One of the demonstrators (pic right), wearing a green and white Malay Student Front (GPMS) shirt, started the verbal melee when he grabbed hold of a microphone and lashed out at the crowd of about 100 participants.“I represent Umno. Stop this forum” declared the unidentified individual who also uttered “Don’t insult Islam” and “You! Chinese, Indians, go to hell!”.
The individual’s tirade however earned him a loud reprimand from renowned International Islamic University law lecturer Dr Mehrun Siraj (pic below) who took to another microphone.
“Open discussion is the way to discuss the issues between Muslims and non-Muslims. Don’t insult Islam,” she said amidst the shouts of the protesters.‘Protest welcomed’
The GPMS representative were among several leaders of a protest against the forum, that was held outside the Bar Council headquarters in Kuala Lumpur.
Another protest leader who entered the auditorium to disrupt the forum were PKR’s Kulim Bandar Baharu MP Zulkifli Noordin.
Bar Council president Ambiga Sreenevasan was compelled to cur short the half-day forum at 10am following advice from the police.
“I’m closing this forum officially... we have no issues with anyone who has a different point of view. We respect everyone’s views in this building. That is what the Bar Council is about,” she said to rousing applause from the participants.
Earlier, in officiating the forum, Ambiga had told participants that the protesters had a right to voice their views provided that the forum is allowed to continue.“Demonstrators are exercising their freedom of expression. We will certainly not lodge police reports against them,” she said, adding that they were open to share their views within the forum as well.
Testimonies
Prior to the disruptions, the forum went ahead when three women brought on stage to share their experience with legal wrangling resulting from religious conversions.
One woman brought on stage, an ethnic Chinese, narrated how her father had met an Iranian woman before embracing Islam and marrying the woman without the family’s knowledge.
“Mother was devastated. She did not know what she did wrong... He was married to mum for 30 years. During the divorce process, he agreed to give mother our house.”
“One day, the hospital called and informed of his passing. It was during the divorce process... The authorities did not recognize my mother as his wife and me as his daughter. Our property was gone. Home didn’t belong to us.
“It is not fair. It is not justice,” said the woman in between sobs.
A German woman, known only as Anita, who shared her story later said that she had a civil marriage with a Malay Muslim man in England, who claimed to be an atheist at the time.
When the couple returned to Malaysia, Anita said she was ‘converted’ during a Muslim marriage, which eventually ended in divorce and she would have to remain a Muslim.
“Why does the family take it upon themselves to convert Western girls who come here? People should be able to choose. Why is it so rigid? Relationship is supposed to be free,” she said.
Another woman who shared her story to the participants was Marie Rayappan whose family was caught in a tussle over her deceased father - Anthony Rayappan’s - remains with the religious authorities.
Subashini’s case
The second session of the forum involved a panel discussion on the custody battle between R Subashini and her former husband T Saravanan@Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah.
In 2006, Saravanan had converted to Islam, taking the name Muhammad Shafi, sought a divorce and applied for custody of the couple’s two children through the Syariah courts.
Subsequently, Subashini filed for an injunction against Muhammad Shafi’s action at the Syariah Court but was rejected at all levels up to the Federal Court.
The forum panel consisted of lawyers Haniff Khatri Abdulla, K Shanmuga and Ravi Nekoo and moderated by activist Zarizanana Abdul Aziz.
Two other panelists - Federal Territories Islamic Department (Jawi) Syariah prosecutor Dr Mohd Naim Mukhtar and Institute of Islamic Understanding (Ikim) representative Dr Wan Azha Wan Ahmad - pulled out of the event at the last minute.
Shanmuga argued that Muhammad Shafi should have sought a divorce at the civil court as their marriage was a civil marriage.
“In this case, because of the conversions, jumping spouses say that the new rule rules,” said Shanmuga, who is Subashini's lawyer.
Haniff Khatri however argued that by virtue of embracing Islam, Muhammad Shafi had a right to seek recourse at the Syariah Court.
“He had the urge to convert at the age of 19. Syariah principles must be advanced as long as it doesn’t infringe the rights of the non Muslim. There are principle guidances in Islam,” said Haniff Khatri, who is Muhammad Shafi's lawyer.
The last speaker Ravi concurred with Shanmuga and advised that all converts who embrace Islam finish their obligations at the civil courts before moving to the Syariah Courts.
“There cannot be two conflicting orders in one case,” he said.
-malaysiakini
No comments:
Post a Comment