I shall focus on the issues raised by RICOI and UIA as it was principally their representatives, and those of ABIM to a lesser extent, who took the stand of withdrawing from the IFC initiative and, I believe, influencing most of the other Muslim NGOs to do likewise.
At the pro-tem committee’s third meeting, Adam bin Mohd. Ibrahim, the RICOI representative, enquired whether the proposed Inter-Religious Council would also perform an advisory role to the state rulers in respect of conversions out of Islam, given that this was a matter within the rulers’ purview. To this, I responded that the proposed Inter-Religious Council could work with the state authorities to formulate uniform laws on this issue.
The fourth pro-tem meeting witnessed the setting of the stage for the later pullout by those Muslim NGOs who held themselves out as representing the majority of Muslims in the country. Adam informed the pro-tem committee that he was also the ACCIN secretary, that ACCIN was not in favour of any intra-faith dialogue at the proposed workshop, that discussions ought to be confined with the main stream of Islam, and that the working committee that prepared the draft programme for the workshop had no representation of main stream Islam. He said that he could not agree that the proposed workshop made provision for a speaker from a group of self-confessed deviants from main stream Islam. He also said that ACCIN wished that the pro-tem committee would only deal with main stream Islamic groups and not deviant Islamic groups and that allowing these deviant groups an avenue to speak would destroy the foundation of inter-faith dialogues.
Adam specifically singled out SIS and the group of 29 Muslims, of which I am one, as deviants. This ‘group of 29’ had, the previous year, protested the proposed Restoration of Faith Bill that was to be tabled in Parliament. In fact, Adam referred to the contents of My Report to support his contention that all of us in the ‘group of 29’ are deviants. Interestingly, Adam’s point of reference in condemning the ‘group of 29’ as deviants was a 1996 JAKIM definition of Muslim rather than the Holy Qur’an!
My Report is never alluded to again, not in subsequent pro-tem meetings nor in the attacks on the IFC effort both before and after the February 2005 Conference. I will refer to the relevance of this later.
ABIM’s representative supported Adam’s views. The other members of the pro-tem committee expressed the view that they hoped for an inclusive workshop. Consequently, Adam indicated that he needed to revert to the ACCIN leadership and would convey to the pro-tem committee their decision regarding their participation.
UIA’s representative, Baharudeen Abu Bakar, sought clarification whether the earlier statement by chairman Cecil Rajendra, that the Inter-Religious Council would have powers to enforce its decisions effectively, meant that the Council would have adjudicatory powers. The chairman explained that he meant the Council would be an advisory body that would make recommendations to the government when necessary. Please note that the chairman categorically confirmed that the proposed body would be advisory in nature, with authority to make recommendations, and not one with adjudicatory powers.
Subsequent to the pro-tem committee’s fourth meeting, the Bar Council’s Syariah law Sub-Committee and the Bar Council’s representatives on the pro-tem committee, all of whom were from the HRC, disagreed on whether the proposed workshop should allow for intra-faith discussion. It was finally resolved that the workshop would go on, but would be confined to inter-faith issues. It is notable that this was an agreement between two sub-committees of the Bar Council and was therefore not binding on the pro-tem committee.
A representative of the Ministry of National Unity attended the fifth pro-tem committee meeting, held on 12 October 2002. Baharudeen asked whether the proposed Inter-Religious Council would have powers to resolve disputes within a religion as well as between religions, and whether, in the latter case, the teachings of one religion could be adjusted so as to accommodate another. He also raised concerns that if the proposed Council was established with statutory powers, it may fall into the hands of politicians who would wield those powers as they wished. For those reasons, he now opposed the establishment of a statutory or adjudicatory body. He said he could not support a body before which grievances against Islam could be brought, and he was suspicious of MCCBCHS’s report which he claimed to be directed specifically against Islam and which he said provided the impetus for the establishment of the pro-tem committee. He requested confirmation that the proposed workshop would be confined to inter-faith discussions, which coincided with the Bar Council’s position. Note how the initial objections, raised at the fourth pro-tem committee meeting, to intra-faith issues and involvement of “Muslim deviants” had, by the fifth meeting, escalated into more ominous accusations of attacks against Islam launched through the MCCBCHS report.
Adam also raised the same concerns about intra-faith discussions, taking the view that there were already properly constituted bodies to deal with such matters. Both Adam and Baharudeen made it clear that their respective organisations would no longer participate in this effort unless they obtained an agreement that there would be no intra-faith discussions at the workshop.
The JUST representative clarified once again that the underlying principle of the workshop should be inclusiveness, rather than exclusiveness, in its discussions. One of the Bar Council representatives explained that the Bar Council’s decision to confine discussions to inter-faith issues should not constrain the pro-tem committee’s decision-making process. The chairman and another Bar Council representative responded that the committee could ask invited speakers to confine their presentations to inter-faith matters but could not guarantee that participants from the floor would not raise intra-faith matters. The MCCBCHS representative clarified that since its report had been drafted after the pro-tem committee had been set up, it could not have been the basis for the establishment of the pro-tem committee, as alleged by Baharudeen. The representative also stated that copies of its report had been sent to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. The general sentiment of the other organisations’ representatives was the hope that RICOI, UIA, ABIM and the other Muslim NGOs would participate and share their views and concerns at the proposed workshop.
Subsequently, both Adam and Baharudeen, the RICOI/ACCIN and UIA representatives, withdrew from the meeting and declined further participation in the effort.
It will be useful at this juncture to summarise the objections and concerns raised by Adam and Baharudeen, and the responses of the protem committee.
Concern/ObjectionRaised |
Pro-temCommittee’s Response |
|
Whether the proposed Inter-Religious Council would also perform an advisory role to the state rulers in respect of conversions out of Islam
|
The proposed Inter-Religious Council could work with the state authorities to formulate uniform laws on this issue |
|
Whether the workshop should allow for intra-faith discussion |
It was the hope that the workshop would be as inclusive as possible. The committee could ask invited speakers to confine their presentations to inter-faith matters but could not guarantee that participants from the floor would not raise intra-faith matters
|
|
Whether the proposed Inter-Religious Council would 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
|
|
Whether the pro-tem committee would only deal with mainstream Islamic groups and not deviant Islamic groups
|
It was hoped that the workshop would be all-inclusive |
|
Whether the discussions at the workshop were to be confined only to the mainstreams of the various religions
|
Again, it was hoped that discussions would be inclusive in nature
|
|
Whether the proposed Council would have powers to resolve disputes within a religion as well as between religions, and whether, in the latter case, the teachings of one religion could be adjusted so as to accommodate another
|
The pro-tem committee was unable to respond to this as Adam & Baharudeen had by this time withdrawn from the meeting without awaiting a response. |
Interestingly, although RICOI purported to withdraw from the pro-tem committee, yet a RICOI representative occasionally attended subsequent committee meetings, both at the pro-tem committee stage before the workshop and at the steering committee stage in the run-up to the national conference. This is an important fact to remember as this will demonstrate that RICOI, and by extension, ACCIN, was informed both of the slant that the conference would take as well as the terms of the draft IFC bill that was being fine-tuned by the steering committee. It also evidences the readiness of those who are involved in this initiative to welcome the detractors back to participate in the effort, although the minutes of those meetings the RICOI representative occasionally attended will show that she was there more to observe rather than to contribute actively.
Anyone who cares to may verify this with the minutes of those meetings kept at the Bar secretariat.
Dr. Mazeni’s viewpoint -- that some Muslims were being excluded, only one interpretation of Islam was accepted and there was no fair representation of voices -- is therefore completely baseless. In fact, it was RICOI, UIA and ABIM that wanted to exclude Muslims who did not share their views on Islam. It was RICOI, UIA and ABIM that opposed allowing for a fair representation of voices. It was RICOI, UIA and ABIM that were adamant that only one interpretation of Islam should be heard at any inter‑faith dialogue: theirs.
In its press statement issued after the IFC Conference in February 2005, ACCIN verified that its representatives had voiced their objections and reservations at the meetings of the IFC initiative. ACCIN confirmed that, in response to those objections, it was urged to attend the workshop and the conference to express its views. ACCIN itself acknowledged that: “As they would not accommodate our views, we stayed away from the workshop and the conference”.
That press statement was issued because ACCIN was quite miffed that even Dato’ Seri Utama Dr. Rais Yatim, who delivered the keynote address at the Conference on behalf of the government, expressed the view that those who opposed the initiative ought to have attended the conference to make their objections known.
In their press statement, ACCIN confirmed they attended meetings of the IFC initiative and voiced their objections and reservations thereat. They confirm that in response to those objections, ACCIN was urged to attend the workshop and the conference to express their views. They confirm their response: “As they would not accommodate our views, we stayed away from the workshop and the conference”.
The question that ought to be asked is: was this the real reason that the Muslim groups staged a walk-out at this stage? If they genuinely felt that intra-faith issues should not be discussed at the national conference, or should not come within the purview of such a proposed body, why not participate at the workshop and share their misgivings with other participants? Why the insistence that so-called ‘Islamic deviants’ be excluded from any participation at the workshop or national conference? I will return to these important questions when I deal with the lies by ACCIN.
As for the identity of ‘one of those who attended the preliminary meetings’, perhaps Dr. Mazeni would care to shed light on this.
Back to : Preliminary Meetings
Next Link - The Workshop & Conference