WanSaiful.com

In Malaysia, it is illegal for non-Muslims to preach religion to Muslims. Non-Muslims, like Christian missionaries, 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.

Many Muslims defend the criminalization of missionary works on Muslims by arguing that the sanctity of Islam must be protected, and 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?

Secondly, if a non-Muslim government, say in Singapore or America, make it illegal for Muslims to spread the message of Islam to non-Muslims, will Muslims accept that? I suspect many Muslims will styart shouting about human rights etc. But we in Malaysia are doing exactly that to the non-Muslims.

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 religion have full rights to practise their beliefs. What about those religions that encourage their believers to undertake missionary works? By legislating against non-Islamic missionary, we are preventing them from fully practising their religion, which is actually against the constitution.

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 offical registration of their conversion? This is clearly upside-down – the protection of Islam is granted by encroaching into other religions and limiting their freedom and liberty. Surely the correct way is by legislating against riddah, which is confined only within Islam, while allowing missionaries to attempt to spread their beliefs.

In short, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the ban on missionary works while the national government continue to support Islamic da’wah organizations. This is clear double standard to those who are citizens of the same country.

I have been asking many people about this matter and all 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.

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 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 on “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” (emphasis added).

That to me is a very bold statement. 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 incitement of religious hatred bill proposed in the United Kingdom – it is wrong for people of all religion to incite religious hatred. But definitely not to an extent that non-Muslims are banned from propagating their beliefs.

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.

Filed under: Articles, Malaysia, Politics

It is interesting to read the debates taking place at Bob, Rajan and Shin, with Menj joining in to add more heat.

When Bob asked the question “NEP for whom?” another blogger replied by saying that PAS would probably introduce an “Islamic Economic Policy” if they were to win. This sparked a debate that became more wide-ranging, eventually ending up with a competition of who hates PAS the most.

Shin was rather childish in her comments on the topic – constantly using the acronym PIS when referring to PAS. Her comment “we cannot blame the PIS members you see, because had they been able to think, they wouldn’t have been in PIS in the first place” is condescending. Denigrating the syariah, too, is not a way forward. She should realize that there are many people out there who are progressive but still believe in syariah. As a Muslim, it is my democratic right to want the syariah, and if we were to work together, appreciation of others is a must.

In any case, the problem in debates like this is the fact that no one is willing to critically look at themselves and ask if it is themselves who are actually the problem. How will it be possible for Keadilan, PAS, DAP and other opposition parties to unite if their members are constantly bickering against each other?

As a PAS member, I should be asking myself, what should I do to make PAS more accommodative to others in opposition. I expect those from Keadilan and DAP to do the same. Surely that is much better than a Keadilan member denigrating DAP, a PAS member slandering Keadilan, or a DAP member belittling PAS. How much longer are we going to point fingers at others, forgetting that it is us that may be the problem?

I would argue that everybody has to change their attitude if they want to form a strong coalition – and a coalition is a must if we were to defeat BN, itself a coalition of many parties.

PAS must change its attitude and realize that it is no longer enough to just initiate a relationship. They must work to maintain and strengthen that relationship too. While working in a coalition, PAS cannot unilaterally produce policy statements if they know others will not agree. Publication of the Islamic State document was a mistake and steps must be taken to mend the damage.

DAP should realize that the majority of the Malays still see it as a chauvinistic Chinese party. And, just like PAS should be careful when using the term Islamic when labelling its policies, DAP too should think twice about using the word “socialist”. Despite my commitment to PAS, I also believe DAP has proposed some excellent policies. I have no problems with elements of socialism, Malaysian Malaysia, etc. But the vast majority of Malaysians have a negative impression of these various concepts. Just like PAS, DAP too must tread carefully.

Keadilan is a relatively new party that relies almost absolutely on DSAI. Until today it has not been able to categorically state what it stands for. Imagine if DSAI were to die tomorrow. Both PAS and DAP will definitely survive death of a major leader (or leaders) because they both have a strong enough ideological base. But will Keadilan survive? If we were to take things a bit further, imagine if both DSAI and Wan Azizah were to die tomorrow. Can you imagine what would happen to Keadilan? Who will take over the presidency? Unfortunately many still see Keadilan as an “Anwar’s party” rather than a force by itself.

We as members must remember that the leaders of our parties have a duty to represent our views. If we continue with the negative views of each other, we cannot blame party leaders if they merely reflect the situation on the groud. After all, each party has a specific audience to entertain and to keep happy. If we in the audience continue to foster negativities, we cannot blame party leaders if efforts to strenghen the BA falter. It is not totally their fault. We have to look at ourselves too.

Once the opposition parties, especially Keadilan, are able to properly articulate their main principles, it is important for them to sit down and thrash things out. We cannot expect things to be resolved within one or two years. In the mean time, we as politically conscious citizens should work to reduce the tension, not add to it. We have to ensure we do not create issues that may divide BA further.

Not so long ago, there were talks about enhancing federalism in Malaysia. This is one viable option for BA. The states should be allowed to legislate according to the wishes of its own citizens. BA components should then produce one national manifesto plus more specific state manifestos. Prior to that, there must be a comprehensive study on what the people really want. If it can be statistically proven that the majority of people on a particular state do not want syariah, then the state manifesto should clearly state that BA will not force the syariah upon the people. But if support for syariah can be proven, then BA component parties should work together to give the people what they want.

At the national level, I don’ think it is prudent to campaign for a national implementation of syariah.

I suppose the term Islamic State (Negeri Islam) is the right phrase to use. Not Negara Islam (Islamic Country).

Filed under: Articles, Malaysia, Politics