I understand that scholars of the religion want to debate the legality of apostasy according to Islam. I am no expert on the subject matter and do not offer an opinion. It is fairly obvious however that the learned experts here and elsewhere do see it as a debatable question.
It is a fact ( assuming the citations above are accurate ) that religious courts in Malaysia allow apostasy in some cases and in others they don’t, regardless of the individual’s wishes.
Do any of the experts here think apostasy is legal sometimes but not others? If so, how does a court go about deciding which cases are which?
I was driving with my adult son and we passed a really huge Army compound at Pathum Thani. Surprisingly we both smiled and remarked: “Do we really know what THESE people do and to what end?”
Thank you for clarifying that your comment is on those who are not familiar with Islam yet want to talk about apostasy in Islam. This means that the argument in the article and its conclusion are valid.
On the illustration that I have given, although you are right to note the implicit reference to Lina Joy’s case, yet that is not the point of the illustration. Allow me to explain.
The point is to investigate the validity of your claim that a person cannot publicly declare (include changing of one’s religion on IC) his or her apostasy because such declaration would (in your words) “have impact on others”, loosen the community (Jamaah), and “some might get insulted”.
The illustration presupposes a tension between your cited reasons to prevent public declaration of one’s apostasy vis-a-vis Islam being truthful and just. That is to say if Islam is truthful and just to the individual apostate, then it should allow public declaration of apostasy despite the reasons you have given (have impact on others, loosen the Jamaah, and insult others). If this is true, then that means your reasons to forbid apostasy are not valid.
It seems that your suggestion in your last paragraph (“If you or any other reader knows any person who no longer wanted to take Islam as his/her religion, go file a case with the Sharia Court”) confirms that you yourself agree that individual apostate should be allowed to apostasies. That means you sided with the notion that Islam is truthful and just also to the apostates. If this is the case, then it casts questions on the validity of the reasons you have previously raised in comment #28 & #29. This means that your given reasons to forbid apostasy in your previous comments are very weak, if not invalid.
I’d suggest the state-sponsored narrative of Islam, which has strong emphasis on fiqh and religiousity, has led to the harsh and simplistic way many muslims in Malaysia think now.
A nostalgia for ‘adat’ I feel is misplaced, because Malay customs and traditions, give or take a few exceptions, are still widely practiced today. The Malays are still a very traditional society, even post-urbanisation.
Some writers have gone on to suggest that the speed at which the bulk of the new malay middle class gained their wealth (thanks to the NEP), has not allowed the time to learn the literacies of plural urban society. Id go on to say that this is a society with a clear living recollection of its simple rural past, that has to figure out how to live in a, pardon the cliche, a globalised present.
To paraphrase a line from Sidney Poitier’s character in Guess Whos Coming For Dinner, many malays still view themselves as poor, deprived kampong folk, despite what theyve achieved, but there are those who think themselves simply as a men capable to face challenges.
To lay the blame on islam for the malays’ present dysfunction would be a gross simplification of the complexities of both islamic thought and malay development
You are welcome to say whatever you like, whether you are an English major or not, and you are of course absolutely right. The vast piece I am writing is not really a review at all, and that will become clearer as all five parts fall into place. It is more of a detailed counternarrative.
Part 2 is now almost entirely online: it is a lengthy and not entirely positive review of KBAALW.
Part 3 will be my account of what really happened during Bhumibol’s reign.
It would indeed be useful if I learned to make my narratives more concise and accessible. I spent 17 years at Reuters writing superficial 600-word stories and now that I have resigned I seem to have gone to the other extreme. Hopefully one of these days I will find the zen path along the middle way.
To expect non-native speakers to get the tone and accent right is a tad pedantic. MY-AN-MAR is what you mostly get out of them, and due allowance needs to be made I reckon. Ethnic minorities speak Burmese (those who do) with an accent that includes tonal differences. And there are regional accents with the emphasis on different syllables as well as Dawei and Rakhine dialects.
Scott #9
That the renaming idea occurred to our leaders in Aung San’s time is news to me. Also the first Burmese conquest of the Mon happened in the 11th C which enriched the Myanmar/Mranma culture like a shot in the arm. If Burma is a Mon term for the Bamar ethnic group, why would it be more inclusive and sensitive? The one likely reason is because Burma is the English term for the country and not a Burmese/Myanmar language term. What about the English term Burman? Would the minorities call themselves Burmese? They really have no choice in the matter when they are abroad, be they asylum seekers or visitors/immigrants, as they get called Burmese (since they are originally from Burma) by everyone else, East or West.
The term Bamar evolved later as a colloquial form whereas the country and its people have always been Myanmar in Burmese inscriptions, royal orders and formal writing. Yakhine and Rakhine are spelt the same way in the Burmese language, the difference can occur only in writing them in English and in the Rakhine’s retention of the rolling r in pronunciation.
Andrew #3, I think that it’s his style to talk like that. It’s covered in TKNS that it gives him a mythical touch to his speech. Personally, I find it really hard to follow, and the english versions are often less baffling than the thai ones.
It could be that his thinking language might not be Thai in the first place. It’s one of the theories floating around.
Most of his speech made sense when cut up though. But don’t we all?
I don’t even know whether I should say this, because unlike you, I am not even an English major. Nor would I stop you from writing your review in a style which you have already written because I know you would not stop anyway despite what I would say below :p
However, I find the “review” to be…well, too audience specific. To be honest, it is almost like an academic thesis which disproves the accuracy and credibility of another academic book. I know that you know a lot, and you certainly have shown from your writing that you really know a lot. But this is the problem: your review becomes an extremely lengthy work which would only appeal to people who are REALLY interested in the secrecy of Thai politics, such as most of us here. But it would not be read by an average Joe who wants to find out more about this book.
To take for an example, you have written endless paragraphs of facts and the circumstances in Thailand nowadays. For me it was a good read. The problem, however, is you did not focus on the content of this book until 10+ paragraphs where you started pointing out the inaccuracy and the misleading choice of words which Anand Panyarachun has chosen regarding the King going to Switzerland to ‘complete’ his studies. The problem is, by this time, the average Joe reader who wants to find a review which can tell them what to expect from this book would have lost interest in your review and move on to another one.
Hence, I would like to make a suggestion. Why don’t you stop calling this “review” of yours a review? Instead call it an ‘article’ or ‘detailed analysis’ of this book. On the other hand, you write a standard 1,000+ word (or just a little more, 2,000 words maximum) review of this book, with only one parapraph introduction (which contains the blueprint about its awfulness….such as “with misleading choice of words, blatant inaccuracies, tightly monitored environment where authors have no freedom to write whatever they want, and a zero attempt to rebut any negative assertions, this book is an awful work”. Then you spend 4-6 paragraphs citing MAJOR inaccuracies or misleading choice of words that paint the K in a better picture than what his real achievement really is, then a conclusion. This way it becomes a useful, readable (for people who are not really knowledgeable in Thai politics) piece of writing which would not discourage people.
In other words, my suggestion is: write a short, 2000 word review about this book as an addition. Then you may take your sweet time to complete your five part analysis of this book (which I am sure it is as unreliable and bogus as anything the Thai officials have proclaimed about the King, who is not a virtuous, down to earth figure like they claim. In fact he is an unremorseful murderer and a n extremely rich dictator who (accidentally) killed his brother to become king, and uses lese majeste to force people to love him.
“Bear with me on this one folks. It is either going to be the best and most important thing I ever wrote, or a vast and flabby load of dross.
Let’s hope for all our sakes it is the former.”
Mr MacGregor really needs to get out of the house a bit. He’s started to think of himself as Thailand’s Saviour.
[…] revealed the reason why: KBAALW was constructed in assembly-line fashion, not dissimilar to how a canned-fish factory might be managed, with different people responsible working on different sections under the […]
Can anyone tell me if his majesty, for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration, has spoken out against the lese majeste law prior to 2005 or has ever done so since?
Whatever you write I hope you stay away from gossip about the royal family as I believe it diminishes the much needed criticism of the monarchy in Thailand. I think Handley’s including such a thing took away from his book. Now that you are officially persona non grata here in Thailand you have the luxury of being honest publicly so good luck in your work.
Funny “I am Siam” mentioned the Portuguese. Only yesterday I was talking to a friend about the way here in Thailand, so-called developers routinely destroy all trees before they build and then encroach on as much public space as possible with high concrete fences to boot. Perhaps later they will import some over-sized trees at great expense which possibly were stolen from the forest to fit their dream.
In Portugal I was told 30% of land in any development must be devoted to greenery.
I would bet you our King, who is of course European even though born in America, and also our Siamese Queen who every year calls upon folk to conserve the forests would be so happy if the Portuguese rule applied here.
If “I am Siam” is so enamored of the King he might be more loyal by trying out his Muay Thai skills on some greedy developer.
As for his claim that Thai folk distrust civilian governments, that certainly concords with what I hear. The general opinion is appears to be that politicians are totally self serving ( see Andrew Marshall’s recent review of the new book on Bhumipol).
The question then becomes would we prefer Military governments or are we at heart basically anarchist wanting to live in self managed communities?
@ Shane Tarr,
I agree the Thai armed forces have played a greater role in shaping Thailand, but they shouldn’t have, certainly not after 1976.
The reason I stated I served with the Australian Army was simply to show what I based my analysis on; 21 years of service in what most Australian citizens regard as a professional armed force no matter at home or abroad. The fact they don’t take orders from the Queen of England, they take orders from the current elected government is what I was referring to and I gave a number of examples where the Thai armed forces are a force unto themselves.
The topic was about the increasing professionalism of the Thai armed forces, which is like digging half a hole. An armed force is either professional and answers to the current elected government and people or it answers to itself, which is the case with the current Thai armed forces.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
I understand that scholars of the religion want to debate the legality of apostasy according to Islam. I am no expert on the subject matter and do not offer an opinion. It is fairly obvious however that the learned experts here and elsewhere do see it as a debatable question.
It is a fact ( assuming the citations above are accurate ) that religious courts in Malaysia allow apostasy in some cases and in others they don’t, regardless of the individual’s wishes.
Do any of the experts here think apostasy is legal sometimes but not others? If so, how does a court go about deciding which cases are which?
Thailand’s political soldiers
I was driving with my adult son and we passed a really huge Army compound at Pathum Thani. Surprisingly we both smiled and remarked: “Do we really know what THESE people do and to what end?”
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
Hi Namaku Muhammad #37,
Thank you for clarifying that your comment is on those who are not familiar with Islam yet want to talk about apostasy in Islam. This means that the argument in the article and its conclusion are valid.
On the illustration that I have given, although you are right to note the implicit reference to Lina Joy’s case, yet that is not the point of the illustration. Allow me to explain.
The point is to investigate the validity of your claim that a person cannot publicly declare (include changing of one’s religion on IC) his or her apostasy because such declaration would (in your words) “have impact on others”, loosen the community (Jamaah), and “some might get insulted”.
The illustration presupposes a tension between your cited reasons to prevent public declaration of one’s apostasy vis-a-vis Islam being truthful and just. That is to say if Islam is truthful and just to the individual apostate, then it should allow public declaration of apostasy despite the reasons you have given (have impact on others, loosen the Jamaah, and insult others). If this is true, then that means your reasons to forbid apostasy are not valid.
It seems that your suggestion in your last paragraph (“If you or any other reader knows any person who no longer wanted to take Islam as his/her religion, go file a case with the Sharia Court”) confirms that you yourself agree that individual apostate should be allowed to apostasies. That means you sided with the notion that Islam is truthful and just also to the apostates. If this is the case, then it casts questions on the validity of the reasons you have previously raised in comment #28 & #29. This means that your given reasons to forbid apostasy in your previous comments are very weak, if not invalid.
Peace.
Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view
I’d suggest the state-sponsored narrative of Islam, which has strong emphasis on fiqh and religiousity, has led to the harsh and simplistic way many muslims in Malaysia think now.
A nostalgia for ‘adat’ I feel is misplaced, because Malay customs and traditions, give or take a few exceptions, are still widely practiced today. The Malays are still a very traditional society, even post-urbanisation.
Some writers have gone on to suggest that the speed at which the bulk of the new malay middle class gained their wealth (thanks to the NEP), has not allowed the time to learn the literacies of plural urban society. Id go on to say that this is a society with a clear living recollection of its simple rural past, that has to figure out how to live in a, pardon the cliche, a globalised present.
To paraphrase a line from Sidney Poitier’s character in Guess Whos Coming For Dinner, many malays still view themselves as poor, deprived kampong folk, despite what theyve achieved, but there are those who think themselves simply as a men capable to face challenges.
To lay the blame on islam for the malays’ present dysfunction would be a gross simplification of the complexities of both islamic thought and malay development
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
CT #8
You are welcome to say whatever you like, whether you are an English major or not, and you are of course absolutely right. The vast piece I am writing is not really a review at all, and that will become clearer as all five parts fall into place. It is more of a detailed counternarrative.
Part 2 is now almost entirely online: it is a lengthy and not entirely positive review of KBAALW.
Part 3 will be my account of what really happened during Bhumibol’s reign.
It would indeed be useful if I learned to make my narratives more concise and accessible. I spent 17 years at Reuters writing superficial 600-word stories and now that I have resigned I seem to have gone to the other extreme. Hopefully one of these days I will find the zen path along the middle way.
Bests
Andrew
Name games and Myanmar
plan B #11
To expect non-native speakers to get the tone and accent right is a tad pedantic. MY-AN-MAR is what you mostly get out of them, and due allowance needs to be made I reckon. Ethnic minorities speak Burmese (those who do) with an accent that includes tonal differences. And there are regional accents with the emphasis on different syllables as well as Dawei and Rakhine dialects.
Scott #9
That the renaming idea occurred to our leaders in Aung San’s time is news to me. Also the first Burmese conquest of the Mon happened in the 11th C which enriched the Myanmar/Mranma culture like a shot in the arm. If Burma is a Mon term for the Bamar ethnic group, why would it be more inclusive and sensitive? The one likely reason is because Burma is the English term for the country and not a Burmese/Myanmar language term. What about the English term Burman? Would the minorities call themselves Burmese? They really have no choice in the matter when they are abroad, be they asylum seekers or visitors/immigrants, as they get called Burmese (since they are originally from Burma) by everyone else, East or West.
The term Bamar evolved later as a colloquial form whereas the country and its people have always been Myanmar in Burmese inscriptions, royal orders and formal writing. Yakhine and Rakhine are spelt the same way in the Burmese language, the difference can occur only in writing them in English and in the Rakhine’s retention of the rolling r in pronunciation.
Lese majeste: Royal perspectives
Andrew #3, I think that it’s his style to talk like that. It’s covered in TKNS that it gives him a mythical touch to his speech. Personally, I find it really hard to follow, and the english versions are often less baffling than the thai ones.
It could be that his thinking language might not be Thai in the first place. It’s one of the theories floating around.
Most of his speech made sense when cut up though. But don’t we all?
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
Polo, no one can save Thailand, but itself. It is unlikely however as long as it blinds itself to the truth. So every effort counts.
As long as there is 112, we need all the outside help we can get. Since anyone who bring up the subject here will be slap with LM.
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
Andrew,
I don’t even know whether I should say this, because unlike you, I am not even an English major. Nor would I stop you from writing your review in a style which you have already written because I know you would not stop anyway despite what I would say below :p
However, I find the “review” to be…well, too audience specific. To be honest, it is almost like an academic thesis which disproves the accuracy and credibility of another academic book. I know that you know a lot, and you certainly have shown from your writing that you really know a lot. But this is the problem: your review becomes an extremely lengthy work which would only appeal to people who are REALLY interested in the secrecy of Thai politics, such as most of us here. But it would not be read by an average Joe who wants to find out more about this book.
To take for an example, you have written endless paragraphs of facts and the circumstances in Thailand nowadays. For me it was a good read. The problem, however, is you did not focus on the content of this book until 10+ paragraphs where you started pointing out the inaccuracy and the misleading choice of words which Anand Panyarachun has chosen regarding the King going to Switzerland to ‘complete’ his studies. The problem is, by this time, the average Joe reader who wants to find a review which can tell them what to expect from this book would have lost interest in your review and move on to another one.
Hence, I would like to make a suggestion. Why don’t you stop calling this “review” of yours a review? Instead call it an ‘article’ or ‘detailed analysis’ of this book. On the other hand, you write a standard 1,000+ word (or just a little more, 2,000 words maximum) review of this book, with only one parapraph introduction (which contains the blueprint about its awfulness….such as “with misleading choice of words, blatant inaccuracies, tightly monitored environment where authors have no freedom to write whatever they want, and a zero attempt to rebut any negative assertions, this book is an awful work”. Then you spend 4-6 paragraphs citing MAJOR inaccuracies or misleading choice of words that paint the K in a better picture than what his real achievement really is, then a conclusion. This way it becomes a useful, readable (for people who are not really knowledgeable in Thai politics) piece of writing which would not discourage people.
In other words, my suggestion is: write a short, 2000 word review about this book as an addition. Then you may take your sweet time to complete your five part analysis of this book (which I am sure it is as unreliable and bogus as anything the Thai officials have proclaimed about the King, who is not a virtuous, down to earth figure like they claim. In fact he is an unremorseful murderer and a n extremely rich dictator who (accidentally) killed his brother to become king, and uses lese majeste to force people to love him.
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
Polo #6
You are right. As should be obvious from this discussion, I consider myself the Harry Potter of Thailand.
Yours respectfully
Andrew
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
“Bear with me on this one folks. It is either going to be the best and most important thing I ever wrote, or a vast and flabby load of dross.
Let’s hope for all our sakes it is the former.”
Mr MacGregor really needs to get out of the house a bit. He’s started to think of himself as Thailand’s Saviour.
Kachin State Day 2012
Now KIA is the only odd man out in Burma as KNU has finally signed a peace agreement with the Government after more than 63 years of civil war.
Burma in Limbo, Part 1
Hla Oo, Is Burma out of Limbo now?
Narrative sedition and democratic consolidation
[…] revealed the reason why: KBAALW was constructed in assembly-line fashion, not dissimilar to how a canned-fish factory might be managed, with different people responsible working on different sections under the […]
Lese majeste: Royal perspectives
Can anyone tell me if his majesty, for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration, has spoken out against the lese majeste law prior to 2005 or has ever done so since?
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
Anand comes out of this badly. Sounds like he’s lost touch with the importance and value of truth.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
siam i am – 180
Its very humorous how you ” journalis” view Thailand from a zoo visitor point of view.
Honestly, I think Thailand is not so much better than a zoo.
What you want is very badly how Thailand should be.
Are you saying Thailand is “good” now??…..
Really, could you be a bit “civilized” when you posted here, you are embarrassing every Thais here.
Reviewing King Bhumibol’s life
Andrew,
Whatever you write I hope you stay away from gossip about the royal family as I believe it diminishes the much needed criticism of the monarchy in Thailand. I think Handley’s including such a thing took away from his book. Now that you are officially persona non grata here in Thailand you have the luxury of being honest publicly so good luck in your work.
Andrew Marshall’s Thai Story
Funny “I am Siam” mentioned the Portuguese. Only yesterday I was talking to a friend about the way here in Thailand, so-called developers routinely destroy all trees before they build and then encroach on as much public space as possible with high concrete fences to boot. Perhaps later they will import some over-sized trees at great expense which possibly were stolen from the forest to fit their dream.
In Portugal I was told 30% of land in any development must be devoted to greenery.
I would bet you our King, who is of course European even though born in America, and also our Siamese Queen who every year calls upon folk to conserve the forests would be so happy if the Portuguese rule applied here.
If “I am Siam” is so enamored of the King he might be more loyal by trying out his Muay Thai skills on some greedy developer.
As for his claim that Thai folk distrust civilian governments, that certainly concords with what I hear. The general opinion is appears to be that politicians are totally self serving ( see Andrew Marshall’s recent review of the new book on Bhumipol).
The question then becomes would we prefer Military governments or are we at heart basically anarchist wanting to live in self managed communities?
Thailand’s political soldiers
@ Shane Tarr,
I agree the Thai armed forces have played a greater role in shaping Thailand, but they shouldn’t have, certainly not after 1976.
The reason I stated I served with the Australian Army was simply to show what I based my analysis on; 21 years of service in what most Australian citizens regard as a professional armed force no matter at home or abroad. The fact they don’t take orders from the Queen of England, they take orders from the current elected government is what I was referring to and I gave a number of examples where the Thai armed forces are a force unto themselves.
The topic was about the increasing professionalism of the Thai armed forces, which is like digging half a hole. An armed force is either professional and answers to the current elected government and people or it answers to itself, which is the case with the current Thai armed forces.