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.

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

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?”

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 ceremonies”.

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 ?