Malaysia now stands at a crossroads. We have to make a choice: To go down the road of radical Islamisation (and I stress on radical), or to wake up, smell the coffee, and get our secular act together. We’re struggling to find our identity as a nation. Are we a full-fledged Islamic nation, and if so how radical are we? Or are we a mostly secular country? Today, I think we’re in a grey area between the two; a semi-secular, semi-Islamic nation. Not having 100% separation of religion from the state is fine, but sooner or later, we’ll have to choose whether or not to abandon a certain minimum amount of secularism necessary to hold us together.
Many would say the Federal Court’s verdict of the Lina Joy case, delivered on Wednesday, 30th May 2007, has made Malaysia’s choice clear. I believe and hope they’re wrong. Whether or not the decision’s been made, one thing is clear: As the nation approaches her 50th birthday, we’re suffering from a crisis. Mid-life or not, a crisis it most certainly is.
Before going on, I’ll admit there’s no clear definition of what constitutes "radical", "extremist", or "hardline" Islam, and what consitutes "mainstream" or "moderate" Islam (heck, I’m even assuming moderate Islam IS the mainstream). After all, who gets to decide? Good question. In this blog, I do. That doesn’t mean my opinions have great authority. Nor does it mean that any of you who disagree have to shut up. In fact, I encourage you to express your opinions here, especially if you disagree with me. I ask only that you present them in a polite, civil manner, as I’ve tried to.
What exactly is the crisis we face? The one I’ll discuss here comes in three parts. Firstly, some Malaysians are being denied their right to freedom of religion. Secondly, Malaysian law leaves many without any legal recourse to address their legitimate grievances. Thirdly, a perception of "us-versus-them" has been created between the Malaysian Muslim and non-Muslim communities, though this isn’t really the case. This has led to a lot of spill-over problems, as you’ll see.
This post will be the first of a three part let’s-see-how-many part series. I’ll discuss the first part of our problem here: freedom of religion. The next post will deal with Malaysian apostasy laws today, and their practical harms to people. Finally we’ll look at the spill-over problems created by the us-versus-them perception in the thrid post.
Let’s go straight to freedom of religion. Former Bar president Zainur Zakaria said on 13th July 2006, "Some quarters have … challenged the … position of Islam in this country by using the argument that the human rights of individuals is higher than Islam." He was referring to people who called for a review of current Malaysian apostasy laws. WHAT?! Some people actually think this is a fight between Islam and human rights?! I don’t even want to get into that dangerous debate. Luckily, I don’t have to. Since other Malaysians seem to agree that religious freedom is an inalienable right, and it’s only parts of the Muslim community that aren’t convinced, I’ll to try to show that this freedom is NOT against Islam. Far from it. It’s actually a right enshrined within the Quran.
"There is no compulsion in religion. … " (Al-Quran, al-Baqarah, 2:256). This is pretty self-explanatory.
"And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve (emphasis my own). Verily, We have prepared for the zalimun (the cruel, the wrong-doers, or the disbelievers) a Fire whose walls will be surrounding them. …" (Al Quran, al-Kahf, 18:29). In this verse, the Lord spoke to Prophet Muhammad, telling him to spread the truth of the Quran. It was up to the listeners to believe or not. For those who disbelieved, the Lord would mete out punishment in the afterlife. Here, God prescribes no punishment for disbelievers in this life, at the hands of their fellow men.
So why do many think apostasy from Islam must be illegal and/or punished? There are at least two scholarly interpretations of the above verses: The "Classical" and the "Modernist". One thing both agree on is, religious freedom applies to non-Muslims. Noone who is currently non-Muslim should be forced to embrace Islam, though anyone wishing to become Muslim should be free to do so. They differ on whether this freedom applies to Muslims wanting to convert out. The classical interpretation is that apostasy shouldn’t be allowed, which seems to contradict the verses quoted above. Then why does this view exist? Two reasons.
First, classical scholars say the following Qurannic verse abrogates the "no compulsion in religion" rule for Muslims wishing to convert out.
"They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected [it] … So take not auliya (protectors or friends) from [among] them till they emigrate in the Way of Allah. But if they turn back [from Islam], sieze them and kill them wherever you find them …" (Al-Quran, an-Nisa, 4:89). Reading this verse on its own, things look quite bad for apostates!
But the modernists argue that the verse coming directly after 4:89, namely 4:90, explains the matter more clearly.
"Except for those who join a group, between you and whom there is a treaty, or if they approach you with their breasts restraining from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. Had Allah willed it, indeed He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, Allah has opened no way for you against them," (Al-Quran, an-Nisa, 4:90).
Whew! That sounds a lot less scary. So both together would read, "But if they turn back [from Islam], sieze them and kill them wherever you find them … except if … they withdraw from you, and fight not against you, and offer you peace, [then] Allah has opened no way for you against them." In other words, if converts out of Islam pick a fight with you (or violently rise up against the Islamic government… the context in which these verses were given was when converts took up arms and rebelled against Muhammad’s government), then defend yourself. But if they eventually make peace with you, then do them no harm. Logically then, if they were always peaceful and never picked a fight with you to begin with, let them be.
The second reason for the classical interpretation is that Prophet Muhammad himslef had punished apostates, sometimes with death. Again, the modernists argue that this shouldn’t be taken out of context. The occasions on which the Prophet did so, were as I said, instances of armed insurrection. The modernists even offer counter-instances of when the Prophet had actually allowed conversions out of Islam if the converts remained peaceful, law-abiding citizens. For example, when the Ansar community in Medina (the first Islamic government, led by Muhammad himslef) wanted to force their children from converting out of Islam, Allah revealed the "no compulsion in religion" verse to Muhammad, indicating that the children should be free to embrace other beliefs.
The Quran is of course the primary source of Islamic teaching. The second source are the Hadiths, or sayings of the Prophet. Some Hadiths are disputed among scholars, due to questionable authenticity. Some even flatly contradict each other. The principle Hadith that advocates killing those who change their religion is "considered weak (daif) and … instead of being specific, … is too general in scope," (Mohamad Azam Mohamad Adil, Law of Apostasy and Freedom of Religion in Malaysia, Part VI, paragraph 4).
Note: I have taken all the Qurannic verses posted here from http://muttaqun.com/quran/e/. It’s a website with an English translation of the entire Quran. For those like me who can’t read it in its original Arabic, I encourage a visit to this site, especially if you feel I’ve misrepresented the Quran. After all, looking at a single verse without reading the bunch of verses before and after it, is a dangerous thing. You’re likely to lose the context of the verse. If you think I have, please feel free to correct me, giving your explanation clearly. I admit I’m no Islamic scholar.
Also, all information regarding the context in which Muhammad received these verses, and interpretations of these verses, as well as the two major views in Islam on freedom of religion were taken from Muhamad Azam Muhamad Adil’s Law of Apostasy and Freedom of Religion in Malaysia.
Having said that, I think we’ve established that Islam also considers religious freedom an inalienable right, and any attempt to undermine this freedom is un-Islamic. So in fact, the self-appointed defenders of Islam who deny some Malaysians their religious freedom are unwittingly going against Islamic teachings. Bottomline: Freedom of religion is an absolute, inalienable right that applies to EVERYONE.
That’s all for this post. We’ll look at the relevant legislature on apostasy in the next one. I really hope to hear your feedback on this one. And I say this especially to my Muslim friends. This is an issue that I feel strongly about. But more in the next post. Till then!
References:
Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil. (2007). Law of Apostasy and Freedom of Religion in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Volume 2, Issue 1, Article 6. Retrieved June, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.bepress.com/asjcl/vol2/iss1/art6/
http://www.abim.org.my/web/modules/news/article.php?storyid=729, retrieved June 2007.
http://muttaqun.com/quran/e/, retrieved June 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith, retrieved June 2007.
You’re completely right on that one. I studied comparative religions at University and wrote my papers with comparatives and contrasts between Islam and Christianity and Islam and Hinduism… And really the religion itself is less ridgid than Malaysia makes it. If you go to Indonesia, there anyone can marry a Muslim without having to convert an a Muslim can also embrace another religion if they wish to. It is only in Malaysia where it’s actually against the law… Probably because of the fear people felt of convertion during the time of war and stuff.
Eitherway, the religions are more open enlightened than the people who are trying to ‘enforce’ the practise of it.
Finally! I was hoping that somebody would post an article about Malaysia’s ‘law’ on apostasy in Islam, and here you go!
I agree with your view Sat. In fact for the past few years I’ve been trying to tell the same thing to my Kelantanese friends.
It must be understood by everyone (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) that the verse above quoted by Satya (i.e. Al-Quran, an-Nisa, 4:90) was sent to Muhammad (and ultimately to the human kind) because at that time, those apostates (the majority of the
lot) gives crucial infos to the Quraisy who were at that time, Islam’s sworn enemy.
And in my opinion, the Lina Joy is a ridiculous case. Nuff
said. It shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Very nice article, salute!
Dude…God bless you. I wouldn’t blame non-muslims for not converting to Islam, if they wanted to. I kinda feel that the way Malaysian Govt portrays Islam is quite negative. Keep em coming!
-FiRM
Nice Article. Keep up The Good work.
Thanks for the information!!