From a Malaysian government website
Its revealing because its so unapologetic.
And it isn't ashamed of what its saying.
And really it just states what the mainstream view of Islam is.
++++++++
APOSTASY IS NOT HUMAN RIGHTS
Mohd Aizam Mas‟od
Aqidah Division
JAKIM Research Department
Malaysia is an Islamic Country. Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution states that
Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in
peace and harmony in any part of the Federation. While Article 11 of the
Constitution states, “Every person has the rights to profess and practice his
religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.” It is clear from these provisions
that Muslims have the rights to profess and practice Islam as their way of life.
Clause (4) states that law can be made to control or restrict the propagation of any
religious doctrine or belief against Muslims.
This means Islam in Malaysia is unlike the Pancasila in Indonesia. According to the
principles of Pancasila, no single religion has the rights to monopolise the lives of
its citizens. The practice is different from Islam in Malaysia that has been given the
rights and a special provision in the Constitution. At the same time, Islam does not
restrict the freedom of the non-Muslims to practise their religions freely.
Nevertheless, it does not mean that the freedom is absolute as it is still subjected
to Article 11(4) whereby the religions should not be propagated to the Muslims. In
another area, the freedom of human rights is also guaranteed by the Constitution
under Part Two. However, it is subject to certain conditions such as public order,
public health and public moral which constitute the people‟s rights.
At the international level, the crusade for human rights has become a holy agenda.
In fact, it had become even holier than the religion professed by its supporters.
Human rights have gained its place internationally through The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR 1948). The declaration was proclaimed
by the United Nations, which has most of the liberated countries in the world as its
members. The Europeans are amongst the community in the world that strongly 2
supports the crusade for human rights to the extent that they established The
European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. It is legally binding for the
countries in the European Union.
The passion that drives the West in their fight for human rights caused a few to
forget that there are rights there that are being violated. The Muslims‟ rights are
among them. Muslims reject several articles in the UDHR 1948 because their
rights to practice their religion are being threatened. Article 16 (1) of the UDHR
1948 states: “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are
entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution”. For
Muslims, the statement contradicts the Islamic Law that has clear guidelines and
rules related to marriage. Article 18 states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion
or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance ”.
According to Islam, Article 18 cannot be accepted as it clearly violates the rights of
Muslims to practise Islam. Islam has determined that the first purpose (maqsad) of
the Islamic Law is to preserve the religion. Therefore, if Muslims are allowed to
embrace as well as leave the religion freely, then the rights of the Muslims to
preserve their religion has been violated. Islamic ruling has defined that to leave
the religion or to become an apostate is a grave crime and the person has to be
tried and punished. The act of apostasy involves public interest, specifically the
honour of the religion and Muslims in general. As such, it is no longer just individual
rights involved.
Nobody could accuse that Islam has violated individuals‟ rights to choose a religion.
Is it not true that UDHR 1948 was established on the basis of protecting the public
before the individual? If individual rights are given top priority, then why do 3
governments all over the world enact legislation for their countries? Is it not the
legislation is formed to restrict individual freedom that is defined by law as
misconduct? In fact, there is a special clause in the UDHR 1948 under Article 29 (2)
that states, “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subjected
only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing
due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting
the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a
democratic society”.
The same is applied in Islam. The Islamic law has defined that apostasy is a crime;
therefore, it cannot be listed under individual human rights! This is about the
sacredness of the religious doctrine. If amongst the followers of another religion go
against the belief and doctrine of their religion, would the rest of the followers not
be offended?
The phenomenon is not difficult to understand if there is an understanding
between the Muslims and the non-Muslims. Otherwise, they will accuse the other
religion as violating the human rights principles. In the Malaysian context, Section
4(4), Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act 597), has the provision
that for the purpose of this Act, reference shall be made to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights 1948 to the extent that it is not against the Federal
Constitution. Therefore, Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution has specified that
Islam is the religion of the Federation, and this is further supported by Article
121(1A) that states, “The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction
in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Islamic Law courts” must be
respected and understood by all parties.
Thus, it is surprising that there are still individuals and organisations that continue
to badger the government into giving the freedom to leave Islam under the pretext
that it is allowed under the Federal Constitution even though they understand that
apostasy is a crime under the Islamic Law. It is true according to Article 18, the4
UDHR 1948 has stated that everyone is free to choose and change his religion at
any point of time. Nevertheless, such act is against the Islamic Law that has been
given a special position by the Constitution. Preserving the religion is a matter of
high importance in Islam in order to ensure the harmony of the country and its
community. Collectively, persons abandoning Islam are considered as saboteurs
of the country and the Muslim community.
A matter that needs to be understood by all is that there is no human rights
violation issue if the Islamic penalisation is enforced onto Muslims who apostatised.
The acts of apostasy that are being penalised are only to those that have been
declared and made known to the public. According to al-Buti, had the apostates
kept quiet and did not reveal their actions to the public, then the worldly
punishment cannot be enforced onto them since the general method practised by
the Islamic rulers are to take actions only on what can be seen, whilst matters of
the spirit should be left to Allah s.w.t. who will penalise them accordingly in the
Hereafter. (al-Buti, Sa‟id Ramadhan, Dr. (2004), Hurriyah al-Insan fi Zill
„Ubudiyyah Li-Allah . Damsyik: Dar al-Fikr, page 85)
These matters are not uncommon since apostasy could happen not only in the
most common way understood by the public, whereby a person professing Islam
no longer believes in his religion. Such may also occurs in other ways as
mentioned by the thinkers of Islam. Among the ways are when Muslims give the
rights of deciding the rules and laws (al-hakimiyyah) to other than Allah s.w.t.;
despising any of the systems that exist in Islam; convinced that the laws made by
men are the best and that Islamic Laws are outdated; being in favour of other
system or believe that they are equal; mocking anything that come from the
al-Quran and al-Sunnah, or Islamic teachings (syiar); ridiculing the personality of
Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon him); making lawful (halal) what is
forbidden (haram) by Allah s.w.t. or vice versa; and many others. („Ulwan,
„Abdullah Nasih, Dr.(1988), Hurriyah al-I‟tiqad fi al-Syari‟ah al-Islamiyyah. Kaherah:
Dar al-Salam, page 78-95; Ahmad Rasyad, Dr. (1998), Hurriyah al-„Aqidah fi 5
al-Syari‟ah al-Islamiyyah . Kaherah: Itrak li al-Nasyr al-Tawzi‟, page 334-339)
If a person‟s apostasy is announced to the public and his new faith advertised,
then the person had declared an attack in the form of perceptions (al-harb
al-fikriyyah) on Islam and its belief. His action will raise or plant seeds of doubts in
the hearts of the other Muslims. At such time, the act of apostasy should not be
seen from the angle of individual rights to change his religion, but from the aspect
of the presence of “hirabah‟‟ element which is an attack on the fundamentals of
religion that is the pillar of an Islamic government. Therefore, immediate steps
should be taken to start the process of providing explanation to clear the person‟s
doubts, asking him to repent and should he remain defiant and insist to apostate,
the end is a death penalty on the grounds of “hirabah‟‟ (al-qatlu hirabatan). This
means, apostates are not executed because of their infidelity but on the grounds of
hirabah. (al-Buti, 2004:85-87).
This is clear based on verse 33 of surah al-Ma„idah which means: “Indeed, the
penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon
earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their
hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land...”.
Even though the verse is defined by most Islamic scholars as a verse to carry out
punishment on criminals and robbers, it cannot be denied that the public act of
apostasy is an act that wage war against Allah s.w.t. and His Messenger (peace
and blessings be upon him). As such, a few of Salaf scholars hold the opinion that
the punishment to execute an apostate is taken from this verse too, apart from the
sound hadiths that serve to clarify the matter. Among those who said as such was
Abu Qilabah and the others. (Refer to Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Jami‟al-„Ulum wa
al-Hikam, page 32; and Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi (1993), Malamih al-Mujtama‟
al-Muslim Allazi Nansyuduhu , Kaherah: Maktabah Wahbah, page 41)
However, lately there are also apostasy cases arising from divorce, ignorance, and
others that are said to be personal in nature. Among the cases that shocked the 6
country was one decided by the Islamic Law High Court of Penang on 8 May 2008,
allowing a Muslim convert Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah to leave Islam. Siti Fatimah
claimed that she only converted to Islam in order to marry an Iranian, Ferdoun
Ashanian. She had never practised the teachings of Islam but continued to
practise her original belief which was Buddhist. Siti Fatimah‟s attorney, Ustaz
Ahmad Jailani described the request put in by Siti Fatimah was not about her
leaving Islam but more towards a request to determine the status of her religion.
Whatever may be the argument decided by the Court, we have to respect the
decision made on the basis of upholding the principle of justice. But questions still
arise among the non-Muslims, does Islam today acknowledge apostasy as human
rights?
In this matter, it is better for us to refer to another case that happened in Egypt
recently. The scenario was not much different. It occurred when the judiciary body
of Egypt requested a fatwa from al-Azhar University regarding a request made by a
former Coptic Christian who converted to Islam out of personal interest, such as to
marry for the second time or to divorce his wife (which is forbidden in their religion),
and once his interest is fulfilled, he apostate and reconvert to his original religion.
Thus, al-Azhar University through the Head of the Fatwa Committee, Sheikh Abdul
Hamid al-Athrash issued a fatwa (ruling) that non-Muslims who converted to Islam
for personal gain, and he apostated after the interest is reached, has committed a
grave crime and cannot be met with leniency. All apostates must accept the syar‟i
punishment according to the limits set by jumhur ulama, after they are asked to
repent. Should anyone voice out that the matter is against the freedom of any
religion principle, the opinion is ruled out since Islam does not force anyone to
embrace the religion.
Syeikh al-Athrash gave a reminder for anyone with the intentions to convert to
Islam, it has to be out of absolute faith in the religion and total conviction of its
principles, since after converting and becoming a Muslim, one is not allowed to 7
leave. The fatwa indirectly indicates that Syeikh al-Azhar has retracted his earlier
statement that said there is no punishment for non-Muslims who have converted to
Islam and then apostated. Syeikh al-Azhar‟s fatwa received a lot of pressures from
civil organisations and human rights activists. At the same time, it showed that
al-Azhar does not sacrifice syar‟i law under any circumstances.
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/01/19/44427.htmlAl-Azhar‟s fatwa clearly indicates that the Islamic scholars are always consistent in
stating that apostasy is a crime and apostates must be punished. Even though the
fatwa does not state the form of punishment, what is certain is that, punishment
must be carried out to apostates that had voluntarily converted to Islam earlier.
There is no violation of religious freedom since Islam does not force anyone to
convert to the religion. Therefore, the case that had been decided by the Islamic
Law High Court of Penang cannot be the basis for the claim that Islam allows
apostasy or that Islam acknowledges apostasy as one of the rights of its followers.
These claims are made by a few non-Muslim political leaders not long after the
Court made its ruling. The reason the Court allowed the defendant to leave Islam
was because she has never practised the Islamic teachings since converting in
1999, meaning, it was not because of the defendant‟s human rights.
In conclusion, Islam is a religion that is very realistic. Islam acknowledges the
freedom of human rights, but Islam views it from the scope that men are but
servants to the Mighty Creator, Allah s.w.t. Islam identifies the limits of humanity.
Anything that is within the characteristics of humanity will not be denied, in fact, it is
commanded even if it is not legislated as human rights. While, anything that is
beyond the boundaries of humanity is forbidden by Islam even if the human rights
supporters claim it is a violation to the freedom of mankind.
In retrospect, the fight for human rights designed by the West is one that is relative.
In fact, it is a mere pawn to the religious secular and liberals there. Therefore,
Islam will never accept the human rights based on the understanding of the 8
Western‟s world view. Human rights are never sacred, only men have claimed that
they are. As for religion, it is a revelation that is delivered by the Almighty to
mankind as a guide. Most religions acknowledge this. Even though the religion is
not held in high esteem or sacred by men, the essence of religion itself is sacred.
Hence, it is the rights of all Muslims to protect the sacredness of their religion. The
crimes of its followers will tarnish the purity of Islam. Apostasy is among the
gravest crime according to Islam. As such, apostasy is not a right, it is forbidden
(haram) by Islam. Hence, any apostate who refuses to repent must be punished.
http://www.islam.gov.my/sites/default/files/apostasy_is_not_human_rights.pdf
Topic: Leaving Islam is not a Human Right