Whatever they are, I believe the facts speak for themselves.

And, by the way, thanks for reading and sharing your views.

Peace,
Jonson

I think Fiction (1) is obviously a myth. As for Fiction (2), if we take a historical look objectively, we will note that Malays are also visitors from overseas.

Dear Jason,
While I could not agree more on your argument for item (1), objectively, item (2) is not a fiction or myth. Arguing that Malay was also a visitor to the land is just like arguing that nobody should claim the land is theirs since initially it is a “GOD land” and thousand years ago this land was owned by pre-historic ape like human!!.

It all depend on how far off we want to back track the history/time. And luckily the law has set the time limit for this. Else, before we know it, there will be someone who will just walk-in to our room and claimed it is theirs…LOL

The whole area was located in the area named as “Malay Archipelago” and the land was called “Tanah Melayu” for sure is not for the fun of naming it that way before.

But, legally, what really matters is the land was occupied/managed and ruled by Malay sultanate long time ago and for that matter this has been emphasize further by the fact that any trade with the land have to get permission from the sultan first. Objectively this is why your item (2) cannot be considered fiction/myth and legally that how the Malaysia Constitution is been drafted and recognised.
This is the fact that cannot be denied.

And on our way championing on democratic and united malaysia in which we strived for there is always a thin line that we shouldnt cross.
And in life, theres always a limit on everything. Else we just over step into somebody shoes.

I think this is pretty much wrapped up my comment.

Best Regards.

Thank you for your comment.

I sense that you are taking a strictly legal approach to the Lina Joy case. Before I go on, please allow me to concede that I was hasty in writing that particular posting.

Insofar as I am concerned, the most important consideration in this case is justice, be it for the appelant or the community as a whole.

Bearing in mind that Islam and faith are also important considerations for this case, that is why I referred to the Holy Quran. Frankly, I don’t recall referring to any Russian or EU laws.

Anyway, I also would like to make an observation. At the juncture of 1957, there’s no doubt that Malays were the majority in Malaya. Thus, Muslims were also the majority.

However, there are two fictions/myths we need to address: (1) All Malays are Muslims; and (2) Malaya/Malaysia is a Malay land.

I think Fiction (1) is obviously a myth. As for Fiction (2), if we take a historical look objectively, we will note that Malays are also visitors from overseas.

If we truly want to have a democratic and united Malaysia, all of us must be honest and objective in approaching whatever debate, regardless of whether it involves race and religion.

Thank you.

Peace,
Jonson

On comment given above, you are right on Article 11(1) but your understanding on “Clause (4), to propagate it” is erroneous. What this clause really mean is “federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam” and further check to Article 12(2)you will find the following statement in it “…but it shall be lawful for the Federation or a State
to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions
or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such
expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose….”. While dealing with Malaysian within Malaysia Constitution referring to EU Right or Russian Right is irrelevent.
Malaysia Constitution is been drafted in such a way that “allowing others to safely settle down in used to be Malay land while navigating to preserve the malay/natives right or customs and Islam as the official religion of the land”… the constitution has given enough freedom to all but human trait is “Noting is enough..!” and this caused the problem.

I look at the Lina Joy case this way. If what Tun Mahathir said is true. that any Malay can throw away his/her muslim tag as long as he/she is prepared to throw away his Malay Bumiputra special rights in this country, then what Lina Joy has to do is to go to the Syariah court and says she no more believes in Islam and is prepared to throw away her Malay Bumi special rights! Am I right Tun M?

There is no valid reason Lina Joy should go to a Syariah court especially since she rejected Islam! Under international human rights law formulated by the West, particularly 27-nation European Union (EU), Muslim-majority Turkey if it wants to be part of EU cannot impose Syariah on humans as this violates 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Syariah may say “you cannot leave Islam” but Christians and Jews believe it to be man-made law, while Muslims believe it to be divine. So, we must conclude 2 to 1, the 2 are right! Majority prevails always.

There will be no Syariah laws in the West, particularly France which has a large Muslim minority that is larger than Chinese minority in Malaysia. France’s right-wing President Sarkozy has warned Muslims “to go back home” if they want to be barbarians.

Finally, Lina Joy is a Malay and she is entitled to Malay rights. Why should CHinese who “masuk Melayu” by simply ucap Shahada enjoy Malay rights despite being Chinese racially and Muslims religiously, while Malay Christians (as natives) are deprived of their basic human rights!

As for “less controversial and less confrontational”, that’s something I just don’t get at all. Are these people saying it was bad manners for Lina Joy to “go to town” with her decision? God forbid propriety ever takes precedence over justice.

yusri, president of ABIM is known for his narrow-mindedness and conservative view of islam. i can recall vaguely some of his remarks in some other instances.