I believed many have read the news before. Let us read what Sun reported, after YB Nurul Izzah made an explanation in her defense.. and YB Khalid Samad to back her up.
KUALA LUMPUR (Nov 5, 2012): PKR vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar today clarified that her comments at a public forum on Saturday was not intended to “trivialise” apostasy, which is strictly forbidden in Islam.
“I stand by the general stand that after embracing Islam, a Muslim is subject to syariah (laws), just as a citizen is subject to the Federal Constitution.
“I regret that there are people who try to twist my statement as if I disparaged the issue of faith or accept Muslims who choose to apostate,” said the Lembah Pantai MP in reference to reports which implied that she supported the act of apostasy by endorsing the need to practise freedom of religion for all.
Nurul Izzah in a statement said that her response was made based on verse 256 Surah Al-Baqarah in the Quran, which states: “There is no compulsion in religion (Islam).”
“This verse is applicable to all mankind,” she stressed.
PAS central committee member Khalid Samad meanwhile reaffirmed Nurul Izzah’s stand that there should be no compulsion in religion and emphasis must instead be placed on developing a society which practises Islam by choice.
“Religion is based on faith and belief. What must be done is to ensure that a Muslim practises the religion based on genuine faith and belief, instead of merely due to his race or because of external force,” said Khalid when met in Parliament today.
Let us take a look at what Al Baqarah verse 256 sounds like:
My question is.. was the verse being made (by YB Nurul Izzah) in good faith and manner?
What I can understand and have been understood is, the verse is directed to non-muslims. Muslims cannot force non-muslims to embrace Islam.
However once you are a muslim, you have to follow what have been stipulated in Islam.
So, IF the verse is not being understood properly, any person who does not wish to follow his or her faith in Islam, will assume that the verse is an “exit clause” for not being a muslim any longer.
From where I stand and view, I understand such issues is brought up because focusing on malays, in which stipulated in the Constitution – Malay is a muslim. There have been effort to make malay is no longer compulsory a muslim.
Now.. may I ask… especially to arah, one of my no longer seen avid comentator.. is not this a proof that there are efforts focusing converting malays muslim to non-muslim, slowly, step by step.. under the so called “human rights”?
Question on the street: Was her statement misunderstood because of political, theological or poor understanding of Islam?