文：謝偉倫

　　作為我國首宗仍在世者申請脫離回教的成功案例，檳州回教法庭允准陳燕芳的歷史性判決，相較于2006年登山英雄穆迪案、娘惹達希案、2007年麗娜喬伊案，各案宣判雖然不一，但皆突顯了一項悖論：到底我國憲法凌駕于回教法，抑或回教法高于憲法？在我國1957年的憲法保障下，人民享有宗教信仰自由，這些案件也反映我國宗教制度存在的盲點：憲法中並未載明任何人從回教改信基督教、印度教、佛教或其他宗教後，究竟適用哪項法制？

　　這更引出了某些長期懸而未決的深刻問題──憲法雖承認宗教自由，惟各級政府機構有無尊重支持宗教自由之義務？縱使這個長期被忽視的問題在麗娜喬伊案後已被一槌定音，但民事法庭的法官始終無法回避這道問題───無論是麗娜喬伊（或自幼由信奉回教的祖母撫養的娘惹達希），其身份首先是公民，然後才是回教徒？抑或，首先是回教徒，然後才是公民？宗教法庭的答案無疑是後者，而從憲法、法規與民事法庭的角度來看無疑應該是前者。在這節骨眼上，陳燕芳案欲成為標竿性的訴訟，未來還必須面對檳州宗教理事會的上訴申請，仍添變數。

　　雖然馬來人在我國是有生以來就已經是回教徒，不過自獨立以來，宗教議題在這個多元族群、多元宗教的社會依舊是爭論性議題。近年來在媒體大規模報導皈依、改變宗教以及各族權益等議題後，各種侵害憲賦權利的現象，才逐漸廣受重視。

　　某些政治人物刻意的宣稱，我國從來不曾是世俗國，這是故意忽視建國元勛建國當初所立下的社會契約精神。在世界各國的憲法里，大都有專門條款來保障宗教信仰的自由。在這些憲法條款和相關的法律制度下，政府在對宗教政策上就有了基本的規範。雖然有些國家的領導階層視憲法如具文，或對有關宗教的條款有服膺其政治教條的解釋，因而對宗教信仰自由有所扭曲，但憲法終究是一國基本大法，對於宗教與政治以及政府相關的角色有著基本的規範作用，若偏離太過而有迫害宗教情事時，都會遭到來自國內外的譴責。各國憲法多肯定宗教信仰自由，在這現代世界潮流里，由於各國的文化和宗教傳統不一、政治型態相異，對宗教的實際政策還有很大的差異存在。

　　我國民事法庭和回教法庭的法官們直面問題的道德勇氣，經己在麗娜喬伊案和陳燕芳案的糾纏過程中清楚暴露，並且影響深遠。可以預見的是，由於各級民事法庭一再背棄它們固有的詮釋憲法的權力，一旦回教法庭的地位被提升到與民事法庭平起平坐，並授予回教法庭在自己的司法領域作出民法系統不可上訴及採取行動取消的決定後，未來受到審判的已非改教者本身這麼簡單，司法工作者的正義與信仰，以及處理此類案件的專業智慧，亦面臨重大考驗。

　　信仰自由、以善言宣教、以理服人本來就是各宗教信守的基本原則，而回教化的政策旨在傳播具回教特質的宇宙性價值觀，激進的官僚卻將之闡釋為限制其他宗教的自由，採取侵蝕宗教自由的手段。麗娜喬伊去年遭聯邦法院再次駁回其申請後，回青團的緊急動議修法，擬以回教刑事罪對付脫教者即是一例。

　　宗教寬容的態度往往決定了多元社會意見分歧的緊張或趨緩，而所謂司法改革首要強化法治精神，尤其要站在人民的立場，落實司法審判的公平，真正做到法律之前，人人平等。法治精神是民主政治的基礎，如果司法審判不能受到人民充分的信賴，民主政治勢必受到嚴重的斫傷。因此，欲落實司法改革，必先要做到三個方面，除此別無蹊徑：一、憲政體制的“定型化”，直面敏感禁區；二、重視社會公平與分配正義，改善貧富懸殊差距；三、促進公共對話，建構一個理性的公民社會。

　　確立一部完整的憲法，只是建立一個憲治國家的第一步，更重要的是落實憲法內容，監察政府行為及執行憲法條文。民間社會需要一個尊重憲法的文化環境讓憲法得以實踐，否則漠視憲法，只會讓當權者壟斷憲法的詮釋權，侵害人民權益；不尊重憲法之權威性，其結果必然導致理想與現實的衝突。

　　這些問題的爭論範疇，並非只是純粹的宗教學和政治語言，它絕對與我們所追求的國家體系及未來的理想生活方式息息相關。因為當宗教的複雜與深奧被窄化成為一種固定的意識形態或世界觀，甚至用以決定和規範公眾行為時，身處多元種族與宗教社會的我們絕對不容忽視也無法回避。

Lina Joy is a Malay convert from Islam to Christianity. Born Azlina Jailani in 1964^[1] in Malaysia to Muslim parents of Javanese descent,^[2] she converted at age 26. In 1998, she was baptized, and applied to have her conversion legally recognized by the Malaysian courts. Though her change of name was recognized in 1999 and so noted on her identity card, her change of religion was not (since it is without the Mahkamah Syariah^[3] confirmation document); for this reason, she filed suit with the High Court in 1999, bypassing the Syariah Court (Islamic court). She later filed suit with the Federal Court in 2006.^[4][5] Joy hopes to live openly as a Christian; she was forced to go into hiding by the publicity surrounding her case.^[6]

In a majority verdict delivered on May 30, 2007, the Federal Court rejected her appeal.^[7] Her appeal was dismissed 2-1 by Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Datuk Alauddin Mohd Sheriff. The ruling stated that "a person who wanted to renounce his/her religion must do so according to existing laws or practices of the particular religion. Only after the person has complied with the requirements and the authorities are satisfied that the person has apostatised, can she embrace Christianity.... In other words, a person cannot, at one's whims and fancies renounce or embrace a religion."^[8]

The dissenting Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Datuk Richard Malanjum wrote that "Hence, in my view this is tantamount to unequal treatment under the law. In other words it is discriminatory and unconstitutional and should therefore be struck down. For this reason alone, the relief sought for by the appellant should be granted, namely for a declaration that she is entitled to have an identity card in which the word 'Islam' does not appear."^[9]

Legal recognition would have allowed her to have the change of religion noted on her national identity card; it would also remove the legal barrier to her marrying her Christian fiancé (marriage between Muslim women and non-Muslim men is forbidden under Malaysian law and under the Shariah/Islamic Jurisprudence; the non-Muslim man is required to convert to Islam under Malaysian law; Under Shariah, Muslim men are only allowed to marry “people of the book,” those who believe in One God). In Malaysia, the Shariah Court alone has the power to deal with Islamic issues, including legal recognition for conversion to and from Islam. Conversely, the Shariah Court has no jurisdiction over those who are not Muslims. Joy, by her own admission, is no longer Muslim, but only the Shariah Court can legally recognize this. Conversion is not something unknown, and according to Muslim Lawyers Association spokesman Pawanchek Merican, "…In Negeri Sembilan, the Shariah court allow 16 people to renounce Islam…"^[10]

It had been hoped that Joy's case would ultimately determine whether Malaysian Muslims can circumvent the Shariah Court, and it is a rallying cause for interfaith, women's rights, and civil rights groups in Malaysia. According to a senior official in the National Registration Department (NRD), for the NRD to change the religion on her identity card would mean that the department would be officially declaring her an apostate, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court.^[11] The jurisdiction of the Shariah Court over converts from Islam to other religions has been hotly debated by the Malaysian public in the past few years, with this and other court cases involving converts closely followed by the media.^[12] Joy is not the first person to apply for recognition of conversion from Islam; another woman named only as "Maria" by the BBC is also pursuing a similar case. In 2006, the Negeri Sembilan Syariah High Court in Seremban granted recognition for the 1936 conversion from Islam to Buddhism of Nyonya Tahir; however, Tahir was deceased by that time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Joy