mauriyaII, it amuses me every time I see a non-Muslim trying to explain Islamic history or it’s principles to the Muslims, it’s akins to having Christians explain Bhuddism to a Bhuddist etc.

>> Even when they criticize the Israelis as kafir, they fail to realize that their religion has its roots and practices in judaism.

Christianity and Islam doe NOT have their roots in Judaism as the latter has it’s own code of laws that were distinct to the time and people who were adherents of it. Abraham was not a Jew and the concept of “Abrahamic faith” denotes first and foremost, the commonality of the monotheism (which Judaism and Christianity has since lost).

>> Even the halal concept is from ‘kosher’ of the so-called zionis.

Wrong again, issues relating to dietery laws have been subject to modification according to each religion’s Shari’ah (i.e. way of life), what was allowed for prophetic nations of the past were not allowed for those who preceded them etc. regulations regarding food and drink went through a phase of abrogation until the final Shari’ah was established through Islam (as we believe to be the case).

>> IT WAS NOT ABOUT OR AGAINST ISLAM.

It was against the principles governing conversions within/without Islam, hence it was a forum questioning the established status quo of Islamic teachings

>> IT WAS TO DISCUSS THE PLIGHT OF NON-MUSLIMS WHO ARE FORCED TO FACE SYARIAH COURT DECISONS BECAUSE ONE OF THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS HAD CONVERTED AND THEY DO NOT HAVE RECOURSE TO JUSTICE IN A CIVIL COURT.

This is a misnomer because the non-Muslim has no real right over a member of a family who becomes a Muslim. This does not mean that the non-Muslims are abandoned or foresaken in terms of family ties and economic consequences arising from the conversion.

The forum tried to open a root and establish an alternative rule to govern conversions that are directly in opposition to Islam. Again you have either misunderstood the agenda of the forum or you are deliberately trying to lie.

>> The aim of the forum among other things was to find amicable ways and means to settle disputes that arise when a member of a non-muslim family dies and the religious department claims the body as that of a muslim.

The government had already stated that they are looking into ways that will require the convert to have witnesses and/or inform family members about their intention and actions. This is the likely amicable solution that may receive a general concensus.

>> Calling for disputes to be settled behind closed doors is a non-starter in the first place.

Calling for disputes to be settled behind closed doors is a perfectly valid option because it; a) removes media intrusion and thus possible sentimental outrage by Muslims and non-Muslims alike; b) far more broader options can be discussed to reach a solution because nothing would be considered off-limits.

>> The non-muslim party under the circumstances does not have access to the civil courts and justice is denied.

Not quite true because the g’ment is mulling the idea of giving civil courts a recourse to the shariah courts where complex issues like the one you describe arise.

>> The syariah courts only recognize muslims and their interests. All their deliberations and decisions are pro-muslim.

This may be true in the Malaysian context because of a 2-tier legal system; however in a fully Islamically functioning societies of the past (no current examples given), have bore witness to the justice it disseminated to all the citizens of an Islamic state (e.g. http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/388/)

Your premise right from the start is unfounded because your emotions seem to be over-ruling your intellect and the ground realities in Malaysia.

Adios.

mauriyaII Says:

>> I had the privilege of showing the said comment to a Malay friend who happens to be an Islamic scholar and a revered friend.

Because I do not know his credentials, I’m sorry but I can not give you the benefit of the doubt on him being an “Islamic scholar”.

>> He did not find the comment offensive or disrepctful of Islam. He understands the ground realities in Malaysia where Islam is concerned.

I personally did not find the forum disrespectful either but the fact it that many DID find it offensive and saw it as an attempt by an ‘external force’ to slur and reinterpret the teachings of Islam on matters of conversion. How we get to an amicable solution is what matters not why.

>> When a forum is held to find solutions to arbitrary snatching of bodies and the forfeiture of property under the name of Islamic jurisprudence, it is all the more imperative to have such forums.

Not really; and using highly charged semantics like “body snatching” and “property seizure” is perceived (rightly or wrongly) by many Muslims to be a non-Muslim agenda to move the goal posts and challenge the legitimacy of Islam in Malaysia!

>> By the way the forum organizers did invite prominent Islamic authorities to take part in the discussion.

This would have been even more the reason for the forum to be held behind closed doors with public announcements made if a consensus had been reached. The fact a highly charged topic was in the public domain made any sort of a reasoned approach to the discussions impossible.

>> Closed door discussions are only possible if participants come without prejudice and personal agendas.

The irony is that the Bar Council was seen to have come with a prejudice and personal agenda. The very fact they wanted to discuss what they already saw as unjust and anti-constitutional items with a view to changing them reflected their bias. Fundamentally, this is a constitutional matter and not a religious one; therefore inviting Islamic scholars would not have given the legal balance the matter required.

>> It is not I who is oblivious of the ground realities in the country but people like you who like to sweep uncomfortable issues and problems under the carpet and behave like the proverbial cat or the ostrich with its head buried in sand.

Ignoring something is NOT the same as wanting to discuss and debate in a wise and conducive manner where the social cohesion of communities is NOT compromised. For the sake of “uncomfortable issues”, you are willing to throw caution to the wind in the hope that the majority would accept knee-jerk reactions of the minority is nonsensical.

>> For your information the government is moving at a snail’s pace to take any form of concrete action to solve the plight of the victims because it does not want to alienate the vote bank of the Malay-muslims.

Exegeration will not get you anywhere and will not win you any favours with the victims you are trying to help. The bottom line is that we need to find a solution to the problem you describe, however the problems are an exception rather than the rule (as you would like people to believe). Highlighting several cases in a country of 27 million and blowing them out of proportion may be your way of hastening answers, but government also understands this and change must come through a process of evolution and not bloddy revolutions.