Asmwbkth...
Semoga ALLAH jadikan si kafir cilanat, Lee min choon & juak2nya, kembali
kepada pangkuan ISLAM dan jadi orang yang beriman, bertaqwa, dan beramal soleh
dan berdakwah, berjihad di jalan ALLAH ..., sampai mereka menemui mati Syahid
memperjuangkan Deeen ALLAH..., Aaaameeen Ya ALLAH Ya WALIYY.
AKAD
======================================
nicholas sylvester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Salam,
The challenges that lies ahead of us.
Wassalam,
Muhammad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Azril Mohd Amin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Oct 31, 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: Malaysian Bar Law Conference
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freedom of religion Print E-mail
Contributed by Angeline Cheah Yin Leng
Tuesday, 30 October 2007, 09:43pm
Angeline Cheah
Hot off the heels of the Lina Joy decision and the debate of whether
Malaysia is a secular or Islamic country, Day 2 of the Malaysian Law
Conference chose to address the topic of "Freedom of Religion".
Moderated by Ragunath Kesavan, the panel comprised an eminent panel of
speakers, well-known in their respective fields.
The first speaker was Lee Min Choon who is an advocate and solicitor
and currently the Legal Adviser of the Christian Foundation of
Malaysia. Mr Lee opened his speech by introducing us to the changing
trends in litigation over the years. Up to the 1970s, the focus was on
rights relating to the liberty of the person, freedom of movement and
equality. During the 1970s, the courts had to deal with detentions and
prosecutions under the Internal Security Act 1960. In the 1980s, the
focus was on rights of freedom of speech, assembly and association. As
such, at the close of the 1980s, the last remaining frontier was the
issue of religion and religious rights.
In Malaysia, Mr Lee termed it as "trans-cultural movements", meaning
moving from one religion to another. For a person to move from one
non-Muslim religion to another non-Muslim religion hardly sets the
sparks on fire, but detractions from the Muslim faith has serious
repercussions.
Mr Lee also touched on Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, 1948 ("UNHDR") which recognises freedom of religion and
belief as part of the inalienable rights of human beings whereas
freedom of religion in Malaysia is contained in Article 11 of the
Federal Constitution. Comparing it to Article 18 of the UNHDR, Article
11 contains limitations in sub-section (4) wherein there is a
restriction of propagating any religions doctrine or belief to
Muslims. This can be concluded that there are qualifications on the
freedom of religion in Malaysia.
Mr Lee concluded that the long term solution to the problem of
protecting and promoting freedom of religion lies in education.
The second speaker for this session was Yusri Mohamed who is the
President of the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement and also a lecturer
at the International Islamic University. Encik Yusri spoke on the
Muslim perspective of freedom of religion in Malaysia as he feels that
this is a important component in the discourse of the topic. He also
wished to highlight the unique circumstances of Islam in the Malaysian
setting.
Encik Yusri referred to the conceptual aspects of the topic, firstly
saying that freedom of religion is something which is not too
problematic or unidentifiable. Firstly, as long as we can acknowledge
the established discipline of knowledge, we can safely define the
parameters of freedom of religion in Islam. The word "ikhtiar" in
Malay is used meaning to have freedom to choose what is good. Encik
Yusri said that that is why it is called freedom of religion and not
freedom from religion.
Secondly, freedom of religion is not only a private matter but it also
steps into the public sphere. It is a Muslim's personal duty to
conform to Muslim syariah law. He also added that the religion of
Islam is very established, comprehensively received and applied in
Malaysia. This is one of the reasons why during the British colonial
rule, they avoided to interfere with this aspect of society.
Encik Yusri concluded by saying that Malaysia is not a secular state
in the original philosophical sense. However, there needs to be a
better approach towards reform with regards to this issue.
The third speaker was Mr Yeo Yang Poh of M/s Yeo Tan Hoon & Tee, and
he is also the Immediate Past President of the Malaysian Bar. Mr Yeo
presented a paper entitled "Freedom of Belief: The Final Thunder, or A
Rainbow of Pluralism?" He began his talk by asking this question, "Is
Malaysia a model nation in terms of freedom of belief?". He said that
this same question would draw a hundred different answers,
exemplifying the problem at hand.
Mr Yeo's view is that neither the law nor any religion and its
prominence stands in the way of freedom of belief. Religion has been
politicised. Quoting from his paper, he states that "It is seldom (if
not never) about religion, or race. It is about power and politics
(the kind that is not limited to politicians but also includes
religious and communal leaders), vis-a-vis the competition for limited
resources."
He is also a fervent believer in interfaith dialogue which is
essential for addressing this problem, However, he feels that the
current method employed is ineffective as cross-signals of respective
claims of superiority impede horizontal discourse. Also, there is
often a competitive or even antagonistic debate. Therefore, new
methods and new techniques are needed for interfaith dialogues to be
productive. What is urgently needed is to establish common ground
rules among dialogue partners, such as stressing the importance of how
this is not a contest among religions, to have communication rather
than debate, listening with humility and compassion and to agree not
to ridicule another's view.
Mr Yeo also stated that freedom of religion is about freedom and not
about religion. He added that secularism is a misunderstood concept
whereby he said that secularism is not associated with the absence of
religion, but rather, quoting Gandhi, a provision of space for the
growth of all religions. He concluded that the problems which arise
from this issue neither have their roots in religion or in law. As
such, there must be a change in the thinking of Malaysians regarding
interfaith issues for this problem to be effectively addressed.
The fourth speaker on this topic was Dr. Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil,
from the Centre for Islamic Thought and Understanding (CITU) of
Universiti Teknologi MARA. His paper was titled "Freedom of Religion
versus Freedom to Renounce Islam in Malaysia".
Dr. Mohamed Azam began by exploring Article 11 of the Federal
Constitution but went on to say that the Malay race and the Islamic
faith cannot be separated. This was clearly seen in the earlier case
of Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2004] 2
MLJ 119. By virtue of Article 160 (2) of the Federal Constitution,
Malays cannot renounce Islam. If a Malay renounces Islam, he or she
cannot be regarded as a Malay since the two are attached. He also went
on to touch briefly on other such similar cases, one of them being Re
Maria Hertogh (Natrah) [1951] MLJ 164.
Dr. Mohamed Azam then went on to say that as regards apostasy, five
states in Malaysia practise deterrent punishment for apostates, namely
Pahang, Perak, Melaka, Sabah an Terengganu. This is contra to what is
practised in Negeri Sembilan, whereby those who renounce Islam are
subjected to counseling and education sessions for repentance
purposes. Commenting on the recent Lina Joy decision, he stated that
the notion of freedom of religion in Malaysia is there, but it is
important to apply to the right platform in cases of apostasy. He
concluded by advocating the Negeri Sembilan method of dealing with
apostates, rather than by punishing them.
The fifth and final speaker for this topic was Dr. Azmi Sharom of
University Malaya. He is also a regular columnist in The Star
newspaper. Dr. Azmi started of his talk by saying that freedom of
religion is about Islam i.e. the freedom to leave Islam. There is no
issue when a person of any religion but Islam wishes to leave his
respective religion, but only when that person is of the Islamic
faith, therefore this issue is all about Islam. He also asked the
question of whether there should be restrictions on freedom of
religion, and answered in the affirmative. However, he said that the
restrictions were already provided for under Article 11 of the Federal
Constitution as there are limitations in the said Article.
On the face value, it appears that anyone can choose his or her
religion but this is not the case as apostasy is a serious matter and
even a crime in some states. Also speaking on the recent Lina Joy
decision, he mentioned that Article 11 was never raised in the
majority decision. Instead the judges chose to leave it to the syariah
court's jurisdiction. He firmly stressed that constitutional issues
such as this should be dealt with in the civil courts and not the
syariah courts.
He also stated that we cannot comprehensively understand the freedom
of religion unless we ask what sort of country we are living in. Are
we a secular country or an Islamic theocracy of some sort?
Amidst loud applause, Dr. Azmi submitted that Malaysia is a secular
state. He concluded that we need a secular system to protect all of
us.
--
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ACCIN_1426" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/ACCIN_1426?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
