Let Syariah Court deal with issue
IKIM VIEWS
By Dr WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD,Senior Fellow/Director,Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science, Ikim
Matters pertaining to Islamic law must be referred to the Syariah Court, as it is the main body entrusted with administering justice according to the confines of Islam.
ALL the hue and cry prior to and after the Federal Court’s judgment in the Lina Joy case are manifestations of ignorance, arrogance and sheer defiance of logic. It once again proves that the most unsettling problem afflicting our people is the problem of knowledge.
It’s alarming to encounter certain individuals or groups of people are ignorant of their ignorance and yet are bold enough to indulge in matters alien to their understanding. To further exacerbate the confusion, they choose to remain obstinate by discarding authority, i.e. true knowledge and erudite scholarship.
As was adjudicated in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, the case of Lina Joy is primarily administrative in nature. It essentially deals with the question of conversion procedure – whether or not a Muslim has to obtain a decree from the Syariah Court confirming one's apostasy.
A lot of people appear to consciously reject the fact that this country practices a dual legal system of parallel status – civil and syariah. This unique system is sanctioned, among others, by the Ninth Schedule and further bolstered by Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the country.
When it comes to matters pertaining to Islamic law, they must be referred to the Syariah Court, as it is the main body entrusted with administering justice according to the confines of Islam.
Conversion out of Islam is part of Islamic law, and therefore the Syariah Court is the only proper platform to resolve the issue. It is hard to believe that some people simply refuse to deal with the Syariah Court, assuming that justice will be denied.
The law is simple and straightforward. There is no need to complicate matters by manipulating the issues to the extent of threatening national unity. If one is not happy with any decision of any subordinate Syariah Court, then one may appeal. But some seem to already admit defeat without even trying.
It is amazing to learn that segments of our learned citizens throw their allegiance to a “foreign” law as compared to our readily available own internal legal provisions.
It is well and good to acknowledge the superiority of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) over our Federal Constitution, namely with regard to the freedom of religion.
But it appears to run foul if one were to make the same recognition, say, with the provisions of holy scriptures: the Bible, the Vedas, and particularly the Quran and Sunnah.
Many do not realise that in adopting any international document, we must first examine if it is binding. The UDHR is not legally binding even in countries which have agreed to adopt it.
Furthermore, in the Malaysian context, section 4(4) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999 clearly provides that the application of any external laws must be filtered through the Federal Constitution.
Certainly, apostasy is currently the hottest issue at stake; it is an internal legal problem. Like it or not, in order to resolve the issue, we must first acknowledge and apply all rules and laws available in our own backyard. The so-called international law only plays a persuasive role that may be referred to as a guide, not the determining factor.
One must not approach apostasy strictly from its constitutional or civil legal perspective alone. Religious representation must be given, if not more, at least an equal consideration.
In the case of Muslim apostates and those who support them (especially fellow Muslims), it is inconceivable that they would willingly leave Islam or give tremendous support if they properly understood the religion of Islam.
This holds true even to the followers of other religions. One will only renounce one's own religion as a result of utter ignorance, frustration or disenchantment.
First and foremost, Muslims must understand that they have chosen Islam consciously and willingly as a result of understanding and knowledge. Even Muslims cannot take things for granted believing that they are Muslims simply by birth.
All Muslims, either by birth or by conversion, must be made to realise that they have actually entered into a primordial covenant with God in the supernatural realm long before they were born to this world.
And this divine contract, i.e. the pledge of recognition, trust and allegiance between all human souls and God, is recorded in the Quran, namely, in Surah al-A’raf (7): 172.
This recognition and trust needs to be observed accordingly. In fact, this is the very foundation where all aspects of human life originate. None can ever claim that he/she is not aware of this spiritual contract, as the Quran is the reminder.
Therefore, once a Muslim breaches this divine contract, he is subject to a certain kind of religious remedial measure or punishment. This situation is very similar to that of commercial transactions where, for instance, those who breach contracts are punished in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in their agreements.
In the case of the Islamic legal system, there are provisions available pertaining to apostasy. If a crime takes place, then all parties involved are required to abide by them. In fact, every aspect of life, including the issue of freedom, has to be understood and exercised within the framework of religious parameters.
Certainly, the availability of fixed rules and regulations do not negate the possible and necessary modifications in the manifestations of justice according to Islam.
One of the substantial differences between Islam and the other religions is that, the latter possibly do not speak of a divine primordial covenant. This explains why the question of leaving one's religion for another is never an issue in non-Islamic religious traditions.
Muslims must not become Muslims simply because they are born within Muslim families or societies. For the converted Muslims, the motivation must not be for personal gain, be it in the form of marriage or other socio-economic and political benefits.
It is never too late to rectify any wrong once it is discovered. Gradually he/she must make efforts to increase his/her knowledge about Islam. In this regard, other Muslims, especially the loved ones (husbands, wives, parents, etc.), or those responsible for the conversion, must assist him/her along the way.
With proper understanding of religion, one will not easily leave religion for mundane reasons. A lack of compassion on the part of the Muslims will perhaps stifle any attempt to call the other to Islam.
20/06: Lina Joy - Response to IKIM's Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad
Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra
Farouk A. Peruhttp://www.jidal.org/
The issue of Lina Joy's attempt to have 'Islam' struck off her MyKad has once again raised its head, this time by IKIM's senior fellow, Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad who is the Director of Ikim's Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science. The authority in this article is significant, given the qualifications of its writer but its message is basically the same. In essence what is being said is this : we are right and Lina Joy is wrong to leave us and that's why she can't and so please don't interfere with this.
Wan first laments the people who are 'ignorant of their ignorance' yet still choose to protest without 'true knowledge and erudite scholarship'. We hope that Wan himself would provide this much needed 'true knowledge and erudite scholarship' we lack so much.
1. Wan asserts that most people are ignorant of the fact Malaysia functions on both a Civil and Shariah legal system. In matters pertaining to Islam, which by the way includes apostasy, the Shariah court must take precedence.
My response:
a. There is a problem of logical consistency in the constitution. Lina Joy is a Malaysian and so is subject to freedom of religion but she is also a Malay and constitutionally defined as a Muslim. This contradiction in our constitution must be addressed.
b. Shariah law is not a monolithic entity without disagreements. In fact, the first source of Shariah itself is universally (if titularly) acknowledged to be the Quran, yet there is no agreement at all on how the Quran should be utillised as a source. The Quran gives complete freedom of religion and if like Ibn Abbas (who asserted that punishment for theft was clearly in the Quran and so cannot be changed), we limit the law to the Quran itself, Shariah courts should give Lina Joy complete freedom of religion
2. Wan expresses astonishment that many Malaysians have supported the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which he calls a 'foreign law' yet do not express the same support for 'the Quran and Sunnah' . He goes on to say that that this 'foreign law' must be filtered through the Federal Constitution.
My response:
a. If the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then any attempt of Shariah law to encroach upon the domain of Federal Laws must be seen as we see UDHR, as something to be filtered. Why make fish of one and fowl of the other?
b. If you claim that in the matters pertaining to Shariah, it must take precedence then why do you limit the matters to simply martial issues and apostasy. Shariah law was never meant to be limited to those issues but encompasses even matters considered part of criminal law. Futhermore, classically Shariah law is not limited to Muslims alone but is for everyone. Why do you only choose to apply the apostasy law while forgetting the rest? Why do you not claim these attributes as also part of Sharia Law and call to abrogate the Federal Constitution altogether?
3. Wan invites Lina Joy to apply to leave Islam via Shariah courts.
My response:
a. Is it not true that this act would be considered by the court to be insulting Islam? Can Lina Joy be penalised and thrown in jail?
b. What is the criteria for the court to say 'yes' to Lina Joy? What is the justification of this criteria?
5. Wan further claims that civil and legal representation isn't enough. 'Religious representation must be given, if not more, at least an equal consideration.In the case of Muslim apostates and those who support them (especially fellow Muslims), it is inconceivable that they would willingly leave Islam or give tremendous support if they properly understood the religion of Islam.'
'My Response:
a. What if the individual gives no credibility to his religion? Can we force the individual to accept 'religious representation' when she considers it to be without credibility? How can anyone tell any other person how much credibility to give a religious body?
b. While you may consider it inconceivable for Muslim apostates to leave 'if they properly understood', can you be so arrogant as to claim that you have imparted upon them a proper understanding. Even the messenger himself was not never to be a compeller but to remind (Qaf, 45).
6. Wan goes on to make a rather interesting claim, 'This holds true even to the followers of other religions. One will only renounce one's own religion as a result of utter ignorance, frustration or disenchantment.
My response:
a. This is a wonderfully egalitarian claim. To show how much you believe in this, we have to make conversion INTO Islam illegal as well. Furthermore, we have to convince all potential Muslim converts that they are 'in utter ignorance, frustrated or disenchanted'. Can we do this?
7. The most preposterous of Wan's claim is the following, where he claims that Muslims 'must be made to realise that they have actually entered into a primordial covenant with God in the supernatural realm long before they were born to this world'. Since 'None can ever claim that he/she is not aware of this spiritual contract, as the Quran is the reminder',when a Muslim 'breaches this divine contract, he is subject to a certain kind of religious remedial measure or punishment. This situation is very similar to that of commercial transactions where, for instance, those who breach contracts are punished in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in their agreements.'
My response:
a. How does Wan know that the apostate-to-be has read the Quran or even believes in it. What if the person rejects this objectively unverifiable statement by the Quran?
b. Even if Lina Joy was consciously a Muslim before, how can we know that she truly understood Islam. There are many slogans by Muslim preachers about how fair Islam is and how liberating for women. What if Lina Joy consciously practised Islam then found out that some Muslims believe that it's ok to beat their wives or that some Shariah lawyers believe that a Muslim can never be convicted of killing a non-Muslim?
c. Even if we could verify this metaphysical (and therefore empirically unverifiable) information by the Quran about the divine contract, how do we know that it is Wan and his friends who are appointed to carry out the law? Have they taken that authority without any authority from Allah.Any way you slice it, this case exposes the bigotry of our Islamic establishments.
They have to make the following assumptions before they have deduced what they did about Lina Joy, namely:
a. That Islam is the ultimate truth. (While believers in the Quran believe this, they are in no way to force anyone to accept it)
b. That their interpretation of shariah law is correct (even though the Quran gives complete freedom of religion) and no one else has any right to question that interpretation.
c. That they have the ability to consel anyone from leaving Islam (even though the Quran tells us that even the Prophet could not guide those whom he loved)
c. That they are preaching Islam correctly people (even though they refuse to entertain any questioning about what they pass of as 'islamic')I urge Muslims to please check the Quran for yourself and see how it vehemently opposes this law which is being passed off as 'Islamic'. It's a shame that Wan considers those who disagree with him to be without 'true knowledge and erudite scholarship' yet preaches a ideology so contrary to the book he believes in.
Comments
wanbozo wrote:
Farouk
what Dr wan espouses in his column should be debated and question. He and many like him has skewered the idea of freedom of choice as guaranteed in the Koran. Sadly many of the Malay ummah also feel that way. This affliction effects many of our friends but many of them too believe that if Azlina Jailani wants to apostate let her be.Even Dr Wan do not understand the meaning of the death penalty for apostate as proscribe by the Ulamak of old. In a country of Daulah Islamiah, where the Koran is the constitution, the death penalty is proscribe because renouncing Islam is regarded as treason and crime against the country. Traitors has always been regarded as heinous and their acts are usually punish as a capital punishment with death. So apostate are regarded as traitors and no wonder the punishment is harsh.But in a country like ours which is an Islamic Nation not an Islamic State, this type of punishment as advocate is ridiculous, thus Tantawi which I concur with, regard apostate as personal matter and he or she should be allowed to do so. But traditionalist will always hold the view of old which sadly will regard apostasy as a crime. You as an intellectuals should be the vanguard of the malay minds so that they can make this choice with a clear and coherent understanding.
22/06 16:52:36
22/06 19:31:16
farouk wrote:
Wan,When we say our country runs on a parallel system of Civil and Shariah laws, unless we clarify further, we'd be speaking with ambiguity.Shariah law, no doubt you know functions at the most all-encompassing level. Pendek kata, if Shariah law works at 100%, then memang Civil law would cease to exist.The question right now is to determine if the 'level' of Shariah law we're at includes apostasy law or not. So to me, unless this is clarified, then civil law must take precedence as the supreme law of the land.I believe conflating apostasy law and the law of treason is wrong as you do. Treason must include actual war in the land which of course most apostates don't do. I won't even include acts like preaching other religions to Muslims because we can preach to others!I've been getting some criticism about my views on this, people calling me a 'traitor to Islam' etc etc. I'd like to say here, my reason for upholding Lina's rights is the Quran. I believe that the Quran promotes a way of life which if adhered to, will bring us peace. In the Quran, the people who say 'either you return to our religion or we'll stone you' are people who get destroyed. It must be painful for some to see Lina leaving the faith they love but this is all God's test.Many thanks for your kind words, Wan. I'm no intellectual although I'm a big admirer of some of the intellectuals here.
wanbozo wrote:
Farouk
Many thanks for you answer. I am not a person who regard you as a traitor to Islam but trouble is many Malays are emotive with their beliefs. I too espouch your idea to them but I do so by appealing to them. Malays are an emotional lot. They have an innate believe in the supernatural, thus this show they do not think with reasons but with their heart.By appealing to their heart you might achieve more, remember, the traditionalist feed them with fears that it consume them so much that they cannot think with reasons. You are a clever man farouk, your points are clear and lucid but remember you are talking to a child, whom, civilization wise is still considered young.Malays inherently is a race of peace but this they have change, unlike Indonesia, Malays here perhaps have been indoctrinate too much to fear and regard the non muslim as a bogeyman. You, Farouk must bridge the gap by promoting your views across but do so with bijaksana after all is that not one of the Sifat2 Muhammad beside Tabligh(menyampaikan)? As to the law do take heart that the late Tunku always maintain that this country is secular and is so, it is the politician who is at fault, who has open the Pandora box and now they can't close it. I believe strongly in my heart that Muslim must embrace pluralism of thoughts which is sadly missing. Dr Wan is not wrong but neither is he right. He is wrong perhaps in not embracing pluralism and thus open his mind to a different possibilities and answers.
Salam
Wan
PS it has been clarified please look at the judgment by the Chief Justice. This verdict is indeed alarming.
22/06 22:10:46
IKIM VIEWS
By Dr WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD,Senior Fellow/Director,Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science, Ikim
Matters pertaining to Islamic law must be referred to the Syariah Court, as it is the main body entrusted with administering justice according to the confines of Islam.
ALL the hue and cry prior to and after the Federal Court’s judgment in the Lina Joy case are manifestations of ignorance, arrogance and sheer defiance of logic. It once again proves that the most unsettling problem afflicting our people is the problem of knowledge.
It’s alarming to encounter certain individuals or groups of people are ignorant of their ignorance and yet are bold enough to indulge in matters alien to their understanding. To further exacerbate the confusion, they choose to remain obstinate by discarding authority, i.e. true knowledge and erudite scholarship.
As was adjudicated in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court, the case of Lina Joy is primarily administrative in nature. It essentially deals with the question of conversion procedure – whether or not a Muslim has to obtain a decree from the Syariah Court confirming one's apostasy.
A lot of people appear to consciously reject the fact that this country practices a dual legal system of parallel status – civil and syariah. This unique system is sanctioned, among others, by the Ninth Schedule and further bolstered by Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the country.
When it comes to matters pertaining to Islamic law, they must be referred to the Syariah Court, as it is the main body entrusted with administering justice according to the confines of Islam.
Conversion out of Islam is part of Islamic law, and therefore the Syariah Court is the only proper platform to resolve the issue. It is hard to believe that some people simply refuse to deal with the Syariah Court, assuming that justice will be denied.
The law is simple and straightforward. There is no need to complicate matters by manipulating the issues to the extent of threatening national unity. If one is not happy with any decision of any subordinate Syariah Court, then one may appeal. But some seem to already admit defeat without even trying.
It is amazing to learn that segments of our learned citizens throw their allegiance to a “foreign” law as compared to our readily available own internal legal provisions.
It is well and good to acknowledge the superiority of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR) over our Federal Constitution, namely with regard to the freedom of religion.
But it appears to run foul if one were to make the same recognition, say, with the provisions of holy scriptures: the Bible, the Vedas, and particularly the Quran and Sunnah.
Many do not realise that in adopting any international document, we must first examine if it is binding. The UDHR is not legally binding even in countries which have agreed to adopt it.
Furthermore, in the Malaysian context, section 4(4) of the Human Rights Commission Act 1999 clearly provides that the application of any external laws must be filtered through the Federal Constitution.
Certainly, apostasy is currently the hottest issue at stake; it is an internal legal problem. Like it or not, in order to resolve the issue, we must first acknowledge and apply all rules and laws available in our own backyard. The so-called international law only plays a persuasive role that may be referred to as a guide, not the determining factor.
One must not approach apostasy strictly from its constitutional or civil legal perspective alone. Religious representation must be given, if not more, at least an equal consideration.
In the case of Muslim apostates and those who support them (especially fellow Muslims), it is inconceivable that they would willingly leave Islam or give tremendous support if they properly understood the religion of Islam.
This holds true even to the followers of other religions. One will only renounce one's own religion as a result of utter ignorance, frustration or disenchantment.
First and foremost, Muslims must understand that they have chosen Islam consciously and willingly as a result of understanding and knowledge. Even Muslims cannot take things for granted believing that they are Muslims simply by birth.
All Muslims, either by birth or by conversion, must be made to realise that they have actually entered into a primordial covenant with God in the supernatural realm long before they were born to this world.
And this divine contract, i.e. the pledge of recognition, trust and allegiance between all human souls and God, is recorded in the Quran, namely, in Surah al-A’raf (7): 172.
This recognition and trust needs to be observed accordingly. In fact, this is the very foundation where all aspects of human life originate. None can ever claim that he/she is not aware of this spiritual contract, as the Quran is the reminder.
Therefore, once a Muslim breaches this divine contract, he is subject to a certain kind of religious remedial measure or punishment. This situation is very similar to that of commercial transactions where, for instance, those who breach contracts are punished in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in their agreements.
In the case of the Islamic legal system, there are provisions available pertaining to apostasy. If a crime takes place, then all parties involved are required to abide by them. In fact, every aspect of life, including the issue of freedom, has to be understood and exercised within the framework of religious parameters.
Certainly, the availability of fixed rules and regulations do not negate the possible and necessary modifications in the manifestations of justice according to Islam.
One of the substantial differences between Islam and the other religions is that, the latter possibly do not speak of a divine primordial covenant. This explains why the question of leaving one's religion for another is never an issue in non-Islamic religious traditions.
Muslims must not become Muslims simply because they are born within Muslim families or societies. For the converted Muslims, the motivation must not be for personal gain, be it in the form of marriage or other socio-economic and political benefits.
It is never too late to rectify any wrong once it is discovered. Gradually he/she must make efforts to increase his/her knowledge about Islam. In this regard, other Muslims, especially the loved ones (husbands, wives, parents, etc.), or those responsible for the conversion, must assist him/her along the way.
With proper understanding of religion, one will not easily leave religion for mundane reasons. A lack of compassion on the part of the Muslims will perhaps stifle any attempt to call the other to Islam.
20/06: Lina Joy - Response to IKIM's Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad
Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra
Farouk A. Peruhttp://www.jidal.org/
The issue of Lina Joy's attempt to have 'Islam' struck off her MyKad has once again raised its head, this time by IKIM's senior fellow, Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad who is the Director of Ikim's Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science. The authority in this article is significant, given the qualifications of its writer but its message is basically the same. In essence what is being said is this : we are right and Lina Joy is wrong to leave us and that's why she can't and so please don't interfere with this.
Wan first laments the people who are 'ignorant of their ignorance' yet still choose to protest without 'true knowledge and erudite scholarship'. We hope that Wan himself would provide this much needed 'true knowledge and erudite scholarship' we lack so much.
1. Wan asserts that most people are ignorant of the fact Malaysia functions on both a Civil and Shariah legal system. In matters pertaining to Islam, which by the way includes apostasy, the Shariah court must take precedence.
My response:
a. There is a problem of logical consistency in the constitution. Lina Joy is a Malaysian and so is subject to freedom of religion but she is also a Malay and constitutionally defined as a Muslim. This contradiction in our constitution must be addressed.
b. Shariah law is not a monolithic entity without disagreements. In fact, the first source of Shariah itself is universally (if titularly) acknowledged to be the Quran, yet there is no agreement at all on how the Quran should be utillised as a source. The Quran gives complete freedom of religion and if like Ibn Abbas (who asserted that punishment for theft was clearly in the Quran and so cannot be changed), we limit the law to the Quran itself, Shariah courts should give Lina Joy complete freedom of religion
2. Wan expresses astonishment that many Malaysians have supported the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which he calls a 'foreign law' yet do not express the same support for 'the Quran and Sunnah' . He goes on to say that that this 'foreign law' must be filtered through the Federal Constitution.
My response:
a. If the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then any attempt of Shariah law to encroach upon the domain of Federal Laws must be seen as we see UDHR, as something to be filtered. Why make fish of one and fowl of the other?
b. If you claim that in the matters pertaining to Shariah, it must take precedence then why do you limit the matters to simply martial issues and apostasy. Shariah law was never meant to be limited to those issues but encompasses even matters considered part of criminal law. Futhermore, classically Shariah law is not limited to Muslims alone but is for everyone. Why do you only choose to apply the apostasy law while forgetting the rest? Why do you not claim these attributes as also part of Sharia Law and call to abrogate the Federal Constitution altogether?
3. Wan invites Lina Joy to apply to leave Islam via Shariah courts.
My response:
a. Is it not true that this act would be considered by the court to be insulting Islam? Can Lina Joy be penalised and thrown in jail?
b. What is the criteria for the court to say 'yes' to Lina Joy? What is the justification of this criteria?
5. Wan further claims that civil and legal representation isn't enough. 'Religious representation must be given, if not more, at least an equal consideration.In the case of Muslim apostates and those who support them (especially fellow Muslims), it is inconceivable that they would willingly leave Islam or give tremendous support if they properly understood the religion of Islam.'
'My Response:
a. What if the individual gives no credibility to his religion? Can we force the individual to accept 'religious representation' when she considers it to be without credibility? How can anyone tell any other person how much credibility to give a religious body?
b. While you may consider it inconceivable for Muslim apostates to leave 'if they properly understood', can you be so arrogant as to claim that you have imparted upon them a proper understanding. Even the messenger himself was not never to be a compeller but to remind (Qaf, 45).
6. Wan goes on to make a rather interesting claim, 'This holds true even to the followers of other religions. One will only renounce one's own religion as a result of utter ignorance, frustration or disenchantment.
My response:
a. This is a wonderfully egalitarian claim. To show how much you believe in this, we have to make conversion INTO Islam illegal as well. Furthermore, we have to convince all potential Muslim converts that they are 'in utter ignorance, frustrated or disenchanted'. Can we do this?
7. The most preposterous of Wan's claim is the following, where he claims that Muslims 'must be made to realise that they have actually entered into a primordial covenant with God in the supernatural realm long before they were born to this world'. Since 'None can ever claim that he/she is not aware of this spiritual contract, as the Quran is the reminder',when a Muslim 'breaches this divine contract, he is subject to a certain kind of religious remedial measure or punishment. This situation is very similar to that of commercial transactions where, for instance, those who breach contracts are punished in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in their agreements.'
My response:
a. How does Wan know that the apostate-to-be has read the Quran or even believes in it. What if the person rejects this objectively unverifiable statement by the Quran?
b. Even if Lina Joy was consciously a Muslim before, how can we know that she truly understood Islam. There are many slogans by Muslim preachers about how fair Islam is and how liberating for women. What if Lina Joy consciously practised Islam then found out that some Muslims believe that it's ok to beat their wives or that some Shariah lawyers believe that a Muslim can never be convicted of killing a non-Muslim?
c. Even if we could verify this metaphysical (and therefore empirically unverifiable) information by the Quran about the divine contract, how do we know that it is Wan and his friends who are appointed to carry out the law? Have they taken that authority without any authority from Allah.Any way you slice it, this case exposes the bigotry of our Islamic establishments.
They have to make the following assumptions before they have deduced what they did about Lina Joy, namely:
a. That Islam is the ultimate truth. (While believers in the Quran believe this, they are in no way to force anyone to accept it)
b. That their interpretation of shariah law is correct (even though the Quran gives complete freedom of religion) and no one else has any right to question that interpretation.
c. That they have the ability to consel anyone from leaving Islam (even though the Quran tells us that even the Prophet could not guide those whom he loved)
c. That they are preaching Islam correctly people (even though they refuse to entertain any questioning about what they pass of as 'islamic')I urge Muslims to please check the Quran for yourself and see how it vehemently opposes this law which is being passed off as 'Islamic'. It's a shame that Wan considers those who disagree with him to be without 'true knowledge and erudite scholarship' yet preaches a ideology so contrary to the book he believes in.
Comments
wanbozo wrote:
Farouk
what Dr wan espouses in his column should be debated and question. He and many like him has skewered the idea of freedom of choice as guaranteed in the Koran. Sadly many of the Malay ummah also feel that way. This affliction effects many of our friends but many of them too believe that if Azlina Jailani wants to apostate let her be.Even Dr Wan do not understand the meaning of the death penalty for apostate as proscribe by the Ulamak of old. In a country of Daulah Islamiah, where the Koran is the constitution, the death penalty is proscribe because renouncing Islam is regarded as treason and crime against the country. Traitors has always been regarded as heinous and their acts are usually punish as a capital punishment with death. So apostate are regarded as traitors and no wonder the punishment is harsh.But in a country like ours which is an Islamic Nation not an Islamic State, this type of punishment as advocate is ridiculous, thus Tantawi which I concur with, regard apostate as personal matter and he or she should be allowed to do so. But traditionalist will always hold the view of old which sadly will regard apostasy as a crime. You as an intellectuals should be the vanguard of the malay minds so that they can make this choice with a clear and coherent understanding.
22/06 16:52:36
22/06 19:31:16
farouk wrote:
Wan,When we say our country runs on a parallel system of Civil and Shariah laws, unless we clarify further, we'd be speaking with ambiguity.Shariah law, no doubt you know functions at the most all-encompassing level. Pendek kata, if Shariah law works at 100%, then memang Civil law would cease to exist.The question right now is to determine if the 'level' of Shariah law we're at includes apostasy law or not. So to me, unless this is clarified, then civil law must take precedence as the supreme law of the land.I believe conflating apostasy law and the law of treason is wrong as you do. Treason must include actual war in the land which of course most apostates don't do. I won't even include acts like preaching other religions to Muslims because we can preach to others!I've been getting some criticism about my views on this, people calling me a 'traitor to Islam' etc etc. I'd like to say here, my reason for upholding Lina's rights is the Quran. I believe that the Quran promotes a way of life which if adhered to, will bring us peace. In the Quran, the people who say 'either you return to our religion or we'll stone you' are people who get destroyed. It must be painful for some to see Lina leaving the faith they love but this is all God's test.Many thanks for your kind words, Wan. I'm no intellectual although I'm a big admirer of some of the intellectuals here.
wanbozo wrote:
Farouk
Many thanks for you answer. I am not a person who regard you as a traitor to Islam but trouble is many Malays are emotive with their beliefs. I too espouch your idea to them but I do so by appealing to them. Malays are an emotional lot. They have an innate believe in the supernatural, thus this show they do not think with reasons but with their heart.By appealing to their heart you might achieve more, remember, the traditionalist feed them with fears that it consume them so much that they cannot think with reasons. You are a clever man farouk, your points are clear and lucid but remember you are talking to a child, whom, civilization wise is still considered young.Malays inherently is a race of peace but this they have change, unlike Indonesia, Malays here perhaps have been indoctrinate too much to fear and regard the non muslim as a bogeyman. You, Farouk must bridge the gap by promoting your views across but do so with bijaksana after all is that not one of the Sifat2 Muhammad beside Tabligh(menyampaikan)? As to the law do take heart that the late Tunku always maintain that this country is secular and is so, it is the politician who is at fault, who has open the Pandora box and now they can't close it. I believe strongly in my heart that Muslim must embrace pluralism of thoughts which is sadly missing. Dr Wan is not wrong but neither is he right. He is wrong perhaps in not embracing pluralism and thus open his mind to a different possibilities and answers.
Salam
Wan
PS it has been clarified please look at the judgment by the Chief Justice. This verdict is indeed alarming.
22/06 22:10:46
posted by wan zaharizan b wan zan at 7:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home