Friday, June 29, 2007
Forthcoming papal decree authorizes expanded use of Tridentine Mass, Vatican says
By Gerard O'Connell6/29/2007
UCANews
VATICAN CITY (UCAN) – According to the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI will, in a few days, authorize wider use of the Tridentine Mass as an "extraordinary" form of the Latin Rite.
A Vatican statement released on June 28 says the forthcoming Motu Proprio, a decree the pope issues "on his own initiative," will expand "the use of the Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962."
In 1969, Pope Paul VI suppressed that missal, which was issued on the eve of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), by promulgating a radically revised one that reflects Council-inspired changes, including the use of the vernacular.
Before becoming pope, Benedict XVI harbored serious reservations about that suppression. In the interview-book Salt of the Earth (1997), he says: "A community is calling its very being into question when it suddenly declares that what was its holiest and highest possession is strictly forbidden and when it makes the longing for it seem downright indecent." In his view, "the old rite should be granted much more generously to all who desire it."
He moved decisively in that direction late June 27 afternoon when he spoke to cardinals and bishops from 14 countries and seven bishops' conferences at a meeting held sub secreto (under secrecy) in the Vatican. He told them that his Motu Proprio will allow broader use of the missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII, which actually is a revised version of the Pius V Missal of 1570.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the secretary of state, convened the gathering aware that several episcopal conferences strongly oppose reinstating the Tridentine Mass on a wider scale. The cardinal invited representatives of some bishops' conferences and a small number of other bishops who favor the return of the old rite to attend.
Almost half the participants came from Europe: two each from Italy and France, and one each from Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland. Also attending were two from the United States, two from Africa and one from Asia. The Asian participant was Cardinal Telesphore Toppo of Ranchi, India, president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of India.
Though nearly half the world's Catholics live in Latin American, the only representative from that region at the meeting was Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, 77, president of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei."
The commission, which Pope John Paul II set up in 1988 to reconcile members of the Saint Pius X Society and the pope, strongly advocates reinstating the Pius V Missal, as John XXIII updated and revised it, to foster reconciliation.
The society's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, went into schism in 1988 by ordaining four members of his society as bishops without papal approval.
Besides getting a copy of the Motu Proprio, participants received a letter Pope Benedict wrote to explain why he is issuing the decree. Some participants admitted it was hard to understand the Motu Proprio because it is in Latin.
Cardinal Bertone refuted media reports intimating that the papal decree will remove power from bishops in this matter. As the pope had done in his letter, the cardinal outlined three key reasons for issuing the document.
The first and main one is to ease the full communion and reconciliation of the St. Pius X Society with the pope. Suppression of the Tridentine Mass was a major reason for Archbishop Lefebvre and his followers to break with the pope.
The "Lefebvrites" also disagreed with much of what the Second Vatican Council taught about ecumenism and interfaith dialogue. The meeting's participants were given updated statistics on the Saint Pius X Society.
A second reason for the Motu Proprio is to enable "wider use" of the Tridentine Mass. Unlike the "ordinary form" approved by Paul VI in 1969, in the Motu Proprio, the Tridentine Mass is considered an "extraordinary" expression of the Latin Rite.
John Paul II authorized bishops to approve requests of people for the Tridentine Mass, but many bishops have refused to do so. Benedict, lobbied by traditionalists and basically sympathetic to them, devised the "extraordinary" form as a way to unblock the situation and accommodate those people.
The third reason for the Motu Proprio is to preserve "the treasures" of the Church's older culture, including Latin in the liturgy, and to integrate them into the contemporary culture.
Pope Benedict suggested in his nearly one-hour meeting with participants that if five or six Sunday Masses are offered in a diocesan cathedral, the bishop could designate one of them for celebration according to the John XXIII missal, if a sizable number of people ask for it.
All participants expressed their views at the meeting. Some saw the Motu Proprio as an expression of "pastoral charity," or a strong affirmation of "diversity in unity." By the end of the meeting, most indicated their basic acceptance of the text, but a few, like the French, still had reservations.
The Motu Proprio provides for a review of the situation in three years.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Pre-Vatican liturgy - the Tridentine Mass
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703702.htm
Pope meets bishops, discusses decision on pre-Vatican II liturgy
By John Thavis and Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI spent about an hour with aninternational group of bishops June 27 discussing his decision toallow greater use of the Tridentine Mass.
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who attended the meeting,confirmed to Catholic News Service that the purpose of the encounterwas to inform the bishops about the coming papal document and helpensure its favorable reception.
Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis werethe only bishops from the United States participating, sources said.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told reportersJune 28 that "about 15" bishops from around the world were invited tothe meeting organized by the Vatican Secretariat of State.
A Vatican statement said officials explained "the content and thespirit of the announced 'motu proprio' of the Holy Father on the useof the missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962." The term "motuproprio" is Latin for "on one's own initiative" and signals the pope'sspecial personal interest in the subject.
Pope Benedict stopped by to greet the bishops and "engaged with themin a thorough conversation for about an hour," the statement said.
"The publication of the document -- which will be accompanied by anextensive personal letter from the Holy Father to individual bishops-- is expected within a few days, when the document itself will besent to all the bishops with an indication for its implementation,"the statement said.
Sources said the pope's document and accompanying letter were each afew pages long.
Vatican officials have said the document will allow for wider use ofthe Tridentine rite, but have not provided details about how this willbe accomplished.
The new Roman Missal replaced the Tridentine rite in 1969. In 1984,Pope John Paul II first established the indult by which, under certainconditions and with the permission of the local bishop, groups coulduse the Tridentine Mass, which was last revised in the 1962 Romanmissal.
Speaking with reporters, Father Lombardi provided the names of some ofthe participants at the June 27 meeting. They included:
-- Cardinal O'Malley.
-- Italian Cardinal Camillo Ruini, papal vicar for Rome.
-- Italian Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, president of theItalian bishops' conference.
-- French Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon.
-- Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bourdeaux, president of the Frenchbishops' conference.
-- Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, president of thebishops' conference of England and Wales.
-- Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz, president of the German bishops' conference.
-- Bishop Kurt Koch of Basel, president of the Swiss bishops' conference.
Like Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Burke, some of the participantswere neither presidents of their national bishops' conference norchairmen of their conference's liturgy committees, a Vatican sourcesaid.
In mid-May, during the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops ofLatin America and the Caribbean in Brazil, Colombian Cardinal DarioCastrillon Hoyos said that Pope Benedict planned to "extend to theentire church" the possibility of celebrating the so-called TridentineMass of 1962 "as an extraordinary form of the single Roman rite."
Cardinal Castrillon is president of the Pontifical Commission"Ecclesia Dei," established by Pope John Paul to ensure pastoral careto former followers of the late traditionalist Archbishop MarcelLefebvre, who was excommunicated in 1988 after ordaining bishopswithout papal approval. Archbishop Lefebvre had rejected theliturgical reforms and concepts of religious freedom and ecumenism asformulated by the Second Vatican Council.
Wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass in Latin "is not a stepbackward," Cardinal Castrillon said, but a sign that the pope "wantsto make available to the church all the treasures of the Latin liturgythat have, for centuries, nourished the spiritual life of so manygenerations of Catholic faithful."
In an early June interview, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vaticansecretary of state, said the pope was "personally interested in makingthis happen" and that the pope's personal letter accompanying thedocument would explain why he wanted to expand access to the olderMass as well as expressing his hope for a serene reception by thechurch.
Pope meets bishops, discusses decision on pre-Vatican II liturgy
By John Thavis and Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI spent about an hour with aninternational group of bishops June 27 discussing his decision toallow greater use of the Tridentine Mass.
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who attended the meeting,confirmed to Catholic News Service that the purpose of the encounterwas to inform the bishops about the coming papal document and helpensure its favorable reception.
Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis werethe only bishops from the United States participating, sources said.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told reportersJune 28 that "about 15" bishops from around the world were invited tothe meeting organized by the Vatican Secretariat of State.
A Vatican statement said officials explained "the content and thespirit of the announced 'motu proprio' of the Holy Father on the useof the missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962." The term "motuproprio" is Latin for "on one's own initiative" and signals the pope'sspecial personal interest in the subject.
Pope Benedict stopped by to greet the bishops and "engaged with themin a thorough conversation for about an hour," the statement said.
"The publication of the document -- which will be accompanied by anextensive personal letter from the Holy Father to individual bishops-- is expected within a few days, when the document itself will besent to all the bishops with an indication for its implementation,"the statement said.
Sources said the pope's document and accompanying letter were each afew pages long.
Vatican officials have said the document will allow for wider use ofthe Tridentine rite, but have not provided details about how this willbe accomplished.
The new Roman Missal replaced the Tridentine rite in 1969. In 1984,Pope John Paul II first established the indult by which, under certainconditions and with the permission of the local bishop, groups coulduse the Tridentine Mass, which was last revised in the 1962 Romanmissal.
Speaking with reporters, Father Lombardi provided the names of some ofthe participants at the June 27 meeting. They included:
-- Cardinal O'Malley.
-- Italian Cardinal Camillo Ruini, papal vicar for Rome.
-- Italian Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, president of theItalian bishops' conference.
-- French Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon.
-- Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bourdeaux, president of the Frenchbishops' conference.
-- Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, president of thebishops' conference of England and Wales.
-- Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz, president of the German bishops' conference.
-- Bishop Kurt Koch of Basel, president of the Swiss bishops' conference.
Like Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Burke, some of the participantswere neither presidents of their national bishops' conference norchairmen of their conference's liturgy committees, a Vatican sourcesaid.
In mid-May, during the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops ofLatin America and the Caribbean in Brazil, Colombian Cardinal DarioCastrillon Hoyos said that Pope Benedict planned to "extend to theentire church" the possibility of celebrating the so-called TridentineMass of 1962 "as an extraordinary form of the single Roman rite."
Cardinal Castrillon is president of the Pontifical Commission"Ecclesia Dei," established by Pope John Paul to ensure pastoral careto former followers of the late traditionalist Archbishop MarcelLefebvre, who was excommunicated in 1988 after ordaining bishopswithout papal approval. Archbishop Lefebvre had rejected theliturgical reforms and concepts of religious freedom and ecumenism asformulated by the Second Vatican Council.
Wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass in Latin "is not a stepbackward," Cardinal Castrillon said, but a sign that the pope "wantsto make available to the church all the treasures of the Latin liturgythat have, for centuries, nourished the spiritual life of so manygenerations of Catholic faithful."
In an early June interview, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vaticansecretary of state, said the pope was "personally interested in makingthis happen" and that the pope's personal letter accompanying thedocument would explain why he wanted to expand access to the olderMass as well as expressing his hope for a serene reception by thechurch.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703702.htm
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703702.htm
Pope meets bishops, discusses decision on pre-Vatican II liturgy
By John Thavis and Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI spent about an hour with aninternational group of bishops June 27 discussing his decision toallow greater use of the Tridentine Mass.
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who attended the meeting,confirmed to Catholic News Service that the purpose of the encounterwas to inform the bishops about the coming papal document and helpensure its favorable reception.
Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis werethe only bishops from the United States participating, sources said.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told reportersJune 28 that "about 15" bishops from around the world were invited tothe meeting organized by the Vatican Secretariat of State.
A Vatican statement said officials explained "the content and thespirit of the announced 'motu proprio' of the Holy Father on the useof the missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962." The term "motuproprio" is Latin for "on one's own initiative" and signals the pope'sspecial personal interest in the subject.
Pope Benedict stopped by to greet the bishops and "engaged with themin a thorough conversation for about an hour," the statement said.
"The publication of the document -- which will be accompanied by anextensive personal letter from the Holy Father to individual bishops-- is expected within a few days, when the document itself will besent to all the bishops with an indication for its implementation,"the statement said.
Sources said the pope's document and accompanying letter were each afew pages long.
Vatican officials have said the document will allow for wider use ofthe Tridentine rite, but have not provided details about how this willbe accomplished.
The new Roman Missal replaced the Tridentine rite in 1969. In 1984,Pope John Paul II first established the indult by which, under certainconditions and with the permission of the local bishop, groups coulduse the Tridentine Mass, which was last revised in the 1962 Romanmissal.
Speaking with reporters, Father Lombardi provided the names of some ofthe participants at the June 27 meeting. They included:
-- Cardinal O'Malley.
-- Italian Cardinal Camillo Ruini, papal vicar for Rome.
-- Italian Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, president of theItalian bishops' conference.
-- French Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon.
-- Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bourdeaux, president of the Frenchbishops' conference.
-- Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, president of thebishops' conference of England and Wales.
-- Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz, president of the German bishops' conference.
-- Bishop Kurt Koch of Basel, president of the Swiss bishops' conference.
Like Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Burke, some of the participantswere neither presidents of their national bishops' conference norchairmen of their conference's liturgy committees, a Vatican sourcesaid.
In mid-May, during the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops ofLatin America and the Caribbean in Brazil, Colombian Cardinal DarioCastrillon Hoyos said that Pope Benedict planned to "extend to theentire church" the possibility of celebrating the so-called TridentineMass of 1962 "as an extraordinary form of the single Roman rite."
Cardinal Castrillon is president of the Pontifical Commission"Ecclesia Dei," established by Pope John Paul to ensure pastoral careto former followers of the late traditionalist Archbishop MarcelLefebvre, who was excommunicated in 1988 after ordaining bishopswithout papal approval. Archbishop Lefebvre had rejected theliturgical reforms and concepts of religious freedom and ecumenism asformulated by the Second Vatican Council.
Wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass in Latin "is not a stepbackward," Cardinal Castrillon said, but a sign that the pope "wantsto make available to the church all the treasures of the Latin liturgythat have, for centuries, nourished the spiritual life of so manygenerations of Catholic faithful."
In an early June interview, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vaticansecretary of state, said the pope was "personally interested in makingthis happen" and that the pope's personal letter accompanying thedocument would explain why he wanted to expand access to the olderMass as well as expressing his hope for a serene reception by thechurch.
Pope meets bishops, discusses decision on pre-Vatican II liturgy
By John Thavis and Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI spent about an hour with aninternational group of bishops June 27 discussing his decision toallow greater use of the Tridentine Mass.
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who attended the meeting,confirmed to Catholic News Service that the purpose of the encounterwas to inform the bishops about the coming papal document and helpensure its favorable reception.
Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis werethe only bishops from the United States participating, sources said.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, told reportersJune 28 that "about 15" bishops from around the world were invited tothe meeting organized by the Vatican Secretariat of State.
A Vatican statement said officials explained "the content and thespirit of the announced 'motu proprio' of the Holy Father on the useof the missal promulgated by John XXIII in 1962." The term "motuproprio" is Latin for "on one's own initiative" and signals the pope'sspecial personal interest in the subject.
Pope Benedict stopped by to greet the bishops and "engaged with themin a thorough conversation for about an hour," the statement said.
"The publication of the document -- which will be accompanied by anextensive personal letter from the Holy Father to individual bishops-- is expected within a few days, when the document itself will besent to all the bishops with an indication for its implementation,"the statement said.
Sources said the pope's document and accompanying letter were each afew pages long.
Vatican officials have said the document will allow for wider use ofthe Tridentine rite, but have not provided details about how this willbe accomplished.
The new Roman Missal replaced the Tridentine rite in 1969. In 1984,Pope John Paul II first established the indult by which, under certainconditions and with the permission of the local bishop, groups coulduse the Tridentine Mass, which was last revised in the 1962 Romanmissal.
Speaking with reporters, Father Lombardi provided the names of some ofthe participants at the June 27 meeting. They included:
-- Cardinal O'Malley.
-- Italian Cardinal Camillo Ruini, papal vicar for Rome.
-- Italian Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco of Genoa, president of theItalian bishops' conference.
-- French Cardinal Philippe Barbarin of Lyon.
-- Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard of Bourdeaux, president of the Frenchbishops' conference.
-- Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor of Westminster, president of thebishops' conference of England and Wales.
-- Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz, president of the German bishops' conference.
-- Bishop Kurt Koch of Basel, president of the Swiss bishops' conference.
Like Cardinal O'Malley and Archbishop Burke, some of the participantswere neither presidents of their national bishops' conference norchairmen of their conference's liturgy committees, a Vatican sourcesaid.
In mid-May, during the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops ofLatin America and the Caribbean in Brazil, Colombian Cardinal DarioCastrillon Hoyos said that Pope Benedict planned to "extend to theentire church" the possibility of celebrating the so-called TridentineMass of 1962 "as an extraordinary form of the single Roman rite."
Cardinal Castrillon is president of the Pontifical Commission"Ecclesia Dei," established by Pope John Paul to ensure pastoral careto former followers of the late traditionalist Archbishop MarcelLefebvre, who was excommunicated in 1988 after ordaining bishopswithout papal approval. Archbishop Lefebvre had rejected theliturgical reforms and concepts of religious freedom and ecumenism asformulated by the Second Vatican Council.
Wider use of the pre-Vatican II Mass in Latin "is not a stepbackward," Cardinal Castrillon said, but a sign that the pope "wantsto make available to the church all the treasures of the Latin liturgythat have, for centuries, nourished the spiritual life of so manygenerations of Catholic faithful."
In an early June interview, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vaticansecretary of state, said the pope was "personally interested in makingthis happen" and that the pope's personal letter accompanying thedocument would explain why he wanted to expand access to the olderMass as well as expressing his hope for a serene reception by thechurch.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Lina Joy
An interesting article that is purportedly written by a Muslim law student in the University of Malaya.
What a refreshing and perceptive view, whatever the origins of the author, whatever the actual legalities behind the circumstances!
A Muslim View on Lina Joy's Case
Azmi Sharom,
Faculty of Law, U.M
Jun 4, 07 3:34pm
This letter is a reaction to the decision of the Federal Court in the Lina Joy case. Taking heed of the prime minister's concerns, I have two unemotional points to make.
Firstly the Federal Constitution should guarantee the rights of all Malaysians to choose their religion.
Secondly, this issue of apostasy in Islam is far more open to interpretation than what the orthodoxy claims. Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is very clear. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion. They can propagate it as well if they want unless the state laws say you can't propagate to Muslims.
It is also clear by Schedule 9 of the Constitution that whatever Islamic laws that we have is to be made by the state legislature (with the exception of the three Federal Territories). These Islamic laws are to be judged by the Syariah courts, whose jurisdiction is only over persons who profess to Islam. The types of Islamic laws that the state legislature can make and that Syariah courts enforce are also listed in Schedule 9.
To summarise, they cover issues of family, inheritance and the administration of Islamic institutions and charities. There is no mention at all about apostasy. Where then does the state legislature get the authority to punish Muslims who declare that they wish to leave the religion?
Where does it say in the constitution that you can fine, jail or 'rehabilitate' people who have chosen to believe differently? This 'authority' comes from a line in Schedule 9 that says states can make laws punishing Muslims who act against the 'precepts' of the religion. I must repeat here that apostasy is not expressly mentioned, therefore everything hinges on the question as to what makes up the 'precepts' of Islam.
The constitution is not any mere legal document. It is not like an ordinary contract where you can have express terms and implied terms. It is a guarantee that the government and the law will not take away our fundamental rights as a human being. As such, it is unacceptable that a right as vital as the freedom of religion can be taken away with anything less than an express clause saying in no uncertain terms that this can be done.
Justice Ahmad Fairuz, in his judgment, made the point that one can't leave one's religion on a whim and religious bodies would naturally want to have procedures to regulate this. This may be true, especially in this country where being Malay by definition means being Muslim and if one were to renounce Islam then legally speaking one can't be Malay. Therefore all the special Malay privileges won't apply to you any more.
In that sense, I can see the logic of having some sort of system to determine whether a person is a Muslim or not. However, that process, if it must exist, must by necessity be purely administrative and automatic. It can not and must not be punitive. Because once it is punitive as it is in this country, (after all leaving Islam can mean imprisonment) in effect you are denying a person their freedom to choose their religion as enshrined in Article 11.
The opposing argument to mine is that conversion out of Islam clearly goes against the 'precepts' of the religion. Apostasy is a crime that has to be punished. The degree of punishment ranges depending on which Islamic scholar you wish to quote, but the harshest is execution. This is not a universally accepted view.
The Koran, after all, does mention the lack of compulsion in religion. The verse does not come with explanatory notes as to the extent of this statement. There are opinions that say it means no compulsion to join the religion, but once in, there are compulsions aplenty, one of which is that you can't leave. There are others that say that it means exactly what it says, you can't force religion on anyone and that once this is done religion can have no meaning. Furthermore, the Koran does not prescribe any worldly punishment for apostasy.
Therefore this entire issue is the result of human interpretation of the Koran. It is thus surely open for debate. Let me provide an example of how changing times and values have affected how Muslims view the verses in our holy book. The Koran is ambivalent about slavery. It does not say that slavery is a sin. Neither does it encourage it. But there are verses that describe what one can do to one's slave. In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim who will say that slavery should be reintroduced.
Yet it seems to be allowed in the Koran. I am not being facetious. I do not believe that Islam, taken as a whole, encourages or even condones slavery. The verses were meant for a particular time in history when such practices did occur. But the point here is that if the values of the 'ummah' can change to the point that practices which are allowed in the divine Koran won't be accepted anymore, why then can't we do the same for what is essentially the mere opinion of human Islamic scholars on the issue of freedom of religion?
Often, when the view is put forward that there is no compulsion in Islam and that if a person wants to leave they should be allowed to, there are the usual cries that such attitudes are the result of liberal, Western influenced minds.
In all honesty, that is probably a fair 'criticism' of someone like me. However, Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), the Indonesian cleric and ex-president as well as the mufti of Al Azhar in Egypt are just two examples of people who also share this view. They can't possibly be described in the same way. At the end of the day it is simply quite cruel to not allow someone to believe what they want to believe. It is not a decision made lightly and as can be seen in Lina Joy's situation, one that can lead to misery and heartache.
Just as I am sure many converts into Islam face misery and heartache from their respective community. It's hard enough to face being ostraciced from family and friends without having to face legal persecution as well. When faced with two contesting human opinions on the 'precepts' of Islam, one which is harsh and one which is merciful, I choose the latter.
Religion is one path towards personal peace and spiritual fulfilment. It is also something which depends entirely on faith. Even if the religion is a 'way of life', a term commonly used to describe Islam; it still needs belief and faith. How can one be forced to follow a 'way of life' if one simply does not believe in it?
Once the element of force comes into the picture, be it in the form of fines, imprisonment or 'rehabilitation', then religion ceases to be about the spiritual and becomes instead a matter of power. I can not accept that the religion I was born into and my children are raised in is about anything as crass as power.
And it is my right to believe that.
What a refreshing and perceptive view, whatever the origins of the author, whatever the actual legalities behind the circumstances!
A Muslim View on Lina Joy's Case
Azmi Sharom,
Faculty of Law, U.M
Jun 4, 07 3:34pm
This letter is a reaction to the decision of the Federal Court in the Lina Joy case. Taking heed of the prime minister's concerns, I have two unemotional points to make.
Firstly the Federal Constitution should guarantee the rights of all Malaysians to choose their religion.
Secondly, this issue of apostasy in Islam is far more open to interpretation than what the orthodoxy claims. Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is very clear. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion. They can propagate it as well if they want unless the state laws say you can't propagate to Muslims.
It is also clear by Schedule 9 of the Constitution that whatever Islamic laws that we have is to be made by the state legislature (with the exception of the three Federal Territories). These Islamic laws are to be judged by the Syariah courts, whose jurisdiction is only over persons who profess to Islam. The types of Islamic laws that the state legislature can make and that Syariah courts enforce are also listed in Schedule 9.
To summarise, they cover issues of family, inheritance and the administration of Islamic institutions and charities. There is no mention at all about apostasy. Where then does the state legislature get the authority to punish Muslims who declare that they wish to leave the religion?
Where does it say in the constitution that you can fine, jail or 'rehabilitate' people who have chosen to believe differently? This 'authority' comes from a line in Schedule 9 that says states can make laws punishing Muslims who act against the 'precepts' of the religion. I must repeat here that apostasy is not expressly mentioned, therefore everything hinges on the question as to what makes up the 'precepts' of Islam.
The constitution is not any mere legal document. It is not like an ordinary contract where you can have express terms and implied terms. It is a guarantee that the government and the law will not take away our fundamental rights as a human being. As such, it is unacceptable that a right as vital as the freedom of religion can be taken away with anything less than an express clause saying in no uncertain terms that this can be done.
Justice Ahmad Fairuz, in his judgment, made the point that one can't leave one's religion on a whim and religious bodies would naturally want to have procedures to regulate this. This may be true, especially in this country where being Malay by definition means being Muslim and if one were to renounce Islam then legally speaking one can't be Malay. Therefore all the special Malay privileges won't apply to you any more.
In that sense, I can see the logic of having some sort of system to determine whether a person is a Muslim or not. However, that process, if it must exist, must by necessity be purely administrative and automatic. It can not and must not be punitive. Because once it is punitive as it is in this country, (after all leaving Islam can mean imprisonment) in effect you are denying a person their freedom to choose their religion as enshrined in Article 11.
The opposing argument to mine is that conversion out of Islam clearly goes against the 'precepts' of the religion. Apostasy is a crime that has to be punished. The degree of punishment ranges depending on which Islamic scholar you wish to quote, but the harshest is execution. This is not a universally accepted view.
The Koran, after all, does mention the lack of compulsion in religion. The verse does not come with explanatory notes as to the extent of this statement. There are opinions that say it means no compulsion to join the religion, but once in, there are compulsions aplenty, one of which is that you can't leave. There are others that say that it means exactly what it says, you can't force religion on anyone and that once this is done religion can have no meaning. Furthermore, the Koran does not prescribe any worldly punishment for apostasy.
Therefore this entire issue is the result of human interpretation of the Koran. It is thus surely open for debate. Let me provide an example of how changing times and values have affected how Muslims view the verses in our holy book. The Koran is ambivalent about slavery. It does not say that slavery is a sin. Neither does it encourage it. But there are verses that describe what one can do to one's slave. In this day and age, you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim who will say that slavery should be reintroduced.
Yet it seems to be allowed in the Koran. I am not being facetious. I do not believe that Islam, taken as a whole, encourages or even condones slavery. The verses were meant for a particular time in history when such practices did occur. But the point here is that if the values of the 'ummah' can change to the point that practices which are allowed in the divine Koran won't be accepted anymore, why then can't we do the same for what is essentially the mere opinion of human Islamic scholars on the issue of freedom of religion?
Often, when the view is put forward that there is no compulsion in Islam and that if a person wants to leave they should be allowed to, there are the usual cries that such attitudes are the result of liberal, Western influenced minds.
In all honesty, that is probably a fair 'criticism' of someone like me. However, Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), the Indonesian cleric and ex-president as well as the mufti of Al Azhar in Egypt are just two examples of people who also share this view. They can't possibly be described in the same way. At the end of the day it is simply quite cruel to not allow someone to believe what they want to believe. It is not a decision made lightly and as can be seen in Lina Joy's situation, one that can lead to misery and heartache.
Just as I am sure many converts into Islam face misery and heartache from their respective community. It's hard enough to face being ostraciced from family and friends without having to face legal persecution as well. When faced with two contesting human opinions on the 'precepts' of Islam, one which is harsh and one which is merciful, I choose the latter.
Religion is one path towards personal peace and spiritual fulfilment. It is also something which depends entirely on faith. Even if the religion is a 'way of life', a term commonly used to describe Islam; it still needs belief and faith. How can one be forced to follow a 'way of life' if one simply does not believe in it?
Once the element of force comes into the picture, be it in the form of fines, imprisonment or 'rehabilitation', then religion ceases to be about the spiritual and becomes instead a matter of power. I can not accept that the religion I was born into and my children are raised in is about anything as crass as power.
And it is my right to believe that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
