Unilateral conversion: Federal law prevails, says Azalina

Perlis’ amendments to state law will become inapplicable upon the passing of amendments to Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, says the de facto law minister.

Where there is inconsistency between a federal law and a state law, the former shall prevail, says Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Azalina Othman Said.

Hence, once the federal government succeeds in amending the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (LRA), Perlis’ recent amendments allowing for a child to be converted to Islam with the consent of only one parent will be inapplicable.

According to Azalina, it is the Perlis state assembly’s prerogative to amend the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006.

“At the same time, the Bill tabled by the government to amend the LRA is timely and must be seen as a positive step.

“Once this amendment is passed, it becomes a federal law.

“It should be noted that Article 75 of the Federal Constitution provides that when any state law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law will prevail,” she said in a statement today.

The proposed amendments to the LRA, seeking to make it compulsory for both parents to consent before a child can be converted to Islam, will be debated in the Dewan Rakyat sometime next year.
At the moment, three states — Selangor, Penang, and Terengganu — have enacted this rule.

“The government is committed to solving this matter holistically and the input of all parties will be taken into account,” said Azalina.

“I hope all parties will look objectively at the proposed amendments and avoid politicising it for any reason or make any premature statements.”

The Perlis assembly passed the amendment to the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006 yesterday, but Perlis Menteri Besar Azlan Man told the New Straits Time Online today that this had been taken out of context.

Azlan said the amendment had only replaced the phrase “ibu dan bapa” (father and mother) with “ibu atau bapa (father or mother), in line with the words used in English.

He claimed the amendment had no legal effect and was only about standardising the language.

Malaysia not ready for hudud/Act 355

I wonder if faith and God are meant to be monopolies. Only those who can claim to impose Islam on well-meaning, hard-working people get a pass to Heaven? The hudud debacle in Malaysia has consumed our national unity.

And I wonder, what gives a group of Muslims bent on applying hudud the right to supersede the preference of a democratic majority? The emphasis on imposition of hudud on Muslims and often at real cost to non-Muslims is symptomatic of our misplaced priorities.

Hudud is a contentious topic in Islamic circles. Opinions range from categorical imposition on all people in all countries to declaring hudud as irrelevant. The problem of extremism therefore arises. However, once you look at opinions from scholars across the world about implementing hudud, they agree on two things - firstly, it is only a fraction of Islamic Shariah; secondly, It is impossible to implement in the absence of certain conditions.

There are four obvious reasons hudud and contemporary Malaysia is not a marriage to be had. Firstly, hudud is only a part of a wider state mechanism that upholds principles of Islam. Hudud is only one manifestation of our love for Allah (SWT) and one that happens in a truly Islamic society.

Shariah encompasses a wide range of prescriptions. They nudge us towards a world where leaders don’t pilfer public funds, leaders like that do not get elected to begin with. One where our youth need not be caned to the masjid but where youth congregate in prayer halls because the beauty of Islam becomes patently obvious to anyone with eyes open.

Secondly, the discussion of hudud is a discussion of a new covenant. Even before we get to the hows, there needs to be a consensus on doing it in principle. Malaysia does not belong to Malays or the Indians or the Chinese or the other ethnicities. Malaysia belongs to Malaysians and the Malaysian identity must not be confined to certain ethnicities. More importantly, the constitution was a covenant that promised participation from all races and all citizens.

The idea of a hudud state in the backdrop of widespread discontent is a violation of that covenant. Thirdly, hudud proponents have clearly failed to fulfill it's very aim. When well-meaning citizens of a country are repelled by imposition of rules they do not believe in or understand, they haven’t done anything to fulfill the rakyat’s fundamental priorities.

You can choose to go out and have a conversation with the average Malaysian. The average Malaysian feels exhaustion, robbed of opportunities. They despair the impunity with which our leaders exploit public wealth, they despise the growing disparity. In a Malaysia so rife with pain, I cannot fathom an Islamic case for hudud. I see a case for hate-mongering and division at best.

Finally, in a 21st century community, revival of hudud must accompany an inclusive discussion of the hows. The provisions of Act 355 as they stand are far from ideal. It has the ability to prescribe punishments such as RM100,000 fine, 100 canings and 30 years of imprisonment. All this while committing invasion of private spaces, public shaming.

From a fiqh perspective the practices are often horrifying. In response to concerns raised about the absolute lack of preconditions that must be fulfilled in terms of maqasid shariah preservation, environment for learning shariah, acceptance of shariah precepts, presence of just leaders; polemical assaults against conscientious objectors is how the hudud lobby has dealt with efforts at conversation.

How, is a question far from settled. But the road so far is definitely not how we implement hudud in a country that promised safety and agency to all of its citizens.

Intention and circumstances matter most

In Islam, intention and circumstances matter most. And when we try our best, Allah (SWT) joins forces and victory becomes just a by-product of that process. Take the case of the Temiar people in Kelantan. The Temiar are one of the Orang Asli communities in Malaysia who have consistently chosen a life rooted in meaningful traditions and practices. When their homes were taken away, they fought back and then every ruling class only sought to amplify oppression.

Malaysian democracy promised them a shot at restitution. But we have continued to desecrate their homes and out of desperation, they set up blockades in Kelantan. This is not even the first time this happened. The political machine has responded with threats. While mercy for the creation of Allah (SWT) is a principle the Temiar people live every day by protecting the forests.

Shariah is a wide set of prescriptions and most of it is about public welfare, bringing people together, removing corruption, being sympathetic and creating an environment where Islamic virtues truly manifest. The goals of Shariah and prescriptions are about tackling these grievances foremost. A shariah state is not one where we force these problems out of public consciousness or intimidate them into silence.

Our questionable priorities have paved a toxic road to hatred and animosity which is far from ideal.

Islam is at a crossroads in Malaysia. Muslims and often non-Muslims are left to interpret Islam as the force consuming our national unity but in a constellation of understanding and return to goals of shariah, it will become the force that redeems. The choice is entirely ours.

The political goals of Islam must accommodate the recognition that too often, we have been less than kind to many communities. People who remind me of a Boris Cyrulnik quote I read, “Resilience is more than resistance, it is also learning to live”. We have built a resilient nation. The tough part is learning how to live.

SYED SADDIQ SYED ABDUL RAHMAN is a part-time lecturer at Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIA) Malaysia and is Asia’s best debater, winning the United Asia Debate Championship in May 2015.

Perlis mufti to seek clarification on 'conversion' issue

Perlis mufti Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin said today he will seek clarification from the state government on amendments passed to the state’s Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006.

Responding to parties who contacted him on the issue, Asri said in a Facebook posing that he was currently overseas and as such, did not have details of the amendments.

“Later maybe I will refer to the state government to get the information.

“However, if you are asking about the official fatwa from the Perlis Mufti Department that was approved by the Perlis State Islamic Council on the issue of child custody, then that matter had been announced a long time ago,” said Asri, who also shared a copy of the landmark fatwa issued in July last year.

Among others, the Perlis Fatwa Committee decided that custody rights of children of non-Muslim parents shall not be evaluated based on religion when one of them converted to Islam.

Instead, custody should be awarded to the parent who was able to ensure the child's moral and emotional development, while the Muslim parent was responsible for introducing Islam to the children.

The fatwa also stated that a child who was still being breastfed should not be separated from the mother.

Amendments passed to Section 117(b) in the Malay language version of the Perlis enactment replaced the term “father and mother” with “father or mother” - allowing for the unilateral conversion of a child below the age of 18.

Perlis menteri besar Azlan Man had reportedly said the amendments were passed to standardise it with the English version which used the term “parent” in the singular form.

Perlis MB claims child conversion law spun out of context

Perlis Menteri Besar Azlan Man claimed the amendment to the state’s Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006 has been spun out of context.

"They are spinning things out of context," Azlan is quoted as saying by New Straits Times.

He was responding to the outcry against the Perlis state assembly’s approval yesterday of an amendment to Section 117(b) of the Malay language version of the 2006 enactment.

The section previously stated that a child who had not attained the age of 18 may only convert to Islam with the consent of both "father and mother" or the guardian.

"Father and mother" was replaced with "father or mother" in the amendment.

Azlan claimed the amendment had no legal effect as it was only a case of standardising the languages.

He pointed out that the English language of the law had used the word "parent" in the singular.

As such, Azlan said, the amendment to the Malay language version was to make it consistent with the English language version.

MIC and MCA have today expressed their dismay with the amendment.

The issue of unilateral conversion has given rise to lengthy custody battles and setting the civil and syariah courts on collision course.

The federal government had, in the last Parliament sitting, sought to address the issue by tabling the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2016.

Under the proposed federal law amendment, if one parent converts to Islam, the child must remain in the original religion prior to the parent's conversion.

The child may only be converted to Islam if both parents consent to the child's conversion.

This amendment bill is expected to be debated and voted on in the next Parliament sitting in March.

MCA chief accuses Perlis of sabotaging Putrajaya

MCA president Liow Tiong Lai has accused the Perlis government of sabotaging efforts by Putrajaya to end unilateral conversion of a child to another religion.

Liow said this in reference to the Perlis state assembly passing an amendment to the Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006, allowing a minor to convert to Islam with the consent of one parent instead of both father and mother.

"Surely the Perlis government is aware that the federal government had only just recently tabled the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Amendment Bill 2016, which is to safeguard the unilateral conversion of minors.

"This amendment is unacceptable. It is not only a step backwards, but a direct challenge to what the federal government is trying to do at cabinet level.

"What is the Perlis menteri besar trying to prove?" Liow said in a statement published on Facebook.

He described the amendment by the Perlis state assembly, just two weeks after the tabling of the federal bill in Parliament, as "underhanded".

Liow stressed that the issue of unilateral child conversion was not a political or religious issue but that it is about justice.

"This is a matter that requires compassion and fair play.

"The conversion of a child by a parent, regardless of religion, in order to win custody after a failed marriage is without a doubt a gross miscarriage of justice.”

Lengthy custody battles

The issue of unilateral conversion has given rise to lengthy custody battles and has set the civil and syariah courts on collision course.

The federal government had, in the last Parliament sitting, sought to address the issue by tabling the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) (Amendment) Bill 2016.

Under the proposed federal law amendment, if one parent converts to Islam, the child must remain in the original religion prior to the parent's conversion.

The child may only be converted to Islam if both parents consent to the child's conversion.

Perlis Menteri Besar Azlan Man defended the amendment of the state enactment, claiming that it was "spun out of context".

Azlan claimed the amendment had no legal effect as it was only a case of standardising the languages.

He pointed out that the English language of the law had used the word "parent" in the singular.

As such, Azlan said, the amendment to the Malay language version was to make it consistent with the English language version.