« UK: Four Arrested In Islamist Terror Raids - Canada Link? |
| India: Muslims Beat, Cut Hair Off Teenage Girl, For Dating A Hindu »
June 21, 2006
Malaysia: Islamic Court Places Woman's Faith On Trial
How do you prove that you have left Islam? That is the question that 54-year old Kamariah Ali, a lonely widow in Malaysia, must now answer. Seven years ago, she publicly renounced Islam, when she became a member of the Sky Kingdon Sect. We reported on Kamariah's struggles on January 6 this year.
Kamariah is caught up in the Byzantine complexities of Malaysia's contradictory constitution. Article 3(1) of the constitution states that 'other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation'. Article 11 of the constitution also guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to adopt the religion of their choice. But in 1988, an amendment was added to the constitution which has become the biggest obstacle to religious freedom in the country. The amendment, Article 121 (1A), states that civil courts have no jurisdiction on "any matter" which falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah (Sharia, Islamic Law) courts.
As a result of this, all people who are deemed Muslims cannot change their religion. How one is judged to be a Muslim does not derive from a statement of faith, as by reciting the shahada or making a written declaration, but is decided purely on racial grounds.
Every individual is issued with an identity card at age 12, and on this card one's religion is stated. For all ethnic Malays, the religion is automatically entered as "Muslim".
To have oneself registered as a non-Muslim after the religion has been officially documented is an impossible task, as an individual must submit an appeal to the National Registration Department. But this department refuses to deal with any attempts to change from the faith of Islam unless the change of faith has first been recognised by the Islamic (Syariah) Courts.
The Catch-22 for all former Muslims is that they must apply to the Sharia Courts to have their change of faith recognised, and the Sharia courts have so far never granted any living individual the right to apostasise from Islam. The only case where a woman was allowed to apostasise involved an 89-year old widow called Nyonya Tahir.
Nyonya had married a Chinese man in 1936, and became a Buddhist. She had tried repeatedly to have her faith changed on her identity card, but each appeal was refused. She died on Thursday January 19, and finally she was granted that which she had been denied in life. The Sharia courts allowed her to buried as a Buddhist. Her case had followed on from a scandal where on December 28, 2005, a Hindu mountaineering hero had been buried as a Muslim, contradicting his wife's claims that he had never become a Muslim in his lifetime.
Showing the hypocrisy and dishonesty of Malaysia's Muslim law-enforcers, Muhamad Burok, president of the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association stated after Nyonya's case: "It shows that our two court systems - the Civil Court and Syariah Court - can exist in harmony, so the issue that the Constitution should be amended does not arise. The decision shows that everyone can get protection from all the courts."
We reported on April 15 the case of Lina Joy, a woman who was formerly a Muslim but became a Christian in the 1990s. In February 1997 she was allowed by the National Registration Dept. to ditch her Muslim name, Azlina Jailani, and call herself by her new Chrisian name, but she was not allowed to change the description of her faith as "Muslim". There may be some hope for her, as the Supreme Court has agreed to hear her case. Currently aged 42, Lina cannot marry her boyfriend who is a Christian, because in Malaysia's Kafkaesque world, a Muslim cannot marry a Christian.
On December 31, Kamariah went to the High Court with another former member of the Sky Kingdom Sect, Daud Mamat, to fight for her legal rights to apostasise. Her case was reviewed by Justice Mohamed Raus Sharif, who said that under Article 121 (1A), he had no powers to make any decisions on her case, as issues of faith and apostasy fell under the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts alone.
Kamariah Ali, who was formerly a scholar of Islam, who attended the Al-Azhar Muslim University in Cairo, now lives in Kelantan state. She was sent to jail by the Sharia courts in Terengganu state in 2005 for "insulting Islam". Her husband, Mohammed Ya, had also been a follower of the Sky Kingdom Sect. He had been imprisoned for two years for "insulting Islam" by an Islamic court in Terengganu state, for his attempts to apostasize. Mohammed Ya died shortly after his release from jail.
The irony of the Sharia courts became apparent after Mohammed Ya died. The Islamic despots had denied him the right to not be a Muslim, but upon his death, they refused his right to be buried in a Muslim graveyard. He was finally buried in the compound of the Sky Kingdom Sect.
The Sky Kingdom Sect had been founded by a charismatic leader called Ayah Pin. This man, formerly called Ariffin Mohamad, had also been jailed for 11 months by the Terengganu Syariah Court in 2001, after he pleaded guilty to "belittling Islam".
Ayah Pin's sect, of which Kamariah and her husband were founding members, welcomed Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians. Tourists flocked to see the amazing colourful concrete and fobreglass edifices which Ayah Pin had constructed in the compound. These included a giant teapot, which poured water into a giant blue flask (pictured), and a large boat.
The Mufti of Terengganu declared in a fatwa that Ayah Pin was a heretic, and declared that any involvement with him or his teaching was prohibited. Finally, on 3 July last year, 21 members were arrested. Kamariah Ali was amongst those arrested. Then on 18 July, vigilantes attacked the sect's headquarters. On August 1, the monuments of the Sky Kingdom sect were destroyed by vigilantes, who claimed the structures conravened Section 129 of the Land Act. Ayah Pin fled the country, while the Sharia courts ordered his arrest.
Kamariah said in January: "People look down on me because I renounced Islam. But people don't understand. Actually, religion belongs to God and you can access God in any way, not necessarily through Islam." As a result of her public renouncing of Islam, she finds it impossible to find employment, and former friends have abandoned her.
Now, according to the Malaysia Star, Kamariah's latest attempt to have her apostasy recognised has been met with obfuscation and devious tactics. The chief prosecutor at the Syariah High Court, Mustafar Hamzah, has said: "The onus is on her to bear the burden of proof".
Kamariah is not in court because she is making an appeal for her rights, but because she is on trial, charged under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offence Enactment (Takzir) Terengganu. It is alleged that she only declared that she is saying that she is no longer a Muslim because she is trying to evade punishment.
The "punishment" that she was trying to avoid is like something dreamed up by the Queen in Alice in Wonderland. She had been taken to Besut Lower Syariah Court on July 21 last year, charged with not complying with the state fatwa issued by the Mufti of Terengganu. She had been on trial with 40 others, and had said that she was not a follower of Islam.
Her sharia defense lawyer, Sa'adiah Din had said last week that the prosecution had made no proof that she had said she was not a follower of Islam to evade punishment. Hamzah's statement that she should prove her claim of apostasy was a response to this statement.
Two prosecution witnesses have testified that in 1989 in Kota Baru Syariah Court, Kamariah had publicly declared that she had renounced Islam.
One of those who had been charged in 2005 for not following the fatwa's stipulations was a Western convert, Judith Lilian McDonald, who had converted to Islam in Indonesia. She had become a member of the Sky Kingdom sect, and had said in 2005 that she was no longer a Muslim.
Mustafa Hamza had dropped the charges against Ms McDonald as he was exercising what he said were "exclusive powers", under Section 55 (2) of the State Islamic Affairs Administration Enactment (Terengganu).
But he says that despite Kamariah Ali's public promouncements that she was not a Muslim any more: "Kamariah claimed that she was no longer a Muslim immediately after the charge against McDonald was dropped. It showed that she was trying to escape punishment."
Reasoning like someone with a mission, rather than a legal prosecutor, he declared that he had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Kamariah had tried to evade punishment, and based it on witness testimony. he said: "They are credible witnesses."
The judge, Mohamad Abdullah, has given a date of August 20 to decide whether Kamariah Ali should enter her defense arguments.
This case is a travesty of moral justice, and is a blatant disregard of the statement from the Koran, that "There shall be no compulsion in religion".
The situation in Malaysia, which claims to be a "moderate" Islamic nation, is a salutory lesson for all who believe that a country with Islamic law can ever be truly fair and just.
In a free society and in a democracy, an individual should not be judged on the basis of their race, as happens with Malays who are automatically labelled from birth as "Muslims", and in a democracy, where a person can make a choice politically, a person should also be able to choose to opt out of a faith.
Malays (who are by Malaysian law exclusively Muslim) comprise 60% of the population of the nation, with the remainder being Hindu, Buddhist and Christian. Hindus, since the burial of M. Moorthy, the Hindu maintaineering hero, as a Muslim, have felt increasingly threatened. We reported on April 22 that a century-old Hindu temple was destroyed in Kuala Lumpur. On May 27 we reported on more destruction of Hindu, and also Christian, places of worship.
Malaysia's Constitution, Schedule IX, List II, limits the scope of the Syariah courts to "persons professing the religion of Islam." So in theory, as Kamariah Ali has denounced her Muslim faith for the past seven years, the Sharia courts should have no jurisdiction over her life at all.
Having described the tyranny of Malaysian Sharia courts, and the insanity of the nation's so-called constitution, the following article appeared in yesterday's Malaysia Star.
We do not normally reproduce articles in their entirety, as we like to respect the copyright of the sources we quote from, but under US (and UK) copyright law, we are legally entitled to present an entire article, for thepurposes of review. This article, by a senior Islamic scholar and proponent of Islamic law in Malaysia needs to be read in its entirety, to understand the warped and pernicious mindset of Malaysia's Islamists who operate within the Syariah Court system.
Islam on freedom of religion
IKIM VIEWS By Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, Senior Fellow Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM)
APOSTASY, apparently a human rights related issue, is highly sensitive to the multi-racial and multi-religious character of Malaysia.
It tends to be problematic, untenable to some, especially when it deals with conversion into and out of Islam.
It is true, the whole question involves certain legal and social implications. At times, its repercussions appear to rattle the social solidarity and religious harmony of our peaceful nation.
All these threatening consequences are actually caused by ignorance. This writing is not to incite further dissension. Neither is it intended to sound apologetic.
On the contrary it calls for all parties directly or indirectly affected by the subject matter, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, to view it with an open heart guided by wisdom.
Scholars have admitted that Islam is the most misunderstood religion of all world religions.
Misrepresentations and misperceptions about it are causing many to hurriedly develop an unjustified Islamophobia.
This syndrome is actually a "fear of the unknown" as these people do not really understand what Islam is all about.
Many simply accept the many global misrepresentations incessantly put to them via the media.
Seen through the lens of discourse on human rights, apostasy in Islam has been notoriously brought into conflict with the doctrine of human rights in general, and with the notion of freedom of religion in particular.
Among the questions raised is, if Islam can easily be embraced, by the same token, why does it not allow Muslims to leave Islam?
It is unquestionable that Islam indeed recognises human rights, in fact from its very inception, long before these ideas were developed and documented in its modern secular form by the West like the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
Islam, as systematically reflected by the Cairo Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, 1981, advocates human rights via syariah.
These objectives include the establishment of justice, individual education and preservation of human welfare or interests by protecting and preserving the freedom of thought, worship, rights to property and preservation of the progeny.
These constitute the inviolable principles of "human rights."
What many fail to understand is that Islam is probably the only religion that honours its followers to the utmost.
Islam regards its adherents, both originally born Muslim as well as converts, as invaluable assets. Once they come to the fold of Islam, they stand equal.
Therefore, the responsibilities, duties and rights of all Muslims are basically the same. Individually, they are equally entitled to achieve success in this world as well as salvation in the hereafter, guided by and within the parameters set up by syariah.
Muslims firmly believe that they are in the territory of truth, the right path. They are bathed in the brightest light.
For Muslims, truth is light, falsehood is darkness. Therefore, it is a grave injustice to them if they were to deviate from that truth.
Furthermore, the fact that Islam prohibits apostasy reflects the integrity and credibility of the religion.
If Islam were to grant permission for Muslims to change religion at will, it would imply it has no dignity, no self-esteem. And people may then question its completeness, truthfulness and perfection.
Echoing the observations of Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, "rights" or huquq in Islam refers to something that is right, true, correct and proper.
"Freedom" or ikhtiyar means a choice for the good or better. So it is neither one's right nor is it freedom to choose something evil, false, wrong, incorrect or imperfect.
Religiously, morally and legally, man has no right to do wrong.
Nevertheless, there are feeble, confused Muslims around. They may be the result of improper or inadequate education or the lack of exposure to the more comprehensive teachings of Islam.
And due to worldly temptations, this weakness causes their religious foundations to become shaky.
Apparently, their common feature is a lack of knowledge and understanding of Islam. So if one insists on adopting the aforementioned wrong conception of "rights" and "freedom", one is actually exposing one's shameful ignorance!
For converts, before they become Muslims, no matter for what reason, it is only reasonable that they must have a certain degree of basic knowledge about Islam.
They must take efforts to study the fundamentals of the religion first. This is actually their responsibility and duty. Take note that rights do not come out of a vacuum; they are accompanied by certain responsibilities and duties.
For example, before one can exercise one's freedom to buy a car of his choice, one must first obtain a driving licence. Without that document, one will only endanger oneself as well as others.
One cannot scream to be given the right or freedom to buy if the requirement of responsibility is not fulfilled beforehand.
Muslims must understand that once they come into the fold of Islam, there is no question of leaving the faith or reverting to their earlier beliefs even if the very reason for one to come to Islam in the first place ceases to exist.
One may be a bad or a non-practising Muslim, but there is hardly any room available for one to denounce that religion.
One cannot argue that Islam does not recognise the idea of freedom of worship. First and foremost, the very doctrine of Islam, as reflected in the Quran, teaches that there is no compulsion.
Freedom of worship is to be understood not only in the sense of making a choice for the better, but also in the sense of freedom to practise a particular religion.
Once one accepts Islam or decides to become a Muslim, one is subjected to all the rules prescribed by the religion.
If Islam forbids apostasy, not only the Muslims must observe it, but the followers of other religions that do not have such provisions must appreciate and respect this position as well.
This is actually the freedom of worship that must be perceived by all.
Notice the paragraph above: "Muslims must understand that once they come into the fold of Islam, there is no question of leaving the faith or reverting to their earlier beliefs even if the very reason for one to come to Islam in the first place ceases to exist."
When a Malaysian has no choice about how he or she comes to be a Muslim, as it is decided through the apartheid-style racial profiling of the National Registration Department, such an argument is pure totalitarianism.
Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad is not only disingenuous and dishonest to the core, he has absolutely no concept of "freedom of religion."
And do not believe that Muslims elsewhere would be any less oppressive, once given the opportunity to enforce Islam through legal powers. Ahmad cites the newspaper and media reporting of Islam as a reason why people are becoming more "Islamophobic". This argument is being peddled by many Muslims, now, unable to lay the blame on Islamophobia at the feet of Islam itself.
The sheer intolerance and absolutism, and disregard for people's human rights and democratic freedoms, as expressed so eloquently by Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, which are based entirely on Islamic teachings, are the real heart of the matter. Ahmed has given one of the most cogent arguments that all people who cherish freedom and observe the truth can never be anything else, other than "Islamophobic".
Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at June 21, 2006 1:28 AM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)