Islamic Bashing Season

from http://www.mykmu.net

Datuk Rejal Arbee
Looks like the season for Islam bashing is here again. You cannot but help come to this conclusion after going through the endless comments denouncing Islam arising from the Federal Court’s majority decision over the Lina Joy case. One website, Malaysia Today which gets about 2 million hits a day posted more than 10 threads discussing the verdict.
The picture given in the more vicious comments posted in those threads is that the Muslims are intolerant. The verdict has compromised the constitutional provision of guaranteeing freedom of worship and that the fundamental rights of a person was denied. Some even describing it as a dark day for human rights and religious freedom in Malaysia.
Some of the postings even pontificate that Islam advocates the death sentence against Muslims who renounced the religion attributing it to the Quran. One posting even claimed that Saudi Arabia periodically beheaded Muslims who converted to other religions. If this is so then how do you explain another posting claiming a Saudi girl had converted to Christianity to marry an Austrian working in the Kingdom. These postings show that some of the comments made in the various threads are very irresponsible.
The fact is there is nothing in the Quran which prescribes death to any Muslim who converts to another religion. Mohammad Hashim Kamali a Syariah Scholar at the International Islamic University quoted verse 137 of Surah An Nisa (Chapter 4 of the Quran) to debunk arguments that the Quran indeed prescribes the death penalty for apostasy.
“Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve and then increase in their disbelief – God will never forgive them nor guide them to the path”. Kamali explained: “The implication is unmistakable. The text would hardly entertain the prospect of repeated belief and disbelief if death were to be the prescribed punishment for the initial act.”
No one has been sentenced to death solely for renunciation of faith unless accompanied by hostility and treason or was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community.
Nonetheless arising from this verdict there is paranoia among the non-Muslims including the western press accusing Malaysia of succumbing to Muslim extremists’ pressures. Their conclusion: religious freedom has taken a beating in this country and that Islam is indeed intolerant.
But what are the facts.
The Federal Constitution do indeed guarantee freedom of worship to everyone in this country. However this landmark case gives a distinction in such freedom accorded to Muslims and non-Muslims. For the non-Muslims the freedom is unquestionable. That is he can profess whatever religion that he wants including changing his religion to another. So what is there for the non-Muslims to complain?
But for the Muslims freedom of worship is not given in the absolute. A Muslim who wants to convert needed to follow certain procedures set out by the various Syariah Enactments in operation in the various states. What the Federal Court sets out then was that a Muslim wanting to relinquish his religion needed to apply to the Syariah court for a declaration. He should not try to get recourse from the Civil Court.
Not many know that before this case became a cause celebre there had been Muslims who had converted to other religions and allowed by the Syariah Court without any fanfare. Lawyer Pawancheek Merican who heads Defenders of Islam, a coalition of 80 Muslim non-governmental organisations, set up following a spate of religious disputes that have strained race relations in Malaysia believed that some 15 to 20 Muslims have been allowed to leave Islam officially through the Syariah Court. Thus rightly Lina Joy still have some recourse.
One posting quoted the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (Abim) President, Yusri Mohamad, as providing good advice to those who are “aggrieved in any way” with any part of the existing (Islamic/Muslim) arrangement to “choose other less confrontational and controversial approach towards change and reform”.
He said: “We believe the court procedure is an unhealthy one because such issues should be avoided (at the courts) as all confrontational approaches should be shunned.”
“We also plead that those hoping for an opposite outcome to reconsider their position and to consider modifying their expectations to suit what is good and more sustainable considering our realities. It is our belief that it is wrong for us as Muslims and Muslim associations to tolerate any injustice in the name of Islam.”
But the problem is that for one reason or another people behind Lina Joy had seen fit to take a confrontationist stance in so far as her conversion is concerned by bringing it to the Civil Court.
A posting by a Voice in the Malaysia Today website summed up what some Muslims believe: If these are private issues, why is the American based Beckett's funding her defense and expensive legal team? Why are certain deviant Muslim groups getting Konrad Adreneur Foundation's funding and assistance? Why is Singapore sympathiser New Straits Times and Sun giving much voice to those super liberal Muslims and refuse the right of replies by progressive and more authoritative Muslim groups?
(This I can vouch as several letters I sent to the NST and the Sun in response to certain views and accusations made against the Malays had on a number of occasions been spiked, never seeing the light of the day.)
Malaysia Today also carried a posting from Time saying the Lina Joy verdict, which will likely become a precedent for several other pending conversion cases involving Muslims, is seen by many in Malaysia as evidence of how religious politics are cleaving the nation, with a creeping Islamisation undermining the rights of both non-Muslims and more moderate adherents to Islam.
The writer says that Islam is so often partnered with extremism and autocratic governance, with Malaysia held up as a model of a moderate Muslim nation committed to safeguarding the rights of its diverse population. That verdict could now undercut that reputation, so the writer says
"To some non-Muslims, Wednesday's judgment spelt a setback for religious freedom in Malaysia. 'I think it's a major blow,' opposition politician Lim Kit Siang was quoted as saying by Reuters. 'It casts a large shadow on civil liberties and the constitutional rights of Malaysians.'
Unfortunately such characters continued with their bigoted views even though the reality is quite different. There is no question that freedom of worship is well and truly functional among all Malaysians.
But the question is what is the objective of Lina Joy or those behind her to test the case right up to the Federal Court, the highest court of the country. And what is the agenda of the group funding the case? Why are these groups so intent in trying to embarrass the country and the practice of Islam here?
Arising from the verdict, Malaysia is now labeled as being intolerant and not practicing freedom of worship. And the rights activists has now accused the court of failing to address concerns over religious freedom in the country.
Thus foreign reports gleefully said the court's verdict comes amid mounting racial and religious tensions in multiracial Malaysia, where minority religious groups fear their rights are being undermined, even though the country is traditionally seen as moderate. But the reports steer clear of how the rights of non-Muslims are being undermined when they can profess whatever faith they desire.
Looking at it from another perspective what is the position of Lina Joy herself? Everybody knows she has renounced Islam and is thus no longer a Muslim but her IC still states her to be so. What then is the implication? If during fasting month she eats in public, would she be so charged as a Muslim even if she has renounced the religion and is not required to fast?
The fact is not many of those who are born Muslims want to renounce Islam. Most of the problem comes from people who convert because they want to get married to a Muslim. When the marriage failed and ends in divorce the convert then wants to return to his former faith. And this result in problems.
A lawyer in a letter to cyber newspaper, Malaysiakini said he has on his hands, a few cases of Muslim converts who wish to return to their previous religion. What does this show? A lot of those who convert to marry a Muslim is not given enough education and guidance to strengthen his faith in the religion so that even when the marriage ends in a divorce, the convert should faithfully remain a Muslim because of his belief. Relinquishing of the faith is an indictment of the failure of the various bodies entrusted with this responsibility not shouldering their duties well.
This should also be a reminder that converting to Islam is a serious thing. It is not just something of a whim. Even if the conversion was done out of necessity because of marriage, the convert’s belief in the religion should be strengthened with stronger faith in time. So that even when a marriage ends in failure the convert will remain a true Muslim and not revert back to his former religion.
For the Malays there is another dimension to the problem. Constitutionally a Malay is also a Muslim. Once he ceased to be a Muslim he is not longer recognised as a Malay under the provisions of the Constitution.
Rejal Arbee
1 June 2007