Friday, July 02, 2010

Islamization and Activism in Malaysia

This recently published book serves as a good entry point for those who desire to understand the influence of Islam in Malaysia. The author, Julian Lee, makes it clear that Malaysia's Islam is not representing all Muslims but only one segment of the religious community worldwide. "[Islamic] cosmology, as it is manifest in Malaysia, gives precedence to Muslims over non-Muslims, and then to Sunni Muslims before others, and within that to those who follow the Shafi'i school, and males before females." (p.25)

The work highlights how this cosmology adopted by the ruling government UMNO and the Muslim community in Malaysia at large has undesirable socio-political impact on its multicultural society. The author lists high-profile cases where individual rights like that of Lina Joy, Kamariah Ali, and Shamala Sathiyaseelan are being violated. There are also discussions on the State-sanctioned religious authority's policing of individual's lifestyles including the raid at Zouk KL in 2005 and the banning of yoga among Muslims.

There are discussions over the different interpretations by Muslims over Malaysia's Constitution article 11 and certain Islamic practices. The book also underlines the various weaknesses of Malaysia's judiciary and how such weaknesses are forcing citizens like Sathiyaseelan and Kamariah Ali "into a lacunae where no law applies" since the civil court does not want to deal with these cases (p.86). In view of these weaknesses, Haris bin Mohamed Ibrahim remarked,
[Civil court judges] abdicated in their duty... by the simple mechanism... of finding jurisdiction in some other court, which 'til this day cannot be justified by written law... To my mind, that is nothing short of an abdication of their duty owed to the citizenry. (p.87, emphasis added)
Well said, Haris!

The author went on to discuss the electoral system in Malaysia. The author highlighted the practice of "First-Past-The-Post" system where there is no "representational value" on behalf of the voters if their candidate does not win. Julian Lee explains, "Hypothetically, even if Party A were to lose every context only by the slimmest of margins, Party A would be completely unrepresented." This contrasts with "proportional representational electoral system" where "losing votes still have representational value in the upper house." (p.111)

Another downside of this electoral system is the constraint of political expression. As Julian recounts a remark made by an individual he interviewed, "A relative of [the interviewee] was the head of PAS in his village, but that the only reason he was with PAS was "because he hates UMNO. He's not pious at all! He just hates UMNO." (p.113)

One of the good observations made in the book is its documentation of how socio-political forces shape some local Muslims' interpretation of their own faith and religious ideal. The author recounts the victory won by PAS in 1999. Between 1999 and 2004, PAS has been publicly pronouncing their plan to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. This move made them unpopular and resulted in their lost during the 2004 election. Since then they have "toned down greatly its Islamic state discourse, affirmed the place of non-Muslims in Malaysia, and behaved more conciliatory towards the DAP and PKR." (p.113) This example shows how easy these religious people change their religious ideal for political gain, from a superior outlook to one that is moderate. Hence non-Muslims are right to remain suspicious of them. Will they turn back to their superior outlook when they are ruling the country?

This book is a good resource for anyone who are interested to learn more about the place and role of Islam in Malaysia.

45 comments:

fauzisg2 said...

Hi there Sze Zeng

For me you have violated the teaching of the Bible itself when written:
"Hence non-Muslims are right to remain suspicious of them. Will they turn back to their superior outlook when they are ruling the country?"

Since the bible say, "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7:1-2). So don't be suspicious, and don't judge.

Look, Muslims were ruling Spain for 800 years - during that time Christians and Jews were free to practicing their religion without harm, but when Christians took back Spain after that, Muslims were kill and they have been forced to convert to Christianity, read the history. Look at here in Malaysia, so far we have been led by Muslim (regardless whether they are from UMNO or PAS) but do Muslims ever stop you from practicing your religion?

That is why Bible has stopped Christians from 'negative thinking' by try to judge something that we don't know (Matt 7:1-2).

BTW People always think that the teaching of the Christianity has something to do with 'love', maybe a part of the teaching, yes, but please read also Luke 19:27 and do remember that this is the order from 'Jesus' himself.

thenaiveblogger said...

Hi! Nice post. Definitely a good read for people in India aswell because of the muslim masses.
Feel free to view my blog and follow me at :
http://desidiaries.blogspot.com/

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

I am not sure if you are familiar with Christian theology and Christian discourse over hermeneutic, particularly on Jesus' parables. But your picking passages out of the context from which Jesus' taught seems to betray your unfamiliarity with them.

Coincidentally, I have recently posted two posts on 'judgment'.

Muslims in Malaysia did not stop me from practising my religion. As I have pointed out in my review of Julian Lee's book, they are trying to prevent individuals like Lina Joy et al from practising theirs.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi thenaiveblogger,

Thank you for your comment :-)

fauzisg2 said...

Hi again Sze Zeng,

No we Muslims are not preventing Lina Joy from practising her belief, but every religion got it own rules and regulations which I am believed that other religions should give respect on them (Islamic rules and regulations).

So here in Malaysia, that rules and regulations is in the hand of Mahkamah Syariah. Since Azlina Jailani (Lina Joy) was a Muslim (refer to the Birth Certificate and IC), so she can left Islam (murtad) but she has to apply to mahkamah Syariah first since there is some rules in Islam regarding murtad. After that, in mahkamah Syariah there will be a session of counseling by the experts to measure why she want to leave Islam and if the reasons are logic and supported with fact so she may do so, but since Lina Joy doesn't has any good reason other than get married with Christian guy so that was why she hesitate to face the mahkamah syariah.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

Thank you for your contribution to this conversation :-)

It is precisely this weakness in Malaysia's judiciary that Julian Lee has highlighted in his book.

For sure, non-Muslims respect Islamic rules and regulations. But do Islamic rules and regulations respect non-Muslims such as Lina Joy?

That's the question Lina Joy's case is asking.

The fact that Lina Joy has renowned her religion is already giving a consent over her decision to leave Islam. In this case, she is not a Muslim anymore. If that is so, then Islamic rules and regulations which apply only to Muslims are not applicable to her.

Of course, those who disagree would pushes the question on whether has she really renowned Islam with a clear conscience and full knowledge. If this is the case, and given none of us have full knowledge--not even Syariah judges--then no external parties should be able to dictate her expressed conscience. At the end of the day, it is left to her and her decision alone that all parties have to respect.

I don't mean this is applicable to all kind of other cases but specifically to this case only.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi again Sze Zeng,

I'll try to elaborate about Azlina Jailani's case and I hope you and all the readers here can understand about it.

What is mahkamah Syariah? It is a house of Islamic laws to protect and to bring up justice for Muslim and non-Muslim. For me mahkamah Syariah is like a parent who will protect their children (the followers) and willing to guide them to their own goodness, and will give them advice when needed.

So in the case of Azlina Jailani (Lina Joy), Mahkamah Syariah has right to know (since she was a Muslim) what is the main reason that she want to leave Islam and this question will be asking during the counseling session and if the reason is reasonable she can go ahead (convert out of Islam) but if not, let say she want to leave Islam because she has some misunderstanding about some of the Islamic teachings so the experts in mahkamah Syariah have right to educate and counseling her on that matters and possibly they will have some dialogues with her to clear up the matters.

But unfortunately Azlina Jailani (Lina Joy) never at all try to bring her case to mahkamah Syariah (WHY???) and then, ironically, some of us allegedly say that Islam has prevent her from practicing what she believe, whereas she herself hesitate to do the trial in mahkamah Syariah, this is not fair for Muslim and Islam.

I hope you and all the readers can understand what is happening on Azlina Jailani case.

And I too want to thanks you for let my messages to appear here. TQ!

reasonable said...

fauzisg2 wrote: every religion got it own rules and regulations which I am believed that other religions should give respect on them.

Just because a rule is within the category of "religious rule" it does not mean the rule is to be respected. It all depends on what is the content of the rule. Some religious rule ought to be challenged.

For example, once upon a time in India, there was a religious rule among a religion that the living widow is to be burned alive together with her dead husband during his funeral. Such a rule should be challenged and changed even though it is in the category of "religius rule".

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

In Lina Joy's case, it is more like she has found out that the Syariah court is not her real parent. So she deem it unnecessary to follow the rules in that court.

From the way you put it, that would only press the issue of what defines a person's belief.

As I have suggested in my previous comment that in cases of personal belief, no external parties should be able to dictate her expressed conscience.

As you said that the Syariah court is like a parent to protect their children. If Lina Joy's belief is not Islamic anymore, then she is not under the protection of the Syariah court anymore.

When she was a Muslim, she has to bind herself to the Syariah court. Since now that she is not a Muslim, she has no obligation to bind herself to the Syariah court.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi everybody..

Reasonable thanks for your comment, in order to reason with you, I need to ask you something and by your answer I will try to explain my point of view regarding the "religious rule". The question is easy, Is Jesus God (in Christianity)?

And to Sze Zeng, since Azlina Jailani has raised up as a Muslim until her matured age and then only after that she want to convert out from Islam, so she was in the house of Islam and in the house of her parent (Islamic Laws - mahkamah Syariah) before, and if she want 'to move' out she has to has a good reason for that. She can move out but first she has to face her parent (mahkamah Syariah)....I think this is so reasonable no matter whether you are Buddist or Hindus or Christians, this is what we normally practicing in the family - for the good of everybody, and for us Azlina Jailani (Lina Joy) is our sister in the house of Islam, if she go away because of something that she not really understand about her faith (Islam) so we as Muslim will try to educate her on that matter otherwise we are not fair for let her in the doubt. And of cause we not force her to believe (in Islam) but we will try to reason with her and the decision is hers. Can you imagine your younger sister want to move out without give a noticed to your parent?

This process (mahkamah Syariah) is a part of Islamic teaching, and for me non-Muslim should not mingle on it as we Muslim not mingle on your religious teachings (we ought should respect each other). Moreover this mahkamah Syariah will not burn her alive as what was happens in India (as Reasonable has bring up) and if you noticed in Kartika case (she took alcohol), in Pahang, mahkamah Syariah has let her go without punishment just because she said that she has repented.

Unlike Kartika, Azlina Jailani never bring her case to mahkamah Syariah, and no trial on her at all, no judges have made any decision of her case in mahkamah Syariah but non-Muslim now allegedly claim that Muslim has prevented her from what she believe.....just not fair at all.

But I wonder why if Azlina Jailani really has some good reasons for convert out from Islam, why she afraid to go to mahkamah Syariah?

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

The question is not on the legitimacy of Syariah over Muslims. As I have already expressed my agreement with you earlier on that it is fine that Syariah holds its judiciary over Muslims.

So it is not an issue of a daughter in the family that has moved out from the family without reason.

Lina Joy's case, as I have stated in my second and third reply to you, is that she is not part of the family anymore. The Syariah is not her real parent according to her own conscience.

So the illustration of "moving out" from a family that you used does not provide an accurate analogy for Lina Joy's case. In her case, it is a situation where she has found out who her real parent is. And she has renowned any relationship from the parent she once thought was her real parent.

With this new consideration in mind, she doesn't need to acknowledge the relationship (parent-daughter) she once had with the person she used to think was her parent.

So the more accurate illustration is not "Can you imagine your younger sister want to move out without give a noticed to your parent?"

A better illustration should be this: Can I imagine my younger sister chose to renown the family based on her expressed conscience which was the result of her current knowledge, and hence does not need to acknowledge me as her brother anymore?

Yes I can imagine that. If my younger sister chose not to acknowledge me as her brother based on her expressed conscience resulted from her current knowledge, then that's fine to me.

Kartika's is different from Lina Joy's case. The former still acknowledge Syariah to be her parent. So it is right that she submits herself to her parent.

The latter already has no whatsoever relationship with the Syariah. Hence she has no obligation to submit to the syariah as one submit to a parent. If Lina Joy submits, then that is like acknowledging a person who is not her parent as her parent.

Now, can you imagine a situation where you are being asked, contrary to your knowledge and conscience, to address someone who is not your father as your father?

fauzisg2 said...

Hello Sze Zeng,

TQ! for this beautiful discussion. I see that from time to time your understanding on Islam is increasing, that is good.

But since you are not well expose to the Islamic teaching, there is still something that is so important about Islam that you over look. Here I will try to veil up that matter. Islam is the way of life reveal by Almighty God to mankind, Islam teaches every aspect of life, from the moment you wake up until the moment you go to bed again - even Islam teaches of how we should sleep, and I'm not kidding you, it is real.

Look at this, no other religion other than Islam that have their own ways of banking, we have! (e.g. Maybank Islamic etc. etc), Islam has guided us on that matter too.

If even in the tiny little thing like how to sleep has been guided by Islam, what about the most important thing such as how to get the salvation which will promise you the successful life in here after (everlasting life). In order for that successful, Islamic rules and regulations (mahkamah syariah) is there to assist you - just like your parent, they are there to help you.

One should understand that there is no terminology like 'mind your own business' in Islam, no, every thing that you are doing is measured in Islam, including if you want to convert out from Islam, we have an act on that. And when somebody want to convert out from Islam the act is waiting for him or her to face it. So they must undergo the trial process in mahkamah Syariah because this is the part of our teaching, nobody can ever escape from this process.

Remember this is a part of our teaching, nobody has right to stop it just like nobody has right to stop you from praying in the church because it is a part of the teaching in Christianity, do Muslims have right to stop you from attending your congregation? The answer is no!, do Christians have right to stop the jurisdiction of mahkamah Syariah, including it authority on whom want to convert out from Islam? And the answer is no too, because it is a part of the Islamic request.

As I said, to trial is more on counseling process or learning process. If she still want to convert out from Islam, it is her right but she must undergo the trial (in mahkamah Syariah) first because it is a part of our Islamic teaching, I hope you can understand.

So in Islam, whether you are convert in or convert out from Islam will be referred to Islamic laws. In islam there is no simply come in or go out just like that, no!

So I hope you and all the readers here will understand about the Islamic laws.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

Thank you for explaining.

I understand it is part of your Islamic teaching.

I just want to give you a hypothetical scenario and see what is your response.

You are born into Christian family. You found out that Christianity is no longer your religion. So you decided to renown it and stop acknowledging it as your real religion.

But Christianity says that you cannot renown it and stop acknowledging it as your religion simply because you found out that it is not your real religion. They Christian Council requires you to get permission from them in your decision even when you are already convinced in your conscience and knowledge that Christianity is not your real religion.

Would you still submit to Christianity and the Christian Council to get permission from them to renown from your faith?

If you do, you are contradicting your own knowledge and conscience of who you are and what you stand for. And if you are alright to live in contradiction, then that is fine to you. But other people are not that alright to live in contradiction. So in this case, if you chose to live in contradiction by submitting to the Christian Council, then everyone should respect your choice. But if you chose not to live in contradiction by disregarding the Christian Council, then everyone should also respect your choice.

So would you or would you not submit?

reasonable said...

fauzisg2 wrote: Reasonable thanks for your comment, in order to reason with you, I need to ask you something and by your answer I will try to explain my point of view regarding the "religious rule". The question is easy, Is Jesus God (in Christianity)?

Whether a learned Christian would answer yes or no to the question would depends on what the questioner mean by "Is Jesus God?" But say, for simplicity sake so that you can move forward for you to explain your point of view, let's just say that most Christians would say Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense.

But anyone (whether Christians or non-Christians) need not respect this idea that Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense, and anyone (whether Christians or non-Christians) should have the freedom to challenge this idea.

The issue of "Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense" is only lies in an intellectual domain, whereas religious rules such as "a widow ought to be burned alive together with her husband's dead body during the latter's funeral" causes obvious harm and hence should not be respected and should be challenged.

A rule is not to be immuned from challenges and does not automatically earn the right to be respected just because it happens to be a "religious rule".

If it intrinsically causes empirical harm, it ought to be challenged.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng,

So I try my best to explain to you in my 'jumble mumble' English - I'm so sorry for my poor English, but I hope you can understand it (so far).

But from your last post, I think you still miss something on the case of Azlina Jailani. I have cleared up so far that mahkamah Syariah never prevented Azlina Jailani from being Christian because there was no trial on that case at all....so where that the people get the idea that Islam has prevented her to become a Christian?....whereas mahkamah Syariah never ever give any decision on that mentioning case since there was no trial what so ever.

OK, what is the reason that Azlina Jailani (Lina Joy) need to go mahkamah Syariah?

It was started this way, Azlina Jailani want to get married with a Christian guy, since her ID is stated that she is a 'Muslim' and it is impossible for her to married somebody who is not a Muslim (Islam has the enactment on that). So she has tried to get the permission from civil court to put down the term 'Islam' in her ID card (so that she can get married) and she too want to change her name to 'Lina Joy'. But the civil court has made their decision that this case should be reffered to mahkamah syariah because it is something to do with religion (Islam) and not the civil case.

So as I stated before, Islam is a systematic religion, if one want to convert to Islam there is the enactment for that, similar to, if one want to convert out from Islam, there is the enactment for that too that is through the trial on mahkamah Syariah. Only by this way Azlina Jailani can put down the term 'Islam' from her ID card and of cause she can get married after that.

So what I want to stress here is, there is the 'door' to come to Islam and there is the 'door' to go out from Islam - really systematic. So she (Azlina Jailani) has to 'walk' through the right 'door' so that she can get whatever she want - married. But since she has refused to do that (undergo the trial at mahkamah Syariah) so how to put down the word 'Islam' from her ID card?.........everything should follows the rules and regulations - walk through the right door! (this remember me to the traffic's rules and regulations when we are driving, if one not follows the rules on the road he/she can get the accident!- just an analogy to make you easy to understand).

Again, I wonder why she was afraid to face the trial if she is on the right track - 'berani kerana benar, takut kerana salah'.

So I think I have cleared up the matter, I thank you for the discussion. TQ!

fauzisg2 said...

Hi again Reasonable..

TQ! for your reply...

Very short, my time has up...

You have wrote:
"The issue of "Jesus is God in the Trinitarian sense" is only lies in an intellectual domain, whereas religious rules such as "a widow ought to be burned alive together with her husband's dead body during the latter's funeral" causes obvious harm and hence should not be respected and should be challenged."

Hurry up, I want to comment a bit on this, for me everything about faith is far more serious matter than burning alive somebody who is innocent (do not means that I agree on that, no!), because your salvation is through your faith - to receive the everlasting life.........if your faith is in error, so you will miss your salvation....

Come back to my Q, So if Jesus is God to you, do you believe that he has died on the cross? can God died?

I'm always looking for your respond, TQ.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

You are writing well and in intelligible manner. Appreciate your effort.

However, I noticed that you have deleted some of your own comments. That will disrupt the flow of our conversation. And I think that is unnecessary.

I understand that Syariah never prevent Lina Joy from becoming a Christian. So I did not miss this point as you have suggested.

As you have stated it very clearly in the comment which you have deleted: "For me mahkamah Syariah is like a parent who will protect their children (the followers) and willing to guide them to their own goodness, and will give them advice when needed."

So Syariah concerns only "the followers" (as you have stated clearly). And Lina Joy is not a follower.

So after reading what you wrote, I am not saying that the Syariah is preventing Lina Joy from converting out from Islam.

I am saying that given the fact that Lina Joy is already not a Muslim, not a follower, then she is not a concern of Syariah. Therefore she, being not a follower, does not need to subject herself to the Syariah.

I totally agree with you that rules and regulations need to be followed.

You stated that the rule says that Syariah concerns the followers of Islam. So those who are followers of Islam are subjected to Syariah. That means non-followers are not subjected to Islam. And this is the rule.

Lina Joy, being a non-follower of Islam, chose not to subject herself to the Syariah is merely following the rule. She did not break the rules and regulations by not subjecting herself under Syariah.

A more accurate case of someone who breaks the rules and regulations is when a non-follower who chose to make herself under the concern of the Syariah, since you stated that the rules states that Syariah concerns only the followers.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

I realized that you have not only deleted your own comments, but also you have deleted mine.

I am not sure how did you do that, but if you have to resort to hack into my account for this conversation, then I think that is rather uncivilized, not least, despicable.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

You emphasize that Muslims are to respect non-Muslims and vice versa.

I don't see hacking into my account to delete my comment is respecting me.

reasonable said...

fauzig2, you did not respond properly to my original message and then you side-track to other stuff.

I was saying that a rule, just be cause it is a religious rule, should not be immuned from being challenged. Just because a rule is happens to be a religious rule, it does not mean that we ought to respect it. I used the example of a religious rule to illustrate: the burning of widow alive at her dead husband's funeral.

Let me ask you clearly and please answer "yes", "no" or "do not know" to this quetion: do u agree that a rule that happens to be a religious rule is not immuned from being challenged and opposed by people?

If u can answer my question directly with a yes, no or dunno, then I will answer your later questions.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng

I am so frustrated for you allegation of hacking into your account, what is the benefit for me in doing that?

I hope you will apologize here for your allegation!

I think God just want to prove to us here that even you are the theological student, you know the Bible well but you have violated the teaching in Matthew 7:1-2.

If I have the skill to do that, why I have to stay late to give respond to you and to Reasonable - whereas I can easily go into your blog and mass up?

Why me? because I happen to be the only Muslim here?

This is what always happen in the US and also in Europe when incident happen people will point the finger to Muslim, it fair?

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Reasonable,

I am throwing you such questions is to make you to think about your own 'religious rule' whether they are reasonable or not. It is not right for me, I think!, to go straightly to condemn any religion rather than I have to encourage they themselves to think about it, not by condemn it, otherwise they will be defensived.

I think if you try to answer the questions you will already know what kind of the 'religious rule' that you believe in now.

You wrote:
"Let me ask you clearly and please answer "yes", "no" or "do not know" to this quetion: do u agree that a rule that happens to be a religious rule is not immuned from being challenged and opposed by people?"

For me the true 'religious rule' is coming straightly from Almighty God who has created the mankind. And surely this is the only true 'religious rule'. And to challenged the true 'Religious rule' as like somebody (an analogy) want to challenge the manual book of the car that he just bought and he claimed that he knows batter than the engineers who have designed the car. The Q arise, does this man entitle to challenged that manual book? The answer is no!.

By parable I have already answered you and I hope you will answer my question before, that is:

Do you believe that your God has died on the cross? and Can God Died?

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

I understand your frustration if you are not the hacker. But I hope you understand mine too.

You mentioned that you stay up late to participate in this conversation. I really appreciate you for doing this.

On the other hand, I stay up late also to respond to your comments. But you (or a third party) deleted them as if you didn't make such comments. I am frustrated too. It is as if no point for me to respond to your comment.

Add to that, you are using a pseudonym. That means your identity is suspicious to start with. I would like to find out, did you or did you not delete your own comments?

I will apologize only when the matter is being cleared.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

It is very strange that now, the deleted comments are back.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

Please drop me an email at joshuawoo@gmail.com.

Thank you.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng

You still not understand what I have transmitted to you before (may be my English is not as good as yours), but I wonder what you have understand when you have said in your previous post that:

"I understand it is part of your Islamic teaching"

nevermind...

You wrote, "I am saying that given the fact that Lina Joy is already not a Muslim, not a follower, then she is not a concern of Syariah. Therefore she, being not a follower, does not need to subject herself to the Syariah."

and before that you have wrote:

"The fact that Lina Joy has renowned her religion is already giving a consent over her decision to leave Islam."

My respond: As I said before, Azlina Jailani was a Muslim, and if she has made the decision to leave Islam so automatically she has 'applied' to herself one enactment in mahkamah Syariah about leaving Islam called 'Murtad' (apostacy) and she can't just walk away just like that, she has to face the enactment. One of the thing in that enactment is to investigate why she want to leave Islam, and to educate her if she not understand any part of Islamic teaching. If Christianity or other religions do not have this kind of practice (enactment about leaving Islam), it is not fair to force Islam to put down it teaching just because their religion doesn't has such enacment.

Similar to, if we Muslim do not use the cross in our worship, do we have the right to force Christians to put it down just because it (cross) is not a part of Islamic teaching? No, we don't have right to do that, and we would not do that, but why others keep 'mingle' around on Islamic teaching and keep asking us to put down the Islamic practice? What is your right to do that?

So far, pls. answer me (to check whether you understand my point or not). Ought Muslims have to put down the Islamic teaching just because of other religions do not have the teaching?

And if you answer is YES, so will Christianity too will put down it any teaching just because it is not include in other religion?

I will respond to your allegation of hacking to your blog soon. TQ!

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

I understand what you said. Okay, I'll answer your question: "Ought Muslims have to put down the Islamic teaching just because of other religions do not have the teaching?"

No.

Now please answer my question: Is Lina Joy still a Muslim?

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng,

Yes! you have given the correct answer that is NO, very good, so that means we have to stick to our original teaching (Islam), if so, so Azlina Jailani have to face the enactment because this is the original teaching of Islam, we should just continuously practicing it. As simple as that.

You have a very good Q too:

Now please answer my question: Is Lina Joy still a Muslim?

Answer: Refer to you answer (NO!), so thats mean that nobody should stop Muslims from enforcing our laws.

And because she is no more Muslim then only the enactment of apostasy has to be enforced upon her (according to Islamic teaching), and remember, if the enactment can't be enforced to her that is means that we are not practicing our Islamic teaching.

One of the way to prevent from the enactment to been enforced to her is by proving that she was not a Muslim from beginning - like you yourself which the enactment can't be applied to you in what ever condition. Can you prove that she never be Muslim at all? Untill you can prove this, then only I will again respond to you regarding this issue.

Even though she has leaved Islam, but from law point of view she is still Muslim since her ID is still stated the word 'Islam' there.

I know you understand the issue very well and the Islamic law is in my side, we of cause will not put down our teaching in what ever condition. So the only way is to prove that Azlina Jailani was not a Muslim from the beginning, this is impossible. If you can't prove it so I will end this discussion here.

I will send you an email after this, and my name is Fauzi, no! I'm not using a pseudonym, again and again you are violated the teaching in Matthew 7:1-2, I wonder why you not realizing the teaching of the Bible to your daily life?

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng,

Pls check ya email! I have sent an email to you as per your requirement.

I ask you to apologize for your allegation, if you are really a Christian.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng

I am looking for your public apologize as you have promised in your email to me. TQ!

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

Thank you for your email and clarification. I apologize to you if you are not the one who has hacked into my account. Please accept my apology.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzigs2,

You mentioned clearly that Syariah only concern over Muslims. This are your words:

"For me mahkamah Syariah is like a parent who will protect their children (the followers) and willing to guide them to their own goodness, and will give them advice when needed."

Since Lina Joy is not a Muslim, then she is not subjected to Syariah according to you.

Whether was she a Muslim or not is besides the point, and hence it is irrelevant.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng

Thank you for your apologize, but in order for me to accept your apologize (in public), you ought to publish it in your new discussion treat by the title:

I was hacked as a result of my conversation with a Muslim

If we look carefully to that phenomenon (has been hacked), for my messages to get to appear here only are needed your permission, otherwise I can't participate in this discussion. If I was the culprit, why I need to wait for your permission?

How ever I really appreciate your friendly spirit. TQ!

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

All comments needed to be moderated here. Usually I don't reject comments unless I find them irrelevant. In your case, I have published your comments to which subsequently they were deleted and then reappear 2 days later after I blogged about it in the post title "I was hacked as a result of my conversation with a Muslim."

I have updated that post with a clause that I owe you an apology if you are not the hacker.

So shall we continue our conversation here? :-)

fauzisg2 said...

Hi again Sze Zeng

As I said before, you have already understood all about the syariah law regarding apostasy in Islam and Muslim's duty do practice according to the Islamic teaching. Yes mahkamah Syariah will protect the believers (followers), no doubt, but don't forget that it is too will apply the apostasy enactment to the apostate (x-follower). Otherwise what the enactment for?

I stick to what I have said before that can you prove that she has never be a Muslim before?

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng,

As you apologize, so you ought to drop the sentences which accusing me as a culprit to hack your blog. The sentences in your treat are:

"This has never happened before. Could it be that fauzisg2 found that it is not enough to delete his own (assuming it's a 'he'), so he hacked into my blogger account and deleted mine as well?

I suspect that is the case. If it is, then it is an embarrassment for Muslims like fauzisg2 to resort to such uncivilized tactic in a correspondence."

I hope you will do something about them. TQ1

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzigs2,

Whether was Lina Joy a Muslim or not is, as I have said, besides the point.

We have establish:

1) Syariah concerns only followers.
2) Lina Joy is not a follower.
3) Therefore Lina Joy is not under Syariah's concern.

Is there a contradiction in the above reasoning? If there is no, then whether Lina Joy was or not a Muslim is besides the point. The fact whether or not Lina was a Muslim does not in anyway disrupt the logical consistency of the above reasoning. To disrupt the above reasoning is to become illogical and contradictory.

So for one to argue for Lina Joy to be under Syariah's concern is to say that the Syariah's enactment is illogical and contradictory. That means one can only argue for that if one willing to say that the Syariah's enactment is contradictory. If Syariah's enactment is contradictory, then it is illegitimate. If it is illegitimate, then no one should adhere to it.

Here I'm not willing to say that Syariah is illegitimate, hence logically Lina Joy is not under Syariah's concern. Unless, as I have said, one is willing to admit Syariah's illegitimacy.

So are you saying that the Syariah is contradictory in its enactment?

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

I cannot drop the sentence "Could it be that fauzisg2 found that it is not enough to delete his own (assuming it's a 'he'), so he hacked into my blogger account and deleted mine as well?

I suspect that is the case. If it is, then it is an embarrassment for Muslims like fauzisg2 to resort to such uncivilized tactic in a correspondence."


If I drop that sentence, then my update on my apology will be meaningless as there is no more reference as to what am I apologizing to. So, the original blog has to be remained seen as a reference to my apology.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng

I'll give you an example of how is the condition of being a Muslim. This example is the real situation in the military, not to say that Islam is a military religion, no!, but just an example which is happened to be in contact.

Before that you must understand that being the apostate is being the treason in the Islamic teaching, and should be overcome by counseling and two ways dialogue between the experts and the apostate.

In the military world, treason is happen by running away from the military - whether in the general or in the battle field. It is a crime before the rule of the military or may be to the rule of the country itself too, I sure there is an enactment for that kind of crime. As long as one is in the military service, this enactment will not be used upon him/her (for no reason), but lets say, there is a case of a military personal has ran away from the service...and then only the enactment will be applied to him/her in the charge of treason.

Azlina Jailani was raised up as a Muslim and then she leaved Islam, so she was made the enactment of apostate in the Syariah law to be entitled for her.

If somebody said that Azlina Jailani was not choose to be born as a Muslim, it is not happens that way in Islamic teaching, no! - just like somebody in Christianity arguing that he/she didn't want to be born as a sinner, no!, it is not happen that way in Christianity, you are born with sin (according to the teaching of Christianity), no choice.

So I've given the close example to you so I hope you can digest it. Otherwise you have to take the ID card of Azlina Jailani yourself (if possible) and 'rub off' the word 'Islam' in it, until that word is still there, the enactment of apostate is relevant to her.

That is why I have asked you to proved that she was not ever be a Muslim before, otherwise the apostate enactment is still relevant to her. TQ!.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

I'll take your silence over my presented syllogism ([P1] Syariah concerns only followers; [P2] Lina Joy is not a follower; [C] Therefore Lina Joy is not under Syariah's concern.) to mean that you agree that the syllogism is logical, and hence to go against this syllogism is being contradictory.

You didn't deny that this syllogism is logical and you are unwilling to say that the Syariah is contradictory in its enactment. So you resorted to legality to support your case.

And your argument from legality is simply drawn from Lina Joy's legal identity card which states that her religion is 'Islam'. Therefore according to the legal enactment, even though she is not a Muslim, but since her legal identity card states that she is a Muslim therefore she is still under Syariah's concern despite her affidavit that she is not a Muslim.

In short, you are saying that Lina Joy's case is not a logical case but a legal one. Therefore even though it is logical that Lina Joy is NOT Syariah's concern, but due to the legal enactment, therefore Lina still is Syariah's concern.

If that is the case, I believe I have already answer your arguement in my previous comment in this few sentences:

Lina Joy, being a non-follower of Islam, chose not to subject herself to the Syariah is merely following the rule. She did not break the rules and regulations by not subjecting herself under Syariah.

A more accurate case of someone who breaks the rules and regulations is when a non-follower who chose to make herself under the concern of the Syariah, since you stated that the rules states that Syariah concerns only the followers.


Due to this, your analogy of the military personnel is not appropriate at all to represent this case. And this is not the first time you use an inappropriate analogy. The previous one you used was the Kartika's case. Allow me to show you why your analogy of the military practice is inappropriate.

The nature of the relationship between the military personnel with the military is contractual. That means the free citizen signed a contract with the military that comes with certain legal obligations. So this contract effected the free citizen to be enlisted into the military as a personnel. When the military personnel leaves the military without completing the obligations stated in the contract, he is breaching the contract. And because of this contractual breach, he will be prosecuted.

In Lina Joy's case, her relationship with Islam is not contractual. She was not given a position to consider her religion in the first place, unlike the free citizen who signed up to be a military personnel. In Lina Joy's affidavit (In the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur; Originating Summons Code Number R2-24-30-2000; Sworn on 2.6.2000; Filed on 2.6.2000; 6.b), she stated clearly:

"Although I have been brought up as a Muslim, I have, from the beginning not believed in the practices and teachings of Islam."

Here is the evident that Lina Joy has never consented conscientiously to be a Muslim. Hence your analogy breaks down completely to describe Lina Joy's case.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng

TQ! for your post.

Just one Q, can Christians choose not to be born as a sinner?

You really study more this time, that is good, and even you have quoted from Azlina Jailani's affidavit to the High court, do you think that the Judges in the High Court did not understand the affidavit (as you have understood it)? and yet they (the High court Judges) still made their decision that her case is a Syariah case.

I'm now so confuse whom I want to follow you yourself or the Judges? If everybody want to be a High Court judge, so can you imagine what will happen to this country? The laws are there, don't tamper the laws to suit our need rather we have to adapt ourselves according to the laws.

However until you answer my Q first then only I will reply. thank you very much.

fauzisg2 said...

Hi Sze Zeng,

Since I'm middle of something.

So I will see your answer for my Q, if the answer is NO! (has to be born with sin, no choice), that means that Azlina Jailani too had no choice and had to be born as a Muslim (since her parents are Muslims).

If the answer is YES!, you can choose to be born free - without sin, so only I'll continue this discussion, otherwise the discussion will be meaningless.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi fauzisg2,

You asked:

"Can Christians choose not to be born as sinner?"

My asnwer: This is a nonsensical and illogical question. To choose is to presuppose that one is already born. So if one is not born, then one cannot choose. To ask that if one can choose before one is born is absurb. So there is no answer to your meaningless question.

Everyone who read about Malaysia judiciary know that Malaysia's court of law is still not recovered from the 1988 Malaysia Constitutional/Judiciary crisis. Since then, the government has not done any bit to improve the situation or the independence of the judiciary from political influences. Hence the decision over Lina Joy is seen as an unjust decision. As Haris bin Mohamed Ibrahim said that the judges are abdicating their duty when they refer the case to the Syariah court. The recent V.K. Lingam case is telling.

Besides Haris Bin Mohamed Ibrahim, other Muslim lawyers like Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and Salbiah Ahmad recognize that there is a problem with the constitution. Yes, the laws are there and we don't tamper with the laws to suit our need. But as I have said, the judiciary in Malaysia is still crippled by political influences. The 1988 Constitutional crisis and V.K. Lingam case are two examples. So if you are consistent with your principle that we should not tamper with the laws to suit our need, then you should condemn the UMNO generated Constitutional/Judiciary crisis in 1988. You should also condemn the UMNO government's recent appeal against High Court's decision to allow non-Muslims to use the word 'Allah'.

reasonable said...

fauzisg2 wrote:
For me the true 'religious rule' is coming straightly from Almighty God who has created the mankind... And to challenged the true 'Religious rule' as like somebody (an analogy) want to challenge the manual book of the car that he just bought and he claimed that he knows batter than the engineers who have designed the car. The Q arise, does this man entitle to challenged that manual book? The answer is no!

1. The car manual is not necessarily perfect or without error. Hence, if someone (e.g. a car-user who happens to be an engineer) has good basis to think that there is an error in the car manual, then he is entitled to challenge that manual and to challenge the car company who wrote/produce that manual.

2. Someone claiming that he has a book written by God does not mean that he is correct. For example, he could be honestly mistaken, among other possibilities. We should not accept such claims uncritically. We should challenge those things written in such a book that cause obvious harm, for example.

3. If God (translated as Allah in Indonesian Malay or other types of Malay) really commands people to rape innocent women and children, then our moral obligation is not to obey this God (translated as Allah in Indonesian Malay or other types of Malay). Better be send to hell than to obey an evil command.


fauzisg2 also wrote:Do you believe that your God has died on the cross? and Can God Died?

1. God (translated as Allah in Indonesian Malay or other types of Malay) cannot do things that are classified as "logical impossibilities". Hence God is not able to do things like drawing a circular square on a piece of paper.

2. The ability of God (translated as Allah in Indonesian Malay or other types of Malay) to die is not a logical impossibility (unlike drawing a circular square). Whether or not can God (translated as Allah in Indonesian Malay or other types of Malay) self-destruct (die), we do not know. Maye He/She/It has the power to die.

3. In orthodox Trinitarian theology, God is not identical with Jesus. So Jesus died and later bodily resurrected from the dead is different from (and not equal to) God dying and later bodily resurrected from the dead. Your question is misleading and loaded (probably with the wrong assumptions that God is identical to Jesus). It is in a slight sense expecting someone to answer a "yes" or "no" to the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" - one cannot simply say "yes" or "no" if one has not even started to beat one's wife. Answer "yes" or "no" would be misleading. I suggest you go and read the works of one of the current international leading scholars of the New Testament, N. T. Wright, to understand the nuances of the relationship between Jesus' identity and God's identity.

reasonable said...

Part 2 of my answer to fauzisg2 who wrote: For me the true 'religious rule' is coming straightly from Almighty God who has created the mankind. And surely this is the only true 'religious rule'. And to challenged the true 'Religious rule' as like somebody (an analogy) want to challenge the manual book of the car that he just bought and he claimed that he knows batter than the engineers who have designed the car.

Note that what you wrote above is talking only about the true religious rules (which seems to be about the rules of a true religion). What you wrote above seems to contradict what you wrote earlier when you said, and I quote, that "EVERY religion got it [sic] own rules and regulations which I am [sic] believed that other religions should give respect on [sic] them."

You said "EVERY RELIGION". You said people should respect the religious rules of EVERY RELIGION. And then, in your latest response to me, you seem to have change your position by talking about only the TRUE RELIGIOUS RULE.

However, going by your latest statement, what you effectively imply is that we need not respect the religious rules of EVERY RELIGION, but only the true religious rules the true religion. So if a Tan Ah Gao honestly believe that his religion is the true religion and his religion contain the true religious rules, then he is entitled to challenge the religious rules of other religions which he honestly perceived as false religious rules correct?

Please clarify then what is your stand: to respect EVERY RELIGION's
religious rules (as what you said in an earlier remarks made by you) or to choose only to respect those that one think are the "true religious rules" (your latest remarks made to me)?