Malaysian Could be Jailed for Converting from Islam to Christianity

[DigitaLVampirE]

Lina Joy’s 10-year battle to be herself as she wanted to be within the confines of the supreme law of the country, the Federal Constitution, has been dashed by the Federal Court’s decision this morning. The freedom of religion guaranteed by the Federal Constitution under Article 11 comes across as hollow and meaningless. This decision has totally rendered null and void the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Under the circumstances, the Federal Court’s decision has a devastating effect on issues of fairness and justice. Concerned citizens will rightly wonder whether the judiciary is capable of delivering justice for those who turn to it. They will be turned away from the judicial system of the country thinking that the judges who are sworn to uphold the Federal Constitution in the course of their duty are not living up to their oath of office.

Lina Joy’s case is something that has to be viewed strictly within the confines of the Constitution without taking into account any other consideration. When other considerations come into play, then justice becomes the victim as is the case in the Lina Joy verdict.

This decision, looked at from another point of view, undermines the judiciary itself. The judiciary cannot be technical in delivering its verdict. Fairness and justice should be part of any judgment and should not be sacrificed on technical grounds. Where is the compassion for someone who has turned to the judiciary for a solution to free her from her predicament? Can justice redeem itself? Is there hope for the ordinary person in our judiciary?

It is really troubling when a issue such as this is politicised and blown out of all proportion and pressure is mounted to deny justice.

Aliran Executive Committee
30 May 2007

[DigitaLVampirE]

After a landmark superior court decision downgraded secular law and constitutional guarantees against Islamic rules, a storm of protest has been building up as government and civil society rush to find a solution to the religious impasse.

The verdict, last week, held that the constitutional right to freedom of worship does not apply to Muslims and that civil courts have no jurisdiction over Islamic matters.

The verdict denied official recognition to Lina Joy, a Muslim who converted to Christianity a decade ago and told her to appear before a Shariah court to renounce Islam, ironically an offence in Malaysia punishable with three years in jail. After the verdict neither judge nor politician was willing to enter the fray and unravel the dilemma and ease the great disquiet that has gripped this multi-ethnic society.

Malay Muslims form close to 60 percent of Malaysia's 26 million people and their civil, family, marriage and personal rights are governed by Islamic Shariah courts. The personal laws of ethnic Chinese, Indians and others who form the remainder are administered by civil courts. However, the constitution is vague on what happens to converts such as Joy. Failure to correct the imbalance created by the new verdict, legal experts said, will crack the system founded on secular law which guarantees religious freedom for all citizens.

"It is a clash between individual rights on the one hand and, on the other, a growing Islamisation of Muslims and their sense of siege fuelled by wars across the world and by active Christian proselytising," one independent constitutional expert told IPS but declined to be named for fear of persecution. "The judgment has ignored the supremacy of the constitutionàthe only solution is to reassert that supremacy," the legal expert said. "We need to constitutionally reorder society."

On independence from Britain 50 years ago Malaysia's founders found it convenient to deem Malaysia as a secular state in order to foster a multi-racial society while making Islam the official religion to take care of the interests of native Malays. However, this solution has proved problematic with Malays beginning to look upon their religion as a mark of their distinct identity.

One solution that could accommodate individual interests, suggested privately by some experts including Muslims, is to provide a proper and legal exit for Muslims wishing to follow other religions. However, the mere suggestion of such a solution which requires amendments in the existing Shariah laws will spark Muslim anger, and no political leader Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi downwards is willing to take the risk. Even opposition icon Anwar Ibrahim, who has promoted moderate Islam far longer than any other Malaysian leader and is trying to make a political comeback after six years in prison, is also unwilling to grab the bull by the horns.

In a statement Ibrahim, to whom many Muslims and non-Muslims look up to for alternative leadership, took the position that Muslims can only renounce Islam through the Shariah court and Islamic laws. "The verdict is not about compelling Lina Joy to return to Islamà it is about the rules that must be complied with when an individual wishes to renounce Islam as his or her religion,'' Ibrahim, a religious scholar himself, said. "I believe that such a matter must remain within the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts and whether or not such a renunciation is appropriate is a matter for the Shariah courts to decide.''

"The government has failed to deal with this issue in a manner that would reassure non-Muslims that their constitutional freedom in respect of religion has not been compromised," Ibrahim said. "It is also most deplorable that instead of demonstrating a new resolve to forge interfaith harmony in the light of this decision, the government is trying to gain political mileage from it."

Critics of the verdict point out that apostasy is already a crime in Malaysia and punishable with jail, fine and forced rehabilitation. Even the dissenting judge in the 2-1 majority verdict had pointed this out -- saying asking Lina Joy to go to the Shariah court to "leave Islam" was unfair and discriminatory because she could end up incriminating herself. Despite reassuring statements from Muslim leaders widespread disquiet is on the rise as people realise that the court had failed to uphold the supremacy of the secular constitution and its bill of fundamental liberties.

The court also ruled that civil courts have no jurisdiction on Islamic matters --a sweeping decision that leaves scores of non-Muslims in a legal limbo.
An example is the case of Mt Everest climber Moorthy Maniam, a Hindu by birth but buried as a Muslim in 2005. Islamic administration officials "acquired" the body after a headline grabbing tussle for it with Moorthy's wife Kaliammal, saying he had secretly converted to Islam.

Kaliammal disputed the claim and asked the court to declare her husband a Hindu, but the court instead said since one party is a Muslim the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Kaliammal has appealed to a higher court to exhume her husband's body and dispose it off according to Hindu rites and customs.

But with the apex court ruling that civil courts have no jurisdiction in Islamic matters, aggrieved citizens like Kaliammal remain without a remedy, a situation that is intolerable in any society respecting justice and rule of law. "The decision has a devastating effect on issues of fairness and justice. Citizens will rightly wonder whether the judiciary is capable of delivering justice for those who turn to it," said ALIRAN, a social reform movement, in a statement.

"The judgment does not end the Muslim - non-Muslim divide but has instead worsened it by introducing Islamic principles into secular, constitutional matters," said opposition leader Lim Kit Siang in an IPS interview. "A political solution is urgently needed now to resolve rising disquiet," Lim said urging Badawi to take steps to satisfy non-Muslim fears of "creeping Islam."

"Badawi must take immediate steps to promote and protect the supremacy of the secular constitution and its bill of rights," Lim said.
Outside of a political solution there is little else that anybody can do now that the apex courts has ruled, said opposition lawmaker Kulasegaran Murugesan. "The verdict is binding on all the lower courts."

"A political solution is urgent and must come from Badawi who espouses a moderate form of Islam," Kulasegaran said, urging the Prime Minister to amend relevant parts of the constitution to clarify the issues and uphold the supremacy of the constitution.

"Badawi must make it clear that non-Muslims should not be subjected to Shariah law," he said. "Even a political statement on these lines will help to ease non-Muslim fears." Badawi's ruling National Front government has a stranglehold on parliament controlling 90 percent of the 217 seats -- a massive majority that can be used to make or change laws.

"Ultimately the solution is in the hands of the voters," Lim said referring to a general election widely expected later this year.
Badawi strongly denied the verdict was "a political decision," but public belief is that the judges made their ruling with an eye to their political masters and Muslim sensitivities.

"They must have a hole in their headà I have never hoped or coerced the judiciary into making a political decision," an exasperated Badawi had said when refuting charges that the verdict was manipulated to satisfy one section of society. While Badawi insists that the constitution remains supreme, public confidence in his pronouncements have taken a beating after many promises remain unfulfilled.

With dissatisfaction among non-Malays growing over this and other issues, Badawi is under pressure to smoothen out things before facing voters, 45 percent of whom are non-Muslims. One government suggestion that may be pursued is the creation of a multi-ethnic "religious commission" to receive, arbitrate and resolve religious issues and disputes.

Baradan Kuppusamy from Kuala Lumpur
6/11/2007

Freedom of Conscience and Islam: Christian Converts Put to the Test

[aNonnyMoose]

All a bit reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition, really.

How could anyone really get worked up about which "god" to worship?

There aren't any.

Get over it.

[DigitaLVampirE]

Is that all you can offer of your views on this situation? This thread isn't about downplaying Islam. It's about being recognised as a (religious) minority in a predominantly Muslim nation. Buck up.

[aNonnyMoose]

No. It's a mindless argument about whose god can pee furthest up the wall. And just about as relevant to most people's lives, except for the intolerant interference on people's lives that the fanatic worshippers of non-existent gods insist on.

Away back to your temple and stop bugging people who can run their own lives.

[DigitaLVampirE]

aNonnyMoose, typing with your antlers in a hissy fit manner will not make your remarks any smarter. If you do not wish to believe in the existence of a Higher Being, that's alright by me - just do not use this Board to promote your hatred and bigoted remarks against Believers of any religion.

[Polwarth]

I promised myself I was not going to rise to answering any more of your posts - but ... enough's enough.

Excuse me - is this forum not called 'Religion and Philosphy'?

And, by what right do you stop people posting their honestly held opinions, simply because they are different to your expressed beliefs and opinions?

That ain't how it works in the real world. People who do this are known as dictators.

You disappeared off here for a long time - maybe you were too busy being a moderator on all the other 'national' boards that this company owns - who knows, I don't visit any of them. Then you come on and post almost exclusively in this forum where you are in a small way in a position of power. You insult people and then claim that it is THEY who insult you and your beliefs.

Just why ARE you here on Scot.com? You have no affiliation to Scotland, and precious little interest in our culture, customs or politics - and know even less about our religious life. Oh yes - I seem to recall that it was a former despot on here called Nicquie who started the ball rolling.