What we stand for

G25 is committed to pursue a just, democratic, peaceful, tolerant, harmonious, moderate and progressive multi-racial, multi cultural, multi religious Malaysia through Islamic principles of Wassatiyah (moderation) and Maqasid Syariah (well-being of the people) that affirms justice, compassion, mercy, equity.

Malaysia is to be led by rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights and upholding the institution of the country.

We aim to ensure, raise awareness, promote that Syariah laws and civil laws should work in harmony and that the Syariah laws are used within its legal jurisdiction and limits as provided for by the federal and state division of powers.

There should be rational dialogues to inform people on how Islam is used for public law and policy that effects the multi ethnic and multi religious Malaysia and within the confines of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the nation.

We work in a consultative committee of experts to advise the government and facilitate amendments to the state Syariah laws, to align to the Federal Constitution and the spirit of Rukun Negara.

It is imperative to achieve a politically stable, economically progressive Malaysia and to be able to enjoy the harmony, tolerance, understanding and cooperation in this multi diverse country.

Breaking The Silence, banned

The G25 has received upsetting news. Our book, "Breaking the Silence: Voices of Moderation" has been banned under the Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No. 12) Order 2017.

Launched by YBM Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah on 5 December 2015 during G25's Public Forum on Islam in a Constitutional Democracy, the book is a compilation of articles written by leading academics, prominent lawyers and social activists to discuss the impact of Islamic bureaucracy in Malaysia and its consistency with the provisions of the Federal Constitution. Our book also addresses the socio-political dimensions and cultural-economic implications on Malaysian society.

Gazetted into law yesterday, its rationale for the ban declared the book as "likely to be prejudicial to public order, likely to alarm public opinion and likely to be prejudicial to public interest".

We fail to see how any part of the book is prejudicial to public order, interest or alarming in any way.

News story