Western Resistance

« Austria: Burka Ban In First Muslim Terror Trial | | UK: Osama bin London And His Islamist Associate Jailed »

March 4, 2008

Malaysia: Apostate From Islam Jailed For Two Years

57-year old Kamariah Ali, a woman who renounced Islam, was sentenced to two year's jail by a Syariah (Islamic) High Court in Terengganu State, Malaysia for the "crime" of leaving Islam. On February 4, 2008 I wrote of her situation:

Last April I wrote of Kamariah Ali, a woman who abandoned Islam to join the colorful Sky Kingdom Sect, which was founded by Ayah Pin. This sect welcomed members of all faiths, and had erected in its compound fiberglass and concrete statues of a giant teapot and other items. The compound was raided on August 1, 2005, its statues demolished, and the sect's charismatic leader was forced to flee the country. Kamariah Ali maintained her faith in Ayah Pin's inclusive religion. in 1999, Kamariah Ali told an Islamic court in Kota Baru that she had renounced Islam. She was jailed in 2005 by a Syariah Court in Terengganu state for "insulting Islam".

Kamariah Ali's husband Mohammed Ya, also a member of the Sky Kingdom Sect, had been jailed at the same time. The strain was too much for him and he died shortly after being released. Though Islamic courts had refused to allow him the right to leave Islam, Mohammed Ya's body was forbidden from being buried in a Muslim graveyard. He was buried in the compound of the Sky Kingdom Sect in Terengganu state, shortly before the site was bulldozed.

In June 2006 Kamariah Ali was put on trial by the Terengganu state Syariah High Court, accused of only declaring her apostasy from Islam as a means to avoid punishment. On July 21, 2005, after being arrested with other members of the Sky Kingdom Sect, she was taken to Besut Lower Syariah Court, accused of non-compliance with a fatwa issued against the Sky Kingdom Sect by the Mufti of Terengganu. This fatwa declared that Ayah Pin was a deviant and any association with him or his sect was prohibited. Kamariah Ali had declared that she was no longer a Muslim, and thus beyond any Syariah court's jurisdiction. In 2006 at the Syariah High Court, prosecutor Mustafar Hamzah said: "The onus is on her to bear the burden of proof (of apostasy)".

Kamariah Ali's case has been prolonged and still has not reached any conclusion. The last time it featured in Malaysian news sources was in September, 2007. At that time, Islamic high court judge Muhammad Abdullah ruled that all parties should present their written submissions before October 21. As a result of her apostasy, Kamariah is shunned by others, and has found it impossible to gain employment. If convicted, she could receive either a fine of 5,000 ringgit ($1,545) or a three year jail sentence, or both.

Shortly after that article was published, on February 16 the Terengganu State Syariah High Court announced that Ms Ali was still a Muslim but that it would be giving its decision on the sentencing in her case on March 3.

With a general election happening on Saturday March 12, it is interesting to note the political implications behind the timing of this decision. Mustafar Hamzah, prosecuting officer asked for the the severest sentence possible as "her case was of public interest and could affect the faith of other Muslims in Malaysia."

On Monday March 3, as reported in the International Herald Tribune, Malaysia Star, New Straits Times, Associated Press and Asia News, Kamariah Ali was given a two-year jail sentence.

Judge Mohamad Abdullah said: "What she did was not within the concept of freedom of religion." Bizarrely, the judge said on Monday: "The accused also failed to respond when I greeted her by saying Assalamualaikum during the start of the court proceeding. This shows that Kamariah has not repented."

Sa'adiah Din, her lawyer, said: "She informed the court that she is not a Muslim... This has to stop. They can't be sending her again and again to prison for this."

Kamariah Ali had declared herself an apostate on July 21, 2005 when she had been arrested and hauled before an Islamic court, with 58 other members of the Sky Kingdom Sect. Kamariah Ali had first asked a civil court to recognize her conversion out of Islam in 1998. In 1992, the Terengganu Syariah High Court maintained, she had been given a jail term for apostasy in 1992, when she served less than 20 months behind bars.

She had been most recently charged under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offence Enactment (Takzir) Terengganu 2001 for declaring apostasy. It was decided by the court that she had declared apostasy to avoid action being taken against her in a lower Syariah (Sharia) Court in Besut in 2005.

However, according to her lawyer, she is also facing a second charge of joining a banned sect [this is Section 10 of the Syariah Criminal Offence Enactment (Takzir) Terengganu 2001]. If found guilty of this "crime", she could spend an additional two years in prison.

On February 17, Judge Mohammed Abdullah said to Kamariah, a mother of four: "I want to give you a chance and hope you will have a change of heart and the sentence will then be based on the progress that you have made. I have seen some changes, but I still have some doubts."

It is interesting that the court took so long to reach its verdict. Its proximity to the general election where Terengganu is one of only two states (Kelantan is the other) that has a possible chance of electing a state government of the Islamist PAS party suggests a certain amount of "politicking".

The fact that anyone should be deprived of their liberty because they decide to leave a particular faith shows how Malaysia is a country with no comprehension of human rights.

Those who deprive others of their liberty, such as Judge Mohammed Abdullah, take pains to present themselves as "reasonable". But there is nothing fair in their actions or motives.

The following appeared on June 20, 2006 in the Malaysia Star newspaper, subsequently no longer available on its online site. It was written by Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, Senior Fellow Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM). It describes how Malaysia's advisers on Syariah are implacably opposed to the standards of freedom of religion that were laid out in Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Islam on freedom of religion

Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad

"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."

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at March 4, 2008 2:32 PM

Comments

Posted by: seeteufel at March 5, 2008 7:25 PM

Post a comment