The ACCIN Lies
Post Workshop and Pre-Conference
I have laid bare the lies about the “preliminary meetings” above. However, the lies did not stop there.
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 my statements.
ACCIN Memorandum : Background
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 February 2005 Conference, i.e. before the Plenary Statement and the Draft IFC Bill was widely available in the public domain, only Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma can confirm the basis upon which he endorsed the contents of that memo. Presumably, he did so relying also on the information of “one of those who attended the preliminary meetings”.
By that memo, ACCIN in substance asserted that:
i) The IFC effort was an endeavour by certain non-Muslim individuals and organisations. Two organisations were singled out: MCCBCHS & the Bar Council;
ii) The MCCBCHS report was "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 in [it] concern non-Muslims";
iii) 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 give rise to serious implications for Muslim unity, Federal-State relations and the viability of Islamic administration;
iv) The proposed IFC was intended as a “grievance redressal body” and would be authorised to receive complaints from the followers of any religion against another religion. It would be authorised to make decisions, “including changing the teachings of the ‘offending’ religion”, and enforcing its decisions in the manner of a court of law;
v) The proposed IFC had the “potential to interfere with the teachings of any religion” and “would seriously threaten religious harmony in this country”;
vi) 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 practise one’s religion; and
vii) The clear aim of the proposed IFC was to “undermine Islam in this country”.
ACCIN made further allegations in the memo, which I deliberately narrate separately from those above in order to draw your attention to them in particular. The noteworthy sections are highlighted.
According to ACCIN:
viii) The non-Muslim dominated Bar Council, comprising some members who bear a deep hatred for Islam, had “gone to great lengths to ensure the success” of the IFC initiative, “regardless of the objections of its Muslim members in its Shariah Sub-Committee”; and
ix) As a strategy to ensure the establishment of the IFC, only sketchy details of
the proposed Commission have been introduced at this time. The issues
being raised would appear reasonable, if the implications are not fully
appreciated.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. It has been
said that 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 accessory?
If you have looked at the actual ACCIN memo, you will have noted that it is in Malay. There is an English translation of the ACCIN memo that is on the website, and I have summarised points i) to vii), and most of point viii), from that translation.
Having the memo in both Malay and English is a good strategy so that ACCIN can reach out to both the Malay and English-reading public. An even better tactic on ACCIN’s part is its omission of the more contentious portions of the memo from the English translation, namely, all of point (ix) and the phrase “comprising some members who bear a deep hatred for Islam” highlighted above in point (viii). I have translated these portions from the Malay ACCIN memo as no equivalent appears in the English translation.
ACCIN's strategy is beginning to unfold. To the Malay-reading (and probably Malay-Muslim) public, sound the alarm about some elements of society who purportedly harbour a deep hatred for Islam and who have allegedly embarked on an agenda to make Malaysia secular once again. To the English-reading public (including non-Malay non-Muslims and English-speaking Malays), however, none of this.
Note the stance taken with the Malay-reading audience: Islam-haters are trying to make this country secular again. Although this nation was once secular, it is not anymore, but there are forces out there bent on making it secular again. Recall what I wrote earlier about the psychological battle to get people to resign themselves to the notion that this nation is an Islamic state? Here you can see it being played out.
Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma signed the memo and must therefore take responsibility for it.
He stated in the memo that only sketchy details of the proposed Commission had been introduced at that time. To be fair, as the memo was issued before the Conference, the Draft Bill was not yet in wide circulation then. However, we know from at least one media report, entitled “Muslim groups oppose inter-faith commission” (Malaysiakini, 8 February, 2005) that UIA’s Baharudeen had received a copy of the Draft Bill even before the Conference. Baharudeen, as evidenced from the “Bantah IFC” website, had been the most prolific contributor of articles condemning the IFC initiative. Remember, too, that although ACCIN had officially withdrawn from the pro-tem committee, an ACCIN representative continued to occasionally attend the steering committee meetings, during which the Draft Bill was fine-tuned, right up to the Conference. I will, nevertheless, give Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma the benefit of the doubt and assume he did not have full information on the proposed Commission when he signed the memo.
However, he surely knew he was wrong to say that the IFC was an initiative only by non-Muslims. SIS, which 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 initiative. His claim is therefore either 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 labelling 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.
ACCIN’s Criticism of MCCBCHS Report
More interestingly, as detailed in point ix) above, ACCIN conceded that the issue raised during the IFC initiative regarding 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 ACCIN’s 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 their statement that "none of the matters raised in [it] concern non-Muslims". This section will demonstrate how the matters raised in the Report do affect non-Muslims and do impinge on their rights.
Please take a few moments to review the MCCBCHS Report. Excluding the covering letter, the Report comprises 7 pages. The matters stated in it appear under 15 separate headings, but there is overlap among the issues raised. This section will demonstrate how the matters raised in the Report do affect non-Muslims and do impinge on their rights.
Under section two of the MCCBCHS Report (Cannot convert back to former religion), MCCBCHS addressed the very point that ACCIN has conceded is reasonable. This is therefore a helpful starting point to examine the rest of the Report, given that ACCIN does not find this, by itself, to be offensive.
Non-Muslims Are Affected : The Story of Ramu
Let us start with a fictitious Ramu, a Hindu by birth residing in Kuala Lumpur. Ramu converted to Islam in accordance with the Syariah law of Kuala Lumpur to marry an equally fictitious Minah. He assumed the name ‘Ramu bin Abdullah’ and notified the I.C. (identity card) department so his I.C. now bears his new name and the word ‘Islam’ to reflect his newly professed faith.
Ramu’s marriage to Minah subsequently ends in divorce. Ramu now tells us that he never lived the life of a Muslim, not even during that marriage. 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 was unchanged from what it was before his conversion. He says that during the marriage, he was a Muslim in name only. If you asked him why he did not try to live by his newly professed faith, he would probably answer,“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 admits, though, that he has never put into practice the tenets of Islam.
I have emphasised the word ‘PROFESSING’ because it is a very important word that must be understood in order 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.
FTA's Definition Of Muslim : Once a Convert, Always a Muslim
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 goes to the Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (JAWI) office. Upon hearing his story, the Ustaz in attendance tells Ramu that he is still a Muslim pursuant to the definition of "Muslim" in section 2 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act, 1993 ( FTA ).
Under the FTA, an individual is a Muslim if any one of six meanings applies. 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 you are a Muslim even if you do not profess the religion of Islam (as stated in part (a)), as long as your factual circumstances fall within at least one of the other five meanings listed.
The first and fourth meanings used to apply to Ramu: he once professed the religion of Islam, and converted in accordance with the requirements of section 85. Now, the first meaning no longer applies to him as he openly states that he no longer professes Islam. However, the fourth meaning will always apply to him as he did convert to Islam. This is a historical fact that he can never change. As a result, although Ramu no longer professes the religion of Islam, and is therefore (in fact) a non-Muslim, he is (in law) still treated as a Muslim.
Paragraph 1.2 of the MCCBCHS Report raises this issue, which is a complaint of non-Muslims who are subjected to Syariah law because the law disregards what they profess and treats them as Muslims.
ACCIN’s condemnation of the MCCBCHS Report as not raising matters concerning non-Muslims is plainly unjustified.
The FTA is Unconstitutional : It Applies to Non-Muslims
Section 1 of the MCCBCHS Report states that “Non-Muslims are being unconstitutionally considered as Muslims”. This is because the definition of “Muslim” in most state Islamic law enactments is too wide and violates what is permitted by the Federal Constitution.
Item 1, List II, 9th Schedule in the Federal Constitution (the “State List”) provides that Parliament and State Assemblies can make laws relating to “Islamic law and personal and family law”, but only with respect to “persons professing the religion of Islam”. Note the presence of the all-important word I drew to your attention earlier: “PROFESSING”.
However, as explained above, Section 2 of the FTA defines “Muslim” to extend beyond just “persons professing the religion of Islam”. In doing so, Parliament has extended the FTA’s applicability 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.
MCCBCHS is correct to say that this is unconstitutional. The FTA is unconstitutional in this regard because its scope extends beyond what the Federal Constitution permits.
The FTA is Unconstitutional : It Violates Article 11
The definition of “Muslim” in the FTA violates another provision of the Federal Constitution. It is a violation of such severity that it leaves those affected stripped of the dignity that God intended humans to have and that the Federal Constitution protects. I speak of the violation of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion to every person.
Article 11(1), in my view, represents the most fundamental of all basic rights guaranteed to us. Three distinct rights in relation to religion are expressly guaranteed to “every person”: to profess his religion, to practise his religion and to propagate his religion. Of these three rights, only the right to profess one’s religion is unconditional; the other two rights are limited. 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. Article 11(5) limits the right to practise one’s religion by prohibiting acts “contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality”. This restriction was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Halimatusaadiah.
An examination of the Federal Constitution reveals that the right to profess one’s religion is the only unconditional right it guarantees. Every other right may, in certain circumstances, be curtailed. Not so the right to profess. Let us remember this and now return to the plight of poor Ramu.
Ramu's Life Hampered By Bureaucracy
Ramu says he no longer professes the religion of Islam. If you ask him, he will say he now professes the Hindu faith. JAWI, however, says he is still Muslim, regardless of what he himself says he professes. Some of you may suggest that he just ignore JAWI and get on with his life. He could well do that except that, in getting on with his life, he may encounter and have to deal with bureaucracy, which is where his problems will start.
Recall that Ramu now wants to marry Letchumi. The Hindu priest he consulted advised that he consult JAWI. JAWI has said that he is still a Muslim as far as they are concerned. Your advice is that he just get on with his life. With that, and on the advice of lawyers, Ramu now swears a statutory declaration to prove that he no longer professes the religion of Islam and now professes the Hindu faith. Armed with this legal document, he now goes to the registry of civil marriages to register his intended marriage to Letchumi as required by law. The attending officer looks at Ramu’s IC and informs him that the registry cannot register any marriage involving him as his IC indicates that he is Muslim. Ramu shows his statutory declaration and explains why his IC states his religion as Islam. The officer is sympathetic and advises Ramu to get this detail in his IC changed before returning to the registry.
Ramu’s difficulty in registering a marriage is alluded to at paragraph 4.1 of the MCCBCHS Report.
Hopeful, Ramu now heads to the nearest IC department. He applies to change his name to what it was prior to his conversion and to delete “Islam” from his IC. The attending officer informs Ramu that the IC department can approve his application only if he has a letter from JAWI or a Syariah Court order confirming that he is no longer a Muslim.
Ramu’s nightmare at the IC department is described 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 Syariah courts “shall have jurisdiction 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 does not.
Since Ramu must get a letter from JAWI or a Syariah Court order to confirm that he is no longer a Muslim before the authorities accept him as a Hindu, he does not have the unconditional right to profess his religion. Doesn’t this requirement 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 that concern non-Muslims?
Other Examples of Non-Muslims Who Are Affected
Paragraph 4.2.3 of the MCCBCHS Report describes the case of Priyathaseny, 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. Nevertheless, the Syariah authorities dealt with her, a non-Muslim, in the manner depicted in the MCCBCHS Report.
Part B of the MCCBCHS Report addresses various issues faced by non-Muslims, such as the difficulties encountered in trying to get approval from the authorities to build places of worship, the unconstitutional banning of the use by non-Muslims of certain Arabic words ordinarily associated with Islam, the prohibition against circulating the Bible in the Malay language or in Bahasa Indonesia and the absence of religious education for non-Muslims in schools.
In fairness, let it be noted that I do not necessarily agree with every issue raised in the MCCBCHS Report. However, to condemn the entire report 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, un-Islamic.
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.
ACCIN’s Criticism of the IFC Initiative
Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma endorsed ACCIN’s allegations that the proposed IFC:
i) was intended as a "‘grievance redressal body’";
ii) would have been authorised to receive complaints from the followers of any religion
against another religion and to make decisions, including changing the teachings of
the “offending” religion;
iii) would have been authorised to enforce its decisions in the manner of a court of law;
and
iv) would have had 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?:
i) As noted earlier, Baharudeen Abu Bakar, the UIA representative, asked, at one of the IFC pro-tem committee’s preliminary meetings, whether the proposed Council would have adjudicatory powers. In response, the chairman explained that the proposed body was intended as an advisory body that would make recommendations to the government when necessary; and
ii) Point 3 of the six-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 six-point agreement, I am commanded to ask of Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma, in respect of his allegations
“…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 him:
In the ACCIN memo, Dato’ Hj Mustapha Ma also alleged that the proposed IFC would:
i) "undermine the status of Islam as the official religion" of Malaysia;
ii) "make a mockery of the Agong and the Sultans as official heads of the religion of Islam";
iii) interfere with the administration of Islamic matters;
iv) give rise to serious implications for Muslim unity, Federal-State relations and the
viability of Islamic administration; and
v) "seriously threaten religious harmony in this country”.
You will not find any explanations in the entire ACCIN memo to justify these deceitful allegations. These are 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 when one’s right to practise one’s religion is violated.
I confess that this is the only part of 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 Lee Min Choon, a practising lawyer, also lodged a report with SUHAKAM that same year in relation to violations of the freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution, as did MCCBCHS, the Shias as well as Ayah Pin’s followers. More recently, Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF) did likewise in respect of the rampant demolition of Hindu temples in Kuala Lumpur. What has SUHAKAM done? Nothing!
A former SUHAKAM Commissioner informed me that an unwritten rule applies in SUHAKAM: hands off on religious matters! Can the present chair of SUHAKAM refute this? If so, please tell us what action, if any, SUHAKAM has taken in response to the reports it has received.
If this claim by ACCIN was laughable, then the next, which is the last of the claims from the ACCIN memo that I deal with, is, in my view, the most sinful. This was the accusation (which only appears in the Malay version of the memo) that some Bar Council members are 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 though you profess Islam as your faith, you do not abide by God’s Command not to make false accusations?
“Woe to the falsehood-mongers”- Surah 51 verse 10 of the Holy Qur’an
Back to - The Workshop & Conference
Next Link - Post Conference