Is god in trouble with man?

What is religion?

Why do we need religion?

Religion is a system of belief held by an individual and organized into a group with common belief and faith towards a supernatural being which we call God.

It was individuated. Jesus came to the world and thus Christianity began as a religion for those who shared and believed in him.

Muhammad was an individual human being. He has some knowledge of which he claimed to have been disseminated to him by an angel. Thus began the religion called Islam.

Gautama was a prince. He was disillusioned with the material world and went into isolation and discovered nirvana. Thus began the Buddhist religion which was much a teaching of a way of life.

The taoist believed in the existence of god and the Hindus too.

But what is God and why do we need God?

That shouldn't be a problem for us to answer. The problem is, it is observed that the question is not why we need God but rather, the groups are now more concerned with the need to protect God in order for men to live. Men thus began to design God and made Him to be what we want him to be, not what He is. Men also build a system of rules and regulation to govern those who are members and they called it laws; it's not the Natural Law theory discussed in the Theory of Jurisprudence but rather, the laws that is much too concerned and emphasized about rituals, form and ceremony; the substance and main philosophy has become secondary.

The case of Lina Joy caused more uncertainties and raise the question of what is the rule of law. We have a civil court which is structured and built based on the common law courts and jurisprudence. However, they made a decision which does not follow the standards and rules governing it. It is more of an individual's decision based political needs and social pressures. The constitution clearly states each and every person has the right to profess and practice his religion that he chooses. The National Registration Department was enacted to manage and control the registration of citizens and residents. They were never empowered by the law to dictate each person's individual rights as provided in the constitution. They had no rights at all to dictate a person's name, religion or race. Their role and responsibility is to ensure that what is registered reflects the facts.

I do agree with Chief Justice that Syariah Court had the jurisdiction over cases involving conversion to Islam and also to adjudicate all matters regarding Islam and the Muslims. But the controversial question arises is: since religion is individuated, that is, it is an individual's own set of belief and decision, then if that someone decides that he has found her own God which she wanted to believed in and of which she is convinced, wouldn't it be that she has the right in law to profess and practice her religion in accordance with Article 11.1?

I can call myself John or Matthew and proclaimed loudly that I am Christian. But in reality, I may not believed in Jesus and whatever he said and my acts and behavior may be in contradiction with what I profess. Would it mean that I am still a Christian? No! For in Christianity, it is only when you follow the teaching of Jesus and obeyed his commandments will be be accepted into His Kingdom. Most of all, God said that we humans will be judge by God in the final day. So, you can call yourself a Christian and have a Christianed name, but you will not enter His Kingdom; however, you are free do do what you want with your live in this world and the law of the land will be the control system that manages you here in this land; God's law will only manage you when you die or when the end of the day arrived.

Religious books are written by men for men. They are written such that the true knowledge will be passed down the ages to assist men understand the teachings of the Holy Prophet. Even in Islam and the statements in the Quran, no one can forced another to believe in the religion. People who accepted Islam are those who believed that Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of God, that there is no other God but Allah and that the Quran is the teaching of Allah. Once the three criterias are met, he is a Muslim, irrespective whether he change his name to Abdullah or Ah Loong. For Islam, it is not what your name is, that makes you a Muslim. It is not how you dress that makes you a better Muslim as long as you dress decently. It is not how many times you pray that makes you a Muslim. It is your believed in the three criteria and your true faith and acceptance of His teaching.

Justice Ahmad Fairuz said: "one cannot embrace or leave a religion according to one's whims and fancies." But that's reality. Everyone embrace his or her own religion based on their own decision; it's their discretion and no one else can forced unto them. You can also leave your religion if you wanted because the believed in God is deep inside you and nobody can see it. You can pretend to be a Muslim and go for prayers, follow all the rituals, but if you didn't believe in Allah in your heart, nobody knows and as long as you don't tell others, you will be construed as a Muslim and will enjoy the benefits and privileges given by the system of governance. However, these benefits and privileges only exist in certain countries, not every Muslim nations.

There is another interesting statement by Justice Richard Malanjun. In his judgment he said that NRD's insistence that Lina Joy had to obtain a certificate of Apostasy is wrongful and illegal in law and ultra vires Article 11 of the Constitution. He also said the request was unreasonable in law and an act that is impossible to perform.

According to Richard Malanjun, NRD is adjudged as having acted ultra vires the constitution, and that the Syariah court had no statutory power to adjudicate on the issue of apostasy. This is a serious issue even where it is only a dissenting judgment. It goes to the core of our legal system and questions the validity of the legal order. Our judicial system is now on the crossroad - where will we be, and what is law? What is the rule of law and which part of jurisprudence are we professing and following... It is a new dilemma, not the Malay Dilemma, but the Dilemma of Justice.