Originally posted by Zulkiflim:
Salaam,
Bis mil lah hir rah man nir rahim..
Without attempting to be
controversial, I will attempt a response to this very boastful and
provacative post with a purposeful intent to insult and abuse the
good senses of any normal person in this Speaker's Corner.
Firstly, it is odd that Muslims in Southeast Asia would try to
imitate the Arabs when adopting Islam
as a personal religion, even to the extent of following the views
and controversial rivalries of the different Arabic tribal sects in
the Islamic Faith.
The opening greetings in Arabic is simple enough, but how much does
the average Muslim lay person truly understand the Arabic word used
in the Koran and in the various religious practices ?
Yet, the Southeast Asian Muslims will faithfully abandon their own
cultural, social and historical heritage by immersing themselves
totally into a religion that is based on Arabic practises and
foreign to this region; and diligently imitate every aspects and
movement of Arabic Islam.
It is the parents right to guide the children.
Is this not a universal right
recognised as the duty of the Parent to guide the children ?
However, having the right to guide the children does not give the
Parents the Right to also force the children into a religion that
has no meaning to their personal intellect, personal philosophy,
personal beliefs, personal values, and personal rights to
choose.
Is it not odd that there are ex-Muslims - who have abandon Islam - as much as
this article have indicated a prodigal Muslim returning to the
Islamic Fold ?
Every modern country with a society and communities of people being
educated and enlightened have recognised the Basic Human Rights to
Freedom of Religion - in a list of Rights that are basic to the
Citizens of any Democratic Country, including those that hint of
democracy.
Somehow, the Freedom of Religion as enshrined in the Malaysian
Constitution is not accorded to the Muslim Malaysian, as much as
they have demanded to have EQUAL STATUS to all the other Malaysian
Citizens.
This is the biggest IRONY in Malaysian Society, and can only exist
in the convulted political thinking that can only occur in the
Malay mind, which is the cause of all the historical frictions that
has occurred in the relationship between Malaysia and all its
neighbors near and far.
thus the apostasy laws are sound.
I will not pretend to be cleverer
than the learned Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak, who is a
NON-Muslim in a panel of three judges that presided in reviewing
the appeal from Lina Joy.
As a learned person, well versed in Law - especially Malaysian Law,
and being a non-interested party - I will accept his view as more
valid than the other two presiding judges, who are Muslims - and
can only be seen as shirking their responsibility in executing
their duties to execute justice fairly.
In his statement, the Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak, Justice
Richard Malanjum had made three key salient points on this
matter:
:
Judge: Its illegal and
unreasonable
The Star, Thursday, 31 May 2007
PUTRAJAYA: Illegal and unreasonable. This was how Justice Richard
Malanjum described the insistence of the National Registration
Department (NRD) for Lina Joy to obtain a certificate of apostasy
from the Federal Territory Syariah Court or any Islamic
authority.
The Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak said that under applicable
law, the Syariah
Court in the Federal Territory has no statutory power to adjudicate
on the issue of apostasy.
The (NRD) insistence is unreasonable for it requires an
act that is almost impossible to perform, he said.
Justice Malanjum alleged that NRDs unreasonableness would have
consequential effects in some states where apostasy is a criminal
offence.
Hence, to expect the appellant (Lina) to apply for a
certificate of apostasy when to do so would likely expose her to
a range of offences under the Islamic law is, in my view,
unreasonable.
Disagreeing with the Court of Appeals majority judgment, he said
it completely
disregarded the fact that Lina had made several applications for a
change of name. Therefore, it should be regarded as
a continuing act.
He said to confine the matter to Linas third application was
completely ignoring her dealings with the NRD.
He agreed with submissions by Linas counsel that if the NRD had
correctly acted on her choice of religion for a replacement
identity card (in October 1999) instead of rejecting it on the
grounds she had not produced a certificate of apostasy, there would
have been no necessity for the last application to correct the
particulars as regards to entry of religion.
Others reasons stated by Justice Malanjum include:
> NRDs implementation of its policy has a bearing on
Linas fundamental
constitution right to freedom of religion under Article 11 of the
Federal Constitution.
> NRD director-general was wrong in stating that
apostasy was exclusively within the realm of the Syariah Court as
apostasy involves complex
questions of constitutional
importance
continue
below
