in Islam is in many ways complementary to freedom of religion; that it is an extension and a logical consequence of the freedom of conscience and belief which the Shariah has validated and upholds”.

Indeed, the intellect is the greatest instrument of human life and its full and utmost potential can only be achieved through interaction of ideas and the impartation of information among individuals.

Under the Shariah , the main objective of this right is the ‘discovery of truth and upholding human dignity’. Islamic law endeavours a balance between these two principal objectives and does not accommodate the spread of evil or obscenity under its threshold of freedom of expression.

While the Quran affirms that God gave mankind the power and freedom of expression, it also directs mankind to be always apposite in speech. It states clearly in Surah Al-Nisa’ verse 148 that; “God loves not the public utterance of evil speech”, and in Sural Al-Nur verse 19 that; “Those who love [to see] scandal broadcasted among the believers will have the grievous penalty in this life and in the hereafter”.

Thus the freedom of expression under Islamic law is not absolute but restricted to apposite speech and expressions. Indeed, it is pretty clear that there is no such thing as absolute freedom in this life. While acknowledging the fact that there is a crucial need to respect one’s freedom of expression, there are, however, limits and borders which everyone has to take heed of.

A human right

It was acknowledged that the right to freedom of opinion and expression is a birthright of every human being which stimulates dialectical intercourse that aids human development and well-being. Expression is the outward manifestation of a person’s opinion, thus a person’s liberty is completely denied where freedom expression is denied.

Freedom of opinion and expression has therefore been long recognised as ‘one of the most precious rights of man’ and also of ‘great important for all other rights and freedoms’. The federal constitution of Malaysia, through its Article 10(1) (a) and (b) provides that; “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression”; and that; “all citizens have the rights to assemble peaceably and without arms”.

The article further stipulates that such a freedom shall be subjected with the restrictions as contained in its Clauses 2(a) and (b) which, among other things, relate to the needs to ensure that the exercise of such freedom shall not infringe the interest of the security of the federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any legislative assembly.

On the other hand, Article 19(2) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice”.

In Paragraph 3, the article emphasizes the exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to a number of limitations, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary; “(a) for respect of the rights or reputation of others; and (b) for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals”.

Although Malaysia has neither signed nor ratified the ICCPR, it is nonetheless an authoritative elaboration of the rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and hence of some relevance here. In fact, the list of rights in this instrument is very much similar with the fundamental rights being provided by the federal constitution of Malaysia.

Thus, it is not morally wrong for Malaysian government to refer to ICCPR as guidelines in respecting, promoting, protecting and fulfilling the full enjoyment of human rights of its citizens.

The right to freedom of opinion and expression, although being interrelated to each other, may have some differences. The right to hold opinions, being internal and private, is absolute and is here separated from the right to freedom of expression.

Although a person’s opinion may be influenced by external factors, it cannot actually be restricted because it is an event of the mind and hardly interferes with the rights of others. On the contrary, freedom of expression is a public matter that could easily interfere with the right of others if not properly controlled.

Freedom of expression is thus not absolute. During the drafting of Article 19, it was appreciated that while ‘freedom of expression was a precious heritage’ it could also be ‘a dangerous instrument’ against public order and the personality of others. Hence, while the right to freedom of expression was made as comprehensive as possible to cover the seeking, receiving and imparting of information and ideas of all kinds through any media of one’s choice, it carried with it ‘special duties and responsibilities’ and was also subjected to a number of restrictions as prescribed in Article 19(3).

Conclusion

In sum, it is indeed an uphill task for the government of a state party to ensure that, while it may impose certain restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression on its citizens, it may not, however, put in jeopardy the right itself and the restrictions must be ‘prescribed by law’.

Most importantly, the ‘law’ must not merely be intended to fulfill the interests of certain parties but it should be appropriate and adapted to achieving one of the enumerated ends i.e. for respect of the rights or reputation of others; and for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.

I believe that everyone is clear by now about how far the extent of freedom of expression could be exercised and what kind of expression which should be stopped and denied by the authorities. Regardless of whatever protest or demonstration being organised, the justifications on making it legal or illegal should be based on the prescribed laws by looking at the nature and manner of such protest or expression being exercised, but not on ‘who’ are people that involve in it.

If in the future, any rally and protests were to be held, everyone participating in it should take heed of the need to make it a clean and a peaceful one. The police and security officers, on the other hand, should also ensure the protests are undertaken within the margin as prescribed by laws and any attempt to perpetrate acts of violence and public disorder should not be tolerated.

While admitting that a peaceful demonstration is a common phenomenon and is an acceptable norm in a democratic society, there is no room for acts of violence or chaos which may put our country’s public order and stability at stake.