In Malaysia, non-Muslims are not allowed to preach religion to Muslims. Non-Muslims, like Christian missionaries, for example, 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. In other words, as long as you keep quiet, you’ll be ok.
Many Muslims defend the criminalization of missionary works on Muslims by arguing that the sanctity of Islam must be protected, and that 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? Only the weak protect themselves by limiting the liberty of others. As an exalted way of life, surely Islam is stronger than that. Curbing the freedom of non-Muslims serves only to display the weakness of Muslims than anything else.
Secondly, if a non-Muslim government, say in Singapore or America, made it illegal for Muslims to spread the message of Islam to non-Muslims, will Muslims accept that? I suspect many Muslims will start shouting about human rights, freedom of speech, etc. But we in Malaysia are doing exactly that to the non-Muslims. Why the double-standard?
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 religions have full right to practise their beliefs. What about those who believes that their religion encourages them to undertake missionary works, like Christian missionaries? Legislating against missionary works by adherents of these religions is the equivalent of preventing them from fully practising their religion. This is against the constitution, and, most probably is against Islam too.
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 official registration of their conversion? This is clearly upside-down - Islam is ‘protected’ by encroaching into others’ religion and by limiting non-Muslims’ freedom and liberty.
In short, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the ban on missionary works while continuing to support Islamic da’wah and the associated organizations. This is a clear double standard to those who are citizens of the same country. Politicians from all parties must recognize that Muslims and non-Muslims alike are citizens of Malaysia. As citizens, we all must enjoy the same rights and shoulder the same responsibilities. There must be no double standards.
I have been asking many people about this matter and the best 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.
Obviously I am most unhappy with this answer as it avoids providing any real answer at all. But 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 that touch on this issue 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 "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".
That to me is a very bold statement. It shows confidence. 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 British incitement of religious hatred bill in which it is wrong for people of all religion to incite religious hatred but it is not wrong to debate religion in a civilised way or to proselytize.
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.
29/06/10
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. In other words, as long as you keep quiet, you’ll be ok.
Many Muslims defend the criminalization of missionary works on Muslims by arguing that the sanctity of Islam must be protected, and that 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? Only the weak protect themselves by limiting the liberty of others. As an exalted way of life, surely Islam is stronger than that. Curbing the freedom of non-Muslims serves only to display the weakness of Muslims than anything else.
Secondly, if a non-Muslim government, say in Singapore or America, made it illegal for Muslims to spread the message of Islam to non-Muslims, will Muslims accept that? I suspect many Muslims will start shouting about human rights, freedom of speech, etc. But we in Malaysia are doing exactly that to the non-Muslims. Why the double-standard?
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 religions have full right to practise their beliefs. What about those who believes that their religion encourages them to undertake missionary works, like Christian missionaries? Legislating against missionary works by adherents of these religions is the equivalent of preventing them from fully practising their religion. This is against the constitution, and, most probably is against Islam too.
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 official registration of their conversion? This is clearly upside-down - Islam is ‘protected’ by encroaching into others’ religion and by limiting non-Muslims’ freedom and liberty.
In short, I cannot see how we can justify continuing the ban on missionary works while continuing to support Islamic da’wah and the associated organizations. This is a clear double standard to those who are citizens of the same country. Politicians from all parties must recognize that Muslims and non-Muslims alike are citizens of Malaysia. As citizens, we all must enjoy the same rights and shoulder the same responsibilities. There must be no double standards.
I have been asking many people about this matter and the best 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.
Obviously I am most unhappy with this answer as it avoids providing any real answer at all. But 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 that touch on this issue 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 "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".
That to me is a very bold statement. It shows confidence. 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 British incitement of religious hatred bill in which it is wrong for people of all religion to incite religious hatred but it is not wrong to debate religion in a civilised way or to proselytize.
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.
29/06/10
No comments:
Post a Comment