My interpretation of the Pope's speech

The following is an excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI's recent controversial speech entitled "Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections":

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...". The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the 8`(@H". This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, F×<>

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FULL SPEECH]

---

The following is what I believe Pope Benedict XVI was trying to convey to the audience at the University of Regensburg:

1. [The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".]
The Pope begins by stating clearly that in Islam no one is forced to convert against their will and that he is sure that Manuel II was aware of that verse.

2. [he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".]
The Pope continues to say here that although Manuel II knew what was said in Surah 2, 256 still Manuel II continues to state crudely what was in quotes.

3. [not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".]
The Pope continues to quote Manuel II, who says that for a person to experience true conversion, reason should be used not force – which is exactly what Islam teaches and what Surah 2, 256 writes: “There is no compulsion in religions”; because for one to use force is to be unreasonable and being unreasonable is against God’s nature. Thus the Pope establishes the relationship between Islam and reason; since force is not used in conversion to Islam therefore Islam uses reason thus Islam too is compatible with God's nature.

4. [The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.]
The Pope notes that the reason why Manuel II is able to see the relationship between faith and reason is because of Manuel II's background in Greek philosophy. However the Pope notes that Islam too sees a relationship between faith and reason although Islam is not rooted in Greek philosophy and the Muslim concept of God is a God that is above all things including rationality.

5. [At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?]
Finally the Pope poses the question: Is acting according to reason merely a Greek idea, or is acting according to reason something that comes naturally for those who believe in God such as the Pope sees in Islam?

---

In effect the Pope uses Manuel II's comment to illustrate the similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. That is both Christianity and Islam believes in "acting according to reason" thus is according to God's nature and their difference lies only in that Christianity uses Greek philosophy. Thus Muslims and Christians are even able to have dialogues because of this shared commonality in reason.

Bob Parks Speaks

"Madonna is currently touring the world and performing a mock crucifixion just to tick off the religious. Madonna’s been doing this for awhile, yet I don’t remember one Catholic riot occurring."

- in Bob Parks Black&Right

Read what the pope is really saying...

"By quoting from a robust exchange between a medieval Byzantine emperor and a learned Islamic scholar, Benedict XVI was not making a cheap rhetorical point; he was trying to illustrate the possibility of a tough-minded but rational dialogue between Christians and Muslims. That dialogue can only take place, however, on the basis of a shared commitment to reason and a mutual rejection of irrational violence in the name of God."

- George Weigel writes in The Pope Was Right, Los Angeles Times

Tagged

I've been tagged by Adriene. So here goes!

Five things in my freezer
Ayam Dinding's Sausages
Wall's Ice cream
Sweet Corn
Plain Ol' Ice
Chicken

Five things in my closet
Various clothing
Vertical Outbound duffel/messenger bag
Creative Muvo 2 MP3 player
Kodak C340 Camera
My very well-worn wallet

Five things in my car
I. don't. own. a. car. But I wouldn't mind filling up this tag if you get me one. ;)

Five things in my wallet
MyKad
Big Bookshop Discount Card
Ringgit
ATM Card
Student ID

There you go - I am pretty boring. If you'd like to do this tag, post a comment so that I know! ;)

Something to think about

"So while there are very good reasons for criticizing that emperor's knowledge about Islam in his medieval polemical dispute, to demand an apology from Benedict for quoting him in an entirely different context seems rather misplaced."

- writes Paul M. Cobb a historian in Medieval Islam and the Crusades in When do we get to offend in peace?

Ellis, Al-Qaida and the Pope

Albert Ellis developed the ABC theory of personality:

• A = Activating Event
• B = Beliefs
• C = Consequences (Emotional/Behavioral)

Ellis contends that the cause of our feelings is rooted in our beliefs. For Ellis there are two categories of beliefs, rational and irrational. Of course, according to Ellis: rational beliefs leads to healthy consequences and irrational beliefs leads to unhealthy consequences. Allow me to demonstrate the ABC theory of personality using today's examples:

"Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies responded on Monday to Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam and holy war, proclaiming that jihad would continue until Islam takes over the world."

[Source: Jerusalem Post]

• The Activating Event: "Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam and holy war"
• Consequences: "Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies responded on Monday ... proclaiming that jihad would continue until Islam takes over the world."

Thus I assume the irrational Belief of Al-Qaida to be: "It is ABSOLUTELY a MUST for everyone to say things about Islam which we agree with, if they don't it is always awful."

Ellis would categorize the above Belief as irrational because it leads to the following unhealthy Consequences:

"[Al-Qaida:] ... we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism ..."

[Source: Jerusalem Post]

A rational Belief that Ellis would suggest would be: "It is strongly preferable for everyone to say things about Islam which we agree with, but it is not awful if they don't, just very unfortunate and sad."

After which Ellis would go further into D = Disputing and challenge Al-Qaida's thoughts with the following question: "Where does it say that everyone MUST say nice things about Islam?"

---

We see that it is our Beliefs not the Activating Event which caused the Consequences, therefore Ellis concludes that people are primarily responsible for how they feel and the behaviors which result from it.

Therefore, the Pope cannot be held responsible for the feelings of "outrage" / "tensions" and the acts of violence which results.

Besides the Pope Benedict XVI has already made a personal PUBLIC apology. What else should he do?

Don't use the Pope's "remarks" as an excuse - don't be a coward; take responsibility for your actions.

"Subtle scholar, but what an inept politician"

by Waleed Ali

The Pope should mind his words. So should some of his Muslim critics.

LET me get this straight. Pope Benedict XVI quotes the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus asserting before a Persian Islamic scholar that the prophet Muhammad brought nothing new to the world except things "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". Some Muslims clearly interpret Benedict to be quoting Manuel with approval, and take offence at the suggestion that Islam is inherently violent. The response is to bomb five churches in the West Bank, and attack the door of another in Basra. In India, angry mobs burn effigies of Pope Benedict. In Somalia, Sheikh Abu Bakr Hassan Malin urges Muslims to "hunt down" the Pope and kill him, while an armed Iraqi group threatens to carry out attacks against Rome and the Vatican.

There. That'll show them for calling us violent.

Meanwhile, other commentators seem to be vying to be most hysterical. Libya's General Instance of Religious Affairs thinks Benedict's "insult … pushes us back to the era of crusades against Muslims led by Western political and religious leaders". And a member of the ruling party in Turkey has placed Benedict "in the same category as leaders like Hitler and Mussolini", in what must surely be an insult to those who suffered under them.

Closer to home, Muslim Community Reference Group chairman Ameer Ali cautioned Benedict to "behave like (his predecessor) John Paul II, not Urban II (who launched the Crusades)", while Taj al-Din al-Hilali declared startlingly that the Pope "doesn't have the qualities or good grasp of Christian character or knowledge". It's fair to say perspective has deserted us.

Parallels with February's Danish cartoon saga are begging to be drawn. As Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya and Syria did with Denmark, Morocco has now withdrawn its ambassador from the Vatican. Egypt and Turkey called for an apology. Indeed, one expert has suggested Morocco's decision may have been a tactic to prevent a wave of street protests similar to those that stunned the world in February. There is an awful sense of history repeating: a provocative gesture triggers an overblown response of surreal imbecility.

But this is not the same as the Danish catastrophe. On that occasion, the cartoons' publication was an act calculated specifically to offend Muslim sensibilities. The reaction was irredeemably contemptible, but the sense of offence was justified.

Pope Benedict's speech was an academic address at a German university on an esoteric theological theme that had nothing to do with affronting Muslims. The apparently offending remarks were almost a footnote to the discussion. The contrast is manifestly stark.

But it seems some elements in the Muslim world are looking avidly for something to offend them. Meanwhile, governments looking to boost their Islamic credentials are only too happy to seize on this, or nurture it, for their own political advantage. At some point, the Muslim world has to gain control of itself. Presently, its most vocal elements are so disastrously reactionary, and therefore so easily manipulable.

Here, the vociferous protests came from people who, quite clearly, have not bothered to read Benedict's speech. Worse, some (like al-Hilali and Ameer Ali) themselves regularly complain of being quoted incorrectly and out of context. Had such critics done their homework, they would have noted Benedict's description of Manuel II's "startling brusqueness". Manuel's point was that violent doctrine could not come from God because missionary violence is contrary to rationality. Benedict's point was a subtle one: that Manuel draws a positive link between religious truth and reason. This was the central theme of the Pope's address. He was silent on Manuel's attitude to Islam because it was beside the point he was making. Clearly, Manuel II was not a fan of the prophet Muhammad. But that does not mean Benedict isn't either.

The trouble with being the Pope is that you are simultaneously a theologian and a politician. Theological discourse is regularly nuanced and esoteric. Political discourse is not. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said "the Pope spoke like a politician rather than as a man of religion", but the truth is the exact opposite. In theological terms, Benedict chose an example well suited to his narrow argument.

In political terms, his choice was poor. He was naive not to recognise how offensively it would translate into the crudeness of the public conversation, and should at least have made clear that he was not endorsing Manuel II's words.

I happen to think Manuel had a shoddy grasp of Islamic theology. Indeed, the Islamic tradition would have much to contribute to the theme of Benedict's lecture. While medieval Christendom fought science stridently, the relationship between faith and reason in traditional Islam was highly convivial.

That's why I would be interested to have heard how the Persian scholar responded to Manuel's argument. I'm fairly certain, though, he wouldn't have called on Muslim hordes to hunt down Manuel and kill him.

Waleed Aly is an Islamic Council of Victoria director.

---

[SOURCE: TheAge.com.au]

Pope Benedict XVI's Speech

There had been much outrage due to what Pope Benedict XVI said, but what did he really say? CLICK HERE to DOWNLOAD his entire speech (only 37kb), READ the whole lot and then DECIDE whether or not you should be outraged. It is only fair to do so.

[Source of Pope's speech and image via BBC News]

God blogs too!

JESUS BLOGS AT BLOGSPOT.COM
DAILY RAMBLINGS OF THE ALMIGHTY

Psalm 23: Student's Edition

The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not flunk
He keepeth me from lying down when I should be studying
He leadeth me beside the water cooler for a study break
He restores my faith in study guides
He leads me to better study habits
For my grades' sake

Yea, though I walk through the valley of borderline grades
I will not have a nervous breakdown
For thou art with me
My prayers and my friends, they comfort me
Thou givest me the answer in moments of blankness
Thou anointest my head with understanding
My test paper runneth over with questions I recognise

Surely passing grades and flying colours shall follow me
All the days of my examinations
And I shall not have to dwell in this exam hall forever.

- CLICK HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL SOURCE -

Brooding

Bummer. I forgot to attached the literature review with my lab report and the deadline was at 5pm, anything later than that will have 1% minus off the GPA per day. Thank God, weekends don't count. So I'll pass it up on Monday then.

I really really want that A-... but a B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. B+ is fine. Who am I kidding? No it's not fine.

I can only afford to lose a maximum of 4.5% in my lab report and my finals... :(

Don't worry, I am OK. I just brood a lot, that's all.

Things which made my day

#1 I won best presentation for my research on "The Effects of Gender and Physical Attractiveness on Cooperation" at the Psychology Colloquium today! The prize was RM200 worth of MPH vouchers. :) A BIG THANKS goes out to Irina, Kitty, Doulos, Sharon and Huay Ming, without you guys I might not make it this far.

#2 Our country's JOY has been given international attention. CLICK HERE to know what I mean.

The Golden Rule...

"And what you hate, do not do to any one."
Tobit 4:15

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
Luke 6:31, King James Version.

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."
Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

Source: ReligiousTolerance.org

... have we forgotten about it?

What is Freedom?

"Freedom is not merely having the ability to do the things we want, but it is also having the will to do the things which we do not want."
- Christina Landau, Kemerdekaan @ "Do U Want to Be A Star?" Komunitas Emmanuel Youth Weekend, 2006

After The Incident / From the top of my head

Good ole' St. Augustine once said that God's omnipotence is manifested not in His ability to extinguish evil, but in His ability to bring good out of it. Because evil is the absence of good, therefore for God to bring good out of nothing is enough proof of his all-powerfullness.

The Incident that happened last week was the best thing yet that has happened to me! [I am not being sarcastic here ya?] I am serious! I felt so loved with all the encouragement (face-to-face or via sms/emails/comments/phonecalls) that I received from my friends and fellow bloggers/blogders. :)

I believe that was what St. Augustine meant when he said that God is able to bring good even out of evil. If not for the Incident I would not have known that there are so many people who find my existence on this planet significant. ;) Well, at least now I know I got to cater for at least 20 people when I have my funeral. *grin* :D

---

From the top of my head (in no particular order):

• Adam Sandler's Click is almost wholesomely-good - worth watching.
• Lady In The Water is like durian - an acquired taste. You either hate it or you love it. As for me, I am still deciding.
  
• An American Haunting sucked - it's basically Pride & Prejudice meets Amityville Horror. If you must watch, do so with no expectations.
• I believe in freewill. God - the Sovereign One - gave us the freedom of choice, why should mere man restrict our God-given rights?
• LINK: "Becket Fund Advocates for Faith by Choice in Malaysia"
  
• PRAY people. PRAY PRAY PRAY: even it's a one-liner God hears it. Every prayer counts.

I received a death threat...

Apparently, it's because I posted an article on the case of Lina Joy.

CLICK HERE to see the message in full size.

CLICK here for the full body of the message

I have identified the IP to be:

218.111.180.59

... and have reported abuse to Yahoo! Inc.

Suggestions please, on what else do you think I should do?

All you want to know about Article 11

Article 11 - setting the record straight
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
Jul 27, 06 3:59pm

I am the current president of the National Human Rights Society (Hakam).Hakam is a member of the coalition which calls itself ‘Article 11'. You would have read about the controversy surrounding the road-show currently underway. The forum in Penang held in May was disrupted by protestors. The forum in Johor Bahru held earlier this month was almost disrupted and was regrettably shortened, again due to protestors. There is a significant amount of material on the web in the Bahasa Malaysia which, while doing many things, chiefly presents a distorted picture of not only what Article 11 is attempting to achieve but also the way things are. These distortions have perhaps unfortunately become the foundation of the prime minister’s caution as reported in the media yesterday. I believe it is essential to set the record straight, not only for the security of those concerned but also for the sake of the nation.

The Article 11 initiative is in no way connected with the Interfaith Commission initiative. They are separate initiatives, with very different objectives. Unfortunately, unscrupulous parties have twisted this state of affairs and presented the objectives of both initiatives as not only being highly objectionable but also as being connected. It should be borne in mind that the Interfaith Commission initiative was aimed at making the government aware of the benefits in establishing a statutory non-adjudicative body which could, through recommendations, assist the government of the day in shaping coherent policies pertaining to religious harmony. A draft bill was endorsed by a national conference in February 2005 and, together with a plenary statement, presented to the government. That is when all formal efforts pertaining to the proposed commission ended.

The Article 11 initiative is, however, aimed at creating awareness of the Federal Constitution, the guarantees provided therein and the concept of rule of law against increasing assertions that Malaysia is - in law - an Islamic State. In presenting the Federal Constitution, the initiative has at no point sought to question the status of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia – it is what the Constitution says, after all. Neither has the initiative sought to challenge or attack the administration of Islamic Law nor the esteemed position of the Malay Rulers.

The initiative has however shown that the provisions in the constitution relating to Islam have a context and, amongst other things, are to be read in the light of the constitutional declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia. The context being suggested by Article 11 is not that of the members of Article 11, the organisers or even the speakers at their forums. The context being suggested is one which the courts of this country have recognised. The suggestion that Malaysia is a secular country has recently been wrongly attributed to persons who have unfairly been characterised as trouble makers intent on attacking the administration of Islam. That is wholly incorrect. The statement is one of declared law. In 988, the Supreme Court decision in Che Omar Che Soh, declared:

‘... we have to set aside our personal feelings because the law in this country is still what it is today, secular law, where morality not accepted by the law is not enjoying the status of the law … Until the law and the system is changed, we have no choice but to proceed as we are doing today.’

The law stands as that decision of the Supreme Court has not been reversed or departed from. In fact, during the recent Lina Joy Federal Court appeal, the court asked whether it was being asked to depart from the principle in Che Omar Che Soh. Counsel opposing the appeal answered in the affirmative, indicating an acceptance that declared law in this country is as it stands in Che Omar Che Soh.

We must not confuse the crucial distinction between a country in which the majority are Muslims, and is thus an Islamic country, and a country in which the supreme law is the syariah, an Islamic state. In Che Omar Che Soh, the Supreme Court stated:

‘If it had been otherwise (an Islamic State), there would have been another provision in the Constitution which would have the effect that any law contrary to the injunction of Islam will be void. Far from making such provision, (the Constitution), on the other hand, purposely preserves the continuity of secular law prior to the Constitution …’

As an illustration, the Pakistani constitution has provisions which declare the syariah law as the supreme law of Pakistan, and any laws inconsistent with the syariah as being void. The Malaysian Constitution does not. Furthermore, our constitutional history clearly reflects that the thinking of the alliance leaders and all key stakeholders in the period leading to the establishment of the Federal Constitution. That while Islam was to be given protected status, as a matter of law and the application of law, Malaysia was to be a secular, Westminster-style democracy. This thinking, having gone to the establishment of the free nation of Malaya and then later, Malaysia, with its gloriously pluralist, multi-racial, multi-religious make up, cannot be dismissed as being mere opinion.

In view of this, it is grossly unreasonable for various parties to have characterised Article 11 as having challenged the status of Islam as the official religion and the status quo. Article 11 has not done so, in fact, it has championed the law including the declaration of Islam as the official religion of the Federation. Conversely, it is its detractors who have, through distortion and by preying on religious and racial sensitivities, sought to challenge the status quo. It is this very process of mixing religion, politics and the rule of law resulting in the ensuing confusion that Article 11 has been cautioning against. Regrettably, this process is gaining ground.

This is not say that I or Article 11 condemn those who aspire to put in place around them a complete system based on syariah principles. That aim should, however, be achieved through constitutional process, that is constitutional change. The Federal Constitution, in as much as it is a living document, cannot be subverted through reinterpretations inconsistent with the objectives underlying the Federal Constitution when it was introduced in 1957. That would be amount to a hijacking of the Federal Constitution and the social contract it put in place.

[Source: MalaysiaKini.com; note: emphasis in bold by bookofjohn.org]

"All eyes on Lina Joy case"

Sunday, June 25, 2006

This woman wants to get on with her life – get married, have children but something is blocking her plan. She cannot register her marriage at the civil registry. CHELSEA L.Y. NG examines Lina Joy's dilemma.

FORTY-two years ago, a baby girl was born and named Azlina Jailani by her Malay parents. The girl was brought up as a Muslim but at the age of 26 she decided to become a Christian.

In 1999, she managed to change the name in her identity card to Lina Joy but her joy was incomplete as her religion remained stated as Islam.

Now having waited many years for the word “Islam’’ to be deleted from her IC so she could have a legitimate marriage or offspring, the issue may finally be resolved once and for all.

The Federal Court gave leave in April for her to appeal on the question of whether she needed to prove apostasy on her part before the word “Islam’’ could be deleted from her IC.

This question, which the apex court is going to answer after it hears her appeal this week, will no longer be the lone anguish of Lina and her boyfriend.

The verdict will have repercussions not only on these two, otherwise very ordinary people – she is a sales assistant and he a cook – but on other Muslims who are in the same boat.

Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, when granting the leave in April, said that the matter was of public importance.

“Further argument followed by a decision of the Federal Court would be to the public’s advantage,’’ the top judge said.

Ahmad Fairuz together with Federal Court judges Justices Richard Malanjum and S. Augustine Paul also allowed the question of whether the National Registration Department had correctly construed its powers to impose the requirement on Lina when it was not expressly provided for under National Registration Regulations.

Another question that the court would be determining is whether the Syariah Court is the sole authority to decide on the issue of conversion out of Islam.

During the leave proceedings, Lina’s counsel Datuk Dr Cyrus Das argued that the NRD had acted beyond its jurisdiction.

“The unwillingness of the NRD to delete the word ‘Islam’ is unreasonable,” he said.

Das also argued that renunciation of Islam was a matter of constitutional right.

Senior federal counsel Datuk Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid, who is representing the NRD and the Government, argued that Lina’s case did not raise any new issue.

She said the NRD had not imposed any new condition but was merely complying with the law of the land, which authorised the Syariah Court to deal with matters involving conversions and apostasy.

“How can the NRD change the status of the applicant to say that she is no longer a Muslim? It cannot do that.

“If it does, then it would be officially pronouncing the applicant an apostate, which even this august court cannot do for obvious reasons,” she said.

Sulaiman Abdullah, counsel for the Federal Territory Religious Council, told the court not to allow apostates to abuse the NRD in order to avoid facing the punishment by the Syariah Court.

“We cannot have a back-door method for people who try to avoid facing the Syariah Court by going to the NRD to change their status from Muslim to non-Muslim,” he said.

The leave was granted more than six months after Lina’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

She had appealed to delete the word “Islam” from her identity card and to claim that she was free to practise the religion of her choice.

The Court of Appeal, in a majority decision ruled that the NRD director-general was right in not allowing the application on the grounds that the Syariah Court and other Islamic religious authorities did not confirm Lina’s renunciation of Islam.

Justice Gopal Sri Ram, who gave a dissenting judgment, said 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 and was of no effect.

The case first entered the legal arena on April 23, 2001 when the High Court refused to decide on Lina's application to renounce Islam as her religion on the ground that the issue should be decided by the Syariah Court.

It also dismissed Lina's application for an order to direct the department to drop the word “Islam” from her identity card.

[Source: TheStar.com.my]

---

DO YOUR PART.

HELP LINA JOY.

MAKE HER PLIGHT KNOWN.

CLICK HERE!

---

Related posts:

• THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF CONVERSION TO ISLAM

Upcoming Talk @ Lifeline Ministry

@ The Church of Saint Francis Xavier, Petaling Jaya.

If you are coming please drop me an email and I'll be there to greet you personally ;)

Father Simon can cook!

Yes - that's our Father Simon (parish priest) wokking for the crowd at the SFX Family Day. :) I notice that people (me included) often find it amusing to see priests/monks/religious brother and sisters doing the most ordinary and mundane of things such as cooking a meal, shopping for clothes, eating at a restaurant, watching a movie, working out, etc.

Don't you find it amusing too? ;)