29 August, 2006

 

'Germaine, try this on for size' | NEWS.com.au

 

PTI (04.08.2005) / HRWF Int. (31.08.2005) - Email info@hrwf.net - Website http://www.hrwf.net - Human Rights Watch has criticised Malaysian government for the alleged persecution of members ofa religious sect.

 

The US-based rights group alleged that 'Sky Kingdom' members, who are to appear before a Shariah court in Terrengganu province on charges of practicing a "deviant religion," do not have legal defense counsel or the opportunity to prepare a defense.

 

On July 31, government officials violated a court order by demolishing the community's religious structures "including a giant teapot and an umbrella-shaped building" at the Sky Kingdom compound in Terangganu, the Human Rights Watch said in a statement.

 

Forty-nine members of the Sky Kingdom are charged with violating Islamic precepts. If convicted, they could be fined and jailed up to two years.

 

"The Malaysian government is targeting this religious community simply for their beliefs," said Sam Zarifi, Deputy Asia Director at Human Rights Watch.

 

"The government is violating international standards by destroying the Sky Kingdom's religious structures and now threatening to throw the members in jail without a fair trial."

 

The Sky Kingdom was founded by Ayah Pin (whose real name is Ariffin Muhammad), who claims to be the reincarnation of the holy figures of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. The community was one of 22 declared as "deviant sects of Islam" by the Malaysian government last month.

 

Lawyers from Terrengganu province have refused to represent Sky Kingdom members.

 

Malaysian Court says ‘No’ to change of religious status
Lina Joy must seek permission from sharia court to convert from Islam – a criminal offense
by Sarah Page
Compass (29.09.2005) / HRWF Int. (05.10.2005) – Website: http://www.hrwf.net– Email: info@hrwf.net – Judges in Malaysia’ s Court of Appeal announced on September 19 that Lina Joy, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity in the late 1980s, must apply to a sharia court for permission to legally renounce Islam.

 

According to local media reports, the court pointed out that Joy, 41, was constitutionally free to practice the religion of her choice. The Muslim designation on her identity card, however, prevents her from marrying a Christian and places other restrictions on her everyday life.

 

By law, Malaysian citizens over the age of 12 must apply for and carry an identity card with them at all times. In addition, all identity cards issued to Muslims must clearly display their religious identity.

 

Joy – known as Azlina Jailani before she converted – first approached the National Registration Department (NRD) in February 1997, seeking permission to change her name and religious status.

 

The application was rejected in August 1997 on the grounds that the sharia court had not granted permission for her to renounce Islam.

 

In 1998, the NRD allowed the name change, but refused to change the religious status on her identity card. Joy appealed this decision in the High Court.

 

In April 2001, Judge Datuk Faiza Tamby Chik ruled that she could not change her religious identity, because ethnic Malays are defined as Muslims under the Constitution. “As a Malay, the plaintiff exists under the tenets of Islam until her death,” the judge told the Berita Harian newspaper. He also said jurisdiction in such cases lay solely in the hands of the sharia court.

 

Joy then took her case to the Court of Appeal, where it was heard in October 2004. In December, the appeals court ruled that the director-general of the NRD and the High Court Judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram must give a legal rationale for their decisions by mid February 2005, prior to another hearing on March 7.

 

At the March hearing, Joy’s counsel, Cyrus Das, argued that the NRD could not legally require her to produce a certificate from the sharia court. Joy has always argued that, following a statutory declaration of her conversion to Christianity, she should not be subject to sharia law. Islamic law professor Shad Faruqi dismissed this argument, explaining that official approval of conversions was a legal safeguard. Without it, Muslims could evade sharia law by leaving their faith whenever they were charged with a religious offense.

 

In the final decision announced 10 days ago, Justice Abdul Aziz and Justice Arifin Zakaria ruled that the NRD was correct in rejecting Joy’ s application and said it was up to the sharia court to settle the issue.

 

Malaysian lawyers say the sharia court has never granted permission for a Malaysian Muslim to convert out of Islam, according to a Straits Times article on September 20. Article 11 of the Malaysian Constitution gives every person the right to change his or her religion; but Article 3 declares Islam to be the official religion of the state. The dual court system in Malaysia also complicates matters.

 

A person who converts out of Islam is called an “apostate” – which sharia law regards apostasy as a criminal offense. In extreme application of sharia law, apostasy is punishable by death.

 

In an effort to discourage conversions, several states have adopted the Control and Restriction Bill, which proscribes a fine of 10,000 ringgit ($2,653) and/or imprisonment for up to one year for “persuading, influencing or inciting a Muslim to leave Islam for another religion.”

 

Not all Malaysians agree with these laws. “What we now see is that the public is more vocal than a few years back in openly talking about these matters and willing to challenge court decisions,” a source who preferred to remain anonymous told Compass.

 

In a letter to a Malaysian newspaper, one man wrote, “Most Malays who leave Islam do it out of conviction, not convenience, and nothing will stop them. They have their reasons, as we all do when we choose to believe in God or a religion or not.

 

“It is our God-given fundamental right, supported by declarations of human rights and our Constitution, and no one ought to rob us of it.”

 

April 15, 2006

Malaysia: Highest Court To Decide Powers Of Islamic Courts

We described in January the case of Lina Joy, a woman who was classified under Malaysia's bizarre religious profiling as a Muslim. She decided in 1998 to convert to Christianity, but found herself unable to legally call herself a Christian. She had been named Azlina Jailani, when she was a Muslim, but changed her name to Lina Joy when she converted.

She took the case to a Syariah Court (Sharia or Islamic court) but was told she could not become a Christian, as reported in NECF Malaysia and Religioscope. A pdf document on her case can be downloaded HERE. Her cases are described in a graphic, available by clicking HERE.

The problem for Lina Joy stems from a flaw in Malaysia's constitution, which in effect makes it impossible for anyone to convert out of Islam, and is in breach of acceptable standards on human rights. The flaw is created by Article 121 (1A) of the constitution, which was introduced as an amendment in 1988. This article declares that "civil courts have no jurisdiction on "any matter" which falls within the jurisdiction of the Syariah (Sharia, Islamic Law) courts.

Issues of conversion and apostasy are covered by the Syariah courts, and therefore, no court can challenge any decision made by Syariah courts. These courts are run by fanatical Muslims, who regard apostasy as something they refuse to endorse. In fact, no living person has ever been able to be declared a "convert" by their rulings.

The only person ever to be allowed to officially apostasise is Nyonya Tahir, aged 89 years, (pictured above), who had lived as a Buddhist for more than sixty years. During her lifetime, Nyonya had tried repeatedly to be allowed to call herself a Buddhist, but her requests had been refused. It was only after she died on January 19 that the Syariah courts relented, and following an appeal by her family, she was allowed to be buried as a Buddhist. Her request to be allowed to be identified as a Buddhist was something she was never able to see during her lifetime.

Disingenuously, Muhamad Burok, president of the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association stated after Nyonya's case: "It shows that our two court systems - the Civil Court and Syariah Court - can exist in harmony, so the issue that the Constitution should be amended does not arise. The decision shows that everyone can get protection from all the courts."

As well as having a constitutional article, which pushes all decisions into the hands of the extreme fanatics of the Syariah courts, the problems for converts are compounded by the Malaysian system of identity cards, which are issued to people from the age of 12 onwards. These state which religion a person follows. The body which authorises the cards is the National Registration Department, and any changes to a person's stated faith on one's cards must be dome with approval from the Syariah courts.

Lina Joy first applied to the National Registration Department to have her status as "Muslim" altered to "Christian" in February 1997. In August that year, she was told that she could not change her status, and that she was still a "Muslim", because she did not have the necessary permission from the Syariah courts. In 1998, she was allowed to change her name to Lina Joy, but could not change her official status as a "Muslim."

In 2001, when she made her first case to the Syariah courts, High Court Judge Datuk Faiza Tamby Chik told her "As a Malay, the plaintiff exists under the tenets of Islam until her death." Malays are automatically deemed to be Muslim, and the ruling is obviously racist. Judge Faiza stated that he could not make a ruling on the case, and the issue had to be dealt with by the Islamic courts. This is because of Article 121 (1A). Only Syariah courts can rule on issues of apostasy, marriage, divorce and inheritance. It also can rule on issues of burial.

In October 2004, Lina again took her case to the Court of Appeal once more, to try to have the name "Muslim" removed from her card.

With the Islamofascism rampant in Malaysia, Lina Joy cannot marry anyone outside her faith. And as her faith is officially "Muslim", she cannot marry a Christian under the law.

Malaysia pretends to be a moderate Muslim nation, propagating the concept of Islam Hadhari, or "progressive Islam". In practice, the case of Lina Joy and others proves that its version of Islam is totalitarian and inflexible. The 1988 amendment which created Article 121 (1A) is in total contradiction of other Articles in the constitution. Article 3(1) of the constitution states that 'other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. Article 11 of the constitution guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to adopt the religion of their choice.

The issue of whether an Islamic court can make a ruling on a person who refuses to profess Islam is perhaps not even legal, as Malaysia's Constitution, Schedule IX, List II, limits the scope of the Syariah courts to "persons professing the religion of Islam."

Lina Joy had argued in 2001 that she did not "profess" Islam, and therefore was not subject to Islamic Law. Islamic law professor Shad Faruqi stated in the Straits Times on October 11, 2004 that "the requirement for official approval of conversions was a legal safeguard. Without it, Muslims could evade sharia law by leaving their faith whenever they were charged with a religious offense".

Now, according to a ruling made on Thursday (13 April) in relation to Lina Joy's case, there may be some hope on the horizon. Malaysia's highest court, the Federal Court, has agreed to take up the issue of whether those who renounce Islam are still to be subject to Islamic Court rulings. The news is carried by CBS News, from Associated Press sources, and carried by the Guardian and numerous other press outlets.

The decision of the court has stemmed directly from the case of Lina Joy, She is now 42, and has been wanting to marry a Christian for some time, but the Catch-22's of Malaysia's legal system have prevented her from marrying her sweetheart.

On Friday her lawyer, Benjamin Dawson, said: "This case should be viewed in the larger context of Islamization and the erosion of constitutional rights." He said that the constitution does not state that a person needs approval to convert out of Islam. He said that if a Shariah court did have that authority, it would never allow a Muslim to convert because it does not "believe that anyone can change from Islam."

That much is true. The case of Nyonya Tahir is the only time anyone has been allowed out of the clutches of Islam, as it is dictated by the Syariah courts. And Islamification of the country is a very real fear. In January, even a Senator, Kamaruddin Ambok, was hauled before the Islamic courts, for not divorcing his wife under the aegis of the Syariah Courts.

On December 22 last year, a controversial Islamic Family Law Bill was pushed through parliament. This law made it easier for a man to divorce his wife, and also to bring in extra wives in Islamic polygamy. It even allows a man to gain control of funds belonging to his wives and offspring if he is planning a new marriage or a divorce.

The Islamic courts have recently been on an offensive, attempting to set up vigilante snitch-squads, ready to inform on people caught kissing in parks, or breaking Islamic rules in other ways. The Federal Territory Islamic Department in Putrajaya state announced in January that it had formed a 75-member "Islamic Council Volunteer Squad" whose duty was to snoop on Muslim citizens and report their activity to the Islamic Department. The government moved to disband the vigilante squad.

As well as having federal law and Islamic law governing people's lives, there is also State Law. As we mentioned in March, many states have adopted a controversial Control and Restriction Bill, which allows fines of 10,000 ringit or $2,653 and terms of imprisonment for up to one year for anyone guilty of "persuading, influencing a Muslim to leave Islam for another religion."