As I understand it, Raimah Bibi Noordin, is also an ethnic Indian like her husband Marimuthu Periasamy. Though Raimah claimed to be a practicing Hindu, however she was adopted by an Indian Muslim family when she was young.

As I understand it, anyone born into a Muslim family is unable to legally convert : but what about someone like Raimah not born into but “adopted” by Indian Muslim family via adoption procedures according to civil laws? Is she still considered “born into a Muslim family” when she was adopted via civil procedures and made statutory declaration that she was practising Hindu?

(The facts were her old identity card stipulated she was an Indian Hindu, but the government listed her as a Muslim after she applied for a new identity card earlier this year. Religious authorities probably learned about Raimah’s religious status when the couple enrolled their children in school and copies of her new identity card were submitted to the Education Department. Moral of the story here is don’t change the IC if ine is in such a situation).

It looks to me like Raimah’s filing an affidavit that she remained a Muslim in exchange for release of the six children to be returned to the father to be brought up as Hindus is a personal sacrifice by a mother for the love of her children to be released back to the father to be brought up as Hindus.

It appears to be a practical compromise but the logic of it as Undergrad2 poses is difficult to reconcile. If she were to remain a Muslim implies that she admits she has been muslim all along in contradiction of her earlier claim to be practising Hindu.

In the premises, if she as a then Muslim married Marimuthu Periasamy through civil rites, it necessarily implies that their marriage involving a muslim under civil law is a nullity and void, and their children were born out of wedlock (no derogatory implication on my part here).

What has been done in insisting Raimah to profess that she is still muslim in exchange quid pro quo for the liberty of her children is to (1) make Raimah profess to a religion that she otherwise will not freely consent to do if her children’s interest were not at stake and (2) an otherwise valid marriage under civil law between Marimuthu Periasamy and Raimah has been invalidated and dealt the death knell.

In the premises the ‘compromise’ still represents break-up of a marriage – and family – because of religious factors. The profession that she remained a muslim would not appear voluntary in the backdrop of the events unfolding so far involving a trade off for her children’s release. This has greater implications on the constitutional provisions of Freedom of Religion, whether it is of relevance or force anymore.

According to Dr Mahathir, whether a person is a Malay is not determined by race he is born but the aggregate religio-cultural definition of three characteristics defined in the Constitution – one who speaks the Malay language, practices Malay customs and follows the religion of Islam. According to him there is another qualification : “ Why not? People would still be Malay, (unofficially) but officially, he would not be a Malay. Being a Malay in this country has certain privileges, so he wouldn’t enjoy those privileges.”

If that’s the case, the converse should apply, a person not born a malay (could be an Indian or Chinese) who speaks the Malay language, practices Malay customs and follows the religion of Islam, he too could qualify officially to become a Malay and entitled to all Bumi privileges – though unofficially he is not but, in reality, is he treated such? I don’t think so, not unless he is mixed parentage and looks like a Malay too. It is heads they win and tails we lose situation.