The Federal Court 2-1 majority decision rejecting Lina Joy’s appeal marks a tectonic shift of Malaysia in moving further and further away from the Merdeka “Social Contract” founding principles of nation-building agreed by the forefathers of the major communities on the attainment of independent nationhood.
It casts a larger shadow over the national horizon with the country entering the second half-century of nationhood, with increasing doubts among Malaysians about the meaning, permanence, sustainability and viability of constitutional guarantees, civil liberties and fundamental rights.
This is because the Lina Joy case has shattered confidence in the constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and above all, the sacred Merdeka “Social Contract” underlying the Constitution that Malaysia is a secular nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state.
Malaysians alarmed at the abandonment of the “Social Contract” principles are fully justified in their concerns, especially when one compares as to what would have happened to a Lina Joy case in the first quarter-century of the nation’s history as compared to today when the nation stands on its 50th year of nationhood!
After the disappointing Lina Joy judgment of the Federal Court yesterday, voices were heard from some Islamic groups urging “those hoping for an opposite outcome to reconsider their position and to consider modifying their expectations to suit what is good and more sustainable considering our realities” .
Moderate Malaysians, both Muslim and non-Muslim, must be very concerned by such voices as the same argument with the very same words could be used to justify the complete abandonment of the fundamental secular principle of the “Social Contract” for the establishment of an Islamic State!
On the occasion of Malaysia’s 50th Merdeka anniversary, the question that must be asked and answered by all Malaysians is: Malaysia — Quo Vadis!
#1 by susmaryosep on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 4:19 pm
I think the Judges (2 of them anyway) were swayed by the rowdy crowd outside…. Need we say anymore? I was brought up to know that religion is a personal communication between god and myself and nobody else. Now it seems my religion is everybody’s business! Susmariosep!!! (In Tagalog, this means Oh! my God!))
#2 by Cinapek on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 4:23 pm
I do not know if it is coincidence or not, but the individual judgements of the judges sitting on both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court seems to follow the religious beliefs of the individual judges.
It would have improved the credibility of the judgement delivered if the Federal Court had had a different racial and religious composition of the judges as compared to the Court of Appeal.
#3 by Fort on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 4:29 pm
Yes, Malaysia – Quo Vadis!
It is a sad, sad day for Malaysia!
The basic right for any human to choose what he/she would like to believe is not accorded to him/her.
This is a very oppressive trend. The personal belief of a person is being dictated.
All of us should make it known that this is not expedient!
#4 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 4:35 pm
Imtiaz had the right point, that its a dire consequence for RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, NOT religious freedom. Those who think its about freedom to convert don’t get it at all…
#5 by i_love_malaysia on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 4:51 pm
Aiyah, only gentlemen will honour the “Social Contract”, for those who are not, even with black and white also tak boleh pakai.
Mind you!! They will use the KRIS if need to!! this is the hard fact in Malaysia!!!
They can oppress the people for sometime, but they can never oppress the people every time and all the time!!!
All the people should stand up for Lina Joy for her courage and the persecution that she has to go through. Today, it is Lina Joy, tomorrow, it will be you and me!! Read my lips!!
May God bless our country so that this injustice will be stopped once and for all!!
#6 by HJ Angus on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 4:56 pm
I find it strange that the security at the court was reported in the press to be only 10 men outside and 10 men inside the court.
When they had the Article11 Forum in JB, there were at least 100 men around the place. Maybe the outcome had been accurately predicted?
At times like this we should say a prayer for Lina and all those who need the courage to get closer to a God of their own free will.
http://malaysiawatch2.blogspot.com/2007/05/prayer-for-lina-joy.html
#7 by karlmarx8 on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 5:08 pm
Malaysia seems to spearhead post 9/11 towards a mulsim sumpremo nation. It will not do any good in the world stage of religious affair and/or politico-religio arena. Post 9/11 call for proximity interfaith understanding.
On the same issue, muslim is supreme and is unquestionable in this land. It has now extended such supremacy globally as seen in the cancellation of the recent international interfaith dialogue. As for domestic dialogue is a very no-no. Don’t even think about it!
Where its heading is scary and unpredictable, and what’s predictable is unprintable.
I read somewhere (thestar.com.my)one of the judge was making a comment whether or not one can be a buddhist in the morning, and the same one be a Christian in the evening. The answer is YES. Is not easy being a true buddhist.
You can come in/out 10,000 times to be a buddhist and same time a christain or other faith, the buddhist order were not even make a comment that you should not be one or what. What matter most in the buddhist order is that one can be a true buddhist as per training to arrest the mind! Mind you, you still can call yourself a Christain!
A true buddhist STUDY and PRACTICE is not what every laity thinks clasping hand and kneeling down and make a prayer. A non-buddhist will not understand what’s buddhism. Just only hardly a handful of so-called buddhist themselves understood the true teaching of buddhism. Its that difficult? Yes, its is. Just ask yourself! You need a different mind to understand buddhism. Buddhism is not what everyone seems to understood.
What’s the big deal about it? Nothing, I am taking the privilege to tell you that being a highly learned judge that seems to understand religion, but- exactly, has it being understood in actuality? If not, what do you think of his credibility in uttering such statement as to other religion? Basing on secular law to interpret a religious aspect which has no firm ground on personal requirement, the paramount of it is political supremacy.
If you read beyond the lines from thestar.com.my, quote:from 13th century it was muslim and Malay custom dominating the nation………until the colonial power came over, its strong during those colonial period, and that secular law was interpreted as such……..
Supremacy!
#8 by VoteDAP on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 5:17 pm
i really amazed by these bunch of people, create their own rules by the name of their god. I really cant wait to see how next GE would be…if this type of stupid government is not going to get a big slap in face!!! pray for the god for your future…!
#9 by sickandtired on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 5:44 pm
Where is our religion rights? Don’t have in Malaysia or can’t have it. Does anyone have the rights to denied one freedom in religion in the name of god. Or it’s just the judges own personal preferences. If Lina Joy had chosen another religion other than Islam, let her be. Isn’t this freedom in religion is all about or it’s not?
#10 by sickandtired on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 5:51 pm
SIck and tired of all this mess in Malaysia. Collapse ceiling, crack bridges, burst water pipes, finger-pointing, religion freedom, 290 millions spent on building. And still the goverment ‘tak malu’ about it. It’s as though they are very proud about themselves.
#11 by pwcheng on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:00 pm
The verdict of the court will always be ruled by who sits as judges in the trial rather than by what is in the law. It is always two against one, two are Muslim judges against one non-muslim judge. It is no more coincidental as recorded in the many previous precedents.
So now we all can see that the law of the land is in topsy turvy, High profile cases ruled by grafts, religious cases ruled by the heart rather than by the head.
#12 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:14 pm
On the personal level Lina is a fool. If she had really wanted to marry the Mat Salleh cook (cooks make good money in places like Australia) she could have eloped and left without looking back. It was some ten years ago that news of her struggle to break free first got media attention. I see no reason for her to keep the love of her life waiting for decades to take his marriage vows with her. Religion is a personal choice – and so where one chooses to live.
Maybe Lina Joy has left Malaysia by now. Or maybe she waited first to reach the zenith of her career – which is to acquire the ‘rock star’ status both at home and internationally before leaving? Whatever it may be her name has found its way into the law books and she has been given that rock star status, that she so passionately sought, by organizations like Amnesty International. Her name is now ‘cast in stone’ so to speak reminding us of Moses in the Bible when he came down from that mountain after seeing the burning bush (not President Bush) holding the stone tablet in his hands containng the Ten Commandments!
Or were there people from the legal and the not-so-legal fraternity urging her on willing to do work pro bono, giving her false hopes that the civil courts would take jurisdiction of her matter from the syariah courts? Well now, any glimmer of hope remaining has been lost. I could just see in my mind’s eye the glee syariah court judges are showing as they wait for her to appear before them. Why not? They too want their fifteen minutes of fame!
How long would it take for the DAP leadership to realize that this is not about religious freedom or even about the freedom of the few non-Malay converts to re-convert to the religion of their birth? What ‘social contract’? The only contract is the one UMNO has signed with its members and supporters.
The Old Man just like the Fat Lady has been blamed for many things. But that guy who goes by the name of Mahathir (after decades of being in power many Malaysian children bear his name) has to take the blame for the rising tide of narrow Malay nationalism and religious fanaticism which without him has been allowed to have a life of their own. What’s with the sitting Prime Minister sleep walking and all! Malaysia has always been an Islam state in the minds of the Malays and will remain so.
With Kit’s aggressive public stand on the issue of religious freedom, the dye has been cast, and the lines have been drawn in the sand.
Not UMNO nor KeAdilan will let the matter pass. Which matter and what matter? The matter about the constitutional protection given to their religion, about the Malays wanting to continue living peacefully and undisturbed as Malays and Muslims and not have their sometimes-Muslim-at times-secular life styles be taken away. That too is ‘freedom’ of religion! The other is the politicians’ version of the ‘freedom’ of religion. Malays make up the majority of the country’s population and the electorate and it does not take a Malay astronaut among them to realize what a potential that this represents in terms of votes during any general elections.
With the Lina Joy decision, UMNO has drawn their battle lines and DAP finds itself on the opposite side of the line they themselves have drawn in the sands. KeAdilan finds itself dead in the water.
Should the DAP have taken a deep breath and suck it in as we say and walk away? How many votes would it have lost? I say “Suck it inâ€Â.
#13 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:19 pm
“This is because the Lina Joy case has shattered confidence in the constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and above all, the sacred Merdeka “Social Contract†underlying the Constitution that Malaysia is a secular nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state.†Kit
The Lina Joy Case is not about religious freedom and constitutional guarantees and safeguards. It is about a people who feel threatened in their way of life.
#14 by Jonny on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:27 pm
well, i’m threatened by the very thuggery of BN.
Definitely, no vote for BN for the next election.
The people up there are not so much into social contract. They’re more into money pockets. Pocketing as much as they can. When bad times comes, their money is the first to flee malaysia. And they would follow next to their safe-havens built in Australia, Europe and London.
#15 by pamelaoda on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:49 pm
I m truly surprised that not only Malaysians are concerned about this case, since morning, the verdict of Lina Joy has been posted by some concerned people in Yahoo Answers . Wow, Malaysia again famous for the wrong reason. Well, looking at the brighter side, Malaysia just dont care good or bad publicity, as
long as there is one! Msia Boleh!
#16 by i_love_malaysia on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:49 pm
You know what, BN gov will say that the judiciary is independent and even TI survey has shown that it is not very corrupt i.e. rank no. 9 in the world out of 62 surveyed.
We may be in contemp of court if we continue to question their judgement!!!
#17 by pamelaoda on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:51 pm
Undergrad2,
It is not the matter of elope, is the matter of own principle, integrity and freedom of religion.
#18 by RGRaj on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:53 pm
Undergrad2 said:
“The Lina Joy Case is not about religious freedom and constitutional guarantees and safeguards. It is about a people who feel threatened in their way of life.”
Care to elaborate on this statement of yours? When did Lina Joy’s choice of religion “threaten” Muslims?
#19 by pamelaoda on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:54 pm
Undergrad2
Why should ppl start running away once they are problem because it is every malaysian’s right whether to stay or chose to migrate. I still think Lina is a true hero that fight till the end.
#20 by Winston on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 6:59 pm
As far as religion is concerned, one must really respect the people of Turkey.
It is a Muslim country but the majority of the people and even the army are fiercely secular.
They will not have it any other way!
When the PM, whom they suspected to be strongly pro Muslim submitted his candidacy, the whole country revolted and the army gave them very strong backing.
The PM eventually had to cancel his application.
That is the country we should emulate.
State is state. Religion is religion.
Never shall the twain merge!
#21 by akarmalaysian on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 7:01 pm
its ok lina…watever decision they hv made wont make any changes in ur belief of ur conversion to other religion.u hv ur very own reasons to denounce islam.its this government thats too obvious in protecting its own skin in the name of religion.wat more to say whn they are so fearful in this inter faith religion issue.i dun understand wat the ‘sai’ this government is making a fuss abt this religion issue.democracy my foot.the government should knw damn well how fair and transparent the governance is.u cant force someone into believing wat they dun believe in especially whn they hv no faith in it.yes…its just like this government is forcing its hidden agenda against the will of the people in this country.thrs a big difference between an islamic state and a muslim country.the government must be told nvr to make islam as a big issue in this country.islam is nothing…christianity is nothing….buddhist is nothing and so are the other religions of the world…if we hv a stinking group of individuals in the government taking advantage and making a big fuss of it and pushing people around them for the sake of religion.its stupid.it shows dat they dun even knw wat they hv been learning fr their own religion.
#22 by DiaperHead on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 7:03 pm
Yes, and for those of you guys out there who try to lean on the liberal approach regarding religious freedom for support in the hope of winning others to your view, read on:
‘A major area of disagreement is freedom of religion. The Qur’an vigorously denounces those who renounce Islam, for the “Devil has seduced them†away from the true faith (67:25). Abu Bakr, and jurists since then, condemned secession from Islam (ridda) as doubly heinous: it is not only a violation of the compact of submission, but also a breach of contract with Allah’s representatives on earth. It is an offence both against God and the state, it is both apostasy and treason. Far form having the right to become non-Moslem, the Moslem faces the death penalty as a sanction for such a charge.â€Â
#23 by DiaperHead on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 7:05 pm
A breach of contract with Allah’s representatives on earth! UMNO and the Supreme Council members??
What underlying ‘social contract’?
#24 by whojen on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 7:38 pm
I give Lina Joy for her courage and perseverance.. despite of facing a huge wall in front of her….
Not many people dare to express her faith and religion..
look outside the court.. hundred’s people wait out side( media, laywers) just to see the verdict.. what happen next if her appeal was succesfull. wow just imagine…
#25 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 7:39 pm
OPEN LETTER TO LINA JOY
Dear Lina,
A better life awaits you as an asylum seeker.
So if you find thousands of religious fanatics chasing you in the streets tomorrow, please make your way to the U.S. Embassy and ask for asylum. They cannot turn you away.
The United States is a contracting party to the 1951 U.N. Convention regarding refugees.
Whatever you do, do not make your way to Lim Kit Siang’s house.
Yours sincerely,
Always an undergrad to you.
#26 by Godamn Singh on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 7:49 pm
* Malaysia’s Prime Minister Badawi, that God will direct his heart
(Proverbs 21:1) away from the intimidating, threatening voices
of Islamists towards the voices of justice, equality and
religious liberty, filling him with the moral conviction and
courage needed to stand for what is right.
* the Federal Court judges still deliberating over Lina Joy’s
appeal; may God direct their hearts (Proverbs 21:1) towards a
just outcome enabling all Malaysians to enjoy their
constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of
religious freedom.
* God to fill the Malaysian Church with peace and grace amidst
hostility, as well as zeal and courage amidst a mission field;
may God raise up Christian voices and leaders to be both lights
and signposts to a society in transition.
* God to work in all things for the good of those in Malaysia who
love the Lord and have been called according to his purpose
(Romans 8:28), so that by whatever means he ordains, Malaysians will come to see the Lord and embrace him as their only Saviour.
The above prayers last year by members of the World Evangelical Alliance obviously failed to receive God’s attention.
#27 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 7:58 pm
Some initial thoughts and impressions as I drink my cow’s milk:
1. Civil court judges, rightfully or wrongfully, are now very ready and quickly, to cede authority and jurisdiction to the Sharia courts. Is this leading to civil courts becoming more and more inferior and subservient to the Sharia courts in the years to come?
2. Are Muslim civil judges appearing to be fearful of deciding against their religion perhaps out of fear of repercussions from the religious elements?
3. Why do non-Muslims perceive that they will not get any justice from the Sharia court? Will the Sharia court be fair or be biased against non-Muslims in Islamic matters?
4. Will Nyonya Tahir now be seen as a Muslim if the Sharia Court did not approve her apostasy? Living a life as a Buddhist, Christian or Hindu or making a statutory declaration appears to be not enough. The Sharia Court must approve your apostasy. Do you think they will ever approve? Or send you for rehabilitation, reeducation or whatever at their summer camp!
5. The decision confirms that if you are a Malay, you will always be a Muslim. No way out folks. But there are Malays in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines who are Hindus, Buddhists and Christians. Only in Bolehland its TAK BOLEH. Are we progressive or backward?
6. Is the decision in the spirit of and comply with Islam Hadhari?
7. Will any attempt to define clearly the ambits and powers of the civil and sharia courts and perhaps to amend the Constitution see the light of day? Once given its difficult to amend or take away.
8. Unscruplous people will now use Islam to get their way or revenge e.g. in child custody cases when civil marriages go wrong.
9. Will the religious authorities now throw their weight around and dare anyone challenge them?
10. Are non-Muslims now doomed to have to go to the Sharia Courts for “justice” even if they do not recognise the court?
11. Why does Bolehland need to legislate religion when other muslim countries do not? Why is there the fear that thousands if not millions will leave Islam if freedom to leave is made easy?
12. Will we ever have Solomon’s justice instead of Suleiman’s justice?
#28 by Count Dracula on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 8:10 pm
“The Federal Court 2-1 majority decision rejecting Lina Joy’s appeal marks a tectonic shift of Malaysia in moving further and further away from the Merdeka “Social Contract†founding principles of nation-building agreed by the forefathers of the major communities on the attainment of independent nationhood.” Kit
The DAP just doesn’t get it!
The only ‘social contract’ is between the Malays who would have supported the IMP and those who supported UMNO.
#29 by Joetan on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 8:13 pm
Everyday, this government of ours are showing to us their true colours. On one hand, they are deceiving us to believe that they are fair to all malaysians irrespective of race, free from corruption , no discrimination, practising religions freedom. On the other hand what we are seeing are the opposite. Buildings are falling apart due to corruption, sexism due to the remarks by the bocor MPs, discrimination of non-bumis due to NEP, fanaticism and racism by the insensitive UMNO members during the last UMNO assembly and now the abuse of one’s religion’s freedom. This is because most of the the key positions in this country are occupied by the fanatics and the extremists. The scary parts is we are not moving towards developed nations in 2020 but modern TALIBAN’S nation.
#30 by Bobster on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 8:27 pm
Who dares to stand up when the whole world condemning you and your family members and friends disown you?
Lina is someone who dare to stand up and fights not for herself but for many out there who suffer silently due to some religious groups that forcing one to accept own faith and believe. Malaysia indeed need people like Lina who dare to stand up for own faith and believe, not those who criticize blindly without basis and understanding.
The truth shall prevail someday.
#31 by susmaryosep on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 8:49 pm
Hellooooo!
PM just advised we do not get emotional over the verdict!! But he forgot to advise those cahoots outside the court shouting threatening statements as the verdict was being read….. Who is emotional? Too often, when decisons go ‘their’ way, we should not be emotional. but if decisons go ‘the other’ way, we are reminded of May 13… susmariosep
#32 by susmaryosep on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 8:50 pm
Sheriff Singh, that was a brilliant post that you did.. Nothing that is said that is not true… Thanks, and I have to start Drinking cow’s milk now….
#33 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 9:27 pm
Jeffrey QC,
Please post the dissenting judgment for the Lina Joy case. The dissenting judgment may one day be the majority judgment.
#34 by negarawan on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 9:32 pm
As per Dr Chandra Muzaffar, Islam does not bar anyone from leaving the religion. The phenomenon we are seeing in Malaysia is not a problem created by Islam, but a political problem created by UMNO. As Mahathir himself said, Muslims can leave the religion but they will have to forsake their Bumiputra status and rights. That is fine as long as the individual has the right and freedom to choose what he believes in. The next time Badawi gives a speech on religious freedom in Malaysia and all the hype on Islam Hadari, he should be pelted with rotten eggs and tomatoes! He’s the biggest hypocrite and liar in Malaysia! Islam Hadari is repressive, cruel, corrupt and retrogressive. Those Islamic detention centers in Malaysia, where the government incarcerates and torture Muslims who want to convert out of Islam, must be stopped. Let the whole world know that Malaysia does not practise religious freedom and basic human rights. Let the whole world know of the UMNO’s cruelty and crimes againt humanity. May Allah punish those who twist and turn his Holy Word for their own personal and political gains.
#35 by hasilox on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 9:35 pm
Does this means that one have no individual rights if one belongs to a certain religion or has certain skin colour? In this modern world, why would an intellectually capable and a better person let others dictate his/her life?
Does this proves that certain group of individuals cannot be trusted at all? Even constitution seems to worth no more than the price of the paper it is printed on. What more to say?
Quo Vadis?
Belakang dan bawah pergi
#36 by negarawan on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 9:35 pm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_GEN_MALAYSIA_CHRISTIAN_CONVERT_ASOL-?SITE=ASIAONE&SECTION=SOUTHEAST&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-05-31-08-53-45
May 31, 8:53 AM EDT
Malaysian woman hints she may emigrate after losing fight to become legal Christian
By EILEEN NG
Associated Press Writer
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — A woman who lost a court battle to change her religion from Islam to Christianity suggested she might leave Malaysia rather than stay without the right to practice the religion of her choice, her lawyer said Thursday.
The Federal Court, Malaysia’s highest civil court, on Wednesday rejected Lina Joy’s appeal to have the word “Islam” stricken from her national identity card.
The verdict was seen as a blow to religious freedom in the ethnically diverse country made up of Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs.
However, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi defended the verdict, saying, “The court has decided. That’s all.” He also said the verdict does not reflect a widening of religious divide in the society, even though “the discussions have become more widespread than before.”
In a statement released through her lawyer, Joy said, “I am disappointed that the Federal Court is not able to vindicate a simple but important fundamental right that exists in all persons: namely, the right to believe in the religion of one’s choice.”
“The Federal Court has not only denied me that right, but (denied it) to all Malaysians who value fundamental freedoms,” she said.
In its verdict, the Federal Court said Joy, who was born to Muslim parents and began attending church in 1990, should seek permission to renounce Islam from Islamic Shariah courts.
Malaysia follows a dual justice system. The Shariah courts administer the personal affairs of Muslims – most of them the country’s majority ethnic Malays – while civil courts govern the minorities, mostly ethnic Chinese and Indians.
Joy, however, has refused to seek the Shariah court’s permission, saying she is a Christian and should not be bound by Islamic laws. If she continues to practice Christianity, she faces being charged with apostasy, which is punishable by a jail sentence and fine. She also has the option to leave the country.
Asked if she will take that option, Joy, 43, said in her statement: “It would be extremely difficult to exercise freedom of conscience in the present environment.” Benjamin Dawson, her lawyer, said the media are free to draw their conclusion from the statement.
But Prime Minster Abdullah told reporters that the verdict does not mean Islam is above the constitution.
“There is no such thing as above the constitution. There are set of laws that we have to follow. It is our constitution, that’s all. This court functions on the basis of the law,” he said.
Asked if the court verdict was politically motivated as some have suggested, he said, “They must have a hole in the head to say that. We never pressure the court to make political decisions.”
Joy, who was baptized in 1998, was successful in getting the National Registration Department to change her name to Lina Joy on her identity card. But the department refused to drop Muslim from the religion column of the card. A series of rejected appeals from 2000 onward brought her case to the Federal Court.
Joy’s case was seen as a test of religious freedom in Malaysia, and a benchmark for many other similar cases involving conflict between Islam and other religions.
The Council of Churches of Malaysia said Thursday in a statement that it viewed with “great regret and concern” the judgment against Joy.
“We believe that the constitutional provision in Article 11 which guarantees freedom of religion in our country has been severely violated,” the council’s president Thomas Philips Shastri said.
But the constitution is silent on which legal system has the final word in disputes such as Joy’s. In practice, the civil courts have accepted the unwritten superiority of the Shariah courts even though the constitution describes Malaysia as a secular state.
Rights group Suaram noted that three Muslims were jailed for three years in 2000 for renouncing Islam.
#37 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:02 pm
“As per Dr Chandra Muzaffar, Islam does not bar anyone from leaving the religion. The phenomenon we are seeing in Malaysia is not a problem created by Islam, but a political problem created by UMNO.†Negarawan
What have you got to say to the Qur’anic verse:
“A major area of disagreement is freedom of religion. The Qur’an vigorously denounces those who renounce Islam, for the “Devil has seduced them†away from the true faith (67:25). Abu Bakr, and jurists since then, condemned secession from Islam (ridda) as doubly heinous: it is not only a violation of the compact of submission, but also a breach of contract with Allah’s representatives on earth. It is an offence both against God and the state, it is both apostasy and treason. Far form having the right to become non-Moslem, the Moslem faces the death penalty as a sanction for such a charge.â€Â
..and DiaperHead’s comments posted earlier??
#38 by bbtan on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:09 pm
“PM advised we do not get emotional over the verdict but forgot to advise those cahoots outside the court shouting threatening statements…”
sasmaryosep, this is sophistry that can only be made by a (deleted) fellow.
#39 by moong cha cha II on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:10 pm
i want to hear what MIC & MCA have got to say, they being the equal power sharing partners in BN.
#40 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:19 pm
“As Mahathir himself said, Muslims can leave the religion but they will have to forsake their Bumiputra status and rights. That is fine as long as the individual has the right and freedom to choose what he believes in.” Negarawan
Mahathir has politicized Islam in order to launch his political career in in the 80s. The country is now harvesting the seeds sowed earlier i.e the seeds of discord and religious intolerance.
#41 by undergrad2 on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:24 pm
MCA and MIC issuing their own statements on the Lina Joy case?? They will not dare touch the issue. If they do, the DAP will make mince meat out of their leaders.
#42 by moong cha cha II on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:26 pm
i think Malaysia is the only country that defines a particular race (ie Malay) under its Constitution.
if i am not wroing, one of the criterias is, a Malay must be a Muslim.
So if that person is borned a Malay, his ancestors being Malays, one day he changes religion, what race has he turned to ?
Isnt the question of race concerning the biologically (if i am correct to use this word) arena ?
#43 by mangodurian on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:32 pm
THinking about elections, I don’t really think voting for DAP is my best choice, but I’ll vote for them anyway. Why? Because I hear DAP is thinking about sleeping in bed with PAS again. Don’t DAP get it? It is not worth it.
If DAP continues with this, it just shows that there’s not much to fight for except for scraps. I’d be more happy to vote for DAP if they don’t sleep with parties that are idelogically opposed to the very things that secular DAP stand for.
BN, while without a real ideology except for racial power-sharing, is at least cohesive and consistent in their warped ways. That is the simple explanation for the last lanslide victory.
And really – what is the crying slogan for the opposition these days – “Deny 2/3rds” … I think you need to get some good publicists.
I want to vote for a party without a doubt. DAP, make us vote without a doubt, and I really don’t want to vote just to ‘deny 2/3rd’s.
#44 by mangodurian on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:39 pm
No … not length, must be filter…
#45 by mangodurian on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:40 pm
People! People! Stop whining, you’re not giving solutions. As much as ol Dr M was despised for his policies, he is right on one account recently, “A country deserves what the people vote for”.
We can argue that the judgment and the judges were not judging judiciously. The muslim judges saw the religious side, and the non-muslim one saw the complete opposite view. Some even say that Lina was a fool to bring this all the way up, and there’s even hope.
The good thing is that this has reached the highest court and is now ‘clarified’. If we feel so strongly about it, we can and must do something about it. Lina IMHO, was right to bring this up and fight all the way to the end despite what undergrad2 says. If only she brought this up way back earlier in the 60′s or even 70′s this might have turned out differently.
We now have clarified that: [continued next post...]
#46 by mangodurian on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:41 pm
[...]
1. We got a sc rewed up constitution that contradicts itself.
2. That the definition of ‘fairness’ will always be in a warped sense.
3. Non-m uslims got a big problem if they continue to vote for subsistence and not ideals.
#47 by mangodurian on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:42 pm
[found offending word I think ... now the rest of the post...]
This has nothing to do with the civil courts being subservient to the Shariah. This is how the constitution was written and we know for sure that the consititution is fundamentally flawed for those who understand the concept of ‘fair’ and ‘just’ as in the blindfolded lady holding the tipping scale.
We have to work around these facts, and there’s one fact that we probably can work with – fact and judgment #2.
Article (8) says that all are equal before the law. We must argue that we need to be equalised since Muslims have far more restrictions that non-muslims when it comes to conversion of religion. Otherwise, Article (8) will be null and void because we have sub-laws that is making non-Muslims less restricted than muslims. Therefore all are not equal before the law.
Lawmakers must now push for it to be just as sufficiently difficult for people from other religions to exit their religion as Muslims have to face. To follow Article (8), the NRD must treat non-Muslims converting whether to Islam or other religions to produce some certificate of apostasy from the applicants former religious authority and/or from 2 family members of significance.
This would prevent cases of family members not knowing their own family member having converted to another religion – be it Islam or any other, and cause the controversies of last few cases of families being split up, dead bodies being snatched to be buried elsewhere etc.
The infrastructure for this don’t exist of course. But if you are serious about restoring some ‘fairness’, this is what you need to build and fight for. As I can recall, the other non-Muslim religions might not have explicit process and procedures to deal with apostacy. But hey, this is religion we are talking about. You can twist and turn the interpretation to come up with something!
Since our NRD does not recognise atheism, then we probably don’t have to deal with atheist cases … for now. For example, who do you require consent from for an atheist embracing a religion. Oh .. yeah – this doesn’t exist since our constituion says everyone (must?) believe in God.
This solution does imply losing your freedom to choose a religion freely, but we are only trying to be fair and on par with our Muslim friends and neighbours. Like it or not, this restriction will reduce the growing divide between those subjected to the Shariah and those who don’t.
IMHO, it shouldn’t also make Muslims feel threatened as it will not affect them, except those who want to be like the Borg.
But we are Malaysia, and this is a unique and perculiar country with a strange constitution. It is also the only country with 9 sultans rotating for the post of the king! So why not?
And for God’s sake, vote properly in the next election. I know you don’t like to hear this, but listen to Tun Mahathir!
#48 by mangodurian on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 10:44 pm
Aiya, stupid filter for the word ‘scr ewed’ now s crew ed up the sequence of my posts! The post comment about how DAP should remarket itself should’ve appeared after the Lina comment! :-(
#49 by Godamn Singh on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 11:05 pm
Hello Mango & Durian.
“Because I hear DAP is thinking about sleeping in bed with PAS again.â€Â
Yes. They call it “sleeping with the enemy’ – the remake of an old movie.
Why not? Infidelity is no big deal today. Just make sure you enter into an ante nuptial agreement. And don’t forget to use protection. I don’t mean the protection provided by the federal Constitution of 1957 but the rubber one.
[deleted]
#50 by W.O or Wilson on Thursday, 31 May 2007 - 11:08 pm
TO undergrad2:
You usually leave well-thought-of comments, but in this instance, I have to disagree.
You maintain that there was no social contract, and that all is farce. Nevertheless, one cannot treat the constitution so lightly…it is the founding document that encompasses the type of country and society that our forefathers envisaged our country to be.
The failure of that vision is not due to the failings of the constitution (despite its imperfections) but due to the people who were entrusted to safeguard the integrity of the principles and ideals its expounded – in this case, our lawmakers, and to a larger extend, us, who voted them in.
We should never learn to become immune to injustice or play the game as it suits us – there are some things worth fighting for and I wholeheartedly back Lina Joy’s decision – she tried to preserve the fundamental principles enshrined in our constitution.
The ” just suck it up” mentality is one which has caused Malaysian’s downfall – it’s something I’ve been passionately fighting against in all my writings – the apathy and inertia of Malaysians in general, and in particular, the Chinese who accept the status quo and choose not to rock the boat as long they are successful. It is precisely this behaviour that has caused the extremists in our country to have gained such a foothold on the politics of our nation.
Hence, I respectfully disagree with your arguments.