Siti Kasim: 10 reasons why using Islam to legitimise alcohol sale ban does more harm than good
SUCH is the message by human rights activist and lawyer Siti Kasim to her brethren following the recent objection to the sale of alcoholic beverages at a 99 Speedmart outlet by the Bandar Tasik Puteri Mosque management and resident representatives.
While she is not disputing that consuming alcohol is prohibited in Islam – which she whole-heartedly accepts as a Muslim – the Orang Asli advocate stressed that the prohibition nevertheless applies only to Muslims but never a license to prevent non-Muslims from purchasing legally permissible goods.
“That’s a crucial distinction that is being deliberately obscured,” asserted the alumni of Queen Mary University of London’s School of Law in a recent YouTube rant.
Urging Muslims to practise self-restrain rather than to weaponise Islam to defend their action. Siti Kasim listed down 10 reasons why it is detrimental to leverage Islam to legitimise prohibition of alcohol sale in multi-racial and multi-faith Malaysia:
#1 Don’t turn a religious obligation into a form of coercion against others
If I as a Muslim believe that alcohol is forbidden, the solution is simple: don’t buy it and don’t drink it.
But why must my obligation as a Muslim be imposed upon my non-Muslim neighbours?
Why must non-Muslims change their way of life just so I can feel more comfortable with my religion?
Is our faith so fragile that merely seeing a few cans of beer in a shop’s refrigerator could shake our religious conviction?
If we are truly confident in our religious teachings, we should educate Muslims to make the right choices. We need not control everyone around us.
#2. A Muslim-majority neighbourhood is not an exclusively Muslim area
The reason cited is that the neighbourhood has a majority Malay-Muslim population. Since when does the majority determine that the rights of minorities can be set aside?
A Muslim majority does not mean the area is owned solely by Muslims. Chinese, Indians, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and other communities living there also pay taxes, purchase homes and contribute to society.
They are not guests; they are Malaysians. Minority rights are not lost simply because their numbers are smaller.
#3. Don’t turn Muslim-majority neighbourhoods into places that non-Muslims fear
Another highly dangerous consequence is that non-Muslims may eventually become unwilling to live or conduct business in Muslim-majority areas.
They might begin to wonder: “If I live here, will my way of life constantly be called into question?”
“Will everything that is permitted by my religion and lawful under the law be challenged on the grounds of the majority’s sensitivities?”
“Am I truly accepted as an equal neighbour and citizen or merely tolerated as long as I bow to the will of the majority?”
Isu bantahan penjualan arak di 99 Speedmart Antara Gapi
Pihak Surau telah menyerahkan surat bantahan jualan arak ke 99 Speedmart Antara Gapi pada 22 September tahun lepas, tetapi kelihatan arak masih dijual sehingga kini. Semalam, Lajnah Dakwah Amar Maaruf Nahi Mungkar yang diketuai oleh Imam Anuar telah mengunjungi 99 Speedmart untuk bertanyakan status tindakan mereka atas bantahan kita. Namun begitu, masih tiada jawapan yang pasti. Sekiranya 99 Speedmart masih berdegil, terpaksalah kita melakukan kempen boikot sehingga mereka akur. Gunakan hak dan kuasa kita sebagai penduduk Muslim yang melebihi 90% di Antara Gapi ini. Bersedialah semua, sama-sama kita bantu kempen boikot sekiranya diperlukan sampai ke tahap itu.
#4. This is an example of how “political Islam” operates
Political Islam often operates through social pressure. There is no need to enact legislation if specific groups can mobilise en masse to stage protests, submit memoranda and exert pressure on a business.
Ultimately, the company yields out of fear of boycotts, harassment, negative publicity or future difficulties in obtaining licenses.
We then say: “Nobody forced them. The shop agreed to it voluntarily.”
But is that truly a free choice? If a business owner yields after facing organised pressure from a majority group, let us not pretend that the decision was made free from pressure.
It may not be coercion through legislation but it can still amount to social coercion.
#5. The right to protest also has moral limit
Certainly, residents and the mosque managementy have the right to voice their views and submit a memorandum peacefully.
However, having the right to protest does not mean the demands themselves are necessarily fair.
We also have the right to criticise when the power of the majority is used to curtail the living space of others.
The issue is not merely whether the protest is peaceful. The question is: what is being imposed through that protest?
If the premises hold a valid license and comply with all legal requirements, why should the religion of the majority be used as grounds to deny the legitimate choices of non-Muslims?
Decisions regarding licenses and the sale of alcohol must be made by the authorities based on the law, safety, location and transparent criteria – not based on who exerts the strongest religious pressure.
#6. What about welfare of Muslim employees?
Another argument raised concerns preventing Muslim employees from handling alcoholic beverages.
The concerns regarding Muslim employees can be addressed through reasonable management such as the allocation of duties, payment procedures or appropriate staff placement.
We can find solutions that respect employees’ beliefs without completely stripping away the rights of non-Muslim consumers.
However, the issue of Muslim employees cannot be used as a tool to dictate what others may purchase.
If that logic were to be accepted, any business employing Muslims could ultimately be pressured to comply with every Islamic religious law even if that business also caters to non-Muslim community.
That carries far-reaching implications.
#7. Today can be alcohol but what’s next?
This is what we must consider. Today, they insist that alcohol should not be sold in Muslim-majority neighbourhoods.
Tomorrow, concerts might be deemed unsuitable. The day after, certain types of clothing might be considered immodest.
Then, non-Muslim eateries might be asked to close during Ramadan to “respect sensitivities”.
Subsequently, the festivals, places of worship, entertainment and lifestyles of other communities could be deemed incompatible with the “values of the majority area”.
Each step might seem minor. Yet, when viewed collectively, the space for freedom shrinks and the lives of non-Muslims become increasingly dictated by the standards of the majority religion.
This is why we cannot simply look at a few cans of beer in a shop. The real issue is one of principle: does the majority have the right to impose its religious values on society as a whole?
My answer is “NO”.
#8. “Respecting Islam” does not mean conforming to Islam
We often hear the words “sensitivity” and “respect”. But respect must be a two-way street.
Non-Muslims should respect the right of Muslims not to consume alcohol. However, Muslims must also respect the right of non-Muslims to live their lives based on their own religions and choices so long as hey abide by the law.
Respecting Islam does not mean everyone must live as a Muslim. If only one side is constantly asked to yield, that is not tolerance. That is dominance.
#9. Don’t use Allah’s name to justify majority dominance
The ban alcohol organisers justified their action as to ensure that their neighbourhood is “safe, harmonious and blessed by Allah”.
I would like to ask: since when has the presence of beer – sold legally to non-Muslims – rendered an entire nerighbourhood unsafe?
Is every place that sells alcohol automatically devoid of blessings from the All Mighty?
If so, what about the hotels, restaurants, airports and supermarkets across the country?
We must be cautious about using the name of Allah to legitimise pressure exerted upon others.
Let us not create the impression that those who defend the rights of non-Muslims are opposing Islam. I uphold the principle that Islam should not be used as a tool to dominate the lives of others.
#19. The prohibition of alcohol doesn’t justify oppression of non-Muslims.
From an Islamic perspective, it is indisputable that alcohol is forbidden for Muslims. Surah al-Ma’idah, verse 90, calls upon believers to abstain from alcohol.
Note to whom the command is addressed: “to the believers”.
The verse obliges me as a Muslim to abstain from alcohol. But does that verse grant me the right to force followers of other religions to live their lives as Muslims?
No. The Quran also states in Surah al-Baqarah, verse 256: “There is no compulsion in religion.”
This means we cannot use majority power to impose our religious values and laws upon those who do not practice Islam.
If non-Muslims are ultimately compelled to observe Islamic prohibitions due to pressure from the Muslim community, how does the effect differ from religious coercion? – Sept 29, 2026
Political Islam often operates through social pressure. There is no need to enact legislation if specific groups can mobilise en masse to stage protests, submit memoranda and exert pressure on a business.
Ultimately, the company yields out of fear of boycotts, harassment, negative publicity or future difficulties in obtaining licenses.
We then say: “Nobody forced them. The shop agreed to it voluntarily.”
But is that truly a free choice? If a business owner yields after facing organised pressure from a majority group, let us not pretend that the decision was made free from pressure.
It may not be coercion through legislation but it can still amount to social coercion.
#5. The right to protest also has moral limit
Certainly, residents and the mosque managementy have the right to voice their views and submit a memorandum peacefully.
However, having the right to protest does not mean the demands themselves are necessarily fair.
We also have the right to criticise when the power of the majority is used to curtail the living space of others.
The issue is not merely whether the protest is peaceful. The question is: what is being imposed through that protest?
If the premises hold a valid license and comply with all legal requirements, why should the religion of the majority be used as grounds to deny the legitimate choices of non-Muslims?
Decisions regarding licenses and the sale of alcohol must be made by the authorities based on the law, safety, location and transparent criteria – not based on who exerts the strongest religious pressure.
PERAK INFO
about 8 years agoMASYARAKAT MELAYU PROTES PENJUALAN ARAK DI SPEEDMART 99 TAMAN INDERA BARAT
Setelah isu ini diviralkan di media sosial bermula ahad lalu. Ianya mula mendapat perhatian pihak berwajib.
Speedmart 99 Taman Indera Barat, Bota, Perak telah didapati menjual arak di premisnya yang mana majoriti penduduk di kawasan terbabit hampir 100% adalah kaum Melayu.
...See more
#6. What about welfare of Muslim employees?
Another argument raised concerns preventing Muslim employees from handling alcoholic beverages.
The concerns regarding Muslim employees can be addressed through reasonable management such as the allocation of duties, payment procedures or appropriate staff placement.
We can find solutions that respect employees’ beliefs without completely stripping away the rights of non-Muslim consumers.
However, the issue of Muslim employees cannot be used as a tool to dictate what others may purchase.
If that logic were to be accepted, any business employing Muslims could ultimately be pressured to comply with every Islamic religious law even if that business also caters to non-Muslim community.
That carries far-reaching implications.
#7. Today can be alcohol but what’s next?
This is what we must consider. Today, they insist that alcohol should not be sold in Muslim-majority neighbourhoods.
Tomorrow, concerts might be deemed unsuitable. The day after, certain types of clothing might be considered immodest.
Then, non-Muslim eateries might be asked to close during Ramadan to “respect sensitivities”.
Subsequently, the festivals, places of worship, entertainment and lifestyles of other communities could be deemed incompatible with the “values of the majority area”.
Each step might seem minor. Yet, when viewed collectively, the space for freedom shrinks and the lives of non-Muslims become increasingly dictated by the standards of the majority religion.
This is why we cannot simply look at a few cans of beer in a shop. The real issue is one of principle: does the majority have the right to impose its religious values on society as a whole?
My answer is “NO”.
(Admin) Jawapan daripada pihak Speedmart 99 Sdn. Bhd berkenaan bantahan penjualan arak di dalam Dun Bangi
#8. “Respecting Islam” does not mean conforming to Islam
We often hear the words “sensitivity” and “respect”. But respect must be a two-way street.
Non-Muslims should respect the right of Muslims not to consume alcohol. However, Muslims must also respect the right of non-Muslims to live their lives based on their own religions and choices so long as hey abide by the law.
Respecting Islam does not mean everyone must live as a Muslim. If only one side is constantly asked to yield, that is not tolerance. That is dominance.
#9. Don’t use Allah’s name to justify majority dominance
The ban alcohol organisers justified their action as to ensure that their neighbourhood is “safe, harmonious and blessed by Allah”.
I would like to ask: since when has the presence of beer – sold legally to non-Muslims – rendered an entire nerighbourhood unsafe?
Is every place that sells alcohol automatically devoid of blessings from the All Mighty?
If so, what about the hotels, restaurants, airports and supermarkets across the country?
We must be cautious about using the name of Allah to legitimise pressure exerted upon others.
Let us not create the impression that those who defend the rights of non-Muslims are opposing Islam. I uphold the principle that Islam should not be used as a tool to dominate the lives of others.
#19. The prohibition of alcohol doesn’t justify oppression of non-Muslims.
From an Islamic perspective, it is indisputable that alcohol is forbidden for Muslims. Surah al-Ma’idah, verse 90, calls upon believers to abstain from alcohol.
Note to whom the command is addressed: “to the believers”.
The verse obliges me as a Muslim to abstain from alcohol. But does that verse grant me the right to force followers of other religions to live their lives as Muslims?
No. The Quran also states in Surah al-Baqarah, verse 256: “There is no compulsion in religion.”
This means we cannot use majority power to impose our religious values and laws upon those who do not practice Islam.
If non-Muslims are ultimately compelled to observe Islamic prohibitions due to pressure from the Muslim community, how does the effect differ from religious coercion? – Sept 29, 2026
Wait till PAS forms the government.
ReplyDeleteAll these valid arguments will be thrown out without hesitation.
Hadi envisages a theocracy with him as the first Malaysian Ayatollah