Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this

I am in utter disgust at Menj's response, Keep views to yourselves, non-Muslims , to Suresh Gnasegarah's letter .

Firstly, Menj informs us that apostasy is considered treason under Syariah law and therefore capital punishment must be enforced against it. He states that all, not merely most, prominent Islam jurists have agreed that the penalty of apostasy is death.

I must wonder, is the former late Sheik of al-Azhar University, Mahmud Shaltut, not considered prominent?

A simple Google search reveals even more prominent Islamic scholars that view apostasy as a serious sin, yet not one warranting death. This includes the likes of Ibrahim al-Naka'i, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abdul Walid al-Baji and modern scholars Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, as well as Pakistan's former chief justice, SA Rahman.

I certainly wouldn't go further into this theological debate, but the point I was trying to make is that within the ummah itself there is serious disagreement about the application of capital punishment for apostasy. Certainly Menj can't say that such is the 'basic law accepted by all prominent Islamic jurists'.

Menj also makes a case against the Konsert Sure Heboh because it's 'excessive entertainment'. Yet how exactly would one differentiate 'excessive' from 'acceptable'? The Taliban regime went as far as banning music, sports, literature, art and performing arts. Where to draw the line?

Certainly, a deviant Muslim can engage in 'excessive entertainment' without such events, yet in other cases Muslims at such events may not be entertained in an 'excessive' manner.

Menj further attacks Suresh's and non-Muslims' right in general to question capital punishment for apostasy.

Now let's imagine if Malaysia was populated 60 percent by Christians. And the Christians decided that they required the application of the canon law in order to be good Christians, and started campaigning for it.

Just say one of the clauses of canon law states a Christian cannot convert out of the religion, and the penalty of breaking that law is death. Now, Christians wanting to convert to Islam would have to do so quietly, and those who wanted to officially change their religion would be sent to reformation camp and discriminated against, while other Christians campaigned to have their heads cut off.

How would you feel, Menj, if I said 'non-Christians are not involved in any stage of its application at all, thus I do not see what right they have to talk about it'?

Menj further takes offence that non-Muslims label radicals such as he as 'hardline, hardcore, intolerant or bigoted.' Yet hardline means 'a firm, uncompromising policy or position.'

Is he suggesting that PAS and their supporters are weak and compromising in their policies and position?

Hardcore on the other hand means 'intensely loyal; diehard,' intolerant means 'unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs' and a bigot is 'one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.'

If the cap fits, wear it.

ADS