While yesterday’s reports sounded bewildering, today’s statement by the Home Minister seem to be more befitting:
Those responsible for bringing the head of a cow during the Aug 28 protest at the Selangor state secretariat building should be charged in court, said Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein.
He ordered the police to proceed with further investigation and take stern action against those responsible.
“The police have identified the individuals involved,” he said in a statement Thursday.
… Although the residents were angry with the state government and had no intention of hurting the feeling of any other race, Hishammuddin said such action could not be tolerated.
“The Home Ministry view seriously all issues that could undermine the harmony, unity, national security and stability of this multiracial country,’’ he said.
Not sure why there’s a change of tone. Probably the earlier message was not clear enough or sounded biased.
Worse still, there are contradictions to his earlier statements as well (regarding his claim that there are Hindu residents who are opposing the relocation):
Meanwhile, Section 23 Hindu committee pro-tem president K Rajah has also rejected Hishammuddin’s statement yesterday that some Hindu residents were against the proposed temple plan.
“We have collected over a hundred signatures in a petition to support the temple being relocated here and not one is against the idea,” he said.
He also claimed that neither his committee nor any Indian resident was consulted by the Section 23 action committee led by Mahyuddin.
Meanwhile Hindu residents of Section 23 today also denied press reports that they also did not want the temple to be relocated to the area.
K. Raju said one third of all residents in Section 23 were Non-Malays and they have carried out a signature campaign to support the state government’s move to relocate the temple.
He also disputed claims in the press that the cow’s head used during the protest was brought to the scene by outsiders.
“The people who carried the head are Umno members, from Section 23, and they seem to be above the law.”
I’m not sure if the other papers will carry the rebuttal by the Hindu resident (I think K.Raju and K.Rajah are the same person). Let’s see who is telling the truth.
The above article also gave an interesting piece of news (not sure how to verify it):
While the state government is hosting a dialogue session with all residents this Saturday, the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government is also considering holding an event to bring both Muslims and Hindus together to defuse racial tension.
The plan, which entailed roping in the assistance of Hindu Sangam, was proposed to the Cabinet by Agriculture and Agro-based Industry Minister Datuk Noh Omar, who is also the Umno state deputy liaison chief.
According to sources, the Cabinet is also considering offering an alternative site to relocate the Hindu temple despite the fact that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the state government.
The Malaysian Insider understands that Noh was forced to defend himself at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. He told the meeting that he did not instigate the Malay-Muslims of Section 23 to protest against the temple relocation.
He is understood to have also told the Cabinet that he would organise a sit-down with Hindus and Muslims in the neighbourhood.
Its a sad reflection of the society we live in when a section of the community don’t even know about the religious bodies of another community. Due to the focus on one particular race/religion, many of us grow up without exposure to other religion facts like festivals, ideals, worship, organisations etc.
Malaysian Hindu Sangam must have been shocked when the Home Minister said that residents from Section 23 had met with representatives from MHS and will be meeting them again. The MHS president was quoted:
S Mohan revealed today that “not even the residents or the home minister Hishammuddin Hussein have come and met them like they claimed yesterday”.
“And I have checked with all of my staff, whether any of them was contacted by the residents or the minister, but no one has. I don’t know why they have used our name,” he added.
However, he said, he is “very keen” to meet the residents and would welcome a discussion with them on the matter that has sparked major uproar especially among the Hindu community nationwide.
“I am willing to meet anybody to resolve the matter amicably… I don’t want any problem with anyone but other people must consider our sentiment. We still need a temple for worship,” Mohan said.
However Hindu Sangam president RS Mohan Shahmugam today told The Malaysian Insider they have had no official invitation yet to meet the federal government about the issue.
Hindu Sangam also believes the proposed site in Section 23 is the best area to relocate the temple.
Mohan said the temple was not meant to cater only to the Hindus from Section 23 but also from Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22.
Together there are at least 3,000 Hindus in these areas, Mohan said, adding the issue of relocating the temple from its current site in Section 19, had been pending for the last two decades.
The current temple was once part of Sungai Garing Estate, but over the years the Selangor Development Corporation (PKNS) had developed the areas surrounding the site into a housing estate.
The temple now lies in the middle of a Muslim-majority area and there had been no concrete effort to relocate until recently.
“This is not a new problem and I don’t understand why the small group of residents needed to protest in such a manner,” Mohan said.
Mohan said that carrying the head of a cow which is scared to Hindus was insulting and called on the government to take action against the culprits.
He also denied claims made yesterday by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein that residents of Section 23 had met Hindu Sangam to resolve the relocation issue.
“I have checked and there was no such meeting.”
However Mohan said he would welcome a meeting with the minister.
Actually, it was Hindu Sevai Sangam (HSS) whom met the residents!
However the confusion over which Hindu-based group had met with the residents was clarified when VK Regu of the Malaysia Sevai Sangam told Malaysiakini that it was his group which had the meeting.
He said his movement had met the protesting residents on the day after the protest to hold a dialogue.
“We had a fruitful meeting and we explained to them how our feelings were hurt by their actions. We also told them why cows are considered sacred to us,” he said, adding that his movement plans to hold more meetings with the residents in the near future.He said that the meeting was done on their own initiate and that they had no connections with the Malaysia Hindu Sangam.”It was us whom Hishammuddin was talking about. I also spoke to the minister and he knows our stand on the matter. He said he will help solve the problem,” added Regu.
The poor residents not even sure who they met in the first place, making this look more and more comical and disastrous.
Bol Radha bol, sangam hoga ke nehi… That’s the famous song from the 1964 hit movie Sangam. Maybe they saw this movie and got confused 🙂
Comments Off on Hindu Sangam, Sevai Sangam or movie Sangam? »
We can see it coming now. After a “small” crowd of 50 people did their vile, embarrassing, insulting, and damaging stunt with an animal head in from of state government office, the police and Home Minister have provided some input. While the police said the probe was completed and case files to be submitted to AG office today, there need to be an inquiry on why the incident was allowed to take place in the first place since the police gave rather innovative reasons – situation was not permitting and that a junior officer was in charge. Granted the district police chief was forced to apologise for the inaction, but still need to review to avoid future problems. I mean, people are asking – why is this particular protest handled differently from others? What’s so unique about it? Is it due to the fasting month? Is it due to the participants? Is it due to the large crowd and lack of officers? Wasn’t there a worry of the later impact of the protest even though the immediate situation on the ground was controlled (protest was allowed for 15 minutes or so).
Did the probe also cover (i) the statements by the protest leader that his protest was hijacked (what a lousy leader! I won’t want him to represent me after this, if I was a resident in Section 23 – small protest also cannot handle, how to face the state government?), (ii) the source and the owner of the animal head, (iii) identification of the culprits based on the video clip freely available on the Internet?, (v) the hate-inciting and religion-insulting banners/words uttered, and (v) the persons behind the scene who instigated or planned for the s0-called hijack? I hope so because IGP said 60 people were interviewed within 3 days and the persons involved have been identified.
Our esteemed Home Minister have also provided his valuable thoughts after issuing warning action against actions that can be detrimental to national security (I take it as meaning if someone protests against the cow head protestors?):
“We need to look at the angle where a temple is going to be moved there, so we need to go across the political ideology. The relocation could be offensive to anyone.
Hmm…I guess we should only consider that angle. Non-relocation also offensive to “anyone”. So, why no just demolish and pretend nothing happened? Can ask a certain ex-MB for advice and contacts – he’s experienced in ordering demolition of temple.
Home Minister Hishamuddin also met some of the residents at Putrajaya. He tried his best to rationalise the action of the protestors, which is kind of unexpected for a person who is supposed to be in charge of internal security. Probably wanted to show a softer approach to this problem. Among the interesting arguments put forth by the minister:
he said the protesters “had no intention at all to bring the cow’s head and invoke racial sentiments or cause tension”.
“They are not going (to be let off) scot-free. But they just feel victimised because they feel there is another valid explanation and had no intention to cause racial (divisions),” he said. [don’t we all feel victimised. So, means can carry some head or another to voice our dissatisfaction? how about wearing certain color shirts? No? Only cow head allowed? Need clarification here.]
… Hishammuddin said he was told that the “residents did not know the organisers and did not know a cow’s head would be brought during the demonstration”. [I thought the organiser also attended this meeting? Or is the organiser an outsider, a non-resident?]
“When we sat and discussed this, they (said they) realised that they were in a situation they could not control.” [sesal dahulu pendapatan, sesal kemudian tak berguna – have heard of this proverb?Doesn’t apply here?]
He further defended the protesters, saying that “they just wanted their voices to be heard”.
“However it was unfortunate that the protest was given negative publicity because it was linked to religious and racial sentiments,” he said. [Err…isn’t that the whole point? So, we must give it positive publicity? If want to voice out also, use the brain a bit la. Very clear even for small kids, that this is not voicing out, but provocation.]
… The minister noted that the residents have since taken “a pro-active” measure by meeting with members of the Hindu Sanggam two days ago, and that both sides will hold another meeting tomorrow.“So if it can be resolved quickly and both sides understand each other, why (should) they be penalised?” said Hishammuddin. [Ahh..so if you do something and later do something else to negate the first action, then it should be alright. I like thisword pro-active. Maybe the residents should have approached MHS BEFORE allowing outsider to organise the protest, siap dengan banner pulak!That would be super pro-active. Can win prize for best RA.]
Although the protestors reportedly did not have a permit the minister said “the protest was not big and they (organisers) were very respectful of the Selangor sultan” [Hmm…two criterias outlined for protests in Selangor. Is this written somewhere or just use common sense? ].“They even limited the number of people from the committee to only 10. In fact if they wanted to have a bigger protest they could have, but they were conscious (of the impact).“All they wanted to do was to voice their unhappiness and the unwillingness of the state government to consider their request.” [so, this is the way to voice out. Lesson to be learnt here?]
Hishammuddin said the Selangor government made a poor decision in relocating the temple to a predominantly Malay area.“Even the Hindus are not passionate about the relocation of the temple to the area,” he claimed. [The minister should have elaborated which Hindus are not passionate on the relocation – MHS, Section 19 residents, Section 23 residents, or some MIC people. There should have been some statistical data, backed by the complete case study and survey forms /AV recordings of the interviews. Then it would carry more weight. And surely, can provide sugggestion for alternative location? Shah Alam has about 30-odd sections only].
Asked why the police had not acted when the cow’s head was brought in, he claimed that action had been taken.“I was monitoring it myself and reporting it to the prime minister,” he said. Commenting on the upcoming dialoguebetween the Shah Alam Municipal Council and the residents to be held on Saturday, Hishammuddin said this comes “a little too late”.“The residents had met the state representatives before. If they (the representatives had) resolved it then, there wouldn’t need to be a protest (in the first place),” he said. [So, this is not considered pro-active after residents said they are unhappy? The meeting was already being arranged, but the protest still went ahead. Why?]
On a personal note, Hishammuddin felt the protest “in this day and age should be accepted in this world, as the people want their voices to be heard”.“If we don’t give them room to voice their opinions, they have no choice but to protest. (But) regardless of the action they take, they have to adhere to the laws of the country. So they have to be responsible,” he said. [Motivation talk to protest responsibly.]
Hmm… I wonder if HINDRAF /candle vigil/”wear black” protestors can borrow him to argue their case. The reasons seems applicable to them as well.
The resident association also met with MHS earlier, and will be meeting them again to issue some sort of statement – damage control I guess. For the greater good.
Anyway, I guess we know the outcome. Anyone willing to bet a prosecution to take place?
Contacted later, Mahyuddin distanced his organisation from the act of bringing the cow head to the protest.
“It is not our intention. We were surprised,” he said, denying that the act was intended to insult Hindus.
He said that the cow head was likely brought by angry residents.
“Maybe, they meant it (as a symbol of) stupidity. In Malay culture, the cow is a symbol of stupidity, or leaders that are stupid,” he said.
Looks like this guy is trying to evade responsibility for the crime the group committed. Will the investigations reveal “lack of evidence” later?
Also, The Star Online finally came out with a muted report:
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has asked the Inspector-General of Police to investigate a protest by a group against the proposed relocation of a Hindu temple in Shah Alam.
Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam said Najib had also told him that he was upset with the incident.
The protesters, numbering 50, marched some 300m from the state mosque to the state secretariat building in Shah Alam Friday.
“Their actions, if not controlled from the beginning, may create unnecessary racial tension,” Dr Subramaniam said.
MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu said the authorities should not allow anyone to challenge or ridicule any religion in this country.
“I urge everyone to be calm and let the authorities deal with it,” he said.
Umno Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin, in an email, condemned the protest and said such actions posed a threat to national security.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, in a statement, urged the state government to resolve the issue quickly, peacefully and rationally.
About 50 people gathered at the gates of the State Secretariat building here carrying a cow head and warned of further action if a temple is constructed in Section 23 here.
The group marched from the State Mosque about 300 metres away after Friday prayers.
Once at the gates of the building, they unfurled several banners calling for the temple to be moved and also on the beer issue.
They were at the gates for only 15 minutes before being dispersed by the police.
Some of the residents of Section 23, protesting against the temple relocation, demonstrated in front of the Selangor State Government Secretariat in Shah Alam today. Bernama pic.
The group, who claimed to be residents from Section 23, shouted the names of Menteri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim and executive councillor Dr Xavier Jayakumar, and said the cow head was for them.
The new temple in Section 23 was supposed to be the relocated Sri Maha Mariamman temple currently in Section 19.
The Section 19 temple is about 150 years’ old and originally located in a plantation, but when the State Economic Development Corporation decided to develop the area into a housing estate, it left the temple there.
It was supposed to be relocated, but the problem had been left idle for many years.
Initially the temple was supposed to be relocated in an industrial area in Section 22 but it was moved to Section 23 to make it more accessible for devotees.
However a group of people in the area have protested against it, saying it is a Muslim majority area and no temples should be allowed to be built there.
About 40 per cent of the population in the area are believed to be Hindus.
Meanwhile in an immediate response, MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu strongly condemned the action by the group.
“The cow is a sacred animal of the Hindus, and for this group to resort to such action, is intolerable and tantamount to challenging the freedom of religion as enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution.
He said nobody can be allowed to challenge or ridicule any religion in this country.
“I worry that this action may lead to retaliation from the Hindu community. However, I wish to urge the Hindus to be calm and let the authorities deal with it.
“The MIC is calling on the Government and the police to take action against the organisers of this group and their followers. They must be punished according to the law for endangering the racial harmony in this country.”
Meanwhile Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam said while Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak was promoting the 1Malaysia concept and racial unity, this kind of action would hinder the process and turn back the clock.
Dr Subramaniam said he had spoken to Prime Minister Najib Razak on the incident.
It may be dead, but stepping on the head of cow and spitting on it is abusive, vile, vicious, and unbecoming of people who claim to profess any religion. They have brought untold shame to their religion. This barbaric action is unforgivable, given that they just finished their prayers. Their evil action did not get support from the majority (only 50 people, whereas the Friday prayers crowd will see thousands attending in Shah Alam). Its time for DVS, PAWS or SPCA to lodge police report on animal abuse
I’ve surfed NST and Star online, but nothing on this issue till 8.45pm. Same with TV3 News. Only Malaysiakini carrying the news since 3.00pm or so.
Some 50 residents enraged with the proposed relocation of a Hindu temple to their area staged a noisy protest with a severed cow’s head this afternoon.
The residents – from Section 23 in Shah Alam – who gathered after the Friday prayers, placed the head outside the gates of the state secretariat building for a short period before removing it.
“Where is Xavier? This head is for him,” shouted one of the protesters in reference to Selangor executive councillor Dr Xavier Jeyakumar.
Jeyakumar is one of those in charge of non-Muslim affairs in the state.
Earlier, the protesters had marched some 300m from the state mosque to the state secretariat building.
The protesters also condemned Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim, exco member Rodziah Ismail (as the area falls under her state constituency) and Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad.
Before dispersing, several protesters spat and stomped on the cow’s head. The cow is considered sacred among Hindus.
Addressing the crowd, Section 23 action committee deputy chair Ibrahim Sabri said: “If there is blood, you (the state government) will be responsible if you are adamant about building the temple.”
“This is a warning.Relocate the temple to Section 22. This cow is a present to the state government. This is a gift from us,” he added.
The protesters also carried several banners which among others read ‘Take Beer’ (mocking PAS’ rallying cry of ‘Takbir’) and ‘Illegal temples are very small, but once relocated, they are as big as Putrajaya‘.
The crowd gathered for about 15 minutes at the main entrance of the state secretariat building under the watch of more than a dozen police personnel. [what were the police doing?]
‘We’ll not budge an inch’
Speaking to reporters later, Action Committee chair Mahyuddin Manaf warned that the state government must give in or the residents would retaliate.
“We will not budge one inch, even if lives are lost or blood is made to flow. We will still defend Section 23 from having a temple built there,” he said.[Hmm…later don’t blame anyone if you are in trouble with the law]
He added that a protest memorandum was forwarded to the state government two months ago but there has been no response.
On Aug 11, the state government announced that the relocation of the temple from Section 19 to Section 23 was final and will be situated 200m from the nearest house and 400m from a surau.
The temple will face an industrial lot and will be separated from the houses by a playground and a multi-purpose hall.
However, some residents felt that it was not appropriate to build a temple in a Muslim-majority area.
The Pakatan Rakyat state government accused rivals Umno of instigating the crowd to protest the relocation.
Jeyakumar to lodge police report
In an immediate reaction, a furious Jeyakumar described the protest as “unwarranted, unacceptable and without sensitivity towards other religions.”
He also said that he will lodge a police report on the matter soon.
“These people should have ethics. They are inciting racial and religious hatred. I am going to lodge a police report against these people,” he told Malaysiakini.
He also expressed disappointment towards the police personnel at the scene for not taking any action against the protesters.
“The police didn’t stop anybody. The police should have arrested them and charged them for inciting hatred,” he said, adding that he could tolerate with “ethical” demonstrations.
Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak is outraged over this afternoon’s ‘cow head’ protest in Shah Alam, said Human Resources Minister Dr S Subramaniam.
The MIC secretary-general told Malaysiakini that Najib had conveyed his disappointment when he telephoned him regarding the incident.
“The prime minister was very upset. He promised to look into the problem and nip it in the bud,” he said.
“Some 15 minutes later, the prime minister called back and said that he had spoken to Inspector-General of Police (Musa Hassan) and instructed him to take immediate action,” he added. [however, I heard nothing on the TV from PM or the IGP. So, just have to take Dr S.Subra’s words]
In a statement earlier, Subramaniam said incidents such as these hinder the 1 Malaysia concept being promoted by the premier and serve to only ‘turn back the clock’.
After performing their Friday prayers, some 50 angry residents from Section 23 in Shah Alam marched with the cow’s head to protest against the relocation of a Hindu temple to their area.
The protesters had marched from the state mosque to the state secretariat building.
“The group took their protest to the extreme by bringing a severed cow’s head which clearly is a sign of disrespect to the Hindu community,” Subramaniam said.
“It has emotionally angered the Hindus and if it is not controlled from the beginning, it may create unnecessary racial tension,” he warned.
Samy Vellu: This is intolerable
Meanwhile, Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy called the protest a “disgraceful” act.
“It was very uncivilised and brutish…and the group had just come after attending their (Friday) prayers,” the DAP leader said.
Also seeing red over the incident was MIC president S Samy Vellu, who called it an “intolerable” act carried out by an “extremist group.”
“The cow is a sacred animal of the Hindus, and for this group to resort to such action, is intolerable and tantamount to challenging the freedom of religion as enshrined in the Malaysian Constitution.
“It is the right of Malaysians of any faith, including Hindus to build temples and other places of worships. I am very sad that this group had paraded the cow’s head on their way to the state secretariat building,” he said in a statement.
“We must not allow anyone to challenge or ridicule any religion in this country. I am worried that this action may lead to retaliation from the Hindu community. However, I wish to urge the Hindus especially to be calm and let the authorities deal with it,” he added.
Samy Vellu called on the government and the police to take action against the organisers of this protest.
They must be punished according to the law for endangering racial harmony in this country, he added.
MIC Youth was also appalled and expressed shock over the protest.
“It is a very shameful and disgraceful act and they do not seem to have any feelings for the sentiments of the Hindu community,” said the wing’s chief T Mohan.
“We strongly condemn their actions and call on the authorities to take immediate action. There are proper channels to express one’s views but ridiculing the Hindu religion reflects the shallow minds of the protesters,” he added.
Human Rights Party leader P Uthayakumar was disappointed that the police did not arrest those involved in the protest.
He said the Attorney-General’s Chambers should initiate criminal proceedings and charge them under Sections 298 and 298 (A) of the Penal Code read together with Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.
Section 298 concerns the offence of uttering words etc with the deliberate intent to wound religious feelings while Section 298 (A) is related to the offence of causing disharmony.
Makkal Sakthi Party president S Thanendran also condemned the protest as a “barbaric” act.
He urged the Selangor government as well as the police not to tolerate this sort of behaviour and to take stern action against the protesters.
“How can a temple disturb the peace of these people?
“Things can become really ugly if we start raising other questions,” he said.
Selangor police chief Khalid Abu Bakar today called on the public to remain calm in the wake of a protest against a proposed temple relocation which saw some 50 angry residents marching with a severed cow’s head in Shah Alam.
The police chief also cautioned the public against holding demonstrations which touch on religious sensitivities.
“There was no police permit for this protest. It was an illegal gathering. The crowd gathered for about 15 minutes and dispersed after they were instructed to do so.
“They were also ordered to remove the cow’s head, which they complied,” he told Malaysiakini.
As of now, Khalid said no police report has been lodged over the incident.
“If a report is lodged, we will definitely take the necessary action,” he stressed.
Expressing regret over the incident, the police chief reiterated that everyone should respect religious and racial sensitivities and not resort to such actions.
Exco to lodge police report
Selangor executive councillor Dr Xavier Jeyakumar said he would be lodging a police report over the matter soon. [waiting for what?]
He also expressed disappointment with police personnel who were at the scene for not taking action.
Following this afternoon’s Friday prayers, some 50 residents from Section 23 marched from the state mosque to the secretariat building in Shah Alam with the cow’s head.
The protesters then placed the cow’s head outside the gates of the state secretariat building before removing it later.
The protest evoked condemnation from various quarters, including MIC president S Samy Vellu and Penang Deputy Chief Minister II P Ramasamy.
Samy Vellu, who was saddened by the incident, urged the police to take action against the organisers.
Granted, this is an act by some people who were instigated, and most of the rakyat seem to know who are the perpetrators. The hooligans mentioned all kind of threats and the police still waiting for someone to make a report. How efficient and law-abiding. Since the state government said they will be meeting the folks of Section 23 to explain, why not wait? Worried that the residents will be convinced by the explanation?
There’s some hidden agenda here. While we need to address why the temple’s initial proposed location at Section 22 was changed to Section 23, the action by these few barbarians are not helping to solve the problem at all.
I read the following article which appeared in the Star few days back. It was an interesting reading, because the author at first seemed to agree with automatic conversion of children when one of the parents convert, but towards the end, he focuses on the need to get the marriage dissolved properly first (under the laws/religion that solemnised the marriage) before deciding on children conversion issue.
I wonder what happened to the cabinet decision, which was deferred by Conference of Rulers so that state religious departments can give more feedback. Are we to wait until another tragedy happens?
Religious conversion, children and confusion
IKIM VIEWS
By DR WAN AZHAR WAN AHMAD
Senior Fellow/Director,
Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science
It has been announced that when non-Muslim parents convert to Islam, the religion of their kids will remain in the same religion in which the marriage was solemnised. Such a statement contradicts the Federal Constitution, religious positions and causes confusion.
THE long existing misunderstanding over the religious status of minors resurfaced when an ill-informed Cabinet minister announced that the religion of minors from non-Muslim parents, upon the conversion of any of the parents to Islam, remains in the religion under which the marriage was solemnised. Such a statement contradicts the Federal Constitution and some religious positions. It worsens the confusion among the people and draws criticisms from both Muslims and non-Muslims.
The following explanation taken from Prof Dr Abdul Karim Zaydan’s voluminous al-Mufassal fi Ahkam al-Mar’ah (vol. 9, pp. 442-53) attempts to clear the air by explaining the standpoint of Islam.
Zaydan quotes authorities from reliable jurists of the past and their works. They include al-Kasani’s Bada’i’ al-Sina’i’, al-Marghinani’s al-Hidayah, Shirazi’s al-Muhazzab, Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi’s al-Mughni, al-Sharbini’s Mughni al-Muhtaj, etc. These scholars may come from different schools of laws but as a whole, they represent the position of Islam.
In Islam, if a child was born from Muslim parents, jurists unanimously agreed that he or she is a Muslim. Similarly, if the child was born from a Muslim father and a kitabiyah (Jewish/Christian) mother, he or she is a Muslim. The principle applied by jurists here is ‘al-shaghir yatba’u khayr al-abawayni dinan’ (in terms of religion, the child follows the best religion of his parent). Since Islam is deemed the best religion, the child follows the religion of his or her Muslim parent, either father or mother. [Herein lies the problem. Obviously each religion deems that its the best religion. So, its a bit perverted to use only one religion to make decision]
Kasani explains that a child must follow whatever religion confessed by his parent. This is fundamental as one cannot but have a particular religion whereby one is judged for all actions. For a child, due to a lack of reason and intelligence, the choice of his or her religion is made or determined through parents.
What is the status of a child’s religion if both parents renounce Islam and become apostates? Jurists from all legal schools maintain that the child remains a Muslim. This is the opinion of Maqdisi as stated in his Mughni, Kasani in Bada’i’, Shirazi in Muhazzab and Sharbini in Mughni al-Muhtaj.
Could a minor commit apostasy in the first place? A leading Hanafi jurist Imam Abu Yusuf holds that puberty is a pre-requisite for the validity of apostasy. Therefore, a minor cannot apostate.
Scholars from the Hanbali school state that a child’s apostasy is valid provided he or she is mumayyiz and do have some basic understanding about Islam, i.e. knowing that there is no God but Allah and that He has no rival, and that Muhammad (s.a.w.) is His servant and Messenger. It means that if the child is not mumayyiz and does not understand Islam in the basic sense, his or her apostasy is invalid and ineffective.
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, the founder of the Hanbali school, was in favour of the invalidity of a minor’s apostasy based on a prophetic Hadith narrated by Ali bin Abi Talib r.a. and Aisyah r.a.
Reported by great traditionists like Bukhari and Ibn Majah, it states that “The pen (i.e. accountability) is lifted from three groups of people: an insane person till he becomes sane, a child till he reaches the age of puberty, and a sleeping person till he wakes up.” The Shafi’i jurists are of the opinion that apostasy by an underage child is meaningless. If it happens, it does not fall through, even though he or she is mumayyiz because such a child is yet to bear any religious responsibility (taklif) until and unless he reaches the age of maturity.
Therefore, we can safely conclude that all three schools of law are in agreement that apostasy by a minor is immaterial.
What is mumayyiz? It refers to a certain point of age when a child attains the ability to differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong. This may happen to any child below the age of puberty.
What is the age of puberty in Islam? Some scholars say that for boys, the age limit varies from seven to 15. The majority held that the most appropriate age is 15. The main indication for this is when they experience their first wet dream. For girls, jurists unanimously agreed that they reach puberty after experiencing their first menstruation.
For both boys and girls, they begin to carry religious responsibilities, i.e. become personally accountable (mukallaf) for all their actions after reaching this age of majurity.
Let’s examine the religious status of children from non-Muslim parents. The earlier basic principle that children follow the religion of parents applies here. If a child is born from a non-Muslim parent, he or she is not a Muslim. Similarly, if a child is born from apostate parents, he or she is considered an unbeliever.
The religious status of children appears most problematic when parent converts to Islam, especially if only one party does so. Generally speaking, if both father and mother embrace Islam, their children become Muslim as well.
If only one parent embrace Islam, their underage child becomes Muslim too. Between the two parents, the position of the one who embraces Islam is ‘stronger’ compared to the non-converting spouse. Therefore, a child follows the religion of the ‘stronger’ party. [Hmm..why stronger? I guess due to nature of the country one lives in and the laws the country has.]
The above position, however, is not to be understood in isolation of other considerations. In resolving marital disputes following a divorce on whatever grounds, paramount consideration must be given to the best interest and welfare of the children. This has been acknowledged by both syariah and civil laws.
Under certain circumstances, the best interest and welfare of the kids concerned does not relate to religious status, but rather to their early care and upbringing that does not necessarily involve religious education. [Agreed. the religious status of the child is not related to the welfare and best interest, unless of course you throw in all the benefits one gets as a … you-know-who. So, it kind of makes the playing field uneven.]
In Malaysia, the application of Islamic law is largely based on the school of Shafi’i. As regard to the conversion of minors when any of the parents embraces Islam, the general public is made to believe that those underage kids simply and automatically follow suit.
Interestingly, Zaydan’s Mufassal shows otherwise. The Shafi’i jurists, like Sharbini, hold a different opinion altogether. To them, the conversion of a minor is invalid. Their ground is the Prophet’s hadith narrated from Ali bin Abi Talib r.a. and Aisyah r.a. quoted earlier.
The hadith means that anyone who falls under any of the three categories is not to be held responsible or accountable for one’s action unless one is in complete control of reasoning, i.e. doing something consciously and willingly, knowingly of its purposes and consequences.
Since minority is one of those not accountable for any action, a minor’s conversion to Islam is irrelevant. In short, a minor is not obliged to shoulder any responsibility/accountability.
Therefore, any notion that Islam sanctions conversion of minors to the religion is questionable. I am more inclined to say that all the hue and cry on this issue is the result of ignorance, leading to the mistaken emphasis or over zealousness on something having no ground or footing in religion. [Hmm…what is this fellow trying to say now? No such thing as a minor converting?]
When a marriage breaks down due to conversion to Islam, the best solution must be sought from the religion under which the marriage was solemnised or the law under which the marriage was registered. All disputes pertaining to property, custody of minors and other ancillary rights must be resolved under that religious or legal system.
Any just and satisfactory solution at this level is extremely important as it will facilitate the parents concerned, either father or mother, to proceed with the choice of education or religious upbringing he/she wants for the minor accorded to them by the court.
All parties must come to their senses that they will not get all they pray for in the court of justice. If it so happens that custody of a certain child was given to any party, all must be content with such a decision unless the court itself has ignored or overlooked certain important aspects of the trial causing severe injustice to any party.
I acknowledge the fact that it is the collective responsibility of Muslims to pay serious attention to anything pertaining to their religion, especially if it threatens their dignity and interests. The same applies, I suppose, to followers of other religions. [“I suppose” ???]
But in protecting the sanctity of each religion, followers must not turn ridiculous as it will badly damage the image of their own religion. As a result, instead of bringing one person closer to a religion, they are actually distancing many others no matter how rigorous they explain the truth of the religion.
After all, if we really believe in the omnipotence or omniscience of God, none should worry as to where one would end up in the next life. A non-Muslim today may become Muslim tomorrow, and vice versa. Even if a corpse is cremated to ashes, the Almighty God knows where his place is. [This paragraph is what I like about the article]
| 
Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email 
