The ACCIN Lies – Post Workshop & Pre - Conference
At some point in time, ACCIN commenced hosting a ‘Bantah IFC’ website. I have downloaded documents from that website to be used as evidence in support of this paper.
An ACCIN memo dated 25th January, 2005 was issued to the government. It was signed by Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma, the then chairman of ACCIN.
I can confirm that Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma never attended any of the meetings in relation to the IFC initiative, nor the workshop. As this memo was issued before the Conference in February, 2005 whereafter the Draft Bill and the Plenary Statement would have been widely available in the public domain, Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma presumably signed the memo relying on the information of ‘one of those who attended the preliminary meetings’. Only he can confirm the basis upon which he endorsed the contents of that memo.
By that memo, ACCIN in substance makes the following assertions :
1. the IFC effort is an endeavour by certain non-Muslim individuals and organizations. Two organizations were singled out. MCCBCHS & the Bar.
2. the MCCBCHS report is ‘simply a crude, rude and insensitive attempt at interfering with Muslims’ way of life and the teachings of Islam and none of the matters raised therein concern non-Muslims.
3. the IFC would undermine the status of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia and make a mockery of the Agong and the Sultans as official heads of the religion of Islam, interfere with existing constitutional arrangements for the administration of Islamic matters and would occasion serious implications for Muslim unity, Federal-State relations and viability of Islamic administration.
4. the proposed IFC was intended as a ‘grievance redressal body’. The IFC would be authorized to receive complaints from the followers of any religion against another religion, and to make decisions, including changing the teachings of the ‘offending’ religion, and enforcing its decisions in the manner of a court of law.
5. the proposed IFC has the potential to interfere with the teachings of any religion and would seriously threaten religious harmony in this country.
6. SUHAKAM already provides a venue for any human right grievances, so there is no need for another body to deal with the question of the right to practice one’s religion. and
7. the clear aim of the proposed IFC is to undermine Islam in the country.
ACCIN made further allegations in the memo. I have deliberately chosen to narrate these allegations separately from those above as I want you to remember these in particular. I have highlighted the parts which I want you to note.
ACCIN further alleged that:
8. the non-Muslim dominated Bar Council, COMPRISING OF SOME MEMBERS WHO BORE A DEEP HATRED FOR ISLAM, has gone to great lengths to ensure the success of the IFC initiative, regardless of the objections of its Muslim members in the Shariah Sub-Committee.
9. as a strategy to secure the establishment of the IFC, only sketchy details of the proposed Commission have been introduced at this time. Unless the implications of issues presently raised are appreciated, these issues now raised, at first blush, would appear reasonable. For example, the matter of converts to Islam who want to revert to their original faith after their marriage to Muslims have ended. However, GIVEN THEIR HATRED FOR ISLAM, THE CONCERN IS THAT OTHER DEMANDS WILL FOLLOW WHICH WILL CAUSE THE ISLAMIC CHARACTER OF THIS COUNTRY TO VANISH. MALAYSIA WOULD HAVE ATTAINED THE STATUS OF AN ISLAMIC STATE, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE INTERVENTION OF THE COLONIAL MASTERS AND THE ARRIVAL OF NON-MUSLIMS. WAS THIS NATION NOW TO REVERT TO BEING A SECULAR STATE AGAIN WITH ISLAM A MERE POLITICAL APPENDANGE?
Now if you have looked at the actual ACCIN memo, you will have noted that it is in Malay. If you have not, take a quick look. Now, I have summarized points 1 – 9 of the allegations in the memo in English. You may be forgiven for thinking that I translated these 9 points for this paper. In fact, points 1 – 7 and most of point 8 were summarized from an English translation of the ACCIN memo that is on the website.
Good strategy. The ACCIN memo in Malay and an English translation of the same so that ACCIN could reach out to both the Malay and English-speaking public. In fact, it was an even better strategy to drop all of point 9 and ‘COMPRISING OF SOME MEMBERS WHO BORE A DEEP HATRED FOR ISLAM’ of point 8 in the English ‘version’. Yes, all of point 9 above is my translation of that which appears in the Malay ACCIN memo as no equivalent appears in the English translation. Similarly, ‘COMPRISING OF SOME MEMBERS WHO BORE A DEEP HATRED FOR ISLAM’ of point 8 was translated by me as the equivalent does not appear in the English translation.
The strategy adopted by ACCIN is beginning to unfold. To the Malay-reading ( and probably Malay-Muslim ) public, sound the alarm about some elements of society who harbour a deep hatred for Islam and who have embarked on an agenda to make Malaysia once again secular. To the English-speaking ( who would include non-Malay non-Muslims and English-speaking Malays ), though, none of this.
Note the stance taken with the Malay-reading audience: Islam-haters are trying to make this country secular again. This nation was once secular; not anymore, but there are forces out there bent on making it secular again. Remember what I said earlier about the psychological battle to get people to resign themselves to the notion that this nation is an Islamic state?
Dato’ Hj Mustapha signed the memo. He must therefore take responsibility for the same.
He says in the memo that only sketchy details of the proposed Commission had been introduced at that time. To be fair, the memo was issued before the Conference and the Draft Bill was not widely circulated then. However, we know from at least one media report entitled ‘Muslim groups oppose inter-faith commission’ that Baharudeen had received a copy of the Draft Bill even before the Conference. And Baharudeen, as evidenced from the ‘Bantah IFC’ website, has been the most prolific contributor of articles condemning the IFC initiative. Remember, too, that even as ACCIN withdrew from the pro-tem committee, they continued to send a representative to the steering committee meetings from time to time right up to the Conference, at which meetings the Draft Bill was fine-tuned. Never mind, let us give Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma the benefit of the doubt.
However, he was surely wrong to say that the IFC initiative only involved non-Muslims. SIS, who initially pulled out just before the workshop, returned and contributed significantly in making the Conference a success. Forum Iqra was with the effort through the workshop and the Conference. And there were Muslim individuals actively involved in the effort. Either this claim is a dishonest attempt to depict the IFC effort as a non-Muslim anti-Islam agenda, or ACCIN and Dato’ Hj Mustapha have committed the more grievous sin of labeling SIS and Forum Iqra members and individuals like Malik Imtiaz and myself as non-Muslim.
"O believers! When you go out on a journey in the way of God, be discreet and do not say to anyone who greets you in peace: 'You are not a believer'. You desire the gain of earthly life, but there are prizes in plenty with God. You were also like him in the past, but God has been gracious to you. So be careful and discreet, for God is aware of what you do." -- Surah 4 verse 94 of the Holy Qur'an.
More interestingly, as detailed in point 9 above, ACCIN conceded that the issue raised in the course of the IFC initiative of the matter of converts to Islam who want to revert to their original faith after their marriage to Muslims have ended, was, by itself, reasonable. I will deal with this concession again in the Second Paper.
For now, consider this concession in the context of the outright condemnation of the MCCBCHS Report as being simply a crude, rude and insensitive attempt at interfering with Muslims way of life and the teachings of Islam and that none of the matters raised therein concern non-Muslims. If you haven’t yet looked at the MCCBCHS Report, I think it is time that you did.
Excluding the covering letter, the MCCBCHS Report comprises 7 pages. The matters stated therein appear under 15 separate headings, but the issues raised overlap.
Under the heading ‘Cannot convert back to former religion’, which is the second point raised in the Report, MCCBCHS have touched on the very point that ACCIN concede as being reasonable. This would therefore be a helpful starting point to examine the rest of the Report, given that ACCIN does not find this, by itself, to be offensive.
Let us start with a fictitious Ramu, a Hindu by birth residing in Kuala Lumpur, who converted to Islam in accordance with the Syariah law of Kuala Lumpur to marry an equally fictitious Minah. After conversion, he assumed the name ‘Ramu bin Abdullah’ and notified the I.C. department. Ramu’s I.C. now bears the name ‘Ramu bin Abdullah’ and the word ‘Islam’ to reflect his newly professed faith.
Ramu’s marriage to Minah has since ended in divorce. Ramu now tells us that whilst that marriage subsisted, he never lived the life of a Muslim. He did not perform the Muslim prayer, he did not observe the fast in Ramadan and he never paid the annual tithe. His way of life continued as it used to be before his conversion. He says that during his marriage to Minah, he was a Muslim in name only. If you asked him pointedly why he did not try to live by his new professed faith, he would probably answer, just as pointedly, “Saya cinta Minah, bukan Islam”.
In short, for the purpose of facilitating a marriage to Minah, Ramu held himself out as PROFESSING Islam. And throughout the marriage to Minah, he continued to hold himself out as PROFESSING Islam. He says, though, that he has never put into practise the tenets of Islam.
I have emphasised the word ‘PROFESSING’ because it is a very important word the meaning of which must be understood if we are to arrive at a clear understanding of the injustices that occur in the fictitious “Ramu” and the real-life “Lina Joy”, “Kamariah Ali” and “Daud Mamat” type of cases. I will return to this shortly. Let me first deal with Ramu’s immediate plight.
Ramu now wants to marry the fictitious Letchumi, a devout Hindu whom he met at Batu Caves during the last Thaipusam festival. He consults a Hindu priest who advises him to inform the Islamic religious authorities in KL. Ramu attends at the office of Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI). After explaining to the Ustaz in attendance his situation as narrated above, Ramu is told that under the law, he is still a Muslim. He enquires which law. He is told that pursuant to the definition of ‘Muslim’ in section 2 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act, 1993 ( FTA ), Ramu is still to be regarded as a Muslim.
Please look at the definition of ‘Muslim’ under the FTA. Six disjunctive meanings are proffered. These are:
a) a person who professes the religion of Islam;
b) a person either or both of whose parents were, at the time of the person’s birth, Muslims;
c) a person whose upbringing was conducted on the basis that he was a Muslim;
d) a person who has converted to Islam in accordance with the requirements of section 85;
e) a person who is commonly reputed to be a Muslim; or
f) a person who is shown to have stated, in circumstances in which he was bound by law to state the truth, that he was a Muslim, whether the statement be verbal or written.
What this means is that even if you do not profess the religion of Islam ( the first meaning prescribed is ‘a person who professes the religion of Islam’ ), but your factual circumstance comes within any one or more of the other five meanings prescribed, you are a Muslim.
Apply this to Ramu’s situation. He once professed the religion of Islam, having converted to Islam in accordance with the requirements of section 85 of the FTA. By the first and the fourth meaning, he was then Muslim. He now openly states that he does not profess Islam. The first meaning no longer applies to him. It will, however, historically be correct to say that Ramu was a person who ‘converted to Islam in accordance with the requirements of section 85’ of the FTA. He will never be able to remove this from his biodata.
Although Ramu no longer professes the religion of Islam, and is therefore in fact a non-Muslim, he is in law to be treated as a Muslim. This is the matter raised in paragraph 1.2 of the MCCBCHS Report. It is a complaint of non-Muslims being subjected to Syariah law because the laws in place disregard what they profess and treat them as Muslims.
At this juncture, let us acknowledge that the condemnation by ACCIN in its memo of the MCCBCHS Report as not raising matters concerning non-Muslims as plainly unjustified.
Paragraph 1.2 of the MCCBCHS Report appears under the heading ‘Non-Muslims are being unconstitutionally considered as Muslims’. The justification for categorizing this as unconstitutional appears at paragraph 1.1. This relates to that all-important word I drew to you attention earlier: PROFESSING.
Paragraph 1.1 in the MCCBCHS Report refers to ‘Paragraph 1 of the State List in the Federal constitution’. For those who are unfamiliar with the Federal Constitution, this is a reference to Item 1, List II, 9th Schedule. This was referred to earlier. If you haven’t looked at it yet, now is a good time.
Item 1, List II, 9th Schedule details the ‘Islamic law and personal and family law’ that Parliament and the various state legislative assemblies may pass, of and concerning ‘persons professing the religion of Islam’. The Constitution authorizes the passing of ‘Islamic law and personal and family law’, not for ‘Muslims’ as widely defined by the FTA, but for the limited scope of ‘persons professing the religion of Islam’. Whilst Parliament and the other state legislative assemblies are competent to pass ‘Islamic law and personal and family law’, these legislative bodies are not competent to extend the applicability of those laws beyond ‘persons professing the religion of Islam’.
The FTA was passed by Parliament pursuant to its powers under Item 1, List II, 9th Schedule. Section 2 of the FTA defines ‘Muslim’ to extend beyond just ‘persons professing the religion of Islam’. In so doing, Parliament has extended the applicability of the provisions of the FTA beyond ‘persons professing the religion of Islam’. In other words, the FTA also applies to persons not professing the religion of Islam, more commonly referred to as non-Muslims.
That’s why MCCBCHS says that this is unconstitutional. They are correct. The FTA is unconstitutional in this regard in that its scope is extended beyond that which the Federal Constitution has permitted.
There is, however, another provision of the Federal Constitution that the definition of ‘Muslim’ in the FTA violates. It is a violation of such severity that it leaves those affected stripped of the dignity that God intended man shall have and that the Federal Constitution has acquiesced to. I speak of the violation of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.
Article 11(1), in my view, represents the most fundamental of all basic rights guaranteed to us. Three separate and distinct rights in relation to religion are expressly guaranteed to ‘every person’: to profess his religion, to practice his religion and to propagate his religion. Of these three, only the right to profess one’s religion is unconditional; Article 11(4) provides that the right to propagate one’s religion to persons professing the religion of Islam may be controlled or restricted by state or federal law. By Article 11(5), any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality cannot be justified as an act in furtherance of the right to practise the tenets of one’s religion as guaranteed under Article 11 (1). This has in fact been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Halimatusaadiah
An examination of the Federal Constitution will reveal that the right to profess one’s religion is the only unconditional right guaranteed thereunder. Every other right may, in certain circumstances, be curtailed. Not so the right to profess. Let us remember this and now revert back to the plight of poor Ramu.
Ramu says he now does not profess the religion of Islam. If you ask him, he will say he now professes the Hindu faith. JAWI says he is still Muslim, regardless of what he says he professes. Some of you may suggest that he just get on with his life and ignore JAWI. He could well do that, except that in getting on with his life, he may have to encounter and deal with bureaucracy. That’s where his problems will start.
Remember Ramu now wants to marry Letchumi. The Hindu priest he consulted advised consultation with JAWI. JAWI has said that he is still a Muslim as far as they are concerned. Your advise is that he just get on with his life. With that, and on the advise of solicitors, Ramu now swears out a statutory declaration to evidence that he no longer professes the religion of Islam and now professes the Hindu faith. Armed with the same, he now attends at the Registry of civil marriages to apply to have his intended marriage to Letchumi registered as required by law. The attending officer takes one look at Ramu’s IC and advises that as Ramu’s IC indicates that he is Muslim, no marriage involving Ramu can be registered by the Registry of civil marriages. Ramu shows the officer his statutory declaration and explains how his IC came to state his religion as Islam. The officer is sympathetic and advises Ramu to first get the relevant particulars in his IC changed whereafter he may come back to the Registry of civil marriages.
Ramu’s difficulty at the Registry of civil marriages has been alluded to at paragraph 4.1 of the MCCBCHS Report.
Hopeful, Ramu now heads to the nearest IC department. He makes application to change his name to what it was previous to his conversion and to delete ‘Islam’ from his IC. The attending officer informs Ramu that the IC Department may only approve his application if he has a letter from JAWI or an order of the Syariah Court confirming that he is no longer a Muslim.
Ramu’s nightmare at the IC Department has been narrated at paragraphs 2.1 and 3.1 of the MCCBCHS Report.
Look at Item 1, List II, 9th Schedule again. You will see that the Constitution stipulates that the jurisdiction of Syariah Courts shall be ‘only over persons professing the religion of Islam’. Ramu has already been to JAWI so he knows that there is no likelihood of a letter from them. Can he then apply to the Syariah Court for an order confirming that he is no longer a Muslim? He can only go before the Syariah Court if he professes the religion of Islam. He says he is not. Now, if Ramu, like the rest of us, has the unconditional right to profess his religion, and he now states that he professes the Hindu faith, does not the requirement of a letter from JAWI or an order of the Syariah Court confirming that he is no longer a Muslim as a condition precedent before he is to be accepted by the authorities as Hindu make his right to profess his religion of choice unconstitutionally conditional?
Does ACCIN still want to defend its stance that the MCCBCHS Report does not raise matters concerning non-Muslims?
Paragraph 4.2.3 of the MCCBCHS Report deals with the real situation of a Malay woman who, in the exercise of her unconditional right to profess her religion of choice, embraced Hinduism and married a man who was a Hindu from birth. She is therefore no longer a person who professes the religion of Islam. Yet the Syariah authorities dealt with her, a non-Muslim, in the manner as depicted in the MCCBCHS Report. This is the case of Priyathaseny.
All of point 8 in the MCCBCHS Report deals with the difficulties non-Muslims encounter in trying to get approval from the authorities for the building of places of worship. Point 9 deals with the unconstitutional banning of the use by non-Muslims of certain Arabic words ordinarily associated with Islam. Point 10 addresses the prohibition of the circulation of the Bible in the Malay language or in Bahasa Indonesia. Point 11 laments the absence of religious education for non-Muslims in schools.
In fairness, let it be noted here that I do not necessarily agree with every issue raised in the MCCBCHS Report. However, to castigate the whole thing as ‘simply a crude, rude and insensitive attempt at interfering with Muslims way of life and the teachings of Islam’, as done by ACCIN, is dishonest and unjust and as such, unIslamic.
O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well- acquainted with all that ye do. – Surah 4 verse 135 of the Holy Qur’an.
I have said enough about the MCCBCHS Report. Let me move on.
Dato Hj. Mustapha Ma has endorsed the allegation that the proposed IFC:
1. was intended as a ‘grievance redressal body’;
2. would be authorized to receive complaints from the followers of any religion against another religion, and to make decisions, including changing the teachings of the ‘offending’ religion;
3. enforce its decisions in the manner of a court of law; and
4. has the potential to interfere with the teachings of any religion.
Let me first say that there is no truth in any of these allegations. Was not Dato Hj. Mustapha Ma aware of the following:
a) at one of the pro-tem meetings, in response to a question by Baharudeen as to whether the proposed Inter-Religious Council was intended to have adjudicatory powers, the chairman explained that the proposed body was intended as an advisory body that would make recommendations to the government when necessary; and
b) point 3 of the 6 Point Agreement issued after the Workshop in May, 2003 provided that the proposed statutory body “shall be an independent body of a consultative and advisory nature. For clarity, the body shall not have any adjudicatory functions”.
If Dato Hj. Mustapha Ma was not aware of the assurance given to Baharudeen and point 3 of the 6 Point Agreement, I am commanded to ask of Dato Hj. Mustapha Ma, in respect of the allegations under reply:
“…Have you any knowledge? If so, produce it before us. You follow nothing but conjecture; you do nothing but lie.” – Surah 6 verse 148 of the Holy Qur’an.
and to remind:
Dato Hj. Mustapha Ma, on behalf of ACCIN, has also alleged that the proposed IFC:
1. would undermine the status of Islam as the official religion of Malaysia;
2. make a mockery of the Agong and the Sultans as official heads of the religion of Islam;
3. would interfere with the administration of Islamic matters;
4. would occasion serious implications for Muslim unity, Federal-State relations and viability of Islamic administration; and
5. would seriously threaten religious harmony in this country.
If you glean through the entire ACCIN memo, you will not find any elaboration to justify these deceitful allegations. These were bare, alarmist assertions intended to misinform and thereby agitate Muslims who did not bother to verify the facts for themselves into opposing the proposed IFC.
“God loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done; for God is He who heareth and knoweth all things” – Surah 4 verse 148 of the Holy Qur’an.
ACCIN and Dato Hj. Mustapha Ma would also have us believe that SUHAKAM already provides a venue for any human right grievances in relation to violation to the right to practice one’s religion.
I confess that this is the only part in the ACCIN memo that I found hilarious. The ‘group of 29’ lodged a complaint with SUHAKAM in 2000 that their rights under Article 11 would be infringed if the Restoration of Faith Bill became law. I believe Mr. Lee Min Choon, a practising lawyer, has also lodged a report with SUHAKAM in the same year in relation to violations of the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution, as has MCCBCHS, the Shias, Ayah Pin followers and, more recently, HINDRAF in respect of the rampant demolition of Hindu temples in KL. What has SUHAKAM done? Nothing!
I have been informed by a former SUHAKAM Commissioner that there is an unwritten rule that applies in SUHAKAM: hands off on religious matters! Would the present chair of SUHAKAM want to refute this? If so, please tell us what has become of the reports that SUHAKAM has received.
If the last issue was funny, the next, the last of the issues from the ACCIN memo that I propose to deal with, is, in my view, the most sinful. This was the accusation that some members of the Bar Council were filled with a deep hatred for Islam.
I ask ACCIN and Dato Hj. Mustapha Ma to now name these Bar Councillors and shame them. If you cannot, please tell us why, even as people who profess Islam as your faith, you will not abide by God’s Command not to make false accusation?
“Woe to the falsehood-mongers”- Surah 51 verse 10 of the Holy Qur’an
Back to : ACCIN Lies : Preliminary Meetings
Next Link - ACCIN Lies : Post Conference