I am writing in response to the recent letters by F ederal Court didn't deny Joy her right Abu Mubarak and No one should try and change Joy's mind by Dr Mohamed Rafick Khan.

Firstly, I would like to say that the answer to Abu Mubarak's question as to why Muslim Malaysians 'have no problem' going to civil courts but non-Muslim Malaysians don't go to the Syariah courts lies in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

In it, it states that Islamic law is responsible for the 'creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List'. For example, we have federal laws for murder but not 'khalwat'. So if a Muslim Malaysian commits murder, federal law shall apply and he/she must be tried in a civil court. If he/she commits 'khalwat', Syariah law shall apply.

The Ninth Schedule also states that Syariah courts 'shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam'. That is why non-Muslim Malaysians have no legal obligation to be tried or heard in Syariah courts.

The judgement passed in the Lina Joy case is primarily based on the technicality that the High Court and Court of Appeal were correct in determining that the NRD was right in asking Joy to seek the appropriate documents from the Syariah courts so that the word 'Islam' can be deleted from her IC.

What baffles me then is the reasoning of the Chief Justice including a statement like 'You can't at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another' in his decision. I would appreciate an analysis or explanation of this statement.

Inferring from what the above two writers have mentioned, if we are to think that Article 11 of the Federal Constitution has been upheld in Joy's case, it means that it has ruled that non-Muslims like Joy should still seek recourse from a Syariah court as an 'ex-Muslim' to have the word 'Islam' deleted from her MyKad and, as it is just a technicality, the Syariah courts have to comply with the request.

On the other hand, if we are to think that the Federal Court has left it to the Syariah courts to decide on Joy's religious status (as opposed to what the two writers have suggested), it means that anyone with 'Islam' stated on their IC are Muslim until proven otherwise and are thus under Syariah court jurisdiction. The Syariah court is then left to hear and decide whether the word 'Islam' can be removed because the MyKad holder is not Muslim, or whether the person is indeed a Muslim who wishes to leave Islam. In the case of the latter, Syariah laws are currently in place to punish apostates with jail terms and fines, coupled with subsequent religious rehabilitation.

Since Syariah laws pertaining to punishment for apostates, enacted under powers provided by the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, effectively curb freedom of religion for some Malaysians, shouldn't they be repealed on the basis of Article 74 (3) of the Federal Constitution, which states that: 'The power to make laws conferred by this Article is exercisable subject to any conditions or restrictions imposed with respect to any particular matter by this Constitution', as they are at odds with Article 11?

Seeing that the Federal Court judgement has now been passed, and Joy has reached a legal dead end in the civil courts, she should not be held responsible for setting an anti-constitutional precedent for non-Muslims seeking recourse in Syariah courts in cases similar to hers, since it is the Federal Court that has decided that she has to do so to have 'Islam' deleted from her MyKad.

However, as an ex-Muslim, if she does decide to seek recourse in the Syariah courts, her safety will be paramount considering the threats against her in the past. In view of this, I wonder whether the Syariah courts will agree to a hearing in her absence.

If as a result of a Syariah court hearing, Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is not upheld and Syariah laws regarding punishment for apostasy remain, who or what is to guarantee that Lina will not be sentenced to a jail term and fine, and ordered to attend rehabilitation? Wouldn't she then be better off maintaining the current status quo?

If the Syariah court agrees to have the term 'Islam' deleted from her MyKad and henceforth forever release her from their jurisdiction unless she re-embraces the faith, will society allow her to lead a life in Malaysia free of fear and prejudice, considering the threats and ostracism that she has encountered so far?

These hypothetical situations raise many questions in my head, and I sometimes do wonder whether it would actually be better for them to remain unanswered.