special report For decades, apostasy was officially confined to the "sensitive issues" domain and preventive detention seemed a real threat for those who venture a discourse. It still is. But the issue has now reached a point where it can no longer be ignored.

The administration of Islamic law in present-day Malaysia has sparked intense and emotionally-charged debate in the media, particularly on whether Malays who constitute the predominantly Muslim population, can choose a different faith.

In a recent interview with malaysiakini, Jamaah Islah Malaysia president Zaid Kamaruddin, International Islamic University law lecturer Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, Muslim Professionals Forum president Dr Mazeni Alwi and Article 11 coalition member/lawyer Haris Mohamed Ibrahim try to rationalise the complex issue.

Malaysiakini: Do Malays have a right to choose their own religion?

Zaid: Basically, there should not be any coercion in religion. As for apostasy, from what I learnt even in Hinduism, that's the case, but I stand to be corrected on this point. You cannot renegade from Hinduism and this - they are very sensitive issues. I think Christianity also may have had that in its original form but what we have now, Catholicism, may be something very different. This issue will always be thorny.

In Malaysia, there is another perspective where non-Muslims are prohibited from evangelising to Muslims. For example, during the time of the Prophet, people did renegade but there was no active pursuit of it. After all, someone who may already not be a Muslim would not want the whole world to know. In those times, people (apostates) usually left the community and lived elsewhere. But it wasn't a situation where once you leave the community there's a bullet in your name, except if you fight against the community (ummah).

Abdul Aziz: The Article 11 coalition is pushing the same points. Now, these lawyers and lecturers are trying to question the muftis and state authorities. Of course the Muslims get upset over this issue. Murtad is an offence in Islam and apostates must face the music. Muslims have a duty to protect Islam's image, not abandon it as and when they like.

Mazeni: In general, the Malays are still very conservative and they regard being Malay and Muslim as synonymous. It's probably a bit difficult to push that very hard - it's hard to say there is no such thing but maybe in 20 or 50 years' time, things may change. I think it is the right interpretation of the constitution because a lot (of it) has to do with history, the Malay states (during) the colonial times, the role of the Malay rulers. It is a continuity of those norms and traditions, and to jettison them just like that is not wise. It's going to make a lot of Malays angry. What good does it bring when the scope is already there for people who don't want to practise their religion?

Basically, the greater peace in society is more important although this may be seen as very contradictory to the modern concept of liberty but if you pitch things too hard, the result is going to be more negative than positive. I suggest that people be more sincere because the constitution gives enough room for people to practise their faith except (for) the part involving the Malays which, to me, is very small.

In general, respect for individual choice of religion is given due recognition by the Constitution but that small niggling part about apostasy I don't think we should really be pushing too hard for that. I'm sure as society matures, that can be dealt with slowly but to push too hard now is not wise.

Maybe (it's) a bit difficult because of the law but in practice, I'm sure a lot of people do that (don't practise Islam). I don't know what the procedure is to renounce but I think that if people argue their cases well, people's views will be different in five or 10 years' time, depending on how the case is presented. I do agree that it is a problem when it comes to important documents.

Haris: There is no question of backdoor or frontdoor apostasy. In the Article 11 campaign flyers, we have mentioned cases that have gained prominence over the last two years which are pertinent to civil society issues. Shamala's and Moorthy's cases have got nothing to do with murtad whatsoever whereas Lina Joy's case is a question of the powers of the IC (National Registration) Department. The only case that pertains to apostasy is Kamariah Ali's case. So, where is this contention of backdoor apostasy coming from? The allegation is that Article 11 coalition has a hidden agenda to continue championing the proposed IFC.

Those who make these allegations will have to now produce the evidence on which they premise this contention. Show us one instance with clear evidence where we have encouraged apostasy. We have highlighted cases where individuals concerned have of their own volition said 'we are not Muslim anymore'. These are apostates. All we're saying in the light of the constitutional provision is that these people, in our understanding of the constitution, have this right but are encountering bureaucratic hurdles in getting on with their lives. These are the problems we're highlighting. Show us an instance in our (campaign) programme where we encouraged murtad.

Up to now, it has been a very emotional attack by people who have never been in the halls to listen to the forum. If they take exception to what's going on, we allocate two hours of Q&A time to address these issues. But it's easier to make allegations yet you've never been there. Look at the Badai statement which says 'we suspect'. This is because there is no evidence. These are mere allegations made without any foundation.

What about interlink between race and religion, and Islam as a state institution?

Mazeni: The link (between the race Malay and the religion Islam) is very, very strong. For Islam or any other religion, the constitution is quite open and gives anyone a right to practise their religion, to not practise it or even to practise no religion. That's fair but how we interpret that and how the constitution is meant to govern our lives is something else which has to do with education and frankness in terms of dialogue. A force that can have some legitimacy in terms of bringing people together are the authorities, like having a fixed agenda that we're open to discussion. I think some quarters will be willing to listen... maybe the national unity people.

Abdul Aziz: Yes, the issues are entangled by the Muslim-Malay link which are inseparable especially family issues. Why isn't a Malay free to choose (his or her religion)? The constitution operates within a context, not in a vacuum and its interpretation should be based on the context of reality. It is a symbiotic relationship between the Malay and Muslim identity which is, really, a key to survival of the race.

Today, it may be unacceptable but in the future we don't know how it will go. Hundreds of years ago, Islam came to define Malay cultural norms, manners and food which makes certain things unacceptable. For instance, satay and ketupat in a Carlsberg advertisements or items such as the Malay bible are unacceptable. Outside all these small exceptions, there must be full-fledged democracy. Murtad is too hostile an issue to the Malay mind.

These guys are playing with fire. They defend people like Nabi Melayu and Ayah Pin when the Muslim community is more concerned about drug addiction, poverty, backwardness, unemployment, juvenile delinquency and moral decadence. (Prof Dr) Hashim Kamali had also said that people here don't like apostasy. The issue has been dealt with for hundreds of years and the minority should accept the majority's decision. One thing that's missing from this whole episode is the absence of a sense of the sacred. Who are these people to question the mufti who has the knowledge of the religion?

Haris: I find it absolutely objectionable if anyone suggests that Islam is a state institution. Islam is a way of life ordained by God, not a state institution. I don't care where we are, Islam does not belong to any state institution, to any government, to any man. The contention that it does not sit with the institutionalisation of Islam doesn't sit with the constitution itself. Institutionalise by all means but that cannot impact on rights guaranteed under Part II of the constitution. Having parallel legal systems is not a problem unless there is an attempt to encroach.

What does the constitution say about Malay privileges?

Haris: Ask the politicians (where they got the term from). It wins them votes at the ballot box and as long as they continue to perpetuate this and perpetuate this divide-and-rule, it continues to be a successful formula until civil society stops thinking along these lines and is prepared to look at each other and say we're human beings first, we're citizens and Malaysians first. We're not looking at race. It is an impediment to national unity.

I'm fast beginning to think the government is not serious about implementing efforts to realise a Bangsa Malaysia because there's a lot of lip service and little else. Grand forums and symposiums comes to nought if you don't realise that on the ground, people must begin to feel that we have an equal stake in this country. If you begin to divide the pie unequally, where is the national identity which will continue to happen as long as they don't continue to walk the talk? There is an inequality in the treatment of the citizenry. I think for a long time the government and we ourselves have forgotten that the power is ours.

Are you saying that the Malays/Muslims can leave Islam?

Abdul Aziz: Maybe there should be special consideration in certain cases. I've spoken to the authorities and they told me that in most cases, the converts usually remain, relents or accepts the explanation and remain in Islam. The authorities in Negeri Sembilan told me about a Hindu man who left and returned to the fold.

There are communities who get assistance from Islam but not forced, no coercion and it involves counselling. In the case of a non-Muslim convert, the authority should tighten the rules. Basically, Article 11 freedom of religion indirectly says that Islam is above the rest and this is clear from the entire constitution. Article 3 says the same, and so does Article 12 which allows the state to use public funds for Islam.

Haris: They must be honest and acknowledge that in the Islamic scholarly world, there is no unanimity on this point. There are some highly-respected Muslim scholars who take a different position. At the recently-concluded international conference in Kuala Lumpur between June 15-19, there were eminent scholars and during the closing plenary, there was a consensus of sorts that there can be no punishment for apostasy in Islam, not in the temporal world as that punishment lies with Allah.

In the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah 256 says let there be no compulsion in ad-deen. At least they must concede that the verse is capable of a construction that in terms of ad-deen you cannot force but they take a different view. The important question here is not what Islam prescribes. It is what the constitution says because this is still a country where the constitution reigns supreme. I've said this many a time, in the book of Matthew chapter 28 verse 19 it is a command to all Christians to take this gospel to all nations. It is the duty of every Christian to evangelise but in this country, Article 11(4) says laws may be passed to prohibit or restrict the dissemination of religious doctrine to persons professing the religion of Islam.

You already have laws passed to that effect so a Christian cannot go and evangelise to a Muslim. A Christian can complain and say that my religion requires me to do so but my answer is "Brother, in this country the constitution is supreme". In the same way, we have to tell our Muslims that even if you think apostasy is not allowed, the constitution's Article 11 says every person has a right to profess and practise.

How do syariah courts handle apostasy?

Haris: The syariah court has no jurisdiction to deal with apostasy cases. The Ninth Schedule, List II, item 1 on laws the state legislature or Parliament can make pertaining to Islam says it is for persons professing the religion of Islam. An apostate is not one who professes the religion of Islam, so you cannot make law pertaining to apostates and any law purportedly made pursuant to that would be a nullity. You cannot confer jurisdiction on the syariah courts to deal with apostates.

Each state can legislate but their legislative competence is still circumscribed by the Ninth Schedule, defining what you can legislate on. The Negeri Sembilan syariah administration enactment actually makes provision for an application to the court to renounce Islam. It used to be the case where you needed to send notification to the Registrar of Mualafs who will then enter the register that you have renounced. In my view, the situation has actually deteriorated.

The provision that now requires an apostate to go to the syariah court is ultra vires the Ninth Schedule. It may seem more liberal but legislatively they have encroached into a domain that they don't have any business in. Other states recognise the position that one doesn't have to go to any court to change one's faith. In that sense, Negeri Sembilan would be more restrictive, a stricture they don't have the competence to put in place depending on the perception you take.

There is no procedure to change one's faith. The more institutionalisation of Islam encroaches upon the private spectre of even the Muslims, more and more Muslims will become disillusioned. You should return to Muslims their right to and to answer to Allah and not to bureaucracy. Otherwise, you will begin to find a continued decline and sense of disillusionment even among the ummah.

What do you understand of the freedom of religion and constitutional supremacy?

Zaid: Two aspects, one of which is free will including to be against God. For this, you have to face the consequences for believing or not believing. If you are propagating your faith, the interaction would be on this basis because you have the free will to judge and choose. The issue that we have here is once you're already a Muslim, then you want to opt out. Here we have to look at how the governing principles deal with this.

It (the constitution) is de facto (supreme law) but it is contrary to our faith. Muslims must believe it is the Qur'an, that's why it sometimes becomes a very sensitive issue but we go by it because it is a contract that was agreed upon. This is not an Islamic state contrary to what (former premier Dr) Mahathir (Mohamad) said. What opposition leader Lim Kit Siang says may be more accurate to describe this from a Muslim's perspective.

Haris: Just as to the Christians and all other theistic faiths, they will respectively in their personal sphere contend that God's law is supreme to them. But the moment you come into the public spectre, the constitution is supreme and an attempt to displace that order put in place by the 1957 constitution will lead to the crises that we see happening in the country from time to time now. I beg this question of my fellow Muslims.

In the Qu'ran there is ample evidence that the Prophet entered into peace treaties with the dhimmi (non-Muslims). You will find numerous verses where God commanded the Prophet as long as they abided by the terms of the treaty, you must honour it. I liken the 1957 Federal Constitution to a treaty between the Muslims and the non-Muslims who lived within this territory then. Unless the Muslims can demonstrate that the non-Muslims had attempted to breach the constitution, it is the sunnah of the Prophet to abide by this document. What they're doing is unIslamic and runs counter to the sunnah of the Prophet.

What do you say about renegade Muslims and the fear of apostasy among Malays?

Zaid: There are many people who don't follow the religion but they don't renounce their faith or take other Gods. It just means that he is a bad Muslim, not an apostate. It should be the court to decide whether a person is an apostate. Even during the Prophet's time, there were non-Muslims but they were not subjected to a court inquiry since it is a confidential matter and we won't know what's in his heart. Going by Islamic practise, we have to judge people by what is apparent and we don't question anything even if you have suspicions.

Mazeni: In real life, nobody can really look at our conscience because religion is really individual conscience. So, even if the law says this and that, if inside your heart you don't want to believe, no one can stop that. In my personal view, everyone has a right to not practise what they were brought up as but on the other hand, the conservatism of the Malays make it difficult to accept this. If you want to practise another religion, just go ahead but to make a public pronouncement, at the moment, is a bit too insensitive to the Malays.

Do you agree that apostasy only turns thorny when it enters the public domain?

Zaid: You have to understand that it is a responsibility of other Muslims to explain the sensitivity of the community, what did we do wrong, did we discharge our responsibility to him/her, did he/she misunderstand Islam and so on. It is not as straightforward as we think although part of the text interpreted clearly as capital punishment for murtad, which is the predominant interpretation.

But like all laws in Islam, it is actually not the first defence but the last. The way I understand it, the Prophet did not actively pursue this matter although it may sound like harsh punishment. For example, adultery (zina) is punishable by stoning (if married) or whipping (for singles) but there is no enforcement squad to check whether or not people did it. Presumably it happened behind closed-doors and not reported but when it is brought to public knowledge, then something has to be done.

In one case, a woman met the Prophet three times, admitted to fornication and volunteered to be punished but he didn't pursue it seriously suggesting instead that she may have dreamt it all. Even spying is prohibited in Islam. The concept of punishment in Islam like the hudud is actually atonement for sins demanded by those who have repented. Now we're in a different society and we're talking about a different context here. Sometimes, it's very difficult to give a fair hearing because all the hukum works best within a certain environment where Islam is a very integrated way of life.

But Muslims have not been very good with what I call the 'after-sales services' where converts are concerned. Joining the folds of Islam is joining the brotherhood of Muslims where the community (ummah) has a responsibility towards the convert. We don't have many institutions that gives the support not only for the convert but also their children. There will be some payback later for converting for the wrong reason. It will come back to haunt them later when their children face problems like wanting to opt out as adults. That is why the person who decides to convert must know the consequences.

Conversion is a very serious matter. This could happen the other way too, conversion out of Islam. Of course, we pity the children as they did not make the decision but it is the responsibility of the parent. Many people don't realise this. In the West, the concept is somewhat very close to autonomous individual where the individual is important. In Islam and probably all other religions there is the family which is very important and the community, so that whatever decision you make actually has repercussions.

In the end, we can say that such matters should be resolved by the authority or the courts but in Islam, any minor must follow the convert father. Like in Moorthy's case, it was a sensitive issue for Muslims because the child is considered a Muslim but is now staying with her mother and being raised as a Hindu. The issue now being raised is for born Muslims to be given a choice upon attaining age of majority. That is contrary to the Islamic perspective of the family and the community. It's just not on although the point is debatable.

Could you outline the predicaments faced by the apostates who are your clients?

Haris: I know of about 20 men and women. Invariably, these are individuals who candidly tell me they converted to Islam because they were in love, and after the bliss of marriage has worn off ended up in divorce and wanted to go back to their previous faiths but couldn't. I know of one instance of a woman in Penang who had actually attempted suicide simply because she cannot get on with her life. She had reverted to her Buddhist faith, has a mother who is ill and was concerned that should anything happen to her, whatever little she has will not go to her mother but will instead go to the Baitulmal.

These are practical everyday problems that a lot of people don't see and may think are remeh (trivial) because these are things that we take for granted. Then there is the woman who wants to start a family, watch the biological clock ticking away and realise that each day is riskier and may become near impossible soon. These are things that most women take for granted. I can't begin to describe the numerous everyday problems they encounter.

There are also cases of Malays who have renounced by reason of new-found faith but the greater majority are non-Malays who have converted, some when young because they believed. This is not uncommon as youths try to find themselves by experimenting with this and that before finding the truth in Islam, then three years later in Zen Buddhism and so on. The phase where they had made changes to their identity card revisits them 15 years later when they are settled as Christians, for example, but they've already got Islam on their IC and can't get on with their life. They need to get married, they want to get on with life but can't.

It's a death sentence inflicted by the bureaucracy because bureaucracy is putting on the hurdles where, for instance, if you didn't have the requirement of Islam on your IC. To me, there is no such thing as a Muslim name but because of these cultural aspects, you then encounter difficulty in going and embarking on a civil registry marriage. If we didn't have this requirement, people will just get on with their lives.

Apostasy doesn't become a spectre if it's just a personal matter that carries on whereas now, it is projected into the face of Muslims and it troubles them. I'm quite sure that for a lot of people who are Muslim in name and who lead lives other than as Muslims, they never need to take this head-on confrontation with bureaucracy. They can get on with their lives but in the instance where you need to marry, or where you are ill and facing death, and want to make sure that your properties devolve to whom you want to, you're suddenly confronted with this. It seems hypocritical to say 'carry on with yourselves as long as you don't become a legal spectre'. I think Muslims must be confident of their faith. You don't have to find confidence in numbers.

I beg to differ with JIM on the brotherhood of Muslims because I live in a brotherhood of mankind. I refuse to be confined and curtailed to this brotherhood of Muslims as mine is a brotherhood of man. If somebody gets out from Islam and becomes a Christian or a Hindu, he's no less my brother in creation and I don't think the way to bring him back to the path I think is correct is by treating him like dirt. Perhaps if I treated him with compassion he might begin to see the beauty of Islam and may come back if God moves his heart but you certainly don't endear him to ad-deen by treating him like a pariah, which is what is happening today.


Part 3: Islamic administration: Two sides of the coin
Part 1: Muslim views: Resolving the interfaith stalemate