Islam in Malaysia

Back-pedalling on Modernity

Growing assertiveness of Islamic courts intrudes on the rights of non-Muslims threatening social harmony in the prosperous nation, says Sadanand Dhume
is Malaysia's national motto. However, parts of the Muslim community have lately increasingly asserted its influence at the expense of Malaysia's non-Muslims | Those seeking a glimmer of optimism amidst the barrage of bad news from the Muslim world often point to Malaysia. It boasts a functioning democracy, a robust economy and a record of peace among its three major ethnic groups: Malays, Chinese and Indians.

Malaysia has done much to deserve its reputation for economic dynamism and social harmony, but a flurry of actions by the country's hard-line Islamic authorities illustrates the contradictions within the Malaysian model, and raises doubts about the country's effort to rise to the ranks of developed nations by 2020.

In a globalized and increasingly competitive world, Malaysia cannot expect to modernize its economy without modernizing its society. In practical terms, this means choosing the universal values of freedom of conscience and freedom of inquiry over the narrow dictates of Islamic orthodoxy.

The dictatorship of religious affiliation

The most recent example of this ongoing clash between the modern and the medieval involves Revathi Masoosai, a 29-year-old ethnic Indian woman born to Muslim parents but raised by a Hindu grandmother. Last month, Malaysian religious authorities forcibly separated Revathi from her Hindu husband, Suresh Veerappan, and handed their 15-month-old daughter to Revathi's mother.

Under Malaysian law, anyone born to Muslim parents is automatically considered Muslim, and converting to another religion is illegal. (No such injunction bars non-Muslims from embracing Islam.) Since Muslims come under the purview of sharia, non-Muslims cannot seek redress from secular courts.

Fear of angering religious hotheads

Revathi's case is only the most recent of a string of similar incidents. In 2005 Islamic authorities deemed that M. Moorthy, a celebrated mountaineer and a practicing Hindu according to his wife, had secretly converted to Islam before his death. Over his wife's protests, Moorthy's body was taken from his family and given a Muslim burial.

Abdullah Badawi has championed a tolerant approach to faith but has not acted on the Revathi Masoosai and Lina Joy cases | In another infamous case, Lina Joy, a computer saleswoman in her 40s, has spent nearly 10 years unsuccessfully seeking official recognition of her conversion from Islam to Christianity.

Two years ago, followers of an offbeat spiritual movement called Sky Kingdom – best known for revering a giant cream-colored teapot – saw their commune razed by authorities who declared their beliefs "heretical." In recent months, Hindus have taken to the streets to protest a spate of temple bulldozings, including the demolition of at least two that date to the 19th century.

In each of these cases, the government of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who publicly champions a tolerant approach to faith called Islam hadhari, has stood by for fear of angering religious hotheads.

Ethnic preferences and religious supremacism

The nub of the problem lies in Malaysia's inconsistent approach to modernization. Unlike neighboring Singapore, which stands for equality before the law and a strict meritocracy, Malaysia has sought prosperity against a backdrop of deepening Islamization and handouts for ethnic Malays, deemed by law to be Muslim.

Rise in religious supremacism? Cases involving Muslims and non-Muslims in the country raise disquieting questions about the Malaysian model | Until recently the Malaysia of vice squads and apostasy laws did not intrude upon the Malaysia of glittering skyscrapers and high-speed airport trains. But the rise of China, India and Vietnam, and the demands of a shift from low-cost manufacturing to more knowledge-intensive work, raise serious doubts about the viability of the Malaysian model.

The country needs freedom of inquiry to unleash the creativity of its people. It needs to foster an atmosphere of tolerance to staunch the outflow of the country's brightest non-Malays and to attract overseas talent and investment. Neither is likely without rethinking the twinned and contentious issues of ethnic preferences and religious supremacism.

The privileges of the Malay population

Of course, it's too early to write off Malaysia just yet. Its success over the past four decades depended on shrewdly balancing ethnic politics and pragmatic economics. After riots in Kuala Lumpur in 1969 between the prosperous Chinese minority and ethnic Malays, Malaysia instituted a program to raise the Malay share of national income.

The government aggressively favored Malay businessmen with government contracts, and Malays gained a virtual monopoly on generous government scholarships for overseas study. At the same time – in order to grow the pie rather than to merely carve out a larger slice for Malays – Malaysia followed outward-looking economic policies that encouraged foreign investment and export-led growth.

As with other parts of the Muslim world, the rupture with the past brought by prosperity rose in tandem with Islamic consciousness. The OPEC oil boom of 1973 allowed Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to bankroll efforts to Arabize the Muslims of South and Southeast Asia.

The ruling party's mosque-building spree

The ripples of the 1979 Iranian Revolution were felt directly on Malaysian college campuses. During the 1980s the headscarf became ubiquitous among Malay women. Meanwhile, in a bid to outdo the Islamist opposition in terms of piety, the ruling party UMNO, United Malays National Organization, went on a mosque-building spree. Religious students made a beeline for the Middle East and Pakistan, and in a show of pan-Islamic solidarity, visa rules were eased for visitors from many Muslim countries.

In the wake of Malaysia's troubles during the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, long-serving Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad became something of a global cheerleader for anti-Semitism – publicly peddling conspiracy theories about attacks on the Malaysian ringgit and accusing Jews of "rule[ing] the world by proxy."

Meanwhile, disregard for non-Malays – for the most part Buddhist and Christian Chinese and Hindu Indians, who together make up a third of the country's 25 million people – expressed itself most clearly in the architecture of the new administrative capital Putrajaya. Gaudy domes and soaring minarets dominate the skyline, and an Isfahan-inspired bridge spans a massive artificial lake. Acknowledgment of other cultures is conspicuous by its absence.

By some measures, Malaysian affirmative-action policies have worked. The Malay share of corporate equity rose from less than 4 percent in 1971 to – estimates vary and those on the higher end are politically explosive – between 20 and 45 percent in 2006. Over the same period per capita income – in purchasing power parity terms – quadrupled, from about $3000 to about $12,000. Malaysia is the world's 19th largest exporter.

Pluralism versus intolerance

At the same time, rather than enable the Malays to compete effectively as equals, Malaysia has ended up creating a class of crony capitalists dependent on government largesse and a Malay population that sees special privileges as a birthright. Often this supremacism is expressed in terms of religious intolerance. The one silver lining: Liberal-minded Muslims such as the lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar and the academic Farish Noor have joined non-Muslims and a plethora of blogs in criticizing this trend.

These troubles could not come at a worse time. Malaysia's traditional strength in low-cost electronics manufacturing is being challenged by the rise of China and Vietnam. The government has invested heavily in technology infrastructure in the form of the Multimedia Supercorridor, ambitiously hailed as the Silicon Valley of the East.

But amid white-hot competition for scientific talent and despite relaxing some of the usual race laws, Malaysia finds it hard to attract and retain Indian and Chinese engineers. Meanwhile, many of the country's brightest students – especially non-Malays – migrate to Australia, the US and Singapore, where everyone enjoys freedom of conscience and equality before the law.

For Malaysia then, the fate of Revathi Masoosai has wider implications. Its resolution will signal whether Malaysia seeks a future as a prosperous and pluralistic trading nation in the global mainstream, or a country whose inconsistent efforts to modernize ultimately doom them to failure.

Sadanand Dhume

© Yale Global 2007

Sadanand Dhume is a journalist and writer with a long-standing interest in Asia. He has recently completed a book on the rise of radical Islam in Indonesia. He is also a Bernard Schwartz fellow at the Asia Society in Washington, DC.

This article was previously published by Yale Global.

Link

dalawapo is gonna have a fit...

Lina Joy's decision will be on wednesday 30/05. i hope the court will rule in favour of her.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=...&sec=nation

Don't bet on it. We already have precedence in Subashini case with judges who uphold their religion rather than the constitution.

*this topic should be in malaysian serious chat* amazingly the moderators are all sleeping..

backward

latest news! lina joy has lost her appeal with cost to drop Islam word from ID

for thousand times, i agree that people of different races should receive equal treatment in this country. but in religious matter, We will not tolerate the expansion of religions other then Islam. the followers may practice their religion freely, and they may adopt their own court of law iin the case that doesn't involve muslims.

How could a freedom of religion correspond with the technological achievement? You look back in history, Muslims have a remakable achievement in the field of science and technology and they are far more notoriously islamic then what you have in malaysia today. the problem is with you western "free thinkers" is that when you close, you close everythings without exception. and when you open, you open everythings. this correspond with the medieval europe when knowledge other then what the church teach is forbidden (close everything) and when westerners reach the age of enlightment, they adopt free thinking, to much if i may say (open everything). in Islam, we regulate which door to open and which door to close. we do not forbid knowledge, instead we encourage it. but we don't tolerate any god other then Allah.

If there's a problem in malaysian achievement, it's the peoples fault, not Islam. Islam has proven itself to be a religion of progress. that's why we have a word Algebra, Alchemy, alembic and so on. It is Islam who change the Arabs froman uncivilized nomadic tribe into one of the greatest civilization in history. and i may say it was Islam in Andalusia and Sicily that pull Europe out of the dark age and into the era of great civilization, not christian.

ya man. what a boring decision. i guess joys only choice now is to migrate elsewhere. see, how much trouble the court decision caused her and others like her?

yup totally agree with you.. some people are just too jealous and they keep making speculation about it. i think the authority shouldn't be too harsh and over protective about islam, the only thing they should do is to educate people for a better understanding about islam.

If you want to talk about religious achievent, other religions have been just as successful if not more so then Islam. Look at the powerful countries of our time both economically and militarily, how many of them are Muslim? The 2 greatest empires the world has ever seen, the British and Roman, which religion? Just the fact that you say its ok for Islam to propogate in Malaysia but not other religions says that you believe that Islam is the only true religion. If you want to believe it thats fine but its not for the government to say that its ok. The government should represent all its people equally regarless of race religion or creed. If a person chooses to subjugate themselves to a particular religious law fine but, its not for the government to make them do it. If all religions in Malaysia decided that they were all the one true religion and demanded that the govnt enforce all their religious laws, there would be war. It is wrong in the laws of Christianity that Christians give up their religion, should Christians then be barred from joining Islam? If you truly believe that everybody of different races in Malaysia be given equal treatment, you are just fooling yourself if you then say that Muslims deserve special previdgles compared to non Muslims.

The Muslims here talk about Islam just being misunderstood and that non Muslims be educated about Islam, well what about Muslims being educated about other religions? I can tell you with absolute certainty that what many of the Muslims here have been mis-informed about Christianity. People here talk about Christianity stifiling Science, yet fail to see that the greatest scientific achievement have been made in Christian countries.They talk about great Muslim empires yet fail to acknowledge that the greatest Empires of our time are Christian. Muslims Empires have never controlled any significant parts of Christian lands but the British empire controlled vast amounts of Arab lands and even Malaysia, that both the Dutch and Portugese, Christian countries defeated the Malaccan sultunate to get control in Malaysia.

This is not to put down Islam or Muslims but, Christians have also made many positive contributions to our world. Christians and other non Muslims deserve equal treatment. If you believe that Islam is the one true religion fine, but remember other people also believe just as strongly as you do that their religion is the one true religion. When anybody teaches you something bad about another religion, I want you to look at what they are saying objectively. Even if you believe that other religions have done wrong in the past, remember also that practitioners of Islam, even the leaders, have done wrong in the past and still do wrong today. Tolerance between religions is essential, to do that we need to accept each others religion as equals.

i certainly wanted to learn more about other religion.. theres nothing wrong at all its just a matter of understanding. The christians learn the importance of science from the muslims and yet they use it to developed themselves but ironically not the muslims which are content to just praying to god and forgets what had been told in quran to seek for knowledge and use it for the benefits of all.. muslims are mostly misunderstood about their religion and misinterpret things that had been told in quran..

yes and it is also Islam that pull Middle East and part of Africa from civilization and back into the Dark age.

U forget southern thailand is in the Dark Ages, thanks to Thakky???

First, technological achievements aren't the only sign of modernity. However much silicone valleys you have, if you still think only of unscientific and narrow philosophy, you're stuck with ancient myths.
Second, how do you 'encourage' knowledge when you 'regulate' which door? You're saying that you only 'encourage which one you want to hear'.
Three, algebra, alchemy, alembic aren't "Islamic" words. They are Arabic terms. But even those aren't "Islamic" or Arabic either. Algebra was well known and most probably borrowed by Arabs from Chinese, Greek and Persians. Philosophical and medicinal works of Arabs were heavily borrowed from Greek and Roman ie Galen, Aristotle etc. In fact Islam itself is borrowed from Judeo-Christian adaptations.

Science has been there even before religion. I personally don't believe that religion can take any credit for advances in science. I wouln't say that world wide Muslims are misunderstood but I would say that Islam is misunderstood. Many people, both Muslims and Christians still don't know how similar the Quran and Bible are. Many people in Christian countries just see Islam as people blowing themselves up to kill other people, what they see on tv but, reading what some Muslims have written here it seems that they think that Chriastians are bad people and Christianity a bad religion. Practitioners of both religions have done bad and evil things in the past and are still doing it today. However the way towards peace and understanding is learning about each other, leaving our prejudices behind and treating each other and religion as equals.

Countries like Malaysia, Singapore and to a lesser extent Indonesia are in a unique position because they have significant numbers of the worlds leading religions living side by side. They can be the leading light as to how people of different religions can live peacefully next to each other. However, the only country where negative issues on religion doesn't come up is in Singapore. Maybe this is something Malaysia and Indonesia can learn from their smaller neighbour.

actually she not live in malaysia anymore, since converted to christian after a horrendous car accident saved by indian christian and suffered post traumatic disorder and been treated by him

-religion can take any credit for advances in science?
according to einstein , religion without science is cripple but science without religion is blind

-quran and bible similar? can we verify the originality of todays's bible
whether Catholic, Protestant or a "Cultist," of the thousand and one sects and denominations of Christianity, never will you find a missionary who will not, prima facie, presuppose that his potential convert accepts his "Holy Bible" as the book of final authority on every religious opinion? The only answer the prospective proselyte has is to quote verses from the Bible which are contradictory to the missionary's or debate their interpretations.

The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults" condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":

". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelation 22:18-19)

But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:

The Book of Judith
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Baruch
The Buck of Esther, etc.

-only country where negative issues on religion doesn't come up is in Singapore?
restriction by not allowing to wear veil in school by muslim girl is a violation of human right

I thought she still was living in Malaysia, they may have to migrate now considering that her appeal was turned down. How do you know under what circumstances she converted to Christianity?

^revealed by attorney who attended the court proceedings as an observer on behalf of BAR council

I believe that he was refering to the morals that religion teaches, as in science without morals is blind. Besides the point I'm making is that religion had no influence on the the progress of science and Einsteins quote does nothing to refute it.


Both the Bible and the Quran have conflicting texts should you choose to interpret it that way. The Quran says that you should kill and murder all those who oppose it, does it mean that the Quran wants Muslims to kill eveyone that speaks out against Islam? No. The terrorists of today, kill in the name of Allah, they are taking the Qurans translations literally, are they martyrs or murderers?

Yes there are 2 main divisions in Christianity and many sects, some quasi christian, as there are 2 main Muslim divisions and many sects as well. And just like Christians, the 2 main Muslim divisions also try to kill each other.

The first TRANSLATION of the Roman Catholic bible was published in 1582. Not many people in the world can read ancient transcriptions in Hebrew. So what if the 2 main divisions have different sets of books? There are no differences between Sunni and Shiite?

I personally believe that in school the face should be uncovered other then that I believe that a child should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. Even so between Singapore and Malaysia it is not hard to determine which country has a better record of religious equality. In Malaysia, religion allows for the removal of children from their parents because of the parents choice of religion. You want to compare this to headscarves? In Malaysia religion takes precedence over the constitution, a consitution that protects the rights of every Malaysian to practice and choose their religion freely without fear of persecution.

This is what I believe, all religions teach us to be good human beings, to treat each other well and fairly, don't kill, don't talk bad about other people, don't commit adultery don't steal etc. Why is it important to prove to other people that your's is the one true religion. You know the religions are so similar we might actually be worshipping the same god but calling him a different name and with slightly different ways as to how to get to heaven. At the end of the day religion is between you and god only, no body else, we will all meet him one day and be answerable to him by ourselves.

So do you feel that her desire to convert is an illness?

Whats the BAR council?

religion had no influence on the the progress of science and Einsteins quote does nothing to refute it?-we muslim belive "Science" offers a method by which the universe, and all the beings therein, may be examined to discover the artistry in God's creation, thereby communicating it to mankind. Religion, therefore, encourages science, adopting it as a tool by which to study the subtleties of God's creation. Religion not only encourages scientific study, but also permits that, supported by the truths revealed through Islam, scientific research be conclusive and expeditious. The reason being, that religion provides accurate and definitive answers as to how life and the universe came into being. As such, if initiated upon a proper foundation, research will reveal the truths regarding the origin of the universe and the organization of life, in the shortest time, and with minimum effort and energy. As stated by Albert Einstein, considered one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, "science without religion is lame", which is to say, that science, unguided by religion, cannot proceed correctly, but rather, wastes much time in achieving certain results, and worse, is often inconclusive.

The Quran says that you should kill and murder all those who oppose it,
proof to me that above verse, i could give u a copy of quran to proof that, i strongly belive no such verse in quran and otherwise just listen to herasay

The first TRANSLATION of the Roman Catholic bible was published in 1582. Not many people in the world can read ancient transcriptions in Hebrew
but how about king james version?i believe all catholic used one unless they are protestan. sir winston churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".

"THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."

The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians — both Catholics and Protestant — use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called

First published, as sir winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:-

1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." — (Church of England Newspaper)

2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." — (Times literary Supplement)

3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." — (Life and Work)

4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" — (The Times)

The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride.

but what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" these Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;

"THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."

and here is the shocking one

"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence." Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopaedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.


I personally believe that in school the face should be uncovered other then that I believe that a child should be allowed to wear whatever they choose
so u do believe restriction on wearing veil is not a violation of human right especially on women

everything is possible nowadays

BAR council- attorney's governing body

What happen to Azlina Lailani a.k.a Lina Joy was not religous issue but rather her fault because she failed to obtain a certificate from Syariah Court. See, she failed to follow Malaysian rule, that what happen!!!

I have some friends who also happen to be a lawyers. They angry at BAR Council stand regarding this matter because Bar Council didn't consult them in the first place meaning that her chairman do at his own will!!

Sure Muslims believe that science is good, so? Most scientific achivement has come from non Muslim societies. Even the algebra that you talk about that may be Arabic in origin but it certainly was pre muslim. Christianity, Judism, Buddism and Hinduism have no opinion about science. If you want to mention about the church initially denying that the world was round, the question I would ask you is do you believe in Darwinism or in Creationism?


Surah 9:5 just one from a quick search, there are more. Sure it could be argued that this is not the meaning that Mohammed ment the verses to mean but we know some Muslims have choosen to adapt this literal translation which is the point I'm trying to make.


I don't know the point you are trying to make here. I have already stated that no matter which bible you read, they are ALL TRANSLATIONS from original Hebrew texts, some times they disagree on the translation. Obviously the think their own translation is correct. Islam is no different. the Quran says that women must dress modestly but the definition of modestly is cultural, so different Muslim cultures dress "modestly" differently.
There are rivised editions of the bible because sometimes it is difficult to translate an exact meaning from a different language. Even translating Malay to English and vice versa we can't do it complettely accurately. Even the Quran translated to English is sometimes not the exact translation nor the exact meaning its supposed to be. They are not boasting but telling us that they translated it with as much accuracy as they could, why do you think its boasting?

So why is it so shocking??

Muslims also have different interpretations of what the Quran says, Bibles are just translations of a Hebrew text which are also open to interpretation. But the message that doesn't change from either holy book is the need to be good people, treat each other well, don't kill, honor your parents etc.

I believe given the exemptions I have already stated yes, it is a violation of human rights not to allow Muslim girls to wear their headscarfs to school. But are you still comparing headscarfs to children? Would you compare removing a child from their parent the same as a students right to wear a headscarf. What about religious choice? What about meritocracy? What about educational equality? If you want to compare humans rights don't pick Singapore to compare with. In terms of human righths Malaysia looses hands down everytime against Singapore.

But would the syariah court have granted her wish? The Quran is very clear on this, Muslims cannot give up their faith and in some English translations that I have seen even calls for these people to be killed.

So the question still remains, do you believe she is suffering an illness?

Syariah Court -> Religious issue

Ya. Maybe ure right. its not a religious issue but rather Syariah Court's fault because they fail/refuse to issue the certificate to Lina. They fail to respect her fundamental right!!!

Also having done some research myself, I've been made aware that the BAR council is divided on this issue and that certainly a very large porportion of the BAR disagrees.

One delegate deems that 40% of the BAR are Muslims suggesting that they don't feel she should be allowed to convert but this is certainly not true. The main defender for Lina Joy in the BAR is also Muslim and he feels very strongly about choice of religion that is guarenteed by the constitution.

as a muslim and human being no


that verse not related to killing opostate, its about jihad, dont simply pick and argue with no fact, read all the verses.

Allah says what means:
*{But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war]; but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.}* (At-Tawbah 9:5)

with regards verse 9:5, which was revealed during a historical period when the neighboring tribes (Jewish, Christian, pagan) violated the terms of treaties they had entered into with the Muslim community, and they secretly planned and aided attack against the Muslims. If a situation like that happened to any nation in this modern world, we all know what would happen, and, in fact, this right to repel aggressive attacks is clearly reiterated in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, as one of the exceptions to the law governing the use of force in international relations. so on what ground does the modern day international community describe the right of self-defense resorted to by Muslims in those days as an act of terrorism?

there are many non-Muslims who do not understand the concept of jihad, there are also some Muslims who exploit this concept for their own purpose, in a way totally alien to what it stands for. But this should not cast any aspersion to the image of Islam and its followers because with all the great laws established on earth, the evil among people will find a way to abuse or misinterpret these laws.

Actually, that does not make the laws evil; rather, it proves the evil nature of the criminals. Thus, as we’ve seen several groups who—though calling themselves Christians, Jews or Muslims—resort to violence to force their agenda and dogmas, it’s clear that none of these groups represents the true religion preached by their Prophets Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them all).



pls refer to ur own statement





its not about interpretation, its about accuracy and authenticity of the bible itself, which has been questioned by fellow christian member, excluded 7 books, deleted verse, changes verse, the Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?"


we do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of grave or minor defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. we leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a "half-a-dozen" or so of those "minor" changes

1. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
(Isaiah 7:14 - AV)

the indispensable "VIRGIN" in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase "a young woman," which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer "VIRGIN."



read Genesis 19, verses 30 to the end. the "history" has it that, night after night, the daughters of Lot seduce their drunken father with the noble (?) motive of preserving their father's "seed."

"Seed" figures very prominently in this "Holy Book": forty seven times in the little booklet of Genesis alone! Out of this another incestuous relationship come the "Ammonites" and the "Moabites," for whom the God of Israel was supposed to have had a special compassion.

Later on in the Bible we learn that the Jews are ordered by the same compassionate God to slaughter the Philistines mercilessly — men, women and children. Even trees and animals are not to be spared, but the Amonites and the Moabites are not to be "distressed" or "meddled" with because they are the seed of Lot! (Deuteronomy 2:19)

No decent reader can read the seduction of Lot to his mother, sister or daughter, not even to his fiancee if she is a chaste and moral woman. Yet you will come across perverted people who will gorge this filth. Tastes can be cultivated!

Read again and mark Ezekiel 23. The "whoredoms" of the two sisters, Aholah and Aholibah. The sexual details here puts to shame even the unexpurgated edition of many banned books. Ask your "born again" Christian visitors, under what category will they classify all this lewdness? Such filth certainly has no place in any "Book of God." which u said bible teaching to be good people, treat each other well, don't kill, honor your parents etc- i doubt it

Well there is no credible scientific evidence of creationism only darwinism.


You've just made my point, like I've said there are people of both religions that interprete the Quran and the Bible the way they choose to interprete it, it doesn't make either religion bad or wrong.



Is everything that has been written about the Quran correct? If not they why are you so quick to believe everything that is written about the bible. People have said that the Quran teaches violence and that Islam is a religion of violence. Why not? All the terrorists attacks at the moment are by Muslims and they kill indiscriminately even each other. Is this wrong? I believe it is but it can't be because someone has written about it. Rather then being quick to believe bad things about another religion, you should be quick to recognise the good things about other religions.


There are at least 4 books in reference to "the virgin Mary", probably more do all the books use the same reference or are they different. What about the context they were written in? Do you speak ancient (not modern) Hebrew?


Why is "seed" a vulgar term, is sex a vulgar term, or semen a vulgar term? Your parents had sex you know, to concieve you I hope you understand this, or is this also vulgar? I think you need to grow up.

Does the Bible or the church promote incest? Did Mohammed not marry a 12yo girl? Don't some traditional Arab families sell their daughters at about this age for marriage? Can we assume then based on your reasoning then that Islam promotes paedophillia?

The Quran also says that its ok for Muslims to kill other people if these other people attack Islam, so is Islam just as violent?

I ask you in what context are Aholah and Aholibah made reference in the bible? My understanding is that it is in reference to Israel and Judah for the way they behaved ie similar to 2 adulterous sisters. The bible does not glorify these women.

So what about the the bible talking about sex and prostitutes? Is it wrong to mention or talk about it? does the teachings of the bible promote adultery? Don't you ever use the word sex? Prostitute?

Many Muslims complain that the Quran is often taken out of context to make it and Muslims look bad, and I agree. You on the otherhand take the Bible out of context to give Christians and the Bible a bad name.

What do you want to see in this world, what does the Quran want. A world of religious intolerance, of war about which religion is the right one, about which religion is stronger? Or a world of peace, the different religions living peacefully beside each other. The way to peace is learning to accept each other, even if you think other religions are wrong, be respectful enought to accept that other people disagree with you. At the end of the day, whichever religion you believe in, we are all the children of god.

^thank you for ur respond, im glad to discuss it and i've learned a lot from ur response, however im hoping to argue with academic fact not just ur single ambiguous subjective opinions without any concrete fact which not even relevant or close to the surface of my question and answer, im using quran as my standpoint and clear evidence what has written in the bible with thirty two scholars, assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty co-operating denominations.

Alot of what you are arguing is not academic facts but religious rhetoric. No one here has made an attack on the Quran or Islam yet, your early words clearly attack the Bible and Christianity. The simple truth about the differences in the Bible is because no one can agree about the interpretation. When the Quran is translated to English, are any 2 translations exactly the same? No they're not, the gist of the message doesn't change though. Also between the different denominations in Christianity, an agreement hasn't been made as to the books that are actually from god, this is because those words were supposed to have been written by men with gods influence after Jesus had died. So its difficult to determine which should be included and which not. Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrools as far as I understand supports whats written in the Bible. Now the reason why it takes so many people to translate the works to English is beacuse nobody alive today really understands ancient Hebrew excactly, including the Jews, and even if they did no two translators would probably agree on the entire transcription. Every time a new version of the Bible comes out they try to get a more accurate transcription IN THEIR OPINION, but the truth is that it doesn't really make much difference because the basic word of god doesn't change ie one god, go to church, don't steal, don't rape etc. These lessons are the same as what Islam teaches. The thing that irritates me most is that you selectively pick aspects of the bible to make your argument that Christianity is vile yet chastise me when you thought I did the same with the Quran. Now to me, the basic teaching of the Quran and the Bible, of Islam and Christianity is the same, both religions want you to be good people and to treat each other well, so why do we find it so hard living next to each other? I agree that Islam and Muslims deserve respect but so do Christianity and Christians.

^on Jesus,
we muslims believe, that Jesus was one of the mightiest messengers of God that he was the Christ, that he was born miraculously without any male intervention (which many modern-day Christians do not believe today), that he gave life to the dead by God's permission and that he healed those born blind and the lepers by god's permission. In fact, no Muslim is a Muslim if he or she does not believe in Jesus!", plus Islam is the only religion in the world recognized Jesus and christianity.

The Christian does not know that the true spirit of charity which the Muslim displays, always, towards Jesus and his mother Mary spring from the fountainhead of his faith - the Holy Quran. He does not know that the Muslim does not take the holy name of Jesus, in his own language, without saying Eesa, alaihi assalam ("Jesus, peace be upon him")

The Christian does not know that in the Holy Quran Jesus is mentioned twenty five times. For example:

"We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit" (The Holy Quran 2:87)

"O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary..." (3:45)

"...Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of god..." (4:171)

"...And in their foot steps we sent Jesus the son of Mary..." (5:46)

"And Zakariya and John, and Jesus and Elias: all in the ranks of the righteous." (6:85)

on Bible,
We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:

1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."

2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."

3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"




its not about translation, refer to my previous comments


BIBLE-NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE
the most vociferous of all the Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "FOREWORD" mentioned earlier, they confess:

"IN COPYING THE INSPIRED ORIGINALS BY HAND THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN FRAILTY ENTERED IN, AND SO NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF COPIES EXTANT TODAY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES. THE RESULT IS THAT NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE"

Now you see, why the whole "foreword" of 27 pages is eliminated from their Bibles.

Look I'm not a theologeon, all I know about the Quran and Bible is from what I've read. I'm Catholic but not a strongly a practicing one. To me the most important thing that religion teaches is to be good to your fellow man but, there are people of both faiths who 1) take both holy books out of context for thier own purposes 2) nit pick at each others religion to prove which one is right and "stronger". This is not what religion is about. God/Allah do not want us to pick on other religions. The most important thing that god/allah wants us to do is respect/worship him and treat other people well. Everything else is secondary.

^Amen, swingdoctor. Or should I say Amin.

The ruling on Lina Joy's case was totally expected. My feeling is that the real underlying issue is not that of Islam's role in Malaysia, but that of the Malay's political power. And to be Malay in Malaysia one has to be Muslim. There's a very significant distinction between the two here and I feel the powers-that-be perpetually get these muddled. An example being the issue of Chinese moques was debated several months back. I think many Muslims in Malaysia have deep faith but lack insight and more importantly, hikmah. I'm most likely one of them, wallahu alam.

Lina Joy should've known better to not rock the boat in Malaysia. I do hope she lives a successful and happy life from now on. The sanctity of religion for those of us who choose to believe in them, be it Islam or Christianity etc, is so much bigger than civil courts or nationality. It's certainly bigger than either the syariah or civil courts and Malaysia as a country. It's a toughie, and it's always be a difficult one for Malaysia.

This is just my opinion and I'm happy for people to disagree with me.

Though centuries those in power have used religion to control the masses and the poorer the country the more power there is to be gotten(Malaysia is an exeption). Why not, you promise people who have nothing and likely to have nothing their entire life, the riches of heaven if only they listen to you, for you are the way to heaven. Isn't this a powerful tool to use?

In Malaysia politics is still racially based and since all Malays are Muslim, those who "control" the Muslims rule. Malaysia is the only country I can think of that eventhough the average person is becoming more affluent, religion is becoming more "radical". You are right that Lina Joy's case was decided even before it begun. UMNO would not have allowed her to change religion, if it did, it would piss off the Imams who would then ask their followers to vote for PAS or some other political party. Should Lina Joy have challanged? Just because she was never going to win, shouldn't she have still stood up for her rights? Shouldn't she highlight what many believe as being wrong in Malaysia? At the moment dare I say it, the ruling race, picks and chooses which part of the constitution that suits them. I am not the only person of this opinion. In my opinion it is because of political power that UMNO wants every Malay to be Muslim, easier to align politically.

I agree that to many religion is paramount, Christians as well as Muslims. History has showed that the oppressed will always fight back. It is because of this that I fear Malaysia's future. Many of Malaysia's non Malays(Muslims) have already left, many more feel why should they. Malaysia's their home. Lina Joy might feel, why should she have to leave her country, her home just so that she can practice a religion that in her heart she feels is correct.

^ yea i agree. Altho the decision was already sort of predicted and Joy lost, it wasnt all in vain. she helped highlight some problem in malaysia. more ppl now have questioned whether such rule is necessary or not. might even help certain ppl come to their senses. i believe someone got to do it. and Joy did it. and it takes lotsa guts to do this.

the CJ had to do what he had to do. LJ knew what the outcome would be, but she purposely wanted to stir some $hit with the help of those with "vested interests".

from what i gather, she was offered the option of peaceful migration with benefits by the authorities, but chose confrontation instead.

LJ is a liar. she has used christianity and has perverted the cause. and she has created problems to cast a shadow on Malaysia. so all you priests/ pastors out there - please think 1000 times before baptising a muslim!

I tot so to. Lina Joy shouldn't rock the boat. If anything happen to peaceful Malaysia country, I will blame her. Her case was rather unique because it also involved our constitution, which clearly said that Malay=Muslim. For me no one greater than the country itself, and that why LJ have to go.

but as always DAP behind her back and I do smell something wrong about that. Its politic always about politic. Nothing more and nothing less, and for LJ reason, she now officially DAP dog's.

Why is LJ a liar?
Is it "stirring up $hit" if she desires to live in the country of her birth, to be able to choose her own religion and marry the man of her choice? Which authorities offered her migration, even so why should she have to migrate to exercise her rights guarenteed by the constitution?

She hasn't peverted anything, all she's doing is standing up for basic human rights. And she hasn't cast a shadow on Malaysia, the shadow was already there when Malaysia dicided to ban Muslims from converting. All LJ is, is a test case. The fact that Malaysia has decided to put religion ahead of the constitution is Malaysia's decision.

If I said to you that by law you couldn't practice Islam in Malaysia but you could migrate overseas to practice it. Would you go? Or would you stay to fight for your right to practice the religion of your choice?

If anything happens in Malaysia becasue of this its not her fault, its the govnts. If you think that people in Malaysia are happy with the current state of affairs, you've got your head in the sand. The self rightous Muslims might be happy, but no one else is.

^^^I don't know about what in their head but certainly in recent poll everybody backing the govt and reject DAP. That was my opinion.

Sure if the people only ask Muslims, but it needs to be noted that other people also live in Malaysia. Besides what is the use of LJ continuing to be Muslim if shes already rejected Islam in her heart? If later on she feels shes made a mistake and wants to embrace Islam again, she could always convert back later.

Every non Muslim that I have spoke to in Malaysia believes she should be allowed to change religion should she wish to.

I didn't even care about LJ, what happen to her or what she did now!!! But the way she approach this situation was somekind master plan led by DAP, but maybe it better for her just keep quiet about the whole thing and migrate to other countries that suit her. Again I believe it rather political move than religous struggle. At least that what I believe.

I respect your opinion.

The issues though is that why should she have to move countries to practice her choice of religion. Would you be happy to move countries just to be able to practice Islam.

I don't think it would have mattered how she approached this, this was always going to be headline news. Even the Hindu lady whose baby was taken away from her, that was also headline news. The moment the govnt gave way to the Syariah courts they made religious issues political. Issues like this should not be political, the govnt should not make syariah laws enforcible because when they do they politicalise it.

some $hit needs to be stirred abit or else it'd be difficult to flush it down the toilet. if the toilet in your house is stuck with $hit, would move house just bcos of that? u'd try to fix the problem, kan?

and about your warning, sure. as long as your imams also stop converting christians, etc. no problemo..