Malaysian Could be Jailed for Converting from Islam to Christianity

[DigitaLVampirE]

Originally Posted by Polwarth

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

Exactly. This is a Religion and Philosophy forum. Now you tell me, other than posting religious views, opinions and thoughts in this particular forum, what business has it got to do with non-believers? Why are the non-believers of this forum allowed to spew nonsense and hatred whilst believers are expected to "shut-up"? You and your likes can take the cyber-bus off to other forums which allows and even encourages hatred against a religion for all i care. Me being away for several months does not mean i have not been keeping an eye on this forum. I simply refused to get involved in the often bigoted remarks posted by many here. But enough is enough and all this nonsense has to stop immediately. Moderators do not have to have any affiliation to scotland.com just to arbitrate on scotland.com. Scotland.com's servers are not even in Scotland. So get over your prejudiced views. Xenophobia, racism, religious bigotry and and other what-nots is discouraged in all VCI forums.

[Polwarth]

Yawn.

[DigitaLVampirE]

Matters pertaining to Islamic law must be referred to the Syariah Court, as it is the main body entrusted with administering justice according to the confines of Islam.

ALL the hue and cry prior to and after the Federal Court’s judgment in the Lina Joy case are manifestations of ignorance, arrogance and sheer defiance of logic. It once again proves that the most unsettling problem afflicting our people is the problem of knowledge.

It’s alarming to encounter certain individuals or groups of people are ignorant of their ignorance and yet are bold enough to indulge in matters alien to their understanding. To further exacerbate the confusion, they choose to remain obstinate by discarding authority, i.e. true knowledge and erudite scholarship.

As was adjudicated in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, the case of Lina Joy is primarily administrative in nature. It essentially deals with the question of conversion procedure – whether or not a Muslim has to obtain a decree from the Syariah Court confirming one's apostasy.

A lot of people appear to consciously reject the fact that this country practices a dual legal system of parallel status – civil and syariah. This unique system is sanctioned, among others, by the Ninth Schedule and further bolstered by Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the country.

When it comes to matters pertaining to Islamic law, they must be referred to the Syariah Court, as it is the main body entrusted with administering justice according to the confines of Islam.

Conversion out of Islam is part of Islamic law, and therefore the Syariah Court is the only proper platform to resolve the issue. It is hard to believe that some people simply refuse to deal with the Syariah Court, assuming that justice will be denied.

The law is simple and straightforward. There is no need to complicate matters by manipulating the issues to the extent of threatening national unity. If one is not happy with any decision of any subordinate Syariah Court, then one may appeal. But some seem to already admit defeat without even trying.

It is amazing to learn that segments of our learned citizens throw their allegiance to a “foreign” law as compared to our readily available own internal legal provisions.

It is well and good to acknowledge the superiority of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) over our Federal Constitution, namely with regard to the freedom of religion.

But it appears to run foul if one were to make the same recognition, say, with the provisions of holy scriptures: the Bible, the Vedas, and particularly the Quran and Sunnah.

Many do not realise that in adopting any international document, we must first examine if it is binding. The UDHR is not legally binding even in countries which have agreed to adopt it.

Furthermore, in the Malaysian context, section 4(4) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999 clearly provides that the application of any external laws must be filtered through the Federal Constitution.

Certainly, apostasy is currently the hottest issue at stake; it is an internal legal problem. Like it or not, in order to resolve the issue, we must first acknowledge and apply all rules and laws available in our own backyard. The so-called international law only plays a persuasive role that may be referred to as a guide, not the determining factor.

One must not approach apostasy strictly from its constitutional or civil legal perspective alone. Religious representation must be given, if not more, at least an equal consideration.

In the case of Muslim apostates and those who support them (especially fellow Muslims), it is inconceivable that they would willingly leave Islam or give tremendous support if they properly understood the religion of Islam.

This holds true even to the followers of other religions. One will only renounce one's own religion as a result of utter ignorance, frustration or disenchantment.

First and foremost, Muslims must understand that they have chosen Islam consciously and willingly as a result of understanding and knowledge. Even Muslims cannot take things for granted believing that they are Muslims simply by birth.

All Muslims, either by birth or by conversion, must be made to realise that they have actually entered into a primordial covenant with God in the supernatural realm long before they were born to this world.

And this divine contract, i.e. the pledge of recognition, trust and allegiance between all human souls and God, is recorded in the Quran, namely, in Surah al-A’raf (7): 172.

This recognition and trust needs to be observed accordingly. In fact, this is the very foundation where all aspects of human life originate. None can ever claim that he/she is not aware of this spiritual contract, as the Quran is the reminder.

Therefore, once a Muslim breaches this divine contract, he is subject to a certain kind of religious remedial measure or punishment. This situation is very similar to that of commercial transactions where, for instance, those who breach contracts are punished in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in their agreements.

In the case of the Islamic legal system, there are provisions available pertaining to apostasy. If a crime takes place, then all parties involved are required to abide by them. In fact, every aspect of life, including the issue of freedom, has to be understood and exercised within the framework of religious parameters.

Certainly, the availability of fixed rules and regulations do not negate the possible and necessary modifications in the manifestations of justice according to Islam.

One of the substantial differences between Islam and the other religions is that, the latter possibly do not speak of a divine primordial covenant. This explains why the question of leaving one's religion for another is never an issue in non-Islamic religious traditions.

Muslims must not become Muslims simply because they are born within Muslim families or societies. For the converted Muslims, the motivation must not be for personal gain, be it in the form of marriage or other socio-economic and political benefits.

It is never too late to rectify any wrong once it is discovered. Gradually he/she must make efforts to increase his/her knowledge about Islam. In this regard, other Muslims, especially the loved ones (husbands, wives, parents, etc.), or those responsible for the conversion, must assist him/her along the way.

With proper understanding of religion, one will not easily leave religion for mundane reasons. A lack of compassion on the part of the Muslims will perhaps stifle any attempt to call the other to Islam.

By Dr WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD,
Senior Fellow/Director,
Centre for Syariah, Law
and Political Science, Ikim
Tuesday June 19, 2007

==========================================================
A Hindu Lina Joy, subjected to Islamic “re-education”
Some civil groups in Malaysia have organised a prayer vigil Revathi: and Indian Hindu who January last was condemned to 180 days of “rehabilitation” in a centre lead by Muslim authorities.

[DigitaLVampirE]

Can Islam be compatible with religious freedom? I certainly hope so, but doubts are raised by a decision of Malaysia's highest court, given a month ago. Lina Joy is a 43-year-old Malay woman who became a Christian some years ago and wished to marry a Christian man.

As a Malay, at the age of 12 she had received a national identity card specifying her religion as Islam. As long as her identity card stated she was a Muslim, she could not obtain a marriage licence to marry a Christian.

She applied to the National Registration Department to have her designation as a Muslim removed. The department required a certificate of apostasy from an Islamic court before this would be done.

Malaysia has civil and Islamic courts, the latter having jurisdiction over Muslims in religious and family matters. In most states of Malaysia, apostasy from Islam is punishable as a criminal offence by order of an Islamic court. Certificates of apostasy are very difficult to obtain. If Joy and her Christian boyfriend had children without marrying, the children could be taken from them to be raised as Muslims.

Before the court's decision Joy and her boyfriend had received death threats and were in hiding.

As a member of the United Nations, Malaysia is committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief", as well as providing that "without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion" men and women have the right to marry and have a family. Malaysia's constitution provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion; although it does also provide that civil courts have no jurisdiction over matters within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts. Interpretation of the constitution is a matter for civil courts and, ultimately, for Malaysia's Federal Court.

By a 2-1 majority, the Malaysian Federal Court decided that the department's requirement of a certificate of apostasy was lawful. The two judges of the majority were Muslim and included the Chief Justice of Malaysia. The dissenter, Justice Richard Malanjum, is a non-Muslim.

According to the majority, the question whether Joy was or was not a Muslim was a decision for the Islamic courts, which had been given jurisdiction over issues of conversion to Islam and, by implication, had jurisdiction over questions concerning conversion from Islam. The Chief Justice was quoted as saying: "If a person professes and practises Islam, he should be following Islamic laws including his conversion or renunciation. That is what is meant by adopting and practising Islam. What the [department] did was to ascertain whether Lina [Joy] had renounced this religion. I do not see this as an infringement to freedom of religion. No one is stopping her from marrying. She is merely required to fulfil certain obligations, for the Islamic authorities to confirm her apostasy, before she embraces Christianity."

The dissenting judge considered among other things that the requirement that Joy apply to Islamic courts for a certificate of apostasy was unreasonable, as it would expose her to punishment for the criminal offence of apostasy.

How the criminal offence of apostasy can co-exist with the Malaysian constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, especially if that guarantee is construed in the light of Malaysia's commitment to the Declaration of Human Rights, was not addressed. However, that offence exists, and the difficulty of obtaining a certificate of apostasy seems clear. As well, Joy was not shown to have voluntarily adopted Islam as an adult: her classification came from her birth as a Malay and was an automatic procedure when she was 12.

In light of this, the decision and the words of the Chief Justice are difficult to understand: that a highly intelligent and moderate Muslim could reason in that way raises the doubts about Islam's compatibility with religious freedom.

The decision was applauded by Muslims in Malaysia. But what do moderate Muslims in Australia think about it?

Suppose that there was a law enforced in Australia. which made conversion from Christianity a criminal offence, punishable by order of Christian tribunals.

Suppose that there was also a law that prevented a woman who had converted from Christianity to Islam from marrying a Muslim man, unless she obtained a certificate from a Christian tribunal that she was no longer a Christian, and that these certificates were difficult to obtain. I'm sure Muslims in Australia would find this utterly repugnant, and rightly so.

Do Muslims in Australia not think that the converse situation in Malaysia is similarly repugnant? Would it be possible for Muslim leaders in Australia, and in other countries with religious freedom, to speak firmly and clearly against the denial of religious freedom in countries such as Malaysia?

If they can and do, this would certainly help to show that Islam can be compatible with religious freedom; but if they cannot and don't, doubt must remain.

David Hodgson is a judge of the Supreme Court of NSW.

David Hodgson|June 22, 2007

[unsubstantial]

I read every one of those posts and you can't disprove that.

[Polwarth]

Glutton for punishment, eh?

[leggit]

Recurring theme in all this religious debate. Fanaticism, intolerance, oppression, war, death and misery. All religions should take a long hard look in the mirror and stop the above.
Remember the existence of god is a 50/50 chance. he either does or does'nt exist.
Is it worth all the trouble?