|
Sprintcyclist
|
The following is not surprising, even non muslim ethnicities in Australia have and continue to follow such practices, where it comes to mixing with the Australian society.
Malaysia's shackles on religious freedom
David Hodgson
June 22, 2007
Can Islam be compatible with religious freedom? I certainly hope so, but doubts are raised by a decision of Malaysia's highest court, given a month ago. Lina Joy is a 43-year-old Malay woman who became a Christian some years ago and wished to marry a Christian man.
As a Malay, at the age of 12 she had received a national identity card specifying her religion as Islam. As long as her identity card stated she was a Muslim, she could not obtain a marriage licence to marry a Christian.
She applied to the National Registration Department to have her designation as a Muslim removed. The department required a certificate of apostasy from an Islamic court before this would be done.
Malaysia has civil and Islamic courts, the latter having jurisdiction over Muslims in religious and family matters. In most states of Malaysia, apostasy from Islam is punishable as a criminal offence by order of an Islamic court. Certificates of apostasy are very difficult to obtain. If Joy and her Christian boyfriend had children without marrying, the children could be taken from them to be raised as Muslims.
Before the court's decision Joy and her boyfriend had received death threats and were in hiding.
As a member of the United Nations, Malaysia is committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief", as well as providing that "without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion" men and women have the right to marry and have a family. Malaysia's constitution provides that every person has the right to profess and practise his religion; although it does also provide that civil courts have no jurisdiction over matters within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts. Interpretation of the constitution is a matter for civil courts and, ultimately, for Malaysia's Federal Court.
By a 2-1 majority, the Malaysian Federal Court decided that the department's requirement of a certificate of apostasy was lawful. The two judges of the majority were Muslim and included the Chief Justice of Malaysia. The dissenter, Justice Richard Malanjum, is a non-Muslim.
According to the majority, the question whether Joy was or was not a Muslim was a decision for the Islamic courts, which had been given jurisdiction over issues of conversion to Islam and, by implication, had jurisdiction over questions concerning conversion from Islam. The Chief Justice was quoted as saying: "If a person professes and practises Islam, he should be following Islamic laws including his conversion or renunciation. That is what is meant by adopting and practising Islam. What the [department] did was to ascertain whether Lina [Joy] had renounced this religion. I do not see this as an infringement to freedom of religion. No one is stopping her from marrying. She is merely required to fulfil certain obligations, for the Islamic authorities to confirm her apostasy, before she embraces Christianity."
The dissenting judge considered among other things that the requirement that Joy apply to Islamic courts for a certificate of apostasy was unreasonable, as it would expose her to punishment for the criminal offence of apostasy.
How the criminal offence of apostasy can co-exist with the Malaysian constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, especially if that guarantee is construed in the light of Malaysia's commitment to the Declaration of Human Rights, was not addressed. However, that offence exists, and the difficulty of obtaining a certificate of apostasy seems clear. As well, Joy was not shown to have voluntarily adopted Islam as an adult: her classification came from her birth as a Malay and was an automatic procedure when she was 12.
In light of this, the decision and the words of the Chief Justice are difficult to understand: that a highly intelligent and moderate Muslim could reason in that way raises the doubts about Islam's compatibility with religious freedom.
The decision was applauded by Muslims in Malaysia. But what do moderate Muslims in Australia think about it?
Suppose that there was a law enforced in Australia. which made conversion from Christianity a criminal offence, punishable by order of Christian tribunals.
Suppose that there was also a law that prevented a woman who had converted from Christianity to Islam from marrying a Muslim man, unless she obtained a certificate from a Christian tribunal that she was no longer a Christian, and that these certificates were difficult to obtain. I'm sure Muslims in Australia would find this utterly repugnant, and rightly so.
Do Muslims in Australia not think that the converse situation in Malaysia is similarly repugnant? Would it be possible for Muslim leaders in Australia, and in other countries with religious freedom, to speak firmly and clearly against the denial of religious freedom in countries such as Malaysia?
If they can and do, this would certainly help to show that Islam can be compatible with religious freedom; but if they cannot and don't, doubt must remain.
David Hodgson is a judge of the Supreme Court of NSW.
|
Forum
Pages: 
ISLAM [from multiculturalism board] (Read 74146 times)
