Date: Friday 29 October 2004
Subj: China: Debating religious liberty.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
----------------------------------
CHINA: DEBATING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
----------------------------------
China's repressive religion policy is simply not working. Not only is China's repressive control of religion ineffective, it is difficult and expensive to administer and becoming internationally embarrassing due to its human rights abuses.
But a debate on religious liberty is stirring in China. At a recent two-day conference on the topic of religion and law held in Beijing, a senior Religious Affairs Bureau official told the conference that Beijing was in the process of revamping its religion policy and that a "comprehensive law on religion" was being considered that would result in religous groups having more autonomy. His speech was followed by another senior Religious Affairs Bureau official who indicated that officials are divided over the issue and social cohesion needed to be consided above religious rights. The debate coming out of Beijing will be very interesting to follow.
-----------------------------------------
INCREASING CHURCH AUTONOMY AND LIMITING STATE AUTHORITY
Recent reports in the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post (SCMP) indicate that Chinese authorities are reassessing the way they handle religion. In an article entitled 'Religious Groups Get More Room To Move', by Nailene Chou Wiest in Beijing (SCMP 20 October), Zhang Xunmou, the director of the Religious Affairs Bureau's policy and legal department, told the recent Beijing conference on religion and law that China is in the process of revamping its religious policy. He said the aim is to move from control by diktat to the rule of law in order to curb arbitrary interference by the state and give religious groups more autonomy. Officials would have limits on their power and would be obliged to follow set rules when dealing with religious groups. Officials abusing their power would face legal action.
Mr Zhang described this as "a paradigm shift", noting that limiting state authority over religion was a revolutionary concept in Chinese history, as China has long had secular institutions for regulating religious affairs and conferring legitimacy on religious groups. Interestingly, Zhang also commented that Beijing is working on reducing administrative costs and drafting rules on taxing religious groups.
Mr Zhang claimed that the government does not have a problem with religion per se, but only with foreign interference. The SCMP explains, "In the 19th century, Christian churches were seen as collaborating with Western powers to challenge the Chinese state and Mr Zhang said historical grievances still coloured policies on religion, as expressed in the 'Three Self' principles – self-administration, self-support and self-propagation. However, he said these principles were a reaction to the power of the foreign churches in China and were not directed against religion itself."
It must be noted that those churches most faithful in observing the Three Self principles are in reality the house churches, which are, generally speaking, truly indigenous, self-administrating, self-supporting and self-propagating Chinese churches. These house churches are however, illegal by virtue of their being outside the Three Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), which is (ironically) financially assisted, administered and controlled by the Communist authorities, and generally reflect Western traditions.
AsiaNews sources in Hong Kong comment: "A comprehensive law on religions is something positive but only if the government recognizes religious freedom as an innate human right, not – as is the case now – as something conceded by the state. To safeguard this right, the government should do away with the Patriotic Associations which are a political element in the body of religions. Alternatively, they should put the Patriotic Associations under the authority of bishops and other religious leaders, not – as is currently the case – over them." (Link 1)
In a subsequent report entitled, "'Stability the Key' to new rules on religion" (SCMP 23 October), Nailene Chou Wiest reports that Ji Wenyuan , vice-director of the Religious Affairs Bureau in Beijing, also spoke at the Beijing conference on religion and law. Ji Wenyuan lowered expectations with his warning that China's "special circumstances" must be taken into account. Mr Ji said that when considering China's religion policy, priority must be given to social stability. "A religion must be accepted not only by its own congregation, which follows its teachings, but also by non-believers who can live with it," he said. Mr Ji expressed his belief that Western-style religion laws would prove unworkable in China because China's circumstances were different.
AsiaNews comments: "Given the growing social unrest in Chinese society, the government is concerned that religious communities might become rallying points for opposition forces. This fear explains the growing crackdown and arrest of underground religious leaders and the tightening control over official religious groups." (Link 2) Maybe this social unrest and fear of opposition is what Ji Wenyuan was refering to when he appealed for consideration to be given to China's "special circumstances".
Ji Wenyuan's words indicate that there is division in the Religious Affairs Bureau on the issue of granting religious groups greater autonomy. For Zhang Xunmou, granting religious groups more autonomy would solve many problems and possibly even open some opportunitues. For Ji Wenyuan, the compromise may prove to be something along the lines of Vietnam's new religion law which grants full religious freedom to everyone but makes it a criminal offense to undermine social harmony or unity – putting the church at the mercy of the local community, dependent on local tolerance. China and Vietnam are alike in that they have both basically rejected Communist ideology and passionately embraced market capitalism whilst retaining a totalitarian dictatorial one party rule state in the midst of a people crying for increased freedoms and government accountability.
HUMAN RIGHTS DIALOGUE
On 26 October, the German Evangelical News Agency "idea" published an interview with Bishop Wolfgang Huber of Berlin, whom "idea" describes as one of Germany's most significant Protestant leaders and Church representatives. Bishop Huber has called for an intensified human rights dialogue with China, saying talks should not only focus on economic liberties but should include fundamental rights of the individual such as religious liberty.
The "idea" release of 26 October explains, "In Huber's view it is unrealistic to assume that economic liberalization in China will automatically be followed by an improvement in the human rights situation. 'Unfortunately I can well imagine that a very capitalist economy and an authoritarian state socialism will continue to coexist for rather a long time,' said Huber." (This is exactly the point made by the Reverend Nguyen Hong Quang of Vietnam in his article "How is it possible?" which can be found on the WEA RLC website.)
On Monday 25 October, Colin Powell received an agreement from Beijing that they would resume a human rights dialogue with Washington.
Links
1) Beijing promises more freedom for religions
AsiaNews 20 Oct 2004
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1730
2) For China’s government stability comes before religious freedom
AsiaNews 25 Oct 2004
http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=1756
Friday, October 29, 2004
Thursday, August 5, 2004
Cameroon: Foreign Islamists infiltrate to incite hate.
Date: Thursday 5 August 2004
Subj: Cameroon: Foreign Islamists infiltrate to incite hate.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
Foreign Islamists have infiltrated the northern provinces of Cameroon and are attempting to incite the local Muslims against the local Christians.
The great African ethnic/religious fault line that runs from the Sierra Leone/Liberia border in the West through to Asmara, Eritrea in the East, through central Cote d'Ivoire, central Nigeria and central Sudan, also runs through northern Cameroon. Cameroon shares its porous western border with Nigeria which has experienced a dramatic rise in religious violence over recent years, since the northern states adopted Sharia (Islamic) Law. Garoua, the capital of North Province, Cameroon, is only some 500 kilometers due east of Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria which suffered serious religious violence in September 2001 and again in 2004 and is now under emergency rule.
On 3 August 2004, Inter Press Service (IPS) (Johannesburg) ran an article entitled "Cameroon: Religious Tensions On the Rise in the North", written by By Sylvestre Tetchiada, reporting from the capital, Yaounde. (Link 1)
Garga Aoudou, a community activist with a Dutch development organisation told IPS that Garoua has been "literally inundated with fliers inciting Muslims towards a hatred of Christians". Aoudou continues, "Religious fanatics exhort Muslims to increase the number of marriages between young Muslim men and Christian girls in order to convert them to Islam, to refuse to rent houses or sell land to Christians - or to get them to move by raising the rent."
This is confirmed by Yves Steven, the Bishop of Maroua (capital of the Extreme North province)and of the town of Makolo. Bishop Steven told IPS, "Several Christian families have come to me to complain. They were subjected to physical violence. Some of them were forcibly evicted from their homes with bats and at knifepoint before they could collect their property."
Lele Lafrique, the Chief of Police in the North province is quoted as saying, "Now more than ever, an extremist current threatens the national unity for which we paid so dearly." Lafrique fears the situation may yet get worse. "We're calling upon...all Cameroonians not to fall prey to those seeking to create the chaos we've so often witnessed in neighboring countries".
According to the IPS report, local Muslim leaders who are keen to preserve the peaceful co-existence are equally concerned about "outside agitators" inciting violence against Christians. IPS reports: "In response to these developments, government has created a special joint task force to conduct raids against those suspected of encouraging religious extremism. Provincial governors also met towards the end of last month to discuss the situation."
Mbonji Edjenguele, an anthropologist at the University of Yaounde, told IPS, "We're on our guard because of what's happening right now in the north. We're not immune to the sociopolitical events currently taking place beyond our borders, which continue to be porous."
Edjenguele says that due to lack of education and high rates of illiteracy in the north, "prophets of doom from neighboring countries or elsewhere are able recruit followers to spread their disastrous ideas".
- Elizabeth Kendal
Link
1) Culture-Cameroon: Religious Tensions On the Rise in the North
By Sylvestre Tetchiada in Yaounde, 3 Aug 2004
Inter Press Service (Johannesburg)
Subj: Cameroon: Foreign Islamists infiltrate to incite hate.
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal.
Foreign Islamists have infiltrated the northern provinces of Cameroon and are attempting to incite the local Muslims against the local Christians.
The great African ethnic/religious fault line that runs from the Sierra Leone/Liberia border in the West through to Asmara, Eritrea in the East, through central Cote d'Ivoire, central Nigeria and central Sudan, also runs through northern Cameroon. Cameroon shares its porous western border with Nigeria which has experienced a dramatic rise in religious violence over recent years, since the northern states adopted Sharia (Islamic) Law. Garoua, the capital of North Province, Cameroon, is only some 500 kilometers due east of Jos, Plateau State, Nigeria which suffered serious religious violence in September 2001 and again in 2004 and is now under emergency rule.
On 3 August 2004, Inter Press Service (IPS) (Johannesburg) ran an article entitled "Cameroon: Religious Tensions On the Rise in the North", written by By Sylvestre Tetchiada, reporting from the capital, Yaounde. (Link 1)
Garga Aoudou, a community activist with a Dutch development organisation told IPS that Garoua has been "literally inundated with fliers inciting Muslims towards a hatred of Christians". Aoudou continues, "Religious fanatics exhort Muslims to increase the number of marriages between young Muslim men and Christian girls in order to convert them to Islam, to refuse to rent houses or sell land to Christians - or to get them to move by raising the rent."
This is confirmed by Yves Steven, the Bishop of Maroua (capital of the Extreme North province)and of the town of Makolo. Bishop Steven told IPS, "Several Christian families have come to me to complain. They were subjected to physical violence. Some of them were forcibly evicted from their homes with bats and at knifepoint before they could collect their property."
Lele Lafrique, the Chief of Police in the North province is quoted as saying, "Now more than ever, an extremist current threatens the national unity for which we paid so dearly." Lafrique fears the situation may yet get worse. "We're calling upon...all Cameroonians not to fall prey to those seeking to create the chaos we've so often witnessed in neighboring countries".
According to the IPS report, local Muslim leaders who are keen to preserve the peaceful co-existence are equally concerned about "outside agitators" inciting violence against Christians. IPS reports: "In response to these developments, government has created a special joint task force to conduct raids against those suspected of encouraging religious extremism. Provincial governors also met towards the end of last month to discuss the situation."
Mbonji Edjenguele, an anthropologist at the University of Yaounde, told IPS, "We're on our guard because of what's happening right now in the north. We're not immune to the sociopolitical events currently taking place beyond our borders, which continue to be porous."
Edjenguele says that due to lack of education and high rates of illiteracy in the north, "prophets of doom from neighboring countries or elsewhere are able recruit followers to spread their disastrous ideas".
- Elizabeth Kendal
Link
1) Culture-Cameroon: Religious Tensions On the Rise in the North
By Sylvestre Tetchiada in Yaounde, 3 Aug 2004
Inter Press Service (Johannesburg)
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
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