And Now On To The Prayer Wars
Friday selection: And Now On To The Prayer Wars
Farish A. Noor
www.othermalaysia.org
[Posted with permission]
The month of Ramadhan is said to be a blessed month for many, and for some it can promise even more than is usually expected. This year’s Ramadhan is witness to an event of considerable importance, albeit somewhat ludicrous at the same time. While tension and mistrust continue to tarnish the already embattled process of inter-religious dialogue, recent events such as Pope Benedict XVI’s speech in Germany have done little to calm the anger and frustration of Muslims all over the world. Now we have to brace ourselves for the latest nail to be hammered into the coffin of inter-religious dialogue: the prayer wars.
A recent media report has noted that all over North America this Ramadhan, Evangelical Christians will embark on a 30-day ‘Muslim Prayer Focus’. Supported by right-wing evangelical conservatives like the American National Association of Evangelicals and Youth With A Mission, evangelical Christian leaders all over the USA will ask their followers to spend the next 30 days praying for Muslims to see the light and to find a place for Jesus in their hearts. Prayer booklets, leaflets and posters have already been prepared and disseminated to help Muslims save themselves from themselves, and on the website of the National Association of Evangelicals it is stated that they wish for all other faiths to “understand and consider the grace of God incarnated in Jesus Christ.” One wonders how this message of goodwill will be interpreted in the mountains of Waziristan or the stronghold of the Taliban in Southern Afghanistan.
That evangelical Christians in the American Bible Belt would get up to such things is to be expected: After all, this is what all missionary faiths do, and Islam is likewise a missionary religion that seeks to convert others to its creed and way of life. The success of two of the three Abrahamic faiths – Christianity and Islam – has more to do with the missionary zeal of its followers than anything else, for it is them – the ordinary Christians and Muslims the world over – who have really supported the expansion of both religions all over the world, at the cost of other local faiths and belief systems at times.
But coming as it does now, at a time of heightened tension between the Western and Muslim worlds, the call for a mass evangelical prayer to convert Muslims to Christianity is about the most counter-productive thing that any faith community could conceive of. Its implications are wide and obvious: For a start it will fuel the already overheaded paranoia and conspiracy-theory machinery that animates many a radical Islamist group the world over, convicing many of their members that there is indeed a Christian conspiracy against Islam and Muslims. It will also add to the further isolation of the United States, which is increasingly seen as a superpower bent on imposing its military, political, economic, and now cultural-religious values, on every other community on this planet.
One is forced to brace onceself for the immediate logical response. Will we see counter-prayer initiatives by Muslims, praying that Christians see the light and convert to Islam en masse? Or has this all already happened and can things only deteriorate further from this point onwards?
Again a degree of calm, rational distance from the immediate phenomena of politics is necessary, if for no other reason than to preserve some semblance of common sense and rationality. It is important to note that the calls for prayer to convert Muslims to Christianity is emanating not from ever-so-secular Europe, but rather from the heartland of America. This reminds us again that the United States is a specific country with a specific relationship to religion. Contrary to appearances, America is not a secular country but rather a highly religious one where religion has penetrated deep into the social and political life of the nation; and has given birth to numerous politicians with a decidedly missionary outlook in their politics. Since the time of the Monroe doctrine, successive American politicians have spoken about America’s ‘right’ and ‘mission’ to civilise the world in terms that could only be seen as theological. No politician from post-War Western Europe would dream of talking in such terms, for fear of being dubbed a conservative looney and a candidate for a padded room in the asylum.
Another factor that has to be taken into account here is the fact that the brand of evangelical Christianity that is on the march in the United States is quite distinct from the more schools of Christian thought in Europe. Only among these American evangelicals do we hear talk of a missionary goal to convert the rest of humanity to their brand of Christianity (and while on that subject, it should be noted that these radical evangelicals also hold that some other Christians, notably the Catholics and members of the Eastern orthodox church, are borderline heretics too…).
While other schools of Christian thought have adapted themselves to the reality of living in a plural multi-religious world of different faiths, this sense of benighted tolerance for relativism is nowhere to be found among the legions of ultra-conservatives who support the current neo-Con establishment installed in the White House. Why, even the elders of the Vatican – following the discussions of the Vatican II council – have come to accept that the path to salvation does not lie through Christianity alone, and that other religions also have their inherent worth and truths as well, to be respected equally.
No, the lunacy of the current ‘prayer wars’ is of a distinctively American variety, and bears all the hallmarks of an America in deep spiritual crisis and in search of a direction. The irony is that while some right-wing evangelicals are happy to pray for the souls of other non-believers, they have spent considerably less time praying for the victims of America’s superpower politics and hegemonic dominance in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Where then is the process of inter-civiliational dialogue heading? Well, for a start the first criteria to be met in any dialogue process is respect: Respect for the identity of the other, even if we do not necessarily accept everything that they do or say in the name of their beliefs. In this confused and increasingly volatile world that we live in today, this element of mutual respect is sorely lacking. It would be the height of arrogance for American evangelicals to assume that people of other faiths need to be ‘saved’ from their beliefs, without at the same time taking some critical distance from their own faith and questioning their own motives. This smacks of the blind faith and fanaticism they are so wont to accuse others of. For dialogue to work, we must always begin with an internal dialogue with and within ourselves, and to gauge our own commitment and purpose against the litmus test of arrogance and hypocrisy. So before we embark on yet another round of missionary conquest, perhaps we should begin by looking at the hypocrisy and double-standards in our own practice of faith. And this applies to both Christians and Muslims, by the way…
Dr Farish A Noor is a Malaysian political scientist and historian, as well as a human rights activist. Visit his site at www.othermalaysia.org
September 29th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
“This reminds us again that the United States is a specific country with a specific relationship to religion. Contrary to appearances, America is not a secular country but rather a highly religious one where religion has penetrated deep into the social and political life of the nation…”
I have never read a more superficial analysis.
I am writing this as a Muslim Malaysian who has chosen to make the United States my domicile.
The United States is a secular state. There is a clear separation of state and church. Period. No matter how much you try to blur the lines you’ll succeed only in making a fool out of yourself.
In Malaysia, ever since Mahathir made his silly proclamation that Malaysia has always been an Islamic state, Malaysia is not - though Article 11 Federal Constitution in its terminology tends to muddy the water somewhat. Article 121(A) goes against the spirit of the Constitution as the Reid Commission clearly envisaged a secular state. There is no provision for a parallel court system other than the civil one at the federal level.
The United States is a free country. A Malaysian having lived under an authoritarian regime and not having known the meaning of ‘freedom’, Farish can be excused for thinking that Big Brother has a hand in everything that happens and explain it away as another conspiracy - just like there are Muslims who believe Mohammad Attar is alive and well living his days somewhere in Egypt, that the 9/11 is a conspiracy involving the CIA and Moussad.
The United States contrary to what Farish claims is not a “highly religious one”. All you need do is attend church on Sundays to find out for yourself. There was a surge in church attendance in the aftermath of September 11 but this disappeared soon after.
But it is true that Georgie brought God to the White House when Clinton left God on the footsteps of the White House.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Dear Dr. Bakri and Dr. Farish,
This is very good piece of writing on the most current topic, that of the rise of Christain evangelism with political overtones as counterweight to resurgent Islamic religiosity.
The Pope’s speech in Germany is regrettable, but it did stir the passions of the Ummah the world over. Why the Pope provoked this I do not know. But I would thought the Pontiff should taken his bearings from Muslim reactions to the publication of cartoons depicting the Holy Prophet pbuh in Denmark.
The West, especially the US and the EU(in particular the UK, France and Germany), does not seem able to separate Islam from terrorism and as a result, we cannot enter into any rational and open discourse on the root causes of terrorism with them.
The use of terror to achieve political ends or to the right perceived wrongs and injustices cuts across ideology, race or colour and religion. Because of special interests e.g. the championing of Israel’s state terrorism which was seen recently in its full fury in Lebanon, the US and the EU have alienated their own minorities, and the developing world. The so-called jihadists (labelling again!!) too are not free from hijacking Islam for their own utopian dreams.
Maybe our best hope lies in civil society where politics and religion can perhaps be taken out of the equation. We all want to live in peace and are weary of war. So we have a common purpose. The problem is whether we have the “social will” to engage in people-to-people dialogue at various levels without upping the ante, so to speak.
I welcome your comments and others.
Thanks.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Correction:
“The use of terror to achieve political ends or to right perceived wrongs and injustices cuts across ideology, race or colour and religion”. Sorry.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
I am not not quite sure what Farish was attempting to achieve by blogging about this. If it is to point out that the element of mutual respect is lacking, then I think he misses his aim more than anything else. Seems much ado about nothing.
If I was cheeky enough, I can only conclude that the article is merely to bolster his credentials as an ‘objective’ writer on all things Islamic. Sadly, I am not.
That aside, as regards No Comments’ comment, I am not quite sure how Article 121(1A) is against the spirit of the Constitution particularly when read with the Ninth Schedule List II Item 1 (”the Schedule”) which vests the States with power to legislate on matters pertaining to Islamic law etc. However, it would be interesting to know if the Schedule was inserted much later.
September 30th, 2006 at 3:40 am
When religion becomes muddled in politics, it becomes a potential time-bomb. The extremists and fanatics have been able to successfully feed the minds of of the masses through ignorance and compulsion. A simple inter-faith dialogue can become so potent and emotinally charged that I wonder what these defenders are actually defending? At the end of the day, ALL of us are going to take the last breath and vanish away from earth and just become a dream. Who cares or know where you go from here? Just guesswork around and people can become so emotionally charged. What do you call that? I wonder whether all these gods are sitting on the same table and laughing over a cup of tea or coffee at the folly of man. Luckily, my ten dollar note does not discriminate between religions.
September 30th, 2006 at 3:41 am
sitting around the same table
September 30th, 2006 at 5:29 am
“That aside, as regards No Comments’ comment, I am not quite sure how Article 121(1A) is against the spirit of the Constitution particularly when read with the Ninth Schedule List II Item 1 (”the Schedule”) which vests the States with power to legislate on matters pertaining to Islamic law etc.” - Nizam
The answer is in your question.
Ninth Schedule Federal Constitution as opposed to State Constitution vests matters regarding the religion of Islam with the States. Article 121 as amended (and stretching Article 11) creates a system of courts parallel to the one we already have i.e. civil courts based on the English common law.
What the BN can do with its two-third control of the Federal Parliament, is to amend the Federal Constitution and in particular Article 11 and make Islam the state religion and not only the official religion of the Federation.
Malaysia is not meant to be anything but a secular state with Islam as its official religion (meaning functions of state are to follow Malay and Islamic tradition and values) because of the multi ethnic and muliti religious character of its people. That must have been the intention of the Reid Commission which drafted the Federal Constitution of 1957.
September 30th, 2006 at 6:06 am
“Maybe our best hope lies in civil society where politics and religion can perhaps be taken out of the equation” - Freeman
In multireligious, multicultural and multiethnic Malaysia. religion was never meant to be in the equation.
Islam is more than just a religion. It is all embracing; it is a way of life, an ideology. That’s where the problem lies. So the Reid Commission could not have intended to make Islam the state religion and Malaysia an Islamic state like Pakistan today is.
Since Iran unleashed its radical brand of Islamic fundamentalism in the late 70s, the world and Malaysia has never been the same. The fact that leaders like Anwar Ibrahim has chosen to stoke the flames of Islamic fundamentalism in his rise up the ladder of political power does not make it any easier.
September 30th, 2006 at 6:15 am
“The West, especially the US and the EU(in particular the UK, France and Germany), does not seem able to separate Islam from terrorism…”
If the West has been unable to differentiate one from the other i.e. Islam and terrorism, Muslims all over the world have not done a good job at helping the West separate the two. We do not hear mosques condemning the acts of terrorists in killing innocent civilians, women and children - and neither have we seen Muslim demonstrators demonstrating against acts of terrorism by their Muslim brothers in the streets of Washington D.C.
September 30th, 2006 at 6:20 am
I hear they are running short of the 72 virgins promised. They are so many suicide bombers today these people, I have been told, are being told to share one among 72 of them.
September 30th, 2006 at 6:31 am
Dear No Comments,
How does the Ninth Schedule (which merely assigns legislative responsibility for Islamic law etc to the States) constitute the answer as to your basis for asserting that Article 121(1A) is against the spirit of the Constitution? I am still lost.
I note that you have clearly set out what the Ninth Schedule provides (i.e. thereby addressing “the What” portion of the equation). However, I must respectfully point out that setting out the purport of the Ninth Schedule cannot be equated with explaining why the Ninth Schedule is the answer. (i.e. thereby not addressing “the Why”) The why is what I am looking forward to.
Forgive me if I am somewhat slow in this respect. Must be all that food I just consumed.
I do look forward to being enlightened on this matter.
September 30th, 2006 at 7:59 am
The Ninth Schedule State List 11 refers to the subject matters within the jurisdiction of the states which are signatories to the Federation of Malaya Agreement of 1948. Included in the List is “Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam.”
Clearly Islamic law and matters pertaining to all acts of persons professing the religion of Islam are matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the states within the said Federation.
Article 121 as amended in 1988, I submit respectfully, is a clear departure from the spirit of Article 11 and the expressed provisions of the Ninth Schedule State List 11.
The High Court judge in the Moorthy case did right when he declined to exercise his discretion as the matter rightly belongs to the Shariah court and is outside the jurisdiction of the civil court – as did our Federal Court in the other case involving the Kelantan Four.
However, the judge is only half right since the Moorthy case and cases like it deals exclusively with the issue of whether the subject was in fact and in law a Muslim rather than issues pertaining to a matter within the jurisdiction of the shariah courts.
September 30th, 2006 at 8:02 am
P.S.
Rather than Article 11, I should be referring to Article 3. My apologies.
September 30th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Please note that Article 3 does not make Islam into a state religion - not even its official religion but just a religion of the Federation.
There is a difference.
September 30th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Dear No Comments,
Paragraph 1 and 2 of your reply reiterates the What. While, paragraph 3 reiterates your assertion that Article 121 is a departure from the spirit of the Constitution (but now limited to Article 3). Whereas, Paragraph 4 and 5 introduces new assertions.
As such, it seems there was no reply to my request for the Why. (i.e. why do you say Article 121(1A) is against the spirit of the Constitution?)
Be that as it may, the reason I pointed out the Ninth Schedule is simply to highlight that there is and was a Constitutional basis for:
(a) Syariah legislation; and
(b)Syariah courts
save that the Ninth Schedule types of legislation was to be promulgated by the State legislatures and the Syariah courts were conferred jurisdiction (for Ninth Schedule type matters) by the various State enactments.
You asserted that Article 121(1A) is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution (Art. 3 or otherwise), however I beg to differ simply because:
(a) If the Ninth Schedule existed during the initial draft of the Constitution, clearly the Reid Commission envisaged that equal respect was to be given to the State’s jurisdiction to promulgate Syariah legislation and by extension the Syariah courts. Otherwise, there would have been no Ninth Schedule.
(b) If the State’s jurisdiction in the Ninth Schedule was to be respected, how does one resolve the potential for conflict between civil courts and syariah courts? Answer - introduce Article 121(1A).
In the premise, with the greatest of respect, I take the view that Article 121(1A) is not against the spirit of the Constitution but represents a proper evolution of the Constitution to achieve what must have been truly intended.
As for your comment relating to Moorthy’s case and cases of its ilk, permit me to refrain from wading into those arguments given that the post by Farish was merely confined to castigating ‘Evangelical Christians’ who merely sought to pray for our/Muslims salvation.
For the sake of completeness, allow me to just conclude by stating that I am only setting out my thoughts on the Article 121(1A) above as I was curious how you arrived at your conclusion. No more and no less. Still, I must place on record my appreciation for your willingness to clarify your replies.
That said, if I am wrong, please do correct me and allow me to learn from my errors. Thank you once again my dear sir.
September 30th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Fair Malaysian,
Today a friend just concluded that wherever the dead have gone must be a great place to be in since none has returned. He has a point, don’t you think?
September 30th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Grass:
The point that none has returned is absolutely correct. However, I cannot share the view that the palce “migrated” to may be a great place, because I honestly do not know. From your friend’s conclusion, did Hitler and Gandhi go to the same great place?, after all none returned.
September 30th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
To Grass and Fair Malaysian,
“…. Wherever the dead have gone must be a great place to be in since none has returned” and “… none has returned is absolutely correct”.
Both of you are wrong. You may not believe in re-incarnation but the jury is still out on some documented cases. A quick check with wikipedia shows re-incarnation is not uncommon among religions. Some scientific and other research into re-incarnation is in favour of re-incarnation, in particular, Dr. Ian Stevenson’s work such as “Reincarnation and Biology. A contribution to the Etiology of Birthmarks and Birth Defects”.
For some, earth is the paradise.
September 30th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
OU:
Almost all my life as a spiritualist, understanding the kundalini and the third-eye, the part on astral travelling, I have certainly come across the notion of karma and rebirth. With numerous literature and experiments on this subject, and my understanding of it and my personal experiment and research into this area points to one, and only one thing - that it is not even a perfect notion. As much as the notion of god and religion cannot answer the whereabouts of our souls after our death and all explanations accorded by the various religions are nothing but guesses, the rebirth or reincarnation is premised on such guesses, too. While the many divisions and interpretations between and within religions amply proves this point, so do the various theories that surround karma and reincarnation. If you ask me, I honestly don’t know. May be it was the will of the creator, whoever it might be, that this puzzle remains a puzzle for his grasp on the pulse of man. Those, including all those claiming to be messengers of gods of all religions, just tried to usurp that role but have failed miserably. The next avathara of Krishna claimed by Hindus in their scriptures, the next coming of Christ by Christians, the Prophet as the last messenger all are part of a ploy to keep the ignorant masses under their respective controls. What can you say of the violence perpetrated in the name of god and religion - a failure of the so-called masters in their missions?
September 30th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
“That aside, as regards No Comments’ comment, I am not quite sure how Article 121(1A) is against the spirit of the Constitution…” – Nizam Bashir
If the only intention of the amendment to Art. 121 is to clarify which court has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the religion of Islam, I have no problem with it. However, Art. 121(1A) has been applied to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court over matters without regard to the nature of the issues before the civil court.
The sole issue in Moorthy’s case was whether the deceased was a Muslim in fact and in law when he died. The matter, therefore, was within the jurisdiction of the civil court in that case. The High Court judge had the discretion to hear the case but declined. If the matter of whether the deceased was a Muslim or not when he died was not in issue, and the issue or issues before the court concern other matters, for example, divorce, distribution of family property or custody of children and maintenance then the matter falls within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the syariah court.
A stronger argument admittedly could be made for the case Kamariah & Ors to be within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the syariah court instead of the high court because in that case it concerned Muslims who committed apostasy. They were Muslims in law. Not so in Moorthy’s case who was alleged to have converted to Islam i.e. the sole issue which came before the High Court.
The body of the late Tun Suffian’s wife fondly remembered by friends and family as “Bunny” (she was Jewish) was snatched from the hospital mortuary by officials from the Selangor Religious Department and hurriedly buried in a Muslim cemetery when her husband stated categorically that she was never a Muslim in life. How then could she be a Muslim in death? It was not a case of apostasy. She never converted and the syariah court has no jurisdiction over her.
An argument is then made that under Article 160(2) Malays are deemed to be Muslims by law because as the argument goes one cannot change one’s ethnic identity. But Bunny was never a Malay nor a Muslim.
As for Article 11(1) an argument has been put forward that “religious freedom” referred to therein is only for the non-Malays and non-Muslims – that the Malays and Muslims have freedom to practice their religion but not to change it. I submit respectfully, that the position adopted by the Federal Court, the country’s highest court, cannot withstand scrutiny. One can only hope that one day it will re-visit this issue to resolve the conflict in interpretation. By then, of course, Parliament would have introduced suitable amendments to the Constitution.
Articles 3, 11(1), 160(2) and 121(1A) have to be given a consistent interpretation – consistent within itself, between one and the other and with other provisions in the Constitution.
Malaysia is a secular state. How could it be otherwise when Malaysia is multiethnic and multi religious. Article 3 is not inconsistent with this secular nature. Islam is the religion of the Federation – and not a state religion. Whatever canons of construction we follow, different meaning must be given to words which are different. Article 3 uses the phrase “the religion of the Federation” and not “the state religion of the Federation.”
There can be no dispute that our Federal Constitution is supreme and in the event of any conflict between it and state law, the latter is null and void. Therefore and by extension in the event of a conflict of jurisdictions such conflict must be resolved in favor of the Federal Constitution - i.e. in favor of civil law. Syariah law and syariah court does not, I respectfully submit, oust the jurisdiction of the civil law and civil courts.
September 30th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Dear No Comments,
I note all of your responses including the propriety of the actions by the religious authorities via a vis Toh Puan Bunny.
However, the issue we are discussing is much simpler - How does Article 121(1A) go against the spirit of the Constitution when the Ninth Schedule exists?
I must point out, albeit most respectfully, that you have not addressed the point made about the the Ninth Schedule and the ramifications of the said Schedule.
Even so, may I humbly invite you to consider the possibility that we do not need to go into Articles that may still be debatable and confine a resolution of this issue on non-controversial grounds i.e. via the Ninth Schedule.
I further note that in your concluding remarks you were referring to the existence of inconsistencies between state law and the Federal Constitution. Would you care to enumerate those inconsistencies? Even so, I do wonder how inconsistent the same can be if the Ninth Schedule provides the jurisdiction for such laws to be promulgated. If such laws can be characterized as being within the Ninth Schedule, then clearly those laws are valid.
As for whether Malaysia is secular/non secular, one wonders whether Tun Hanif Omar got the answer spot on in relation to this burning question.
September 30th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Dear No Comments,
By the way, in case we are boring everyone with this discussion and hijacking Dr. Bakri’s blog somewhat, can I also suggest that we take this into a private discussion. Feel free to email me at nizam.bashir[@]gmail.com
P.S. If you wish to send an email, please remove the square brackets. I inserted the same to prevent spam.
P.P.S. My humble apologies to the rest of the readers.
October 1st, 2006 at 12:39 am
Hi Nizam and No Comments:
I salute both of you for the civility and respect both of you have shown, without any over-reaction or emotion, to disseminate the information as each or both of you see - very professionally handled. Of course, I cannot speak for Dr. Bakri but I am sure we all can learn from this process and the good Doctor will wlecome it. Thanks
October 1st, 2006 at 1:15 am
Dear Fair Malaysian and No Comments,
Assuming there are no objections, particularly from the good Dr., then I am perfectly happy for the discourse to continue here. As you correctly pointed out, No Comments has been most courteous and civil in his reply; thankfully so, as it only eases our task of separating the wheat from the chaff for an issue as weighty as this.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:45 am
Good exchanges, very civil and I am absorbing. Thanks.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:32 am
I think Nizam has lost the debate before it started. He’s now being evasive by confining it to the narrow issue of whether Federal Parliament has the legal right to legislate on the matter of Islamic law etc.
He is not addressing the larger issue which is the the Constitution, the secular state to which it gave birth and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution and hence of civil law and the conflict in jurisdictions
I want to hear his response to the issues No Comment raised over the matter of jurisdiction.
No Comment did not say there were inconsistencies between state and federal constitutional law. What he said was “in the event of a conflict” between the two, then the Federal Constitution prevails and to the extent of that inconsistency the state law is null and void.
Let’s hear it!
October 1st, 2006 at 6:37 am
P.S.
The constitutional provisions No Comment quoted in the form of Articles 3, 11, 160(2) are all relevant to the issue - and so are the cases since cases involve the application of the law to the facts and circumstances of each case.
So let’s hear it!
A good debater does not run away from the issues but answers them.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:43 am
Further the difficulties involved in the interpretation of Article 121(1A) cannot be dealt with in isolation.
What was the intention of the BN government in rushing the Amendment through Parliament when seven DAP members of P’ment were just imprisoned without charge or benefit of counsel.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:19 am
“I further note that in your concluding remarks you were referring to the existence of inconsistencies between state law and the Federal Constitution. Would you care to enumerate those inconsistencies? “ – Nizam
I was referring to the jurisdictional ‘conflict’ between civil and syarah law that Article 121(1A) seems to have introduced.
Let me say it again.
In my final submission, I put it to you that in the event of a conflict over jurisdiction or overlapping of jurisdictions - and since the Federal Constitution is supreme, and because the state is secular and in view of Article 11(1) which allows freedom of religion - the jurisdiction of the syariah court has to give way to the civil court which administers the civil law based on the English common law as opposed to syariah court administering syariah law.
I respectfully submit that Article 121(1A) has been badly drafted allowing politicians from both sides of the political divide to make their own interpretations.
I would like to think of Malaysia as a nation of laws and subject to the rule of law. We will have to wait until the issue of interpretation of Article 121(1A) comes before the nation’s highest court i.e. the Federal Court. It is unfortunate that the justices in the Kamariah Case felt that it was not necessary for them to decide on the width and scope of Article 11(1) Federal Constitution.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:43 am
Dear Sir,
1. Paragraph 1 of your reply (i.e. at 1.10.2006 @ 6.32 am), i.e. “whether Federal Parliament has the legal right to legislate on the matter of Islamic law etc.” clearly illustrates that you have not grasped the issue in controversy.
2. The issue is not whether the Federal Parliament has the legal right to legislate on the matter of Islamic law. The issue, as I have set out quite clearly (29.10.2006 @ 9.24PM - 30.09.2006 @ 10.00 PM) but which still seems to have eluded you, is:
“How does Article 121(1A) go against the spirit of the Constitution when the Ninth Schedule exists?”
So, one wonders whether since you were wrong in comprehending the issue, whether you were right in asserting I lost the debate, if it can be called such. I’d rather like to think this is a discourse (in its conversational sense).
3. Irrespective of your errors in grasping the issue at hand, you were spot on in noting that No Comments actually did not say there were inconsistencies. I apologize for that error. Perhaps, it is more accurate for me to say that No Comments seemed to be alluding to the existence of inconsistencies.
4. In light of, maybe even irrespective of, this correction, I still wonder (as per my comment of 30.09.2006 @ 10.00PM) whether a legislation enacted strictly within the confines of the Ninth Schedule can be correctly termed as being “inconsistent” with the Constitution.
5. As for your comment dated 1.10.2006 @ 6.37 am, permit me to cross that bridge once I have received an appropriate clarification to the question posed from my very first comment to “NoComments”. Its relevance or irrelevance will reveal itself in due course.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:19 am
Hi Friends:
I feel enlightened by the discourse on the constitutional effects of Art. 121. Please correct me if I am wrong, it looks like the introduction Art 121, and with particular reference to 121(A), was intended to deal with the “gaps” in the syariah laws and to provide a better understanding and application of the syariah to Muslims. It was the understanding then that Art 121 would prevent Muslims from abusing the syariah by seeking refuge in civil law.
What was not anticipated then were the problems like those of Moorthy’s and Syamalas where the parties in the dispute involve both Muslims and Non-Muslims and this area was not addressed properly, leading to the present predicament. Both Nizam and No Comments could be right, seen from their perspective. The former AG did mention that the courts need to “brave-up” to the situation but I am not so sure if we should chide the courts for this predicament. This is essentially a legislative problem. The govt of the day and the legislative body should remove the ambiguity. Emotions can run high and may evetually lead to discord if it is left to the interpretation by the courts. Why should the courts be hauled-up for the slip by the govt and our esteemed wakil rakyats - or are they just a bunch of ignorant monkeys waiting for their bananas? What a predicament they have created? Notwithstanding, there cannot be any dispute that the Federal Constit is supreme but where there are conflicting interpretations within the Fed Constit, it is the duty of the govt to remove those ambiguities.
Please pardon me if I am wrong as I am not a lawyer. TQ
October 1st, 2006 at 8:38 am
Nizam,
You remind me of a boxer who bobs and weaves with every blow delivered by his opponent - but does nothing more.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:45 am
Dear NoComments,
1. My reply dated 1.10.2006 @ 7.43AM is directed to the commenter who replied before you.
2. This represents my reply to your reply dated 1.10.2006 @ 7.19AM and my thoughts are as follows:
a. There are some matters which have fallen in the cracks and this is particularly clear in the Syamala case where you have a spouse who has converted to Islam and another which remains a non-Muslim. Clearly, such a case (i.e. particularly in matrimonial disputes and tug of wars relating to corpses where one party to the dispute is Muslim and another non-Muslim) is is not properly contemplated by the insertion of Article 121(1A).
I can’t say I agree with the decision in Syamala’s case. However, as it stands, I don’t really have an alternative suggestion save that the issue merits more consideration and even cooperation from both Courts (i.e. civil and Syariah).
b. As for your point regarding Article 11(1), permit me to point out that it is subject to Article 11(4) and particularly 11(5) which provides that the Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality. Vis a vis apostasy issues, one wonders whether a Syariah legislation can be characterized as conforming to the Article 11(5) types of legislation.
[For the benefit of one commenter - Article 3(4) seems quite telling about the width of Article 3 and Article 160(2) maybe the hammer in the coffin since it provides an anthropological definition of Malay but remains rife with controversy since it is arguably confined to Malay special rights]
c. I don’t think the state is secular, my dear sir.
I actually think Tun Hanif quite correctly stated it when he said it was quasi-secular.
d. The Civil Courts are distinct from the Syariah Courts in the sense they appear to be empowered by Article 121(1) whereas the Syariah Courts have to undergo two phases to be possess jurisdiction i.e. the States must establish the Syariah Court and then vest the Syariah Courts with a Ninth Schedule type jurisdiction.
I am also aware that some legal scholars take the view that the jurisdiction possessed by the Civil Court pursuant to Article 121(1) is “wide and ulimited”. Implicitly, this seems suggestive that the Civil Courts are ’superior’. To me, the Civil Courts are superior in all things save a Ninth Schedule type matter. In that sense, Article 121(1A), badly drafted or otherwise, properly ensures that this is observed.
Further, I wonder whether Item 4 to List 1 of the Ninth Schedule (Federal List) maybe relevant to consider as well. It provides, among others, that the Federal Government has the power to promulgate “civil and criminal law and procedure and the administration of justice, including (a) Constitution and organization of all courts OTHER THAN SYARIAH COURTS; (b) Jurisdiction and powers of all such courts.”
e. For the above reasons, I most respectfully do not share your assertions that Article 121(1A) offends the spirit of the Federal Constitution given the existence of the various provisions to the Ninth Schedule (e.g. Item 4 List I and Item 1 List II) and as generally explained above. I can however respect where you are coming from.
3. In any event, I too would like to think Malaysia as a nation of laws and subject to the rule of law. Still, one hopes that such aspects are not sacrificed for the sake of expediency.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:59 am
fair malaysian says, “Notwithstanding, there cannot be any dispute that the Federal Constit is supreme but where there are conflicting interpretations within the Fed Constit, it is the duty of the govt to remove those ambiguities.”
there are three branches of government, namely legislative, executive and judiciary and since we are a parliamentary democracy obliged to observe the doctrine of separation of powers, the three branches are independent of each other.
the executive branch drafts the law and then introduces them as bills in the legislature and these become law only when the legislature passes them. the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law passed by the legislature – but when doing so it should be mindful that its role is limited to interpretation of the law using the usual tenets and canons of construction. it is not its role to peep into the minds of legislators and speculate as to their intention.
i don’t see how the executive could avoid passing amendments to the law passed by the legislature once the judiciary interprets it differently from the intention of the executive.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:11 am
“ I don’t think the state is secular, my dear sir. I actually think Tun Hanif quite correctly stated it when he said it was quasi-secular.”
With due respect to my friend, Hanif is hardly an authority in this area. A state is either secular or not secular.
Hanif is always waffling which is why he barely made it in his class at University of Buckingham.
October 1st, 2006 at 9:39 am
Lord President:
“i don’t see how the executive could avoid passing amendments to the law passed by the legislature once the judiciary interprets it differently from the intention of the executive.”
The problem is the “intention of executive” is not known to this day. The stony silence means there is no will to resolve the issue. On the judiciary’s role, I think I mentioned precisely what you have stated, that is, the role of the courts is to interprete the laws passed by the legislature.
What irks me is that, there have been “punches” thrown across the divide with forums and conventions held by the respective parties to state their stand but the govt, which should have been the rightful party to initiate discussions and dialogues to overcome the problem seems to be mulling on the issue.
As much as Art 121 was passed to prevent abuse by Muslims, which was the intended reason anyway, Muslims and in particular Muslim converts should be prevented from abusing it to deny or affect the rights of Non-Muslims. This is a clear-cut issue. Although it premises on religious issues, there should be no abuse and in this case the abuse seems to be from Muslims, either way. I believe ordinary Malaysians of whatever religious background can understand that when a Non-Muslim converts to Islam, the Non-Muslim partner should not be made a scapegoat. The decision of the party who converts must be respected as it is within his or her own right to embrace a religion of his/her choice but issues relating to the spouse and children should be dealt with under the civil law - and I do not know why the govt is dragging its feet on this. These are issues it must address promptly but sadly neither the AG nor the govt seems to be pro-active on this.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:21 am
“I am also aware that some legal scholars take the view that the jurisdiction possessed by the Civil Court pursuant to Article 121(1) is “wide and ulimited” – Nizam
Yes – civil courts have what is referred to as “inherent jurisdiction” which in itself is sufficient to dispose of difficulties arising from conflicting jurisdictions. Therefore, it was wrong of the High Court judge in the Moorthy case to decline to accept jurisdiction.
“To me, the Civil Courts are superior in all things save a Ninth Schedule type matter. In that sense, Article 121(1A), badly drafted or otherwise, properly ensures that this is observed.”
The provisions of the Federal Constitution must be interpreted in ways which are consistent with each other. When it comes to the issue of syariah court ousting the jurisdiction of that of the civil court, reference must be made to such Articles like Articles 3, 11, 160 (2). The problem cannot be resolved by a reference and without more to the Ninth Schedule.
“As for your point regarding Article 11(1), permit me to point out that it is subject to Article 11(4) and particularly 11(5) ….”
Sub-clause 4 merely prohibits proselytizing of Muslims. There is nothing in this clause which serves to limit the “religious freedom” referred to under Article 11(1).
I do not think Article 11(5) has any relevance to the issue.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:00 am
Dear No Comments,
1. Why was it wrong for the High Court judge to rely on Article 121(1A) in Moorthy’s case? Didn’t the Syariah Courts hear the matter already?
2. I am somewhat puzzled by your continued reference to Articles 3 and 160(2). Don’t they militate against your assertions? As for Article 11, please see below.
3. You are quite correct about Article 11(4). Sorry, I was skimming a bit. Its getting late. So in that sense Art. 11(1) is not subject to it.
4. The irrelevance of the Article 11(5) argument - Are you suggesting that a legislation like the Syariah Criminal Offences Act can’t be characterized as a general law relating to morality?
October 1st, 2006 at 11:31 am
P.S. Actually, I am beginning to wonder whether you are looking at Art. 11(5) from the perspective of Syamala’s case and Moorthy’s case. I suppose I am looking at it from the perspective of the apostasy cases.
October 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pm
“Why was it wrong for the High Court judge to rely on Article 121(1A) in Moorthy’s case? Didn’t the Syariah Courts hear the matter already?” - Nizam
I don’t have the full facts of the case as I’m sitting here behind a computer the other side of the world from where you currently are - and did not and still do not have access to print media to claim that I know the full facts of the case as it happened.
I did not say that it was wrong for the High Court to rely on Article 121(1A).
If the sole issue before the High Court was whether the deceased was in fact and in law a Muslim before he passed on, then I respectfully submit that the High Court judge erred when he declined jurisdiction.
The civil court in any case has what is referred to as inherent jurisdiction over the matter. The decision to decline jurisdiction in that case is unfortunate because in addition to stirring up controversy over the matter, an injustice has been done to the widow and family of the deceased, assuming of course her contention that her husband was not a Muslim when he died was a fact. By refusing to take up the case, the court has denied Moorthy’s widow of the only legal remedy available to her.
This then brings Article 8 of the Federal Constitution into play.
It is not about a matter which falls under the State List 11 of the Ninth Schedule and therefore is a matter within the “sole and exclusive jurisdiction” of the syariah court. Period.
By the way, what does Article 121(1A) say? I only have access to a hard copy of the Federal Constitution of 1957 which is more than 30 years old. What is the difference between Article 121(1) and Article 121(1A)? The online version that I have appears to be almost identical.
Thanks.
October 1st, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Dear No Comments.
At the outset you pointed out that you did not say that it was wrong for the High Court to rely on Article 121(1A). It seemed from the tenor of your statement that was what you are pointing at.
Anyways, lets make this more simpler to follow. You make your statement (briefly if possible), I will recap and pose questions (if necessary) and hopefully it becomes easier to deal with the issues that develop from that. Hopefully, that will also prevents any inadvertant error(s) on my part.
1. You said - If the sole issue before the High Court was whether the deceased was in fact and in law a Muslim before he passed on, then I respectfully submit that the High Court judge erred when he declined jurisdiction.
From the widow’s application, the following declarations (relevant to the discussion) were sought i.e.:
(a) Moorthy was a person of a Hindu faith and followed the custom as well as the religion of a Hindu prior to his death;
(b) Moorthy was not a Muslim before the date of his death.
Further, the High Court declined jurisdiction because of Article 121(1A) and also due to the fact that the Syariah Court had already resolved the question of fact ie whether the deceased was a Muslim principally as there was the evidence that the deceased had converted to Islam and his conversion had been duly registered.
2. Kindly be informed that Article 121(1) and (1A) states as follows:
“121. Judicial power of the Federation.
(1) There shall be two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction and status, namely -
(a) one in the States of Malaya, which shall be known as the High Court in Malaya and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Malaya as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong may determine; and
(b) one in the States of Sabah and Sarawak, which shall be known as the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak and shall have its principal registry at such place in the States of Sabah and Sarawak as the Yang di- Pertuan Agong may determine;
and such inferior courts as may be provided by federal law and the High Courts and inferior courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers as may be conferred by or under federal law.
(1A) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.”
Hope that helps us move forward somewhat.
October 1st, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Article 121
“(1A) The courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.” This is the problem – and the problem is one of interpretation.
1. Don’t you agree that the Federal Constitution of 1957 gave birth to a secular state?
2. Don’t you agree that the Federal Constitution is supreme, and that in the event of a conflict between it and state law, the latter to the extent of the consistency is null and void?
3. Don’t you agree that matters relating to the religion of Islam is a state matter, that Federal Parliament cannot legislate on matters on the State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution of 1957?
If your answer is “No” to all three, kindly explain the inconsistencies in your interpretation of Articles 3, 11, and how do you reconcile these with the requirements of Article 8?
October 1st, 2006 at 6:13 pm
correction
“to the extent of the inconsistency”
October 1st, 2006 at 6:28 pm
i think it is now in order for nizam to make his concession speech.
October 1st, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Dear NoComments,
I must confess I am still unable to fully comprehend the basis of your assertion that Article 121(1A) “goes against the spirit of the Constitution”.
That aside, please note that you have als not addressed questions 2 and 4 which I posed to you in my comment dated 1.10.2006 @ 11.00 am. I am sure that is an ommission and look forward to receiving an answer on the same.
That aside, my response to your questions are:
1. Vis a vis Question 1, as I have set out in my prevous replies, no.
2. Vis a vis Question 2, yes. But is there any State law that is inconsistent and is relevant to the issue? Addressing this question will allow us some inkling as to what you are driving at.
Alternatively, why is Question 2 relevant even?
3. Clearly yes.
As for your last question, since my answer to no, yes, yes, I do not need to address the same.
P.S You also said that the problem in relation to Article 121(1A) is interpretation. Again, my dear sir, I am getting the What but not the Why.
P.P.S. If you noted what was supposedly inconsistencies in my interpretation, please set them out. However, correct me if I am wrong my dear sir, but wasn’t this exercise meant to be your exposition as to why Article 121(1A) “goes against the spirit of the Constitution”?
October 1st, 2006 at 7:49 pm
because i say so??
October 1st, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Isn’t it obvious that the guy is saying that 121(1A) if given its narrow interpretation would be inconsistent with the secular nature of the Constitution?
You’re going in circles and insist on being argumentative. Answer his questions. Let’s hear your argument. Don’t answer a question by another question.
October 1st, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Let’s hear your interpretation of (1A)?
October 1st, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Dear Lord President,
1. Well, what is the narrow interpretation of Article 121(1A)? It did not seem obvious to me that the learned gentleman was hinting towards a narrow interpretation of (1A).
2. I have answered his question and I have also set out my interpretation of (1A).
3. Contrary to your assertions, I am not insisting on being argumentative. I am insisting on being educated. No less. That is if he is inclined to educate me.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:08 am
OK lah brother…
You sound condescending which is an insult to us resident posters here. Like Fair Malaysian says earlier, you brought nothing new in your ‘argument’ and like that guy with that obnoxious handle says you’re contented just “weaving and bobbing.” No boxer ever wins a fight that way.
I have been following this ‘discourse’ but it seems one sided with No Comment trying his best to ‘educate’ you but you adding nothing new except to keep insisting on being ‘educated’. How do you educate someone who refuses to be educated…only satisfied with just his ‘what’ and ‘why’?? You’re just dancing around the real issue.
I’m a lawyer too but I know a loyar burok when I see and hear one.
[MBM's note: This posting is made from a different ISP than the usual Ogre's address. It is NOT a posting by the usual Ogre.]
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:12 am
..sorry, I lied about being a lawyer. But at least I am not a loyar. 10-4
[MBM's note: This posting is made from a different ISP than the usual Ogre's address. It is NOT a posting by the usual Ogre.]
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:56 am
Dear ogre,
If I sounded condescending, my humble apologies, that is not my intention. If I am adamant about being educated, it is because I find what No Comments said most intriguing i.e. that Article 121(1A) offends the spirit of the Constitution. Perhaps I too new to be included in the folds of the resident posters here, I can accept that.
However, all I am seeking is the basis of No Comments assertion that Article 121(1A) offends the spirit of the Constitution. I have found the basis of the assertion difficult to understand/follow simply because, to me, statements are made but the reasons (the why) for those statements are not evident. Hence, my post of 1.10.2006 @ 11.00 where I attempted to understand No Comment’s assertions by placing questions meant to assist my understanding.
I apologize for being slow but humor me.
By the by, if I was intent on being condescending or a loyar buruk, I wouldn’t have humored No Comments request to set out Article 121(1A) and the relief sought in Moorthy’s case. Hopefully, that itself is evidence of my sincere efforts in attempting to understand the basis of the assertions.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:48 am
“To me, the Civil Courts are superior in all things save a Ninth Schedule type matter. In that sense, Article 121(1A), badly drafted or otherwise, properly ensures that this is observed.”
Your argument seems to me to be that with 121(1A), the federal legislature is merely promulgating a matter which is on the State List of the 9th Schedule, the power to do which is grounded, you argue, in the Federal List of the 9th Schedule. You also hinted earlier, though you did feel the need to rely on it, that the power to do so (and to introduce subsidiary legislation) is also grounded in Article 11(5).
(My knowledge of Malaysian Constitutional law, I must admit, is based on knowledge gained during my days as an Economics undergrad one life time ago and is significant to note also prior to the 1988 Amendment. This topic would have made a good subject for my final year mini-thesis, complex though it may be).
“Implicitly, this seems suggestive that the Civil Courts are ’superior’. To me, the Civil Courts are superior in all things save a Ninth Schedule type matter. In that sense, Article 121(1A), badly drafted or otherwise, properly ensures that this is observed.”
I have a problem with your characterization of the problem brought on by the 1988 Amendment.
The problem of interpretation cannot be resolved by the use merely of terms such as “narrow” and “wide” less still “superior” or “inferior” but is best approached in terms of the “inherent jurisdiction” of the civil court, of Article 3 which creates a secular state and in the context of the ‘equality before the law’ Article 8 of the Federal Constitution of 1957 – and by that I am referring to the kind of problems we face with a case like Moorthy which involves spouses who shared the same religious beliefs but one of whom was alleged to have converted to Islam during the course of their marriage without the knowledge of the other.
We cannot ignore that this case and cases like it involves also human rights issues and includes, though not limited to, constitutional provisions like Article 8 and Article 11(1). The relevance of Article 11(1) is clear if Moorthy had actually made the conversion but prior to his death had re-converted to the religion of his birth – a common enough occurrence among converts.
I submit that the 1988 Amendment was poorly drafted and failed to take into consideration the kind of situation and problems that a case like Moorthy presented. Surely the intention is not to deny the basic human rights of a spouse who is merely seeking a legal remedy in the courts when she had no locus standi in the other.
Having said that I am not acquainted with the full facts of the case. I never knew that Syariah court has prior to that declared that Moorthy was a Muslim. Who was the applicant – the Religious Department? Since it was apparently ex parte, the widow being a non-Muslim had no right to appear before the judge in that court. Even then had the widow’s action been allowed to proceed in the civil court Malaysians would be made privy to all the legal arguments since the matter would probably to go to the country’s highest court. But the High Court judge freaked out by simply declining jurisdiction – and leave all of us with a bad taste in our mouths.
Politicians politicized the issue so much that the problem remains waiting for another case like it. Non-Muslims and non-Malays feel they have been short changed and denied justice.
How do you reconcile cases like this with cases like Lina Joy which has now reached the Court of Appeal? Is there a decision yet?
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:33 am
Dear Nizam Bashir
Some sleaze slimeball has hijack my name and posted the two posting. I have already informed Dr Bakri. I enjoy the exchange between you and No Comment but will not make any comment.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:38 am
Yep. Somebody has also hijacked my position as Lord President. It’s too late for me to file a police report. It may not be so in your case, Ogre.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:38 am
Dear No Comments,
1. You said - Your argument seems to me to be that with 121(1A), the federal legislature is merely promulgating a matter which is on the State List of the 9th Schedule, the power to do which is grounded, you argue, in the Federal List of the 9th Schedule. You also hinted earlier, though you did feel the need to rely on it, that the power to do so (and to introduce subsidiary legislation) is also grounded in Article 11(5).
(My knowledge of Malaysian Constitutional law, I must admit, is based on knowledge gained during my days as an Economics undergrad one life time ago and is significant to note also prior to the 1988 Amendment. This topic would have made a good subject for my final year mini-thesis, complex though it may be).
Hardly. to me, when Article 121(1A) was introduced, the Federal Legislature was merely promulgating a matter on the Federal List. Consider firstly the wording in Article 121(1A):
“The courts referred to in Clause (1) [i.e. the Civil Courts] shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.”
Clearly, the Federal Legislature was only concerned of the jurisdictions of the Civil Courts and this is clearly something the Federal Legislature is entitled to do pursuant to the Ninth Schedule List I Item 4(b) of the Constitution.
In any event, my dear sir, your humility humbles me. However, it may be misplaced as at least you did gain some knowledge of Malaysian Constitutional law during your undergrad days. I did not even have that luxury.
Perhaps, now you can better understand why I seek the privilege of this discourse.
2. You said - I have a problem with your characterization of the problem brought on by the 1988 Amendment … Non-Muslims and non-Malays feel they have been short changed and denied justice.
Respectfully, Article 3 does not create a secular state but neither does it create an Islamic state. To me, the Article lacks any utility in resolving the propriety of Article 121(1A) particularly as Article 3(4) states that Article 3 does not derogate (take away) from any other provision.
As for Article 8(1), though you pointed out equality before the law, perhaps you attempting to assert that the widow has a “right to be heard” pursuant to this Article.
The question is whether the Syariah Courts are denying the widow the “right to be heard”? Well, yes and no. She can’t be heard as a litigant but she can be heard as a witness. (See the Ninth Schedule generally and Nyonya Tahir’s case)
More importantly, is the “right to be heard” absolute? No. Please see Article 8(5) where it is clearly stated that the Article does not invalidate or prohibit any provision regulating personal law. I could be wrong, but perhaps those provisions relating to the process relevant for conversion under the State Enactment, may possibly be characterized as a matter pertaining to personal law.
As for Article 11(1), as I have pointed out earlier, it is subject to Article 11(5) which does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, health and morality. Syariah legislations, to me, can be characterized as being a general law relating to morality. In any event, perhaps this is moot given that Article 11(1) did not arise for consideration in Moorthy’s case.
As for your assertion that Article 121(1) is poorly drafted, I humbly beg to differ. Please do not get me wrong. I accept that there is something unjust in that case but not in the manner which most parties are approaching it i.e. as if the problem lies in Article 121(1A) of the Constitution.
To me, if at all there is any complaint, it seems to center on the issue of no notification of the CONVERSION PROCESS as contained in the STATE ENACTMENTS. Perhaps, it is this process which has to be remedied. Not Article 121(1A).
I understand the overall sentiment by the non Muslims and non Malays. However, please note that I am approaching this is a question of law. I firmly believe in the rule of law eventhough I maybe a Muslim.
Even if I were to approach this from a religious standpoint, I must say I am compelled even all the more to maintain my viewpoint simply because the Constitution is a contract which, like it or not, all of us have subscribed to. I think it is trite that any Muslim must uphold the terms of his bargain.
3. How do you reconcile cases like this with cases like Lina Joy which has now reached the Court of Appeal? Is there a decision yet?
Lina Joy is at the Federal Court stage now. The issue at the Court of Appeal stage was dealt with as if the same was an appeal relating to an administrative appeal. This has now been enlarged at the Federal Court level to include other matters.
Well, I am more sympathethic to Moorthy’s and Syamala’s case as they appear to have fallen through the cracks in the system.
Not so in Azlina Jailani a.k.a. Lina Joy’s case. She has a right to be heard in the Syariah Courts in every sense. That and the fact there is Article 11(5), 160(2) and the existence of the Ninth Schedule to contend with.
By the by, when you say reconcile the 3 cases, I trust you did not mean that everyone is going to get what they desire.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Dear Sir,
I must commend you for being highly original in your witty remarks. This recent one is almost as good as the one regarding the “boxer who bobs and weaves with every blow”.
Still, you humble me with what I take to be your compliments regarding my arguments. However, perhaps those compliments may be premature. We have yet to hear No Comments arguments and I suspect his response will be more worthwhile to pay heed to.
After all, he may have a wider perspective to offer given the fact that he is residing in a foreign land and may be possess better insight given this background. I believe this even though the learned writer has provided a disclaimer to his thoughts on the basis that he is merely acquainted with Constitutional Law from his times as an Economics undergrad. I hope I am not singular in that view.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Yes. Whatever I know about the Malaysian Constitution could be traced back to my days as an undergrad when I studied Constitutional Law under the late Prof. Nik Rashid.
That is not meant to be a disclaimer, by the way.
I can still remember how he blew his fuse in a confrontation with me in his ‘private chamber’ at the FEA ( or Faculty of Economics & Administration). He thought I was challenging his views on a matter.
He was not a man to easily forgive someone he thought was trying to be a smart ass I suppose - because he gave me a D in my finals. Fortunately before he passed on I have had the chance to be friends again. He was even proud to introduce me to his young wife as his former student.
May God bless his soul.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:36 pm
By way of clarification to my reply of 2.10.2006 @ 8.46 PM, please note that it was in response to remarks made by one commenter and which has since been deleted by the owner of this blog. I believe it was deleted by the owner of this blog due to its racial contents.
Simply put, my reply of 2.10.2006@ 8.46 PM is not directed to any other commenter.
P.S. To No Comments - I couldn’t find the right word I wanted to use. ‘Disclaimer’ was the only one that came to mind and time was somewhat of a constraint as I was rushing for a meeting. Maybe ‘caveat’ would have been more apt.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:57 am
Yo Nizam!
Wa happened to Lina Joy? Why you guys want to deny her of her only joy. If she wanna become Christian it is her choice, man!
October 4th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Dear Weed,
I take it you subscribe to absolute freedom of choice.
The question is whether that is appropriate. To me, freedom of choice is in truth illusory. The more you know, the more finite your choices are. But that is just me.
I suppose that is why scholars and academicians are around. They are meant to advise us what is the optimal outcome in any situation. However, times are changing and everyone seems to think they are their own scholars.
As a wise man once said to me - you have ‘pandai’ (those who are clever) and then you have ‘pandai-pandai’ (those who think they are clever). So which one does she fall into? You tell me.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:58 am
To be honest,this is nothing more than religious chauvinism,evangalists hope to convert muslims and likewise muslims hope to convert christians as if by doing so, the world will be a more peaceful place, there always the dynamic of competition and struggle for righteousness,just like various muslim sects, different evangalist movement/church compete with each other and jostling for position and memberships, blogger ‘no comment’ is right, US is a secular nation, the beauty is minority ’s rights and freedom of worship are protected there,sects like sufi,ahmaddiya,mormon,amish,shite etc can practise without state interference, you can even start a new religion if you want as long as it does not endanger the public domain. .btw a bit absorbing on this malaysian constitution.. ,nevertheless interesting debate by the learned two.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:15 am
“To be honest,this is nothing more than religious chauvinism,evangalists hope to convert muslims and likewise muslims hope to convert christians..” - Angel
This is not the issue in Lina Joy’s case.
What are the issues in the case, Nizam? If you’re a practising lawyer, you’d make a good defence counsel. Let’s see if you make a good prosecutor.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Dear No Comments,
And here I thought no one would ever think of asking me for the counter arguments.
However, give me till this weekend. This is even more interesting than what we have spoken of so far and there are some theories I wish to develop for your consumption.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Waiting with bated breath…
October 5th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
the brain and the soul are two different things. laws are meant to control the brain, god controls our souls. for those who wish to control the souls of others using laws, they do not respect god.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:32 am
I offer my 72 virgins to them who make it to Heaven’s Gate by the fastest way i.e. blow themselves up for me. This offer still stands although I am fast running out of virgins.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Nizam:
Should it be that she has to fall into one of your own created “slots” ? Are you dismissing other possibilities which may not be congruent with yours?
October 7th, 2006 at 5:45 am
Dear Fair Malaysian,
You be the judge of that.
I hope I am not. Hence this exercise. 
Anyways, almost done with the counter-arguments. Just writing it up as I post this short reply to you.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Nizam said:
I take it you subscribe to absolute freedom of choice.
The question is whether that is appropriate. To me, freedom of choice is in truth illusory. The more you know, the more finite your choices are. But that is just me.
I suppose that is why scholars and academicians are around. They are meant to advise us what is the optimal outcome in any situation. However, times are changing and everyone seems to think they are their own scholars.
As a wise man once said to me - you have ‘pandai’ (those who are clever) and then you have ‘pandai-pandai’ (those who think they are clever). So which one does she fall into? You tell me.
That was your response to ‘Weed’. How does this “pandai” and “pandai-pandai” apply to Lina Joy and her case? May be you can enlighten me!
October 7th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Dear No Comments,
You said - This is not the issue in Lina Joy’s case. What are the issues in the case, Nizam?
Confining the arguments purely to the issues in the Azlina Jailani a.k.a. Lina Joy case (“AJ”) and which issues the Federal Court intends to determine, allow me to firstly set out the issues in question:
“1. Whether the National Registration Department (NRD) is entitled in law to impose as a requirement for deleting the entry of “Islam” in the applicant’s IC that she produce a certificate or a declaration or an order from the syariah court that she has apostatized?
2. Whether the NRD has correctly construed its powers under the National Registration Regulations 1990, in particular Regulation 4 and Regulation 14, to impose the requirement as stated above when it is not expressly provided for in the Regulations?
3. Whether Soon Singh was rightly decided when it adopted the implied jurisdiction theory propounded in Md Hakim Lee in preference to Ng Wan Chan and Lee Chang Seng which declared that unless an express jurisdiction is conferred on the Syariah court, the civil courts will retain their jurisdiction?”
Question 1
AJ applied a number of times to the NRD for a change. However, when AJ applied the second time, it was approved and a replacement identity card was issued with the name Lina Joy but bore “Islam” as her religion and her original name in a portion of the card.
Subsequently, AJ applied for removal of the word “Islam” and her original name from the replacement identity card.
The female clerk at the counter refused to accept the form saying that it was incomplete without an order from the Syariah Court that she had renounced Islam.
At the material time, the relevant Regulation merely provides that for a change of name (or correction even), all that is needed is a statutory declaration supporting the application together with a reason for such change of name.
As, AJ had already stated in her statutory declaration, among other matters: (i) that she had never professed or practised Islam as her religion since birth; (ii) that she had embraced Christianity in 1990; and (iii) that she intended to marry a Christian … and the form she attempted to submit with the statutory declaration makes it clear that she no longer wished to be a Muslim, the NRD should have permitted her application to remove the word “Islam” and the original name from the replacement identity card.
Question 2
The Regulations in question appear to be clear in that there is no reference at all to any Syariah order. It is not a document specifically prescribed by the Regulations.
Therefore, by requiring the production of the said order/certificate, the Director-General took into an irrelevant consideration and he acted unreasonably in doing so.
However, the question of whether it is an “irrelevant” consideration is also dependant on the answer to question 3 as the Soon Singh’s case stipulated that it is the Syariah Court that has the jurisdiction to make declarations of apostasy of a Muslim EVEN WHERE THE SYARIAH LEGISLATION IN QUESTION HAS NO EXPRESS PROVISIONS ON APOSTASY.
Question 3
Whether Soon Singh was rightly decided when it adopted the implied jurisdiction theory propounded in Md Hakim Lee in preference to Ng Wan Chan and Lee Chang Seng which declared that unless an express jurisdiction is conferred on the Syariah court, the civil courts will retain their jurisdiction.
Generally, the principle to be borne in mind about Syariah Courts in Malaysia is that it is NOT a created by Islamic Syariah but by State Enactments.
The State Enactments will generally do 2 things i.e. constitute/create the Syariah Courts AND clothe it with jurisdiction over subject matters envisaged in the Ninth Schedule List II Item 1.
To put it another way, if the Enactment does not SPECIFICALLY give jurisdiction in the Act to the Syariah Courts, then the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over that matter.
The Syariah Enactments in Lina Joy’s matter does not have any provisions regarding apostasy. As such, the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction on apostasy and would be in no position to provide the certificate that the National Registration Department wished to demand from AJ. This is was what was envisaged in Ng Wan Chan and Lee Chang Seng.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Dear Fair Malaysian,
Weed was putting forward an argument rooted in freedom of choice and because Lina chose, we must respect her choice. The question is whether freedom of choice should be unlimited in all circumstances, even for those who may be in a state of ignorance or blindness if you will? The phrase “pandai-pandai” was tongue in cheek but largely meant to invite some thought as to whether the question of whether we wished the foundation of the nation in this respect to be determined by an individual’s free will or by academician’s or scholars. Hopefully, that clarifies the same.
October 7th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Hi Nizam:
I believe that those who believe in religion and god and the “symbolic” things that go along with them are ignorant. Who then decides who is ignorant, you, I? Can academicians and scholars be always right? Aren’t they, too human beings who can be vulnerable? What about those who masquerade as scholars and impose their will on others?
We often get to hear that “this is the true ‘religion’ and the others are wrong. This happens even within faiths. Would I be wrong to believe that they are ignorant, I mean both of them? What baffles me is the oft remarked statement that one has to be simple to “reach” god. Contrast this with the “scholars” of religions who seem to enjoy monopoly over the “so-called kingdom of god”. Sometimes I used to take a swipe at such claims that I lost an opportunity to be the “secretary of god” so that I, too, can have the privilege of knowing what happens to me after I die.
As far as I understand no one knows the answer, or putting in another “pandai-pandai” way, some seem to pretend to know the answer. Is it a matter of concern that a man can only be a “human-being” if he is affiliated to a religion, any religion for that matter? Or anyone can guarantee that a person of one religion only would suffer from one particular illness peculiar to that particular religion? Or someone is going to spring a surprise, only those belonging to a particular religion will die and the others all will live forever? Or the person who controls my beliefs will not be “judged”? We don’t know and so it has become the greatest guessing game of all times.
What governs a “civil” society should not be confused with the personal beliefs, including faith. When a particular faith is brought to the fore and imposed upon society, then it must face the scrutiny of that society. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons that religion and the belief in god should be left to individual’s choice. We cannot have both ways, can we?
October 7th, 2006 at 10:53 am
I say my learned counsel…
If like that, then how come deceased Moorthy was denied his day in court when he was already in the dark??
October 7th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Hi Nizam:
Your substantiated argument is good.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:04 am
“The Syariah Enactments in Lina Joy’s matter does not have any provisions regarding apostasy. As such, the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction on apostasy and would be in no position to provide the certificate that the National Registration Department wished to demand from AJ. This is was what was envisaged in Ng Wan Chan and Lee Chang Seng.”
Then who does??
Simply stating without more, that the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over the issue of apostasy , merely opens the floodgate to more litigation.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Dear Aiseyman,
1. There was some controversy in Moorty’s case. The Syariah Court had already determined, pursuant to evidence by Moorty’s army colleagues, that Moorty was still a Muslim when he died. The wife’s application was heard AFTER the Syariah Court had determined that fact.
2. As for your question in your comment of 7.10.2006 @ 11.04 am, please allow a couple of days before I respond. I just would like some of the other readers to digest the arguments in support of AJ’s case.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Dear Aiseyman,
Slight addition, “… wife’s application IN THE CIVIL COURTS …”
October 7th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Dear Fair Malaysian,
Vis a vis your comments of 7.10.2006 @ 10.49 AM, that is the crux of the debate in Lina’s matter or any matters involving apostasy.
Speaking purely from a religious perspective, what compounds the problem, is the fact that a large majority of Muslim scholars/jurists are unanimous that apostasy is a moral wrong in Islam. If so, then it becomes a matter of faith and its going to be interesting to see how that is worked out.
As for your last comment about “civil” society, I hope you can appreciate the fact that there MAY (as opposed to is) be a gap between social expectations and the present legal framework. If so, the legal framework has to be brought up to par with the social expecations. This may involve reconsidering the relevant Articles of the Constitutions or at least reconsidering some of the cases which has previously been regarded as good law.
October 7th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Your Honour, may I have your response to the following (rather than be limited to issues of jurisdiction):
“Apostasy or converting our of Islam (murtad in Islamic terminology) has been made a criminal offence under the various Islamic enactment of the states within the federation of Malaysia. Since Islamic or shariah laws are administered on a state basis, there is no uniformity in the state Islamic laws as to the form and penalties for apostasy/. Thus the offence of apostasy takes various forms in different states:
In certain states, the act of a Muslim declaring himself to be a non-Muslim is an offence and punishable with varying degrees of imprisonment, fine or both (Section 48 of Syariah Criminal (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1992 of the state of Negri Sembilan; Section 12 of the crimes (Shariah) Enactment 1992 of the state of Perak).
Not only do the Islamic statutes or enactments of the states from within the federation of Malaysia make apostasy a crime, they also make the non-practice of and non-adherence to the Islamic way of life an offence punishable with varying degrees of imprisonment, fine or both. One commits “acts of apostasy “ and therefore is liable for a range of offences under Islamic statues or State enactments by the carrying on of a non-Muslim lifestyle, the following seemingly innocuous acts if and when committed by Muslims would be offences under Islamic states (for example, Parts 11 -1V of the shariah criminal offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997.”
Thanks.
October 7th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Hi Nizam:
Yes, I see and agree, that revisions or amendments are required to keep in tandem with new developments. This, by itself, may not be construed as a problem but it becomes one when politicians with skewed views hijack the opportunity for their self-interests.
These days, religion is being used to wage proxy wars, far from the claimed view as something to do with faith. All religions seem to be tainted along these lines. As a young kid, I remember there were 2 temples in the locality I lived. My parents prohibited me from going to one of the temples, which incidentally was started by someone who left to start the new one after some misunderstanding. Be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindusim, all have fallen victim to man’s own greed and politics and, as I said earlier, the religions are merely stooges to stage proxy wars. I don’t pray but that has not made me a lesser human being and when I look around at those who preach me with one breath and do something else in another breath, then my understanding and value of religion is very diminished and reinforces my belief that you need not need religion to be a better person.
October 7th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
“do not need religion to be a better person
October 7th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Dear No Comments,
1. First some background to those varying punishments. It must be borne in mind that in the federal system in Malaysia, the “heads of religion” are the various Sultans of the States and where there are no Sultans, if I recollect rightly, the position is held by the Tuan Yang DiPertua/Governor.
I suppose the Sultans wanted to retain some position of influence as far as the political development in Malaysia was concerned. In fact, the Ruler’s representative was quite influential as far as Article 3 was concerned.
Anyways, since the Sultans wanted that role, religion was then demarcated to the States via the Ninth Schedule and which is why we are in the position we are in. However, as I understand it, there are moves to unify the various State Enactments to ensure that all state legislation are uniform in this respect.
2. As for the jurisdictional issue, which though you have requested ‘leave’ that the same be ignored, but may have some bearing to resolving the disparate punishments promulgated via the various State Enactments.
If one reads carefully the Ninth Schedule List 2, which is rather long-ish, it actually goes on to say that “… the constitution, organisation and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any matters included in this paragraph, but SHALL NOT have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law …”.
What that means is simply this:
(a) States may have jurisdiction to create Syariah legislation over a number of matters;
(b) However, broadly speaking, the Syariah Courts DO NOT have jurisdiction to hear those criminal offences UNTIL AND UNLESS the same is conferred by Federal Law.
So in that sense, the Federal Government still retains control over what actually can be adjudged/is in the jurisdiction by the Syariah Courts as far as criminal offence is concerned.
Which brings up the next important question - Does this mean Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear apostasy matters? Think about that one a little bit.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Dear Fair Malaysian,
You said - “… reinforces my belief that you need not need religion to be a better person.”
Well, I suppose let’s start with basics first. At the end of the day, if we break down religion to its essence, it merely addresses a number of questions:
(a) What can I do against myself? E.g suicide, self-mutilation, prayers etc.
(b) What can I do against my neighbour(s)? E.g. stealing etc, bearing false witness, filial relations, conjugal relations etc.
(c) Will I be judged if I observe (a) and (b) above? E.g. Day of Judgement.
(d) What will I get if I observe/don’t observe (a) and (b)? E.g. Heaven or Hell, Nirvana etc.
This forms the principles that a believer has to hold on to. In that sense, it is not entirely different from someone who is characterized as being a good person as that person similarly holds on to a number of principles.
If you ask me what are the advantages of having a “religious based principle system” versus “good person based principle” system, it lies simply in this, theoretically the core values are uniform for the former and seems more sensible as far interaction between humans. That and the fact that I’d like to think there is some Supreme Being who is there attempting to guide us on this Earth.
Just my 2 sen …
October 8th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Hi Nizam:
I like that, honestly, including the thought there is some Supreme Being (SB) attempting to guide us on this Earth. Would this mean a “personal relationship” rather than one dictated by some scholars? Well, let us give that SB some credit that he/she knows what to do and we don’t need any “in-betweens” to tell me on what to pray, how to pray, etc. Cheers and have a good day.
October 8th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Dear Fair Malaysian,
I appreciate where you are coming from. However, could it be that guidance can come internally as well as externally?
I can’t answer that question for anyone but myself. And my thinking is that while I readily concede that faith is personal, guidance may not necessarily be so. Good day to you too, my dear sir.
October 8th, 2006 at 4:26 am
Hi Nizam:
Yes, and if I understand correctly, I concur with you that guidance is necessary, both internal and external, but the arduous task of filtering to get a good guide has always been a problem. Again, I am speaking for myself, I am quite wary of the so-called “gurus” who have umpteen guesses, just hoping to have a “lucky strike”, so I play it safe, just follow my conviction with the “mantra” that I am not alone, there are other human beings and learning to understand and living with them itself is part of my spiritual journey - the bumpy and not-so-clear road in this journey has been my life’s lessons. I have made mistakes, I have hurt people, I have been selfish - the very fact that I have understood all these has given an understanding that has become part of the learning process. I have become colour blind, I don’t give a hoot to religion, and at the end of the day, I breathe the “same” as the man around me. It does not distingush between good and bad people, as it does not distinguish people of different races and religions.
I have to confess that I have started to enjoy your writings and respect your convictions. Cheers
October 8th, 2006 at 4:28 am
same “air”
October 8th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Dear Fair Malaysian,
As for my writings, thank you for your vote of confidence. I suppose I am merely trying to encourage a dialogue so that all view points can be appreciated better. No more, no less.
I am similarly aware of the problem about “gurus”, particularly if taken to its excess, but rationality still plays a part even when seeking guidance. I suppose if I were to encapsulate it all in one word its - moderation.
In any event, I note and equally respect your convictions. Frankly, the philosophy you hold is as good a starting point as any in fostering good inter-human relations. Take care.
October 8th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
waaa such pleasant discourse, enlightening indeed. Well done Nizam Bashir and Fair Malaysian! I must say I enjoy your very civil exchanges and thanks.
October 9th, 2006 at 4:54 am
Hello Nizam,
The bloke was asking your views on apostasy here lah! He’s not anymore on the issue of ‘jurisdiction’. Why are you still stuck on ‘jurisdiction’? I find your reasoning rather convoluted. Is this what lawyers do - ’splitting hairs’?
October 9th, 2006 at 6:37 am
nizam, you’re a fraud!
you don’t impress us with your legal mumbo jumbo.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:39 am
nizam, you’re a fraud!
you don’t impress us with your legal mumbo jumbo.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:39 am
nizam, you’re a fraud!
you don’t impress us with your legal mumbo jumbo.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:39 am
nizam, you’re a fraud!
you don’t impress us with your legal mumbo jumbo.
October 9th, 2006 at 6:39 am
nizam, you’re a fraud!
you don’t impress us with your legal mumbo jumbo.
October 9th, 2006 at 7:45 am
Dear Sir (comment of 9.10.2006 @ 4.54AM),
1. Actually, I responded to what appeared to be implicit from No Comments most recent remark. As I understood it he was pointing out that the punishment for apostasy appeared to vary from State to State. Consequently, I explained why there was a variety of punishment in paragraph (1) of my reply of 7.10.2006 @ 9.05PM.
2. If I indulged in any considerations from a jurisdictional perspective, it was merely to take the opportunity to leave a poser for further consideration. [Please see paragraph (2) of my reply of 7.10.2006 @ 9.05PM]
That said, if No Comments clarifies otherwise, I will respond accordingly.
3. I can only apologize if the reasoning is convoluted. Perhaps, if you follow the thread of the replies, I:
(a) initially was setting out the arguments against the apostasy issues; and
(b) from my response of 7.10.2006 @ 9.39AM, I then set out the arguments in favour of the Azlina Joy case i.e. basically in favour of the apostasy issues.
The issues in truth are quite simple particularly if one possesses the wherewithal to withstand the ‘legalistic’ arguments.
Dear hawaiichee,
I am sure you must be right about me. However, please do provide your thoughts on this matter. Maybe I can educate myself from your efforts. Looking forward to hear from you.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:12 am
hawaiichee:
Please lah, even if you wish to disagree, it would be so much better if you are polite. No one is stopping you from presenting your views. Just do so with respect. It is very demeaning to use the kind of language you did. Can you see how courteous Nizam has been with his replies, even after you had written such demeaning statements. Disagreeing cannot be just your right alone.
October 9th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Nizam,
It is a privilege to have you on this blog. Just ignore the likes of Hawaiichee who insists on being rude with his assertions. I find your reasoning not convoluted as alleged but clear and precise, logical and to the point. Even No Comment is not match for you.
Dear sir, are you a member of the bench? Pray tell.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Dear Fair Malaysian,
I am not a member of the bench but I readily confess to be a ‘kaki bangku’.
That said, it may be wise to be a little more restrained with your compliments. If truth be told, I am figuring this out just like everyone else.
However, I must place on record my appreciation to No Comment for his scholarly contributions to this issue. Contributions which I think deserves an equal, if not more, respect.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Oh my, someone had “duplicated” or “cloned” me. The message “October 9th, 2006 at 3:42 pm” was not posted by me.
October 10th, 2006 at 6:21 am
Ooops..it was mine after all.
October 10th, 2006 at 8:33 am
October 10th, 2006 at 6:21 am: This is someone “duplicating” me again. I didn’t know I have become that famous. I hope Dr. Bakri will take note of the “imposter”. Cheers
October 10th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
didn’t know there’s only one fair malaysian among the 23 million malaysians.
October 11th, 2006 at 8:21 am
There could be more than one, but why then the “Oops” and whimps. Anyway, it is your choice. Cheers
October 11th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
This is the other Fair Malaysian acting out his role as Fair Malaysian who is pretending to be Fair Malaysian pretending to be someone else. Oh well….
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 am
No matter how the disagrements, no one should use degratory comments. True belivers should keep cool and within the point. The comments here are also read by young followers; they will follow the elders’ ways.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 am
What Mao Sze Tong did was great, abolish religions, and concentrate on science and development. China would not have become a great power within a short period if the religious squabbling and money wasted in houses of worship and time on prayers were to persist. No country that is religiously absorbed has achieved any greatness or advancement; if that has been reported, it is far from the truth, for on the ground the ‘diseases’ had been swept under the carpet. There should be a balance between religion, progress/development/science
May 3rd, 2010 at 2:16 am
hi guys…
hi guysI would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well and i have start my own blog now, , thanks for your effort…