At its first meeting last Wednesday, the Najib Cabinet commendably took a policy decision as a result of the Indira Ghandi case, where her three children Tevi Darsiny 12, Karan Dinish 11 and year-old Prasana Diksa were converted by her husband K. Pathmanathan, now known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah without her consent.
The Cabinet decided that the civil marriage has to be settled by the civil court and the religion of their children be the common religion at the time their parents were married at civil law.
The Cabinet also decided that the year-old baby daughter, Prasana Diksa, forcibly taken away by the father for more than a month although she was still being breastfed by Indira, should be returned to the mother.
Nazri said that the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Islamic Affairs, Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, had been tasked to resolve the Indira Ghandi case amicably and to return Prasana Diksa to the mother.
Last Friday, the Ipoh High Court also granted to Indira Ghandi an interim custody order for her three children, ordering Pathmanathan/Ridzuan to return Prasana to his wife and the police to provide assistance to Indira with regards to this.
However, a week after the Cabinet decision and 96 hours after the Ipoh High Court orders, Indira Ghandi, who had caused the Cabinet to come out with a policy decision to end controversial conversion cases which create not only gross injustices in trampling on parental rights and destroying family integrity but also cause deep divisions in our multi-racial and multi-religious nation, is still pining for her year-old baby girl as Pathmanathan/Ridzuan and Prasana seem to have disappeared altogether.
The Cabinet tomorrow must send out a clear signal that it stands by its “common religion” decision on the baby Prasana Diksa case and that it is not a meaningless decision to be defied with impunity and to take all steps to return Prasana to her mother Indira Ghandi without delay as well as to put the policy decision into effect with the necessary legislative and administrative follow-up actions.
The “letter to the editor” of New Straits Times by an academician in Islamic theology and philosophy in a local university, entitled “No religious basis to convert baby” should be tabled at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow to fortify its decision last week and to take all necessary steps to return Prasana to Indira.
This letter, by Dr. Ibrahim Abu Bakar, Associate Professor of the Department of Theology and Philsophy, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, expressed very strong views that Pathmanathan/Ridzuan should return Prasana to her Hindu mother, that he is a bad Muslim if he does not hand back Prasana, even proposing that the police should arrest him if he is reluctant to deliver the baby girl back to Indira after the Ipoh High Court interim custody order in favour of the mother.
Dr. Ibrahim wrote:
Islamic theology does not impose any religious duty on the father to take away the baby girl from her Hindu mother.
This baby should not be prohibited by her father from being breastfed by her mother. If he does, he is wrong and evil in Islamic theological view because Islam does not impose any religious duty on any baby regardless whether she was born to a Hindu or Muslim mother. Islam imposes Islamic religious duties upon mature men and women, not upon babies and children. Please let this baby girl be breastfed by her mother.
Some Muslims hold the view that when a husband or wife converts to Islam, he or she has the right in Islamic law to take the children with him or her and then convert the children to Islam. Islamic law does not say so.
The “Islamness” of the children is not taken into account in Islamic theology. Islamic theology will count on the “Islamness” of human beings who are mature.
The Islamic terms for mature, sensible and responsible human beings are “aqil” and “baligh”. Patmanathan has been supported by some ignorant Muslims on the pretext of protecting the purity of Islam and his three children. These Muslims are wrong.
There is no Islamic legal basis for Muslims to help someone take away a baby from her mother and then convert that baby to Islam. Islam does not count on the converted babies and Islam does not reward those who have converted the babies to Islam.
The babies have no Islamic religious duties and, therefore, they are neither rewarded nor punished for such actions.
Dr. Ibrahim ended his letter in language which cannot be stronger and more explicit:
I do not support non-Muslims who convert to Islam just because they want to run away from their responsibilities as husbands or wives or because they want to marry Muslim women or Muslim men.
And he said “nobody is a second-class citizen” too.
Talk is cheap
Performance now? What a load crap from Najib.
This letter, by Dr. Ibrahim Abu Bakar, Associate Professor of the Department of Theology and Philsophy, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, expressed very strong views that Pathmanathan/Ridzuan should return Prasana to her Hindu mother, that he is a bad Muslim if he does not hand back Prasana, even proposing that the police should arrest him if he is reluctant to deliver the baby girl back to Indira after the Ipoh High Court interim custody order in favour of the mother.
So, what is the progress made by the Ipoh cops in assisting Indira as ordered by the Ipoh High Court?
Or are they more engrossed in making preparations to flex their muscles for the upcoming Perak State Legislative Assembly session scheduled on 7/5/2009 as the minions of UMNO’s BN?
I think the cabinet has sent a clear signal. YB Kit concedes that “the Najib Cabinet commendably took a policy decision as a result of the Indira Ghandi case”.
The High Court has also ordered that the youngest child which is in her father’s care to be returned to the mother. However, despite the court order to return the toddler, the father, who has since the conversion assumed the name Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, has gone missing…. See Malaysiakini | S Pathmawathy | Apr 27, 09 5:02pm
The father has apparently crossed the line to not only commit contempt of court but also the criminal offence of abduction/kidnapping of his youngest child from the lawful guardianship of the mother.
Whilst the offence of abduction/kidnapping is however prescribed by Penal code, – a secular penal/criminal law – the father himself may not personally think so based on his conception, or rather misconception, of what Sharia permits him to do.
The immediate problem lies more with authorities being unable to locate convert K Patmanathan (now Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah) rather than the cabinet not sending a clear signal.
Sadly, it is Pakatan Rakyat (PR) that has not sent a clear signal!
According to Malaysiakini report [Kuek Ser Kuang Keng | Apr 28, 09 11:06am] PR’s 3 component parties appear to hold different and contradicting view on the matter & the cabinet policy decision.
According to report, “PKR deputy president Syed Husin Ali said that issues linked to conversion need to be further studied. Explaining that Pakatan does not necessarily have to adopt a common position on every matter, he said “we need only a minimum (stance) to hold us together”. The only thing that the leaders of the 3 have agreed is that “priority should be given to resolving custody issues before taking up matters relating to religion!”
I understand that DAP alone is of the position that “conversion of children should only be done with the consent of both parents. [Implicit is the assumption that “Parent” in article 12 (4)Constitution includes plural…so in the event of a dispute, the children should, ion DAP’s view, remain in their original religion until they reach legal age. I understand YB pressed the Barisan Nasional government to amend Article 12(4) of the constitution (which states that ‘the religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian’).
I am in total agreement with the DAP’s position and am profoundly aghast that your PR partners PKR & PAS could not, with alacrity, send a clear signal of support for the principles underpining the Cabinet’s decision, let alone the DAP position, which is correct and fair….and choose instead to hide under camouflage of “resolving custody issues first before taking up matters relating to religion”.
This has been long bane the problem within the civil / syariah situation. The long greviances by the non muslim partners left in the lurch by the common civil partners who convert to Islam were never resolved.
The Federal Court has maintained it could not encrouch into Syariah matters, as it is outside the jurisdiction of the civil courts, yet it failed to address the injustice to non muslim partner.
The courts fails to certify that the marriage is null & void, so far i know a marriage is null & void when it is not consumated.The non muslim partner especially women who depend on the husbands and do not have an income are left penniless. They are neither entitled to alimony, child support and wealth distribution.
BN government for so long failed to resolve this matter over the last 25 years.
There has to be a mechanism which a non muslim married man must be still held liable for his duties and responsibilities towards his family. He must be held financially responsible for the maintenance of his family. He must be required to dissolve his civil marriage, and issues of wealth and property division finalised.
The BN cabinet gave the following broad principles on conversion problem highlighted by Indira Ghandi & her 3 three children’s light:-
1. Civil/secular court is right place/jurisdiction to hear and dissolve marriages based on civil law the moment one of the spouses convert to Islam. By implication, conversion by one spouse is ground for the other to dissolve and annul civil marriage under Law Refrom Act;
2. Children would then be brought up in accordance to the common religion at the time of marriage (before conversion of one party);
3. People could not use a change in religion (conversion) to escape alimony and custody rulings ordered by a civil court based on law of the marriage first contracted for 2 reasons: ie (i) to prevent victimisation and unfairness to the other innocent non-converting spouse (ii) to protect Islam from being used by opportunists who would use conversion as means to escape marital responsibilities contracted under civil law before they embraced Islam.
I am sure the DAP has taken the stance that the above principles are “commendable” though it may still doubt that the BN govt could evince the political will to push them through.
But political will aside – on the pure question of principles – which of the above 3 broad principles stated by the Cabinet above are not agreeable to your coalition partners PKR and PAS and not reconcilable to their ideological positions that they cannot endorse/embrace with alacrity as common position along with the DAP, and that that they have to come out with this lame excuse of “resolving custody issues first before taking up matters relating to religion”?
If Indira Ghandi were to hear your coalition partners prevarication, would she not support Mindraf even if it joins the BN?