1. Union of Catholic Asian News (http://www.ucanews.com)
(1) ‘Guidelines’ for Muslims raise concerns, 20 February 2012
Proposal urges Muslims not to attend religious ceremonies of other faiths
by ucanews.com reporter, Penang, Malaysia
Christian leaders and others have expressed apprehension over a proposal last week for official guidelines to govern conduct between Muslims and non-Muslims.
“It is ridiculous that after 54 years of independence and living side by side, Muslims still need ‘guidelines’ for interactions with non-Muslims,” said Marina Mahathir, a women’s rights’ activist and daughter of former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad.
The Ulama Association of Malaysia made the proposal on February 16. The association has also urged Muslims to stay away from religious festivals of non-Muslims, following Prime Minister Najib Razak’s visit to a Hindu celebration recently. The visit has started a debate on whether Muslims can attend a religious celebration of other religions.
“Surely we know what we as Muslims can and cannot do, from our religious education. Or is this an admission that these ulama (Muslim scholars) have not been doing their job in educating us, that we should be ignorant to this day?” Marina said.
“Guidelines can be a very helpful tool in promoting harmony and avoiding misunderstandings,” admitted Reverend Eu Hong Seng, president of the National Evangelical
Christian Fellowship Malaysia.
“But in the hands of narrow-minded and overzealous people who want to issue edicts to other religious groups disguised as ‘guidelines,’ this is sure to prove disastrous,” he warned.
Reverend Thomas Philips, president of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, said the proposed guidelines are not necessary.
“There are sufficient laws to safeguard the interests of all communities,” he said, adding that talk of barring Muslims from visiting religious celebrations of non-Muslims “creates more suspicion when attempts are encouraged to maintain unity and harmony.”
A prominent Muslim scholar, however, said such guidelines are needed today because politicians have abused Islam.
Asri Zainul Abidin, a former state mufti (Muslim cleric), told media on February 19 that Muslim politicians from both ruling and opposition parties have accused each other of being un-Islamic for political gain.
In his view, guidelines would clarify what kind of participation in celebrations of other religions is permitted in Islam, based on knowledge and not on emotion.
Other Muslim clerics have said such guidelines need to be very limited in scope – covering only non-Muslim religious rituals and not cultural practices.
(2) Has Malaysia violated international law?, 20 February 2012
The deportation of a Saudi national has significant human rights implications
by Joachim Francis Xavier, Kuala Lumpur
Hamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old Saudi Arabian columnist, published a number of tweets earlier this month expressing his religious views pertaining to the Prophet Mohammed. These tweets went viral after it was deemed to be insulting to the Prophet and Islam.
Within 24 hours, the tweets drew over 30,000 responses, mostly negative. A Facebook page titled “Saudi people want punishment of Hamza” grew to more than 20,000 members. Before Hamza could wrap his head around what he had done, calls for his death were echoing in cyberspace and the print media.
Fearing for his life, Kashgari fled his country on February 7. He was to transit in Malaysia before heading to New Zealand. However, Malaysian authorities detained him upon his arrival at Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
On February 12, Kashgari was deported in a private plane to Saudi Arabia after a formal request was made to the Malaysian Home Ministry for his extradition to face apostasy charges. This deportation was done despite attempts by Kashgari’s lawyers in Malaysia to block the deportation via a court order and also UNHCR’s request to interview Kashgari over claims that he was an asylum seeker.
During this time, Malaysia once again adorned the pages of newspapers around the world for the wrong reason – violation of yet another international law.
Kashgari was claiming his right to protection under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) or alternatively under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to Status of Refugees. Both instruments employing different words embody the international human rights principle of non-refoulement, or “prohibition to return.” Kashgari was claiming his right not to be deported for fear of being persecuted for his beliefs, in this case his religious opinions concerning the Prophet Mohammed.
Apart from that, Kashgari was very likely also asserting other related rights under the UDHR, namely Article 19 (freedom of expression), Article 3 (right to life) and Article 10 (right to a fair and public hearing).
Notwithstanding difficult questions as to whether there were actual violations of these rights or whether these human rights are absolute rights or not, it suffices to say that the circumstances surrounding Kashgari’s desperate departure from Saudi Arabia would at the very least entitle him to the Article 14 right.
Practically, this means that Kashgari should have at least been allowed access to the UNHCR staff in Kuala Lumpur so that the agency could make an objective assessment if he was indeed deserving of protection. According to press reports on February 16, UNHCR spokesperson in Kuala Lumpur Yante Ismail said “…Kashgari may have had legitimate claims to seek asylum but we were not granted access to verify the claim.”
Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein defended the move to deport Kashgari saying, “Malaysia is not a safe haven for not only terrorists [but also] wanted people.” He went on to say that Malaysia was not a safe country for criminal activities. How does a minister in charge of law and order ignore altogether the possibility that people like Kashgari may actually have a right protected by law?
Perhaps the Malaysian government does not think that it is bound by international laws such as the UDHR and the 1951 Convention. Malaysia is not a signatory to the 1951 Convention, and the convention is not widely seen as one that has attained the ranks of customary international law (which binds all states regardless of whether they are signatories to it or not). So, it is possible that the Malaysian government does not see itself bound by it, at least not in so far as domestic law is concerned.
However, Malaysia is a signatory of the UDHR. Although the UDHR itself is not wholly incorporated into domestic law by an Act of Parliament, s.4(4) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999 allows “regard to be had to the UDHR to the extent it is not inconsistent to the Federal Constitution.” This being the case, surely the good minister should have “had regard” to Article 14 of the UDHR, especially since there is no obvious inconsistency with the Federal Constitution and that there is a UNHCR office located right in the center of Kuala Lumpur. The argument that international law does not apply locally is at best a specious one.
Alternatively, did economics weigh in on the decision to comply meekly with the extradition request of Saudi Arabia, a major bilateral trading partner? In 2010, Malaysia’s total trade with Saudi Arabia increased by 38 percent to US$2.896 billion from $1.923 billion in 2009. Foreign Direct Investments from Saudi Arabia are also on the rise. Malaysia is an important tourist destination for thousands of Saudi Arabian nationals flush with cash and looking for a place to spend it.
Let’s consider another possibility. Would it be going too far to suggest that the Malaysian authorities deported Kashgari under dubious circumstances because it wanted to circumvent the rule of law? Human Rights Watch and Charles Santiago, an opposition member of parliament, both confirmed that Malaysia and Saudi Arabia had no formal extradition arrangements. So how was this extradition done so efficiently and under what legal framework?
Then there is the claim by Kashgari’s lawyers in Malaysia that there are no official records of their client’s departure from Kuala Lumpur International Airport. This is bizarre for a country that prides itself on numerous e-government endeavors. Surely there must be an electronic record at the airport or immigration department. What about the private plane that landed in Kuala Lumpur International Airport and later took off with its prized cargo? Records of its flight number, time, refueling or anything at all? How is it possible that someone can be deported and yet there is no trace of such a departure?
The talk is that no records can exist because if they did, they would shed some light on the question of whether the authorities had acted in contempt of a court order secured by Kashgari’s lawyers on the very same day of his deportation. What if the records showed that Kashgari was deported an hour or two after the court order was served? Would that not be embarrassing if not demonstrating outright illegal actions?
Finally, did politics have anything to do with this? It is common knowledge that the United Malays National Organisation that dominates the ruling coalition has waged an ongoing but stale battle with the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party to win the hearts and minds of the majority Muslim voters in Malaysia. Could it be that deporting Kashgari was political posturing?
Now that Kashgari is in the hands of Saudi Arabian officials, we can only hope that he receives a fair trial and his life is spared. Yes, there is hope. His lawyer in Saudi Arabia, Sulaiman al-Jomaii, was reported to have said it is possible his client would not be executed so long as he repents of his “apostasy.” If that happens, Kashgari gains another opportunity to tell his story.
As for Malaysia, if the Kashgari fiasco was an opportunity to set its human rights track record right, especially concerning asylum seekers and refugees, she surely missed it … again.
Joachim Francis Xavier is a legally trained social activist who has worked with the Catholic Diocese of Penang for over 10 years. He now serves as chairperson of the Malaysian bishops’ Episcopal Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerants
2. The Malaysian Insider（http://www.themalaysianinsider.com）
A criticism of Islamic practices in Malaysia, 21 February 2012
by Syazwan Zainal
is a reluctant law student at The University of Warwick, writer-wannabe, actor-aspirant, professional procrastinator who dreams of winning the Academy Award for Best Actor and Nobel Prize for Literature. He is a fierce idealist and non-conformist and would love to rid the world of football. He also writes for CEKU at www.ceku.org.
FEB 21 — I count myself blessed to have been able to attend Projek Amanat Negara 2012 in London recently. It never occurred to me that such an event, stimulating though it might have seemed to many of us in the UK, would be illegal if it were organised in a Malaysian varsity. But that is an article for another day.
I was very interested in Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz’s speech on intellectual arrogance. At a glance, the title does suggest that the writer is an arrogant airhead living in his own bubble. But after consulting the dictionary, I thought the word “criticism” was apt.
This article is a humble attempt to point out what appears to me to be the faults of Islamic practices in Malaysia whilst trying to keep my feet planted firmly on earth.
A few examples are given. Needless to say these are non-exhaustive. This is not a comprehensive assessment of Islamic practices in Malaysia. It should also be noted that these are not “Islamic” practices per se, but rather an anti-intellectual culture that is embedded in our psyche as axiomatically non-Islamic.
It is not the intent of the writer to leave out our fellow Malaysians who are non-Muslims. I am merely concerned that a substantial number of Muslims are allowing these dangerous idle practices to foster. Indeed I think it would do the nation good if our non-Muslim friends would give us constructive criticism and if need be, slap some sense into us.
Christmas Day is haram
At a time when Europe is fiercely atheistic, it is laughable that some commentators still invoke Christianity as the justification for the complete ban on Muslims to celebrate Christmas. If you want to make a case against something, at least make sure that the case would be able to withstand public scrutiny. It might appear that you are merely doling out these edicts and invoking the most convenient stereotype as an excuse.
Personally I do not see anything particularly wrong with joining in another faith’s celebration as long as one’s faith is not compromised. I hardly think that to have a Christmas tree inside your house and to exchange presents on December 25 each year counts as a radical departure of faith.
Besides, Christianity is probably the last thing on the minds of many of the people who celebrate Christmas each year. Christmas is wildly popular in Japan and China even though, Christianity is merely the minority religion in both countries.
As I have stated above, many Europeans are atheists yet they still celebrate Christmas. The celebration then is not a manifestation of their faith in Christianity but rather to have a festival where they can celebrate together as family and friends.
Intellectual discourse
We seem to put certain quarters of society on a pedestal; beyond criticism. This indeed is a dangerous development. I concede that insult and criticism should be clearly distinguished. When the American legal system ruggedly protects the right to insult (which I personally disagree with), some quarters in Malaysia unfortunately are even curtailing criticism based on intellectual discourse.
Even though this is done merely through societal pressure and not via legal sanctions, I would argue that this is dangerous, as it would stifle debate. Quite a number of us Muslims for example seem to think that just because an individual holds an opinion dissimilar to an ulama, it becomes an act worthy of condemnation.
I remember a particularly controversial moment during the Projek Amanat Negara. A participant pointedly dismissed Zainah Anwar as unworthy of commenting on Islamic law simply because she did not have an Islamic Law degree.
At first glance, this may seem like an understandable criticism on the part of the participant. But it does give us an indication that there is a notion existing amongst society that there are certain things beyond our discussion and debate (note that I am not talking about insults here but rather intellectual discourse).
Zainah’s answer — I thought — was simple and all encompassing. She responded by arguing that if Islam is to become a source of law or public policy, then its different interpretations must also be open to debate and discussion with the public as a whole.
Before any zealots out there start wielding their knives and get ready to run amok at the audacity of such a statement, it should be noted that even Khalifah Umar al-Khattab (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) allowed public criticism of his policy and went on to change it.
It was reported that when Umar wanted to put a maximum cap on the amount of Mahr for marriages, a woman stood up and invoked a verse from the Quran establishing that the Mahr is the right of the woman, hence the Caliph had no authority or power to put a cap on the amount of Mahr. Umar immediately agreed and discontinued the policy.
All Muslims can attest based on the countless stories and anecdotes that Umar and the rest of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. are all Islamic intellectuals in their own right. It would seem that by extension, criticism of a government policy, even if it is based on an Islamic injunction, is not wrong per se.
Indeed it is pertinent for the development of society to have completely free and informed discussion of all issues involved. Insult of course should be discouraged. But it would be gloom and doom if one cannot even discuss an issue that is of public interest openly and in an intellectual manner.
The bigger picture
I concede I may be wrong in my opinion, but that is unimportant. Truthfully the only reason why I write in the first place is to spark debate and discussion. Nothing more.
The day when we as Malaysians in general and Muslims in particular, concede our right and obligation to think and debate on our two feet is the day when we cease to become functioning servants of God and citizens. So intent are we at ensuring that the details of the majestic portrait is not missed that we fail to grasp the beauty of the picture as a whole.
・The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.
(End)
