[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 babique on Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 10:06 pm
I presume that the next legal step is for the wife to denounce the religion in order to be united with her children.
#2 by sheriff singh on Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 10:38 pm
Does Raimah really want to be a Muslim when all her life she was a practising Hindu? As Karpal said, it was compromise so that her children can be freed from the Islamic authorities and be reunited with their Hindu father. It was the ultimate sacrifice by the mother for her children to be free.
Justice of Solomon? No, Karpal, no. The mother remains seperated from her children although she has visiting rights. She has made a great sacrifice. She must now live her life as a muslim, which I am certain she does not want to. She’s now a “prisoner”. It was not a just ending but one where it might be best under the circumstances. There remains many problems.
A trajedy.
#3 by firstMalaysian on Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 10:54 pm
It is still a sad tale that will be remembered for generations to come. It happened in modern Malaysia. This is the anguish of a mother/wife who is still separated from her children and husband. My prayer is that they will be united again and let no one put asunder.
Is this the kind of society that modern Malaysia is developing into…without any heart, feeling,empathy to see families being separated because of enforcement by others in the name of religion? What have they done to deserve this that will endanger the Malaysian society? or is it just legalism?
How do we expect integration of the Malaysian nation like what was aspired 50 yrs ago?
Let us be agents of peace,promoter of healthy family units….monogamous lifestyle…not covetous in another man’s wife..free from adulterous lifestyle etc. ‘ He who is without sin,let him cast the first stone’
#4 by Tai Lo Chin on Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 11:17 pm
DAP set up a fund. Each one who disagree with the inhuman acts of religious zealots tolerated by authorities donate RM 1 OR 2 to allow both husband and wife with children to live this totalitarian country and relocate elsewhere, whether in India or any other country. All they need is RM2 to 3 million. In fact can be granted asylum on grounds of persecution.
#5 by sammyvellu on Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 11:19 pm
MAIS only woke up recently to find out that a Muslim and a non muslim has been living together for the past 20 odd years.
Looks like they have been pretty hard working, as the next case may involve excavating a buried indian and transferring him to a Muslim cemetary!
#6 by hanuman on Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 11:50 pm
FOREIGN MEDIA ????
JAIS, MAIS, TDM, AB, JAIS … WHO ARE THEY???
THEY ARE HUMANS LIKE U AND ME. ARE THEY GOD NO, IT IS A DEFINITE “NO”.
WHY MUST WE BE CONCERN WHAT FOREIGN MEDIA SAYS ???
DO THEY RUN OUR COUNTRY MALAYSIA, NO.
MALAYSIA IS A INDEPENDENT COUNTRY. WE KNOW HOW TO RUN OUR COUNTRY. YOUR VOTES MEANS A LOT. VOTE THE RULING PARTY OUT !!!!!!
DO YOU WANT A FOREIGN ENTITY TO RULE MALYSIA … TO ME IT IS A DEFINITE NO FULL STOP. THIS IS MY COUNTRY CALLED MALAYSIA. WE VOTE U IN AND WE FEEL F**** WE WILL VOTE U OUT FULL STOP WITHOUT FOREIGN INTERVENTION FULL STOP.
DAP GET THIS INTO YOUR F*** SKULL COS I AM GETTING PISS OFF OF U GETTING FOREIGN PEEPS INVOLVED IN THE POLITICS OF OUR CONTRY.
#7 by Disgruntled on Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 11:56 pm
They can close one eye to corruptions and bigger crimes of the rich and powerful, but they have no compunction in going after the weak and poor who have no means to fight back. All in the name of religion. What hypocrites.
#8 by dawsheng on Thursday, 3 May 2007 - 11:57 pm
Does anyone really understand what is the meaning of free press? I thought it is not the type you found in Malaysia telling same old story for fifty years.
#9 by dawsheng on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:09 am
“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.”
Can the info regarding counseling modules and the operation of the rehab centre be made known to public? I am very curious what kind of village is that and how many are there in Malaysia? What is the total number of person going under rehab and todate, how many non-malay/ muslims has gone through such rehab process? The way Marimuthu has described his experience in the ordeal is very very worrying.
“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.”
#10 by SPADEaSPADE on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:44 am
Why is the Federal Constitution being trampled in this case.
Why is the family not protected by the fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution.
Why are the Islamic authorities’ decisions take precedence over the Federal Constitution.
See here:http://malaysianunplug.blogspot.com/2007/05/hindu-rubber-tapper-unites-with-his.html
#11 by arifabdull on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:46 am
Surat terbuka untuk Encik Anwar Ibrahim
…… Bersandarkan dasar membuka penyertaan kepada lebih ramai menyertai perjuangan anda telah berjaya menarik Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) bergabung ke dalam KeADILan. Selain daripada itu, hasrat menjadikan KeADILan sebagai parti yang melampaui batas perkauman dan pegangan agama juga merupakan salah satu ciri penting bagi sebuah perjuangan progressif. Inilah antara ciri yang telah membakar sokongan massa yang menghasilkan momentum 1998, dan telah mendatangkan rasa gentar pemerintah waktu itu.……
#12 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:54 am
“However, in a statement to the court, Raimah Bibi said she was born a Muslim and wants to “continue professing the Islamic faith.â€Â
This is not the end of her problems unfortunately as she could cited for contempt of court later.
She may then say in her defense that what she said was that “she wants to continue professing the Islamic faith” and she did not say she wants to “practicing the faith”.
Counsel should expect then to face disciplinary proceedings for breach of ethics as he clearly was coaching his client on what to say.
#13 by Disgruntled on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:59 am
Did you notice that the Star Online at this very moment has yet to report on this new development as latest news, while foreign press and us posters have been talking about this for hours now? It is like they don’t think this is important enough to deserve even a couple of lines.
#14 by a-malaysian on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:03 am
[deleted] hanuman. You quoted:
DAP GET THIS INTO YOUR F*** SKULL COS I AM GETTING PISS OFF OF U GETTING FOREIGN PEEPS INVOLVED IN THE POLITICS OF OUR CONTRY.
Why you [deleted] DAP, you are just another idiot like the cm of Sarawak who do not understand media reports.
These news are pick up by foreign press and Kit’s are just presenting them here to let your idiot government knows that the world are watching their inhumane act.
I am sure DAP did not get the foreign peeps involved as worthy news of these inhumane acts in its own way are news to foreigners as well so they report in their country. Whats wrong with that. Did umno control media report about the wrong doing of other countries as well. Why don’t you [deleted] the umno medias for involving in other countries news.
Calling all bloggers to spread these inhumane act by bodohland worldwide so everyone living in this world will know about it.
50 years is ENOUGH
Vote For A Change
Vote For Any Opposition
Give Them A Chance To Change For A Better Malaysia
Remember bn Is A Useless Grouping Of Self Serving, Corrupt, Dictator, Power Crazy, Racist, Kris waving, etc, etc type of parties.
#15 by private_undergrad on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:07 am
As a ‘forced’ Muslim in M’sia, did she even have the privilege to enjoy the Bumiputra status? No. As a Muslim, has she gotten the financial aids from Govt or MARA because of poverty? No. As a Muslim, has she been given the equal rights as stipulated in the M’sian Constitution? No. As a Muslim, did she enjoy the freedom as everyone else as spelt in the Constitution? No.
Now tell me. Who are the saviors that will help free the shackles that Raimah has suffered in the past and in the meantime?
#16 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:13 am
“DAP set up a fund. ….(husband and wife and children) relocate elsewhere, whether in India or any other country. … can be granted asylum on grounds of persecution.”
Only the wife is qualified to apply for asylum. The husband and children may qualify as derivatives, however.
To prove religious persecution, an applicant for asylum has to show subjective and objective fear of persecution on account one of five statutory grounds and this includes ‘religion’ and in this case by the Malaysian government.
The standard of proof is the civil standard. The criminal standard replaces this civil standard, however, if she overstays her visa past the period of one year without applying for asylum. The relief for which she then becomes eligible in the latter case would be something less than ‘asylum’ but which allows her to stay and work.
Since she has declared in her affidavit to the court that she intends to practice the Islamic faith, how could she then claim persecution??
#17 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:27 am
If the DAP is serious about wanting to help people like Raimah Bibi, the party could start a fund and call it for example “Flight to Freedom Fund”. Proceeds from donations could then be used to help them meet the cost of their re-location to another country.
If the DAP calls itself a party for all Malaysians irrespective of race and religion, why then does it stop short of fighting for the cause of converts like Lina Joy and Malays who face persecution on account of their non-Islamic beliefs?? The DAP needs to give a face to these Malays who are said to be in the thousands who are afraid to come out of the closet for fear of being ostracized and persecuted by their own community, and by the UMNO run government.
It seems hypocritical for the DAP leadership to fight for the freedom of one and not the other.
#18 by accountability on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:35 am
hanuman,
question: How do u find out what is happening in other countries? answer: You read the news.
question: Did the other country ask our journalists to go and report?
answer: NO, news attracts journalists who, in turn, share these to get worldwide coverage.
summary:
DAP need not get the foreign media in – they will come by themselves because there are news to report.
advice:
please don’t let your judgement(replies) be ruined by your emotions – think first before you speak/write
#19 by accountability on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:37 am
by the way, 7 JAIS officers to separate a happily-married harmless couple and their children…
behaving like gangsters, obviously no other job they can do but to hide behind religion and bully people
SHAME ON YOU, JAIS!
#20 by lauwengsan on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:46 am
i agreed to sheriff singh.
the family is broken up. with raimah taken away from the family, nobody is going to look after the children. it will not be a pleasant growing experience for all his seven children.
raimah, on the other hand, will have to live on her own. she assisted marimuthu in his daily rubber-tapping works to earn a living. with the separation, how is she going to survive alone without being together with her family??
there’s no reason for anybody to force any members of a family to be separated form each other in the name of religion.
it is simply unacceptable and illogical, something that does not make sense at all!
the government has been saying “utamakan keluarga”. i wonder if it should be changed to “utamakan agama”.
#21 by lauwengsan on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:49 am
hanuman,
anybody in this universe can report anything that happen anywhere in the entire universe.
foreign media or not is not something important here. it is the injustice sthat matter here.
#22 by a-malaysian on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 1:54 am
undergrad2, you are living at a comfort and safety zone of the US. You are not in Malaysia fighting like what DAP is fighting for. You can speak your mind but sometimes you are out of line.
You are dead wrong when you say DAP is hypocritical. I can say that you are more hypocritical living outside the country and just shoot blindly.
How do you know that “DAP stop short of fighting for the cause of converts like Lina Joy and Malays who face persecution on account of their non-Islamic beliefs?? as per your quote”
Are you a DAP member living in Malaysia to know what they are fighting and for who?
They do not post everything that they fight for in this blog and it does not mean that they are not fighting for a certain race or a certain particular person who are in need of help if it is not blog here.
Please come back to Malaysia and see for yourself and not just read from the internet from the US and post just basing on what you read.
50 years is ENOUGH
Vote For A Change
Vote For Any Opposition
Give Them A Chance To Change For A Better Malaysia
Remember bn Is A Useless Grouping Of Self Serving, Corrupt, Dictator, Power Crazy, Racist, Kris waving, etc, etc type of parties.
#23 by dawsheng on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 2:20 am
If the people elected the opposition to victory and formed the next govt, how are they going to deal with cases like this?
#24 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 4:25 am
“You are dead wrong when you say DAP is hypocritical. ” a-malaysian says.
This is great stuff. This is the kind of reaction that motivates me to write on this blog.
First, let me clarify my position. I did not say, “DAP is hypocritical” but what I said was quote “It seems hypocritical for the DAP leadership to fight for the freedom of one and not the other.” unquote.
“They do not post everything that they fight for in this blog and it does not mean that they are not fighting for a certain race or a certain particular person who are in need of help if it is not blog here.”
I visit this blog routinely because I do not know and would like to know more about the struggle by the DAP to protect and safeguard the fundamental liberties of all Malaysians. It would help me if the better informed and better educated among us – like yourself – to fill in the void in my knowledge of events in Malaysia.
“Please come back to Malaysia and see for yourself and not just read from the internet from the US and post just basing on what you read.”
If one does not post basing on what one knows then how does one post basing on what one does not know??
Is it not a fact that the DAP has not fought for the apostates among the Malays who wish to change their religion?
Is it not a fact that the number of Malay apostates are in the thousands. Some reports have placed their number in the hundreds of thousands.
#25 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 4:38 am
“You can speak your mind but sometimes you are out of line.” a-malaysian
If “out of line” means I do not share your opinion, then I am happy to be out of line. You may call it “out of line” but others call it ‘the freedom to speak their mind” – something protected by Article 10 of our Constitution, which in the U.S. is referred to as the First Amendment.
#26 by Jeffrey on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 4:50 am
YB Kit,
“It sets a new precedent,†said Marimuthu’s lawyer Karpal Singh, also a lawmaker with the opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP).
What is the nature of ‘victory’ here that sets a new precedent, as proclaimed by Karpal? I am not convinced. In fact I am convinced it is a defeat.
As I understand it, the ‘new precedent’ for which victory is claimed is the negotiated and compromise outcome that Raimah Bibi Noordin, in submitting to professing that she remained a Muslim (ie desist from apostasy) could bargain with and procure the release by religious authorities of six of their seven children to her husband, Marimuthu Periasamy, to be raised as Hindu.
I submit to you that the outcome represents no victory for the Cause of Secular Constitution and Civil Liberty that it purports to protect. It is a defeat which we should worry than a victory to celebrate for following reasons:
First, there is no victory in the sense that here no precedent is set for a Muslim (whether born or convert) to exercise freedom of religion, as purportedly sanctioned by Federal Constitution to become an apostate.
There is no precedent that a Muslim could freely choose to have a children opt out of the religion. Raimah Bibi Noordin’s case does not constitute such a precedent. This is because in the first place, she was born an ethnic Indian and although adopted by a Muslim convert family had always – until the deal was struck with the religious authorities – proclaimed herself a practising Hindu.
Raimah’s weaing a traditional Malay floor-length attire with a Muslim headscarf to declare to the High Court that she would “remain a Muslim†was made not voluntarily but under coercion in between sobs of tears. It was an outcome after a month of being whisked off to a Muslim village for rehabilitation and religious counseling. It was a trade for the freedom for her children. And it was a sacrifice that only a mother would make.
In fact, the compromise was a victory of sorts for the religious authorities. They could make a person whose better part of her life had been spent as a practising Hindu, whose old identity card had always indicated this fact, to now renounce her earlier genuine profession as a Hindu to publicly embrace the Muslim faith in order that her children might not have to do so.
The signal given is that if an ethnic Indian like Raimah Bibi Noordin, whose only link to the faith was her adoption by a Muslim convert family when she was young – and other than that, had all along professed the Hindu faith, with this confirmed in her old identity card – could not leave the faith, what so much more impossible would it be the instance of (say) ordinary Malays born into the faith or those like Siti Fatimah born to an Indian Muslim couple or those non malay converts like M Moorthy ?
Surely you must remember the case of Anthony Rayappan, who died last year, and whose body was caught in a tussle between the Selangor Islamic Religious Council and his family members.
Rayappan converted to Islam in 1990 following a second marriage, and was said to have converted back to Christianity in 1999, and subsequently confirmed his profession of the Christian faith by way of a statutory declaration before a Commissioner of Oaths.
Anthony Rayappan’s connection with the faith was so much more than Raimah Bibi Noordin. At least Rayappan converted to Islam in 1990 on his own. In Raimah’s case she was merely adopted by a Muslim convert family.
For the case of Anthony Rayappan, the cabinet led by PM directed the Attorney-General to look into his case to confirm his religious status, with a cue that he was not a Muslim, and taking this cue, the religious authorities backed out of their claim for his body.
The outcome of Anthony Rayappan’s controversy represented then one step taken backwards by the religious establishment which, by Raimah Bibi Noordin’s present proclamation to remain a Muslim, had now regained not only that one step backward (in Anthony Rayappan’s controversy) but had indeed advanced its cause by another two steps forward.
Why this is so is that the religious authorities could make Raimah renounce her earlier professed Hindu faith for the Muslim faith, heedless of Habeas Corpus and heedless of the break up of Raimah/ Marimuthu marriage of 21 years ago and prising a mother from her children (except for visitation rights) – without a whisper of reprimand from the government, the cabinet or the PM!
In a word, they are a law unto themselves. What shows is that religious authorities remain to a great extent independent of the civil political authority of the government, which dare not intervene even in a case like Raimah with tragic consequences.
Our Constitution is rendered a lameduck for the lack of courage to enforce. On the precedent of Anthony Rayappan, Karpal had a chance to test the constitutional point in court, which is now missed.
It is no more a case of Article 121(1)A separating the jurisdiction of Sharia from Civil law.
Events have shown that in a conflict between Sharia and Civil law, Sharia triumphs. In a country where power supposedly reposes in the elected civil authority, there is another shadow power of religious authority that in the case of Raimah Bibi Noordin cowers and triumphs over the civil political authority – silenced.
We are truly entering into an Islamic State. It represents no victory at all for civil society, civil authority or the Federal Constitution. It is not a good precedent. I am of the opinion it is a unprecedented dangerous one.
#27 by a-malaysian on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 5:11 am
undergrad2,
I had read a lot of your postings and it looks like you are more American than a Malaysian and trying to be a busybody nosing into Malaysian affairs without sincerely trying to help out but just pretending that you care about what is happening in this country.
We are in Malaysia, so please stop quoting the American Amendments or what not which is not applicable here. If you think it should apply here than please return to fight for the rights for all Malaysian as you know bn could not care two hoods about the American laws.
Yes, you have the freedom to speak your mind of what you know but not what you do not know.
50 years is ENOUGH
Vote For A Change
Vote For Any Opposition
Give Them A Chance To Change For A Better Malaysia
Remember bn Is A Useless Grouping Of Self Serving, Corrupt, Dictator, Power Crazy, Racist, Kris waving, etc, etc type of parties.
#28 by kurakura on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 5:18 am
There are more important issues to handle in Malaysia, eg crime prevention, education, poverty, transportation, irigation rather than playing tug of war between religions.
#29 by a-malaysian on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 5:39 am
kurakura,
I agree with you, the whole system in this country needs to be revamped totally.
They are all rotten to the core.
50 years is ENOUGH
Vote For A Change
Vote For Any Opposition
Give Them A Chance To Change For A Better Malaysia
Remember bn Is A Useless Grouping Of Self Serving, Corrupt, Dictator, Power Crazy, Racist, Kris waving, etc, etc type of parties.
#30 by a-malaysian on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 5:50 am
Sorry Kit, sidetrack a little.
Bahamian voters oust prime minister
Yes, many nations are changing their leaders and so can we.
Time for all Malaysians to wake up and walk together to show bn the door.
50 years is ENOUGH
Vote For A Change
Vote For Any Opposition
Give Them A Chance To Change For A Better Malaysia
Remember bn Is A Useless Grouping Of Self Serving, Corrupt, Dictator, Power Crazy, Racist, Kris waving, etc, etc type of parties.
#31 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 6:04 am
Jeffrey, I will have to disagree with you about the case not setting a precedent. It is a precedent of sorts. We have never seen a case like it when the authorities appear to sanction a Muslim giving away her children to a non-Muslim partner to raise without more. Is there a commitment by the non-Muslim partner to provide Muslim education to his children?
The issue of habeas corpus is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court. Could Justice Su have declined jurisdiction over the matter? If it relates purely to the issue of habeas corpus, I respectfully submit, he could not.
But I am not sure if the matter of ‘compromise’ is within its jurisdiction since it involves issues of the Muslim religion – which rightly and constitutionally resides with the syariah courts.
I am disappointed because we have missed the opportunity to solve the issue of jurisdiction once and for all.
#32 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 6:07 am
To Jeffrey
What is the status of the Lina Joy case? Is there no joy for her?
#33 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 6:18 am
To a-malaysian, who says in reply:
“Yes, you have the freedom to speak your mind of what you know but not what you do not know.”
How would one know what one does not know unless one chooses to speak what one knows?
#34 by a-malaysian on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 7:00 am
undergrad2,
Yes, you can spin whatever you want to know but do not know. I think you have a good prospect to join the umno kali group as great spinners for their medias.
50 years is ENOUGH
Vote For A Change
Vote For Any Opposition
Give Them A Chance To Change For A Better Malaysia
Remember bn Is A Useless Grouping Of Self Serving, Corrupt, Dictator, Power Crazy, Racist, Kris waving, etc, etc type of parties.
#35 by Jeffrey on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 7:01 am
Undergrad2, the crux is in your statement – “We have never seen a case like it when the authorities appear to sanction a Muslim giving away her children to a non-Muslim partner to raise without more”. You’re correct if Raimah Bibi Noordin is indeed (whether by civil or Sharia law) indisputably a Muslim, and it follows a precedent is set from such a Muslim being allowed to give away her children to a non-Muslim partner to raise as Hindu.
I however dispute that she may be considered a Muslim if ever this matter were adjudicated by a fair minded competent court whether of civil or sharia jurisdiction. As I said, Anthony Rayappan was so much more a muslim than Raimah Bibi Noordin and yet it was accepted by the religious authority as he was not, taking the cue from the cabinet. Raimah Bibi Noordin is an ethnic indian adopted by a Muslim convert family, professed the Hindu faith corroborated by her husband’s account and her old IC. She had a stronger case than Anthony Rayappan to say she never embraced the Muslim faith. Raimah Bibi Noordin’s present declaration that she would remain muslim (implidely admitting that she was muslim all along) cannot be accepted at face value as the truth, having regard to the circumstances of her children being detained. There are strong elements of “duress” that may be inferred from her circumstances. In the civil courts, a confession of guilt procured through duress is inadmissible as evidence as you would know. We’re not talking about civil courts, yes, but the principles of determining the sincerity and truth of admission and declarations, and whether they may be distorted by extenuating pressures and duress, will apply universally in all context. You would have seen British Seaman/sailor Faye Turney, 26 wore a muslim scarf, admitted on Iranian TV to British naval incursions into Iran’s territorial waters during her 13 day detention on the ending of which she immediately repudiated what she said. That’s duress to cope and survive a situation. It is not freely given.It proves nothing in my books.
#36 by Jeffrey on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 7:21 am
And if I were right that the facts would suggest Raimah Bibi Noordin not to be a Muslim (other than mere adopted by Muslim convert family) but a practising Hindu, the fact that she could now – leveraged against welfare of her children – be made to profess otherwise as a Muslim – would this not represent a victory for JAIS? They are not certain that that could win the case had it been fought out before Justice Su in High Court, that’s why they prefer this symbolic victory forged from the compromise to make the point. Otherwise if they had an iron clad case do you think they’ll let the children go to the father? Here they are not giving up something that they had in the first place. They have got Raimah though which they never had. From Raimah’s view point the High Courts decision even in her favour is subject to appeal after appeals that will take 5 or more yerars to exhaust. What will be of her children detained for so long under ‘rehabilitation’ by then? Do we blame her for making that choice? I won’t but it does not make what they’re doing right.
ll
#37 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 7:57 am
I am not part of the local grapevine, and what I know is from what I read on this blog. However, I will not let that deter my exercise of the freedom of speech not as protected by the U.S. First Amendment but as protected by our own Constitution’s Article 10.
I think I got the drift of your argument.
To paraphrase what you wrote a bit, if I may, you say Rayapan was more deserving of the treatment afforded to Bibi because in his case he converted to Islam voluntarily (though he later renounced) whereas Bibi was adopted by Muslim parents. I agree.
But I sense the presence of an invisible hand in both cases. It makes no legal sense.
The Bibi case sets a precedent, though not a legal one perhaps, but nevertheless a precedent which may or may not be followed. The Islamic authorities appear to have relented to give children deemed legally as Muslims to a non-Muslim to raise – most unusual. since proselytizing of Muslims is regarded as serious enough to warrant constitutional protection and here we see a case of children deemed legally Muslims removed into the custody of a non-Muslim parent.
I also agree with what you say i.e. the affidavit Bibi made to the effect that she professes the Muslim religion appears to have been made involuntary and appears to have been forced but forced not by any one person in a position of authority but by circumstances. She could be cited for contempt if later it turns out to be false.
#38 by kurakura on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 8:16 am
Isnt it an irony that religion is a source of problems rather than a help to solve problems.
I have more to say. But I think I have said enough.
#39 by undergrad2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 8:47 am
To a-malaysian:
You have not answered my questions:
Question #1
“Is it not a fact that the DAP has not fought for the apostates among the Malays who wish to change their religion?”
Question #2
“Is it not a fact that the number of Malay apostates are in the thousands. Some reports have placed their number in the hundreds of thousands.”
#40 by good coolie on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 9:02 am
How does a court or other authority determine whether a person was a Muslim or not? Well, it is by examining the facts! In this case, the whole family were practising Hindus. However,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 by one section of the government (state religious-authorities) while the Federal Government feels powerless in the face of this violation of the Constitution. Clearly Malaysia is going to have problems with the international community regarding this matter.
#41 by a-malaysian on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 9:07 am
undergrad2,
You are a very learned person but with your two questions that you pose I assume that you are acting stupid or you know nuts about Malaysian politics especially how umno rule this bodohland of yours ( I again presume you are still a Malaysian citizen).
50 years is ENOUGH
Vote For A Change
Vote For Any Opposition
Give Them A Chance To Change For A Better Malaysia
Remember bn Is A Useless Grouping Of Self Serving, Corrupt, Dictator, Power Crazy, Racist, Kris waving, etc, etc type of parties.
#42 by Libra2 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 9:08 am
This is not Solomon’s justice. In that case the child was given to the rightful mother.
In this case a mother lost her six children due to Lucifer’s juctice.
This can never be considered a victory by any standards. Forceful separation of a family cannot be considered victory.
Let us try to imagine the plight of the children. They have lost Mother’s Love. Mother’s touch, embrace and care.
Place yourself in a situation where your child is forcefully separated from the mother. This is surely against God’s Law.
#43 by Loh on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 9:31 am
With all the publicity the case brings about, Malaysia is certainly better known overseas. That might indeed increase tourists arrival in 2007, for those who are curious whether bolehlanders look like people elsewhere who have a head that suppose to contain brain between the ears.
Is it a diversion of attention from the other much publicised scandals such as the collapse of new buildings, unique way of disposing murdered victim, using C4, obtainable only from government sources?
In bolehland, wonders never cease!
#44 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 10:00 am
From STI:
“New employment guidelines aim to end discrimination
JOB application forms asking for a person’s age, gender, race or even photograph are soon going to raise eyebrows.”
When will Malaysia be mature enough to abolish discrimination and racism?
#45 by Jonny on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 10:14 am
Mother’s Day is around the corner.
God knows, this is the biggest sacrifice only a mother can make.
This is still no victory of sorts. It is a forced coercion and compromise.
A sacrifice by a mother for her children’s future.
Would the JAIS and all be then giving free money to the mother to support herself now that she no longer works together with her husband for a living?
What sort of freedom is this?
There are numerous people on the higher echelons of society who are Muslim by name, and do not conform to the ‘Way Of Life’ of Islam. These are people who dine, party, drink at the night clubs, rubbing shoulders with the non-Muslims. And people who are involved in Ali-Baba bright daylight robbery and corruption.
Is this indeed Islam as we know it?
We’ve moved backwards to the dark ages. Forget about 2057. 2020 is a wishful and unrealistic dream as well.
#46 by Godfather on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 10:15 am
A half-baked settlement at best. Doesn’t work for anybody – not the husband, the wife or the children. Doesn’t work for JAIS either. Why must all parties give up a little but still end up with nothing ?
#47 by k1980 on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 10:53 am
Marimuthu and his 7 children can only reunite with Raimah under one and only one condition— that they all convert to islam. This has been the the position taken by jais all along. The potential gain of 8 ‘saudara baru’ is the reason why jais acepted the court ruling
#48 by burn on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 11:16 am
i won’t be surprised if the wife were given some token to maintain her faith, or maybe something else. you won’t know what actually really happen behind the scene… this is just one drama to show that BN gomen is fair to all, since they know that others are losing faith in their component parties…
aku punya falsampah!
#49 by Jeffrey on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 11:27 am
“Doesn’t work for JAIS either?†– Godfather.
What happened is demonstration by JAIS thatalthough Malaysia has secular constitution at independence, yet there is here a dichotomy between the two totally different legal systems – Civil law alongside Shariah – and once the former cannot encroach on the latter by TDM’s Article 121(1)A constitutional amendment, the process Islamization is accelerated and unstoppable.
This is not a case of a person whose position as Muslim is established without doubt and whom religious authorities are trying to prevent from committing apostasy and bring back to the fold.
Whether Raimah Bibi Noordin may be considered a Muslim is itself a subject opened to debate as she is an ethnic Indian adopted by a Muslim convert family, professed the Hindu faith corroborated by her husband’s account and her old IC.
But the fact that religious authorities can become the arbiter of her position – whether Muslim or not – (and they determine that question in the affirmative), the fact they could just whisk her and children away beyond the relief of Habeas Corpus and without a single obstruction from any quarters or a single word or interference from the civil political authority and government, the fact that they can prevail, by combination of methods that many would consider tantamount to pressure and duress, on someone professing to be Hindu like Raimah to recant and even say she is now remaining a Muslim, speaks volumes for the growing power of fundamental Islamists and their successful determination to exercise it to :-
· make Shariah is the dominant source of our dual legislative system, overshadowing the Federal Constitution;
· change the basic order of the state toward a more complete Islamic order;
that so far brooks and encounters no resistance, is inexorable and basically unstoppable.
#50 by soundbytes on Friday, 4 May 2007 - 12:05 pm
“So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them… And the LORD God formed man of the dust of ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul…”
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh…”
“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
These are the fundamental ordinance instituted by who created man male and female and instituted the marriage between one man and one woman.
Also the husband is THE head of his wife… not other men or institution like the JAIS or the state. As head, he is commanded, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it… So ought men to loves their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” The husband and his wife is ONE flesh.
That’s the sanctity and intimacy of the marriage instituted by our Creator – for the whole human race.
However, there are creatures (wicked men and their perverse institutions) who want to play the Creator (God alone) by putting asunder what God has joined together.
It is not a light thing to war against our Creator.