The online Star reports today that the Penang Syariah Court has allowed an application by Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah, previously known as Tan Ean Hung, to renounce Islam and return to her Buddhist faith.
Whilst I’m happy for Tan and hope that this means she can now get on with her life, I hope that this one decision will not result in an avalanche of such like cases being filed in the Syariah Courts throughout the country.
We feel relief for Tan because the court said ‘Yes, you can renounce. You can return to Buddhism’.
What if the court had said ‘No, you may not’?
And believe you me, the court could have said ‘No’.
And that is why, amongst other reasons, this decision cannot be seen as a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ of the ‘Lina Joy’ type of cases.
Choice of faith and the right to practise the same of a sane adult cannot be made conditional upon another’s prior approval.
That is the full purport of the decision in Tan’s case. Some judicial officer has greenlighted her exit from Islam and her re-entry into Buddhism.
Is this what the Federal Constitution guarantees?
Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.
That’s what Article 11(1) guarantees all of us.
Including Tan Ean Hung.
In January 2006, in an interview by theSun, I was asked : There have been some calls for non-Muslims to seek redress through the syariah courts since Kaliammal’s case. Is this one way to resolve the issue?
My reply :
This call read in conjunction with the submission by the senior federal counsel in Moorthy’s case that even if the widow was left without a remedy, the civil court must refrain from entering upon the dispute as it lacked jurisdiction, is firstly, in my view, untenable in law and secondly and more importantly, a very dangerous suggestion which must be resisted at all costs.
It is legally untenable for non-Muslims to seek redress through the syariah courts because the 9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution confines the jurisdiction of the syariah courts to ‘only over persons professing the religion of Islam’. This jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by submission.
It is also very dangerous because non-Muslim litigants confronted with issues as in the Moorthy case may, out of frustration with the self-inflicted impotence of the civil courts, go to the syariah court for relief. The syariah court may give the relief sought in some cases, and may refuse in others. It is unlikely that jurisdiction is going to be challenged. Any orders obtained in the syariah court, if challenged in the civil court, will probably meet the same fate as in Moorthy’s.
In time, it will be argued that by the doctrine of custom and usage, as Prof De Smith puts it ‘the ultimate grundnorm’ has shifted.
[Editor's note: 'Grundnorm' is a German word that means 'fundamental norm', and is used to denote the fundamental order that forms a legal system's underlying basis].
The push to make this an Islamic state may [then] have been achieved.
My views remain unchanged.
May 8, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I agree with you that the juridiction of the Syariah & civil courts remain separate. So long as the Malays in M’sia are happy being born Muslim by Constitution and that Islamic matters be handled by the Syariah under the principle of Special Malay Rights, so be it. What is there for a non-Muslim or non-Malay to complain about?
Also, that the Siti Fatimah Tan verdict be not seen as a precedent for all such cases and that if Islam has stringent requirements before anyone is allowed to convert out, then ALL M’sians respect it; that each case be decided upon its merits.
What I cannot accept is that State Governments have instituted laws whereby an apostate can be jailed, whipped or fined merely or all three, for wanting to embrace another religion.
These State laws are Unconstitutional as they fall foul of the guarantee of freedom of worship under the Federal Constitution, as well as our inalienable universal human rights.
It is an undeniable fact that in M’sia many non-Muslims only convert to Islam in order to fulfil the legal requirement that one must become a Muslim in order to marry a Malay. Love conquers all, but when the love is over, or the lover dies? Can or should one be forced to live in self-deception and hypocrisy?
In the final analysis, no religion, an Islam is no exception, wants unwilling followers. To that extent, the Syriah must come up with a more humane ways to resolve the question of those wanting to leave Islam. A fair decision must be delivered within a reasonable time-frame, no more than 6 months, and not one stretching into years, leaving the unfortunate individual in limbo!
May 8, 2008 at 2:10 pm
yeah i agree. whether the malay is happy to be a malay and a muslim is up to the malay, the sultans and the syariah court. non malays have no right to question this and i dont think they are bothered to question it either .
they are only concerned when a non malay muslim is involved , as in the case of Tan, Moorthy, Revathi and the others.
and this my friends comes under non muslim and non malay special rights and priviledges. So everyone has got their special rights to uphold, dont trample over each other
May 8, 2008 at 2:47 pm
What I cannot accept is that State Governments have instituted laws whereby an apostate can be jailed, whipped or fined merely or all three, for wanting to embrace another religion.
Well Said!
May 8, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Channel News Asia reported that at least 15% of Constitutional Malays have converted to Christianity. This is excluding the East Malaysian Bumiputras who are 75% Christian.
This is an extremely high number. The Tabung Haji stands to lose a lot of revenue from this. Is this why the slowness in accespting conversions? Or is there some other Dark Sinister reason for this….?
May 8, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I completely agree with Haris that a non-Malay ex-Muslim must never yield himself/herself to the syariah court. What right does the syariah court have over the non-Muslims? Unfortunately, there are those (sadly the majority) who simply insist that to be a non-Muslim or ‘unconvert’from Islam requires one to go through the syariah court. What is worse is that the syariah court has consistently been a tool of politicians (UMNO or PAS) to ‘champion the rights of Islam’ crap. So effectively, it’s really the case of between the devil and the deep blue sea, one being to remain in Islam (in sheer hypocrisy) and the other to subject to the political syariah court. We know and have heard stories of special ‘rehabilitation centres’ (read: Penjara) for these murtads.
And let’s not even begin to talk about the notion of Malays who have decided that Islam is not for them and choose to exercise their right to freedom of religion, the most famous case of Lina Joy. I heard there are possibly many more Lina’s out there who are closet Christians/Buddhists/Hindus.
May 8, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Before embracing another religion think it out very carefully and seek professional and religious pundits ideas. Don’t jump hastily into the bandwagon and regret with bullets coming straight onto you. Your sometimes silly decision may irk others and cause major upheavel in this sensivity land. This country’s historical religion started from a Hindu prince converting and embracing a belief and it became ” High Noon “.
May 8, 2008 at 6:18 pm
To all muslims, please refer to quran, Hadith,Qias and Ijma’ ulama on murtad issues/renounce Islam before throw your opinion.Dont just judge the law by your own understanding or opinion or humans right etc. Islam is complete & guarantee roghts and justice for eneryone. the problems is too too many people like all of you that do not understand islam and try to be hero or be respeected bny other people becauyse of your opinion.
to mr Haris Ibrahim please ask mufti@any weell known ulama’ before make any comments. Plz dont act like u know everhing in islam. I read most of your opinion and find ut too many mistakes in your understanding of islam. plz LEARN AND REFER TO QURAN, HADITH, QIAS and Ijma’ ulama !!!
Thank you for your kind advice
May 8, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I am a Muslim and the right to practice your religion is a private matter and is sensitive to each and every individual.
Going to court is already a harrowing experience and it need not be publicised and be subjected to public scrutiny. If there is ever a need for self censorship by the media, this would be it. This applies to all cases of the same nature.
Why is it we are slowly stirring things up?
Aznord,
I agree that faith is a private matter that should need to be raked in public.
Why then are Tan and those similarly circumstanced forced to go to court on a matter that you and I agree is private?
May 8, 2008 at 7:02 pm
OF ALIENS AND GODS
I believe in the existence of Aliens. Yes, that’s right - those beings from other planets who fly over in UFOs. I believe that they exist. Scientists have not been able to prove that they exist, and they’ve not been able to disprove their existence. Most people will say “Rubbish” and that it’s improbable that aliens exist. But I say it’s not impossible. Anyway I still believe that they exist and nobody can do anything about it. It’s MY belief. It’s not illegal for me to believe that.
I also believe in the existence of God - the supreme being who created everything and anything and is all-powerful. Again science has not proved nor disproved the existence of God. Those who don’t believe will say “improbable” and again I say “not impossible”. It’s MY belief. And the law cannot say it’s illegal for me to believe in the existence of God.
Then how can the law say it’s illegal for someone to NOT believe in the existence of God?
May 8, 2008 at 7:55 pm
It is wrong to say that science has not proved or disproved the existence of God.
Neither Science nor scientists have ever claimed that their objective is to prove ot disprove God’s existence.
It is those who say ‘there it is written in this book, so it must be true’ who insult Science.
But, for the record, the greatest of German & Western philosophers, Emmanuel Kant (1724 -1824), gave several arguements proving the existence of God - ontological, cosmilogical, teleological etc
Go read for yourself.
May 9, 2008 at 12:17 am
When comes to religion, I’ve found that there’s no point in arguing with people who always say:”According to my holy book…”.
To these people, the only accountable source of information is their holy book(s), nothing else matter. Not logic and not human compassion, for in their believe systems, nothing is more important and more right than their own understanding and interpretation of their holy books.
They’ll tell you they believe in basic humans right, like freedom of religion, but when you talk more with them you’ll found that there’s always exceptions: Like why some people just cannot and should not be allowed to change their faiths. And I am always amaze at their ability to use improper analogy to justify why it is alright to deny some human beings their fundamental right to choose a different religion.
One such popular analogy is club membership. They’ll argue that if you choose to join the club you should abide by all the rules and regulation of the club. You cannot simply leave the club if the rule of the club stipulated that once you joined the club you cannot leave. The irony thing is that the people who put up the club analogy could not see the absurdity of it. If you can’t see why, let me spell it out for you. Look around, and ask yourself this question: Can you find a legitimate club where membership once granted, you can’t leave? Are there such a club exist? The only type of club that I know that would not tolerate club members leaving is the club of the gangsters. So, can you see the absurdity of the club analogy now? Isn’t it such an inappropriate analogy to use?
Their minds are closed and are unable to accept any new ideas, reasons and logic. At the end, they’ll tell you in a dead serious manner:”My holy book say so.”
May 9, 2008 at 9:41 am
To bro Haris, a good debate topic and I respect your post but I have to disagree with it.
As a Muslim, we were given Al Quran as a source of guidance and who are to argue against it. If we decided to go against Qurans’ laws, it meant that we ourself pushed Islam away. Subhanallah..
I believe in my holy book because I believe in my religion. There is no point of pondering around, promoting my Muslim status if I didn’t abide and faithfully obey my religion. For me, I believe my religion should come first before anything else.
Enuff said.
goatlike,
I am not sure what is the issue that you disagree with.
Otherwise, no issue with your other comments.
Take care.
May 9, 2008 at 10:37 am
[...] Find out why here [...]