NON-MUSLIMS should no longer play fast and loose with their faith, whatever it may be, if they know what’s good for them.
If they do not like what happened to the late Everest climber, Moorthy, and what is happening to the recently departed Rayappan Anthony then do not even consider becoming a Muslim: not for love, not for money and definitely not for fun!
For be warned, there is not a single escape clause in this unspoken, indeterminate contract. Even marriage vows, for instance, promises release upon death, but not this. It insists on binding you to it for all eternity. And after you are in it, you will feel most bonded to it when you least want it. Choice, by the way, you would have given up at the point of entry.
It is like choosing to live in a dictatorship. Why would you, whose every act, every move and every decision can be a conscious choice reaffirming your human agency, choose to give up choice only to live within strict taboos, a rigid regimentation and perpetual supervision? Okay, it is highly probable that you may feel suitably cleansed by the taboos, but can you stomach the regimentation? Possibly too, if you are the sort invigorated when regimented, but can you take the feeling of being constantly interfered with? Maybe yes, because you find comfort in being part of the majority.
This is what it means to be Muslim in Malaysia and surely this requires the kind of commitment that only passion can lend. Are you then passionate about becoming a Muslim or are you driven to it by passion? This question you must contemplate over and over and when you are done contemplating meditate on it, over and over. And if after all of that you remain determined then, by all means, go for it.
But why has it come to this? The Moorthy case hints at the problem.
His conversion to Islam is almost hearsay. It was purported to have happened on his sickbed with no hard evidence that it ever took place. If he had really converted, Moorthy, according to his widow, never talked to the family about it and given the importance of such a decision to people of faith, this is incredible. One would have thought if he had embraced Islam with all its consequences it would be unlikely for him not to let his family know, if for nothing other than to ensure that when he does go his soul would be suitably attended to. Why convert to Islam when you do not particularly care what happens to you in the after-life, especially given the stark contrast of this, most final rites of passage between those of Islam and Hinduism?
In this instance would it not have been wiser if the officers of the Religious Department involved had based their actions on documented evidence? Was his conversion card ever produced? In short, did he or did he not embrace Islam?
The current controversy regarding burial rites revolves around one Rayappan Anthony (alias Mohammad Rayappan). Here there is indeed evidence, both documented and otherwise. His conversion is not disputed. He took the faith and consequently a Muslim name when he left his Christian family and identity to marry a Mulim woman. However, there is every proof of him having renounced Islam and returning to Christianity. According to newspaper reports, his MyKad states that he was a Christian. And yet JAIS had little compunction about distressing his bereaved family. After the “body-snatching” they tried to subpoena Christians to appear before what is an exclusively Muslim court.
There are two issues here. First, the assumption is that to JAIS, once a Muslim always a Muslim. As soon as one embraces Islam one forfeits one’s constitutional right to freedom of religion. (By the way, for those born into the religion this is the given condition as the Lina Joy and the four elderly Kelantanese cases, to name but two, demonstrate.)
And second, it is obvious that the Islamic establishment, in over-stepping the boundaries of its jurisdiction – the issuing of subpoenas to Anthony’s three daughters who are Christians – is intent on creating a dangerous legal precedent. Let us, for argument’s sake, accept that it may have some claim over Rayappan Anthony, but does that give it any semblance of a right to even attempt to invoke its powers over the non-Muslim daughters? Now that the sisters are going to the civil court for redress what will the judgment be? In the Moorthy case the judge felt quite unable to sit in judgment of an Islamic issue as everything to do with Islam is the purview of the parallel Shariah Court system.
If they do not like what happened to the late Everest climber, Moorthy, and what is happening to the recently departed Rayappan Anthony then do not even consider becoming a Muslim: not for love, not for money and definitely not for fun!
For be warned, there is not a single escape clause in this unspoken, indeterminate contract. Even marriage vows, for instance, promises release upon death, but not this. It insists on binding you to it for all eternity. And after you are in it, you will feel most bonded to it when you least want it. Choice, by the way, you would have given up at the point of entry.
It is like choosing to live in a dictatorship. Why would you, whose every act, every move and every decision can be a conscious choice reaffirming your human agency, choose to give up choice only to live within strict taboos, a rigid regimentation and perpetual supervision? Okay, it is highly probable that you may feel suitably cleansed by the taboos, but can you stomach the regimentation? Possibly too, if you are the sort invigorated when regimented, but can you take the feeling of being constantly interfered with? Maybe yes, because you find comfort in being part of the majority.
This is what it means to be Muslim in Malaysia and surely this requires the kind of commitment that only passion can lend. Are you then passionate about becoming a Muslim or are you driven to it by passion? This question you must contemplate over and over and when you are done contemplating meditate on it, over and over. And if after all of that you remain determined then, by all means, go for it.
But why has it come to this? The Moorthy case hints at the problem.
His conversion to Islam is almost hearsay. It was purported to have happened on his sickbed with no hard evidence that it ever took place. If he had really converted, Moorthy, according to his widow, never talked to the family about it and given the importance of such a decision to people of faith, this is incredible. One would have thought if he had embraced Islam with all its consequences it would be unlikely for him not to let his family know, if for nothing other than to ensure that when he does go his soul would be suitably attended to. Why convert to Islam when you do not particularly care what happens to you in the after-life, especially given the stark contrast of this, most final rites of passage between those of Islam and Hinduism?
In this instance would it not have been wiser if the officers of the Religious Department involved had based their actions on documented evidence? Was his conversion card ever produced? In short, did he or did he not embrace Islam?
The current controversy regarding burial rites revolves around one Rayappan Anthony (alias Mohammad Rayappan). Here there is indeed evidence, both documented and otherwise. His conversion is not disputed. He took the faith and consequently a Muslim name when he left his Christian family and identity to marry a Mulim woman. However, there is every proof of him having renounced Islam and returning to Christianity. According to newspaper reports, his MyKad states that he was a Christian. And yet JAIS had little compunction about distressing his bereaved family. After the “body-snatching” they tried to subpoena Christians to appear before what is an exclusively Muslim court.
There are two issues here. First, the assumption is that to JAIS, once a Muslim always a Muslim. As soon as one embraces Islam one forfeits one’s constitutional right to freedom of religion. (By the way, for those born into the religion this is the given condition as the Lina Joy and the four elderly Kelantanese cases, to name but two, demonstrate.)
And second, it is obvious that the Islamic establishment, in over-stepping the boundaries of its jurisdiction – the issuing of subpoenas to Anthony’s three daughters who are Christians – is intent on creating a dangerous legal precedent. Let us, for argument’s sake, accept that it may have some claim over Rayappan Anthony, but does that give it any semblance of a right to even attempt to invoke its powers over the non-Muslim daughters? Now that the sisters are going to the civil court for redress what will the judgment be? In the Moorthy case the judge felt quite unable to sit in judgment of an Islamic issue as everything to do with Islam is the purview of the parallel Shariah Court system.
As this matter is now before the courts it would be skating on thin ice to speculate, but let us hope that the 'integrity' of our legal system, dualistic as it is, is preserved. We may not be able to turn the clock back to before 1988, but at least we would have put arrogance firmly in its place: checked, if not checkmated.
No comments:
Post a Comment