[1] (International Herald Tribune)
In landmark case, Hindu man in Malaysia gets custody of children born to Muslim wife
The Associated Press
Published: May 3, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: Malaysia’s Islamic authorities gave a Hindu man married to a Muslim woman custody of their children Thursday, in a landmark decision for minority rights, after the couple were forcibly separated because they follow different religions.
The decision was announced at an emotional hearing in the High Court attended by the ethnic Indian couple, Marimuthu Periasamy and Raimah Bibi Noordin, both rubber tappers who had been happily married for 21 years.
The case is the latest in a series of conflicts involving the religious rights of minority groups that is straining ties in multiethnic Malaysia, where Islam is the dominant religion. Buddhists, Christians and Hindus are the minority faiths.
The crisis began unexpectedly when Islamic authorities took away Raimah Bibi and six of her seven children on April 2 on the grounds that her marriage with Marimuthu was illegal. It was not clear why the authorities acted now when the couple had been together for 21 years.
At the hearing Tuesday, Raimah Bibi, 39, broke down and sobbed openly when the judge asked her if she will give up custody of their seven children, who are aged between four and 14.
“Yes, I agree to surrender my children to Marimuthu,” she said, wiping her tears with the ends of her headscarf.
Marimuthu had filed an application demanding that the Islamic Affairs Department bring his wife and children to court. The department has indicated the couple cannot live together because Marimuthu did not convert to Islam as required by law for their marriage to be legal.
Later, government lawyer Zauyah Be Loth Khan said the Islamic Affairs Department had no objection to the children being raised as Hindus by the father. “It is up to the parents,” she said.
The decision was a landmark step in minority rights because it allowed a Hindu man to take custody of his children who legally might be considered Muslims because their mother is one.
“It would set a precedent for other cases,” said the 43-year-old Marimuthu’s lawyer, Karpal Singh.
Singh indicated that Raimah Bibi gave up the children as a compromise to end the family’s predicament.
“What is very sad is that a happy united family has been divided and has faced such a crisis,” said Lim Kit Siang, opposition leader.
“For this to happen to a couple that has lived together for 21 years as a result of a religious conflict is not good for our international image,” he said.
After Raimah Bibi and the six children were removed on April 2, Islamic authorities took them to a Muslim village for rehabilitation and religious counseling. Marimuthu has claimed that his wife was a practicing Hindu despite having a Muslim name and that he feared she would be brainwashed at the rehabilitation village.
She and Marimuthu did not speak with reporters Thursday.
However, in a statement to the court, Raimah Bibi said she was born a Muslim and wants to “continue professing the Islamic faith.”
Singh said Raimah Bibi “will have absolute access” to her children.
“We are resorting to King Solomon’s justice,” he said referring to the biblical story of a baby being ordered to be cut equally and given to two women who both claimed to be his mother.
Hindu gets custody of children from Muslim wife
May 3, 2007
KUALA LUMPUR — A Malaysian Hindu man forcibly separated from his Muslim wife by Islamic authorities because they are of different religions was Thursday granted custody of their children in a milestone case.
The children will be raised as Hindus in central Selangor state despite having one Muslim parent – which lawyers said was unprecedented in mainly Muslim Malaysia.
Selangor Islamic authorities last month forcibly separated ethnic Indian P. Marimuthu from his ethnic Indian Muslim wife of 21 years, Raimah Bibi Noordin and six of their seven children.
During a high court hearing west of Kuala Lumpur, Raimah, 39, clad in traditional Malay floor-length attire with a Muslim headscarf, told the judge that she was voluntarily giving up custody of her children.
“I agree to hand over the custody of my children to my husband to be raised as Hindus,” Raimah said, before she broke down in tears.
Under Malaysian law, a non-Muslim must convert to Islam in order to marry a Muslim, and children born to Muslims must be raised as followers of that religion.
Government legal advisor Zauyah Be Loth Khan said that Selangor’s Islamic Affairs Department did not object to the children being raised as Hindus.
“She is still entitled to visiting rights at any time,” Zauyah told reporters.
“It sets a new precedent,” said Marimuthu’s lawyer Karpal Singh, also a lawmaker with the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP).
Marimuthu, 43, applied for custody of the children after they were placed with Raimah in an ethnic Malay Muslim village.
Islamic authorities said that they separated the couple after they recently found out that she was a Muslim.
“I have had discussions with my husband … with regard to the predicament facing the both of us, and I hereby state that I was born a Muslim and I wish to continue professing the Islamic faith,” Raimah said in an affidavit to the court.
Marimuthu has said that Raimah, an ethnic Indian, was adopted by an Indian Muslim family but was a practicing Hindu.
They were married 21 years ago according to Hindu rites and raised their seven children, aged four to 14, as Hindus, he said.
Raimah’s case comes amid growing sensitivities over the rights of non-Muslims in Malaysia.
Rights groups have condemned the actions of the Islamic authorities, saying that freedom of religious practice is guaranteed in Malaysia’s constitution.
“Relationships should not be broken up by religion, which is supposed to foster family love and unity,” said DAP parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang.
(3) Gulfnews.com
Published: 04/05/2007 12:00 AM (UAE)
Hindu man in Malaysia gets custody of children born to Muslim wife
AP
Kuala Lumpur: Authorities in Malaysia gave a Hindu man married to a Muslim woman custody of their children yesterday, in a landmark decision for minority rights, after the couple had been forcibly separated citing their religious beliefs.
The decision was announced at an emotional hearing in the High Court attended by the ethnic Indian couple, Marimuthu Periasamy and Raimah Bibi Noordin, both rubber tappers who had been happily married for 21 years.
The case is the latest in a series of conflicts involving the religious rights of minority groups that is straining ties in multi-ethnic Malaysia, where Islam is the dominant religion.
Authorities took away Raimah Bibi and six of her seven children for counselling on April 2 on the grounds that her marriage with Marimuthu was illegal.
At the hearing on Tuesday, Raimah Bibi, 39, broke down and sobbed openly when the judge asked her if she would give up custody of her seven children, who are aged between four and 14. “Yes, I agree to surrender my children.”
Marimuthu had filed an application demanding that the Islamic Affairs Department bring his wife and children to court. The department indicated that the couple could not be allowed to live together because Marimuthu did not convert to Islam as required by law for their marriage to be legal.
Government lawyer Zauyah Be Loth Khan said there was no objection to the children being raised as Hindus by the father.
“It would set a precedent for other cases,” said the 43-year-old Marimuthu’s lawyer, Karpal Singh.
“What is very sad is that a happy united family has been divided and has faced such a crisis,” said Lim Kit Siang, opposition leader.
Malaysian religious law splits wife and children
- Officials force apart Hindu man and Muslim woman
- High court judge backs custody bid of father
Ian MacKinnon, South-east Asia correspondent
Friday May 4, 2007
The Guardian
A Muslim woman forcibly separated from her Hindu husband by Malaysia’s Islamic authorities after 21 years of happy marriage wept inconsolably yesterday after a judge endorsed her decision to hand custody of six of her seven children to her former spouse.
In an unprecedented move for Malaysia – where Islamic religious laws are strictly enforced – the children, aged four to 14, will be raised as Hindus despite being born to a Muslim mother. Last month Selangor state’s Islamic authorities took Raimah Bibi Noordin, 39, and her children away for “rehabilitation” and religious counselling after belatedly declaring that her marriage was illegal.
The couple cannot live together because the husband did not convert to Islam as required by law for their marriage to be legal. In a country where 60% of the population is Muslim, the law also stipulates that the children must be brought up to observe Islam. Anyone born into a Muslim family cannot legally convert.
But Mrs Raimah Bibi’s husband, Marimuthu Periasamy, 43, applied for custody of the ethnic Indian couple’s children after they and his wife were removed to a Malay Muslim village. He said he feared his children would be brainwashed.
In yesterday’s emotional high court hearing west of the capital, Kuala Lumpur, Mrs Raimah Bibi, who wore traditional floor-length Malay garb with a Muslim headscarf, agreed to give up her children voluntarily to end the standoff. “I agree to hand over the custody of my children to my husband to be raised as Hindus,” she said, before bursting into tears.
The couple were married according to Hindu traditions and brought up their children in the Hindu faith.
Mr Marimuthu claimed his wife had been adopted by an ethnic Indian Muslim family but that she was a practising Hindu and her old identity card categorised her as an Indian Hindu. But when she applied for a new identity card this year, the government listed her as a Muslim, he said.
However, an affidavit read to the court earlier Mrs Raimah Bibi contradicted her husband’s testimony. “I have had discussions with my husband … with regard to the predicament facing us,” it said. “And I state that I was born a Muslim and wish to continue professing the Islamic faith.”
A Malaysian government legal adviser, Zauyah Be Loth Khan, said that Selangor’s Islamic affairs department had raised no objections to the children being raised as Hindus, adding that Mrs Raimah Bibi would have the right to visit at any time .
Despite the eventual outcome, the case highlights growing disquiet about the legal rights of non-Muslims in Malaysia, even though religious freedom is enshrined under the constitution.
Lim Kit Siang, an opposition leader, said. “For this to happen to a couple that has lived together for 21 years as a result of a religious conflict is not good for our international image.”
#1 by marmitecrab on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:18 pm
This case was reported in Al-Jazeera. Click on this link to view the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgnncfYRPxk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftheimperfectmom%2Ecom%2F
You’ll see the people involved and how sad the situation is for the parents. The father is pleading with the authorities to let him see his wife and they are behaving like gangsters. You’ll also see how sad the mother is and how much she is crying.
Thay are so helpless in this situation and my heart goes out to them. I have a child of my own and I cannot imagine living in separation from my kid.
Whatever said and done, it is a tragedy to see a family broken up like this in the name of religion. This family has done no harm to anyone and no one was injured. It doesn’t even afect national security and yet, the law was so prominently applied here.
I am truly worried about our religious rights because it looks like our constitution is just a piece of paper that cannot be enforced. And it doesn’t look like the situation is going to improve either. Are we becoming more and more extreme? Looks like it.
By the way, there was a fabulous article in the New Straits Times a couple of days back written by an Islamic scholar who said it is not enough to just profess the faith but to live live it. If someone is just professing it, then that alone does not make the person a muslim.
#2 by Billy on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:38 pm
In the warped thinking of these religious people, breaking up families is certainly promoting good family values. What is happening to Sharizat? Hasn’t she got something to say about this? I really am going to puke just thinking about this new family values these guys are promoting!!!!
#3 by marmitecrab on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:49 pm
I just picked this up from NST’s archives:
KUALA LUMPUR: Religion is a personal choice that cannot be regulated by law, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suha- kam) chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman said yesterday.
Even the Quran said no one should be forced to convert to Islam, he added.
And as far as Suhakam was concerned, everybody could choose his religion.
More: http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Friday/National/20070413080715/Article
#4 by sheriff singh on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:53 pm
I am very sad that brother Karpal Singh sees this as a “victory” and equates this as “Solomon’s Justice”. I am indeed sad that he appeared to have failed to take care of Raimah’s interest and this lady has now to live apart from her children and to profess a faith that she does not believe in as she had earlier said.
Reading today’s news and looking at the various photographs, I only saw the sorrow and despair of a once happy family. There were no smiles but sadness and tears of a family now torn apart and seperated. They appeared to be mourning their “victory”.
It is clear to me that Raimah had made a mother’s sacrifice, that she would readily give up her children rather than see them suffer or torn apart, just as happened in King Solomon’s court. The good King then knew who the rightful mother was and reunited her back with her child. A very happy earning. That was justice!
For Karpal to say the outcome of Raimah’s case was “Solomon’s justice”, I think it would be an insult to the good king for using his good name when “justice” isn’t done here in my eyes. Would King Solomon decide this case as it turned out? Was Karpal equating himself with King Solomon?
For the learned and experienced lawyer to say that justice was indeed done, he could possibly be hiding his inadequacy in handling the case. Perhaps the learned lawyer was merely disguising his defeat with this “victory”. Did he have a hand in the “compromise”? Maybe the learned lawyer’s hands were tied.
JAIS did not appear to have a good case for their actions and was merely finding an honourable way out of their predicament. So a lop-sided compromise appears to have been struck – the return of her children to their father to practise Hinduism, but she had to be a muslim, and JAIS appeared to have acted honourably.
Imagine a poor rubber tapper with a simple mind having to make this life changing decision. The love for her children was the decider, the major influence. What other choices did she have?
Was the simple minded woman acting under duress? Did Karpal advise her that she might have a strong case and that she should instead fight it out? Was Karpal confident of winning?
Perhaps to end it all quickly, the poor woman chose the “compromise”. But will this “compromise” be the end of it all or will it be the start of new problems?
A trajedy.
#5 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:38 pm
“….we now have the situation where Raimah Bibi is affirming that she always was, and is, a Muslim.
DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT SHE WAS TORTURED INTO ADMITTING THAT? Herein is the greatest danger to Malaysia: torture is practised …” says good coolie
No doubt she was ‘forced’ by circumstances but she did it voluntarily. She could argue that she was tortured on account of her confinement to the rehabilitation center earlier – if she could prove nexus. Duress? Don’t know about that.
But this is what she could do: she could go to the nearest foreign embassy of her choice and asked for asylum. I believe India is a signatory to the agreement signed with the U.N. ( United Nations Protocol Relating to Refugees) > I could be wrong. Or she could just flee the country, go to say Australia or N.Z. if not India and seek asylum.
She would have no trouble with proving persecution on account of religion and race. There are three other statutory grounds but these do not concern her.
My 2-cents.
#6 by Jimm on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:40 pm
Well balance between religion and politic front, that’s what the common reason used to keep any opposition getting closer to ruinned Government effort in control power.
Poor woman happens to be the chosen one to create an agenda to keep the Malays checked. She was used as a subject to remind the Malays about the consequences of their special rights, should the opposition gain power of the government.
I believe that should all the rightful religion authorities were to really checked on the rightful and lawful within the religion practices, in major cities, itselves, they can work around the clock to nab offenders. It’s more political agenda than religion to me.
Seriously, get the same officers that perform their duties on that faithful day to be promoted and deploy them to scoop out those ‘found’ offenders in major town. That’s more like it , in making sure all borned into faith practice faith accordingly. No one should be excluded.
We will keeping this country ‘clean’ somehow.
#7 by paix on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:46 pm
These religious zealots are of the same ilk who openly talk about being true muslims but at the same time are closet sadistic voyeurs who commit incest with their own offsprings.
#8 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:58 pm
“JAIS did not appear to have a good case for their actions and was merely finding an honourable way out of their predicament. So a lop-sided compromise appears to have been struck …”
JAIS has a good case – as good a case as any. If anyone doubts that JAIS could show Bibi is still a Muslim, rest assured that the jurisdiction of the syariah courts over Muslims (irrespective of ethnicity) in Malaysia is alone determinative of the issue. The facts show she was a Muslim in law having been raised by Muslim parents albeit adopted parents. She comes then under the jurisdiction of the syariah courts. For her to be able to leave the Muslim religion she would have to appear before the syariah court. She never did. She remains therefore a Muslim in law.
Her marriage to a non-Muslim partner and the birth of her children presents special difficulties but are not insurmountable. It is here that the work of the ‘invisible hand’ is best seen urging for a compromise and an urgent settlement to the matter. But I suspect we have not seen the last of it.
#9 by HJ Angus on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:59 pm
The only person who has some of Solomon’s wisdom is the woman who is willing to give up her seven children.
Only human beings can come up with this all in the name of righteousness.
A sad day for the family.
#10 by HJ Angus on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 2:00 pm
Forgot to include this:
http://malaysiawatch2.blogspot.com/2007/05/solomons-justice-or-destruction-of.html
#11 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 2:17 pm
Jeffrey: “….although Malaysia has secular constitution at independence…..”
The Federal Constitution of 1957 to begin with is not completely secular. At best, I respectfully submit, it is a hybrid. If it is secular why then do we find numerous references to the Muslim religion. Why is Islam the official religion of the federation created by the Constitution? As to whether the Constitution of 1957 was meant to create a secular nation notwithstanding the many references to Islam and the prohibition against proselytizing of Muslims is another matter. This debate is meaningless to us ordinary folks but has provided fodder obviously to the intellectually inclined among us to argue and debate for a very long time.
Jeffrey: “This is not a case of a person whose position as Muslim is established without doubt …”
This is such a case. She was raised by Muslim parents but may or may not have been a practicing Muslim. That does not change her status as a Muslim by law. As a Muslim she is subject to the jurisdiction of the syariah court. Ethnicity has little to do if any with the issue.
#12 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 2:29 pm
“Religion is a personal choice that cannot be regulated by law, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suha- kam) chairman Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman said yesterday. Even the Quran said no one should be forced to convert to Islam, he added.
And as far as Suhakam was concerned, everybody could choose his religion.”
What this former AG, a trained lawyer, did not say is as far as Malays are concerned they are deemed Muslims by law. He is engaging in half-truths.
It is also a half-truth to say without more that “religion is a personal choice”. It is a personal choice if you are not a Muslim to begin with.
Obviously as chairman of Malaysia’s Human Rights Commission, his statement is made for international consumption.
#13 by sotong on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 3:34 pm
Religious fundamentalism is not a human or animal instinct.
It will do harm to a multi religious society.
#14 by Count Dracula on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 3:53 pm
To the reader who is inclined to engage in personal insults whenever he is pressed for an answer, please refrain from doing so out of respect for Kit who has kindly provided this platform for us to debate on issues how emotionally charged some of them are.
#15 by non-conformist on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 4:00 pm
In matter of religion, let there be complete freedom and liberty of conscience. ‘Let every man be persuaded in his own mind.”
True religious allegiance flows from within the man, and not something coerced and imposed from without by some alien and contrary power; the former is genuine, the latter is ‘nerakaic’ and ‘syaitanic’ [hellish].
#16 by Jeffrey on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 4:08 pm
On the Federal Constitution being “secular†or otherwise, Undergrad2 said, “ at best, I respectfully submit, it is a hybrid. If it is secular why then do we find numerous references to the Muslim religion. Why is Islam the official religion of the federation created by the Constitution?â€Â
Fair enough, but you must remember the law of the land that has not yet been contradicted as laid down by the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in case of Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988).
Delivering the judgment of a five-man Federal Court panel, the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas held that the Constitution and the legal system were “secular†and held that the meaning of the expression “Islam†or “Islamic religion†in Article 3 “means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremoniesâ€Â.
Tun Salleh Abas further said ‘there can be no doubt that Islam is not just a mere collection of dogmas and rituals but it is a complete way of life covering all fields of human activities, may they be private or public, legal, political, economic, social, cultural, moral or judicial’ but rejected the contention that the terms “Islam†or “Islamic religion†in Article 3 is “an all-embracing concept, as is normally understood, which consists not only the ritualistic aspect but also a comprehensive system of life, including its jurisprudence and moral standard†as this was not the meaning intended by the framers of the Constitution†(Reid Commission).
On Raimah Bibi Noordin’s status, “She was raised by Muslim parents but may or may not have been a practicing Muslim. That does not change her status as a Muslim by law†– Undergrad2.
Arguably it does – based on the way one conducts one’s life and practised beliefs, at least that’s what MAIS after consultation with JAIS and other legal advisers, said, after dropping its claim to Anthony Rayappan’s body : MAIS Chairman Datuk Mohamed Adzib Mohd Isa told the Bernama news agency that ‘although information gathered earlier had indicated that Rayappan was a Muslim, more recent evidence for his Christian beliefs was overwhelming.’
In that case Anthony had already converted to Muslim in 1990 (by reason of earlier marriage to a Muslim women) but he never shown by his way of life that he was a practising Muslim. In fact he was a practising Christian just as Raimah Bibi Noordin was a practicing Hindu whose marriage to Marimuthu Periasamy was conducted in Hindu rites.
The only difference between Anthony Rayappan and Raimah Bibi Noordin is that in former’s case Anthony had procured change of his IC to “Christianity†– in Raimah Bibi Noordin, her old IC was all along “Hindu†until a change to Mykad when they changed it back to “Muslim†that she didn’t bother to rectify.
The original status appears not to matter – in the case where one is not born into the faith, as Malays – like for example Anthony Rayappan, a Muslim since 1990 conversion or Raimah Bibi Noordin by virtue of being raised in or adopted by a Muslim Convert family.
Neither is it based on what the IC says. In the case of Nyonya Tahir, who died on January 19, the Seremban Sharia Court acknowledged that she was a non-Muslim at the time of her death and allowed her family to bury her as one, even though her identity card explicitly stated she was a Muslim !
Bottomline is how one conducts one’s life and professes belief to family members and immediate society that should be the determining factor (according to what MAIS Chairman Datuk Mohamed Adzib Mohd Isa seemed to say).
Based on this criteria, there is a genuine point of contention in Raimah Bibi Noordin whether she has long practised as a Hindu and should be considered a Hindu. (Her adopted Muslim convert family gave blessing to her marrying Marimuthu via Hindu rites. She had since lived together with Marimuthu for 21 years and raised their children as Hindus).
How could JAIS be sole arbiter and judge that she according to Datuk Mohamed Adzib Mohd’s criteria has not become a Hindu ?
#17 by Cinapek on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 5:30 pm
As these Islamic authorities flipped and flopped on their interpretations of the Islamic laws, they are tripping themselves up. That is fine as long as it is confined to those who chose to be in that religion. But the sad part is, they mess up other innocent victims’ lives as well.
It is plainly obvious there is no clear directions on how these matters are to be dealt with. They are decided as to the expediency of each case. In this particular instance, I suspect that the crucial Ijok byelection with its large Indian voters population helped to swing the decision in partial favour of the victims. I said partial because this compromise solution in no way has resolved the matter as the mother had to “give up” her children, if not in spirit, at least in fact.
I also marvel at the hypocrisy and the double standards of the solution. On the one hand, the mother, who was obviously forced to make a false confession that she was “born” a Muslim ( a fact contradicted by her husband who claims she was adopted by a Muslim family) and has to remain one while her children, who would also be born a Muslim if their mother is a Muslim, are allowed out of the faith.
Notice the series of articles in the STAR the last few days by IKIM and IIU professors seemingly disagreeing with the interpretations and actions of the Islamic authorities such as JAIS in such matters? Those articles and the compromise solution of the Marimuthu/Raimah case seems to point towards an orchestrated attempt to pacify non Muslim anger at these unjust actions and blatant abuse of power of the Islamic authorities towards non Muslim victims. And the reason for this is clearly the imminent GE where the Govt. wants to curry the votes of the non Muslims. With such naked and shallow intentions, the non Muslims should not be blinded by such blatant hypocrisy and instead should spread the word that the war on religious freedom is far from over.
#18 by Jonny on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 6:13 pm
Their PR campaign shall fail. People are wiser. Likelihood is true that 2 out of 3 Chinese would vote against the government. I’ve surveyed around friends and family. There is some ounce of truth in the findings.
#19 by 9to5 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 6:20 pm
Why do the people here say that there is no victory?
I personally think what Karpal Singh has done is a big achievement and victory considering the circumstances. He has saved 7 children from the crutches of the heartless Islamic Affairs Department.
The situation was such that Kapal cannot save 7 children and the mother at the same time. Hence, what Karpal did was to save the 7 children first and leave the fight for another day.
The children are all so young and if you leave them the Islamic Affairs Dept even for a short while, they would be very easily brainwashed by them. Meanwhile, the mother also helped by making the ultimate sacrifice to pacify the Islamic Affairs Dept by declaring that she would profess Islam. Otherwise, do you think that the all powerful Islamic Affairs Dept would agree to release the 7 children?
It would then be easier to re-unite the mother with the family at another time. I think this is what Karpal Singh is thinking.
To those people who are quick to denounce what Karpal has done is a hollow victory, think again. By the way, I’m not a DAP member although I appreciate what DAP has done so far!
Personally, I think one small victory at a time is a better approach than a strong head-on approach which can only go against a solid wall!
#20 by ethnicmalaysian on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 6:20 pm
Yes, I agree that Raimah’s ‘statement’ was clearly made under duress and coercion. One month in a ‘rehabilitation’ camp (after 21 years as a practicing Hindu) and, voila, she’s seen the light and returned to the true path of salvation?? Either these camps are divinely effective, or a compromise has been struck in a deal with the devil.
#21 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 7:08 pm
Jeffrey,
When I was studying constitutional law, it was at a time when the waves of Islamic fundamentalism have yet to reach Malaysian shores. The position taken by the late Lord President reflected the popular view then. But today we are living in the post Article 121(1A) world – and I cannot say that Suffian’s position is in sync with the popular view as much as I am no longer able to say with the same confidence if the Constitution of 1957 is completely secular or whether the intention was to create a completely secular state.
That does not, however, mean that Malaysia is an Islamic state.
On the issue of whether someone is deemed legally a Muslim one needs to look no further than our federal constitution. Only Malays are deemed legally Muslims and only Malays do not have the freedom to choose their religion and the prohibition against proselytizing applies only to Muslims.
The others, especially since the introduction of Art. 121(1A), are a matter of which court has jurisdiction – civil or syariah. Muslims irrespective of their ethnicity fall under the jurisdiction of the syariah courts. In the case of converts, they fall under the jurisdiction of the syariah court upon conversion.
What is not clear is if the issue of whether someone is in fact and in law a Muslim falls within the jurisdiction of the syariah court.
Bibi is not a Malay but an Indian who is a Muslim; and as a Muslim (not as a Malay who is deemed Muslim by law) she comes under the jurisdiction of the syariah courts. To change her religion she needed to appear before the syariah court and request for its consent. She did not and therefore remains under the jurisdiction of the syariah court. Was JAIS acting within the law when they sent her to rehab? You bet!
JAIS, MAIS and other bodies like them only act to administer the law and does not make them. Their pronouncements, directives etc do not have the effect of law.
It is unfortunate that these bodies along with the courts have not been entirely consistent in their interpretation of the relevant laws. It is unfortunate that the fact that religion has been politicized does not bring us any closer to the solution.
That, I respectfully submit, is the law today in a nutshell.
#22 by SMSAM2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 7:31 pm
I would think any sane person would understand the reason why Raimah decided to do what she did.
I know to many of us (me included when I read the news today), it is not victory, but I fervently believe that it is the ABSOLUTE VICTORY for her knowing that her children are safe with their own family.
It seems that the authorities (whether they are representing God or Devil) are pushing the boundary with every case and see how far they can go.
I am sure there are many parents among these authorities, and surely they know (probably not feel) the pain Raimah endured being separated from her children.
I think these authorities believe that “The end justifies the means” regardless of how much injustice is being imposed, as long as in the end, they believed they did something for their religion, they consider themselves a “living martyr” and will die a martyr.
The question I would like to pose is, what we as Malaysians can do about cases like these.
Sam
#23 by sheriff singh on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 8:51 pm
To say that Karpal wanted to win one battle at a time is I think being naive.
If you compromised, you have compromised and reached an agreement and settlement.
If you now want to fight the “other” battle, then you would be going back on your compromise or word and this “compromise” itself can be challenged and voided.
How I wish this whole unhappy episode could have been totally and amicably settled once and for all.
It is indeed sad that Raimah now has to live seperately from her family as a muslim and they as Hindus. She has now to live her life as a Muslim when in her heart she believes in Hinduism.
She was NOT born a muslim but was raised as one. Does being raised as one makes her a Muslim if she did not convert to Islam?
I know of many children who had stayed with foster parents during their school days. Buddhists stayed with Hindus and Hindus with Christians and so on. But does staying, living and being brought up by foster families of different faiths meant that they had converted to the religion of their foster parents?
Does living and being brought up by muslim parents automatically make Raimah a muslim? Did she convert to Islam? If not, why are the religious authorities JAIS, saying that she is a muslim? What evidence do they have that she is indeed, a muslim?
She professed the Hindu faith she said and her original IC said so. Who better to say what your religion is than the person itself? Did Raimah apply to change her faith from “Hindu” to “Islam” when she applied for her MyKad? If not, would the Registration Department who took it upon themselves to change her faith from “Hindu” to “Islam” be at fault for acting unilaterally?
If King Solomon’s justice is sought, perhaps Karpal should consider appealing to the King (Agong) as the Head of the Islamic Religion in this country for remedy.
#24 by 9to5 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 11:22 pm
Sheriff Singh
The last I understand this was an out of court settlement. So appealing to the Agong is may not be an option.
We have the mother (Raimah Bibi) and the pretender (JAIS) but we do not have the wise King Soloman here as the case was settled out of court. The judge merely affirmed the private settlements.
Sorry to say, Malaysia at this point of time has no King Soloman. Badawi with his humble religious background has all the potentials to be the wise King Soloman but he did not make use his god-given opportunity to go down in history as a wise Prime Minister for all races. Instead, he kept silent and squandered away his god given opportunity to rule Malaysia fairly and wisely. Far from being King Soloman, now history may judge him as the person who allowed this chaotic religious oppression to thrive during his reign due to his own lack of courage.
We have the holymen, JAIS, who think that they are acting for God and the learned high priests, ulamak, who poured through thick volumes of holy books and debating among themselves which should be the more correct interpretation of God’s message. While this is going on, everybody forgot about common sense and the sufferings of the once happily married couple.
….At the hearing on Tuesday, Raimah Bibi, 39, broke down and sobbed openly when the judge asked her if she would give up custody of her seven children, who are aged between four and 14. “Yes, I agree to surrender my children. ..
Raimah Bibi made the ultmate sacrifice to give up her 7 children due to her maternal instinct to protect her offsprings. Which mother will not grieve if her children and husband are taken away from her?
It takes a lowly rubber tapper to show to the world that the only person pure of heart here is Raimah Bibi – not JAIS nor all the learned holymen who professes to know the holybook inside-out! Which religion would force the separation of a family? It’s just common sense and plain humanity.
King Soloman would have allowed Raimah Bibi to reunite with her family.
#25 by Richard Teo on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 11:43 pm
Since Raimah for all intent and purpose is an Indian brought up by a muslim family, she still has legal recourse to make a statutory declaration to convert back to Hinduism.There have been many precedent cases where chinese convert revert back to their previous religion by simply making a statutory declaration.
#26 by japankiller on Saturday, 5 May 2007 - 12:11 am
hanuman, is another Katak di bawah tempurung.
#27 by sheriff singh on Saturday, 5 May 2007 - 12:11 am
Karpal says there was NO duress. He had in fact personally negotiated the compromise settlement with the State legal adviser who represented JAIS.
He now wants anyone who doubts this especially Ivy Josiah to apologise to him, Raimah, the judge, the state legal adviser JAIS, and I suppose anybody who is hurt by it.
http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=17821
So everyone out there, don’t doubt “Solomon’s Justice” as “compromised” by the good lawyer on behalf of his client, has taken place. Its no longer on your conscience. Now get back to work and move on.
#28 by sheriff singh on Saturday, 5 May 2007 - 12:30 am
Anyone can petition the King on any matter. No need for court decisions. Whether your petition is received and gets any attention is another matter.
On converting out of Islam through statutory declarations in the past, ah, those were the good old days. Times have changed and one would get into much difficulties these days with all these religious fanatics out to prevent apostates. Don’t think you have escaped because they might still get you when you die in a hospital and give you a muslim farewell.
The National Registration Department is also not so co-operative these days and they won’t support you if you want out of Islam. They will instead alert the the Syariah Court for you to be taken away for rehabilitation and re-education.
Yes, times have changed. Where are the good ole days?
#29 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 5 May 2007 - 1:28 am
“….At the hearing on Tuesday, Raimah Bibi, 39, broke down and sobbed openly when the judge asked her if she would give up custody of her seven children, who are aged between four and 14. “Yes, I agree to surrender my children.â€Â…..9to5
“Raimah Bibi made the ultmate sacrifice ….” 9to5
Ordinarily, husband and wife have joint custody of their children. To say that the wife by ‘giving up’ her children to her partner-husband has made the ‘supreme’ or ‘ultimate’ sacrifice is laughable. It sounds like a bad joke!
She has given up nothing – except her integrity when she agrees to making the affidavit that she is a Muslim. By agreeing to the affidavit, the state legal adviser and JAIS and whoever else involved including of course counsel are committing contempt of court.
#30 by akarmalaysian on Saturday, 5 May 2007 - 1:52 am
1st of all…hanuman is not a katak.pls lets not criticise him.hes not a katak di bawah tempurong.hes a parasite.to be exact …maybe thrs no word to describe him.
the only way to achieve wawasan 2020 and a bangsa malaysia is to hv ‘real’ freedom on faith and religion without any restrictions of any kind towards a citizen’s beliefs in a religion.u dun ‘force’ somebody into any any sort of converts if a couple are really meant to be together in life.just imagine wat a real malaysian wud be like if theres none any kind of these restrictions.to me…thr are no big deal on any sort of religions.a good religion wont enforce these type of ‘forced laws’ on a human.
#31 by ah lau on Saturday, 5 May 2007 - 10:18 am
Just for a moment, we reflect and asssume that we are muslim as well, we would have been pleased with the action of JAIS ?
As a practising Taoist, I practised moderation but often end up getting emotionally disturbed because I am not tolerating such situations like those expresses in the above replies.
Religion has failed me so are all the other religions, I presumed.
Good day.
#32 by DiaperHead on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 2:49 am
“To say that Karpal wanted to win one battle at a time is I think being naive.” fellow singh
Karpal Singh is very sneaky. You must watch your back side.