ACCIN Lies : Post Conference
I had referred earlier to the ACCIN press statement issued after the Conference. Let us look at it again.
In the main, the allegations in the ACCIN press statement against the IFC initiative are similar to that made in the ACCIN memo: the IFC was intended to be an anti-Islam body initiated by the non-Muslims of the MCCBCHS and this is manifested in the MCCBCHS Report.
I have already addressed these lies earlier in dealing with the ACCIN memo. I shall not repeat myself.
ACCIN now claim that Mr. Harcharan of MCCBCHS had further confirmed this anti-Islam agenda in an interview carried in the Sun in January, 2005. I will return to this when I deal with one of the articles posted on the ‘Bantah IFC’ website which also made the same allegation.
More interestingly, ACCIN claimed that by the time of the Conference, the IFC initiative had become benign, the object of the Conference now being to discover common values so that an ethical and moral Bangsa Malaysia could develop.
If indeed the IFC initiative had become so benign, ACCIN must explain why, in the days, weeks and months that followed after the Conference, an avalanche of articles replete with lies and little else found their way onto the ‘Bantah IFC’ website, and ACCIN’s Bantah-IFC flyers were distributed widely at mosques throughout the country? Why is it that the strongest protestations against the IFC initiative were registered with the Prime Minister after the Conference?
A case of overkill or just plain running scared?
I do not propose to look at each and every deceitful article on the ‘Bantah IFC’ website. They are largely repetitive of the same lies. I will focus on one. It is written by Baharudeen. Before I do so, let me tell you of another article that appeared in Harakah in 2003. It was co-authored by Adam and Baharudeen and pertained to the IFC effort. They mentioned my involvement in the IFC effort in what I thought to be untruthful and derogatory terms. On my instructions, solicitors issued notices to both Adam and Baharudeen demanding apologies, failing which libel suits would be commenced. Both of them wrote to me directly, urging that I not resort to the courts, that I too had made public statements of and concerning the IFC initiative, and that I should allow for the continuance of this public discussion. They suggested that I could instead reply to their article through the media. Regrettably, against legal advice, I chose to not pursue the matter then.
I am going to do in this paper what I should have done then. I am going to expose the heap of lies that Baharudeen has placed on the ‘Bantah IFC’ website through his deceitful articles. Adam, through his silent acquiescence of those dishonest postings, is guilty of falsehood by association.
To Baharudeen and Adam let me say this now. Do not bother with notices demanding apologies. File suits if you dare. I am prepared to defend my contention here that Baharudeen is a liar and Adam is guilty of falsehood by association.
Before we go to Baharudeen’s lies, please look at the Draft Bill, if you have not done so already.
You will note the following in the Draft Bill:
1. in the long title, the object of the Commission is stated to be for the preservation, protection and promotion of religious harmony.
2. the fourth preamble states what is sought to be established and why : an independent statutory body of a consultative and advisory nature to advance and promote such continued harmony and national unity .
· inquire into complaints regarding infringements of religious harmony;
· to advance, promote and protect every individual's freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
· manage and resolve peacefully the conflicts generated by religious and ethnic differences and to remove the roots of all violence committed in the name of religion and faith; and
· promote conciliation and resolve tensions between persons or groups of persons who have any difference or dispute affecting or touching on religious harmony
The envisaged function of the Commission, in the context of an infringement of religious harmony, would be as follows:
a) where the Commission receives complaint of such infringement, it shall inquire into the complaint. Its full powers under section 16 come into play;
b) where such inquiry does not disclose any infringement of religious harmony, the Commission shall record that finding and shall forthwith inform the person making the complaint [section 19(1)]. Where, however, the inquiry discloses an infringement of religious harmony, the Commission shall have the power to refer the matter, where appropriate, to the relevant authority or person with the necessary recommendations for action by such authority or person [ section 19(2) ].
As noted earlier, Baharudeen was privy to the Draft Bill even before the Conference. The Malaysiakini article dated 8th February, 2005 entitled ‘Muslim groups oppose inter-faith commission’ reports him to have said that he had studied a copy of the Draft Bill but was not convinced with the provision that the body would not have adjudicative powers. His reasons are quoted: “A mechanism to adjudicate interreligious conflicts has always been on the mind of the proponents as seen in the MCCBCHS memorandum. This is why I would expect them to later use their political and intellectual lobby to make amendments when things don’t work out the way they want it to”. He is then quoted to have said that the Draft Bill is a ‘watered- down version of the earlier memorandum’.
Please look at the MCCBCHS Report. Now look at the Draft Bill again. There is no basis for the suggestion that the latter is a ‘watered-down’ version of the former. Where, in the MCCBCHS Report, is there mention of anything resembling ‘a mechanism to adjudicate interreligious conflicts’?
Baharudeen, you are a liar.
Note now his all-important observation: ‘…I would expect them to later use their political and intellectual lobby to make amendments when things don’t work out the way they want it to’.
Baharudeen had here conceded that without amendment to the provision that the IFC would not have adjudicatory powers, the proponents of the IFC would not achieve the ‘mechanism to adjudicate interreligious conflicts’ that he is so fearful of. It is a concession by him that the provision in the Draft Bill, unamended, would not give the proposed IFC adjudicatory powers.
This was in February, 2005. A little later, in his article entitled ‘The IFC Bill: An Anti-Islam Wish List’, Baharudeen now sings a different song. He now laments that ‘the IFC, comprising non-Muslims and Muslims, is to be a court-like body with powers to make decisions on religious rights and Islamic teachings, and other departments of Government are expected to comply with its pronouncements’.
Baharudeen, please don’t blow hot and cold!
In the same article, Baharudeen regurgitates earlier lies: the IFC is a MCCBCHS-led anti-Islam initiative; IFC allows interference in the teachings of Islam; interference with existing constitutional arrangements on administration of Islamic matters; I shall not bother to reply these.
Baharudeen raises new issues:
1. the IFC bill introduces a new concept of ‘religious harmony’
2. the importation of international norms by the IFC bill is to ensure that the potential of Article 3 of the Federal Constitution remains unrealized, and that “Islam has only the ‘arid, barren, naked honour’ of being the religion of the Federation with no prospect of the provision being fleshed out”
3. the IFC bill makes no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims
4. the IFC bill does not provide that the Commissioners would represent the religions practised in the country. Instead, the intended Commissioners would be neutral and focus on freedom or rights issues as opposed to religious or faiths in religion
5. the apostasy issue is a matter for Muslims only, to be resolved according to the Shariah by the appropriate Islamic administration body
6. the Islamic position in relation to apostasy has been clear for more than 1400 years
7. there is no provision excluding Islamic matters, already within the jurisdiction of the Islamic administrative bodies, from the IFC’s jurisdiction
8. the IFC is not merely a ‘dialogue body’, as claimed
I will now deal with the issues raised by Baharudeen.
IFC is not merely a ‘dialogue body’
My short answer is that the proponents have never claimed this.
No provision excluding Islamic matters already within the jurisdiction of the Islamic administrative bodies, from the jurisdiction of the IFC
If Baharudeen had attended the steering committee meetings whereat the Draft Bill was fine-tuned or the Conference whereat the draft was further refined, he may have raised this and persuaded its inclusion. He and his cohorts chose to adopt the childish, ‘stay away’ attitude.
The Islamic position in relation to apostasy has been clear for more than 1400 years
Even the verse from the Holy Qur’an does not support the stand that Baharudeen and his like take in relation to the apostate from Islam. The translation of Abdullah Yusof Ali renders the tail-end of the verse Baharudeen quotes as follows : “on them ( the apostates ) is Wrath from God, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty”.
See also :
“Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- God will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way”.Surah 4 verse 137 of the Holy Qur’an
“The Hypocrites are afraid lest a Sura should be sent down about them, showing them what is (really passing) in their hearts. Say: "Mock ye! But verily God will bring to light all that ye fear (should be revealed). If thou dost question them, they declare (with emphasis): "We were only talking idly and in play." Say: "Was it at God, and His Signs, and His Apostle, that ye were mocking?" Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin. The Hypocrites, men and women, (have an understanding) with each other: They enjoin evil, and forbid what is just, and are close with their hands. They have forgotten God; so He hath forgotten them. Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and per verse. God hath promised the Hypocrites men and women, and the rejecters, of Faith, the fire of Hell: Therein shall they dwell: Sufficient is it for them: for them is the curse of God, and an enduring punishment”. Surah 9 verses 64-68 of the Holy Qur’an
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand- hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things”.Surah 2 verse 256 of the Holy Qur’an.
“If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe! No soul can believe, except by the will of God, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand”.Surah 10 verses 99-100 of the Holy Qur’an
Yes, Baharudeen, theses verses have stood unchanged for 1400 years. This is the position in Islam by the Words of God Almighty. Do you say otherwise? What, put the apostate to death? Detain him at a faith rehabilitation centre? Create a bureaucratic nightmare so that he can never be acknowledged officially as non-Muslim and cannot get on with his life?
“Say: "What! Will ye instruct God about your religion? But God knows all that is in the heavens and on earth: He has full knowledge of all things”. Surah 49 verse 16 of the Holy Qur’an.
“Do they seek for other than the Religion of God?-while all creatures in the heavens and on earth have, willing or unwilling, bowed to His Will (Accepted Islam), and to Him shall they all be brought back.” Surah 3 verse 83 of the Holy Qur’an.
“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” Surah 2 verse 79 of the Holy Qur’an.
“Behold! how they invent a lie against God! but that by itself is a manifest sin!” Surah 4 verse 50 of the Holy Qur’an.
The apostasy issue is a matter for Muslims only, to be resolved according to the Shariah by the appropriate Islamic administration body
I have just answered this above. Apostasy is a matter to be dealt with by God Almighty. Even so, it is important to note here the devious manner in which Baharudeen and his like have articulated this issue and how a great majority of civil society have fallen for the linguistic trap that has been set.
Baharudeen deliberately catgorises the likes of Lina Joy, Daud Mamat and Kamariah Ali as ‘Muslim murtad wannabe’. This means that they are not as yet apostates, merely aspiring. They are therefore still Muslim. They are still subject to the Syariah laws and the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.
We hear so often the lamentation, by those sympathetic to the cause of Lina Joy, that she is a Muslim who is being prevented from exercising her constitutional right to renounce Islam. See what I mean by falling into the linguistic trap? We adopt the same language in describing Lina Joy’s present state.
We should stop validating the stance taken by Baharudeen. Lina Joy was born and raised as Muslim. She has emphatically declared that she no longer professes the religion of Islam. She has produced evidence that she professes Christianity as her new faith. I have no doubt that she is convicted in her new faith and applies it in her daily life.
Now to insist on referring to her as a ‘Muslim murtad wannabe’ is to tell a lie. I have come to expect this of Baharudeen.
The only honest description of Lina’s present circumstance is that she is a former Muslim who is being subjected to state persecution for her renunciation of Islam. The same must also be said of Daud Mamat and Kamariah Ali.
The IFC bill does not provide that the Commissioners would represent the religions practised in the country. Instead, the intended Commissioners would be neutral and focus on freedom or rights issues as opposed to religious or faiths in religion
Correct. This is the clearest evidence that the Draft Bill is not anti-any religion. It is about the rights of individuals in the matter of faith and conscience.
A Commission comprised of clergy from the various faiths, including Islam, would merely replicate the situation that prevails presently, with MCCBCHS on one side, and the Islamic religious authorities on the other. Any grievance in any way connected with the acts of the Islamic religious authorities ( note that it is the acts of religious officers and not some aspect of Islam that is the subject of complaint ) raised by MCCBCHS with the Islamic religious authorities is labeled ‘anti-Islam’ and therefore not open to further discussion. Don’t believe me that this happens? Ask MCCBCHS.
The IFC bill makes no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims
Please do not be silly! Of course it does not make such a distinction. Why should it?
The importation of international norms by the IFC bill is to ensure that the potential of Article 3 of the Federal Constitution remains unrealized, and that “Islam has only the ‘arid, barren, naked honour’ of being the religion of the Federation with no prospect of the provision being fleshed out”
Ah, finally, Baharudeen, you show your hand! Your concern is that the international norms referred to in the Draft Bill, if indeed comes to be treated as part of our law, will thwart the ambitions of you and your likes to ‘flesh out’ Article 3 so that you may realize your brand of Islam. Do you find it unacceptable that those norms require you and I to respect that faith and conviction in God are matters wholly between the individual and God to the exclusion of all others? Tell us now, which of those international norms offend God’s Word?
I will return to the matter of the ambitions of Baharudeen and his like in the Second Paper.
The IFC bill introduces a new concept of ‘religious harmony
Not true. The Draft Bill introduces a definition of “infringement of religious harmony”. Based on this definition, the absence of such infringement would mean that there is no act or omission by a person or a group of persons or the authorities which nullifies or impairs the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by another person or group of persons of his or their freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief as prescribed by international norms.
“as prescribed by international norms” adds nothing to the ‘freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief’ which is already enshrined in our Federal Constitution. Article 11(1) clearly guarantees to ‘every person’ the right to profess and practise his religion. In the Suzie Teoh case, the Supreme Court recognized that this right afforded to the non-Muslim individual the right to change from his religion of birth upon attaining the age of majority. Article 8(2), which prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, must mean that a Muslim who attains the age of majority must also have this right. Joshua Jamaluddin exercised this right. Nobody questioned this right then.
The concept of religious harmony implicit in the Draft Bill which envisages an unimpaired exercise by ‘every person’ of the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief has long been entrenched in the Federal Constitution. The international norms add nothing.
Attempts To Set The Record Straight
As I mentioned earlier, neither MCCBCHS nor Mr. Harcharan made any attempt to refute the lies churned out by ACCIN.
Malik Imtiaz did. As chairman of the steering committee for the IFC initiative, he issued a statement, setting the record straight on the interfaith commission. Please read this and then look at Baharudeen’s response entitled ‘Setting the Record Straight yet again on Interfaith Commission’.
Back to : ACCIN Lies - Post Workshop & Pre - Conference
Next Link - Why the lies : A Conclusion