Who Gives A Rat’s Ass

From The Star today.. what a load of shit!

PUTRAJAYA: Compelling a Muslim to get an apostasy order from the
Syariah Court to renounce his or her religion does not infringe on a
person’s Constitutional right to profess another religion, the Federal
Court heard.

Pass-the-buck Alert: "I didn’t say you can’t renounce Islam, I’m just asking you to go ask the Syariah Court for permission to do so. Therefore, I didn’t infringe on your constitutional right". As if the Syariah Court would say "Okay, sure."

Sulaiman Abdullah said the Federal Territories
Administration of Islamic Law Act 1994, which conferred on the
religious council the power to govern Muslims, was consistent with the
Constitution.

“The Act was created to smoothen the administration of Islam among
Muslims so that the harmony and well-being of the community are
protected,” he said yesterday.

“The provisions strike the correct balance between individual rights and the interest of public order,” added Sulaiman. 

Ah yes, of course, we have to maintain ‘public order’, lest the mobs demand for the death of Lina Joy. Doesn’t it sound strangely like a threat: "Well, we’re reasonable people to deal with, as long as you do as we say or else.."

Lina Joy is appealing against the Court of Appeal’s majority decision
on Sept 19, last year, which ruled that the National Registration
Department director-general was right in not allowing her application
to delete the word “Islam” from her identity card.

The ruling was on the grounds that the Syariah Court and other Islamic
religious authorities did not confirm her renunciation of Islam. 

The syariah court and other Islamic religious authorities will either send you off to religious rehab, or inform you in a peaceful and gentle manner that there’s a death penalty associated with this maneuver. Therefore, it’s not surprising that they didn’t confirm her renunciation of Islam.

In his submission, Sulaiman said the constitutional issue must be viewed historically. 

“We have to take into account that Islam was here from the 13th
century. The Malay Sultanate became Muslim and, later, its people,” he
said, adding that the system was interrupted with the intrusion of
colonial powers.

“The law that was applied then was Islamic law and several centuries later, Malaysia became a fully Islamic country.”

Says who? Fully Islamic while maintaining Hindu customs and referring to God as "Dewata Mulia Raya"? Come on, let’s skip the revisionist history here. I know the Federal Government is on a roll destroying Hindu temples, but there’s no reason to completely delete the legacy of Hinduism in this country, is there? Unless, of course, we have a bunch of supremacists at the helm, bent on rewriting history to bask in an imaginary glory.

He said everything about the Malays then was governed by Islam and
Malay customs. On the other hand, British law was limited and based on
Christianity.

Ahh, nothing like more supremacy to clear the air. And why is it alright to be governed by "Malay customs", a lot of which are considered ‘unIslamic’ nowadays?

“Unfortunately, the British were the stronger party and had their way
on what should be Malay customs and Muslim law,” he said, questioning
the need to conform to the British legal system after the country’s
independence.

Ah yes, blame it on Might Is Right evil imperialists for messing up what was once our utopian ecclesia. Never mind the fact that the way things were done over here were a bloody mess before the British cleaned up the administration by putting in their more well-organized systems. If it weren’t for the British, the Malaysian Civil Service would be many orders worse than what it is now. And it was because of the British that our civil service was so efficient right after Merdeka.. and we’ve been on a backslide ever since.

Sulaiman said the Malaysian Constitution was unique in that it had a special place for Islam.

He added, however, that Muslims could not declare their renunciation of
Islam without the involvement of religious authorities because there
would be Constitutional repercussions.

“For instance, one may declare himself a Muslim in the morning and by
the evening he is not a Muslim. Or, he is a Muslim when it’s time for zakat and not a Muslim during the fasting month,” he said.

Constitutional repercussions aside (is that relevant?), don’t forget about that even more immediate threat of street justice. We might end up like Pakistan or Iran!

And the argument about one may "declare himself a Muslim in the morning and a non-Muslim in the evening" goes to show how retarded this whole thing is. Note: When there’s nothing to uphold an argument, use distraction. Doesn’t work all the time, but it’s worth a shot.

This prompted Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim to ask:
“Are you saying that a Buddhist can be a Buddhist in the morning and a
Christian in the evening?”

Sulaiman answered there was nothing to stop anyone from doing so. 

For brainless people, yes, nothing can stop you from doing so, much like nothing will stop you from jumping off the 20th floor if you feel like it, or crashing head-on into an incoming truck just to see how it feels like.

For people with brains, we know how absurd and retarded this sounds. Again, when an argument doesn’t stand up to reason, distraction is a valiant effort to keep standing.

He said several legal representatives of non-governmental organisations
had, in their submissions last week, made attacks on the position of
Islam.

“That is a total reversal of what the Government had set out to achieve,” he said.

The NGOs had supported the view of Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who gave his
dissenting judgment in the Court of Appeal, that the NRD’s refusal to
make the amendment in Lina’s identity card without an order or
certificate from the Syariah Court was null and void. 

On April 23, 2001, the High Court refused to decide on Lina’s
application to renounce Islam on the ground that the Syariah Court
should decide the issue.

The appeal continues today.

Nobody made attacks on the position of Islam. If you’re saying that "YES, we want to continue labeling a hypocrite who dislikes Islam as a Muslim for the sake of keeping Muslim numbers high", then yes, the NGOs probably infringed on your position.

If Lina Joy isn’t allowed to renounce her faith, it would indicate that the Government would prefer to have hypocrites (or prisoners of ideology) rather than apostates. She has already considered herself as a non-Muslim, and she was Muslim in the first place by birth and not by choice. By continuing to imprison her within a forced ideological framework, that will only serve to increase her hatred towards Islam.

If the Apostasy Law is there to so-called maintain the ‘purity and strength’ of the religion, what good does this do? If a Muslim is forcibly asked to be a Christian although his heart and soul isn’t with the religion, given a choice to betray fellow Christians or to condemn Christians, this person would, wouldn’t he?

Ultimately, God is divine and He will judge everyone as He sees fit. He doesn’t need any hitmen to carry out His Will and His Word.