Lina, Why the controversy? : Getting round the legislative impasse and the multi-defined Muslim who’s attempting to unlove his wife

Posted on June 30, 2007



So Parliament and the state legislative assemblies cannot pass apostasy laws.

So what?

More than one way to skin an apostate.

You think ‘jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam’ is going to get in the way of hauling apostates before the Syariah Courts?

Think again. 

There’re legal eagles in the AG’s Chambers, okay, and don’t you ever forget that.

Just crowd that troublesome constitutional description with a few other descriptions that will have the effect of leading the apostate by his nose back to where he started.

Very simple.

First, revert back to good ole simple Muslim. Make this your focal point. Forget what the constitution says.

Then define ‘Muslim’ so that it matters not what faith the apostate now holds to. He’s still a Muslim and still within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.

What, I fib?

Check out the meaning of ‘Muslim’ in section 2 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territory) Act, 1993.

Yes, a ‘person who professes the religion of Islam, is still there.

So is :

  • a person either or both of whose parents were, at the time of birth, Muslims

Wait a minute, a born Muslim who apostates cannot change the fact that his parents were Muslim at the time of his birth.

  • a person whose upbringing was conducted on the basis that he was a Muslim

Huh. A born Muslim who apostates cannot change his Muslim upbringing

  • a person who has converted to Islam in accordance with the requirements of section 85

Even if you renounce later, you cannot change the fact of your earlier conversion

Practically every state, if not all, has passed the equivalent of section 2.

What AG’s Chambers and the various state legal advisors did was ignore the constitutional limitation of the Syariah Courts only over persons professing the religion of Islam and extended it by this multi-defined Muslim.

Very devious, all this, you might say, but what in heavens might this have to do with a Muslim attempting to unlove his wife?

Now, the more pertinent question is, whilst he is attempting to unlove his wife, is he still in love with her?

Look, there is nothing daft about the concept of a Muslim attempting to unlove his wife.

Ask some of the state legal advisors.

Yes, AG was a bit slow on this and did not get in on the action. You can be sure, though, that he’s not far behind.

Malacca has it. Malacca supports the notion that a Muslim may be attempting to unlove his wife.

Revathi went to the Syariah Court and sought an order to confirm her religious status as not being Muslim. She said she’s Hindu?

How did she end up in the Hulu Yam rehab centre?

Look at section 66 (1) of the Malacca Syariah Offences Enactment ( I think ).

66 Percubaan murtad.

(1) Apabila seseorang Islam dengan sengaja, sama ada dengan perbuatan atau perkataan atau dengan cara apa jua pun, mengaku hendak keluar dari Agama Islam atau mengisytiharkan dirinya sebagai orang yang bukan Islam, Mahkamah hendaklah, jika berpuashati bahawa seseorang itu telah melakukan sesuatu yang boleh ditafsirkan telah cuba menukarkan iktikad dan kepercayaan Agama Islam sama ada dengan pengakuan atau perbuatannya sendiri, memerintahkan orang itu supaya ditahan di Pusat Bimbingan Islam untuk tempoh tidak melebihi enam bulan dengan tujuan pendidikan dan orang itu diminta bertaubat mengikut hukum syarak.
(2) Jika seseorang yang telah diperintahkan supaya ditahan di bawah subseksyen (1)-


bertaubat dengan serta-merta, Mahkamah hendaklah, setelah mengesahkan taubatnya itu, membebaskan orang tersebut; atau

(3) Pegawai Penjaga hendaklah menyerahkan satu laporan kemajuan berhubung dengan orang yang ditahan itu kepada Mahkamah pada setiap minggu.

(4) Pusat Bimbingan Islam hendaklah diwartakan sebagai Pusat Tahanan di dalam Warta.

Get it?

Only attempting to get out must mean still inside. Inside Islam trying to get out.  

Look, the law only allows that people like Revathi may be dealt with if they are only attempting to change their aqidah. What is so difficult to figure out?

You are having difficulty figuring this out? When you have figured out how a Muslim may attempt to unlove his wife, then you would have figured the puzzle here.

It is one of the most idiotic specimens of law I have ever come accross.

Remember Zainah’s ‘state apparatus’?

We’ve stumbled on the first .

The Attorney General’s Chambers and the various legal advisors to the states.

I have heard enough submissions from the AG and his underlings to know that they are the first port of call in any effort to understand the efforts to undermine our Constitution.

Let me state this plainly.

The AG, both present and the one before and the team presently assembled, and his team of state legal advisors, have wreaked havoc with constitutional limitations.

The AG and his team seem only concerned to further the cause of Islam as they understand it.

This is the first controversy of the Lina Joy case.

The AG must go.   

He is not fit to hold office.