In Malaysia, non-Muslims are not allowed to preach religion to Muslims. Non-Muslims, like Christian missionaries, for example, who try to proselytize risk prosecution.
But it is difficult to categorically say that it is illegal for Muslims to convert. There are many cases where Muslims wanted to register their conversion to another religion but were prevented from doing so for various technical reasons. As far as I know, the precedent so far is that you can change religion, but you cannot officially register that conversion with the National Registration Office.
In other words, as long as you keep quiet, you’ll be ok.
Many Muslims defend the criminalization of missionary works on Muslims by arguing that the sanctity of Islam must be protected, and that this protection is granted by law. To me, this argument is flawed.
Firstly, how can you defend the sanctity of Islam by curbing the right of non-Muslims to spread their religion? Only the weak protect themselves by limiting the liberty of others. As an exalted way of life, surely Islam is stronger than that. Curbing the freedom of non-Muslims serves only to display the weakness of Muslims than anything else.
Secondly, if a non-Muslim government, say in Singapore or America, made it illegal for Muslims to spread the message of Islam to non-Muslims, will Muslims accept that? I suspect many Muslims will start shouting about human rights, freedom of speech, etc. But we in Malaysia are doing exactly that to the non-Muslims. Why the double-standard?
Thirdly, protecting a religion by legislation implies that the religion cannot stand to protect its own sanctity. It is as if we are saying Islam cannot be saved unless there is a law protecting it. Surely Islam can stand well above the test of reasoning.
Fourthly, Malaysian constitution states that while Islam is the official religion of the country, those of other religions have full right to practise their beliefs. What about those who believes that their religion encourages them to undertake missionary works, like Christian missionaries? Legislating against missionary works by adherents of these religions is the equivalent of preventing them from fully practising their religion. This is against the constitution, and, most probably is against Islam too.
Fifthly, I cannot understand the current law. How is it acceptable that we make it illegal for non-Muslims to do missionary work, but there is nothing in the law about Muslims changing religion so long as they do not seek official registration of their conversion? This is clearly upside-down – Islam is ‘protected’ by encroaching into others’ religion and by limiting non-Muslims’ freedom and liberty.
In short, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the ban on missionary works while continuing to support Islamic da’wah and the associated organizations. This is a clear double standard to those who are citizens of the same country. Politicians from all parties must recognize that Muslims and non-Muslims alike are citizens of Malaysia. As citizens, we all must enjoy the same rights and shoulder the same responsibilities. There must be no double standards.
I have been asking many people about this matter and the best they can come out with is the standard argument that the sanctity of Islam must be protected and one way of doing so is by maintaining the ban. Obviously I am most unhappy with this answer as it avoids providing any real answer at all.
But that was until I read a few books written by Abul A’la al-Maududi which discuss this issue. There are at least three relevant books by him that touch on this issue but the best summary of his opinion is perhaps a quote from his booklet entitled “Human Rights in Islam” (Islamic Foundation, 1976).
In the first chapter “The political framework of Islam” (this chapter is not available in some online versions of the book), Maududi stated:
“The Islamic state may not interfere with the personal rights of non-Muslims, who have full freedom of conscience and belief and are at liberty to perform their religious rites and ceremonies in their own way. Not only may they propagate their religion, they are even entitled to criticize Islam within the limits laid down by law and decency”.
That to me is a very bold statement. It shows confidence. As long as the law and common decency norms are respected, non-Muslims have full rights to propagate their religion.
Perhaps a law can be drafted in-line with the spirit of the British incitement of religious hatred bill in which it is wrong for people of all religion to incite religious hatred but it is not wrong to debate religion in a civilised way or to proselytize.
As for us Muslims, the way forward is not by curbing non-Muslims’ rights to propagate their religion. But it is by strengthening the aqidah of Muslims through rigorous education. Islam has its own way of preventing riddah. There is a specific clause in the syari’ah that tells us how to deal with riddah. That clause certainly does not include curbing the rights of non-Muslims.
I want to end by challenging the leaders of PAS. Do not just go half-way by inviting non-Muslims to be members of the party. Take the whole full step. Let them practice their religion to the full.
I want to see a PAS that represents Malaysia as a whole, not just a sectarian party representing the narrow interests of a group of Malaysians.
I want to see a PAS that portrays Islam as a blessing to all mankind, not as a religion that limits the freedom of non-Muslims.
I want to see a PAS that is serious about treating all Malaysians as equals, not just shouting rhetorics about wanting non-Muslims to become party-members but at the same time continue to curtail their right to preach their faiths.
I want to see a PAS that is confident in the ability of Islam to withstand criticism, not one that hides behind the shield of restrictive legislations.
Thus, if PAS truly want to represent the voice and the ideals of ALL Malaysians, and if PAS is not fighting just for the narrow interest of a small section of the Malaysian community, then PAS must lead the campaign to ensure every religious person in Malaysia, Muslims and non-Muslims, can fully practise their religion. PAS must be consistent even if it means allowing non-Muslims to preach to Muslims, and abolishing the ban on missionary works.
Protecting the Muslims’ aqidah must be done through education. If legislations are necessary, then it must only be for Muslims. Islam certainly should not be “protected” by treating non-Muslims as second class citizens and limiting their entitlements. In the words of Maududi, “Not only may they (non-Muslims) propagate their religion, they are even entitled to criticize Islam within the limits laid down by law and decency”
———————
NB (13 June 1006): This article has been published in Malaysiakini (click here) and some related comments have been posted in my previous blog here (don't ask me why).
The article was also quoted by Teng Chang Khim and responded to by a Malaysiakini reader.
A Malay language version is available here.
I also received several comments via email and sms. Some of the comments are very encouraging, while a few are too "violent" to share publicly.
(16 June 2006): I just remembered that I made a statement about riddah which was published in Malaysian newspapers. I think it was back in January 1998, and can be read here and here. I no longer have the original statement.
Your premise is sound and I agree that it is somewhat lopsided to allow for da’wah movements and yet ban the missionaries from “doing their thing”. There are also problems if we allow the missionaries to spread their propaganda….their tactics are not exactly very becoming and civilised, even if we allow them the opportunity to proselytise, especially with regard to Islam. A cursory glance at their books, audios and websites can easily tell you that.
But if we allow for proselytisation, what about the issue of apostasy? Are we going to bend our principles as far as to allow apostasy? I cannot agree with that. Allowing the Christian missionaries to proselytise may be acceptable to me, for as long as they toe the line of civil discourse. But a law must be enacted to curb the problem of apostasy.
- MENJ
Allowing others to preach is not the same with allowing apostasy.
As I said, “If legislations are necessary, then it must only be for Muslims. Islam certainly should not be “protected” by treating non-Muslims as second class citizens and limiting their entitlements.”
I have this thought that seems too good to be true, but my education background maybe too naive to see the flaw. So I hope you can respond nicely.
In the West, treason can be punished with a death penalty. Isnt treason similar to anti-Islam proselytization towards an Islamic country? Therefore, wouldn’t it be justified to at least prevent anyone from denigrating the Islamic faith?
Treason is bughah.
Big difference between practising one’s religion and treason.
If a Muslim goes to Vatican City and starts preaching Islam, he is not committing or inciting treason.
Aslmk
Setuju dlm perkara tertentu. Ana teringat perdebatan antara Imam Abu Hanifah dgn seorang zidiq/atheis di Baghdad. Pada ketika itu umat menyaksikan perdebatan ttg kewujudan tuhan atau tak antara mereka! Mungkin pada zaman itu pertembungan berlaku dan … entah… Tapi tak pasti pulak sirah ada tunjukkan pasal membenarkan selain Islam menyebarkan agama meraka di bumi Islam
Ana pernah dok kat Dawah Stall kat UK ni. Ada pasangan Kristian bagus tanya pasal Islam dan tanya apa pandangan ana ttg negara2 Islam yang kalau diorang dtg buat kerja2 dawah diorang kena tangkap dan ana yg dok kat dawah stall kat UK nie tak der kena apa2 pun!!! Ana kata spontan ana tak setuju camtuh. Entah lepasbaca dan bincang artikel anta dgn beberapa og ikhwah ana ter-pk balik soalan tuh dan jawapan ana.
Tulah cuma kekadang kita tak paham keanjalan syariah dan tak tahu sunnah dan sirah menyebabkan kita tertutup. Lelagi bila nak berdepan dgn gol liberal.
Namun teringat kata2 Nik Aziz yg terbaru nie dia kata Islam nie agama HUJAH! Macam Maududi yg hebat mantiq dan logiknya. Apa perlu takut tuh ana setuju bab tuh. Masalahnya kita takut berhujah sebab ilmu Islam dan roh, izzah pada Islam terlalu lemah. Jadi terpaksa guna undang2.
Wslm
Assalamu alaikum
Tentang persoalan bahawa negara bukan Islam membenarkan dakwah Islam memerlukan pandangan yg tersirat.
Saya melihat di negara Kristien mereka yg berdakwah secara umumnya dibolehkan , tetapi masih terdedah dengan tuduhan yg lain seperti ‘preaching terorrism’ dan ‘blasphemy’. Sebagai negara yg mengaku moden dan memaksakan ‘pemodenan’ budaya ke atas negara Islam lain, sudah pasti mereka tidak boleh menunjukkan sikap sebenar mereka.
Di UK sekarang sesiapa sahaja boleh diserbu dan ditembak dan atas tiket ini semata-mata mereka memperlihatkan wajah Islam. Ini taktik halus menyekat dakwah dan penghayatan Islam. Jangan kita melemparkan kesalahan kpd gologan yg ekstrem sahaja kerana itu hanya alasan yg sengaja dicopta, sebagaimana UMNO menyimpan Arqam untuk dijadikan kambing hitam. Apa pandangan saudara?
Amin, I do not believe in conspiracy theories.
Azizul, can you imagine a repeat of the debate between Imam Abu Hanifah and the atheist in Malaysia? The atheist would probably get arrested and some “protector of Islam” would probably organize a massive demo. The debate you quoted in itself is a seerah evidence that debates and preaching were once allowed.
Commenting just to remind you that a new entry is long overdue.
wansaiful,
Chinese is not a race by American standards as there are _only_ 4 races, namely, White, Black, Brown and Yellow. Chinese, just like Jews and Muslims are a culture, namely a WAY OF LIFE.
Muslims can NEVER be Chinese or Jews or Copts or Assyrians or Greeks. Likewise there is NO such thing as an “Arab Christian” and this myth is just an Islamist propaganda. All Middle Eastern and North African Christians support Arab disunity for Arab disunity means Muslim disunity.
For example, Egyptian Muslims must be disunited and divided, so Copts can make Coptic language an official language of Egypt, just as Jews made Hebrew language an official language of Palestine/Israel, and Assyrians (aka Iraqi Christians) made Syriac an official language of Iraq after overthrow of Muslim dictatator Saddam.