“What about a Hainanese “halal” shops, does it mean the owners aren’t allowed to display their Buddhist or Taoist figurines? Comeon, that is definitely not right!” Jong

Sorry but am I missing something here? Was the raid in issue accompanied by the removal of Hindu deities?

“Neither can he simply hang halal logo and ayat ayat marketing his eatery..” Jeffrey

Yes. Here you touch on a valid issue which is whether it is ever right for a business to use religion and religious symbols to attract business.

I don’t think this is the reason behind the requirement for the ‘halal’ logo to be displayed at the front of the shop.

If these people really want to get it right than all businesses should not be allowed to use religious symbols in this way. Religious symbols could, of course, adorn the walls of the private part of the business premises.

Had our Federal Constitution separated religion from state, we would not be made to face all these government intrusions into our private lives.

“…display ayat ayat and arabic scriptures from Koran, and yet when one examines the halal certification, it is found to be not from the proper Islamic accreditation authority recognised by Islamic laws of this country but from some dubious agency purporting to be able to certify, when it clearly has no authority to do so – isn’t this false advertisement?’ Jeffrey

There are a number of issues of fact and law here intertwined.

The first is whether, in that case, the halal logo used is that of JAWI’s – fact.

The second is whether JAWI has the sole and exclusive authority to make the halal certification and issue their logo – issue of law.

The third is whether the display of Quranic verses found meet the prior approval of JAWI. Remember that Indian Muslims are Shiites and not Sunnis (in Iraq they are killing each other for being one and not the other) – issues of fact and law.

The fourth is whether the restaurant in question has contravened any of the rules and regulations issued by JAWI – issue of fact.

The fifth is whether the actions of the JAWI enforcement officials violated the constitutional rights of citizens – issues of fact and law.

Finally, whether the Summons is void because it violates the constitutional rights of citizens – issue of law.

There are also issues exclusively of facts and not law.

Was the restaurant owned and managed by citizens or legal permanent residents. This would be an issue for DBKL and their licensing department – and of course, also immigration.

Is the restaurant owner an illegal immigrant who over stayed his visitor’s visa – a question best answered by our Immigration when they are not too busy deleting records of foreign visitors.

correction indians from india are shiites and sunnis and this owner could well be a shiite.

Wow! There is a delayed response. Many posts crossing the other. Goddamn Singh is not the only one confused.

So the allegations made by MS who e-mailed contained inaccuracies. It was not JAWI but it was JAKIM and it involved enforcement officers from domestic trade division of the Trade Ministry and DBKL. That makes more sense.

“Lim said this was not the first time such raids were conducted and he feared it could set back inter-racial harmony.” KIT

So it has been sensationalized by vested interests?

Past raids have not spared Malay and Muslim businesses who went against the rules and regulations of JAKIM and other similar bodies from having their property confiscated. They have had their Quran’ic verses on display in their premises confiscated.

This phenomenon has been described by foreign journalists as evidence of ‘creeping Islamization’ in Malaysia and has been particularly acute in the last ten years. Increased Government intrusions into the private lives of citizens in a country claiming to be secular and democratic is worrying to both – Muslims and non-Muslims.

““I am Muslim, so why can’t I display Quranic verses? I have them in my car as well.” says Ali. “Just because we have no halal certification, is that a reason for them to take away my religious decoratives?”

It is called law, friend. And not knowing the law is no excuse. But it is true. There is a constitutional issue involved i.e. the right of citizens to practice their religion. The right of Malays to choose their religion is a different matter unconnected to this incident since no Malays were involved – only Muslims of Pakistani origin(?).

This issue of halal certification and the display of Quran’nic verses in business premises open to the public is a matter clearly within the jurisdiction of bodies like JAKIM, DBKL and Ministry of Trade’s Domestic Division. so the issue of who has jurisdiction and who does not is very clear -and is not an issue here.

It is a case involving compliance with the law i.e. the rules and regulations issued by the relevant bodies – and not with the religious beliefs of the Muslim owner of this restaurant!

The other restaurant owner’s constitutional right has clearly been violated. This has to be addressed.

In the U.S. there are kosher food outlets which sell only kosher food to Jews and those who want them. Conservative Jews would only buy from their own who sell only kosher food.

Muslims follow the same Old Testament tradition. But the decision like in the case of kosher food, should be left to them to make.

This is another example of government intrusion into the private lives of its citizens which is inevitable because Islam has been politicized by design more than by default.

Zack, are you there??

“Stretching this a little bit further, if I live in the same street as Muslims/Malays (which I do, by the way), does it also mean that I CANNOT display my little red altar for my joss sticks beside my door, since it is in public view, including in the view too of my neighbours and any Muslim/Malay passing along the street? What about the crucifix I adorn above the entrance way?” WFH

This has been happening for years now! Neighborhoods are being turned into Muslim only neighborhoods or non-Malay non-Muslim neighborhoods, rich middle class neighborhoods and working class neighborhoods – the former not necessarily overlapping with the latter, and to the extent that it does not, it is a class struggle.