Conversion controversy: Malaysia needs transparent law

KUALA LUMPUR: After a landmark superior court decision downgraded secular law and constitutional guarantees against Islamic rules, a storm of protest has been building up as government and civil society rush to find a solution to the religious impasse.

The verdict, last week, held that the constitutional right to freedom of worship does not apply to Muslims and that civil courts have no jurisdiction over Islamic matters.

The verdict denied official recognition to Lina Joy, a Muslim who converted to Christianity a decade ago and told her to appear before a Shariah court to renounce Islam, ironically an offence in Malaysia punishable with three years in jail.

After the verdict neither judge nor politician was willing to enter the fray and unravel the dilemma and ease the great disquiet that has gripped this multi-ethnic society.

Malay Muslims form close to 60 per cent of Malaysia’s 26 million people and their civil, family, marriage and personal rights are governed by Islamic Shariah courts. The personal laws of ethnic Chinese, Indians and others who form the remainder are administered by civil courts. However, the constitution is vague on what happens to converts such as Joy.

Failure to correct the imbalance created by the new verdict, legal experts said, will crack the system founded on secular law which guarantees religious freedom for all citizens.

“It is a clash between individual rights on the one hand and, on the other, a growing Islamisation of Muslims and their sense of siege fuelled by wars across the world and by active Christian proselytising,” one independent constitutional expert said but declined to be named for fear of persecution.

“The judgment has ignored the supremacy of the constitutional only solution is to reassert that supremacy,” the legal expert said. “We need to constitutionally reorder society.”On independence from Britain 50 years ago Malaysia’s founders found it convenient to deem Malaysia as a secular state in order to foster a multi-racial society while making Islam the official religion to take care of the interests of native Malays. However, this solution has proved problematic with Malays beginning to look upon their religion as a mark of their distinct identity.

One solution that could accommodate individual interests, suggested privately by some experts including Muslims, is to provide a proper and legal exit for Muslims wishing to follow other religions.

However, the mere suggestion of such a solution which requires amendments in the existing Shariat laws will spark Muslim anger, and no political leader Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi downwards is willing to take the risk.

Even opposition icon Anwar Ibrahim, who has promoted moderate Islam far longer than any other Malaysian leader and is trying to make a political comeback after six years in prison, is also unwilling to grab the bull by the horns.

In a statement Ibrahim, to whom many Muslims and non-Muslims look up to for alternative leadership, took the position that Muslims can only renounce Islam through the Shariah court and Islamic laws.

“The verdict is not about compelling Lina Joy to return to Islam, it is about the rules that must be complied with when an individual wishes to renounce Islam as his or her religion,” Ibrahim, a religious scholar, said. “I believe that such a matter must remain within the jurisdiction of the Shariat courts and whether or not such a renunciation is appropriate is a matter for the Shariat courts to decide.”

“The government has failed to deal with this issue in a manner that would reassure non-Muslims that their constitutional freedom in respect of religion has not been compromised,” Ibrahim said. “It is also most deplorable that instead of demonstrating a new resolve to forge interfaith harmony in the light of this decision, the government is trying to gain political mileage from it.”

Critics of the verdict point out that apostasy is already a crime in Malaysia and punishable with jail, fine and forced rehabilitation.

Even the dissenting judge in the 2-1 majority verdict had pointed this out – saying asking Lina Joy to go to the Shariat court to “leave Islam” was unfair and discriminatory because she could end up incriminating herself.

Despite reassuring statements from Muslim leaders widespread disquiet is on the rise as people realise that the court had failed to uphold the supremacy of the secular constitution and its bill of fundamental liberties.

The court also ruled that civil courts have no jurisdiction on Islamic matters – a sweeping decision that leaves scores of non-Muslims in a legal limbo.

An example is the case of Mountt Everest climber Moorthy Maniam, a Hindu by birth but buried as a Muslim in 2005. Islamic administration officials “acquired” the body after a headline grabbing tussle for it with Moorthy’s wife Kaliammal, saying he had secretly converted to Islam.

Kaliammal disputed the claim and asked the court to declare her husband a Hindu, but the court instead said since one party is a Muslim the court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Kaliammal has appealed to a higher court to exhume her husband’s body and dispose it off according to Hindu rites and customs.

But with the apex court ruling that civil courts have no jurisdiction in Islamic matters, aggrieved citizens like Kaliammal remain without a remedy, a situation that is intolerable in any society respecting justice and rule of law.

“The decision has a devastating effect on issues of fairness and justice. Citizens will rightly wonder whether the judiciary is capable of delivering justice for those who turn to it,” said ALIRAN, a social reform movement, in a statement.

“The judgment does not end the Muslim-non-Muslim divide but has instead worsened it by introducing Islamic principles into secular, constitutional matters,” said opposition leader Lim Kit Siang in an interview. “A political solution is urgently needed now to resolve rising disquiet,” Lim said urging Badawi to take steps to satisfy non-Muslim.

“Badawi must take immediate steps to promote and protect the supremacy of the secular constitution and its bill of rights,” Lim said.

Outside of a political solution there is little else that anybody can do now that the apex courts has ruled, said opposition lawmaker Kulasegaran Murugesan. “The verdict is binding on all the lower courts.”—Dawn/ The IPS News Service