We've just gotten done with the Rahman case. We were repeatedly assured that there is no religious compulsion allowed by Islam. Let's see how much respect for religious freedom REALLY exists in other parts of the Islamic world.

Let's consider this case from Malaysia, wher ethe Becket Fund is trying to defend the right of a Malay woman to adopt the religion of her choice, legally marry, and have children.

On Thursday, April 13, 2006, Malaysia’s Federal Court will hear the case of Azlina binti Jailani, an ethnic Malay who formally converted from Islam to Christianity in 1998. That same year, she took the sacrament of marriage with a Catholic man. Her joyful demeanor prompted her to change her name, and today she is known as Lina Joy.

The Civil Marriage provision of the 1976 Law Reform Act prohibits Muslims from solemnising or registering marriage under civil law. Because Lina Joy bore a Muslim name, the Civil Registry of Marriages would not accept her application for marriage. Lina eventually managed to have her legal name changed. However, her identity card stated that she was a Muslim pursuant to a new regulation, despite her affirmative declaration that she was a Christian. The designation could not be removed until Lina Joy obtain an order from the Syariah Court stating that she had become an apostate.

Lina Joy took the matter to the civil courts. The court of first instance dismissed Lina Joy’s application on two main grounds. First, Malays could not renounce Islam at all because they were defined by the Federal Constituion to be persons of the Islamic faith. According to the High Court, a Malay’s religion and beliefs are determined by birth, not by choice.

The second ground was jurisdictional. The High Court ruled a conversion out of Islam is a religious matter that could only be dealt with by the Syariah Court. The High Court based its finding on Article 121, which states that the civil courts “shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.”

Lina Joy appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed her case. On April 13, the Federal Court will hold a hearing, where The Becket Fund's Director of International Advocacy, Angela C. Wu, will join her team of Malaysian lawyers and advocates, to decide whether or not to accept Lina’s last chance of appeal. If the Federal Court does not accept the case, Lina will officially and forever be considered Muslim—at least, until the Syariah Court sees fit to recognize her conversion, and designate her an apostate—legally labeling her as someone who defies God.

Significantly, Lina Joy never applied to the Syariah Court to recognize her conversion, and instead has applied to the civil courts for marital recognition without a Syariah determination of her faith. She argues that it is not the place of any court to tell her what she believes.

Lina Joy, 42, is fearful to start a family, because any children would be designated Muslim. They could then be taken away from her because they are not raised in the Muslim faith. Further, they would potentially be evidence of adultery.

With Lina Joy’s hearing next week, Malaysia is once again at a critical point in deciding whether constitutional or Syariah will prevail, and whether it is indeed up to the state, de jure and de facto, to tell Malaysians what they believe.

Constitutionally designated as a member of Islam, with no legal ability to convert without a ruling from a Muslim court -- sounds like compulsion tome. In addition, such a ruling would still arguably leave her cildren designated as Muslims, which would mean she and her husband could not legally raise them or pass on their religion to them. Such a system certainly sounds like one which compels one to remain a Muslim -- even though we are told that there is no compuslion permitted under Islamic law.

And then there is this story from Saudi Arabia, in which the human right to practice one's religion and pass it on to one's children is denied by law.

A Catholic Indian priest was yesterday forced to leave Saudi Arabia. He was discovered by the religious police as he organized a prayer meeting in the lead-up to Easter. Arrested on 5 April, he remained in police custody for four days and on Saturday 8th April he left for India. The practice of any religion other than Islam is forbidden in Saudi Arabia. Meetings held privately in people’s homes, among friends, are also banned.

The priest, Fr George Joshua, belongs to the Malankara rite of Kerala (India). His visit to Catholic Indians in the Saudi Kingdom was planned with his bishop’s permission.

On 5 April, Fr George had just celebrated mass in a private house when seven religious policemen (muttawa) broke into the house together with two ordinary policemen. The police arrested the priest and another person.

The Saudi religious police are well known for their ruthlessness; they often torture believers of other religions who are arrested.

AsiaNews sources said there were around 400,000 Indian Catholics in Saudi Arabia who were denied pastoral care. Catholic foreigners in the country number at least one million: none of them can participate in mass while they are in Saudi Arabia. Catechism for their children – nearly 100,000 – is banned.

Often, for feasts like Easter and Christmas, Catholics plan holidays in the Emirates, Bahrain or Abu Dhabi, where at least for once, they are free to attend mass.

No right to worship. No right to teach their faith to their children. And for Muslims, no right to convert. The mere act of holding a religious service -- in private in the privacy of one's home -- is denied. At least if one is not a Muslim. Sounds like a set of regulations designed to coerce folks to accept Islam. In the land where the Koran was allegedly divinely given to Muhammad.

It's very hard, of course, for Christians to preach among the Muslims of the world. Look at the lengths that these missionaries are going to keep from offending the Muslims where they are working.

Carlos and Viviana were among five people from the Baptist University of the Americas to go on a mission trip three years ago to a West African country. The majority of the population is Muslim and includes people of Arab and African descent.

A missionary couple from Mexico who used to live in San Antonio are there permanently. The BUA declined to give their names for concern that the government would crack down on them. They also asked that the country not be identified.

The couple sends emails to friends in the U.S. in secret code. They took Muslim names. In fact, they gave all the visiting members on the mission trip Muslim names. The cross-cultural techniques have reportedly worked with about 20 converts from Islam to Christianity.

The couple entered the country, where poverty is pervasive and slavery still exists, by offering agricultural help.

Who knows what would happen to them if they dared be open about their missionary activity. Muslims kill Christian missionaries around the world every year. It is a mission field in which martyrdom remains a real possibility.

And, of course, guess who objects to Christian missionaries trying to spread their faith among the Muslims of the world? Why, the friendly folks from CAIR, who claim that Islam is compatible with religious freedom!

This approach, even if led by Latinos, still draws skepticism from some Muslims who have seen a variety of methods by Christians seeking the same objective of conversion, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group in Washington.

Men growing beards. Women wearing head coverings. Bibles placed on wooden stands like Korans. Churches built to resemble mosques.

"It's a new twist on an old approach," Hooper said. "They want to appear as Muslim as possible to kind of blur the lines."

Hooper said he doesn't believe humanitarian help from evangelical mission groups is unconditional.

"If the Bible is handed out with a sack of rice, they're going to take the sack of rice and the Bible if their kids are starving," he said. "We have no problem with someone coming to a Muslim and saying, 'I think Christianity is better.' But we object to going into a vulnerable population with a disproportionate power relationship."

Hooper should remember that Islam has historically been spread not by preaching and good works, but by the sword.

I begin to wonder if, given the actions of religious and civil authorities in majority Muslim countries and Islam's demand that it be given primacy over all other religious faiths, Islam itself should be treated like Fascism, Nazism and Communism -- as a totalitarian ideology that must be suppressed in the name of defending human rights and dignity.