Awal tahun 2006 menyaksikan bermulanya kes perebutan mayat Allahyarham Moorthy ataupun nama Islamnya Mohamed Abdullah. Mayat beliau telah menjadi rebutan antara pihak Jabatan Agama Islam dengan keluarga beliau yang mendakwa beliau telah murtad. Akhirnya Mahkamah Syariah menetapkan Moorthy masih Islam ketika meninggal dunia. Daripada kes ini, gerakan Inter-Faith Commission (IFC) mula menyuntik jarum.
Selepas itu, satu demi satu kes perebutan mayat berlaku antara Jabatan Agama Islam dan keluarga mualaf yang telah meninggal. Antaranya kes Nyonya Tahir (akhirnya diisytiharkan sebagai Buddha) dan yang terkini kes Anthony Rayappan (diputuskan sebagai telah 'murtad' oleh Peguam Negara).
Penghujung tahun 2006 menyaksikan beberapa akhbar non-Malay menyiarkan banyak artikel berkisar tentang isu murtad dan juga hak istimewa orang Islam. Antara akhbar yang aktif memperjuangkan golongan murtad (kebebasan untuk keluar dari Islam) ialah TheSun. Biasanya TheSun akan mencari penulis-penulis yang macam Islam untuk memberi komen tentang isu murtad ini. Hari ini, Dr Chandra Muzaffar pula memberikan pendapatnya:
For many non-Muslims and a handful of Muslim lawyers and activists in Malaysia, entering and exiting a religion is a question of human rights. It is part and parcel of one of the most universally recognised rights in any human rights charter, namely, the freedom of religion. However, for the vast majority of Muslims in the country, and indeed Muslims everywhere, leaving Islam is an unpardonable crime. For some of the ulama it is a crime that warrants the death penalty!
Becoming a Muslim is more than exercising a right. It is an immense responsibility. By proclaiming faith in the one God and acknowledging Muhammad as His Messenger, a person is in fact accepting his position as khalifah (viceregent) and is prepared to discharge his responsibilities to God and humankind.
This is why leaving the religion is often seen as abandoning one's position as khalifah, abdicating one's responsibilities and veering away from the path that God has laid out for the moral nourishment of the human being.
The Noble Quran itself views those who leave Islam - the murtad (apostate) - with utmost displeasure. It says, "Those who believe, and then disbelieve, and then( again) disbelieve, and then increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them, nor will He guide them to the (right) way (Surah 4:137). But the Quran does not prescribe capital punishment or any other form of punishment for the apostate. Neither does the Sunnah.
It was only when apostasy was coterminous with rebellion against the nascent state that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) had established in Medina, that the death penalty was imposed.
The Righteous Caliphs followed the Prophet's example. The jurists who came after them adopted a different approach. They felt no necessity to differentiate between mere peaceful change of faith and violent rebellions. Consequently, their rulings evolved into mainstream jurisprudence which is what the ulama of today have inherited.
There are many Muslim scholars who have subjected this jurisprudential thinking on apostasy to critical evaluation. One such scholar is the late Dr. S. A. Rahman, once Chief Justice of Pakistan, whose seminal work Punishment of Apostasy in Islam has recently been re-published in Malaysia by "The Other Press". Through comprehensive research and analysis, Rahman shows how the jurists contradicted the letter and spirit of the Quran. He argues that "in matters concerning the individual conscience, the Quran places no fetters on free choice".
Though the Quran is the primary source of guidance for the Muslim, it is obvious that on the question of apostasy, jurisprudence and the jurists exercise much greater influence upon the Muslim mind. In a number of other spheres too - government and power; inter-state relations; economy and finance; religious and cultural diversity; the rights and roles of women; the concept of knowledge - Quranic values and principles have been subordinated to the jurisprudential tradition.
Because jurisprudence or fiqh appears to be so overwhelmingly influential, contemporary Muslim societies have been described as fiqh-oriented rather than Quran-inspired.
One of the cardinal characteristics of the fiqh-oriented approach to Islam is the emphasis it places upon the 2 Ps - prohibit and punish. This explains why a plethora of juristic rulings have emerged in the course of the centuries which seek through prohibition and punishment to shape individual and social behaviour especially in matters pertaining to sexual morality. It is an approach which has failed to achieve its objective as evidenced by the growing social malaise in a number of Muslim majority countries, including our own.
What is worse, this subservience to fiqh has, in a sense, prevented Muslim thinkers from re-interpreting and re-applying eternal Quranic values and principles in a dynamic and creative manner to the contemporary age.
How would one, for instance, harness and harmonise those values in the Quran which are closest to economic enterprise in order to achieve both growth and equity? Or, how would one tap the passion for knowledge embodied in the Quran for scientific inquiry in today's world? Or, how would one seek guidance from the Quran in preserving the integrity of the family in a world where the demands of the market have put the family under tremendous strain?
More of From fiqh to Quran: Resolving apostasy
Bagi saya, apa yang Dr Chandra tulis sedikit sebanyak mempermainkan umat Islam. Berapa ramai sangat orang yang mengaku kononnya Islam, menyokong kebebasan untuk murtad? Majoriti menentang, tetapi realiti ini tidak ditulis dengan jelas.
Malah persoalan tentang hukuman terhadap pesalah murtad memang tidak dinyatakan dengan jelas di dalam Al-Quran, tetapi diputuskan oleh ulama-ulama berdasarkan pelbagai hadith-hadith yang sahih. Bukan bermaksud Al-Quran itu tertakluk pentafsirannya kepada ulama, tetapi dengan dibimbing oleh Hadith dan Sunnah Rasulullah. Oleh itu, tuduhan bahawa umat Islam terlalu
Fiqh Oriented bagi saya perlu diperbetulkan.
Berkenaan dengan konsep Islam iaitu
2 P - prohibit and punishment, sesuatu yang perlu kita faham ialah Islam mencegah terlebih dahulu. Sekiranya sudah terlanjur, dan dibuktikan bersalah (bukan mudah untuk membuktikan seseorang itu bersalah dalam kaedah Islam), barulah hukuman dijatuhkan. Malah konsep pencegahan dalam Islam telah di'curi' oleh dunia barat dengan istilah
prevention is better than cure. Islam sudah lama menekankan aspek ini!
Tuduhan Dr Chandra bahawa konsep Islam telah terbukti gagal, dengan mengambil contoh Malaysia adalah sesuatu yang tidak adil. Negara kita, walaupun kononnya negara Islam (Hadhari), tidak pernah mengambil langkah
prevention seperti yang digariskan oleh Islam. Contoh mudah adalah lesen judi, arak dan pusat hiburan yang berleluasa. Kalau benar kita melaksanakan
prevention, sudah pasti kerajaan mengharamkan judi, arak dan pusat hiburan. Banyak lagi contoh lain yang boleh pembaca sendiri fikirkan.
Al-Quran bukanlah kitab seperti buku teks yang boleh difahami dan ditafsir sesuka hati. Tanpa ilmu secukupnya, kita tidak layak membuat tafsiran sendiri. Oleh itu, adalah tidak adil kiranya Dr Chandra mempertikaikan sikap umat Islam yang tidak menafsir kembali Al-Quran. Bukan semua orang layak. Silap haribulan, lain pulak yang ditafsir.
Akhirul kalam, Dr Chandra perlulah sedar bahawa dia bukanlah orang yang terbaik untuk bercakap tentang Al-Quran dan Islam. Sekiranya tidak faham, lebih baik menyepi. Bercakaplah tentang sesuatu yang beliau sendiri pakar, jika tidak, kelak memalukan diri sendiri. Malukan diri sendiri boleh tahan lagi, janganlah sampai Islam dimalukan sekali!
Wallahualam...
