Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Malaysia. Show all posts

Friday, March 15, 2013

Moros take the battle to Sabah. Having already lost their liberty, Sabah's Christians now face losing their peace.


By Elizabeth Kendal

Between 9th and 12th February 2013, as many as 235 ethnic Tausug from the Southern Philippines landed on the coast of eastern Sabah at Masjid Lama, near Lahad Datu, many armed with assault rifles and grenade launchers. Led by Raja Muda Azzimudie Kiram, the brother of the Sultan of Sulu, Jamalul Kiram III, the militants claimed to be members of the Royal Sulu Army.

Initially the Malaysian government tread softly, asking the "intruders" to put down their arms and leave peacefully. The Tausug militants defiantly declined and a stand-off ensued. Eventually, after a fire-fight left at least six Malaysian policemen dead -- some reportedly beheaded -- Malaysia responded with force, deploying fighter jets in a full-blown air assault that killed at least 56 of the Filipino "terrorists".

Across the Moro-dominated southern Philippines, the Malaysian response has been branded an "atrocity". The fact that the Philippine's government has supported the Malaysian "atrocity" has further inflamed Moro hostility towards Manila.

Stratfor Global Intelligence (26 Feb) elaborates: "One of myriad ethnic groups spread across Southeast Asia, the Tausug are centered in Jolo in the Sulu Archipelago but stretch from Malaysia and Indonesia on Borneo to Mindanao in the southern Philippines. The territory comprises what was once the Sultanate of Sulu, and the group has claimed it does not need to leave Malaysian territory because it is still part of the Sultanate.

"[The Tausugs] are traditionally maritime people who claim Islam came to the area by the 1300s and that the first Islamic sultanate of Sulu was established in the mid-1400s by a member of the Hashemite family and a direct descendent of the Prophet Mohammed. In the 1870s, the sultanate leased its territory in Sabah on Borneo to the British, and the British passed the territory on to Malaya. Malaysia still pays a nominal 'rent' to the Sulu Sultanate -- currently less than $2,000 per year -- and this is being shown as proof by the current Sulu Sultan that even Malaysia recognized Sulu sovereignty over Sabah."

Whether Malaysia's annual payment to the Sultan is for rental or purchase of Sabah remains a hotly contested issue.  Consequently, impoverished and marginalised oil-rich Sabah is contested territory!


SABAH AND THE MNLF

In 1967, plotters within the Philippine military associated with President Ferdinand Marcos conspired to establish a force of commandos that would invade and destabilise Sabah giving the Philippine government grounds to intervene in Sabah on the pretext of protecting Filipinos living there. To this end some 200 Tausug and Sama Filipino Muslims from Sulu and Tawi-Tawi were recruited, armed and trained -- wooed with promises of an allowance and eventual accession into the Philippine Armed Forces. The commando unit was named Jabidah. Initial training was conducted in the island-town of Simunul in Tawi-Tawi. Then, on 30 Dec 1967, the recruits were sent to the island of Corregidor in Luzon for "specialised training."

A few months later everything unravelled when the Tausug and Sama Muslims learned they would have to fight and kill fellow Muslims in Sabah, possibly even their own Tausug and Sama relatives.  When the Muslims mutinied, the Philippine soldiers decided to eliminate them. The exact number of how many Muslim recruits were executed in Corregidor is unknown. The Moro struggle was born!
    
See: "THE CORREGIDOR MASSACRE - 1968"
By Paul F. Whitman

Founded by Nur Misuari in 1969, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) waged jihad against the Philippine government for independence of the Bangsamoro people in Southern Philippines. Headquartered in Sabah through the 1970s, the MNLF received backing from Malaysia.

In 1976 the MNLF and Manila agreed to a provisional peace accord -- the sides have been negotiating ever since.

Included in those negotiations has been the Philippine claim over Sabah. While Manila seems keen to drop the issue the MNLF is not. The Moros (Filipino Muslims) have strong ethnic ties to Sabah. And as part of the historic Sultanate of Sulu, Sabah has always been included in MNLF's territorial demands.

Manila has never renounced its claim to Sabah but has used the claim as leverage to win Malaysian support in brokering peace with the more hardline Islamist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) which split from the MNLF in 1978 to continue the jihad. Meanwhile Malaysia has used role as mediator in the MILF conflict for domestic political gain, promoting itself as the defender of the rights of Philippine Muslims.

Every Philippine government wants to go down in history as the government that brokered peace in the south. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's hasty 2008 deal collapsed under the weight of its own flaws and President Benigno S. Aquino III's hasty and flawed Oct 2012 Framework Agreement was always going to lead to conflict. For by brokering an agreement with the MILF that totally undermined the agreement already held with the MNLF the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) made conflict inevitable.

Indeed, the crisis in Sabah has its roots in the ill-fated "Framework Agreement" struck last October between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT, PLUS A BIT ON THE SIDE

Noel Tarrazona reports for Asia Times on line of a "Quiet quid pro quo".

"In an apparent non-disclosed component of the MILF peace deal, Manila agreed to drop its historical claim to territories in Sabah in exchange for the establishment of a Philippine consulate in Sabah, according to a source familiar with the provision. Revelations of the concession to Malaysia reportedly infuriated Kiram [the sultan] and the MNLF leadership, according to the same source. Manila has cooperated with Kuala Lumpur throughout the crisis and pressured Kiram to recall his followers.

"Kiram, who resides in Manila and reportedly suffers from diabetes, has so far defied those official demands while his family members have issued new threats. After Malaysia's assault on his rag tag royal militia, Princess Celia Fatima Kiram warned of a 'long civil war' in Sabah. Kiram's apparent strong links to the MNLF, once the country's largest rebel group with 15,000 under arms and increasingly disenchanted with Manila, give weight to that threat.

"MNLF leaders have spoken out forcefully in the wake of the assaults. MNLF Islamic Council Committee Chairman Habib Hashim Mudjahab said on Tuesday [5 March] that he could no longer hold back his people from traveling to Sabah to defend their ethnic brethren from Malaysian forces. 'We are hurt and many of our people, even non-combatants are going to Sabah to sympathize with the Sultanate,' Mudjahab said.

"MNLF political chief officer Gapul Hajirul warned that the signs of a civil war are already apparent in Sabah, referring apparently to the militant ambush on police forces in Semporna. The attack indicated to some observers that an underground Tausug movement is already organized and undertaking insurgent operations in Sabah. 'I am afraid there will be civil war in Sabah because thousands of Bangsamoro (Filipino Muslims) are residing in Sabah,' Hajirul said without elaborating.

"MNLF leader Nur Misuari told reporters on Tuesday that if Malaysia targets Filipinos based in Sabah his group would consider it 'tantamount to a declaration of war.' He also warned Philippine President Benigno Aquino that any attempt to arrest Kiram would plunge the country into chaos. . ."

SEE: Threats of a wider war in Sabah
By Noel Tarrazona, Asia Times on line, 7 March 2013

Ida Lim (The Malaysian Insider, 2 March 2013) similarly warns of the danger of escalation.

"The Lahad Datu standoff could widen into a civil war engulfing Sabah, a Philippine separatist leader has warned as a Muslim rebel army moved to entrench itself in the Borneo state. . ."

She too quoted Hajirul: "I am afraid there will be a civil war in Sabah because thousands of Bangsamoro are residing in Sabah. It's only MNLF chairman Nur (Misuari) who could decide on the matter. Whatever his decision, we will follow. Our Tausug brothers and sisters of Sulu and the Samals in Tawi-Tawi were saddened and are hurting by the turn of the events."

Lim notes that the news portal the Philippine Star estimates that more than 8,500 Filipinos, mostly Tausugs or Suluk tribesmen, are residing in Sabah and are potential supporters of the Sultanate of Sulu.

Observers largely agree that the ultimate purpose of the invasion of "a few boatloads of bandits, cannot conceivably be to claim Sabah by force". On the contrary, it is widely believed that the Sultan and MNFL have merely manufactured a crisis at a strategic moment -- virtually on the eve on Malaysia's federal elections (due by June) -- so as to leverage themselves into the on-going GRP - MILF negotiations. 

Malaysian commentators have lambasted the Malaysian government: "This Umno-led effort [mediating peace between the GRP and MILF] is clearly making a grand show of Muslim solidarity, in a desperate attempt to secure Malay-Muslim votes in the peninsula, as well as Muslim Filipino and Indonesian migrants' votes in Sabah.

"Umno's botched attempt at brokering a peace deal in the southern Philippines has cost us heavily: hundreds of Sabahan villagers along the east coast have been made refugees, eight (or more) policemen have lost their lives, and Sabah has been drawn ever deeper into the conflict in the southern Philippines. . . "

Meanwhile, Philippine president Benigno Aquino III is also paying a heavy price in Philippine media for appearing to sanction the foreign use of deadly force against Philippine rebels seen to be making a legitimate claim to what they regard as their historic homeland.

MALAYSIA'S BETRAYAL OF SABAH YIELDING BITTER FRUIT

When Sabah joined Sarawak, Malaya and Singapore to form independent Malaysia in 1963, it was on the conditions of a 20-point agreement that included the following: There should be no state religion and the provisions relating to Islam in Federal Constitution should not apply; and, English should be the official language for all purposes without limitation of time.

Donald Stephens, a Kadazan-Dusun Christian who played an important role in bringing Sabah into Malaysia, became the first Chief Minister.

According to the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) Malaysia, "before 1963, Sabah and Sarawak were guided by their native customs and by British laws. The influence of Islam was marginal."

At that time Sabah was a multi-ethnic, plural state, with the predominantly Christian Kadazan-Dusun being the largest ethnic group, comprising around 32 percent. (Today they comprise about 17.8 percent.)

However, from 1967, under the chief ministership of Mustapha Datu Harun, policies were enacted  to unify the peoples of Sabah through the imposition of one language, Bahasa Malaysia, and one religion, Islam. The United Sabah Islamic Association, funded by the government, was established with the specific task of conversion. Mass conversion particularly in the rural areas became the norm. Rumours had it that the government applied pressure and resorted to bribery to obtain converts to Islam. Mustapha used his emergency powers to expel all expatriate Christian missionaries on the grounds that they perpetuated an imperialist mentality.

By 1973, Islam had been made the official religion of the state and Bahasa Malaysia had been adopted as the state's sole official language.

When UMNO entered state politics in Sabah in the1990s, it opened the floodgates for mass immigration and naturalisation of Muslims from Indonesia and Southern Philippines, essentially "to weaken the indigenous Kadazan-Dusun Christians and to enhance UMNO powerbase" (NECF). This systematic granting of citizenship to immigrants was known as Project IC (for Identity Card) or Project M (for Mahathir Mohamad). (See: Project IC's Chickens coming home to roost, Malaysiakini, 3 March.)

Today local Sabahans are a minority in Sabah. Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani wrote of this July 2010, quoting MP Lim Kit Siang: "After 47 years, Sabahans are now concerned that they have become the minority and strangers in their own land. How can Sabah's population of 400,000 during the formation of Malaysia in 1963 be now multiplied to over three million today?" [That figure includes up to 1.7 million migrants (Nov 2007): NECF.]

Furthermore, religious liberty is now illusory. David Fung writes: "In Sabah, since 1978 it has been an offence for anyone to propagate any religious doctrine or belief without the permission of the Sabah Majlis Ugama Islam among Muslims, and the offence shall be tried before the magistrate's court and punishable with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine up to RM3,000 or both.

"Attempted apostasy out of the religion of Islam is apparently also an offence for the Muslim who has shown by word or conduct that he or she intentionally claims to cease to profess Islam or declares himself or herself to be a non-Muslim.

"The syariah court has the power to order that the apostate (murtad) be detained in the Islamic Rehabilitation Centre for a maximum period of 36 months on the pretext of rehabilitating the person so that the person could repent of the attempted apostasy."

For more on the Islamisation of Sabah, see:

The broken oath and Sabah’s ‘curse’
In Sabah pressure to convert to Islam 'was particularly great on those in politics'.
By David Fung (a Sabah based advocate and solicitor), 3 January 2012.

Sabah: A report by the national Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) Malaysia.

"BLOWBACK" / "KARMA"

Over the decades the Malaysian government has been so focused on winning Muslim votes and importing Muslim vote-cattle that they failed to consider the long-term consequences.

Rowan Callick, Asia-Pacific Editor for The Australian (9 March), describes the Sabah conflict the latest battleground of "blowback" - "where people who are trained for covert action return to bite the hand of the people who have fed and armed them."

Ramon Tulfo, Philippine Daily Inquirer (20 Feb), describes "the whole saga [as] a case of 'karma' on Malaysia".

Tolfu writes: "Malaysia is in a no-win situation as a result of the standoff in Sabah.

"If it uses deadly force on a small group of armed Filipino Muslims now holed up in the village of Tanduo in Lahad Datu town in Sabah, members of the fiercest of Philippine Moro tribe, the Tausogs of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi, will retaliate.  . . .

"There is no record of the number of Filipinos, mostly Tausogs, in Sabah. But a friend of mine who used to be in the Philippine military intelligence estimates that one-third of the population in the Malaysian state is Tausog.

"Many of the people in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi have relatives in Sabah, which is just one hour by speedboat from Simunul in Tawi-Tawi.

"If the Tausogs in Sabah rise up in revolt against the Malaysian government, their relatives in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi will go to Sabah and fight with them.

"To the Tausogs, the claim of the group purporting to represent the Sultanate of Sulu that Sabah belongs to the sultanate is legitimate."

Doubtless presenting a Western perception, The Economist (23 Feb), reports: "The sultan, Jamalul Kiram III . . . is now a merely symbolic figure. His claim to Sabah is a romantic fantasy, yet one that grips the imagination of those hoping for another golden [Islamic] era."

In contrast, Tulfo (a Filipino journalist) maintains: "The Sulu Sultanate, long dormant and somewhat forgotten because of the war waged by the Tausog-led MNLF against the government, is still revered by Moros in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi.

"Tausogs respect the Sultan of Sulu in much the same way Malaysians pay homage to their royal family.

"If harm is done to Rajah Mudah Agbimuddin Kiram, brother of Sultan Jamalul Kiram, who ordered the Mudah Agbimuddin to enter Sabah, his fellow Tausogs in Sabah and in Sulu and Tawi-Tawi will take up arms against the Malaysian government. . .

"My source in Sulu said that even before the landing of 200 men in Lahad Datu last week [early-mid Feb], the Sultanate had already sent armed men in small groups to Sabah to escape notice from authorities. The armed groups are being coddled by Tausogs in the Malaysian state. . ."

Tulfo concludes: "When the (Philippines) government was fighting the MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front) in the 1970s through the 1980s, Malaysia was secretly supporting the rebellion in the South.

"Weapons coming from Libya and other Middle East countries passed through Malaysia on their way to the MNLF.

"Now, it seems the shoe is on the other foot.

"The law of karma is being played out."

Kuala Lumpur-based political analyst Nile Bowie writes for Asia Times on line (12 March): "The Philippine government under President Benigno Aquino has sided with Malaysia and reiterated its call to Kiram's followers to surrender to prevent further bloodshed. Aquino has spoken of punishing the sultan and his men for masterminding the armed rebellion in Sabah, prompting a domestic backlash that threatens fragile peace deals with separatist militant groups sympathetic to Kiram's cause. . .

"Nur Misuari, leader of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), warned the Aquino government of chaos if Kiram is arrested or his men apprehended. . .

"At a recent press conference, Misuari stated, '. . . [If] there is an attempt even to arrest the sultan, I understand. Let them do that. The country will be in total chaos if they do, I promise you'."

Bowie concludes: "As many Filipinos categorize the actions taken by Malaysia as 'atrocities', a credible threat exists in the prospect of a wider war if MNLF soldiers establish a foothold in Sabah. While [Malaysian Prime Minister] Najib's position will likely remain firm, the risks are rising of a wider crisis as security forces engage militants and reports from the front stir nationalistic passions."

Underneath all this is Sabah's longsuffering Christian community. Having already lost their liberty, Sabah's Christians must be wondering if they are about to lose their peace. 

-----------------------------------------

Elizabeth Kendal is the author of
Turn Back the Battle: Isaiah SPeaks to Christians Today
(Deror Books, Dec 2012)

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

MALAYSIA: the Great Apostasy Debate stirs again.

Date: Tuesday 13 May 2008
Subj: Malaysia: the Great Apostasy Debate stirs again.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal


On 8 May, media across the world ran with the news: "Malaysian woman can leave Islam." (BBC headline) Jurist, which reports legal news, commented: "Religious rights groups hailed the decision as a landmark ruling for interfaith relations." (Link 1)

Judge Othman Ibrahim's 8 May 2008 ruling in Penang's Syariah High Court, whereby Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah (Tan Ean Yuang) (39) was granted leave to revert from Islam to Buddhism, is indeed a landmark ruling. But before getting too excited, religious liberty advocates should consider the following:

1) The finer details of the ruling make it unlikely that it could be a precedent for many other cases.

2) A significant element of the ruling was the judge's castigation of the Islamic authorities for failing to save the plaintiff's faith.

3) This case is not over yet. The Penang state religious council, which is opposing the plaintiff's renunciation of Islam, has indicated that it is preparing to launch an appeal.

4) For religious liberty advocates it remains absolutely unacceptable that any Malaysian citizen should have to get permission from a Sharia (Islamic) Court before they can change their religious identity.

----------------------

THE PENANG RULING

The plaintiff, an ethnic Chinese Malaysian woman named Tan Ean Yuang (39), converted from Buddhism to Islam in 1998 in order to marry an Iranian Muslim named Ferdoun Ashanian. Tan subsequently took the Islamic name of Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah and the couple married in 2004. The marriage only lasted four months and Siti claims that she has had no knowledge of her husband's whereabouts since he deserted her.

In May 2006 Siti filed an application to renounce Islam and revert to Buddhism. The court however "ordered that she learn more about Islam and undergo three months of counselling with the Penang Islamic Religious Department's unit ukhwah (brotherhood) to ensure she understood the religion. However, she only attended the session once and remained steadfast in wanting to revert to Buddhism." (Link 2)

On Thursday 8 May 2008, in the Syariah High Court in Penang, judge Othman Ibrahim ruled in favour of Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah. While he noted that apostasy is a great sin in Islam deserving of severe punishment even death, he ruled that Siti was free to return to Buddhism on the grounds that she had never practised Islam, and therefore the court could regard her as a non-believer (kafir) and not an apostate (murtad). Siti's lawyer remarked that "the ruling was important because it accepted that Muslims could renounce Islam on the grounds that they had never practised the faith". (Link 3)

As the ruling rested on the plaintiff's alleged non-practice of Islam, it can be assumed that had any Muslim testified to the contrary, Tan's application would not have been successful.

Clearly this ruling will not provide a precedent for converts who have practised Islam -- converts like Soon Singh, a Malaysian Sikh who converted to Islam as a minor but in 1999, at the age of 21 years, sought redress through the courts to renounce Islam and return to Sikhism. Soon Singh's appeal was denied and the court ruled not only that all Muslims should have "Islam" printed on their identity cards, but that Sharia courts should have jurisdiction over all matters concerning Islam. This ruling became the precedent for all subsequent appeals against apostasy. (See link 4)

A SITUATION THE JUDGE BELIEVES SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED

When delivering his ruling, judge Othman Ibrahim regretted that Siti's Iranian husband had failed her by failing to guide her in her new faith. He then castigated the Penang Islamic Religious Council for neglecting its duties and failing to "save" Siti's faith in Islam. "It is their obligation to encourage, support, help and ensure that new converts understand and follow Islamic teachings. However, in this case nothing was done until the last moment when it was already too late." (Link 5)

According to Malaysia's The Star online, PAS [Parti Islam se-Malaysia] is protesting the decision. "PAS vice-president Nasharudin Mat Isa said renouncing Islam was forbidden, unless one had been forced to embrace Islam under duress. 'If one has embraced Islam out of one's own free will, then one must be subject to Islamic law, and the law forbids the renouncing of Islam because it touches on one's faith in the religion,' he said." (Link 6)

The Malay Mail notes: "Only last week both BN [Barisan Nasional] and PAS members of Parliament had argued that once you enter Islam there is no turning back, not just for born Muslims, but also for converts." (Link 7)

Clearly PAS and the ruling BN government of PM Badawi are not interested in advancing religious liberty. It can therefore be expected that this ruling will not only stir the Great Apostasy Debate but initiate a debate about conversion procedures so that conversions to Islam are legally secure.

While Judge Ibrahim did 'tear up' Tan's certificate of conversion to Islam he did not grant her application to have a new identity card issued, saying that was a matter for the National Registration Department (NRD).

The NRD is unlikely to issue Tan a new identity card while the Penang state Religious Council is planning to appeal the ruling. "The council's counsel Ahmad Munawir Abdul Aziz said the council would appeal within the 14-day period, adding that among the concerns was the status of Siti Fatimah's marriage as her conversion did not dissolve the marriage." (Link 8)

If the ruling is appealed, then Tan may find she has injured her case by stating in her affidavit that she "stopped practising Islam" after her husband left her. (Link 7)

NO GAIN

Ultimately the ruling does not advance religious liberty in Malaysia -- it merely perpetuates the unacceptable status quo whereby in matters concerning Islam the religious liberty guarantees of the federal Constitution are deemed subordinate to the rulings of state-run Sharia Courts.

Malaysian lawyer A Sivanesan cautions: "This is a landmark decision and gives relief to Tan. However, non-Muslims should not be complacent with this decision. The real remedy for them is for the civil court to bravely uphold constitutional guarantees." (Link 7)

The best this ruling can do is to stir up Malaysia's Great Apostasy Debate once again.

Elizabeth Kendal

Links

1) Malaysian woman can leave Islam. BBC, 8 May 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7389874.stm
Malaysia Islamic Court Allows Reconversion from Islam
Jurist, 8 May 2008
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/05/malaysia-islamic-court-allows.php

2) Syariah court allows convert to renounce Islam
By Sharanjit Singh, New Straits Times
(Picture: Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah with lawyer Ahmad Jailani Abdul Ghani.)
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/2235294/Article/index_html

3) Malaysia woman scores rare legal win to quit Islam. 8 May 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/sphereNews/idUSKLR29947320080508?sp=true&view=sphere

4) Malaysia: The Islamisation of Malaysia
WEA RLC News & Analysis. 8 June 2007

5) Judge: Council failed in duty to guide converts
http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/2235317/Article/index_html

6) MCA hails court decision. 9 May 2008
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/9/nation/21197271&sec=nation

7) A precedent for converts. Malay Mail, 9 May 2008
http://www.mmail.com.my/Current_News/mm/Friday/Opinions/20080509105658/Article/index_html

8) Syariah High Court lets Muslim convert renounce Islam and go back to Buddhism
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/9/nation/21194502&sec=nation

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Malaysians to vote against creeping Islamisation.

Date: Thursday 6 March 2008
Subj: Malaysians to vote against creeping Islamisation.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal


For a long, long time, progressive Malaysians have been content with the status quo, believing the only alternative was the instant Islamisation advocated by PAS (Parti Islam Se-Malaysia). What they did not realise however was that the status quo meant creeping Islamisation.

For background see WEA RLC News & Analysis "The Islamisation of Malaysia", by Elizabeth Kendal, 7 June 2007.

Malaysians are becoming aware of the degree to which decades of creeping Islamisation is now threatening their whole society. A showdown is brewing between the Islamists and the libertarians who want global engagement, modernisation and liberty. This group includes liberal Malays, Hindus (ethnic Indians), ethnic Chinese and Christians. (Some 80 percent of Malaysia's
Christians are ethnic Chinese). While Muslim hardliners are agitating for more Sharia, libertarian forces are desperately trying to head off disaster. Multitudes of Malaysians are coming to believe that the status quo is no longer acceptable, and for them the Saturday 8 March general elections are an opportunity not to be missed.

The general elections being held on 8 March will doubtless not unseat the ruling United Malay National Organisation (UMNO)-led Barisan Nasional (BN) -- the coalition of communal parties that has ruled Malaysia as a political hegemon since independence. The BN presently has a 90 percent majority, holding 200 of the 219 seats in the outgoing national legislature. These elections however could see the rise of serious political opposition built on a platform of non-communalism, religious liberty and a commitment to Malaysia's secular constitution.

RELIGION AND RACE


On 3 March, South China Morning Post (SCMP) ran an article entitled "Malaysia's PM braced for religious backlash". This article, the first in a three-part series on Malaysia's forthcoming general elections, examined the disenchantment felt by Malaysian Christians and Hindus and their resolve to voice their concerns at the ballot box.

As SCMP reports: "Racial and religious discrimination against Malaysia's minority Chinese and Indian voters has become a key plank of the opposition campaign in the March 8 polls.

"In the past four years the country had been wracked by disputes between majority Malays -- who are almost all Muslims -- and minority Christians and Hindus. The disputes have covered issues including the right to convert, custody of children, burial and freedom of religion."

Motivated by a growing awareness that their liberty is seriously under threat -- an awareness fed by recent events such as Lina Joy's apostasy trial, book bans and Bible seizures -- Malaysia's churches are calling on Christians to examine the platforms of the candidates, and vote for those who champion religious freedom.

Associated Press (AP) reported on 21 February: "The call illustrates growing concern among religious minorities who feel their rights are being eroded by a rise in Islamic fervour, which many blame on overzealous Muslim bureaucrats in Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's government.

"Churches have begun handing out brochures urging Christians to examine the platforms and records of political parties on 'freedom of religion, conscience and speech' before casting their ballots in March 8 national elections." (Link 1)

Hermen Shastri, executive secretary of the Christian Federation of Malaysia, told AP that while the churches remain totally non-partisan they are concerned by "the trend of Islamisation and how that is affecting other religious communities". He told SCMP, "We can't vote blindly any more . . . we need lawmakers to defend our secular constitution and religious freedom."

While non-Muslims and progressives are agitating for liberty, Islamists are pressing for what is essentially talibanisation. AP reports: "Some 100 Islamic groups in Malaysia called Wednesday [20 Feb] for wider powers for Shariah courts and stricter enforcement of religious and moral doctrines ahead of general elections next month.

"In a list of election demands, the groups said the government should declare Malaysia an Islamic-majority nation and reject any attempt to make it a secular state. The demands were made by the Defenders of Islam, a loose coalition of about 100 mostly conservative Islamic organisations representing students, professionals and others.

"The groups' statement called for asserting 'the significant role of Islam in the state'. It also called for the power of Islamic Shariah courts to be strengthened and new laws to block the propagation of other religions among Muslims, especially in states with large minority populations.

"The groups sought more Islamic studies in schools, increased scholarships for Muslims and the implementation of Islamic practices, such as prayers during school assemblies. They also said television stations should ban Western entertainment." (Link 2)

According to Yusri Mohamad, president of the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia which leads the coalition, Malaysia's racial and religious tensions are the fault of certain groups which challenge Islam's role in the multiracial country. He told AP that the Defenders of Islam's demands, which will be distributed to all candidates and political parties, were aimed at highlighting Muslim needs, not countering the Christian campaign.

Sensing the discontent, PM Abdullah Badawi is busy being all things to all men, promising elections "goodies" as needed. In the Malay PAS stronghold of Kelantan he promises more mosques and development. In Chinese-majority Penang he promises more schools, land and University places for the Chinese. He is promising Muslims there will be more Islamic law, while promising non-Muslims there will be liberty, consensus and solidarity. (Link 3)

In a 4 March SCMP article entitled "Malaysian parties desperate to woo Chinese electors" -- the second in its three part series -- social activist Ramakrishnan Ponnusamy asks, "In Terengganu, Abdullah said he will defend Islamic sharia. He comes to Penang and says he will defend secular rights. How is he going to do it?"

One very interesting and encouraging revelation from this SCMP article is that the Chinese are realising that, because their birth rate is so much lower than the Malay birth rate, Chinese political influence can only decline into the future. For this reason, they are seeing they must advocate on a non-communal basis and secure rights for all, not just for the Chinese.

"The changing demographics mean Chinese-based parties are competing for a smaller pool of voters, and more constituencies are becoming mixed-race. 'As the Chinese numbers shrink, their political clout will also shrink,' Mr Wong said. 'Playing on the fears of Chinese to win votes will not work in the future. The solution is to form meaningful alliances with the Malay opposition and struggle for the interest of all Malaysian people, not just Chinese.' " (SCMP, 4 March)

If a serious, credible, non-communal, rights-affirming opposition committed to Malaysia's secular constitution can be consolidated, then the 8 March general elections may prove to be a watershed moment for Malaysian politics. It would however be only the beginning of a long struggle that would require strength, courage and commitment. For as the forces of liberty resist creeping Islamisation, Islamists will doubtless do everything in their power to resist the forces of liberty.

Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au

Links

1) Concerned about religious freedoms, Malaysian churches step into political
sphere. (AP) 21 Feb 2008
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/21/asia/AS-FEA-REL-Malaysia-Religious-Freedoms.php

2) Malaysian Groups Want Islam Bolstered. (AP) 21 Feb 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g5LXImPm65EXQsxmyMHtIk6MP8BwD8UU17S01

3) Government Committed To Islamic Law, Won't Affect Other Faiths – PM
KUALA TERENGGANU, 1 March 2008
http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/state_news/news.php?id=317648&cat=et
Religion to Win Malaysian Vote. 25 Feb 2008
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=52835
Malaysia polls turn into fight for moral high ground
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2008/02/25/malaysia_polls_turn_into_fight_for_moral_high_ground/
Malaysian voters wooed with Islam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7265404.stm

Friday, June 8, 2007

THE ISLAMISATION OF MALAYSIA

Date: Friday 8 June 2007
Subj: The Islamisation of Malaysia
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal


This is an extended posting in two parts.

First there is an examination of the 30 May 2007 ruling in Malaysia's Federal Court that finally and officially severs Malaysia's Muslims from their fundamental and constitutional right to religious freedom (Article 11 of Malaysia's Constitution) and shackles them to Sharia (Islamic Law, which prohibits apostasy: "The Prophet [Mohammed] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " Bukhari:V4B52N260).

Secondly there is an examination of the Islamisation of Malaysia.

"Sharia" is spelled variously through this posting as I have elected to retain the spelling in the various articles rather than standardise it.

We must now ask: Is Malaysia essentially an Islamic state that is in the process of bringing its citizens and institutions and even eventually its minorities into submission to the Sharia (which is the constitution of political Islam)? Fundamentalist Muslims have successfully appealed to Sharia to protect Muslim Malaysia from apostasy. So will they now also be able to appeal to Sharia to protect Muslim Malaysia from "blasphemy" and "indecency"? And if as it appears, Islam, openness, liberty and progressive modernity cannot travel together, then where is Malaysia headed now?

----------------------------------------------------
APEX COURT UPHOLDS SUPREMACY OF SHARIA FOR MUSLIMS
----------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday 30 May 2007, a three-judge Federal Court panel ruled by a 2-1 majority in the case of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan and 2 Ors that only an Islamic Shariah Court has the authority to confirm a Muslim's apostasy and authorise the removal the word 'Islam' from the religion category on their government identity card.

The ruling was based on the 1988 amendment to Malaysia's Constitution which dictates that once a person is legally recognised as a Muslim all their religious legal issues are to be dealt with by the Sharia courts, not the civil courts.

The 1988 constitutional amendment, Article 121 (1A), states that civil courts have no jurisdiction on any matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah (Sharia, Islamic Law) courts. This amendment was introduced to resolve the conflicts between decisions of civil and syariah courts. The intention of the parliament was to oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts from hearing any matter which is within the purview of the Syariah courts. Before the enactment of clause 1A, decisions of the Syariah courts could be reviewed by the High Courts. According to the then Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir, Muslims were not happy with civil courts overriding the decisions of syariah courts.

The question then arose: does apostasy (conversion out of Islam) fall within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts? This question was put to the courts in 1999 in the case of Soon Singh a/l Bikar Singh v Pertubuhan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (PERKIM) Kedah (1999) 1 MLJ 489.

The Singapore Law Review reports: "The Federal Court considered whether the Syariah Courts' jurisdiction could be implied from other provisions in statutes relating to Syariah Courts. The appellant in this case was a Sikh and he converted to Islam when he was a minor. Upon reaching 21 years old, he renounced Islam and executed deed poll declaring that he was a Sikh. Before the High Court, he sought for a declaration that he was no longer a Muslim. Respondent contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction since the matter came under the Syariah Court's jurisdiction. The High Court agreed with Respondent and dismissed the application. On appeal, the Federal Court pointed out that all State Enactments and Federal Territories Act contain express provisions vesting the Syariah Courts with jurisdiction to deal with conversion to Islam. Relying on Craies on Statute Law 7th edition page 112, Albon v Pyke (1842) 4 M & G 421,424, Bennion's Statutory Interpretation 2nd Edition page 362, the Federal Court held that: 'when jurisdiction is expressly conferred on the Syariah Courts to adjudicate on matters relating to conversion to Islam … it is logical that matters concerning conversion out of Islam (apostasy) could be read as necessarily implied in and falling within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.'" (Link 1)

In other words the court ruled that if the matter of conversion into Islam falls under the jurisdiction of the Sharia courts, then it is "logical" and may be "implied" that conversion out of Islam also falls under the jurisdiction of the Sharia courts.

This ruling was widely viewed as flawed. Not only is it inconsistent with the law that states that if you are leaving a non-Muslim religion for Islam, then the Syariah Court (not the religion you are leaving) has jurisdiction, it is also a violation of the fundamental right of religious liberty which maintains that no third party should have jurisdiction over a person's faith.

Another outcome of this case was the government's decision to make it mandatory that all Muslims have "Islam" on their identity card.

The case of Lina Joy (a Malay convert to Christianity) v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan and 2 Ors hinged on a decision by the National Registration Department (NRD) to refuse Lina Joy's request to remove the word "Islam" from her identity card. In October 1999 the NRD had consented to changing Lina's name on her card from Azlina Jailani to Lina Joy. However when her new card was issued under the new regulations which came into force on 1
October 1999, it had her birth religion "Islam" on it, even though Lina had stated on her application form that she is a Christian. (Source: Justice Richard Malanjum's Judgment.)

The NRD contested that Lina needed a Syariah court order certifying her renunciation of Islam before it could make the change. In 2001 Lina filed a suit against the NRD Director-General, the government and the Federal Territory Religious Council.

After losing at both the High Court and Court of Appeal, the matter finally came to the Federal Court with these three questions:

1) Was the NRD entitled to require a person to produce a certificate or a declaration or an order from the Syariah court before deleting "Islam" from his or her identity card;

2) Did the NRD correctly construe its powers under the National Registration Regulations 1990 when it imposed the above requirement, which is not expressly provided for in the regulations;

3) Was the landmark case Soon Singh vs Perkim Kedah – which held that Syariah courts have the authority over the civil courts to hear cases of Muslims renouncing Islam – correctly decided?

The Star reported on 31 May 2007: "Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has ruled that the National Registration Department had reasonably required Lina Joy to get a certificate of apostasy from the Syariah Court. This would allow the court to proceed to make a deletion (of the word 'Islam') from her identity card.

"The top judge also ruled that since the Syariah Court had the jurisdiction over cases involving conversion to Islam, it should, by implication, have the power to decide on apostasy matters.

"'I do not see any defect in the 1999 Federal Court judgment in the case of Soon Singh (which decided on the same grounds and which led to the provision for Muslims to state their religion in their identity card).

"'To say that she is not under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court – because she no longer professes Islam – is not appropriate,' said Ahmad Fairuz in his 41-page judgment. He added that the way one leaves a religion is set by the religion itself.

"'No one is stopping her from marrying. She is merely required to fulfil certain obligations, for the Islamic authorities to confirm her apostasy, before she embraces Christianity.
"'In other words, one cannot embrace or leave a religion according to one's whims and fancies.'" (Link 2)

According to Associated Press writer Eileen Ng, "Judge Richard Malanjum, the only non-Muslim on the panel, sided with Joy, saying it was 'unreasonable' to ask her to turn to the Shariah Court because she could face criminal prosecution there. Apostasy is a crime punishable by fines and jail sentences. Offenders are often sent to prison-like rehabilitation centres." (Link 3)

The judgments can be found at the website of the Malaysian Bar:
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/component/option,com_docman/task,cat_view/gid,380/Itemid,120/

------------------------------------------------------
WELCOME TO POST-PROGRESSIVE, POST-SECULAR MALAYSIA
- the Islamisation of Malaysia.

------------------------------------------------------

In October 2006, Asian Analysis published a piece by Clive S. Kessler (Emeritus Professor, Sociology & Anthropology, The University of New South Wales, Australia) entitled "The Long March Towards Desecularisation" (Link 4).

Kesser regards recent developments in Malaysia as "the latest phase. . . in the long march towards desecularisation, towards arresting and then reversing the implicit secularisation of Malaysian life and the state that the 1957 constitution set in train and intended implicitly to promote."

He writes: "Those who created the independence constitution assumed that, though not yet a fully secular society, Malaya would evolve in that direction: partly because of its own irrepressible cultural and religious pluralism and partly because that seemed the trajectory of modern nationalism and modernity itself. The 1957 constitution was a compromise that acknowledged the public, emblematic significance of Islam as the state's official religion yet tried to provide potential space, even support, for freedom of, from and in religion.

"Not everybody was happy with this expedient, and within two years of independence that discontent found expression in the spectacular political success of Malaysia's Islamist party PAS (then known as PMIP) in Kelantan and Terengganu. With that began the protracted, intensely competitive and ever escalating 'Islamist policy auction' between the dominant UMNO, anchor of the ruling Alliance and later Barisan Nasional coalitions, and PAS."

Concerning the systematic nature of the Islamisation Professor Kessler writes: "The cascading events over the last year (2006) are all part of this strategy: to place the secularists and religious pluralists on the back foot; by tactical positioning and rhetorical identification, to isolate progressive and modernist Muslims from the Malay Muslim mainstream and to stigmatise their
concerns as heretical and disloyal, and them as friends and dupes of the enemies of Islam, in the eyes of conventional Muslim majority opinion; to block and counter the momentum that any secularist tendencies or non-'Islam-centric' religious pluralism might generate; and thereby not just to advance desecularising processes but, driven by the pious new Malay Muslim middle-class activists, to move Malaysia into a post-liberal or 'post-progressivist' political phase and era. With them a new Islamist politics has not merely come of age but moves towards and is now capturing the centre of Malaysian political life."

On 3 May 2007, YaleGlobal online published a piece by Sadanand Dhume (Asia Society, Washington, DC) entitled, "Malaysia Backpedals on Modernity". (Link 5)

YaleGlobal prefaces Dhume's article with this introduction: "A fundamentalist streak of Islam within Malaysia is coming into conflict with the flourishing civil society that has made the nation a model of peaceful and democratic development in Southeast Asia.

"Muslims in Malaysia, unlike their Hindu or Christian compatriots, are ultimately subject to strict Islamic law, known as sharia. In fact, the national judiciary cannot override a ruling by a sharia court. These Islamic religious authorities intrude more into the everyday life and private matters of Malay citizens, preventing conversions to other faiths and separating children deemed Muslim from non-Muslim parents. The national government not only acquiesces to the assertiveness of the Islamic authorities but has itself become increasingly outspoken on behalf of Islam worldwide.

"The paradox of a country that dreams of becoming a global technology and innovation hub, yet actively sponsors a repressive self-governed community in its midst, may soon become untenable. After all, an advanced economy runs on its people. By denying the full protection of its laws to half its citizens, Malaysia endangers the future prosperity of all."

Sadanand Dhume contends that three and a half decades of progressive Islamisation has produced a Malaysia that is increasingly authoritarian, repressive, intolerant and heading backwards. "In a globalised and increasingly competitive world, Malaysia cannot expect to modernise its economy without modernising its society. In practical terms, this means
choosing the universal values of freedom of conscience and freedom of inquiry over the narrow dictates of Islamic orthodoxy."

Dhume details several examples (as does Kessler) that demonstrate the "ongoing clash between the modern and the medieval". He notes the recent case of Revathi Masoosai who was born to Indian Muslim parents and raised by her Hindu grandmother. After she married a Muslim man and had a child, the authorities intervened, forcibly separated the couple and removed their 16-month-old daughter to the custody of Revathi's Muslim mother. According to Pakistan's
Daily Times, Revathi was then put in an Islamic rehabilitation camp. Her 100 days detention was subsequently extended for another 80 days an account of her non-cooperation. Her husband was not permitted to visit. He wept as he told Daily Times, "We are treated like animals." (Link 6)

Dhume also notes the scandalous Muslim burial given to Malaysian Hindu
rock-climber M. Moorthy; and Lina Joy's struggle to have her conversion from Islam to Christianity legally recognised. He notes the government's assault upon the Sky Kingdom cult and the razing of dozens of Hindu temples over recent years.

Dhume then contends: "The nub of the problem lies in Malaysia's inconsistent approach to modernisation. Unlike neighbouring Singapore, which stands for equality before the law and a strict meritocracy, Malaysia has sought prosperity against a backdrop of deepening Islamisation and handouts for ethnic Malays, deemed by law to be Muslim. Until recently the Malaysia of vice
squads and apostasy laws did not intrude upon the Malaysia of glittering skyscrapers and high-speed airport trains.

"But the rise of China, India and Vietnam, and the demands of a shift from low-cost manufacturing to more knowledge-intensive work, raise serious doubts about the viability of the Malaysian model. The country needs freedom of inquiry to unleash the creativity of its people. It needs to foster an atmosphere of tolerance to staunch the outflow of the country's brightest
non-Malays and to attract overseas talent and investment. Neither is likely without rethinking the twinned and contentious issues of ethnic preferences and religious supremacism."

Dhume notes that Malaysia's rise in the field of information technology has been particularly challenged by the fact that Malaysia "finds it hard to attract and retain Indian and Chinese engineers. Meanwhile, many of the country's brightest students – especially non-Malays – migrate to Australia, the US and Singapore, where everyone enjoys freedom of conscience and equality before the law."

TRACKING ISLAMISATION

The Islamisation of Malaysia has been built around the same core framework as Islamisation in virtually all other Muslim states the world over:

* the globalisation of Saudi Arabian Sunni fundamentalist (Wahhabi) doctrine which is founded on Muslim supremacy and is pro-Sharia, pro-jihad, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, intolerant, agressive and imperialistic. (The Saudis starting exporting ideology globally in the early 1970s.);

* inspiration from the Iranian Islamic Shiite Revolution of 1979 (which was a product of Shia Islam plus Maxist Revolutionary ideology);

* the shifting into high-gear of Saudi Arabian Sunni fundamentalist global dissemination of doctrine through the 1980s. (This was done to counter Persian Iran's Shia revolution. Wahhabi ideology is also virulently anti-Shia);

* the globalisation of Islamic jihad (a product primarly of the 1979-88 Afghan war).

As noted by Dhume, "The OPEC oil boom of 1973 allowed Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to bankroll efforts to Arabise the Muslims of South and Southeast Asia. The ripples of the 1979 Iranian Revolution were felt directly on Malaysian college campuses. During the 1980s the headscarf became ubiquitous among Malay women. Meanwhile, in a bid to outdo the Islamist opposition in terms of piety, the ruling party UMNO [United Malays National Organisation] went on a mosque-building spree. Religious students made a beeline for the Middle East and Pakistan, and in a show of pan-Islamic solidarity, visa rules were eased for visitors from many Muslim countries."

Malaysian academic Farish Noor, in an October 2006 interview with Australia's ABC Radio National Religious Report, also regards the Islamisation of Malaysia as having began in earnest the 1970s. "I think what we are witnessing in Malaysia today is the natural development of something that began in the '70s when both UMNO and PAS were trying their best to, in a sense, engage in what I call the Islamisation race in order to put to the fore the Islamic
credentials, rather than their national credentials, to basically out-Islamise each other; both parties trying to demonstrate how committed they were to Islamic and Muslim concerns. This is obviously intended to bolster their support among their majority Malay-Muslim constituency. But I think at the expense of marginalising non-Malays and non-Muslims in the country." (Link 7)

The 1980s was also marked by the rise of Anwar Ibrahim, who at the time of his co-opting to UMNO in 1982 was the charismatic leader of the Islamic Youth Movement. Anwar Ibrahim became the Islamic conscience of UMNO.

In 1988 the Constitution was amended to raise the status of the Sharia Courts, making them the supreme authority for Malaysian Muslims.

Further to this, as Sadanand Dhume notes, during the 1997 economic crisis, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed became a "global cheerleader for anti-Semitism – publicly peddling conspiracy theories about attacks on the Malaysian ringgit and accusing Jews of 'rule[ing] the world by proxy'." (Link 5)

The 1998 sacking, trial and imprisonment of Anwar Ibrahim (on questionable and humiliating sodomy charges) bolstered the causes of Islamic and opposition groups. Observers report that subsequent to this there was a dramatic increase in visible expressions of Islam, such as headscarves and skullcaps, especially on University campuses. There was a revival of Islamic pop music while discrimination against non-Malays and non-Muslims grew. Farish Noor has said
that it was as if the Malay populace decided that in Anwar's absence they had to take responsibility for the Islamisation program. This in turn only encouraged UNMO to work all the harder at establishing its Islamic credentials in competition with the increasingly popular PAS (Islamic party).

Farish Noor, in his ABC Religion Report interview (Oct 2006) also comments on "the emergence of a pan-Malaysian-Indonesian conservative religious front". Noor says that Malaysian and Indonesian Islamic NGOs and political parties have been networking intensively for the past decade and that this networking often extends to Pakistan and Bangladesh. "This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when the agenda is hijacked by more conservative forces, that wish
to use these conspiracy theories in order to set up a kind of hate machine directed towards other religious communities, then I think it does become problematic, particularly for countries like Malaysia, with a multiracial, multi-religious background." (Link 7)

Noor contends that some two dozen new Islamic NGOs and lobby groups have sprung up in Malaysia and Indonesia in recent years that are basically carrying on the political struggle through non-political means. Noor and Kessler both describe these Islamic NGOs as sectarian and communitarian. According to Noor, the Islamic NGOs are marginalising and weakening secular civil society in both countries.

Noor observes that the political Islamisation program is being driven by public demand. He notes that Abu Bakr Bashir's fundamentalist Islamic ideas have been around for decades but have only now become popular. "We need to understand how and why there has been this shift, to a register that is more sectarian, more communitarian and even more radically violent." Noor then focuses exclusively on the need to improve the economic situation, standards of living and governance.

While this is undoubtedly critical, the need to address ideology is far more critical, for Islamic intolerance starts with Islamic ideological indoctrination.

LIFE IN POST-PROGRESSIVE, POST-SECULAR MALAYSIA


On 1 June, Jamaliah (26), an ethnic Indian woman born Muslim pleaded for the government to help her renounce Islam so she could be recognised as a Hindu. On 30 May, after hearing the court verdict in Lina Joy's case, Jamaliah's Hindu boyfriend ended their six-year-long relationship because he could see that there was no hope that they could ever marry. Jamaliah was so distraught she attempted suicide.

According to Associated Press Jamaliah's father had converted from Hinduism to Islam so that he could take a second wife, a Muslim. "Jamaliah was born to his first wife, a Hindu, in 1981 after her father's conversion to Islam. She was abandoned by her mother shortly after birth and was brought up by her father and Muslim stepmother. For that reason, she was registered as a Muslim, although she began practising Hinduism when she was old enough to pray." [Note: In line with Sharia, Jamaliah would have been deemed Muslim as soon as her father converted to Islam.]

"'I don't want to be a Muslim. All this while I've been living life as a Hindu and I only want to marry a Hindu man,' Jamaliah said. 'I want to change my religion but the court's ruling in Lina Joy's case has shattered my hopes for a future.'" (Link 8)

Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au

Links

1) http://www.singaporelawreview.org/events/lecture/2006_speech.htm

2) CJ: NRD's requirement is reasonable. 31 May 2007
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/5/31/nation/17889316&sec=nation

3) Malaysian Christian Convert Denied Recognition
By Eileen Ng. Associated Press Writer, 30 May 2007
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070530/27690_Malaysia_Court_Refuses_to_Recognize_Convert_as_Christian.htm

4) The Long March Towards Desecularisation
Asian Analysis. October 2006
http://www.aseanfocus.com/asiananalysis/article.cfm?articleID=989

5) Malaysia Backpedals on Modernity
By Sadanand Dhume, YaleGlobal, 3 May 2007
Growing assertiveness of Islamic courts intrudes on the rights of non-Muslims
threatening social harmony in the prosperous nation.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9133

6) Malaysia parts Muslim wives and kids from Hindu men
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C04%5C20%5Cstory_20-4-2007_pg7_41

7) Farish Noor and 'creeping sharia'
ABC Radio National Religion Report, 11 October 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2006/1760385.htm#transcript

8) Malaysian Muslim woman pleads for government help to convert to Hinduism
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/01/asia/AS-GEN-Malaysia-Renouncing-Islam.php

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Malaysia bans more books deemed prejudicial to public order.

Date: Thursday 13 July 2006
Subj: Malaysia bans more books deemed prejudicial to public order.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.


Once again, Malaysia's Internal Security Ministry has used the Printing Presses and Publications Act of 1984 to ban books on religion. The banned titles are books that critique Islam and books that assist in Christian witness to Muslims. Many are international best sellers and have been in circulation, including in Malaysia, for many years. They are banned on the grounds that the Internal Security Ministry has deemed them prejudicial to public order. In reality however, the only members of the public likely to be provoked by these books are apostaphobic Islamists who rely on repression because they are threatened by public debate and public access to alternatives. That the government should pander to this element in this way is very disturbing.

--------------------------------------------

In early April 2003 the Malaysian Home Ministry (KDN) banned 35 books that they considered detrimental to public peace. Twelve of these were Christian books, eleven of which were in the national language, Bahasa Malaysia. The twelfth was a translation of the Bible in Iban, the language of the Iban people of Sarawak. Amongst the banned titles were translated works by J I Packer and John R W Stott. After much prayer and advocacy, and a meeting between Malaysian Christian leaders and Acting Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the ban on the Iban-language Bible was lifted.

Then in April 2005 the Malaysian government banned eleven more titles dealing with religious topics on the grounds that they were "detrimental to public order". The books included: "Great Religions of the World" (published by National Geographic and in circulation for more than 30 years), "The Word of Islam" Edited by John Alden Williams, "A History of God" and "Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet" both by Karen Armstrong, "The Cross and the Crescent" by Phil Parshall, and "Women and Islam" by Fatima Mernissi (a Moroccan feminist). (For full list see Link 1)

Malaysia's Democratic Alliance Party called for an explanation, saying "Simply stating that the publications are detrimental to public order without justifying how they are so is plainly unacceptable. The decision of the Ministry to ban the books concerned is clearly retrogressive and does not square with the government's aspiration of creating a knowledge based society, especially in the present information technology era where people should have the fundamental freedom of access to information; not only information which the governing authorities deem appropriate." (Link 2)

In early June 2006, a further eighteen books on religious topics were banned on the grounds that they could disrupt public peace and harmony. Under the Printing Presses and Publications Act, all forms of reproduction or distribution of these books are thereby banned. Six of the titles are in Malay language and the rest are in English.

The newly banned titles include: "Lifting the Veil" by Trudie Crawford, "A Fundamental Fear of Eurocentrism and the Emergence of Islamism" by Bobby S Sayyid, "Islam Revealed - A Christian Arab's View of Islam" by Dr Anis A Shorrosh, "What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam" by John L Esposito, "Sharing Your Faith with A Muslim" by Akbidayah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, "The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam" by Karen Armstrong, and "Mini Skirts Mothers & Muslims" by Christine Mallouhi. Amongst the Malaysian language titles are two works by critic Kassim Ahmad, whose book, "Hadith: A Re-evaluation", challenges the infallibility of the Hadith, the purported words of Muhammad. (For full list see Link 3)

"THE SPACE FOR DISCOURSE IS NARROWING"

On 4 July the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) reported, "The Kuala Lumpur-based women's rights group Sisters-in-Islam is protesting the ministry's decision. 'We are particularly concerned over the increasing number of books on Islam and religion that are being banned,' the group said in an appeal to be sent to the ministry. 'The space for discourse is narrowing and Malaysian readers are being deprived of ideas and debates by renowned scholars and writers, published by reputable institutions such as the Oxford University Press.'

"Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is walking a tightrope between ensuring open discussions about liberalism and pluralism in Islam, and maintaining a strong political base among Muslim conservatives." (Link 4)

While PM Badawi is walking his tightrope, he is being pulled to each side by opposing forces. In reality, he needs to choose which side to jump into before he and his coalition are torn apart.

ARTICLE 19 (http://www.article19.org), an international human rights organisation which defends and promotes freedom of expression and freedom of information all over the world (the name comes from Article 19 of the UDHR) has strongly condemned the Malaysian government over the book bans.

In its 10 July press release ARTICLE 19 stated, "Any restriction on freedom of expression must be the least restrictive means possible to protect a legitimate interest, and must be carefully tailored to effectively protect that interest." ARTICLE 19 maintains that the bans violate international standards governing the right to freedom of expression. However, ARTICLE 19 also notes, "Malaysia is one of the few countries around the world which has not signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which under Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression and access to information." (Link 5)

New Straits Times columnist Syed Nadzri lamented the ban on books and strict regulation of local television, saying it is antithetical to the whole notion of "openness and transparency" as is often bandied about by the Abdullah administration. (Link 6)

Elizabeth Kendal

Links

1) Banning Books. 12 May 2005
http://thebookaholic.blogspot.com/2005/05/banning-books.html
(This page has links to the banned English titles.)

2) The Internal Security Minister should review and lift the ban on
11 foreign language publications. DAP press release April 2005
http://www.dapmalaysia.org/english/bul/apr05/bul2679.htm (2005)

3) Ministry Bans 18 Books.15 June 2006
http://bernama.com/bernama/v3/news.php?id=203457
http://thebookaholic.blogspot.com/2006/06/more-banned-books.html
(This page contains links to the banned English titles.)

4) Government bans 18 books on Islam. 4 July 2006
http://www.seapabkk.org/newdesign/newsdetail.php?No=489

5) ARTICLE 19 condemns authorities' banning of 18 books for
disrupting peace and harmony. IFEX 11 July 2006
http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/75609/
(original press release from Article 19:
http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/malaysia-18-books-banned.pdf)

6) Burning concern for democracy and press freedom
4 July 2006. http://www.aliran.com/content/view/86/22/

Thursday, July 29, 2004

MALAYSIA: The great apostasy debate.

Date: Thursday 29 July 2004
Subj: Malaysia: The great apostasy debate.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.


A fascinating debate is raging in Malaysia regarding Islamic teaching on religious freedom, and the contradiction between Malaysia's constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and the total lack of religious freedom for Muslims under the Syariah Law. While the debate might be fascinating for those who enjoy reading combative letters and editorial columns, it is tragic for the four courageous apostates who are presently losing their battle to have their constitutional right to religious freedom acknowledged and respected in the Malaysian courts.

Mr Daud Mamat (62), Ms Kamariah Ali (51), her late husband Mohamad Ya and Mr Mad Yacob Ismail (62) are Malays from Kelantan who have renounced Islam. They are discovering that they do not have the right to exercise their constitutional right to religious freedom because they were born Muslim and therefore must come under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts in all religious matters, beginning with their desire to renounce Islam. This is regardless of the fact that Syariah dictates death for apostates.

The four apostates were arrested in 1992 and charged in the Kelantan Syariah Court for teaching "deviant practices inconsistent with Islamic teachings". They each received a sentence of 20 months imprisonment.

In August 1998 the four attempted to officially cut all ties with Islam and therefore with the Syariah Court by formally renouncing Islam before a commissioner of oaths. However, in 2000 the four were again charged by the Kelantan Syariah Court. They were charged with contempt of the Syariah Court for refusing to attend repentance classes which were part of their earlier sentence. They were each sentenced to three years of rehabilitation at an Islamic Rehabilitation Camp.

The apostates appealed to the Kelantan High Court, claiming that as they were no longer Muslims the Syaraih Court had no jurisdiction over them. The High Court however dismissed their appeal, claiming that matters pertaining to Islam were not within its jurisdiction, but rather they were issues for the Syariah Court. The four apostates each served two years of their three-year sentence and were released in November 2002. Mr. Mohamad Ya died in October 2003.

In November 2003, the three surviving apostates took their case again to Malaysia's Federal Court. They wanted to clarify whether the constitutional right to freedom of belief includes the right for a Muslim to renounce Islam. They wanted official recognition that they had renounced Islam and are therefore, as non-Muslims, immune from Syariah laws.

On 21 July 2004, after nine months of court deliberation, the court deemed the issue of apostasy irrelevant saying that the four had committed the offences before they had officially renounced Islam. The appeal failed. The apostates are considering filing for a review of the court decision. As the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) Malaysia notes, "Basically the court has declined to answer a landmark issue", that of whether a Muslim over the age of 18 years has the right to renounce Islam, and are laws that restrict a person's right to renounce Islam inconsistent with Article 11(1) of the Constitution and therefore void.

The apostates have been supported by the Malaysian Human Rights group Suaram. According to Andrew Ong, who reports for Malaysia Kini, Suaram's 2003 Human Rights Report noted that "Madyaacob Ismail, Daud Mamat, Kamariah Ali and Mohamed Ya filed a motion in November 2003 at the Federal Court seeking judicial acknowledgment of their renouncement. Their lawyers cited that Malaysia is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Bangkok Declaration and the Vienna Declaration, all which includes a freedom of religion clause, and argued that domestic laws must conform to international norms. 'As long as Malaysia presents to the international community that its citizens enjoy freedom of religion, the government must not act and interpret domestic laws in a way that inhibits meaningful exercise of that freedom', added Suaram."

According to Andrew Ong's report, lawyers for the apostates also argued that Article 11(1) of Malaysia's constitution gives every individual the right to profess, practise and propagate any religion. Suaram claims that included in that right is the right to renounce, or not to profess, any religion.

Ong reports: "The authorities acknowledge this fact. However, they had said that the group could only renounce their religion through the Syariah court, in which they would be exposed to possible imprisonment and death penalty for apostasy. Given the situation, Suaram said that the possible judicial ramifications would form a restriction on fundamental human rights to freedom of religion. 'Such restrictions on apostasy, because they are imposed only on Malays, and converts to Islam, are also in contravention of Article 8(1) and 8(2) of the constitution, which guarantee equal protection under the law...,' said the report." (Link 2)

The National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) Malaysia reports that Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said in the hearing that the Kelantanese are still Muslims: "until they are certified by the Syariah Court to have renounced the religion, they are, by virtue of the law, still Muslims". He pointed out that Article 11(3) of the constitution conferred to every religious group the right to manage its own religious affairs, including the right to rehabilitate those who attempted to leave the religion. Chambers' head of civil division Datuk Azahar Mohamad Azahar added, "A Muslim is bound by the syariah laws on apostasy which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah courts."

The implications are clear. Malaysian Muslim who wish to renounce Islam must do so through the Syariah Courts which will not permit them that right, regardless of the constitution. On matters pertaining to Islam, Malaysian Muslim are under the repressive Syariah Courts, not the liberating Malaysian Constitution.

A DEBATE THAT MUST BE HAD


This has generated some heated debate in the Malaysian media. Some letter and editorial writers express deep sorrow for the apostates, and shock at the fact that they are not free to practise their constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. The attitude is summed up well in an article by AB Sulaiman entitled, "Does Islam allow apostasy?" (21 July 2004, Malaysiakini).

Sulaiman writes, "I had made the observation that (Malay) Muslim apostates lived in a state of suspended animation, with Islam saying on one hand they are free to change their religion on their own volition [Qur'an, Surah 2.256], but on the other, the Syariah law stating they may lose their lives should they do so.

"The operating principle seems to be - 'Islam stands for the freedom of religion but if its own adherents choose to leave it, they will be punished, or even be put to death.'

"I sense an inherent contradiction here." (Link 3)

On the other side are the writers who oppose religious freedom and support the Syariah Court's punishments for apostates as a means of preserving Islam and protecting the integrity and security of Islamic nations. One writer, Arbibi Ashoy, wrote a piece published in Malaysiakini on 29 June amazingly entitled "Chaos if Muslims allowed religious freedom".

Ashoy runs the line that conversion/apostasy is a tool of Western imperialists and colonialist who seek to "divide and rule". "Thus the desire not to allow Muslims to divide in Malaysia is to prevent foreign interference in the country. Also, if Muslims in Malaysia were allowed freedom to renounce Islam as they please, the Syariah Court would lose its jurisdiction over all matters including inheritance laws and matters pertaining to child custody. If Syariah law is favourable to them, people will convert to Islam. If, on the other hand, Syariah law is unfavourable to them, then they will renounce Islam. Can you imagine the chaos and confusion this will lead to, besides making a mockery of the religion? " (Link 4)

HINDU MOTHER RETAINS CUSTODY AFTER HUSBAND'S CONVERSION TO ISLAM, BUT CHILDREN ARE DEEMED MUSLIM


This issue of Syariah laws pertaining to child custody is already being challenged. Earlier this week the Federal Court granted a Hindu woman, Shamala Sathyaseelan (32), custody of her two boys aged 4 and 5 years, overturning an April ruling by the Syariah Court which had awarded custody to the father who converted to Islam in 2002. The Federal Court decision is a landmark ruling that goes against Syariah law and practice.

Her sons however, have been officially deemed Muslim by the Syariah Court in line with Syariah law which states that all children are considered automatically converted to Islam if one of the parents becomes a Muslim. The Federal Court has ordered their mother not to interfere with her sons' Muslim religion and warned her that if she does, she will lose custody. (Link 3) The Federal Court said it could not overturn the boys' automatic/forced conversions because, as Muslims, their cases were a matter for the Syariah Court, not the Federal Court.

- Elizabeth Kendal
rl-research@crossnet.org.au

Links

1) Four who renounced Islam lose appeal in top court
Straits Times Interactive, 22 July 2004
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,262701,00.html

2) Suaram: Four Muslims who renounced Islam in limbo
Andrew Ong, 19 June 2004
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/20355

3) Does Islam allow apostasy?
AB Sulaiman, 21 July 2004
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/28575

4) Chaos if Muslims allowed religious freedom
Arbibi Ashoy, 29 June 2004
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/28097