The Cabinet tomorrow should give serious attention to the week-long special prayers by non-Muslim religions, retrieve the memorandum by nine of ten non-Muslim Ministers in January last year and place on top of its agenda the rising anxieties and fears of non-Muslim Malaysians about their religious rights and sensitivities.
It is a cry of despair and desperation when the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) has to resort to the special prayers campaign to press their plight over their anxieties and fears over growing encroachments of religious freedoms and rights in plural Malaysia, although freedom of religion is entrenched in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.
It is also a signal that more and more Malaysians are losing hope and confidence in the ability of the courts to play its role as the bulwark of the constitutional freedoms and liberties of Malaysians entrenched in the Constitution.
This is why the MCCBCHST, almost giving up hope in human intervention in the name of justice, fair play and the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion, is forced to the last resort, in the words of the MCCBCHST president Chee Peck Kiat, of seeking “divine help to to impress upon the leaders of the government and judiciary to uphold the Federal Constitution”.
Chee said: “The only resolution I can think of to the issue is (engaging in) prayers so that the leadership and the judges will be more enlightened (and be moved by their) moral conscience to interpret the Constitution in accordance to what is in it rather than interpreting it according to (their religious beliefs).”
All the Cabinet Ministers should feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves that they have driven the MCCBCHST to seek “divine help” instead of “human intervention” in order to resolve the worsening constitutional crisis over freedom of religion, because of their indifference, neglect or sheer cowardice from addressing and resolving the issues involved.
The latest is the furore over the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of a bid by a Hindu woman, R Subashini, to stop her recently-converted husband Muhammad Shafi from bringing divorce proceedings to the Syariah Court. The Court of Appeal also held that Shafi could apply to the Islamic court to convert his under-aged children without permission from the non-Muslim spouse.
During the height of the M. Moorthy controversy in January last year, nine of the ten non-Muslim ministers submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister asking for a just resolution to the controversy in accord with the Merdeka social contract reached by the forefathers of the major communities during the founding of the nation.
There is no conflict and tension between Muslims and non-Muslims or Malays and non-Malays, as the issue at stake is about the question of justice — the restoration of the pre-1988 position of the constitutional rights of the non-Muslim Malaysians and the supremacy of the Constitution as the supreme law in the country.
Before the 1988 constitutional amendment on Article 121(1A), if the question was asked whether the rights and interests of non-Muslims could be adversely affected by Syariah law and courts, the answer would be a definitive and indisputable “no” by all quarters, whether Muslims and non-Muslims. However, with the approach of half-century of nationhood, and after the 1988 Constitutional amendment of Article 121(1A), such an answer cannot be given.
This is the nub of the issue – to restore to non-Muslim Malaysians their constitutional right not to be adversely affected by Syariah law and courts by maintaining their right to remedy in the civil courts – a cardinal principle of the “social contract” on which this nation was founded in 1957.
If the Cabinet Ministers continue to shut out the rising concerns of non-Muslims about their constitutional rights and sensitivities, including the ongoing week-long special prayers campaign, they are doing a grave disservice to the country particularly on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of national independence.
Separation of State and religion is crucial in a secular country to maintain law and order.
Many Muslims believed their duty is first to God and other matters are secondary.
Tun Mahathir was the first to declare that Malaysia is an Islamic nation out of political expediency…just shows this man has no character. This has emboldened the Islamists and skewed their senses and interpretative faculties.
We are now paying the price for all the foolhardiness of the previous and the present Administrations.
MACHAP is significant too for the signals that it will send to the rest of the country that we want moderation, secularism and egalitarianism. Therefore, BN must be sent packing!
What choice do we non-Muslims have? The prime minister is not our side, the non-Malay ministers are not on our side, the judiciary is not on our side, and as such, we can only turn to GOD for divine intervention. Yes it is a cry of despair and desperation that we have to do this, and hopefully our prayers will be answered. It is so sad that the government we have elected to protect us is now “persecuting” us in more ways than we can imagine. Sad, really sad.
when it comes to local/by/general-elections, the BN cowards (MCA, MIC, etc) speaks up for their political master (UMNO)
but when these major issues that affect the very fundamental and constitutional rights of malaysians, they are no-where to be seen or heard
their bias and cowardice is especially shameful based on recent events – justice for non-muslims, illegal mansions, influencing customs, intimidating residents, interfering with town planning…
when will malaysians wake up?!!
i wont b praying for them to hav a change of heart or actually become better because of their conscience. That would be much too stressful, tedius and hard work even for GOD. Juz asking GOD to cut them out of the living world and paste them in hell would be easier. Just a simple CTRL+X and CTRL+V and the whole of bodoh-land wont be so bodoh anymore.
We should pray for a new, just, and competent government. I hope and pray that the people of Machap realize the massive corruption and damage that BN has done, and will continue to do, to Malaysia, and vote them out. BN is like a rotten tree that must be uprooted and thrown into the fire.
Goddamn it!
The Chinese don’t care about this issue. They will not vote on the issue of religious freedom as it does not affect their daily lives. Those who converted and became Muslims do so at their peril. They deserve the treatment they are getting. What the Chinese find more relevant is how policies affect their economic livelihood.
Religious freedom for the Chinese is a non-issue in the coming elections. It is not the kind of issue that can sway votes. But you can exploit it as an example of how the BN rules with complete disregard for the minorities. Everybody knows that Malaysia can never be an Islamic state (despite the rhetoric) in the way Iran or Pakistan is because of its large minorities who have a firm hold over the economy.
You’re not going to focus on the issue of religious freedom of the Malays, are you?? Because you will then be opening a can of worms. There are Malay voters who will vote for the Opposition – not caring whether it is the PKR, PAS or the DAP. Many of these would be protest votes. So be very careful about this religious freedom thing – unless you want to place the DAP on the proverbial slippery slope.
“There is no conflict and tension between Muslims and non-Muslims or Malays and non-Malays, as the issue at stake is about the question of justice – the restoration of the pre-1988 position of the constitutional rights of the non-Muslim Malaysians and the supremacy of the Constitution as the supreme law in the country.â€Â
Who says there is no conflict??
Why do you think Islam is the official religion and not Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism? Why do you think to proselytize the Malays and Muslims is an offence under the constitution? When religion is the issue it is always a zero sum game. Everybody knows that.
We want to convert as many non-Malays and non-Muslims to Muslims. That is the duty of everybody who calls himself or herself a Muslim. For those who have converted, they must not be allowed to even think of a reverse conversion.
Mahathir merely expressed the mood of this Muslim nation when he ‘declared’ Malaysia to be an Islamic state.
The way to fight this would be to use the Quran. Go back to the Quran, and point out that what is shown to be Syariah Law, goes against what is mentioned in the Quran. That would be the way to win this. Any lawyer who has the Quran and has knowledge of Syariah Law should be able to take this up. What many Malays Muslims practise and believe is not as per what is in the Quran. This may come as a surtprise to many Malays.
I quote again from Syad Akbar Ali’s book, Malaysia and the Club of Doom.
Every verse in the Quran should be made a pearl of wisdom for the Muslims which will easily make them successful in this life and the next. Here is just a simple example. The Quran says,
“O you who believe! When it is said to you, Make room in (your) assemblies, then make ample room. Allah will give you room. And when it is said: Rise up, then rise up. Allah will exalt those of you who believe, and those who are given knowledge, in high degrees: and Allah is Aware of what you do” – Surah 58:11
This is a simple verse from the Quran. No need for rocket science here to understand the meaning of this verse. It is also social etiquette. If you are in a crowded place, make room for everyone. Meaning everyone deserves a space to park himself. If you are in a country and you have a place to park yourself, then make sure everyone else has a place too. Be fair and make a space for everyone. Do not take things all for yourself and deny others their spot. This applies to all human beings.
COMING SOON:Month-long Special prayers by Muslims to uphold the divine right.
Mufti, Tok Kadi, Iman, Ustaz,Ustazah, Mullah are planning to have a month-long real special prayers to uphold the supremacy of syariah court in Bolehland.
Why so big deal about week-long prayers? If we want we can have year-long or even century-long prayers, anyway we are paid by taxpayers to be full time professional prayer.
For the life of me, I don’t know why critics don’t argue that this debate is a fudamental issue of what kind of people and nation we are. Its not about faith, religion or god.
Secularity is about a nation taking responsibilities for who we are and what we do. To walk away from it is to walk away from responsibilities and accountability. To look to others and fear instead of ourselves, courage and the truth for whatever the outcome.
Our move away from secularity is a give in to weakness and dependency. Our fear of our own weakness and flaws and ugliness that we cannot face and own up to.
The fact we allow the pretense that its about religion and faith further makes us all much less in the eyes of those stronger and courageous.
“Go…point out that what is shown to be Syariah Law… That would be the way to win this. Any lawyer who has the Quran and has knowledge of Syariah Law should be able to take this up. What many Malays Muslims practise and believe is not as per what is in the Quran. This may come as a surtprise to many Malays.”
Sure. This would be political suicide for the DAP.
You are asking a non-Malay and non_Muslim tell the Muslims what they should and should not believe as Muslims, that they are wrong in their interpretation of the Koran! Are you serious??
To hear the Ustaz and Imams speak, dogs would be considered as filthy or najis for muslims. But where does this belief come from? Nowhere does it mention in the Quran that the dog is a dirty animal. On the contrary, what the Quran does say is and again I quote from Syed Akbar Ali’s book:-
[Surah 6:38] And there is not a single animal that walks the earth and not a single bird that flies with wings except they are communities (ummah) just like you. We have not left anything out of this Book. And in the end they will all be returned to their Lord.
So the Quran is quite clear. Animals are communities(ummah) just like human beings. And the Quran does not say that a dog is inferior to a cat or an elephant.
To complicate matters more, The Quran Surah 5:4 talks about hunting with dogs.
[Surah 5:4] They ask you what is halal for them? Say, “Halal for you are all things that are good for you and those that are caught for you by the dogs. You have trained them according to what God has taught you therefore you are to eat from what they have caught for you and mention God’s name upon it and surrender unto God. Surely God is quick to account over all thingsâ€Â.
Hence what the dogs catch for muslims to eat is halal. The Quran says that we train the dogs to hunt in accordance to what God has taught us. It is God that has given us intelligence to train the dogs. To train the dogs it is necessary that we keep them, feed them, bathe them, treat their wounds and diseases and so on.
Unquote
So where and when did the dog become najis? It is not according to the Quran. Hence I say, challenge the syariah law using the basis within Quran itself. It will expose the many weaknesses of the syariah law.
You have to use Malay lawyers to do so, for the good of the ummah……not politicians! Religion should not mix with politics. Religion has caused the downfall of many empires in history.
This is not a positive development in our country. Seeking divine intervention is last resort as far as i know. What I worry is, if the divine didn’t intervene at last, what is going to happen to us?
Don’t expect anything from the “9 ministers†as they have sold their soul to the devil UMNO! They don’t have the guts and kahunas to speak out for their own communities anymore. They have their tails between their legs and scamper for their lives the moment UMNO bangs the table on them. Cowards and men of no principle!
I’m not too sure MCCBCHST’s initiative to hold a prayer for the government to be moved by ‘moral conscience’ is such a good idea. For one thing, if our government may be moved by ‘moral conscience’ we won’t have the problems that the country and minorities are presently facing, will we? If the government premised on Malay Muslim dominance would not bow to 10 non-Muslim Ministers within its old fold in January last year on the issue of Article 121(1)A, what are the chances that it will relent to pressure from non malay/muslim pressure group like MCCBCHST, no matter couched under the pretext of prayers? The problems created by Court of appeal’s decision on R. Subashini v T. Saravanan and earlier spate of judicial decisions like, for examples Rayappan’s and M Moorthy’s involving Article 121(1)A and Article 11 of the Federal Constitution are best resolved by reasons based on appeal on secular non religious legal and constitutional reasons and not appeal to “divine help†. MCCBCHST said that the prayer sessions by over this week will coincide with the Christian Holy Week, the Hindu and Tamil New Year, and Cheng Beng (Chinese’s All Souls Day) implying what is desperately sought is not just ‘divine help’ but help from the departed souls from the nether regions as well! Precisely because we’re multi-religious society, we require secular criteria to be arbiter. Otherwise you may ask what happens, if in response to MCCBCHST’s initiative, devout muslims also congregate to pray nationwide for the decision of R. Subashini v T. Saravanan, Anthony Rayappan’s and M Moorthy’s to stand! Do you think the government would like to be seen going against malay/muslims’ interest and agenda? So lets keep religion out of the equation.
I think it is unrealistic to think there is any political will to repeal or amend Article 121(1)A and revert to the position prior to the 1988 constitutional amendment introducing Article 121(1)A.
Article 121(1A), in a nutshell, states that the civil High Courts have no jurisdiction in matters within the Syariah courts’ jurisdiction.
One can look at Article 121(1A) as being nothing wrong except that it has, so far, been misinterpreted by the Court of Appeal that theoretically the Federal Court can reverse.
[The problem would appear to lie in getting judges who are more objective and not swayed by emotions. On 1st page of The Sun March 29th, Minister in Prime Minister’s Department, Tan Sri Bernard Dompok was reported to have made a general statement ‘without referring to specific cases’ that some judges had allowed their “personal sentiment†to cloud their judgment, when asked to comment on the Court of Appeal’s rejection by 2-1 majority of Subashini’s application. Perhaps the solution, in longer term, lies in having the Judicial Commission to help the process of judges’ appointment].
If and when the Federal Court is called upon to make a judicial determination on this important article – 121(1)A, its implications and ramifications – which it will do so after a measure of prevailing public opinion, mood and of course the political nuances, then only will the Non Muslim position be stamped with legal finality for us to know where we stand in relation to our constitutional rights, and whether there is justice, and logic, from Malaysian apex courts .
The Federal Court will have to look at the issues objectively from several angles.
Firstly, if Article 121(1A) was intended to separate and avoid the confusion of mixing the two streams of law – Syariah applicable to Muslims from secular civil law applicable to non Muslims and states that the Civil High Courts have no jurisdiction in matters within the Syariah courts’ jurisdiction, then the converse is equally tenable that Syariah courts have no jurisdiction in matters within the Civil High Courts’ jurisdiction and over non muslims. [Our Federal Constitution clearly limits the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court to “persons professing the religion of Islam†– see Sch. 9, List 2 (1), Federal Constitution].
This much is clear.
The problem however arises in conversion cases in which one side wants the application of Syariah law to the convert and the other the civil law for the non muslim, to which the issue becomes at once clouded when lobby groups come to the scene to press for supremacy of their preferred system of law in a perceived conflict situation.
The fact is Article 121(A)(1) merely demarcates the two systems of laws without touching on the sensitive issue of which is paramount in a conflict between them.
My personal view is that in an unavoidable conflict, the Federal Constitution has to be the supreme basic law that prevails in a conflict and since the Federal Constitution is secular – though there may be some who argue otherwise – then Civil law will logically have to prevail in such a conflict.
The other fact is that we do not really have to be brought to this point to decide and say the obvious as to which stream of law, in an unavoidable conflict, is more supreme (since this touches on religious sensitivities and we Malaysians are supposed to be mindful of each others sensitivities).
There is an earlier question: is there really a conflict?
There was no conflict in Anthony Rayappan’s case; his body was returned to his wife and family for Christian burial when the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) withdrew its claim over his body for Muslim burial in the wake of the position taken by the PM/cabinet (extra- judicially) that Rayappan had gone back to his original faith as a Catholic, and as such should be allowed to remain a Christian on death.
We cannot say that the government and the cabinet are not sympathetic to see justice done but apparently for political reasons it can’t mitigate the rucks in the misadministration of justice if the issue is politicized!
Take the other latest case of R. Subashini v T. Saravanan that generated the latest furor requiring MCCBCHST’s prayers for divine intervention.
Is there really a conflict of two separate streams of laws?
Subshini, 28, a secretary and Ti Saravanan, 30, a businessman were married in 2001 under civil law – Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 – and have two sons, aged 1 and 3. The husband, now Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, embraced Islam in May 2006. He has sought to dissolve his civil marriage at the Syariah Court. He has also sought to obtain custody of their 3-year old son whom he claims also converted to Islam. Subshini resists his intentions. The Court of Appeal decided 2-1 majority (with Justice Gopal Sri Ram dissenting) in favour of the estranged husband, and the wife now appeals against that.
In his judgement, Majority Justice Suriyadi Halim Omar said it “made no sense” for Subshini to argue that the syariah court was only for Muslims according to the constitution. In a dissenting minority decision, Justice Gopal Sri Ram said the Shariah court only had jurisdiction where all parties were Muslim.
Justice Gopal Sri Ram is right – if one implicitly assumes, as I said, that the Constitution is supreme and secular and should prevail but this is unacceptable to some quarters pushing the agenda the opposite way. They would say why should a Muslim, albeit convert, like now Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah, be made to subject to Civil law when he had already converted and his muslim status unlike Anthony Rayappan is not in doubt? To make him so subject (due to a conflict of laws) is to imply the inferior status of Syariah as compared to a civil law like Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976. This is unacceptable especially when nowhere in Federal Constitution is it expressly stated that in a conflict, Syariah Law is the inferior of the two. This does not make sense because the laws of the Almighty cannot be inferior to man made civil laws. This is the thrust of the contention.
Now the whole question of which law is superior or inferior really does not arise because logic dictates that the main question is by which law the parties Subshini and Saravanan first contracted and structured their marital and familial relationship.
If it was Syariah law then it is that all the way; if it was the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 (as is the case) then it would be civil law all the way. It is not because civil law is superior to syariah law – that is something that need not be determined for purposes of deciding this case – it is because: a party having entered into certain arrangements like marriage under civil law should not be allowed to circumvent, renege on and evade their solemn legal commitments and obligations in a manner that seriously prejudices the other party that has relied on these commitments and obligations originally undertaken to structure their relations and lives together by the simple expedience of changing midstream, the very stream of law that alters these commitments and obligations.
One cannot stop a man from converting, it is his right but one should be able to stop him from converting the children in whom both have legitimate joint interest in the premises of civil law upon which the union was first sanctified. How could any non-Muslim woman feel secure in marrying and having children with another non muslim husband Law under the monogamous regime of the Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 when her husband could potentially threaten to convert and thus take another take her children away? It does not take a rocket scientist to know that this is unjust and lead to anomalous results.
To allow such a thing to happen is an invitation to chaos and defeat the very purpose of law itself, never mind whether it is civil law or even syariah. Just imagine 2 muslims marry under syariah law and midstream, the wife becomes an apostate and wants to influence the children to be apostate like her or be subject to Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976 to stop the husband from taking another wife that syariah permits. Does this make sense – can this be allowed?
Our Federal Court should take heed that this has nothing to do with the sensitive issue of which system of law – civil or syariah – is superior : just which system of law was the first upon which mutual commitments and obligations were sanctioned and sealed on which a party is entitled to rely as frame of reference without a unilateral change of the entire regime of law by the other party to the first party’s extreme prejudice.
There is no lack of malay intellectuals who do know the errors of the syariah. To quote another:- Prof Dr Syed Hussein Alatas in his work, “The Philosophy of Islamic Law†states and I quote again from Syed Akbar Ali’s book:-
There are many strange and illogical ideas in these books of fiqh (jurisprudence) which have influenced the Syariah laws in the Islamic countries until today. One of them is that the minimum term of pregnancy for a woman is six months whereas the longest term of pregnancy is four years (Ummat al-Salik, Book of Divorce, Section on Iddah).
On both counts this is not true. The Guiness Book of World Records gives 5 months and 2 weeks as the most premature baby.
But a 4 year or even a 24 month pregnancy is nonsensical. These are some of the examples of the illogical ideas which are carried in the old theology books which many regard as though they are written in stone.
Professor Alatas points out that based on these strange beliefs the Syafie School of Jurisprudence (which is incorporated into the Syariah Laws of the Syafie sect) says that a new widow should wait a minimum of four years to completely remove any doubt of pregnancy before she remarries. The Hanafi school of Fiqh says the period for the widow’s waiting shall be two years whereas the Maliki School of Fiqh says the widow should wait a longer term of five years. Is it any wonder then that despite the passage of over 1000 years, there is no recorded history of any Islamic country ever implementing a full fledged system of Syariah Laws anywhere in the world? There is none. There are so many divergent opinions among them.
Today in Malaysia if a muslim does not subscribe to the religious sect of Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah he can be sent to jail. For example, if you are a Syiah, you can be sent to jail. In Syiah majority countries like Iran (and now Iraq) the opposite happens, i.e the Ahlul Sunnah Wal Jamaah minority can be persecuted. Yet both of them will meet to perform the pilgrimage in Mecca, eat each others food as halal, greet each other and recite from the same Quran.
“To hear the Ustaz and Imams speak, dogs would be considered as filthy or najis for muslims.” lakshy
Forget them dogs! What about them pigs??
The definition of ‘unclean’ animals is given in the Koran as well as the Bible and the Torah – and they include pigs, though they are not limited to pigs.
What about them filthy pigs who eat filth?? What does the Koran say? What does the Old Testament and the Torah say about them dirty pigs? What about those who eat pigs??
“This is unacceptable especially when nowhere in Federal Constitution is it expressly stated that in a conflict, Syariah Law is the inferior of the two. This does not make sense because the laws of the Almighty cannot be inferior to man made civil laws. This is the thrust of the contention.” lakshy
Yes. Malaysia is an Islamic state. It says so in the Constitution – well almost. What’s all this splitting of hairs??
In the event of a conflict between civil and shariah law, the latter prevails otherwise it makes nonsense of the Constitution which clearly states that the official religion of the federation is Islam. Article 121(A) whatever is just a logical extension of that article.
So all these converts who decide to be Muslims perhaps to take advantage of privileges that come with being Muslims let them beware! You don’t use religion in that way.
“My personal view is that in an unavoidable conflict, the Federal Constitution has to be the supreme basic law that prevails in a conflict and since the Federal Constitution is secular – though there may be some who argue otherwise – then Civil law will logically have to prevail in such a conflict.” Jeff
The Federal Constitution of 1957 is not secular. Why is it not secular? Because it says the religion of the federation is Islam – to begin with.
I think DAP should raise this issue of religious freedom in the Machap by-election.This is fundamental and basic not only to non-Muslims but to all human beings! That is, all of us have the right to seek justice in the court of law!
For the non-Muslims under the Constitution, the Civil Court is the Court.To force non-Muslims to go to Sharia Court is not only grossly unjust but plainly illegal and unconstitutional.
If MCA, MIC and other BN parties allow this grave situation to persist and force non-Muslim religious bodies to seek divine help,then it is the duty of DAP and perhaps Keadilan to inform the non-Muslims that to vote for BN is to give BN their signal to continue to strip them of their basic religious freedom.
This issue must be raised and aired widely otherwise BN will not lift a finger to resolve it and what is equally important is to expose the non-Muslim parties in the BN that they cannot be trusted at all to protect the basic right of non-Muslims.
There will never ever be an amendment to Art. 121(1A). You just have to deal with it.
The Quran ‘sanctions’ four kinds of food only – which is a very short list – 1. running blood, 2. animals found dead, 3. the meat of ‘khinzir’ and 4. food on which is mentioned other than God’s name. This is in Chapter 5 verse no. 4 of the Quran. ‘Khinzir’ is understood to be pig.
The Orthodox Jews also avoid pork and products.
But that is not my point DiaperHead.
“You have to use Malay lawyers to do so, for the good of the ummah……not politicians! Religion should not mix with politics. Religion has caused the downfall of many empires in history.” lakshy
Religion should not mix with politics. Too bad our constitution says Islam is the religion of the federation.
And in Islam politics, economics etc and religion are one and the same. Under Islamic jurisprudence you’d be hard pressed to present a different case than that! Islam is more than just a religion in the sense Christianity is. It is all encompassing. It is a way of life.
The issue of politicizing Islam just does not arise.
Yes. What is your point, lakshy??
Hmmmmm….I wonder then why they pick and chose what laws to apply here in malaysia. I remember studying that if someone steals, then the offending hand be chopped off.
In cases of adultery….I believe stoning to death is the punishment …..still meted out in certain muslim countries.
And pray tell, why not in Malaysia?
“The Orthodox Jews also avoid pork and products.” lakshy
Jews don’t just avoid pork. They do not consume pork because according to the Torah, the first five chapters of the Old Testament and Muslims believe in the same Old Testament, pigs are regarded along with some other animals as unclean.
Furthermore, for it to be kosher (or halal) food must be prepared in the manner prescribed in the Old Testament.
To use the Quran to show where the Syariah Laws are improperly being applied. Go back to basics.
“In cases of adultery….I believe stoning to death is the punishment …..still meted out in certain muslim countries.” lakshy
Simple. Because if they were to do that we will be left without a Cabinet to run the government. The entire UMNO leadership would disappear overnight, leaving the country with just their bags – seeking political asylum in western countries.
Goddamn it, you two diaper heads!
If there is a God there is a Devil – and nowhere is it more evident than in a religion that encourages you to kill themselves in return for 72 virgins waiting at Heaven’s gate!
Among other things “the Islamic Family Law (FT) (Amendment) Bill 2005 (IFL 2005) allows a man to apply for the matrimonial home to be sold and the proceeds divided. Under the new Section 107A of the IFL 2005, a husband is allowed to obtain an injunction preventing the disposition of the property bya wife or a former wife. The law is seen as making it easier for men to engage in polygamy and divorce. This bill was passed even though there were objections to it. Finally when she made an about turn and supported the bill, she said ‘sometimes we have to take one step backwards in order to make ten steps forward”. Then the PM stepped in to say that the new bill would not be implemented.
What I am trying to say is that the laws can be challenged. They are not carved in stone.
What the Quran says in Surah 4:34 is
“The men are given charge over the women because God has given them some advantages and because the men have to provide from their wealth…”
[Surah 2.229] Divorce may be twice, then keep them in good fellowship or let 9them) go with kindness; and it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep withion the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up. These are the limits of allah, so do not exceed them and whoever exceeds the limits of Allah these it is that are the unjust.
The verse above states that in the case of divorce a man cannot take anything from what he himself has given to his wife. It goes without saying that teh man also cannot take assets which do not belong to him, i.e assets derived from her won income.
The Quran here preserves the women’s rights during divorce.
It looks like the ruling Barisan Nasional government wants a kind of Malaysia that is scientific and at the same time islamic. What do Muslims think of non Muslims ? Do they think that non Muslims have a right to choose what they believe in ? Do they think that it is their duty to force everyone to accept islam as their personal religious salvation ? Malaysians of various religions have been praying for this Barisan Nasional government ever since it existed. They pray for the Prime Minister, they pray for each and every minister, they even pray for the opposition, they pray for everything that matters to Malaysia. In another words, they wish the best for their country. Don’t they get any consideration or kind acts in return ? There is nothing too hard for God or whatever you choose to call; the force, the higher presence and others. But because of our sense of insecurity, we need to seek reassurance. The Prime Minister uses the word ” sayang “. If there is ” sayang “, there should not be any threat in whatever form. To believe in a religion or to believe in anything takes conviction. I wonder if a muslim loves to see someone embracing islam just to access to all the privileges of a muslim and not because islam is truth to him her.
“The Federal Constitution of 1957 is not secular. Why is it not secular? Because it says the religion of the federation is Islam – to begin with†– Diaperhead.
Well the Federal Constitution is not 100% like that of the secular constitution of the US, that is admitted, but having said that, it is a kind of hybrid where the preponderance of the overall character of the constitution is secular.
That Islam is religion of the federation is a reference to it being the official religion for ceremonial and official purposes but this does not change the overall character of the secular substance of the constitution because non muslims are not compelled to embrace Islam and are free to practise their religions, the powers to legislate on syariah are confined to state legislative assemblies on matters referred to in 9th Schedule of the Constitution and 9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution confines the jurisdiction of the syariah courts to ‘only over persons professing the religion of Islam (with our criminal law based on English law applicable for even Muslims instead of hudud) and the pronouncement of former Lord President, Tun Salleh Abbas in the case of Che Omar Che Soh [in 1988] in which he categorically said that this is a secular state, a position uncontradicted even until today by our courts.
“What I am trying to say is that the laws can be challenged. They are not carved in stone.” lakshy
Oh yes, they are!!
The Ten Commandments cannot be changed nor challenged!. They have been carved in stone by God Himself.
“The Quran here preserves the women’s rights during divorce.” lakshy
Eve or Hawa was made out of the rib of Adam – and not from dust or earth? What does that suggest to you? Other than the fact that Hawa or Eve existed only to serve Adam.
This equality rubbish has been the creation of a latter generation influenced by feminists like our Sisters-in-Islam bull shit. I am proud to be a male chauvinist.
“That Islam is religion of the federation is a reference to it being the official religion for ceremonial and official purposes but this does not change the overall character of the secular substance of the constitution because non muslims are not compelled to embrace Islam and are free to practise their religions….”
Only for ceremonial and official purposes?? The Constitution does not say that?? The overall character of the Constitution – which is secular. How could that be when an article in the constitution says that Islam is the religion of the Federation??
True. Non-Muslims cannot be forced to convert to a religion not of their choice. But once converted, and once the convert puts himself or herself under Islamic law, Islamic jurisprudence applies. Call it a one way street if you want.
“What the Quran says in Surah 4:34 is
“The men are given charge over the women because God has given them some advantages and because the men have to provide from their wealth…†lakshy
Given charge of women! Herein lies the crux of the whole issue – which is that women are not equal to men, and are not meant to be. This equality rubbish is the creation of a latter generation influenced by the rise of feminism. Why do you think God created Eve not from earth but from the rib of Adam? They are not meant to be equals.
This is the position taken by the Old Testament before Christians arrived and added the New Testament.
Jews and Muslims have the same beliefs.
So stop apologizing!
“…//…Only for ceremonial and official purposes?? The Constitution does not say that??…//..â€Â
Well it was not said by me either. It was said by a five-man Federal Court judgment led by then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in case of Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988). It was said by the Reid Commission that drafted our Contitution.
It was said by YB LKS about what Reid Commission & Tun Salleh Abas said in this his Homepage link – http://www.limkitsiang.com/archive/2001/oct01/lks1199.htm
LKS said: (and I quote) : “That the independent nation formed on August 31, 1957 was established as a secular nation was specifically stated in the White Paper on the Reid Constitution Commission Report presented by the Alliance Government headed by Tunku, which stated:
‘57. There has been included in the proposed Federal Constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular State, and every person will have the right to profess and practise his own religion and the right to propagate his religion, though this last right is subject to restrictions imposed by State law relating to the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion.’
On the fundamental constitutional principle that Malaysia is a secular nation being upheld by the highest court in the land in Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988), YB LKS further said : “Delivering the judgment of a five-man Federal Court panel, the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas held that the Constitution and the legal system are “secular†and held that the meaning of the expression “Islam†or “Islamic religion†in Article 3 “means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremoniesâ€Â. Tun Salleh Abas further said ‘there can be no doubt that Islam is not just a mere collection of dogmas and rituals but it is a complete way of life covering all fields of human activities, may they be private or public, legal, political, economic, social, cultural, moral or judicial’ but rejected the contention that the terms “Islam†or “Islamic religion†in Article 3 is “an all-embracing concept, as is normally understood, which consists not only the ritualistic aspect but also a comprehensive system of life, including its jurisprudence and moral standard†as this was not the meaning intended by the framers of the Constitutionâ€Â.
One cannot have 2 sets of law in the same country.
This is most dividing, confusing and damaging to the welbeing of the people and the country.
This is one of the greatest failures of our leader/s…….and the consequences are permanent, long term and far reaching.
Breaking News reported on page 7 of The Sun, April 4th : “Mohd Shafi Abdullah, the husband of R. Subashini, has lodged a report against the Bar Council, non-governmental organisations, non-muslim religious bodies, politicians and a few individuals for allegedly making prejudicial allegations and contemptuous comments against March 13 Court of Appeal decision. He said among allegations against him was that he has embraced Islam to shirk his responsibilities under civil laws, and that the March 13 decision was unfair. He said he was making the report to protect his interests and that of his case, which is pending in court…A press statement read out by his lawyer Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar said: ‘ All parties should realise that this case is still in dispute and Subashini has made an application for appeal in theFederal Court. Therefore, it is important to all parties to not air any comments on the case to avoid prejudice against Shafi case in court. This is subjudice.”
Sub judice, an archaic concept according to Undergrad2 is to avert the danger of prejudice to court proceedings especially where there is trial by jury affecting a criminal case. We’re talking of the Federal Court here in respect to which the risk of influence by public or parliamentary debate on the judges in the formation of their judgments is less.
The prime question to be asked is : Is public debate likely to give rise to any real and substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before the court? This has to be weighed against the other fact that the Court of Appeal’s decision on Subashini v T. Saravanan is unquestionably one of profound public interest relating to the Federal Constitution and its interpretation as it affects the rights of muslims/non muslims.
Society does not operate on one principle – subjudice and the desirability of making sure that a Court and its impartiality of judgment will not be influenced by public debate as to affect in prejudicial way, the rights of one of the parties. Society operates on the basis of a multiple of desirable if competing principles – like the Freedom of Speech in Article 5 of the Constitution, and the interpretation of the Constitution itself – which it has to weigh, balance, juggle and eventually prioritize.
Here a report has been made against the Bar Council, non-governmental organisations, non-muslim religious bodies, politicians and a few individuals for taking up and debating an issue of great constitutional importance to public interest.
Whence does individual interest arguing on subjudice override public interest? It is ironical that ‘subjudice’ being a civil law concept is now raised by the very party to a suit that seeks to exclude application of civil law in preference to syariah law.
Well spoken, Jeffrey QC!
“Sub judice” may not be an archaic concept but it is best left alone where it should belong – lost between the pages of history. We should not be too anxious to adhere to concepts of old, just because some of our judges sitting on the Court Of Appeal and the highest court in the land, the Federal Court, are trained in English law.
What could be more paramount than the constitutional free speech right of ordinary folks? The English, a feudal society with their Law Lords etc have in the past been a bit too eager to come out with concepts like ‘sub judice’ to silence the common folks. We should not be too compliant, too complacent and should be ready to break from tradition.
Once upon it may have served a purpose but no longer does today. Technology and the introduction of the internet cannot prevent the free flow on information. It is time our courts adapt and change.
I have this thought in my mind. The moment one spouse converts to Islam, his marriage to his partner is invalidated because Syariah law does not recognize marriage under other laws. Perhaps some one can confirm this statement.
Will the Syariah Court entertain the convert since it does not recognise the marriage and therefore technically the child is probably not recognised by the court as well? I find all this quite puzzling. :)
Soon Buddish, Christain, Hindu, Sikh, Taoist and others would want their own separate court/system to deal with their own problems.
There is a gross lack of understanding that there are universal values shared by all religions.
Religious fundalmentalism is destroying our society and country.
Convert lodges police report against Subashini, others
Maria J.Dass
SUBANG JAYA (April 3, 3007): Mohd Shafi Abdullah, the husband of R. Subashini, has lodged a report against the Bar Council, Non-Governmental Organisations, non-Muslim religious bodies, politicians and a few individuals for allegedly making prejudicial allegations contemptuous comments against the March 13 Court of Appeal decision.
He said among the allegations against him was that he has embraced Islam to shirk his responsibilities under civil laws and that the March 13 decision was one that was unfair.
Mohd Shafi said in his report that he was making the report to protect his interests and that of his case, pending in court.
Mohd Shafi, who was formerly known as T.Saravanan, also lodged a report against Subashini for constantly harassing him and for wanting to take their eldest child away and re-convert him to Hinduism.
Shafi also claimed that he feared for his and his son’s safety.
When asked how Subashini had harassed him, Shafi’s lawyer said this was through telephone calls but not physical threats .
In a press statement read out by his lawyer Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, he said:
“All parties should realise that this case is still in dispute and Subashini has made an application for appeal in the Federal Court, therefore it is important to all parties to not air any comments / opinions and views on the case to avoid prejudice against Shafi’s case in court. This is subjudice!” he said.
“Our client will not hesitate to act against any prejudicial statements to his case after this to protect his interests and the integrity of the Court of Appeal judgment,” said Zainul.
He added that Shafi hopes he will not have to take up court time for legal action or to obtain a gag order against any party.
Asked if this includes a prayer sessions organised by religious bodies, Shafi’s lead counsel Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said:
“That is their right but as for signature campaigns – if it to ask Parliament to give consideration, that is a different story, but a signature campaign that this judgment is wrong – cannot!”
Shafi said he had converted to Islam on his own free will and that he had an interest in the religion since he was 18.
Asked what took him so long, Shafi said he needed time to learn and understand the religion.
“It was just the right time for me to step in,” he said, adding that Islam is a fair religion to all.
When asked why Shafi had chosen to seek redress in Syariah court instead of the civil court to be fair since his marriage was under civil laws, Mohd Haniff said, this was the legal matter being discussed in court now.
“Fairness in Syariah is also there. This is what has been argued and addressed during submissions in court,” added Zainul.
Fundamentalism is not a human or animal instinct.
It should not play a significant part in a modern and progress world.
well, the rakyat can pray until the cows come home but if no affirmative action (such as voting out bn or voting for a much stronger opposition) is taken, nothing will ever change! this is the sad but very true situation in malaysia.
“He added that Shafi hopes he will not have to take up court time for legal action or to obtain a gag order against any party.”
An aggrieved party is free to pursue legal action against anyone to redress a wrong done to him or her – that is his free speech right, protected by our constitution.
Gag orders?? Gag orders are issued on the lawyers who are then not at liberty to discuss nor reveal what have transpired in the courts. In legal jurisdiction like the United States, gag orders are issued because the rules of ‘sub judice’ do not apply.
All faiths other than muslim faith in Malaysia are under silient religious persecution. Those who hold the power believe that they are better than their god. In fact, it is the satan that is working in them.
Leave God and the Devil alone. They are busy right now with the Middle East conflict.
Well, the Association of Malaysian lawyers, the Bar Council, have come out with a statement that public comments about the R. Subashini case, which is pending in the Federal Court, are not sub judice.
“This fear is unfounded, and the argument is without basis,” its chairwoman, Ambiga Sreenevasan, said in the statement.
She further said “The law of contempt and sub judice in this context is applicable mainly in relation to a jury or where there are vulnerable witnesses who may be influenced by public comments. It certainly does not apply to judges and especially, as in this case, the Federal Court judges who will consider points of law on the materials before them, uninfluenced by extraneous matters and comments in the public domain.”
She added that public comments on matters of public interest, particularly where it involves constitutional guarantees, cannot be sub judice or contempt.
See this link in Sun2Surf – http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=17509
At times like this, I thank god I’m an atheist.
““The law of contempt and sub judice in this context is applicable mainly in relation to a jury or where there are vulnerable witnesses who may be influenced by public comments. It certainly does not apply to judges…”
A statement long overdue. It clarifies the legal position. But after having done all that, is it necessary to throw in a monkey wrench??
When judges not connected with the case speak in their private and individual capacity, they should be allowed their constitutional free speech rights like everybody else.
The application of the law of contempt must not be at the expense of the free speech right as expressed in the Constitution.
it doesnt matter wat kinda religion we embrace.for me i use it as a guidance in life…to knw wat is wrong and wat is right.no one can claim which religion is superior than the other.all good religions hv their wise and humble teachings.to be kind,to be fair and to be right.good religions can interact and be humble to each other.its nvr to be instigated and make a big issue out of it by any quarters.sadly to say a lot of idiots are doing that in malaysia.whn thrs god…thrs always the devil.i believe a lot of malaysians out thr knw whr those devils are coming from.its very hard to catch those devils cos merely they can change to being saints whn they are caught.as we all knw a lot of them got away cos of “insufficient evidence”.this is how “efficient” our PM in handling matters.
On the Federal Constitution being “secular†or otherwise, Undergrad2 said, “ at best, I respectfully submit, it is a hybrid. If it is secular why then do we find numerous references to the Muslim religion. Why is Islam the official religion of the federation created by the Constitution?â€Â
Fair enough, but you must remember the law of the land that has not yet been contradicted as laid down by the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in case of Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988).
Delivering the judgment of a five-man Federal Court panel, the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas held that the Constitution and the legal system were “secular†and held that the meaning of the expression “Islam†or “Islamic religion†in Article 3 “means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremoniesâ€Â. Tun Salleh Abas further said ‘there can be no doubt that Islam is not just a mere collection of dogmas and rituals but it is a complete way of life covering all fields of human activities, may they be private or public, legal, political, economic, social, cultural, moral or judicial’ but rejected the contention that the terms “Islam†or “Islamic religion†in Article 3 is “an all-embracing concept, as is normally understood, which consists not only the ritualistic aspect but also a comprehensive system of life, including its jurisprudence and moral standard†as this was not the meaning intended by the framers of the Constitution†(Reid Commission).
On Raimah Bibi Noordin’s status, “She was raised by Muslim parents but may or may not have been a practicing Muslim. That does not change her status as a Muslim by law†– Undergrad2.
Arguably it does – based on the way one conducts one’s life and practised beliefs, at least that’s what MAIS after consultation with JAIS and other legal advisers, said, after dropping its claim to Anthony Rayappan’s body : MAIS Chairman Datuk Mohamed Adzib Mohd Isa told the Bernama news agency that ‘although information gathered earlier had indicated that Rayappan was a Muslim, more recent evidence for his Christian beliefs was overwhelming.’
In that case Anthony had already converted to Muslim in 1990 (by reason of earlier marriage to a Muslim women) but he never shown by his way of life that he was a practising Muslim. In fact he was a practising Christian just as Raimah Bibi Noordin was a practicing Hindu whose marriage to Marimuthu Periasamy was conducted in Hindu rites.
The only difference between Anthony Rayappan and Raimah Bibi Noordin is that in former’s case Anthony had procured change of his IC to “Christianity†– in Raimah Bibi Noordin, her old IC was all along “Hindu†until a change to Mykad when they changed it back to “Muslim†that she didn’t bother to rectify.
The original status appears not to matter – in the case where one is not born into the faith, as Malays – like for example Anthony Rayappan, a Muslim since 1990 conversion or Raimah Bibi Noordin by virtue of being raised in or adopted by a Muslim Convert family. Neither is it based on what the IC says.
In the case of Nyonya Tahir, who died on January 19, the Seremban Sharia Court acknowledged that she was a non-Muslim at the time of her death and allowed her family to bury her as one, even though her identity card explicitly stated she was a Muslim !
Bottomline is how one conducts one’s life and professes belief to family members and immediate society that should be the determining factor (according to what MAIS Chairman Datuk Mohamed Adzib Mohd Isa seemed to say).
Based on this criteria, there is a genuine point of contention in Raimah Bibi Noordin whether she has long practised as a Hindu and should be considered a Hindu. (Her adopted Muslim convert family gave blessing to her marrying Marimuthu via Hindu rites. She had since lived together with Marimuthu for 21 years and raised their children as Hindus).
How could JAIS be sole arbiter and judge that she according to Datuk Mohamed Adzib Mohd’s criteria has not become a Hindu ?
God gave every humans choices, heaven or hell. I think the government should do the same. Give the people their rights to choose. Give babies born a right to choose when they grow up and could decide for themselves. God never forced religion on anyone, so why should we mere human, force others to do what they don’t want to. We can tell others of our beliefs, but we can never force them to believe.
Its very funny, if you can choose which party you want to vote, but you can’t choose what religion you want.
Perhaps, maybe there should also be another law, once you join as members of a party you cannot leave.
“You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave…”