ҜαίخόρЋЯзпїα™
This is NOT a blog! 
Loading...
The Federal Court refused to recognise Lina Joy's conversion from Muslim to Christianity, to the thunderous applause of the sea of Muslim Youth Movement members outside Palace of Justice, Putrajaya yesterday.
Isn't that a defeat for secularism and constitutionalism in this country? The Federal Court, being the highest court in the country should make decisions based on evidence and fact rather by religious influence (ie. being secular) and respect an individual's fundamental freedom to practice the religion of his/her choice (ie. being constitutional).
Why subject Lina Joy to the Syariah Court when she's not a Muslim (she was baptised in 1998)? It now seems they want syariah to apply to non-Muslims, or at least former Muslims in their midst, too!
The Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said in his ruling, "She cannot at her own whim simply enter or leave her religion." And I thought the verse "Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan" in the Rukunegara was the freedom to practice religion of one's choice.
The court ruled 2-1 against the defendant: Both judges in the majority were Muslim, while the only non-Muslim in the court (Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum) argued passionately that Malaysia's highest law should be constitutional and secular, and criticising the NRD’s act as “unconstitutional and discriminatory”. Bravo Justice Richard. We heart you!
Watch the news coverage here (Windows Media Player required)
[UPDATE 01.06.07]
Just to make things clear, since there's a hot debate going on in my spit-back section. What I meant to say was,NO court or authority (be it Syariah Court or politicians dan yg. lain-lain) should be easily allowed to have implied powers to curtail rights that are constitutionally granted. The Federal Constitution is and must remain in law, supreme. In an event of any inconsistency or conflict between the provisions of State Enactments and of the Federal Constitution, the latter must prevail.
This I quote from the Bar Council's say on the decision made by the High Court.
Read more on Lina's case here:
• The Star
• International Herald Tribune
Friday, June 01, 2007
Secularism
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (RSS)
30 spit-backs:
I think because she's an ex-muslim, that's why she is subjected to syariah law. Nobody gets out of Islam easily in this country. Even if you do, your life won't be any easier, u'll be despised. So i think our rukun negara's first verse 'Kepercayaan kpd Tuhan' is no different to 'Kepecayaan kpd Allah'...
ex-muslim means non-muslim lah. she was already baptised by a Catholic church, y they all still so extreme. once a Muslim means hav to give up ur basic rights! kuku besi sial! monarchy or democratic?
i agree with u on your last point. very soon they wil change it to that.
Reading your post, I'm guessing you got most of the info from Star. If that's the newspaper you're reading from, I'm sure you've read page 4 as well. On that page, the President of ABIM clearly said it shouldn't be viewed as a win for Muslims and loss for non-muslims. Instead it should be looked "as a rejection of segments to radically revamp the current formula built on mutual understanding and social realties of the Malaysian society."
This is not kuku besi. In Islam, apostasy is forbidden and is punishable. Unlike religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or Buddhism (I only know deeply about these 5, including Islam), there is not scripture stating apostasy is forbidden nor it is punishable. If there are, please state the sources so I may look it up. Thus far, I've discovered none (and I do read a lot).
The problem that may arise, should this case stand, is that it will serve as a gateway to legitimize apostasy. This is a Federal Court case, bear that in mind. It is theoretically possible that this case stand.
But this will contradict with the practice of Islam. Irregardless it being the nation's official religion, this will cause an uproar worldwide.
Having to refuse the case by the 2 other judges, is by no mean an attack to other religion, or an impingement to human rights. I believe they have made a good call, as they are literate n both fields.
Secularism may only be practiced to such extent. It can never trump faith and religious beliefs.
Freedom of faith means that I don't go to your houses and ask for faith conversion at gun-point. Lina Joy's Federal Court case has got nothing to to with freedom of the practice of faith.
Do educate yourselves with some knowledge about Islam before passing any judgment on it. It is deceivingly easy to say something and say it correctly.
Nope, most of my info was from online international news such as IHT and Chron.com. How can The Star, which is goverment-controlled, publish such controversial issues? :)
Do check out how the world view this case, as opposed to the "worldwide uproar" on apostasy as ur predicting. We're talking about secularism here dude, about basic fundamental human rights, without religious influence to it. It's Federal COurt after all. If it doesn't practise secularism and constitutionalism, what's the point of having separate courts (ie Syariah & Federal?). I do understand your point on apostasy.
Anyway this is how I see it. You may have ur point and I have mine. It's not my intention to ridicule other religions here.
That's the challenge in Muslim countries. Live with it or go elsewhere.
The Malaysian Constitution itself is so very self-contradictory. It defends freedom of religion and yet declares Islam as the official religion. Does a person has the right to change his/her faith?? If a muslim doesn't have the right to leave islam and follow christ, buddhism, hinduism, etc., then how can that country claim to have religious freedom??!
Now that Malaysia's High Court ruled that Shariah law takes precedence over civil laws, it seems to me that the future of the country is tipped towards Islamization.
What do you think, azman?
im not taking sides in this, but is there a need to be rude? asking someone to educate themselves in Islam as if he knows a great deal in everything. the blog is not a place to pick a fight, so let's be neutral and courteous shall we?
another sign of being brainwashed by gahmen!!!
it really puzzles me as to why muslims get so defensive once a subject on religion arises..even more when a non muslim raises the issue..its like no matter the issue be right or wrong we as non muslims will never get the last word...we are expected to only talk hush hush bout religion while other are able to preach and state whatever they choose to without any limitations and sometimes without logic...my take on the case is that if she no longer believes in her muslim faith she should be given the choice to her own religion....lets be open minded here and be less traditional...whats the point of having 50 yrs of independence if our mindset is behind 50 yrs!
Expat in m'sia,
Yes. You are right. The Malaysian Constitution is self-contradictory. I had a long discussion with a colleague, a law student, and we had to agree the constitution is as such. Which is why the president of ABIM rightly put it as 'mutual understanding and social realties' of Malaysians. Take the British Constitution. The beauty of it is that it is not written. Seems impossible isn't it for a nation not to have a written constitution. It works for them, however, as it has been mutually agreed on since the very beginning and is being carried on till this very day.
What I believe the Federal court is doing is making Lina Joy find a corner to sit on in a round room. Federal Court gave its reason, NRD is the the governing body that decides one's a Muslim. They leave it to the Syariah court. I know what the Syariah court will do next; not approve Lina's appeal. She is trapped in a legal crack. To me, I see it as the safest way, not th best way though.
How I see it, what Lina is doing is trying to front a movement that will make her remembered. A renegade, if I may use that word. As far as practicing a religion goes, she may go on practicing her faith in Christianity (I'm saying this with a bitter tinge on my tongue, but who am I to judge). The 'beef' she has with the NRD is the word 'Islam' on her I/C, which is almost an entirely different issue than freedom of practicing faith.
rachel,
The downside of internet is that it is impossible for me to vocalize the tone of what I mean to say. I apologize. I hoped I could write better English. I should've used different words in order to get my points across with the accurate expression. I meant to say, what I said earlier, in the most humbling and courteous manner.
But think for a moment, which is more rude? To request to be accurate, or to say something without the slightest idea of what it really is? I don't accuse anyone here of ridiculing any religion. What I hope to do is to shed light onto some shady areas.
And to make things clear, I don't pick sides. I study whatever there are available, and formulate my own conclusion.
Foot in mouth. Second paragraph, 3rd line on my previous post. What I meant to say was: NRD is NOT the governing body...
Ooops, looks like i've opened the pandora's box.
Azman, juz got hold of today's Star. Read page 4, but din find the ABIM thingy u said earlier.
But i support what Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said, "What's the point of keeping a person a Muslim if they no longer believed in the faith and made that publicly known?".
The title of the following article on the same page reads, "Bar Council: Federal Constitution must remain supreme", which I believe is quite identical with what I wanted to voice out in my post here, although I din put it in exact words.
Din know this post is gonna be so hangat. Could it be the photo that accompany this post that i've uploaded?... i wonder... :)
Azman, i was juz gona pick up my phone and ask u to explain bout the NRD governing Muslim thingy... hehe.
KK,
On Constitution to remain supreme. As I had agree earlier and as expat put it, it self-contradicts at some point. Islam is the official religion, according the Constitution. Now, should any component of Islam being put on fire, shouldn't the Constitution feel the heat too?
I hate to put it that way, having the Constitution higher than the faith I practice. But the way I see it, it's a way against the Constitution. Though not many will agree with me.
The founding fathers of malaysia left the constitution deliberately vague, unwilling to upset any of the three ethnic groups dominant at the time of independence from Britain 50 years ago, and the situation was muddied further with the constitution describing malaysia as a secular state but recognising islam as the official religion. what is constitution but a set of rules and political principles dictated by men?
azman sounded to me as confused and delusional as the muslim men outside the malaysian high court.
unwritten constitution only seem impossible in a confused malaysia. it worked from where i came from!
-expat fr britain.
In a way, we're still trying to clean up the mess J.W.W. Birch left behind. Hmmm. Interesting.
wa...looks like kk hit a jackpot to increase his blog traffic! Expecting more sensitive & political posts to come ya? anyway, i firmly agree with expat in m'sia's 'That's the challenge in Muslim countries. Live with it or go elsewhere.' well said. well said.
"Secularism may only be practiced to such extent. It can never trump faith and religious beliefs."
Does this fucktard know what he's blabbering about?
fuck star,and fuck nst.pro govt papers,never excite me one way or another.the lina joy case,its so obvious how that scene is gonna end,i dunno wats the fuss all about.as if she has a chance to win the case at all.
if u wana have an off the cuff talk,then talk.but non muslim and non bumis are always under the threat of imprisonment whenever sensitive issues r raised.JWW BIRCH? stop blaming the white men all the time man.i mean,yeah,those imperialist pigs can fuck off and die.but look at urself,n find the mistakes.UM outside the top 200 universities? surely thats not the job of the white men.there r so many things to talk about,which concern us more,than this lina joy case.the central issue will always be racial.r u kidding me? the lina joy case is purely racial.only the power to be wants u n me to think that it is religious,which isnt,at all.when u talk about anything in this country,its always racial.i have no beef with islam.i have beef with racial segregation,racial exploitation and all forms of racial inequality.once u recognised the racial factor as the root problem,then we can have an off the cuff chat.but if u wanna limit the talk to religion,too bad.and dear azman,reading widely dont mean shit when u r talking bout religion.u think the sunnis and the shiite leaders dun read as deep as u? then why the fuck r they killing each other every single day? u can read the entire volume of buddhist scripture 1000 times.but there will b 1 billion other buddhist who disagree with u.so face up with reality.what u believe,religiosly,is between u n ur god.keep it that way.now,how u treat ppl of other colour,is more real than how u communicate with ur imaginary god.keep this religion crap aside,bring in the racial issue now.
Expat in M'sia: do agree with u on what u said on the constitution.
Azman: again, sounds contradicting ain't it, constitution and being constitutional. if u still regard all this is about apostasy & putting Islam on fire, so be it. this post is on secularism, in which in the first place means nothing to do with religions anyway. On your earlier demand of scriptures stating apostasy, u may wanna read more deeply on Judaism. The Book of Deuteromy (the second address (12-26) known also as the Deuteronomic Code) include such law as "The death penalty is prescribed for following other gods." Not sure if this is still practised in present day though. And let's not go to JWW Birch.
Bullslayer_lee: not my intention to increase traffic flow by postin sensitive issues, hahaha. but am surprised with the sudden voice-outs fr the silent readers.
Anonymous: no name calling pls.
Anonymous: such a longish comment! interesting arguments. mind providin more details beside "anonymous"? :)
religion,in any part of the world,is just an extension of the ruling govt.a means of the ruling govt.just like the leaders in PAS once said:kalao tak undi PAS,tidak boleh naik syurga.for those who r not well verse in politics,thats a foolish comment to be made.but for those who know some sense,thats perfectly in tune with what i have said earlier.to convince ppl that the ruling govt has the mandate to rule,to dictate,they(the govt) always use religion as an instrument.in a wider pretext,it is used to protect the ruling govt,and since the ruling govt in this country is always choosen via racial line,and not on religious line,we can conclude,therefore,religious issues serve the racial factor,which is the main problem after all.stop hiding behind the wall of religion.bring on some real issues.i have no prob whatsoever with islam being the official religion in this country.anything can be the official religion.coz i know,that dont mean shit.lets not get carried away with constitution and complicated stuff.lets not talk about how the constitution in UK works for them n stuff.lets talk about what is stated in the constitution instead.what is stated clearly in the constitution is that the bumis are the protected racial group in this country.protected in the sense that they have the privillage on everything.again,i have no prob with that.i mean,its logical for an ethnic-conscious group to feel threatened by their own weakness.to protect their rights,to bring their ppl up.hell if im a bumi,i wont mind that as well.but the ques here is,to what extent can that clause be applied? how far can it be carried? how extreme can that statement alone goes? off the hook talk man.off the cuff.time to fest up to what is real.
walaoweh, how can a simple discussion on the High Courts decision spur debates on British constitution, JWW Birch, racism, and now the bumi privileges?
can talk somethin less stressful onot? like Andy Lau, Aaron Kwok, dat kinda thing...
I personally think that if i were to look at the case on religious and racial issue it will not resolves the issue. The main issue here is the Law...Malaysia have a written constitution and the advantage of the written constitution is to provide certainty unlike the unwritten constitution, though unwritten have its advantages which is flexibility but it will lead to uncertainty and absurdity too. According to the Rule of law by A.V Dicey there is nothing above the law so the constitution is still supreme although Islam is the the official religion but that doesn't make it the main consideration in a judicial interpretive situation and i see no reasons why the constitution are not being followed. Wouldn't the decision a bit absurd that she can practice her religion but the religion on the I.c is still not changed that its only a cosmetic tinkering i.e change in name and not substance and when dispute arises where should she seek her redress? Civil or Syariah? then what is the point of having federal court ?
mr s: my exact sentiments. period.
Sorry may i should not dwell on this issue to much looking at the the hot responses! I find your blog very interesting and its really reading it.
correction:
Sorry maybe i should not dwell on this issue anymore looking at the responses you got and perhaps its a provocative issue. I seriously find your blog very interesting and its fun reading it....hope u don't mind that for invading your blog....
mr s: the pleasure is all mine! tks for visiting and pls do continue spitting-back, be it hot or cold, rain or shine.
hv a great wkend ya!
:)
Thought this may be a good read, click here.
Anytime you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that Party can’t keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you’re dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that Party, you’re not only a chump, but you’re a traitor to your race you fuckas.
...Now back during the days when you were blind, deaf, and dumb, ignorant, politically immature, naturally you went along with that. But today as your eyes come open, and you develop political maturity, you’re able to see and think for yourself...
read this:
http://www.jeffooi.com/2007/06/post_56.php
Excerpt from the abovementioned article:
The right to freedom of religion is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Islam. This is emphasised in verse 256 of Sura al-Baqara: "Let there be no compulsion in religion". However, the majority of classical Muslim jurists opine that the right to freedom of religion is not applicable to Muslims, that Muslims who intend to leave the Islamic faith or who have apostatised should be condemned to the death penalty.
In reality, punishment for apostasy is not prescribed in the Qur'an and had not been practised by the Prophet (S.A.W.). Instead, the Prophet (S.A.W.) had imposed the death penalty upon apostates because their acts were contemptuous of, and hostile towards, Islam. Muslims who merely renounced the Islamic religion were only required to undergo a process of repentance (tawba). The right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. However, as Islamic matters belong to the state jurisdictions, most provisions in relation to apostasy are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shari'a Courts. Apostates are subject to punishments such as fine, imprisonment and whipping.
Post a Comment