Vijay47: "The Federal Court’s verdict on the unilateral conversion of a child to Islam runs contrary to interpretations of Islam"? Well, well, isn't that just too bad for you, Perkasa? In case you
don't know, as you and your friends indeed don't seem to, this country
is guided by our constitution, not the Quran. However, nobody is preventing you and your friends from being
inspired or led by the teachings of your religious texts, but not to the
extent that similar adherence is demanded of non-Muslims also. You suddenly want to preach about the sanctity of religion, but it
appears that this includes Muslims resorting to criminal actions when
court decisions do not go their way. And M Indira Gandhi’s lawyer M Kulasegaran’s comments about the
impotency of Parliament and the cabinet is now a provocation against
Islam? This subtlety of jurisprudence you now display surely must be in line with the "insult against Bugis" principle set recently.
Lamborghini: I salute the judges for their clear and
correct judgment. In this country, the Federal Constitution is still
the supreme law of the land. And the Federal Court judges have
interpreted the case in the spirit of the constitution. By questioning the ruling and implying that the judges are not
knowledgeable in Islam and need to be educated by the Malaysian Islamic
Development Department (Jakim), Perkasa is insulting the learned judges
and being in contempt of the court.
David Dass: Yes, we are a constitutional democracy.
Our rights and our freedoms devolve from the constitution. We are all
equal citizens and freedom of worship is a guaranteed right. A Hindu mother does not lose her rights over her minor children
because her husband decides one day that he wants to become a Muslim.
The courts have now ruled that her consent to the children being
converted to Islam is required. A conversion without her consent would
be illegal. It does not matter what the four schools of Sunni Islam say. Non-Muslims are not bound by those schools. And the suggestion of kidnappings, religious provocations and
disharmony have the flavour of threats. The police should investigate
this. The rule of law must prevail. As for educating our judges - the
quality of the judgment speaks for the learning of the judges. It also
speaks for their courage and independence. The mother had to wait almost
10 years for justice to be done.
Anonymous: First of all, the judges made their decision based on the constitution as the supreme law of the land. Secondly, the decision makes complete sense, as a father can game the
legal system by merely converting to Islam and consequently obtaining
superior rights over a non-Muslim wife. It also deprives the children of
the right to choose their religion of choice when they reach the age of
18. Islam is a religion that supports justice. The Federal Court decision
is the correct one, consistent with the principle of justice. If the decision is going to cause provocation or kidnapping et
cetera, then those who commit such acts are obviously not religious
persons and must be prosecuted.
Anonymous #44199885: Ridiculous statements continue
to be made by those who are simply unable to accept that minorities have
rights in this country and that these rights cannot be abrogated by a
spouse covertly converting to another religion and conveniently avoiding
fulfilling his/her marriage obligations. This crucial point is being purposefully and willfully avoided from
the conversation and instead the narrative being driven is these
extremists pushing an agenda of their version of Islamic principles with
no room for justice for non-Muslims. Are non-Muslims second-class citizens? Are we to live our lives only at the behest and whim and fancies of Muslims? Are we to be forced to practise our religious beliefs, our culture,
our heritage and our values only with the sanction of the Islamic
Anonymous_1388029052: Court decisions should reflect
the views of Malaysians and not just the spirit of Islam. Otherwise, it
would mean that the judges are swayed by their religious convictions,
which is totally against fair play and rule of law. Judges sit on the bench to serve all Malaysians, and not a section of the people.
Tholu: Although the constitution says that Islam is
the official religion of the country, it does not mean Malaysia is an
Islamic country. The constitution allows for the people to freely
practice the religion of their choice. Therefore can I say that that judges and magistrates who are not knowledgeable in Hinduism or any other religion other than Islam also be
briefed by the Malaysia Hindu Sangam or the Malaysian Consultative
Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism in civil
Raja Chulan: Indeed, our Federal Constitution is the
supreme law of the land. As the judges rightly pointed out, even
Parliament cannot amend its provisions if it would change its original
purpose and spirit. Any other laws (including state laws) that run contrary to the Federal Constitution are therefore null and void. Islam is merely the prescribed religion of the federation, nothing
more. The practice of religion (Islam or any other religion) is a
personal matter and does not impinge on the law of the land. As the late former Lord President of the Federal Court Mohamed
Suffian Hashim rightly pointed out, the law and the judges administering
the law in this country are “neutral”.