Ipoh kindergarten teacher M. Indira Ghandi has kept an overnight vigil at the Ipoh Police Headquarters waiting for her year-old baby Prasana Diksa to be returned to her.
Yesterday, the Ipoh High Court granted her interim custody of her three children, Tevi Darsiny, 12, Karan Dinish 11 and Prasana Diksa; a restraining order against her husband K. Pathmanathan, who has assumed the name Mohd Redzuan Abdullah after conversion to Islam, until full custody hearing on May 12; ordered the husband to surrender Prasana to the mother and a mandamus to the police to assist Indira in the matter.
How long more will Indira have to wait and keep up the vigil at the Ipoh Police Headquarters until her baby daughter who is still being breastfed is returned to her?
Prasana was forcibly taken away from her by her father, who forcibly converted the three children to Islam without her knowledge or consent.
Although the Cabinet has taken a decision that children of divorced parents be brought up in the common religion at the time of marriage when one parent converts to another religion, Indira is still waiting for the return of Prasana Diksa.
Thursday’s Sun carried a report entitled “IAIS chief says conversion of children to Islam ‘un-Islamic’”, viz:
IAIS chief says conversion of children to Islam ‘un-Islamic’
by Tan Yi Liang
[email protected]PETALING JAYA: The conversion of children to Islam as part of divorce and custodial tussles is “un-Islamic”, says International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) founding chairman and CEO Mohammad Hashim Kamali.
“In my opinion, such ‘forced’ conversion is un-Islamic … to use Islam in order to inflict or for purposes that are not part of the spirituality or aqidah of Islam, whether it is marriage, whether it is divorce or custody and there is a tussle between the wife and husband over the children does not make sense,” said Mohammad.
“To go to the Syariah Court and claim that the child, who is two or three years old, has been converted to Islam, what does it mean? You convert a two year-old child or five-year-old to Islam, it doesn’t really make sense when you look at this phenomena from the texts and guidelines of Islam,” he said.
Mohammad said conversion to Islam was a conscious and deliberate act on the part of the individual requiring a comprehension of the decision made by the person converting.
“(Conversion to Islam) calls for a profession in your words and an affirmation in your heart. Can you expect a child of five years (to have that). Most of these ‘forced conversions’ really arise over those issues (divorce and custodial battles) and I think we need to depart from that,” he said.
“The child should grow up and be an adult, and be given the freedom to choose his or her religion. Before they reach the age of majority, any religion inflicted on the child is not really valid. A religion has to be embraced with a deliberate understanding by a competent person. Children are not competent,” added Mohammad, who called for a change to the current laws.
“… We need to add something to ensure it does not limit the freedom of the child when he or she becomes an adult.” “Islam protects non-Muslims when it comes to basic rights, and it does not differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims. It is for all,” added
Mohammad, who responded to questions after a talk on Islamic extremism by former Indonesian foreign minister Dr Alwi Abdurrahman Shihab in the IAIS centre here yesterday.
Alwi said such issues (conversions) were unknown in Indonesia.
“I do not really see any such phenomenon (forced conversions) in Indonesia today. Muslims might sometimes raise complaints over the Christian missions, but today I think we are not very concerned over forced conversions. I do not know whether there are isolated incidents but we are proud to be a nation respectful to other faiths,” he said.
Food for thought for the voices of protest against the Cabinet decision and the return of the baby daughter to Indira.
A religion is a way of life. If one does not practise what the religion teaches, what is the point? But ironies do happen in Malaysia where one fights over-enthusiastically to “protect” the good name of Islam, but himself does not follow the essence of the religion. We see many examples, but let’s not give examples. I think most of us can see with your eyes.
Dear All,
this is an extract of a report by an independent journalist which shows that the Election Commission is just PRO BN!
“The same views have been echoed by no less than the Election Commission (EC). Plus, the EC has openly supported proposals by some BN leaders such as Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir and Tan Keng Liang to prevent “unnecessary” elections. These include suggestions for stricter laws, and penalties for elected reps or their parties should an elected representative resign for reasons other than what’s stated in Article 48(1) of the Federal Constitution.”
http://www.thenutgraph.com.my/funding-democracy-the-bn-way
In Malaysia..a so call modern and developed country…Islamic faith can destroy more than cure.
Using that religion to control minds…to so call protect Muslims from evil …UMNO is actually the most evil to the Islamic religion.
They are great hypocrites and thieves.
They are not Muslims…just like Pope and Dalai Lama.. no holy men. All are playing politics with their special positions.
UMNO has no special position. They are elected…fooling one race..but not majority Malaysians.
Mohd Redzuan Abdullah should now attempt to convert his grandparents, parents, siblings, nephews, nieces and all other relatives so that he can obtain even greater pahala in his new-found religion. An award may be given to him for obtaining so many converts.
Oops, what if Mohd Redzuan Abdullah manage to find work in his ex-wife’s kindergarten and then convert all the kiddies there? This will make a Hollywood blockbuster!
How long? Probably until the baby is no longer a political football.
Um, is it time for some sort of limited-time injunction with some ‘heavy’ backing to reunite the nursing mother and breastfed child? Who is currently breastfeeding the child? The PDRM? Some of them are a bit portly, but still… I would have thought that separating a nursing mother and not-yet-weaned baby would constitute ‘cruel and unusual’ (as well as recklessly endangering the baby) by any normal definition, unless in cases where the baby is at some sort of risk from the mother.
But even so, this wouldn’t be a political matter would it? Shouldn’t it be straightforward to get a ruling from a court that nobody should come between this specific mother and this specific baby, regardless of political activity in the background?
Why is this being treated as a political matter?
Sorry off-topic
From CheDet.cc
THE BANKING SYSTEM AND THE FALSE ECONOMY
By
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
on April 25, 2009 10:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
(This is the second instalment in a series on the trends that led to the present financial crisis)
///1. Another contributor towards the per capita and GDP of the rich countries is the banking business.
2. Banks are apparently allowed to lend more money than they have, sometimes as much as ten times more. When they lend this money which they do not have, it became their asset on which interest can be earned.
3. Effectively they are creating money and earning profits from the money they have created.
4. Real businesses cannot do this. They cannot sell what they don’t have nor earn income from services they don’t provide. Doing business is therefore far less lucrative than banking. If the per capita and GDP excludes bank earnings then they should not be as high as is shown.
5. Because banks can lend more money than they have, the tendency is to lend as much as possible. In many rich countries banks offer to lend even when the clients are unable to pay.
6. If the banks lend 10 times more than the money they have then their profit must exceed the sum they would expect if they lend only the money they have from capital and deposits.
7. This extra money they earn is not real because it is “created” by the bank out of thin air. Nevertheless the profits earned from this money would be part of the banks profits and therefore the dividends for the shareholders. In the end they would contribute to the per capita income and GDP.///– TDM
The money earned by the bank either as interest or services cannot be less real than the money earned from selling APs. Except of course money gained from APs require no effort though those who paid to acquire APs might be out of earnings through blood, sweats and hard work, though there are also easy money through corruption.
The banks in Malaysia work almost exactly the same as those in other countries. Through NEP, Malays owned more of the equity capital in banks and financial institutions than those owned by other races. It has gone beyond the 30% requirement, and the government has politicised the issue of banking licenses.
Banks is said to loan to others money they do not own, but banks are as responsible for the money loaned out as if these were borrowed from other individuals. The banks have to be responsible for bad debts, and the bad debts are the cause of the financial crisis started in 2007 and continuing.
It is clear to all that the financial crisis of the west are hurting ordinary people around the world. The ordinary people would prefer that the financial crisis had not started so that they can obtain their meals, and keep their jobs. It is true that those who managed financial flows might earn more than those who are involved in producing goods and other so-called real services, but the ordinary people have not cultivated the willingness to suffer the fate now just so that the financial firms and banks in the west collapse. The only person in this world who is happy to see financial crisis is TDM who thinks that he has found a way to criticise the west. The others would have preferred that the financial system continued to work. The contraction of the world economy now shows that the supply of goods and services and the consumption thereof would not have been at the scale just before the financial collapse. The question one should ask is would the people prefer a expanded economy made possible by banks lending money they did not own, or the contracted economy where trades were conducted on barter goods-exchange without a common currency, the US dollar which allows USA some advantages over other countries?
///8. Banks also issue credit cards. The credit card holders expend far more than the money they have with the banks. The excess money is regarded by the banks as loans which may be charged a hefty interest of up to 18 per cent.
9. Since credit card holders often hold credit cards from several banks, the amount spent in excess of the money they hold with the banks would be very considerable. These bank loans from credit cards would again exceed the real money or assets of the banks.
10. The banks consider that even if some credit card holders fail to pay up, bank earnings from those who do pay would exceed the loss from non-payment.
11. The credit cards have effectively become money created by the banks. The earnings of the banks are therefore not from real money held in the form of capital or deposits. Yet the interest on loans via the credit cards would add to the profits of the banks. They would boost the share prices of the banks and contribute towards the profits of investors and eventually increasing the per capita income and the GDP of the country concerned.///–TDM
Credit card holders might be required to pay up to 18% per annum in interest but that would be much smaller than the amount demanded by loan sharks. Besides it is much more convenient to have the card facility than to ask for loans from the sharks.
The advent of credit card since four decades ago has facilitated trade and it has no doubt increased the velocity of money movement, and hence GDP growth.
Like all advancement in science, technology and facilities, the people can choose not to use them. There are people who do not trust ATM for cashing on their bank accounts. The banks are free to continue providing ATM services but they should not stop account holders cashing over the counter. Similarly, those who find credit card a problem to maintain are free not to use them.
Credit cards are issued by banks in Malaysia too. So GDP of Malaysia has also included income by the banks from credit cards transaction because the national accounts of Malaysia are compiled based on SNA 1993.
It seems that Indonesian muslims are more open- and fair minded than the Umnoputras.
It can be concluded that All the religious problems in our country are the result of Umno’s ketuanan Melayu mindset.
It will be interesting to hear what the big Dr. M (Mouth) has to say about this issue. He is conspicuously quiet on this.
These guys just do not get it. Either stupid idiots or hypocrites or both.Claiming to be experts in their religion yet contributing pretty much perverted decision and actions costing loss of respect to themselves and their own religion.Moreover they are also creating and promoting a kind of racial and religious disharmony in our mother land.Since these idiots/hypocrites egoism is so systematic and fill with selfishness and distructive action,we pray and hope NR can stop these fanatic guys and put an end once and for all , all these stupidity and hypocrisy. I think this is one of the greatest challenges and changes he should face now, make changes and be made good as soon as possible or else the One Malaysia,People first and Performance now will become a laughting stock not only in our country but the rest of the world.
YB Lim,
there is something with the law in our country.
I salute your good work in highlighting it to the people in our country.
Keep up the good work!
YB Kit,
Is anthing being done to protect Fairus? You know how this system works. Don’t let him out of your sights until the EC announces the by-election date or the next thing you see on TV will be a grim faced Fairus with a self-appointed Umno lawyer announcing he’s retracting his resignation. I hope Anwar has done something.
No fire,no smoke,right guys ! Similarly no carrot,no rabbit and when you put these saying into perspective you will find some hidden hands or masterminds behind all these conversion and resignation. For instance why K.Pathmanathan suddenly without even consulting his wife and children converted to Islam and Fairus,having made 1st.DCM plus given other goodies,yet now turned against his friends and party.In these two cases,certainly it’s pretty clear or obvious that ” no fire,no smoke and no carrot,no rabbit hold enough water,right guys ! No giver,no taker ,here again it’s pretty more define. All human beings are sinners or not prefect thus are vulnerable to temptation,thus as long as there are givers,there are takers. What an awful mess we are in guys. Well someone will say go get the MACC to clean it up,immediately Another one will say no,first clean the MACC,so it’s a kind of flip flop,head first or tail first struggling.Hence guys you see we the rakyat presently are facing this dilemma,going round and round the murky bush without see any light at the end of the tunnel for more than half a century.What’s going on guys, are we still in “BolehLand ” .Are we the modern “Peter Pan ” Who never grows old living in a fantastic NEVER NEVER LAND ?.The ways these Umno/BN top leaders are leading us now, PETER PAN will be PETER PAN and we will live forever and ever in the NEVER NEVER LAND.On the other hand,some one among us should take the initiative to lead us out of this dream land and live a normal life.This some one should be the voters/rakyat and come the 13th GE,together we just take one effort to vote for PR ,so that we can leave this Umno/BN dream land once and for all.
How can such conversion be constitutionally valid when the conversion is obtained by stealth or force, and against the rights of the unconverting spouse.
How can the fact of Islam being the “religion of the federation” be interpreted to give such an unfair result against universal principles of justice.
The “parent or guardian” who can convert a child to Islam or any other religions surely must do so with the consent of the other spouse, if that spouse has capacity, e.g. not insane, deceased, etc.
The learned Mohammad Hashim is absolutely right. I believe, in addition, that the cabinet decision must swiftly be given legislative force. Alternatively, the Federal Court should take whatever opportunity it gets to declare that its previous decisions on the matter was decided wrongly.
Buck up Malaysia!
I like CEO Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s position. He argues: “religion has to be embraced with a deliberate understanding by a competent person. “Conversion to Islam was a conscious and deliberate act. Children are not competent. Can you expect a child of five years (to have that)?”
Then there is the opposite argument of Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (JAKIM)’s director-general, Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz. who argues : (1) Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 provided that a child who has not attained the age of 18 years may convert to Islam if his parent or guardian consented to his conversion.; (2) even by “secular” Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian. Wan Mohamad then argued further – “Based on this provision, the consent of just one party is sufficient in determining the religion of a child because the word used in Section 95 & Article 12(4) is ‘parent or guardian’ not ‘parents or guardian’ which means either ‘mother or father or guardian.” – Page 6 NST 25th April.
JAKIM’s argument that “parent” is singular (as in without “s”) and therefore the convert father could under Section 95/Article 12(4) of constitution alone and unilaterally decide child’s religion over the other’s objection will encounter one major problem, that is to say, in any interpretation of law – whether that be Section 95 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 or article 12(4) of Federal Constitution – a singular “parent” (without “s”) may include in appropriate context two parents, as under the Interpretation Act, words importing the singular number shall include the plural and vice versa.
This is complicated by such a problem not being confined to Islamic/Syariah law but extended to secular and civil law as well. For example, whether the word “parent” (without “s”) means, in law, singular or encompasses collectively both, it does not solve the conundrum even in civil/secular law of how to resolve the situation if, for one reason or another, rare though this may be, the spouses do not agree and are in conflict on which religion their child should be raised under. If the Husband wants the child raised a Buddhist or Hindu, whilst the Wife would prefer him raised a Christian or atheist, which parent’s view should prevail – father or mother in a conflict – in the light of gender equality as promised by article 8 of our Constitution???
Another problem, taking CEO Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s “enlightened” argument – If “religion (and conversion) has to be embraced with a deliberate understanding by a competent person, and children are just not competent in thses respects, then wouldn’t it be unfair, and a violation of human rights of the child if article 12(4) of Constitution permits a parent or both parents to decide the religion of their child under the age of 18 – the word “to decide” could be interpreted as foisting upon the young children their parents’ religion, subjecting the children to undue influence of parents to follow their religion of choice? So in what way is CEO Mohammad Hashim Kamali’s enlightened argument based on criteria of child’s competence to decide for himself reconcilable with article 12(4) of our Federal Constitution? If on the other hand article 12(4) is not wrong, then could Hashim Kamali’s argument (irreconcilable with it) be right or enlightened?
Another difficult poser comes from Perak mufti Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria who said “In Islam, when the father or mother is a Muslim, the child automatically becomes Muslim unless the child is above 15 years old and can choose his own religion….” Now the government says that they could amend the secular civil law (Marriage Law Reform Act) to annul (make void) the civil marriage if one spouse converts to Islam. However although marital union may be dissolved by conversion, status that one is biological and legal parent does not dissolve, and cannot be annulled. So how does one resolve this – if the father or mother is or converts to a Muslim, the child “automatically” becomes a Muslim?
Jeffrey, if the father or mother is or converts to a muslim,the child “automatically ” becomes a muslim. Have you ask mufti Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria,who made this rule ?. Allah instructed or man made. Can we argue we cannot accept man made rule except Allah’s one ?.
So how does one resolve this
Drop references to religion from the Constitution and from Malaysians’ identity documents. It’s a personal matter. What expectation can anybody have of fair and practical man-made law governing superstition? It’s a ridiculous proposition.
If there had been no ‘leakage’ of competing lifestyle choices into Malaysian law, this would be a non-issue. The father would have been guilty of something easier to legislate for. Is there a nation where the government automatically assigns its people to in-breeding group and place of worship where those laws actually work? The prospect defies my imagination, but I suppose I could be a dimwit.
Did you want a useful answer? I haven’t got one, though I have observed in the past that in Manchester, when one becomes a City supporter, so does one’s children. Friends in the UK who have similar heritage to me, and who also never go into a church unless it had been converted into a pub, often joke that “the Pope knows where we live”. Our parents’ generation had views regarding inevitability of denomination very similar to those expressed in Malaysia today.
I must remember to ask, next time I’m in Seremban, if I’m in any danger of becoming a Chinese Christian. I suppose it might please my wife…
Frankyapp asked in posting at 00:01.30, “Have you ask mufti Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria, who made this rule ?”
The a priori question to that is, who are we – what stature do we have- to question a Mufti on such ba rule when a mufti by definition is a Muslim scholar/expert whose extensive knowledge of the faith supposedly enables him to interpret the Almighty’s injunctions better than rest of us? Could we argue logic in matters and issues of faith as CEO Mohammad Hashim Kamali did?
If logic applies what about the case of 44th and current president of the United States?
Mr Barack Obama’s biological father [Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya] was not just (according to his description) “black as pitch” but a Muslim though his “white as milk” mother Stanley Ann Dunham was (mainly) of English descent from Wichita, Kansas, and a Christian.
Following Mufti Harussani Zakaria’s thinking – ie if the father or mother is or converts to a Muslim, the child “automatically” becomes a Muslim- then Barack Obama, the 44th and current president of USA must be a Muslim since a child!
Barack Obama’s parents separated and divorced in 1964 when he was two years old, and after the divorce, his mother Dunham married Indonesian student Lolo Soetoro, a Muslim. Obama’s school registration papers as a child in Indonesia showed him listed as a “Muslim”. Investigation by Associated Press ion 2007 showed Obama was registered under the name Barry Soetoro by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro and the school card listed Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian, and his religion was listed as Muslim.
Obama now goes to Church. He said he joined Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago two decades ago while working as a community organizer.
Still, in line with Mufti Harussani Zakaria’s thinking, Obama was and must have been a Muslim since childhood based on biological or step father’s faith buttressed what was stated in his school card.
Now that he goes to Church, does that mean that the world’s muftis – or even Osama bin Laden – could legally according to Sharia declare Barack Obama a murtad / apostate? And that as some quarters believe that the traditional Islamic law prescribes the penalty of death for a Muslim who commits apostasy, could radical scholars (backed by US enemy Osama bin laden) now pronounce the death sentence on Barack for apostasy exactly as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a Shi’a Muslim scholar, did, when he issued a fatwa calling for the death of the renowned British Indian novelist and essayist, Salman Rushdie (now knighted Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie) for writing/publishing his famous novel “ The Satanic Verses “ in 1988, which many Muslims found offensive and sacrilegious? Food for thought!
Man : Now that I have been accepted , and my wish has come true
can i make another wish o mighty
o mighty : I can grant you your wish, but on condition that you vow to help others to join us
Man: no problem o mighty…..(pondering…this is like direct selling..peptalk…i get my family members to join first lah)
o mighty: (pondering…what does this bum thinl i am…i know everything..) And what is your wish ….?
Man:( pondering…. taxi license got already, house and car got already…ic got already…hmmm .)
O mighty I wish i have another wife and lots of children the i can get them to join lah.
O mighty: good idea…why did i think of that…I might nominate you for Nobel prize.
Good luck you still have to get consent from your mother…if you remember who she was?
Hey Jeffrey,I appreciate your answer but you still didn’t answer my original question ie ” if the father or mother is or converts to a muslim the child automatically becomes a muslim “. You said a Mufti is an expert in islamic laws,thus could not be challenge and I say that’s absurd.No man on earth be he mighty,powerful,rich and expert in any faculty could not be challenged . It’s just your attitude that fails you .You sited president Barack Obama becoming an apostate after his conversion to christianity and has been challenged by Ayatollah Rihollah Khomeini and he also pronounced his {Obama} death sentence .Now I like to ask you ,this Ayatollah,in the first place who gave him the authority and the right to challenge and pronounce death sentence on President Barack Obama ?.If he can challenge others,how come,others cannot challenge him or any the like of him. Moreover who is he to be judgemental on President Barack Obama and Sir Ahmed Salam Rushide and also who gave him the authoriity to pronounce death sentence on these two guys ?.From an islamic point of view “,no other god or human EXCEPT ALLAH ” can judge his own creation. In this case can we not challenge the Mufti and the Ayatollah that their action contradicted ALLAH’S ORDER OR COMMAND ?.
“…can we not challenge the Mufti and the Ayatollah that their action contradicted ALLAH’S ORDER OR COMMAND?…” – frankyapp asked in posting at 18: 34.12.
Hey frank, good point, but who is “we” in your question? You’re talking of yourself who could challenge Mufti & Ayatollah on what is Allah’s order or command?
It is certainly not going to me. I hold no special claims or qualifications to be able to challenge/contadict Mufti Harussani Zakaria’s or Islamic cleric Ayatollah Khomeini’s thinking on sharia issues.
Shucks man, I have to agree with your better judgment that – “it’s just your attitude that fails you…”
I must change my attitude.
Hey Jeffrey,sorry meant no harm. I really appreciate your answer.The “WE” is not you and me ,but for anyone who has great knowledge of Islam,be he or she a muslim or non-muslim.The point I wanted to emphasise is unless our Mufti Harusani Zakaria and Ayatollah Khomeini claim that they are the only two muslims on earth who have the highest knowledge of Islam ,and the whole world,islamic,western and others accepted their claim,then I would agree the “WE” could not challenge them.
Publish his photo…May be the Public can trace the Child faster than Pdrm…Pdrm his busy jaga VVIP & handling C4