Whether
these people can or cannot leave Islam is a matter for the Muslims to
resolve. This has nothing to do with the church and the church cannot be
subjected to Islamic laws. As far as the church is concerned, these
people are no longer Muslims. But if there is no such thing as
‘ex-Muslims’, then a law needs to be passed stating so. Then the
confusion will be cleared up. Then the church would be barred from
preaching to anyone born a Muslim since the word ‘murtad’ would no
longer be in the Muslim vocabulary.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Malaysia has tens of thousands of lawyers.
But how many lawyers actually ‘practise law’ or are most in this only
for the money? Seldom do we hear lawyers speak out on what is right and
what is wrong. It should be the job of lawyers to educate Malaysians as
to what the law is all about. Only then can it be said that they are
true to their profession.
Laws are man-made. Sometimes we say
that these are God’s laws or this is what God ordained. Invariably, all
laws are made by man but blamed on God. Why are the lawyers not telling
us this?
Just because it is law does not make it right. Are we
talking about rule of law or rule by law? “What’s the difference?” you
may ask. A lot of difference! And it is the duty of lawyers to educate
us on the difference between the rule of law and rule by law.
Queen
Elizabeth I ordered Parliament to appoint her as Governor of the
Church. Since she was a woman, she could not be appointed as a proper
head of the church like her father and brother before her -- which would
tantamount to the position of the English Pope. So they made her the
governor instead.
Then Elizabeth banned the practise and
belief of the wafer as the body of Christ and wine as the blood of
Christ. All the Catholic Bishops opposed this and they instigated the
citizens to defy this new ‘heretic’ law.
The Bishops were all
rounded up and imprisoned and replaced with Protestant Bishops. The
Catholics were forced to go underground and to practise their faith in
secret and behind closed doors. There were pockets of rebellion all over
the Kingdom, even as far as Scotland where they deposed their Catholic
Queen (later they chopped off her head as well).
Of course,
this conflict between the Church and the Throne was not new. Even back
in the days of Henry II, 400 years earlier, there was already a conflict
and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, was assassinated
because of his conflict with the King over the rights and privileges of
the Church.
So, was Elizabeth right? Of course, she had the
power. But just because she had power and just because a law had been
passed does this make it right? Who was Elizabeth to decide that this is
what God ordained? Did God speak to her? Or was this merely a political
move?
You see: England, then, was only South England. From
York onwards, this was Catholic country. So, by getting rid of the
Catholic faith, this meant England could unite and Scotland, if it
turned Protestant, would become part of English territory.
Scotland
was also aligned to France. And France was Catholic and the age-old
enemy of England. So, by ‘occupying’ Protestant Scotland, this meant
that the danger of a French invasion (through Scotland) would be
eliminated.
So there you have it. It was not about what God
wanted. It was about what Elizabeth wanted. And Elizabeth wanted
Scotland under her control. And she wanted the French Catholic Queen
kicked out of Scotland. And she wanted the French army kicked out of
Scotland. If not, her throne would be in jeopardy of a ‘Catholic’
invasion with a new Catholic Queen from Scotland installed onto the
throne.
In short, Elizabeth had to control and dictate what is
and is not acceptable religious beliefs and practises to be able to
control England and get rid of the Scottish-French threat to her throne.
Elizabeth used religion to hold on to power.
Today,
we celebrate Merdeka. But how are we celebrating Merdeka? By raising
the flag? By sleeping at home? Merdeka should be celebrated by
respecting the ‘Merdeka Agreement’, which is basically the Federal
Constitution.
How can we say we are remembering or honouring
Merdeka when we do not respect the Constitution? The Constitution was
the foundation of Merdeka. Without the Constitution there is no
foundation and therefore no Merdeka.
This, the lawyers should
tell the people far and wide, the length and breadth of Malaysia. The
basis of our laws is the Constitution. However, many of our laws violate
the Constitution.
Many things ail Malaysia. But I want to
talk about only one ailment today. And this ailment, the latest in a
series of ailments, is the conflict between Church and State brought on
by the DUMC raid and the allegations made against the Church.
The
DUMC raid was not the only conflict between Church and State. Earlier,
we had the Allah issue, the Bahasa Malaysia Bible issue, and so on. It
appears that all along the way the Church is in conflict with the State.
But has this not been so for more than 1,000 years? The
Church has always had its differences with the State (or more like the
State resented the power the Church had over the people and thus started
the ‘turf war’ between the State and the Church).
Anyway,
Article 3 and Article 11 of the Constitution are very clear (by right,
lawyers ought to be talking to you about this, not me). Let us consider
what it says.
Islam is the religion of the Federation. No dispute.
Other religions may be practised in peace and harmony. No dispute.
The Ruler is the Head of the religion of Islam in his State. No dispute.
Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. No dispute.
Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. No Dispute.
There should be no propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. No dispute.
So, where is the dispute then?
Let’s
look at “Every religious group has the right to manage its own
religious affairs”. What does this mean? If the Christians want to
publish a Bahasa Malaysia Bible, would this be under the clause of
“manage its own religious affairs”? Can the government then dictate what
language the Bible can and cannot be published?
Let’s look at
“Christianity cannot be propagated to persons professing the religion
of Islam”. But what if that person has announced that he or she has left
Islam?
Now, you may say that once a person is born to Muslim
parents then he or she is automatically a Muslim and a Muslim is a
Muslim for life and cannot leave Islam. But that is between the Muslim
and his ‘Church’. Once a Muslim renounces Islam (murtad), he or she is
an apostate. Technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim.
The
State may say that he or she is still a Muslim. That’s according to the
government. But in the ‘eyes’ of God, he or she is no longer a Muslim.
He or she has become a murtad.
So, where is the crime here?
Actually,
the issue is not that complicated. It is just that the lawyers would
rather not get involved in this issue because it is very sensitive and
Malays are a very emotional people who would run amok if they think that
they cannot win by words and need to resort to violence to win an
argument.
A true lawyer would educate us. Most lawyers,
however, would remain silent and allow the ignorance to continue. And
this ignorance has caused a lot of confusion.
In short:
Christians cannot preach to Muslims. That is the law. But if that person
has left Islam, technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim but an
ex-Muslim. So, it is not against the law to preach Christianity to these
people (who are technically not Muslims any more).
Whether
these people can or cannot leave Islam is a matter for the Muslims to
resolve. This has nothing to do with the church and the church cannot be
subjected to Islamic laws. As far as the church is concerned, these
people are no longer Muslims. But if there is no such thing as
‘ex-Muslims’, then a law needs to be passed stating so. Then the
confusion will be cleared up. Then the church would be barred from
preaching to anyone born a Muslim since the word ‘murtad’ would no
longer exist in the Muslim vocabulary.
However, as it stands now, the word ‘murtad’ does exist. And this means Islam recognises the existence of 'ex-Muslims'.
So, where do we go from here? And why are the lawyers not speaking up?
***************************************
Article 3
1. Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be
practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.
2. In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of
the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the
manner and to the extent acknowledged and declared by the Constitution,
all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head
of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts,
observance or ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers
has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of
the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam
authorize the Yang di-pertuan Agong to represent him.
3.
The Constitution of the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak
shall each make provision for conferring on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong
shall be Head of the religion of Islam in that State.
4. Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution.
5. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan
Agong shall be the Head of the religion of Islam in the Federal
Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; and for this purpose Parliament
may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and
for constituting a Council to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in
matters relating to the religion of Islam.
Article 11
1. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.
2. No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which
are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a
religion other than his own.
3. Every religious group has the right -
(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
4. State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur
and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any
religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of
Islam.
5. This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.