I read the Malaysiakini report on Siti Fatimah revert back to her original religion and I feel I am compelled to write.

I also managed to watch the interview with the Syariah lawyer representing Siti Fatimah, Mr. Ahmad Jailani. It can be viewed at these addresses below:

a. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=echaEOz0OrU and

b. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axt5CLbPb04&feature=related

What I’ve learnt from the interview can be summed up in these points:

Siti Fatimah applied for her Islamic Faith status to be annulled on the grounds that she never practiced Islam and never believed in the Islamic faith

Siti Fatimah took the right step by referring to the Syariah Court

There was no malice on the part of Siti Fatimah or the Syariah court. The case was decided on merits

The Penang Syariah court decided that Siti Fatimah was never a Muslim, to start off with, and that her conversion did not meet the standard of a Muslim

Never is this a decision by the Syariah court to support apostasy or a change of religion.

I see this as a major step forward and the precedence can be applied to solve many of the “apostasy” problems in Malaysia. In my analysis, most of the application for “apostasy” is made by converts who converted on the basis of marriage only.

Many of these converts never practiced or never believed in the Islamic faith. Their respective spouse was also irresponsible as they did not make any effort to educate or train their spouses in the Islamic faith.

In the event of a divorce, these “converts” were left in a limbo. They don’t believe in their newly converted religion, but at the same time, they cannot go back to their original faith.

The Penang court decision provides a legal exit for these converts. This would mean that they can go to their respective Shariah courts and get their Islamic declaration annulled.

If any, the Shariah Court should punish their respective ex-spouse for not taking care of their newly converted ex-wives/husbands.

DISRESPECTING THE SHARIAH COURT IS NOT THE SOLUTION

There are those in our community, namely “Muslim” individuals like Malik Imtiaz and Haris Ibrahim and organizations like the Bar Council, who thinks that the solution to this problem is by disrespecting the Shariah Courts.

May I remind them that the Shariah courts in Malaysia still maintain the respect and trust of the Muslim population of Malaysia. None can equate them with the corrupted judiciary of the Malaysian civil courts where judges are up for sale at the highest bidder.

The statement from Bar Council Vice President, Mr. Ragunath Kesavan, and I quote:

"It should be the high court which decides on this issue as some states in Malaysia do not provide for converting out so the high court remains the best place to sort this out,"

is not only arrogant, but also ignorant.

Why do I use the word ignorant? Until and when the Syariah courts issues a decree nullifying the Islamic faith of an individual, that particular “Muslim” is subjected to the Islamc laws and regulations, thus the Syariah courts.

As for “Muslim” individuals like Malik Imtiaz and Haris Ibrahim, my only advice is for them to start realizing that Muslims have sought independence from their respective ex-western colonial powers.

It will be a major step back is Muslims have to go back and adopt beliefs and ideologies espoused by former Western colonial powers. Especially when they themselves are also guilty of breaking the same rules. For instance, the US who goes around blacklisting people for violating “human rights” are themselves guilty of committing torture.

And not to mention the countless Human Rights violation commited by their allies. The closest that I can quote from memory is the massacare committed by the Uzbekistan regime against demonstrators which is reported by all international media. The US chose to remain quiet and because Uzbekistan helped them in removing the Taliban from Afghanistan.

So much for upholding Human Rights. Western powers are as hypocrites and we, as Muslims, should not uphold their hypocrisy.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the “abandoned-convert” problem is a real problem. And the Penang Shariah court ruling provides a practical solution to a real problem. The call to battle made by Haris Ibrahim or Malik Imtiaz or their likes are nothing more than maneuverings by ideologues trying to capitalize on public insecurity in their effort to promote their secular liberalism ideology. Mind you that Secular Liberalist stand on religion is 100% contradictory to Islam. This is a fact.

Malaysians should be made wary of the small minority effort to undermine Islam. Their intention is never to solve a real problem plaguing real Malaysians. Their so-call solutions will only lead to more problems thus compromising the social fabric of this country.

The Penang Shariah court ruling also proves that Malaysian Shariah court, while maintaining their discipline to the Islamic teachings, is also flexible and able to solve real problems of the day. It’s actually the function of ijtihad.

www.malaysiawaves.com

Comments (61)

...
written by joseph81, May 12, 2008 06:58:39

It's funny she claimed that her Iranian husband loved her so much that she embraced Islam just to get married, and now that she is divorced she wanted to convert back to Buddhist.

In my opinion, she doesn't deserved the verdict, how come someone be flip-flop on religion belief

report abuse

disagree 39

agree 11

...
written by quietguy, May 12, 2008 07:13:09

This is not an issue of faith. It's a matter of registration. The woman obviously never had faith in Islam. She only registered her status as a Muslim in order to get married to the Iranian guy. Then when she broke up with him, she wanted to revert back to her previous registered status.

I reiterate my stand on this one: This should not be allowed! If someone does not have faith in Islam, they should not be allowed to change their status to Muslim, period! The authorities should dig deeply into the reason for conversion before actually granting it, instead of simply allowing just on the basis of the person's claim.

report abuse

disagree 26

agree 14

...
written by csm_81, May 12, 2008 07:29:10

What I don't understand is the need for a spouse to convert to another religion just so they can marry. I know that it's 'law' to do so but is it really necessary? Why can't two people in love remain in their respective religion? My maternal aunty is a Catholic and her husband's a devout Buddhist but they still love and respect each other dearly. During CNY she'll accompany him to the temple and he'll accompany her to the Church every Sunday.

No one likes to be 'forced' to convert to any religion just so they can marry their spouse but they will go ahead and convert anyway because they love their partner. Don't blame the converts but rather blame the system for forcing them to do so.

report abuse

disagree 6

agree 63

...
written by cwy, May 12, 2008 07:31:51

My conclusion is:

Islam is a religion that you can 'go in but cannot come out'. It is just like the cage the farmer uses to trap eels in the padi field.
Animals are easily trapped but not human beings.
Think twice before before you go for Islam if you have a reasoning brain!

report abuse

disagree 9

agree 55

...
written by Negarakuku, May 12, 2008 07:57:33

PLEASE ASK YOUR SELF THIS QUESTION,

IS ISLAM RELIGION DEMOCRATIC ?

report abuse

disagree 11

agree 24

...
written by myvoice, May 12, 2008 07:58:35

Any specific reason why a non muslim married to a muslim must be converted? This is not applied to other religions. Is this "procedure" applied to other Muslim country?

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 29

...
written by cillipepper, May 12, 2008 08:01:50

Dear adbul Rahman,

The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will).

To be chosen by Almighty Allah to be Muslim is considered the greatest honor that the Creator can bestow on any of His creatures.

To abandon such a great gift, then, is for many Muslims difficult, not only for the harm and the damage that it can do to the rest of the Muslim community, but also to the person who would wish to abandon the plan of His Creator.

The very abandoning of Islam was already a kind of death to the human soul, more to be pitied and despised than punished.


16:106 Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Chastisement.

16:107 This because they love the life of this world better than the Hereafter: and Allah will not guide those who reject Faith.

16:108 Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed.

16:109 Without doubt, in the Hereafter they will be the losers.

"Truly, Madinah gets rid of its filth(apostate) exactly as fire removes the filth of iron." (Al-Bukhari)


Accept Allah's choice.

5:3...This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islám as your religion...

report abuse

disagree 25

agree 19

...
written by bitterzone, May 12, 2008 08:09:27

Human rights? Tell me Mr Talib, name one muslim country that is democratic? Name one muslim country that does not appear on Amnesty's list of countries that does not abuse its citizens human rights? No muslim state has made any significant achievement that benefited mankind in the last 500 years. Thanks for the offer but I'll take a western secular state that I can publicly criticize over an Islamic dictatorship that will chop my head off for simply exercising my right to free speech

report abuse

disagree 11

agree 28

...
written by Hermes, May 12, 2008 08:11:45

I agree with the article above. Negarakuku, do u have to create animosity by using that language? Who decides what is democratic and what is not? Islam has its rules and so other religions. Dont convert into Islam. As easy as that. Listen to me and listen to me well, the more you alienate Muslims by being prejudice and giving your two cents without facts in regards to Islam, the more you are going to alienate Malays, and believe me they will all go back to UMNO and things that we have worked so hard to achieve will all go in a puff. Now, I dont think that this issues should be swept under the carpet, I think they should be discussed and a solution should be derived from that discussion. HOWEVER, I dont think that it should be done out in the open. Let the respective parties do it for us. Eventually, we'll get there. In the mean time, let's restrain ourselves from making comments that are just going to create animosity towards one another.

report abuse

disagree 9

agree 15

...
written by Rozlan, May 12, 2008 08:13:58

I dont under why non muslim meddle with muslim afairs.We muslim dont meddle with other religion internal matter.Siti Fatimah clearly reverted to Islam on her own freewill.Nobody forced her.Islam had clearly stated once you are muslim,you are subject to Islamic laws and regulations.

So before reverted to Islam please think twice wether you truly believes in it or because of some personal interest.Siti Fatimah clearlty joined Islam because of personal interest.

report abuse

disagree 20

agree 12

...
written by Malaysiaputra, May 12, 2008 08:20:47

May I remind them that the Shariah courts in Malaysia still maintain the respect and trust of the Muslim population of Malaysia. None can equate them with the corrupted judiciary of the Malaysian civil courts where judges are up for sale at the highest bidder.

======

Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib , what about the cases of Syariah Court judge and prosecutor being charged for corruption which appear in the papers not too long back ?.

As for me, two main criteria applies:

1) Freedom to choose one's faith

2) Syariah laws are not applicable to non Muslims.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 17

...
written by tano, May 12, 2008 08:49:22

most of the comments i read here showed that most of you don't understand Islam. Most of the people that i talked to said they know Islam but what they actually know are just tiny bits of it and they used 'too much' common sense. Uneed to really understand Islam and other religion for you to really talk in depth about any situation

report abuse

disagree 15

agree 11

...
written by joseph81, May 12, 2008 09:07:14

This is not an issue of faith. It's a matter of registration. The woman obviously never had faith in Islam. She only registered her status as a Muslim in order to get married to the Iranian guy. Then when she broke up with him, she wanted to revert back to her previous registered status.

I reiterate my stand on this one: This should not be allowed! If someone does not have faith in Islam, they should not be allowed to change their status to Muslim, period! The authorities should dig deeply into the reason for conversion before actually granting it, instead of simply allowing just on the basis of the person's claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I do agree, but yet she will tried every means to convert for the name of love. Once the love is lost, she will want to convert back, she's taking religion for granted.

report abuse

disagree 11

agree 6

...
written by Tompios, May 12, 2008 09:14:56

written by Negarakuku, May 12, 2008 | 07:57:33

PLEASE ASK YOUR SELF THIS QUESTION, IS ISLAM RELIGION DEMOCRATIC ?
-------------------------
My Answer is neither!! According to cillipepper, May 12, 2008 | 08:01:50
"The Religion before Allah is Islam (submission to His Will)." ISLAM means 1) Submission to His will, 2) Surrender to Allah, 3) Follow God's laws, 4) Obey, Listen and Do whatever God in heaven asks you to do, 5) Put God first and yourself second. You can add more....the meaning of Islam.

The problem is; Islam according to whom? All prophets in Bible and Quran are Islam in their faith. Prophet adam is first human being Islam of created by The Creator God on Earth, Abraham is Islam (Islam Al-Hanif), Moses is Islam (Went to heaven) even Prophet Jesus Christ is Islam (went to heaven) and of course Prophet Mohammad is also Islam in faith.

Many Malays people think that Islam is perogatively belong to them. If Kadazan convert to Islam then he/she must admit himself/herself as Malay. This is not correct! Islam belong to everyone. So, it is not wrong to claim oneself as Islam if he has the same faith like Prophet adam's, Abraham's, Moses', Jesus' faith. Technically, of course it is wrong to admit that Islam is belong to everyone since Prophet Mohammad's followers register Islam word as their religion name worldwide. But, in theory, people who have faith that there is no god other than God in heaven are also Islam with their specific degrees.

I believe, it is also wrong to think that Islam is belong to only one group of God's prophets followers. I might be wrong by many people but I strongly believe that "Surrender to God, Submission in His will, Followers of God in heaven" which concluded in one word in Arab as "ISLAM" is not belong only for one God's prophet followers among thousand Prophets of God in this world. Islam is core doctrine for every human being that believe there is God in heaven, The Master Creator of all things. I never see God and I do not know how to describe perfectly all about HIM. Anyway, I am happy that He cares about me through personal life sexperiences.

Peace to you.

report abuse

disagree 14

agree 8

...
written by Tompios, May 12, 2008 09:17:55

Correction!! experiences not sexperiences problem with doing in hurry things.

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 4

...
written by Naseer Ahmad, May 12, 2008 09:40:09

If we remove APOSTASY from Syariah jurisdiction i.e. it is nobody's business but
mine what faith I believe in then everything is solved! The Quran say "la iqra fi'din" (there is no compulsion in religion). Six beautiful words - pity not many people follow them.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 12

...
written by joseph81, May 12, 2008 10:34:39

People should know the consequences before they convert to Islam,those who converted should not asked to convert back once the marriage did not work out.No matter which religion, I believe none will be happy with that kind of flip flop beliefs

report abuse

disagree 12

agree 3

...
written by justice4all, May 12, 2008 11:05:58

Abdul Rahman Abdul Taib clearly does not or does not want to acknowledge the fact that there must be a distinction between the secular and religion. What Malik Imtiaz and Haris are saying is merely that the rule of law must prevail and that religion is a matter between an individual and God. It is not for the State to dictate what religion I must or must not profess. Until people of the same mentality as the writer of the above article do not understand this very simple fact of life, nothing will change.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 16

...
written by anban, May 12, 2008 11:10:48

written by Rozlan, May 12, 2008 | 08:13:58

I dont under why non muslim meddle with muslim afairs.We muslim dont meddle with other religion internal matter.Siti Fatimah clearly reverted to Islam on her own freewill.Nobody forced her.Islam had clearly stated once you are muslim,you are subject to Islamic laws and regulations.

So before reverted to Islam please think twice wether you truly believes in it or because of some personal interest.Siti Fatimah clearlty joined Islam because of personal interest.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Roslan,

If you dont meddle with other religion, then why do in malaysia allow a converting parent to convert their children without the approval of the other spouse? Where is the respect islam is giving to other religions.

you say that people from Islam cannot convert out and you create a law to stop people from converting. So can i as a non-muslim ask the government to create a law to stop people from converting out of my religion? If no, may i ask why are u interfering with my religion?

When a non-muslim gets married to muslim, you have a law saying that non-muslim must get convert. by doing that arent you interfering with the person's choice of religion?

Dont just talk...make sure you walk the talk.

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 18

...
written by anban, May 12, 2008 11:14:15

roslan,

Religion is a personal matter. If you strongly believe in you religion, its your right...but why are you interfering with another persons right to believe in anything that they want?

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 15

...
written by DezMalaysia, May 12, 2008 12:09:11

Please lar... Rozlan, every religion is only a guidence to live the right way. Not become an EXTREMIST !

Government without favour to any religion develope faster than you think ! Just look at China, they dont care from what f*ck religion you are from, just dont try to control people's mind with religion to overthrow the government, you're free to practice anything. Communist China will only interfere when there's an attempt / threat from religions.

If you have plenty of time, dont just think of religion all the time, think more on how to earn plenty of money & donate a portion of what you have to help the poors / natural disaster or war victims are the best way to live as a good human being.

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 14

...
written by 98PercentPrimate, May 12, 2008 12:27:46

written by tano, May 12, 2008
most of the comments i read here showed that most of you don't understand Islam. Most of the people that i talked to said they know Islam but what they actually know are just tiny bits of it and they used 'too much' common sense. U need to really understand Islam and other religion for you to really talk in depth about any situation
-------------------------------

Religion is not rocket science.
90% of humans are religious so we do not need special knowledge to undertand the core purposes of religion.
The main purpose of the metabolic process of humans is the same for all humans, i.e. to provide nutrients for a healthy body. This process can easily be understood through biology, etc.
Just like the metabolic process, the main purpose of religion is the same for all humans, i.e. to make a human more human and more humane. The religious process can also be understood easily via the various sciences.

If any religion is not humane, then it is not in conformance to the main purpose of religion. Something is wrong and corrective steps need to be taken to make that religion more humane and enable their followers to be more human.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 9

...
written by chin, May 12, 2008 12:34:59

Any religion that compels its members to obey its rules by threat of physical violence is a evil. Would you murder your child because he does not obey you? And if you did, do you consider yourself a monster or a saint.

Many of the infamous cults religion of our times imprisons its member either physically or mentally and some has been extremely murderous.

Its is plain as day, no excuses, no need explanation, just search your heart for the answer, are you worshiping god or his pretender.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 10

...
written by misschickenkiller, May 12, 2008 12:48:56

Its not that Islam is not a democratic Religion. Not everyone in Islam are extremist! It shows that Islam is not a flip flop religion where whenever u like you convert if u dont like you leave the religion? WTH? I think one should learn more on Islam to know Islam or to give comments on Islam than to be so shallow as to give comments blindly.

report abuse

disagree 11

agree 6

...
written by 98PercentPrimate, May 12, 2008 12:50:23

by Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib
The call to battle made by Haris Ibrahim or Malik Imtiaz or their likes are nothing more than maneuverings by ideologues trying to capitalize on public insecurity in their effort to promote their secular liberalism ideology. Mind you that Secular Liberalist stand on religion is 100% contradictory to Islam. This is a fact.

Malaysians should be made wary of the small minority effort to undermine Islam. Their intention is never to solve a real problem plaguing real Malaysians. Their so-call solutions will only lead to more problems thus compromising the social fabric of this country.
------------------------------------

Secular liberalism is nothing more than promoting the concept of recognizing humans as a human being, and making humans more human and humane.

That is as oppose to some (not all) religions which making some humans more violent and invoking their animal passions (being 98%Primate) instead guiding them to be more humane for the good of humanity as a whole.

If Haris Ibrahim or Malik Imtiaz is promoting the positives of being human and for the good of humanity in the long run, why are you condemning what they do. What sort of undermining are you talking about.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 12

...
written by temenggong, May 12, 2008 13:08:30

Well said chin!

1. Muslims do not understand the concept of freedom of religion as a human right.

2. Muslims do not understand the quran indisputably insists on freedom of religion.

3. Muslims do not understand that 80% of humanity do not care for religion or agree with it, or god or quran or Mohammed or Allah; that the rest of the world do not care or rely on the words of a person or text. The words, 'this was given by god to Mohammed' has no meaning for 80% of humanity. They don't care, and do not accept who gave what to whom, or when! All this is disputed.

This is the crux of the muslim (and christian too) misunderstanding. They rest of the world too is not interested in telling the muslim world what their own grandfather said to their grandmother. They would rather spare the muslim world with such tales and entertainment!

The words 'freedom', 'human right', 'indisputable', are not well understood by muslims. Thats why muslims and non muslims always cross talk with each other.

A simple check in the dictionary would show that a right can never be surrendered, or dictated to or circumscribed by a person, court, or god!

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 16

...
written by chanatak, May 12, 2008 13:23:05

Half a solution is no solution. A person is not a muslim simply because he is born a muslim. The same goes for catholic or a buddhist or a christian. A person person's religion is what he practises in truth and with freedom.

Give people the freedom to choose what they want to believe. Let them freely read, question, argue with one another on what is the truth. Let each of them come to their own conclusion and choose their belief.

Truth is not afraid of challenge. Darkness fears the light.

If your religion cannot withstand challenge, then there is darkness.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 15

...
written by Vik, May 12, 2008 14:28:57

This article seems to be written in a very immature manner. Again, any person has the right to convert in and out of a religion. Also, why do you mention:

Many of these converts never practiced or never believed in the Islamic faith. Their respective spouse was also irresponsible as they did not make any effort to educate or train their spouses in the Islamic faith.

Why do their spouses have to be blamed? You can take the horse to the water, but you cant make it drink. Why should anyone be blamed? This is simple matter of someone not happy with their religion, and have decided to convert. Also, in the papers, someone high in the Islamic Institution in Malaysia(i dont know what his name was) said that this might give Muslims the wrong idea that now they can also convert out. Now, I am asking: WHY CANT THEY CONVERT OUT?. Do you want to trap them inside? You have not problems with people converting in... But you won't let them leave? What is this? A religion or Hotel California? You people make me sick.

Religious Freedom EQUALS Freedom to leave one's religion. If you can't practice that, you simply dont have it. This is exactly why you get comments such as 'Islam is a cage'. This is because that is the impression given to us by you muslims.

And Roslan wrote:

I dont under why non muslim meddle with muslim afairs.We muslim dont meddle with other religion internal matter.Siti Fatimah clearly reverted to Islam on her own freewill.Nobody forced her.Islam had clearly stated once you are muslim,you are subject to Islamic laws and regulations.

So before reverted to Islam please think twice wether you truly believes in it or because of some personal interest.Siti Fatimah clearlty joined Islam because of personal interest.

Roslan, as an avid reader of MToday, I always noticed that you have really lowly rated and downright stupid comments. This probably is the dumbest of them lot. I am surprised that you have the brainpower to actually switch on your computer, let alone post these utterly idiotic comments.

You say that we 'non-muslims shouldnt meddle with muslim affairs'. You also add that 'You muslims never interfere with non-muslim affairs. Ayoh. Why do I always have to knock some sense into morons like you? Anyway, because I am a god fearing non muslim (Yes. I believe in my god. I think he is the only god. And his name is not Allah. Shocked? Yes... We non muslims are also capable of talking this 'My god is the only god' crap.)

If you can say that you 'non-muslims' dont interfere with other religion's affairs, what about Lina Joy? She wanted to change her relegion as she claimed to have embraced another. In her soul, she had given up Islam. She believed in something else. But you ****ers can't have that. That would mean that you lost. That would give people who are muslim that it might actually be easier to convert out of Islam that it was earlier. It may encourage them to leave. If you idiots think your relegion is so great, then why feel threatened when one person decides to leave? Why feel like it may couse others to leave?

And when we, the non-muslims, the 'non-believers', the 'people who are not of the ****ing book', the 'people who like western idiologies' question your views, the response from you guys is 'You people dont understand the Quran'. Or 'You people dont understand Islam'. OF COURSE. Many of us have other relegions you know. Many of us believe that OUR GOD is the way, the truth and the life. Many of us believe that YOU are religiously misled, and are following a book that was written by men, and mere mortal men only. But we dont give a shit if you leave your religion or join it. What we want is to have our religion treated with the same amount of 'Legal Protection' and 'Status' as your religion. But you babis wont let that happen. You want your 'Islam' to be better than everything else. Everything from the Law to Bank loans have to scream 'Islam!'. **** you all.

If you say that you muslims dont interfere with non-muslim affairs, why did it take 10 years for the government to approve the construction of a Catholic church in Shah Alam. If you say that you muslim's dont interfere in non muslim affairs, why demolish a Hindu Temple without even giving the devotees time to relocate the statues of their god.

Bottom line is: You muslims do interfere with other religions. In my case, I am getting the **** out of here. I dont want to pay my taxes to a country that undermines other religion. Malaysian will remain a 3rd world country until it realizes that the way it treats Islam, and the way it percieves other religions is wholely wrong. It needs to learn a lot from Islamic countries such as Turkey, and even Indonesia, where conversions to and from religion, even Islam, is a basic human right.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 17

...
written by alarcarte, May 12, 2008 14:36:35

written by DezMalaysia, May 12, 2008 | 12:09:11
Please lar... Rozlan, every religion is only a guidence to live the right way. Not become an EXTREMIST !
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DezMalaysia, I think Islam religion is the exception! Otherwise how do you explain the punishment such as "STONE TO DEATH", "CHOPPING HANDS AND LEGS", I don't think these type of punishment exist in other religion-lah.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 5

...
written by apa jadi, May 12, 2008 14:47:44

This article smacks of Islamo-centric undertones, with West smashing propaganda which is unrelated to the article.

1) The author addressed the lady as Siti Fatimah in preference to her maiden name as a non-mulsim.

2) The syriah court is the spreme court to this matter.

3) Never forget to wedge an attack on those liberals.

4) Unfounded west bashing.

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 2

...
written by malaysian, May 12, 2008 15:28:06

Here we go again!

The whole world is passing us by while we sit and argue about which of our non-existent, supernatural being is greater than the other's.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 7

...
written by alhadee, May 12, 2008 16:28:37

Never is this a decision by the Syariah court to support apostasy or a change of religion.

.
Wrong. The only conversion that is not recognized in Islam is one made out of coercion such as threat and etc.

Whatever the intention is, once she proclaimed the Syahadah and witnessed by other Muslims, she is a Muslim.

Whether she is sincere or not is one thing, but whether she is legally recognized by the Syarak is another thing.

There are those in our community, namely “Muslim” individuals like Malik Imtiaz and Haris Ibrahim and organizations like the Bar Council, who thinks that the solution to this problem is by disrespecting the Shariah Courts.

I don't know what you mean when you say 'disrespecting.' Before 1998, Muslims have option either to go to Syariah Court or Civil Court to resolve on the matters of marriage.

Does Muslims who opt to go to Syariah Court at that time tantamount to 'disrespecting' civil court because they do so?

No. Anything that is done within the law does not imply that one is disrespecting any court.

Differences of opinion in interpreting the law is not disrespecting the law itself.

Until and when the Syariah courts issues a decree nullifying the Islamic faith of an individual, that particular “Muslim” is subjected to the Islamc laws and regulations, thus the Syariah courts

That is where you are wrong. I am no legal expert but Haris Ibrahim contention is this, we have to refer to the Federal Constitution which is the basis of the formation of this country.

Malaysia was formed in 1963. The Federation of Malay States' original constitution was accepted as the constitution for the new Malaysia along with some amendments to include the state of Sarawak, Sabah and Singapore.

There were no dispute back then that the civil court is the highest jurisdiction in the country, and its power bypass even the Mahkamah adat of Sarawak and Sabah.

How could that various original Articles in the constitution still exists but interpreted differently these days?

The normal practice is when a court makes decision based on any law, it will have to look at the situation, condition, and the reason of the time when the law was approved by the Parliament. The same goes when we interpret the Constitution, we have to look at the condition, reasoning and purpose of the said articles.

Mana boleh interpret main suka hati la encik.

Before you call Malik Imtiaz or Haris Ibrahim ignorant, maybe you should look at yourself first.

Mind you that Secular Liberalist stand on religion is 100% contradictory to Islam. This is a fact.

Prove it. Don't just say 'that is a fact' and expect every Muslims to swallow it. Dont use that Ustadz style. As a blogger you should know it won't work anymore.

It what you say is true, then no good Muslims should willingly go to any 'secular liberalist' countries. How could they if they had to submit themselves to the 'secular liberalist' laws which according to you, is 100% against Islam.

But we have hundreds of thousands or maybe millions right now, of Muslims immigrants in these 'secular liberalist' countries. So when they adopt themselves in 'secular liberalist' environment and when they willingly submit to its 'secular liberalist' law, does that automatically made them unbeliever?

As for US hypocrisy thing, so what is your point? If US is hypocrite that does not make your hypocrisy appealing and should be accepted. 2 wrong does not make one right.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 11

...
written by Milo, May 12, 2008 16:52:13

In any court of law, fairness is expected. If any court system is corrupt, be it syariah or civil, the right thing to do is just to clean it up! For non-muslim, a civil court is structurally non-bias, hence more accpetable than a syariah court whose declared justice system is based on a religion oppose to his. The silliness of the rationale provided by those who are pro-syariah court can be be debunked by asking a simple question. Would a Muslim living in a non-muslim country liked to be tried by a Buddhist or Christian Court instead of a religious-neutral Civil Court?

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 4

...
written by chanatak, May 12, 2008 17:14:53

To Vik and Alhadee

Well said. Well expounded. Keep it up.

Muslim debaters have this natural talent at circular thinking and arguments. This is an international trait. They have strong tendency to embark on "strawman " arguments.

This fellow is just a typical example. No big deal. May take him 1000 years before he gets to understand your line of logic ... which he lacks.

Keep up up fellas!

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 2

...
written by cabearth, May 12, 2008 17:19:53

...
written by bitterzone, May 12, 2008 | 08:09:27

Human rights? Tell me Mr Talib, name one muslim country that is democratic? Name one muslim country that does not appear on Amnesty's list of countries that does not abuse its citizens human rights?

===============================

MY REPLY: Indonesia, Malaysia and a few other countries. But then again, these countries become undemocratice because of their secular elite leaders. Nothing to do with Islam

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 3

...
written by cabearth, May 12, 2008 17:24:16

written by justice4all, May 12, 2008 | 11:05:58

Abdul Rahman Abdul Taib clearly does not or does not want to acknowledge the fact that there must be a distinction between the secular and religion. What Malik Imtiaz and Haris are saying is merely that the rule of law must prevail and that religion is a matter between an individual and God. It is not for the State to dictate what religion I must or must not profess. Until people of the same mentality as the writer of the above article do not understand this very simple fact of life, nothing will change.

================================

MY REPLY > That's the reason why Islam is 100% against secularism. Islam is NOT a personal religion. It's not a mere faith between individual and god type of religion.

Islam is a WAY OF LIFE and a comprehensive one too. What Malik Imtiaz and Haris Ibrahim is doing is to try to impose limitation normally imposed by secularism on all religion.

Thank God, there are still enough people with strong sense in them to foil their evil schemes.

As a matter of fact, secularism is the #1 enemy of Islam. Not socialism, not capitalism etc.

In fact, no religion in the world is like that too, a mere belief system.

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 2

...
written by cabearth, May 12, 2008 17:27:27

written by cwy, May 12, 2008 | 07:31:51

My conclusion is:

Islam is a religion that you can 'go in but cannot come out'. It is just like the cage the farmer uses to trap eels in the padi field.
Animals are easily trapped but not human beings.

=================

MY REPLY: Wrong again, there's no such thing as trapping going on here. No one is compelled or trapped into converting into Islam.

If anyone is trapped into converting, it is strong ground for annulment of their Islamic faith.

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 2

...
written by cabearth, May 12, 2008 17:32:32

written by Malaysiaputra, May 12, 2008 | 08:20:47

Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib , what about the cases of Syariah Court judge and prosecutor being charged for corruption which appear in the papers not too long back ?.

====================

MY REPLY: The fact that they were caught and indicted showed that the system works.

Civil court judges in Malaysia gets away with everything and they become very rich too from their unlawful gains

Plus, the case only involved one individual out of hundred of thousands involved in the Syariah court process.

====================================

MalaysianPutra writes"

As for me, two main criteria applies:

1) Freedom to choose one's faith
2) Syariah laws are not applicable to non Muslims.
report abusevote downvote upVotes: 8

===================

MY REPLY: There is no compulsion to join Islam. But, for one to jump in and out of Islam whimsically is a sign of disrespect not only to Islam but also to the human values of religionism.

Secular liberalism tries to limit the domain of religion and they make up flashy concepts like "freedom of religion". In truth it's covert agenda to undermine Islam and religion

report abuse

disagree 5

agree 2

...
written by cabearth, May 12, 2008 17:34:04

written by anban, May 12, 2008 | 11:14:15

roslan,

Religion is a personal matter. If you strongly believe in you religion, its your right...but why are you interfering with another persons right to believe in anything that they want?
report abusevote

==================

MY REPLY : Islam is a way of life and it's not mere personal beliefs. Please try to understand that. It's not limited by Western belief structure of secularism.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 4

...
written by cabearth, May 12, 2008 17:40:15

temengong bullshits"

"written by temenggong, May 12, 2008 | 13:08:30

Well said chin!

1. Muslims do not understand the concept of freedom of religion as a human right.

2. Muslims do not understand the quran indisputably insists on freedom of religion.

3. Muslims do not understand that 80% of humanity do not care for religion or agree with it, or god or quran or Mohammed or Allah; that the rest of the world do not care or rely on the words of a person or text. The words, 'this was given by god to Mohammed' has no meaning for 80% of humanity. They don't care, and do not accept who gave what to whom, or when! All this is disputed. "

===================

MY REPLY: or an alternative explanation is that Muslims around the world (saved a few idiots who calls themselves moderate Muslims/ Uncle Toms) are smart enough to see the Western attempt to undermine their religion.

So, Uncle Toms like u are infuriated because the fact is that Muslims around the world are smarter then u.

Technically, Islam is a comprehensive way of life, not a mere personal faith discipline. So, the so call declaration of Human Rights doesn't apply to Islam.

report abuse

disagree 7

agree 2

...
written by mumonthecase, May 12, 2008 17:44:28

Congratulations to fatimah for getting this result from the court. About time too! There should be a new law and malaysia can set this president for the rest of the muslim world....YOU DO NOT HAVE TO CONVERT IF YOU WISH TO MARRY A MUSLIM

There are muslims in Malaysia who are married to people of a different religion - hindus, buddhists & christians and they get along fine without forcing one partner to follow Islam. It develops the relationship if partners can discuss their respective religions to each other without the need for conversion.

Malaysia can be a sounding board for the rest of the world. Islam must learn to compromise in order for a peaceful world.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 2

...
written by RickK, May 12, 2008 17:56:08

"written by Negarakuku,
PLEASE ASK YOUR SELF THIS QUESTION, IS ISLAM RELIGION DEMOCRATIC ? "

As a non-Muslim,I think,Negarakuku has asked the wrong question. I don't think it is the nature of any religion,including Islam, to aspire to be democratic. Democracy is not the purpose of religion although it might be its by-product.The more pertinent question that I think he meant was "Are 'Islamic' (as opposed to 'Muslim') societies democratic. I've always been taught that Malaysia is Muslim but not Islamic. The fact that we have a PR and we're having this discussion shows we are at least somewhat democratic!!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

...
written by Skyjuice, May 12, 2008 18:03:16

Come on guys, as I have always said, the world is moving everyday, but strangely, we, malaysian, never move. We failed as a country. Even after 50 years of independence, today, in the sophisticated cyber world, we got a bunch of idiots still arguing whose religion is the best. Come on, what this stupid argument will bring us to? You will wake up tomorrow with a full stomach? Stop bashing other's religion. We are all Malaysian, can we just stop this stupid argument brought to us by our 'beloved' government.

At this stage, we should all work together to push Malaysia to be a better place, not to argue among ourselves who is the superior among us. There is no superior, everyone is just the same. We are born with blood and skin. It's what you choose to believe, why must we argue bout it? We are all Malaysian.

For god sake, don't argue who's better. We have our right to believe. Ask urself a simple question, what will all these arguments bring u too? In the end of the day, will both party be happier? Or any party subdue to another party? Nothing will happen. It will only bring further damage to our tie and bond. Something which is already on the verge of breaking. We are all Malaysian.

I am not a Muslim. I believe all religions in this world have it's own beauty....

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 4

...
written by alhadee, May 12, 2008 18:18:06

cabearth,

What Malik Imtiaz and Haris Ibrahim is doing is to try to impose limitation normally imposed by secularism on all religion.

Wrong again.

In fact, the so call 'Islamic State' propagate by PAS and UMNO impose limitation on religion, Islam included.

I will give you an example. Lets talk about marriage. Islam is made of many Mazhabs. We have Syiah with different sects. The same goes to Sunni with its various sects, school of thoughts and etc.

What is proposed right now is not Islamic State but a 'Syafi'e State' where Imam Syafie rulings overruled all other rulings.

No Syiah although they are generally accepted as Muslims, can practice their faith in a 'Syafi'e State'. Can they practice Mut'ah marriage which is permissible in their religion in Malaysia? The answer is NO. Can a marriage without the permission of the bride's father, which is permissible under Hanafi ruling, be registered in Malaysia? The answer is NO.

In conclusion, the so call Islamic State impose limitation on Islam itself. The propose 'Islamic State' only allows you to practice religion according to Imam Syafie ruling ONLY.

But Imam Syafi'e is not equal to Islam. Even he admit that he could be wrong. Even he asked his students to leave his rulings if they find other rulings which got more merits.

Now think about this, in the so called 'secular liberalist' country, any Muslims regardless of Mazhabs can practice their religion according to the decree of their sects. No Syiah would be stopped from doing a Mut'ah marriage. No girls in the Mazhab Hanafi would be stopped from a marriage just because the father does not agree. The same goes to those who follow Mazhab Syafi'e, they can go on and get permission from their father for marriage.

In the end, everyone will be registered and legally recognized as married. A 'Syafi'e State' pose more limitation to Islam compared to a 'Secular liberalist' State.

In short, could it be that the 'secular liberalist' country is more 'Islamic' than a 'Syafi'e State' which is labeled as Islamic State in Malaysia?

Muslims, think about it.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 6

...
written by daniel, May 12, 2008 18:56:33

Any govt that use religion for political gains is bankrupt. Separate religion from state, politics and religion is a bad match.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 3

...
written by cabearth, May 12, 2008 20:20:40

alhadee says

"Now think about this, in the so called 'secular liberalist' country, any Muslims regardless of Mazhabs can practice their religion according to the decree of their sects. No Syiah would be stopped from doing a Mut'ah marriage. No girls in the Mazhab Hanafi would be stopped from a marriage just because the father does not agree. The same goes to those who follow Mazhab Syafi'e, they can go on and get permission from their father for marriage. "

==============

MY REPLY" Al hadee, what are u crapping?

Your entire understanding of mazahib is wrong. Any mazahib is allowed to practice in any way they want. What's the problem?

As for Syiaa, they ae diviated. They're just like secular liberalists and anti hadeeth.

Not surprising the Anti Hadeeth depends on the shia for their attacks on Islam




In the end, everyone will be registered and legally recognized as married. A 'Syafi'e State' pose more limitation to Islam compared to a 'Secular liberalist' State. "

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 3

...
written by mikewang, May 12, 2008 20:27:42

"As for “Muslim” individuals like Malik Imtiaz and Haris Ibrahim, my only advice is for them to start realizing that Muslims have sought independence from their respective ex-western colonial powers."

Colonial past or present has nothing to do with this issue.
Right is right and wrong is wrong.
You criticise the behaviour and not the colour of one's skin.

The right to believe or disbelieve (including changing one's mind on one's faith) is the fundamental right of any human being.
Anything less would not be acceptable.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 3

...
written by alhadee, May 12, 2008 20:42:26

cabearth

Any mazahib is allowed to practice in any way they want.

Hello cabearth, are you in Malaysia or what?

The Syariah Law for marriage in Malaysia is based on Syafi'e rulings, the bride need the father's permission for marriage.

In Hanafi's ruling, that is crap. A single Muslimah is recognized as independent and can make her own decision. No need to go to court if your father does no approve.

But that particular Syafi'e ruling is enforce to all regardless of their mazhab. It does not care whether you are from Syafi'e or Hanafi.

Where got 'mazahib allowed to practice in any way they want'?.

Sorry la bro. Your 'Syafi'e State' impose limitation on Islam. That is a fact! A secular liberalist state is more accommodating to different Mazhabs in Islam!

As for Syiaa, they ae diviated.

Ya ya. Everyone is deviated except you. Everyone goes to hell except you maybe.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 5

...
written by Sabahfan, May 12, 2008 21:36:29

ABDUL RAHMAN and the rest of you fanatics down here...

JUst one question....

WHO D FUKKK gave another man or the government the right to determine a persons religion? Did God or ALLAH came down from heaven to give you this power?

As far as I am concern, the whole thing is a waste of time and my taxes appointing syariah court..

they all should be closed down, and the individuals given the right to choose thier religion at any time at any place.

This is in accordance to the International Human rights charter. The only law that belongs to all community...

So those of you who PLAYS GOD, let all of you be SENT TO HELL TOGETHER WITH ALTANTUYA'S MURDERER.....

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 4

...
written by Sabahfan, May 12, 2008 21:39:33

ANOTHER REMINDER TO ALL NON MOSLEM.... any of you converting for the sake of love, so called....are all stupid.... really have no sypathy for you..

For one, even if you love the religion so much, now matter how the religious teachers guides you, no matter what degree in Islamic studies you get..

YOU WILL ALWAYS BE AN "ABDULLAH"
NEVER A MOHAMMED....

u see, converting and still a second class moslem...

thats a fact in malaysia....

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 0

...
written by temenggong, May 12, 2008 22:08:31

Cabearth is Redhuan Oon, who became a muslim for all the wrong reasons, aghast that his perceived islamic world is falling apart, and now is desparately trying to defend his fallen worldviews, even when muslim scholars prove him otherwise.

This is what happens when one chooses a religion for a screw.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 5

...
written by grandmarquis, May 12, 2008 22:57:18

A simple question:
Can I simply convert my Malaysian citizenship to Angola citizenship and later convert back?

Why certain country allow multiple citizenship and not for Malaysia and Singapore?

Shouldn't citizenship any country is part or human right? And we never choose our citizenship. We are born in Malaysia and that we inherit Malaysian citizenship. But what if someone do not have any faith to become Malaysian anymore and wish to become US citizen. Do you think US will just accept such person to become their citizen?

Try to relate this to the scenario of religion.

report abuse

disagree 2

agree 2

...
written by temenggong, May 12, 2008 23:12:38

Grandmarquis,

Do you understand the meaning of freedoms, as well as that of domicile, residence, jus soli and citizenship?

Your analogy does not apply.

report abuse

disagree 1

agree 4

...
written by Areyaar, May 12, 2008 23:31:24

written by cabearth, May 12, 2008 | 17:32:32

“There is no compulsion to join Islam. But, for one to jump in and out of Islam whimsically is a sign of disrespect not only to Islam but also to the human values of religionism.”

How dare you even suggest that people convert to Islam and convert out of it on a whim. You write about disrespect when you are clearly disrespectful of converts. Your sweeping generalization is arrogant and shows just how much contempt you have for people who convert. Haven’t you an iota of sensitivity? To leave one’s religion, the one which one was born into, for another, in this case Islam, is not something that people will do on an impulse. To convert takes much soul-searching and personal debate as well as consultations with others; it takes some query into the religion one wants to convert to and then, after one is ready, one will convert. To call this whimsical is pure crap.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 2

...
written by grandmarquis, May 13, 2008 00:34:59

Temenggong:
Do you understand the meaning of freedoms, as well as that of domicile, residence, jus soli and citizenship?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What's the difference? I never choose to be Malaysian, but was born as Malaysian. I wish I could revoke my Malaysian citizenship and then comeback the time I want. But unfortunately I can't. I wish to become US citizen, but US won't accept me.

If something as cheap as domicile, residence, jus soli and citizenship has their own rules, what about something as important as religion (particularly Islam). If we can respect the law of domicile, residence, jus soli and citizenship, why can't we respect the law of religion (particularly Islam). At least Islam welcomes everyone to join the religion. Not like domicile, residence, jus soli and citizenship of US.

Another point to ponder. You can deny yourself as a citizen of Malaysia. But as long as you keep it to yourself, you can still wonder in the bolehland freely. But what if you go to the court and ask for the court to revoke your citizenship. Shouldn't that result in different consequence.

Now try to relate this to Islam.

report abuse

disagree 3

agree 0

...
written by AsamLaksa, May 13, 2008 03:30:55

Grandmarquis, your idiotic analogy don't stand. Citizenship is not recognised as a human right but a legal right with set criteria. Human rights are of personal concern rather than legal concerns. Human rights are universal values whereas citizenship is arbitary. You are born with the right to life and not born with a right to citizenship.

You want to renounce citizenship, sure, go ahead. You want to go to court for it, sure go ahead. But you are still bound to whatever law where you park your butt. Heard of the case of the pincesses from a country called Kingdom of Moro? There was also a whole bunch of people living in Malaysia at one time considered stateless. They have unique travel documents.

Dual citizensip? How does this fit with dual religion analogy?

You want to be a US citizen? Sure, go ahead and fulfil their requirements. It's not impossible and Malaysia do not persecute for changing citizenship. You only lose your Malaysian citizenship because you have given up your legal right, not your human rights.

Yes, Islam welcomes everyone but that is not the issue. The issue is whether Islam allows people to leave. Any religion can impose entry requirements (like courses, period of confirmation, religious ceremonies, etc.) but should not impose exit requirements. This is where your analogy fails. Just like if you obtained a US citizenship and want to dump your Malaysian citizenship, just return or destroy your Malaysian passport.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 2

...
written by AsamLaksa, May 13, 2008 04:37:56

More talk of disrespecting Syariah courts. What disrespect? Interfering with their jurisdiction? Maybe. But why have an exclusive dual court system? Where is the common ground? In Pakistan they have syariah courts but further appeals goes to higher civil courts.

Nevertheless, the cases of Lina Joy, Mr. Gan, etc. did try to bypass the syariah courts. In Lina Joy's case she claims she is no longer a Muslim thus should not be under the jurisdiction of the syariah courts, and the matter that she brings up is a constitutional matter of freedom of religion. By applying to the syariah courts, it's like an admission that she's still a Muslim which she stands firmly against on principle. She refuses to submit to syariah laws. This raises a few questions, namely:

- should a person's faith be dictated by law or is it a personal choice?
- is there a conflict between the constitution that guarantees freedom of religion and the syariah laws?

In Mr. Gan's case, the family members excluding his eldest son contends that Mr. Gan was never a Muslim to begin with and therefore the syariah courts should have no jurisdiction. Where is the middle ground here? Should syariah courts have jurisdiction where the status of the person's faith is in contention?

In both cases there appeared to be a shift of supremacy from civil courts to the syariah courts. That's what got many lawyers riled.

This article also raises other dangerous points. The suggestion that religious authorities punish Muslim spouses that do not educate their convert spouse is one which will further criminalise matters of personal faith. Punishment is not the way. In fact anything which creates a compulsion only shows disrespect to the faith as it will devalue the merits of the faith in making sure the followers practice the teaching for their own good rather from fear of persecution.

Why should anyone convert to Islam if you marry a Muslim? If you create a compulsion to convert then you risk abuses of the system thus create the problem of converting on whims.

Apostate disrespecting the religion by converting out of Islam? How? Which is more disrecpectful, a person telling you they don't believe in the faith and wishes to leave or a person secretly professing another faith but tells you otherwise?

I also do not understand this need to demonise the hypocrisy of the West when it comes to human rights. Everybody knows no country has a perfectly clean human rights record. Yet, this does not reduce the need for human rights as propogated by the West unless you are saying human rights are bad to begin with. What we should emulate from the West is not their human rights record but rather the spirit in how they champion human rights. They are still making laws to ensure their descendents' human rights are protected thus it is not a finished product. Instead why not talk of the lack of championing of human rights in Islamic countries and see which you would rather emulate.

Nobody tells you to swallow all Western ideas. Take the good and spit out the bad. If you go to the Islamic online site (can't recall the site address) as some Muslims like to refer to, then you will see that it's open to some Western ideals like democracy and human rights. Are these people pro-Western secularist deviants?

Most non-Muslims lack the understanding that in Islam, the faith comes first, person comes later though some faith do the same thing. Thus you can see why Muslims all over the world get so worked up with any affront to the religion. To you it may just be a cartoon or a film by some Dutch hack, by to Muslims it's an affront to their being. So, yes, you have to deal with Islam in a sensitive way too but it doesn't help that many Muslims see criticisms the same as insults.

I applaud the Penang Syariah court for the positive ruling as they are able to judge the case based on the facts. I hope to see what further developments will follow especially in regards with similar cases like Lina Joy where a born Muslim wishes to apostate. I do not encourage apostasy but I have strong sympathies for others who are persecuted or need to hide from persecution on grounds of faith. To me if you want to prevent apostasy, then educate your followers, not make it difficult for them to convert out.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 4

...
written by grandmarquis, May 13, 2008 10:57:33

AssamLaksa: Citizenship is not recognised as a human right but a legal right with set criteria. Human rights are of personal concern rather than legal concerns. Human rights are universal values whereas citizenship is arbitary. You are born with the right to life and not born with a right to citizenship.


Who defines that? In fact citizenship does not exist in the past. Malaysia, Singapore (as well as US) have violated the basic human right for implementing capital punishment. This is true by the definition of countries that do not accept capital punishment. So who is right and who is wrong?

AssamLaksa: You want to renounce citizenship, sure, go ahead. You want to go to court for it, sure go ahead. But you are still bound to whatever law where you park your butt.


Don’t you think the same applies for religion? If you want to be in a religion, you are bound to the law of the religion.

AssamLaksa: Dual citizensip? How does this fit with dual religion analogy?


It is not about dual religion analogy. But it is about one country having the law of allowing dual citizenship and another not allowing it. So can the country that allows it accuses the country that does not allow it as not exercising freedom? Every country has the right to their sets of law. The same goes for religion. So why try to change the law of some religion (such as Islam) to suit our own taste?

AssamLaksa: Yes, Islam welcomes everyone but that is not the issue. The issue is whether Islam allows people to leave. Any religion can impose entry requirements (like courses, period of confirmation, religious ceremonies, etc.) but should not impose exit requirements. This is where your analogy fails. Just like if you obtained a US citizenship and want to dump your Malaysian citizenship, just return or destroy your Malaysian passport.


Well the whole analogy process is aimed to expose one simple and yet grave error by those who continuously attacking Islam on the issue of apostasy. Your final statement revealed it. You said “Any religion can impose entry requirements (like courses, period of confirmation, religious ceremonies, etc.) but should not impose exit requirements.”

Can’t you see your own error? You are trying to impose your own law and definition to a religion. Islam is about submission. You submit your will to the wills of God. Not imposing your wills to the religion of God. Where does the analogy come into perspective? When you go to a country, you follow the law of the country, not imposing your own law to the country. If the country allows dual citizenship, be it. If the country do not allows their citizen to renounce their citizenship, be it. By the way, historically, there were some countries that conducted capital punishment for those who revoke their citizenship. Do you know that?

report abuse

disagree 4

agree 0

...
written by AsamLaksa, May 13, 2008 17:53:00

Grandmarquis, human rights is deals with personal freedoms, it's not a creation of law but often indoctrinated into law. Your ability to speak, to choose what you want to follow is personal. Citizenship is a matter of law, not personal. So far the human rights mentioned are basic rights. You talk of interpretation and you have a point but tell me where is citizenship so far interpreted as a basic human rights. Denying a basic human right will result in oppression but deny citizenship and you will be very hardpressed to argue that it will lead to oppression (though the reason behind the denial of citizenship may infringe on basic human rights such as to prohibit free speech, the denial of citizenship itself does not infringe on it).


Don’t you think the same applies for religion? If you want to be in a religion, you are bound to the law of the religion.
- does syariah law apply to non-Muslim living in an Islamic country?
- here your statement assumes the person whats to be in the faith. The issue is that the person doesn't want to be in the faith, thus should they be freely to disocciate? But here you will say the law says you can't leave so you will end up justifying not by reasoning but because the law says so. What should you do if a law oppresses another human being? Do you set different standards on those of who refuse to follow your faith?


Capital punishment is against freedom to life and again I stress it's not a finished product. What to see where it is implemented, then look in Europe where capital punishment is abolished in most of their laws to be in line with the European Convention of Human Rights. Why so fixated with USA which you know is already shit? However there are many people in the USA who believe in this freedom to life and protest against capital punishment. To me that's a step up from having the citizens just keeping quiet because even though the state deny rights, the conscience of the nation is fighting for rights.

A country allowing dual citizenship is up to their laws, you are right on that. But it's still not a human right. Which country which now abide strictly with their bill of rights or any human rights treaty still perform execution for revoking citizenship? Why talk about the past laws that have no bearing today? In the past you can get executed for just saying the wrong things, does that make it ok that there's strict curbs on your freedom of speech today? Following your rationale, if a country have apartheid laws, then so be it and TDM was making such a fuss at that time as a busybody, eh?

Many people have the impression that if it is legal it is right and if it is illegal then it is wrong. It is actually not so. Right and wrong are distinct values which runs on different basis from laws. As far as Malaysia is concerned, ISA is law but it's just not right to throw somebody in jail without needing to prove guilt and this means even the most innocent person can end up in Kamunting.

Thus I ask again, what should you do if there is a law which is oppressive? Do you blindly follow and how do you set the standards of your values? This is similar with racial hypocrisy where if someone from the same race is corrupt is ok sama gang or kaki nang, but if from a different race, then it's not ok. Or like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait turning into a defence of Islam war and Bush's invasion of Iraq as defence of peace loving free world (aggressors turned defenders???).

Many secularist confuse freedom of religion with equality of religion which is not the case thus laws which prohibit the size of places of worship do not deny your right to freedom of religion though it's arbitarily unfair but laws which prohibit building any places of worship does deny your freedom of religion which stress your right to free worship, not the size of it. Again it's basic rights, and basic rights do not include equality.

How does Islam deal with freedom of religion? Many academics support the motto of no compulsion in Islam and discount, discredit or seek distinction from old jurisprudence. Is this right? What of the strict prohibition from converting out of Islam? Is there newer jurisprudence which takes into account modern values such as freedom of religion?

Many Muslims would argue that Islam is progressive but it's like saying UMNO is progressive while keeping outdated rules. The problem is the pace of progress and both are struggling to keep up with drastic changes (in the Muslim community you can see the widening gap of the fundamentalists and so called moderates while in UMNO's case...).

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0

...
written by AsamLaksa, May 13, 2008 18:05:08

Lastly, in regards to having entry requirements but no exit requirements, what does Islamic teaching say about exit requirements? Prohibition of exit is not an exit requirement.

Exit requirement implies that you can exit. Would be interesting to learn how a person could legally apostate in Malaysia as Tan's case does not address the requirements but more about the failure of the religious authority. Thus this case is still of little use to persons like Lina Joy unless you can debiously argue that she's been leading an unIslamic way of life for >10 years or not apprehending her on her exit from the high court as failures of the religious authority... very unlikely.

This issue will come calling again and Malaysia is still dragging it's leg in settling it once and for all. Malaysia is unique as it has not only religious backgrounds but also diverse cultural background. Diverse cultural background is a distinction because with it comes different values whereas different faiths but similar cultural background have less confrontation of values.

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 1

...
written by LACOBRA, May 14, 2008 21:12:59

Can the Syariah Courts force any individual to embrace or leave their faith? Be it a non or practicing Muslim who indulges in crimes, corruption, vices etc that spoil the good name of the faith.

So is apostasy a greater sin or subject to interpretations that only judge is GOD! By the actions of the Muslims in spoiling the good name of the faith through their evil deeds is equivalent to blasphemy of the religion.

If a marriage of convenience or generations born Muslim renounces the faith then it should be in the best interest of the religion.

BTW, who appoints the judges? Hope it ain't the same UMNO affiliated!

report abuse

disagree 0

agree 0