I reproduce here my past collection of the articles from Malaysiakini.com on the apostate issue so that we could learn that the same pattern had occurred in Malaysia and also learn that we should avoid repeating these unnecessary discussions when we try a dialogue with Muslims as non-Malaysian non-Muslims. (Lily)
Malaysiakini.com （http://www.malaysiakini.com）
(1) Apostates angry with Islam or government?, 2 December 2004
by Shairul Fazleena
I recently came across a website where purported apostates from Malaysia told their stories. I am a Singaporean and a proud Muslimah and reading the postings on that website has led me to the conclusion that Malaysian apostates are more angry with the Malaysian government than they are with Islam.
I feel that they think Islam is the problem but only on the way Malaysia bases its policy with regards to it. I have engaged some of these apostates on the website and have been trying hard to show them that it is not Islam that has wronged them but people using Islam as an excuse to impose their will.
I am not writing to you to champion the apostates’ cause. I am only doing this so that the Malaysian government may consider reviewing their policy. In Singapore, people can renounce their religion as and when they like it and there is no pressure to practice one belief. It is wrong to force one to hold on to a religion that one doesn't believe in and this it contradicts the claim that Islam is not about force. Malaysian apostates, however, have confused themselves as to who or what is actually oppressing them and in some way, they have linked this to Islam.
While I respect the Malaysian government of trying to execute Islamic law as well as they can, I think punishing apostates is not relevant anymore. After all, Malaysia doesn’t stone to death Muslims caught for adultery, does it? If that can be overlooked, why not apostasy?
I think that there is a ‘hadith’ saying that whenever we see or know a person of misconduct, we should first use all the authority we have to stop him or her, and if that fails then we have to talk to them and advise them, and if that too fails then we pray for them.
Malaysia has imprisoned and counselled its apostates but if they still choose to remain apostates then I think it is time for government to let them live their life.
Let me stress here that I am not condoning or encouraging apostasy. But I think one should be given the choice to practise one’s beliefs. Forcing religion down somebody’s throat won't achieve the aim of having good Muslims and Muslimahs - this will only cause hate and contempt towards Islam.
Remember, ‘God guides whom He pleases to the right path’.
(2)Have zero tolerance for apostasy, 8 December 2004
by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
I refer to the letter Apostates angry with Islam or government?
I, for one, am aware of the website that Shairul Fazleena is referring to. Although she asserts that she is not endorsing the apostates' cause, let us state here very clearly that her suggestion that the Malaysian government should ‘review’ their policy with regard to apostates is tantamount to mocking the Deen itself.
It is without a doubt that apostasy is a very serious offence in Islam, and there are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ about it. However, individuals like Shairul are from the flock of ‘liberal Muslims’ who prefer to abandon the Qur'an and Sunnah injunction with regard to apostates in favour of their ‘values’ from the West concerning freedom of religion.
True, Islam does espouses the freedom of religion (Quran, 2:256). Freedom of religion, however, is not to be confused with freedom to simply leave the religion and put the Muslim ‘ummah’ in jeopardy.
Let's put it this way. Singapore is not Malaysia. If Muslims in Singapore want to tolerate apostasy at their whim and fancy, it is their business. That they are so far apart from the practice of Islam speaks for itself.
Shairul’s whimsical fancies about Islamic laws not being ‘relevant’ anymore in this day and age is a sign of how the liberal Muslims think. And just because there is no implementation of these laws is not an excuse to do away with them in totality. They claim that they accept the Qur'an as a Divine Book and yet they attempt to insult its laws at every juncture. It certainly sounds very hypocritical to me.
As a Muslim living and residing in Malaysia and one who believe in the implementation of Islamic values as a way of life, legitimising apostasy would be detrimental to the Islamic values as practiced by Muslims in Malaysia.
There should be zero tolerance to apostates and apostasy from Islam, and this should remain the official policy of the government of Malaysia.
(3)Stop harassing apostates, 17 December 2004
by Johan Baba
In his letter Have zero tolerance for apostasy, Mohamad Elfie Nishaem Juferi betrayed his extreme intolerance bordering on fanaticism towards Malay Muslims whose only crime (if that indeed is what it be called) is to follow the dictates of their hearts and leave their religion.
In the eyes of Elfie, these people stigmatised as apostates or ‘murtad’ are even worse than Muslims who are rapists, murderers or people who commit incest.
But what many people are not aware of is that Elfie has all along been harassing and intimidating these apostates, many of whom have fled overseas to escape the wrath of the Malaysian religious authorities with whom he has apparently been liaising with.
He does this under the pseudonym of ‘Menj’ which is the abbreviation of his name. One Malaysian apostate, at the website mentioned by Shairul Fazleena, complained that Elfie, through cunning and deception, had somehow managed to get her to reveal her true identity.
He then exposed her at his own personal website with what one can only assume to be a sinister motive - to get Muslims to hate her and other apostates even more. It is highly possible that Elfie is either part of the apparatus of the Malaysian religious affairs authority or works closely with them to harass and intimidate apostates.
These apostates are then forced to leave the country of their birth, which they love and cherish, and seek refuge in faraway countries.
In this era of globalisation and respect for human rights - which include the basic freedom to profess a religion of one's choice - Elfie and his ilk are behaving like the Gestapo of Nazi Germany, breathing heavily down the necks of all those who dare venture out of Islam.
The problems faced by apostates have been around for a long time but because of the media blackout, not many people are aware of them. These apostates only want to be left alone to follow the religion of their conviction.
They do not want to be forced to blindly embrace Islam from birth onwards. In other predominantly- Muslim societies like Indonesia, apostates are treated just like any other of their citizens with no discrimination.
But in Malaysia, not only are they treated like outcasts by their community, they are also harassed and intimidated, thanks to people like Elfie and his ilk But is must be said that there are many people, including Muslims, who sympathise with the plight of the apostates.
It is high time human rights organisations, both local and international, do something to alleviate the plight of unfortunate Malaysian apostates who have fled overseas to enable them to return to their country of birth.
They should be allowed to return here and live as proud and equal citizens without having to convert back to Islam. In the meantime, people like Elfie and his ilk should be condemned for harassing and intimidating them.
(4)Constitution provides for action against Muslim apostates, 17 December 2004
by Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
The Federal Constitution does provide for legal action to be taken against Muslim apostates, said a constitutional expert today.
This is because freedom of religion as provided for in Article 11 should be read together with Article 3(1), which confers a special status to Islam as the religion of the Federation that has not been accorded to the other religions of the country.
Law professor Abdul Aziz Bari, who is deputy dean of research and development at International Islamic University’s Research Center, said this at a seminar on “Freedom of Religion and the Issue of Apostasy” in Kuala Lumpur.
“The structure and framework of the constitution allows for such regulative mechanisms. Such mechanisms do not breach the constitution because the constitution places Islam in an exceptional position in comparison to other religions,” he said in his paper on the topic.
While Article 11 comprehends the profession, exercise and propagation of the religions, religious propagation is also subject to legal restrictions contained in clause four of the same Article, said Abdul Aziz in his paper.
“These restrictions include controls against the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. This shows the special status accorded to Islam by the constitution.”
In defense of such provisions, Abdul Aziz cited the examples of legislation in countries such as France, Germany, Turkey, and Singapore that, while espousing religious freedom, also prohibit polygamy and the wearing of the veil.
‘Enforce laws against apostasy’
This indicates, said Abdul Aziz, that even “secular societies, in particular, do not easily accord religious freedom or recognition to religion and spiritual values.”
In the Malaysian context, said Abdul Aziz, efforts to restrict the incidence of Muslim apostates is “an internal matter that did not infringe upon religious freedom as such restrictions are not meant to forcibly convert anybody to Islam.”
Such standards of religious freedom as contained in international legal instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should only be formally adopted after due process by Parliament, said Abdul Aziz.
“There were more urgent issues at stake such as the incidence of torture of prisoners. Legally, (laws against apostasy) is similar to the process of collecting alms tax and charity: the enforcement of Islam upon the followers of Islam.”
In the meantime, he added, the Malaysian courts should strengthen their resolve in applying constitutional provisions that are already in place.
Agreeing with him on the matter was Prof Shamrahayu Abdul Aziz who said there were sufficient enactments in the civil and Shariah courts for the authorities to act in order to stem the tide of apostasy among Muslims.
“This phenomenon is a big challenge that must be confronted with the Muslim community in Malaysia. This serious crime must be contained before it reaches critical proportions in our society,” she said in her paper.
(5) Don: Unconstitutional for courts to meddle in apostasy cases, 22 December 2004
by Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
The courts should not get involved in apostasy cases in order to adhere to the spirit of the constitution, said Universiti Institut Teknologi Mara (UiTM) law professor Shad Faruqi.
According to him, state legislatures in the 1970s provided for registers to record the number of converts into as well as out of Islam. This reflected the recognition then of Muslims leaving the faith.
However, Shad said today there are calls for apostasy to be punished.
“I think the law should just discreetly stay out of this area, as it did up to now. For nearly 40 years, it has done fairly well.
“Staying out of it falls within the spirit of the constitution,” he told malaysiakini in a recent interview at his residence in Kuala Lumpur.
Shad was commenting on assertions by legal academics at a seminar last week that the constitution provides for action to be taken against Muslims who seek court declaration of their conversion out of Islam.
At the seminar, another constitutional expert from the International Islamic University (IIU), Professor Abdul Aziz Bari, said religious freedom as articulated by Article11 is qualified by Article 3(1), which conferred a special status to Islam as the official religion of the Federation, and thus should be interpreted through the yardstick of Islam in the case of Muslims.
Personal liberty
Commenting on this, Shad said Article 3(1) committed the state to build mosques, promote Islamic education, generally promote Islam as a religious, moral, social, and economic force.
“Article 3(1) was meant to permit the use of tax-payers money for Islamic purposes and to promote Islam. In the United States, the state was not allowed to do so. Article 3 in Malaysia was meant to demolish that church-state separation,” he added.
However, he said Article 3(1) did not signify the abrogation of fundamental rights contained in Articles 5-13 which include the freedom to association.
“There is personal liberty in Article 5. There is freedom of association in Article 10. That also means, don’t forget, the freedom to disassociate. There is also freedom of speech in Article 10. There is also the dimension of Article 12(3), which says no person shall be forced to receive instruction or take part in any ceremony or act of worship other than his own.
“I don’t think Article 3(1) was meant to truncate fundamental rights or eclipse Articles 5-13. Article 3(1) was not meant to eclipse an entire chapter on fundamental liberties,” he noted.
As for those who use Article 11(4) providing for restrictions against propagating to Muslims, Shad explained that the clause says nothing of one who desires to study and profess another religion out of his own volition.
“Article 11(4) is about people going out to others to preach. Article 11(4) does not talk about profession itself. It doesn’t talk about a person himself studying and wishing to profess another faith,” he said.
Shad also cited the view of legal writer Andrew Harding, who said Article 11(4) was written into the constitution as a compromise during the 1956-57 period to level the playing field of religious proselytizing.
The professor said Muslims at that time were concerned about the organisational and financial power of Christian missionaries during the colonial era, as these missionaries came together with British merchants and the British military.
“That’s why Article 11(4) was put in: to protect Muslims from the influence of British proselytisers, those who were better financed, better oiled, better heeled, and enjoyed better mechanisms. At that time, it was not a level playing field (for Muslims),” he added.
‘A hybrid state’
Shad also said as long as Articles 3(4) and 4(1), which relate to the integrity and supremacy of the constitution, are in effect, the other laws cannot be interpreted Islamically through Article 3(1) as would they would in an Islamic state.
“Malaysia is not a full-fledged Islamic state and was not meant to be one in 1957. There is the problem with Article 3(4) which says nothing in Article 3 relating to Islam derogates from anything else in the constitution. In other words, nothing in Article 3 overrides the other articles of the constitution.
“As long as there is also Article 4(1), which says this constitution is the supreme law of the federation, Malaysia will not be a full-fledged Islamic state,” he added.
However, Shad said this does not mean that Malaysia was strictly secular or un-Islamic.
“I would be loathe to say that. Malaysia is rather a ‘hybrid’ state. There is rigorous enforcement of Islamic law, (but only) on Muslims. There are currents and cross-currents,” he explained.
The most cogent argument, according to Shad, related to claims that List 2 of Schedule 9 in the constitution provides for state legislation against those who commit offences against the precepts of Islam.
He said as profession of one’s religion had already been covered by Article 11's freedom to profess one’s religion, state law has no jurisdiction over the matter of an individual’s conversion.
“Schedule 9, List 2 item1 did not confer a blank check power. It is a residual power in those areas where the law had not spoken. Where federal law had not spoken, Islamic law can come in relation to Muslims only,” he added.
(6)Apostasy: Let’s not belittle God, 22 December 2004
by SY
I mourn for a people born into a religion that they cannot be free from.
Somebody once said that ‘man is born free but he is everywhere in chains’. Chained by the thoughts of men who lived and died hundreds of years ago, whose circumstances were not our circumstances, whose minds were not our own.
Unable and unwilling to move beyond the prescribed boundaries, no matter how much reason bids us, yet forbidding others to do so in the name of God for fear that it might offend God, as if God could be so offended.
And this despite God’s own assertion that there is no compulsion in religion. Some of us, the people calling ourselves submitted to God, just cannot seem to take God’s word for it when He, God, doesn’t address ‘former adherents’ or ‘present adherents’ only but instead calls to people or mankind, which obviously includes all people. God could have been more specific had He intended to be so, but that was not His will obviously.
Why then would we insist that apostasy deserves death when God Himself doesn’t recommend it?
Will God be hurt or made poorer or lesser when a man leaves the religion of his birth? No, far above the things man would ascribe to Him, God is not like that. His stature is not diminished by man’s changing his mind about Him.
And how many times in his historical existence has man changed his mind over God? And we are not just talking about the majority of the people who resided in the Malay archipelago who were once animists, then Hindus and later became Muslims.
Apostasy is akin to leaving a relationship or a marriage. If people fall out of love with us or don’t want to stay with us anymore, do we kill them? Or force them to stay? Or do we free them and let them go?
Fortunately, in this country, we still don’t kill people for falling out of love with us. Neither should we kill people for giving up one set of mental constructs for another.
Nor should we belittle God’s greatness by seeking to make Him appear uncomfortable when a man, who is a mere mortal, changes his religion.
As God is the ultimate reckoner, let us take Him at His word when He says there is no compulsion in religion, and that truth is distinct from error.
(7)Amend constitution to address ‘apostate Malays’, say academics, 24 December 2004
by Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
Far from being a pandora’s box of amendments to the Federal Constitution, recognising the conversion of Muslims to other religions involve only minor accommodations that can, and should, be dealt with by the legislative branch of government to address the issue of Malays’ special position, say academicians.
Although disagreeing with court intervention in cases of Muslims seeking to convert to another religion, International Movement for a Just World president Dr Chandra Muzaffar said he believes the phenomenon should be recognised and addressed by Parliament.
“We should be dealing with the issue, not through the courts because it is too heavy a burden to be placed on the judges, but through Parliament and the state legislatures,” he said when contacted.
Chandra said despite the incidence of Malay apostates being very few and isolated cases, there will have to be constitutional amendments to address the existence of Malays “in limbo” by virtue of their religious conversion.
“The definition of who is a Malay would have to be worked out, because (by recognising Malay conversions out of Islam) you create a group of people who are in limbo,” said Chandra, who was formerly the director of the Center for Civilisational Dialogue in Universiti Malaya.
As the constitution defines a Malay as one who professes the religion of Islam, speaks the Malay language, and practices Malay customs, it would have to be modified to address the question of the Malay convert’s rights as far as his ‘special position’ is concerned, he added.
“You can ask them to make a statutory declaration that they are non-Malay because they have left Islam. Or you can create a legal niche for the people of this group as non-Malays as opposed to Malays. For (either of) these, you may have to change the constitution.”
Article 153 of the Federal Constitution provides for the reservation of certain proportions to Malays in the public services, educational opportunities and business permits and licenses.
‘Accrued versus future rights’
Echoing Chandra’s sentiments on the matter was constitutional expert Dr Shad Faruqi who added that among the first questions to be asked was with regards to the ‘initiator’ of such a move to declare a person a ‘non-Malay’.
“Someone has to go to the courts. Do the courts act on their own? Does someone complain? Certainly in the civil courts, someone has to move the courts. Maybe the Shariah courts could issue a declaration.”
“As things stand, judicial power is not exercised at its own initiative,” said the Universiti Institut Teknologi Mara (UiTM) professor when interviewed recently.
The other question deals with the issue of accrued versus future rights pertaining to educational scholarship, study loans and ownership of Malay reserve land, said Shad.
“It would definitely cause problems. She (the converted person) has shares. Are you going to withdraw them? She may have bought a reservation land. Are you going to take that back from her? Maybe you could say rights already accrued remain, but new rights cannot be obtained.”
Shad dismissed claims, however, that such the few apostasy cases that have been brought to the courts signal the beginning of larger concerns with the integrity of the Malay community.
“I think it would in individual cases, there may be ‘irritations’ where, for example, an individual goes to the registration department and says he wants his IC not to show the word ‘Islam’ and the case going up to the court of Appeal asking the registration department to explain.”
“That problem is there, but I don’t think it would lead to massive dislocation,” he added.
‘Serious crime’
Last week, a seminar on apostasy held in the International Islamic University (IIU) heard academics urging the government to stem the tide of apostasy before it grew to larger proportions.
IIU law professor Abdul Aziz Bari in his paper said failure to restrict the number of Malay Muslims leaving their religion would open up a pandora’s box of the constitution’s established provisions. “Legal interpretations by those seeking to defend the problem of apostates will clearly disturb the structure and framework of the constitution, including the definition of Malay,” he said in his paper.
Agreeing with him on the matter was Prof Shamrahayu Abdul Aziz who said there were sufficient enactments in the civil and Shariah courts for the authorities to act in order to stem the tide of apostasy among Muslims.
“This phenomenon is a big challenge that must be confronted with the Muslim community in Malaysia. This serious crime must be contained before it reaches critical proportions in our society,” she said.
(8)Apostasy and the essence of true religion, 20 January 2005
by Lacrema
After reading some of the letters revolving around the issue of apostasy and Islam, it seems to me that the fundamental problem on both sides of the debate is the utter failure to understand Islam as a universal institution.
This very concept, or connotation, has a very wide implication for it urges us to rethink the concept of religion as a whole. Islam is just a term, a name, a noun - not a sectarian or elitist religion. It is not the religion of a few who abide by certain concrete rules, catechism and sorts.
Islam derives from the verb 'aslama' which means 'to submit', and in the context of religion, it means a domain (noun) of submission to divinity. A Muslim therefore, is a person who submits to divinity.
Thus, every God-conscious person who submits to His existence, who acknowledges his rightful place in relation to His, regardless of how he practices it (in Christian, Hindu, Buddhist culture etc) is, in every sense of the word, a Muslim.
Such is the de-codification of the term, but due to the language barrier, it has come to be known as an Arabic domain, whose centre of power is firmly entrenched in Mecca and whose ideological content is closely associated with the Arabic culture and society at a point in time. This cannot be a feature of a universal religion.
The accurate term 'Islam' is, therefore, meant to be universal and most importantly, natural. To overlook this fact is to ignore the very precept of Islam as a universal religion - 'al-deen al-fitrah': the religion of nature. It cannot be compared to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or even the kind of 'Islam' that we find today.
These are all cultural manifestations of the true religion sent by one God which can be portrayed as one single line throughout the evolution of spiritual history. All the Prophets, from Adam to Ibrahim (Abraham) to Isa (Jesus), to Muhammad have all articulated the real essence of the universal religion.
But man could not fully encapsulate this 'true essence' and they failed to separate the universality of religion from the culture that they are living in. This gave birth to a plethora of cultural manifestations such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity (early followers of Jesus don't even know what the term 'Christian' meant) and of late, the 'Islam' of today.
‘Al-deen al-fitrah’ means that everyone is born with the essence of the true religion. It is inherent in Man. It is from this premise that we should engage the issue of apostasy.
Thus, a person who transgresses his own natural boundaries, who goes against the nature of humanity, spreading chaos and evil, is an apostate for he is going against his own nature and spreading the same malicious intent to fellow human beings.
Therefore, a law on such a person can best be described as a practical solution. Even at this point, the categorisation of an 'apostate' is subject to increasing scrutiny.
I would firmly conclude that all this talk on Islam and apostasy is completely missing the point. One must understand the concept of religion deeper and go beyond the persistent prejudices and stereotypes in order to intellectually engage the issue.
As SY has pointed out, it is an insult to God. I stand firm with this.
(End)
