By Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid
Terrorism is a crime of the most heinous nature, often equated with war crimes or crimes against humanity due to its devastating impact on society. While a universal definition of terrorism remains elusive, the United Nations provides a widely accepted interpretation, defining it as: “Any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”.
This definition underscores the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of violence as a tool to instill fear, achieve political objectives, or exert coercion, marking terrorism as a profound violation of human rights and international norms. This definition also does not reference any specific religion, class, or creed.
This omission reflects the principle that terrorism and criminality are not tied to any particular faith, ideology, or demographic. However, there is a widespread perception that the fear of terrorism is synonymous with a fear of those practicing Islam or adhering to other religions. The stereotype that “all terrorists are Muslim” or worse, that “all Muslims are terrorists,” is not only factually incorrect but also inherently racist.
Some commentators perpetuate this misconception by demonizing Muslims and claiming that Islam is incompatible with Western democratic values. This conflation of terrorism with Islam fosters intolerance, discrimination, and prejudice against Muslims on a global scale. Alarmingly, such views have taken root not only in the West but also among individuals from non-Western backgrounds, including academics, activists, and religious leaders.
It is crucial to recognize that acts of terrorism have been committed by individuals from diverse faiths and backgrounds, often driven by motives such as revenge, retaliation, or the promotion of specific ideologies. Broadly attributing terrorism to a single religion is not only unjust but also counterproductive in fostering mutual understanding and combating terrorism effectively.
Religion is often defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, typically involving devotional practices, rituals, and a moral code that governs human behaviour. Terrorism, on the other hand, is an action or threat aimed at influencing governments or intimidating the public to advance political, religious, or ideological agendas.
While religion is generally seen as a guiding framework to embrace a particular set of beliefs, in Malaysia, religions are largely practiced in ways that emphasize peace, tolerance, and harmony. Acts of violence, including terrorism, extremism, hate, and discrimination, are considered fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of religious practices in Malaysia and the principles enshrined in the Federal Constitution. As such, terrorism is viewed as a grave offence under Malaysian law.
Under Section 130 (Part VIa) of the Penal Code, acts of terrorism are classified as serious crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the High Courts of Malaya (Malaysia). Specifically, Section 130C(1) of the Penal Code prescribes severe penalties: individuals who commit terrorist acts that result in death may face the death penalty, while other terrorist acts are punishable with imprisonment for a term ranging from seven to thirty years, along with the possibility of a fine. This legal framework reflects Malaysia’s commitment to maintaining peace and addressing acts of terrorism with utmost seriousness.
Within the scope of Section 130 of the Penal Code, certain offences may be construed as crimes of strict liability, although the interpretation of strict liability depends on judicial precedents. For instance, under Section 130JB(1), a person found in possession, custody, or control of any item associated with a terrorist group or the commission of a terrorist act—whether through providing, displaying, distributing, or selling such items—faces penalties including imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine, and the forfeiture of the items in question.
This stringent prohibition underscores the gravity of terrorism-related crimes, such as acting as money carriers (mules), financing terrorism, promoting terrorist groups or their ideologies, or possessing terrorism-related materials. These offences are considered highly detrimental to public safety and security, emphasizing the seriousness with which they are addressed under Malaysian law. Thus, terrorism and related offences are classified as crimes of the highest order, adjudicated by the criminal High Courts rather than the Shariah Courts, as they are not considered to be religious crimes.
While deviations from Islamic faith practices may fall within the jurisdiction of Shariah Courts, such deviations do not equate to acts of terrorism. Any conflation of religion, particularly Islam, with terrorism is both factually and historically inaccurate. Terrorism transcends boundaries of colour, race, gender, religion, and creed, manifesting as acts of indiscriminate and incomprehensible violence.
Recognizing this distinction is essential to preventing the spread of prejudice and ensuring that terrorism is addressed as a universal threat to peace and humanity. Given the clear jurisdiction of terrorism offences under the Malaysian criminal courts, it is crucial that rehabilitation and deradicalisation programs address the behaviour and criminal acts of perpetrators rather than focusing solely on their ideologies.
The Federal Constitution guarantees the freedom of belief, and being labelled a radical does not inherently constitute a crime, nor does holding radical beliefs necessarily result in criminal behaviour. Furthermore, there is no precise legal definition of “radicalism” in the Malaysian law as it remains a subjective and personal label.
Assuming that correcting an individual’s ideology is the sole method of rehabilitation perpetuates the misconception that Islam equates to terrorism and vice versa. This notion is as flawed as suggesting that prisoners or criminals inherently lack proper ideology or faith, ignoring the reality that even devout individuals have committed crimes.
While theological perspectives can address misconceptions about religion, the inclination to commit crime and violence requires specialized treatment by professionals such as criminologists, sociologists, psychologists, therapists, and counsellors within structured rehabilitation and deradicalisation programs.
To move forward, it is essential to end the conflation of terrorism or violence with religion. Programs aimed at rehabilitating individuals involved in terrorism should be tailored to address their criminal behaviour and psychological tendencies, ensuring they no longer pose a threat to society. Ultimately, terrorism must be viewed and treated as an act of crime and not dependent on religion or ideology per se because it is, and will always remain, a criminal act.
The author is a criminologist and Deputy Dean (Higher Degree), Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.
