Only Islam has problem?

The Government finally decided to established a "special inter-faith committee" to promote better religious understanding between Islam and other religious faith. The committee will be headed by Ilani Ishak, a former MP for Kota Bahru when she was with the now defunct Semangat 46 party which was a breakaway from Umno. This was announced by the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Koh Tsu Koon on Wednesday.

There are some points which need to be highlighted here.

1. Why it is still a special committee if the government felt inter-faith understanding is very important in the context of harmony living amongst the people in the country? Why the half-hearted approach?

2. Why only look at religious understanding between Islam and other religions? Are they saying only Islam having issues with other religions and there is no problem amongst the "other religions"? Or the government planning to have another "special committee" to look into these problems only when problems getting more difficult to manage within the other religions?

3. By saying that they don't want active politicians in the committee, then Ilani Ishak should not be there too. If she is not an active politician and supporter of Umno, would the government brought her to serve in the PM department and tasked her with this responsibility. How to define active politicians? Some officers in government agencies represented in the committee might be active members in their respective party divisions or representatives from the other religions might be also an MP or assemblyman. Can their right to represent their religion be curtailed due to their active participation in politics?

4. Those representing the "other religions" are from non governmental organisations but those from Islam are represented by Jakim and Ikim which are government related agencies. What happens when the Islamic views from the government agencies are not agreeable or endorsed by other Muslims/Malays NGOs, like ABIM, Sisters- in-Islam or even Perkasa? Will this special committee meet the same faith as the previous initiatives?

5. How sure and informed are the government that the representatives from the MCCBCHST has the locus standi to represent the religion that they claimed to represents? For instance, the Buddhist community has three representatives from three different individual organisations in the MCCBCHST which membership are limited only to certain segment of the Buddhist community. Does these representatives really represents the voice and sentiments of the community and other 700 Buddhist associations or centres not affiliated to any of these three selected organisations?

6. Quote from The Star "The committee is not a legal structure; it's not a rigid structure. It's a framework to provide exchange of ideas on religion". - Koh Tsu Koon, Minister in the PM Department

If that's the case, it means this committee is just a talk shop. If it is set up by the government, why not provide certain level of authority so that its decision can be respected and abided by all? After all, all the major religions "great minds" are represented in the committee!

7. Finally, why appoints a "junior" officer to head the committee. The action reflects the intention. If the government is really putting strong emphasis on this committee, it should be headed by Koh Tsu Koon as the Minister in charge of unity. Or the least another with Ministerial level position like Idris Jala who may knows better the meaning of inter religious understanding since he is from Sarawak which multi religious society and inter religious marriages records speaks for itself. - Loka

Inter-faith dialogue decorum

AS anxieties rises due to the numerous fire-bombings of churches recently, the calls for inter-faith dialogues are getting louder by the day. While these initiatives are most welcome, there are some basic principles that need to be adhered by all who participates in any inter-faith dialogues to ensure the inter-faith dialogues itself do not creates more problems.

A close-door and limited inter-faith dialogue without any audience but participated by only one representative from each religion may be much more easy to managed and conducted. The probability of third party audience interference or creating unnecessary ruckus can be avoided.

On the other hand if an inter-faith dialogue are to involved public participation either by limited to invitation only event or opened to the public; much care, thoughts and preparation need to be considered. These are to ensure the well intended event will stays that way and does not develops any situation contrary to the noble intentions.

First - The organisor must be clear of the intention to have the dialogue. No hidden agenda or ulterior motives at the expense of any religion, disregards of whether all religions are represented in the dialogue or not.

Second -  there must be mutual respect between the speakers and the religion they represents. The purpose of the dialogue must be maintained at all times which is to enable all to have a better understanding of the participating religions and not to win converts or ridicule others.

Third - the moderator must be able to managed the dialogue professionally and does not take the opportunity to become another speaker and speaks on behalf of his or her religious background.

Forth - the audience must consists of a balanced and good representation of all religions.

Fifth - the audience must respect the right of every speaker to articulate his/her religious views within the stipulated time. There should not be any heckling or intimidation of any speaker by the audience.Any audience who wishes to ask any question must obtain consent from the moderator and should state his name and background and shall not criticized or condemn any religion or speaker.

Sixth - the inter-faith dialogue must be fully recorded on tape for the whole duration of the event and each speaker must be given a copy of the recording.

Seven - the organiser must ensure the personal well-being of all involved in the dialogue namely, the speakers, moderator and participants are taken care at all times.

Eight - the event must be held in a condusive place and for an open event in a public facility, all the necessary approvals must be obtained from the relevant authorities.

Inter-faith dialogues are to build bridges between different faiths and provide a platform for all to have mutual respect and understanding between fellow human beings who strive to build a harmonious world, compassionate society and caring individuals. - Loka

Can we sing the state anthem?

While waiting for the issue on the usage of the term "Allah" by the Catholic's Herald publication to be decided at the Federal Court, this sensitive matter is being discussed and debated all over. The implication that will follows whatever decision of the court goes beyond the usage of "Allah" in a Catholic newsletter. For many especially the non-Muslims, one big question is playing in their head nowadays. Can they sing some of the state anthems in this country?

A study on the lyrics of all the State anthems in Malaysia shows that States which has the term "Allah" in their anthem includes Selangor, Kedah, Perak, Johore, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan. As for the Malay term "Tuhan" which means God, the word exists in the state anthems of Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Sarawak. Interestingly the term "Tuhan" is also found in Kelantan's state anthem. The States which neither have the term "Allah" or "Tuhan" is Sabah, Negri Sembilan and historical Malacca where Islam spread during the era of the Malacca Sultanate.

If the term "Allah" is exclusive only to Muslims in Malaysia, can those other than Islam sing the State anthems of Selangor, Kedah, Perak, Johore, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan. On the other hand, if the Malay term "Tuhan" should be the direct translation for the term "God" used by those other than Islam as argued in the Herald case, can a Muslim sing the State anthems of Penang, Kuala Lumpur, Sarawak or even Kelantan since the word "Tuhan"  can also mean God for some religions other than Islam?

Furthermore, what about the national anthem "Negaraku" which also have the word "Tuhan" in its lyrics? What does "Tuhan" meant in the national anthem and whose "Tuhan" it refers to? Anyhow, the first principle of Rukun Negara is Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan (Belief in God) and the word "Tuhan" applies to all followers of their respective religion, which includes Islam and Christianity.

At the end of the day does it make any difference to one's faith and practice on how a person's "God"  or "Tuhan" is called? What about Buddhism then, which is not a monotheistic religion and do not adhered to the one creator God concept? Should a Buddhist skip the word "Allah" or "Tuhan" when singing or reciting the anthems and Rukun Negara? Will it developes bad karma to Buddhists who sang and recites the  word "Allah" and "Tuhan".? Surely not!

If we put so much time and effort to challenge and arguing with each other over a five letter word, will it make any difference to one's spiritual development and progress of the nation? What matters are how we should strive to live up to the teachings and practices of our own religion, which means developing the compassion and wisdom in all of us. And it is surely not by creating more tensions and negative karma for our ownselves. - Loka

No more Swiss minarets

Switzerland are more well-known for its Rolex watches, Swiss knives and the Alps, not counting stories of corrupt political leaders and dishonest industry captains stashing their ill-gotten wealth in Swiss banks. The Swiss people are very much involved in the decision making process on many matters which affects their daily lives. Referendum are conducted before any decision is made concerning any public issues. The recent issue that went to the ballot box was on the iniative to ban the building of Islamic minarets on mosques.

The referendum was passed with a clear majority of 57.5 percent of the voters and in 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons. The vote against was 42.5 percent. Because the ban gained a majority of votes and passed in a majority of the cantons, it will be added to the Constitution.

The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

The Nov 29 decision by majority of the Swiss people shocked many in the world including political leaders, religious figures and non-governmental organisations.

Closer to home, the Malaysian Foreign Minister Anifah Aman expressed "dismay" over the recent referendum to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland. Anifah said Malaysia believes the Swiss move is a serious blow to religious freedom and will infringe on the rights of a minority to practise its religion in Switzerland.

In light of the Malaysian government's stand on the Swiss minarets issue, hopefully the powers-that-be will take cognizance of policies which affects the building and location of places of worship and placement and usage of religious symbols of the minority religions in the country. For the defender of the law, surely this can be easily honoured and followed as Malaysia also guarantees religious freedom as per Article 11 of the country's constitution. But then there will always be some square pegs who will insists on behaving otherwise with the justification that they represents the majority.

One should not only uphold the principle of majority rules but respect the minority rights, that is majority rules should not lead to the tyranny of the minority.. - Loka

Extract from the U.S. Department of State publication, Principles of Democracy.

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

• Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

Stepping into a mosque

Are places of worship out of bounds to those who are not followers of the respective religion of the place of worship?

News coming from the Islamic religious authorities in the state of Selangor, Malaysia decreed that non-Muslims are not allowed to step into a mosque. What happens to those non-Muslims visitors who visited the Putrajaya Mosque regularly out of curiousity?

In multi religious country like Malaysia, places of worship has been part of the tourist attractions promoted by the government. These holy places attracted people from all over the world who are keen to experience the different culture of each religion.

Visiting a place of worship other than one's own religion was never an issue. Few months ago I even made the necessary arrangement for an academician from Taiwan to visit the famous Perumal Hindu Temple in Klang. The academician who is a Buddhist was doing a research on the management of different places of worship.

I had attended weddings in churches and walked into Hindu temples without any anxiety that I will be reprimanded by the temple authorities. I think they will be happy to have me meditating within their compound.

As for mosques, I had been there too but the most interesting experience that I had in a mosque is not in Malaysia. It was in 2006 when I was invited to participate in a Buddhists-Muslims dialogue held  in Bangkok.

The dialogue was held amidst the religious tension happening in Southern Thailand. As the participants were cracking their head to look into ways to help to solve the long standing problem, a phone called to one of the participants from South Thailand causes us to cry in our heart. The participant was told one of his relatives was just injured by a bomb blast in the morning. All of us can feel the severity of the problem there and then.

As part of the program we were invited to the mosque to meet up with the Imam, who co-incidentally have relatives in Malaysia too. We walked and sat in the prayers area below the pulpit where the Imam usually gave his weekly Friday sermon. We were later served simple drink and food in the adjoining building.

The mosque has a long history in Bangkok and when we were guided to the graves within the mosque compound, one the mosque committee told us some of the graves belongs to members of the Thai royalty. That's interesting I said to myself.

Our few hours visit was to enable us to have a better understanding on the lifestyles of Muslims and I departed from the mosque with a good feeling that these adherents of Islam who follows the Islamic teachings piously and respect for others will surely make the community they live in a peaceful and better place for all. - Loka

Aidil Fitri

To all followers of the Islamic faith, wishing you all a peaceful and memorable Aidil Fitri.

Candle in the heart

The cow head protesters marches to the State secretariat

Hishammuddin (left pic) the Umno Home Minister did not give any surprises when he met with the cow head protesters yesterday. He further enhanced his image as a cow's brain politician when he became the protesters apologist and defends their action of stomping and spitting on a severed cow head which the protesters brought to the entrance of the Selangor State Secretariat front gate last Friday.

Being the minister previously in charge of the education and youth and sports ministries before his assumption as home minister, he should know very well that cows are sacred in Hinduism and the intention of the protesters bringing the severed cow head during their demonstration is clearly an attempt to provoke and incite hatred and ill feelings amongst peace loving Malaysians. But then, what more can be expected from someone with a big mouth. ( I just replicate this words used by a former Umno Selangor State Exco who co-incidentally was seated beside Hishammudin during another meeting with a Malay-centric NGO the day before the cow head protesters met Hishammudin)

The so-called protesters who claimed to be residents of Section 23 in Shah Alam had protested against the relocation of a Hindu temple from Section 19 to to Section 23. They objected to the temple being built in their vicinity which they argued is a Muslim majority area.

In the name of democratic process and respecting the freedom of movement and assembly, it is the right of the cow head protesters to assemble and march to highlight their concerns and objection to the temple but please do it with utmost decency and self respect as a fellow human being. The moment any group starts to ridicule and blasphemed other religion, it says all and sundry to the whole world how shallow and narrow minded these people are. By claiming to represent a certain religion which proclaimed to be a religion of peace, it really brings disrepute and shame to their own religion.

If a person of any religion claims that the building of a place of worship other than his own, in close proximity to his place of residence will challenge his commitment to his own religion, it is time for him to have self reflection on his personal cultivation. If by virtue of taking the argument that close proximity to a place of worship other than his own will affect one's faith, many in this country include many past and present Cabinet ministers would have left their original faith or converted to Christianity because many had studied in schools runs by the La Sallian Brothers and Catholic nuns.

A La Sallian school - Saint Anthony School in Teluk Intan

Churches and chapels were usually situated nearby these schools and some are even within the school compound. Those in the older generations would have studied or interacted with the La Sallian Brothers priests whom were famous with their strict discipline and academic acumens. What's more can be said of those that studied in western countries where the populations are predominantly Christians. Hishammudin himself was western educated but did he renounced the religion of his forefathers after many years surrounded by churches and Christians symbolism? No. He still declares himself as a Muslim.

By defending the cow head protesters, is he trying to tell everybody that he is having doubts on the protesters resilience towards external influences? One's faith and commitment towards any religion are just like a lighted candle in the heart, no outsiders will ever be able to snuff it out or reduces its illumination unless the person concern allows it to happen. - Loka

Mind is the forerunner of all states,
Mind is chief, mind-made are they.
If one speaks or acts with pure mind, because of that,
happiness follows one, even as one's shadow that never leaves.

- Dhammapada verse 2

Legislation for Conversion?

As announced yesterday by the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz and reported in various medias, the Cabinet decides that children must follows the original religion of the parents at the time they got married if any one of the parents converts to another religion.

The Sun reported that "These were among the long-term solutions discussed by the Cabinet today in the wake of the latest case of Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah and his wife, M. Indira Gandhi, and several other similar cases before them."

This decision by the Cabinet is laudable but I hoped the AG office will come out with a specific law to ensure the Cabinet decision is to be adhered by all civil servants all the way from the top to the lower rung.

This request should be understandable since the government announcements on similiar issues in the past has been just like that. Announcements without any concrete steps to ensure it will be implemented as intended.

What happens to the April 2008 announcement that steps will be taken to set a regulation that requires any non-Muslim who is converting to Islam to inform their family before their conversion. It is already more than a year but there is no developments on this matter since the announcement by the then Prime Minister.

Do we have to wait for another similiar case to have this matter to be taken seriously by the Cabinet, again?

1Malaysia, Performance Now? - Loka

PAS moral crossroad

PAS is standing on a Pakatan Rakyat's crossroad on the issue of morality and whatever stand it makes regarding the Elizabeth Wong issue it will influence it's level of relationship with her comrades in PR, namely PKR and DAP. It's decision will also be followed closely with much interest by it's long time nemesis Umno.

If PAS takes the high moral ground stance on Elizabeth Wong's scandal, it will most probably moving towards a collision course with PKR and DAP but will gain brownie points in the eyes of its Malay-Muslims supporters. It will also elevates its credential as a religious based party compared to Umno which has been trying for years to challenge PAS for the Muslim leadership in the country.

That will be the consideration for PAS whether to push for Elizabeth's departure from the Selangor state exco lineup. Political considerations survival will take precedence over any other reasons. That's the reality for every political party. PAS will not sacrifice the party's interest for sake of only one single woman politician from PKR. For them, Elizabeth is dispensable and of no interest to them.

If PAS backs PKR leadership to retain Elizabeth as state exco, the decision will for sure be use to the hilt by it's political oppponents especially Umno to attack its Islamic credentials. Even though those in Umno are no angels themselves, the power of media spinning will be a force to be reckoned with that no one in PAS wants to dabble into. The Umno controlled media will go to towns and kampungs to play up this issue. PAS would not want to risk its influence in the Malay heartland for the sake of just one outsider.

On the other hand, it will be good news to Chua Soi Lek if Elizabeth is retained as Exco. There is no connection between both of them and I think neither of them knows each other but a political decision will affects other too.

As I mentioned previously, even if MCA agreed for Chua Soi Lek to be appointed a Senator and then a Minister, Umno may not be agreeable to that due to the concern it might brings disrepute to it's Malay-Muslims based and ridicule to PAS for endorsing adultery.

Once PAS accepts Elizabeth warts and all, Umno will be in an easier position to accept Chua Soi Lek or whoever tainted with sex scandal into the cabinet. It seems that of all people, the person to benefit most from the Elizabeth Wong's nude photo scandal is not someone from Umno or PKR but MCA's Chua. But of course assuming Soi Lek is not sacked or have his membership suspended from MCA before the next cabinet's re-shuffle by Najib due to his sexual DVD re-vival than brought shame to the party.

One woman's fall is another man's glory. - Loka

What's in a divine name

I received a sms last night from a former MP suggesting to me to watch the 9.30pm live discussion forum "Isu" on TV 1. The topic was "Wajarkah nama Allah digunakan semua agama?" ( Is it proper for all religions to use the Allah name?)

The panelists includes a Muslim activist who was formerly a Christian preacher now based in Sarawak, a Chinese convert who is vice president of Malaysian Chinese Muslims Association and a lecturer from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. The talk show was moderated by Sayed Munawar, a regular hand in TV 1's live forum.

The topic of the show was clearly conceived to address the controversy arising from the insistence of the Herald - the Catholic Weekly for their right to use the term "Allah" to describe their religion's God in their Malay version publication.

The right to use the term "Allah" has been brought to court by the publisher of the "Herald - The Catholic Weekly". The government via the Home Ministry has disallowed the Herald from using the word "Allah" in its publication. The government said the usage of the term by the publication will arouse sensitivity and create confusion amongst the Muslims in the country.

After watching the whole program I thought it will be more apt for the topic be changed. Firstly, the panelists are representing only one religion i.e Islam. Secondly all arguments emphasised the term "Allah" can only be use by Muslims. Thirdly, those pre-recorded and pre-arranged telephone call-in views are from Islamic scholars.

What will be the perspective of the Catholic church or the Sikh Gurdwara as recorded in their holy books? That's the missing link on the program. Even though at least two of the Islamic speakers tries to explain the reason why the Christian God is not "Allah", wouldn't it be more convincing for the viewers, especially for people other than the Islam or Christian faith if a bishop or priest are invited for their point of view?

As a viewer who is neither Muslim, Christianity or even Sikh, I would be more appreciative of the TV forum if the panellists invited to the program includes representatives from other stakeholders who are claiming the right of usage of the term. A pre-arranged telephone caller from a Islamic organisation had suggested a scholarly discussion amongst the various religions with an interest on the issue which I think will be more enlightening for everybody.

Sometimes if information are coming only from one side, people will be more curious to enquire what the others are saying. - Loka

Why Only Islam?

The intention of the Federal government requiring potential Muslim converts to declared their choice to their family as announced by the Prime Minister is laudable and a pre-emptive step to address incidents of body-snatching and other related issues.

I would like to further enhance my earlier comment on the need of a fool-proof law to ensure the declaration will not be challenged by any parties in later years.

The cases of body-snatching that were widely reported in the media in recent years focuses on non-Muslims converting to Islam without informing their immediate families. Hence, these causes unnecessary heart breaks to the deceased convert family, headaches to the authorities and brewing tension amongst the Muslims and non-Muslims.

On the other hand, did the media highlighted cases of conversion amongst the non-Muslims namely those were converted at their death bed from one non-Muslim religion to another? Have we not heard or come across cases of "vultures of death" seeking out potential candidates to be converted to their religion in hospitals while the critically ill patient is most vulnerable and unable to think wisely and with reason?

Have we not heard children who has converted to another religion tries to convert their parents without the knowledge of their other siblings. When the parents died, a tussled develops between siblings of different non-Muslim religion on the method of the last rites for the deceased funeral. There was even an incident some years ago of opposing siblings of different religion physically fought it out to ensure funeral rites for their deceased father are conducted as per their respective religious choice!


To do the right thing right at the right time, the Federal Government are urged to deliberate further on the need to require all types of conversion, non-Muslims to Islam; Hindu to Christianity; Buddhist to Hindu; Christianity to Buddhist etc. requires a declaration and written consent from the parents, guardian or next-of-kin before the conversion of the individual is considered valid.


Although the need of consent might be taken as impeding the individual's freedom of religious practice and personal liberty, a challenging decision need to be taken to address challenging circumstances. The decision can be implimented by enacting a new law, let's say the "Religion Consent Act" which spelt out the requirements to be fulfilled for a non-Muslim person to convert to another religion.

To ensure this Religion Consent Act applies to all, the government will need to look into amending the Article 11 Clause (1) and Article 12 Clause (3 & 4) of the Federal Constitution.

Converting to Islam, Declare It!

The national news agency Bernama headlines on evening of April 10.

The Federal Government will soon make it a requirement for non-Muslims converting to Islam to declare their new religious status to their family members, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

And The Star breaking news:

PUTRAJAYA: The Government plans to introduce a regulation requiring non-Muslims wanting to embrace Islam to inform their family before doing so.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi suggested that there be a form or letter from the person declaring their family had been told and have understood his or her decision.
This, he said, was to prevent problems of families disputing the conversion of their parent, spouse, child or sibling especially upon their death when they are unable to bury or cremate their bodies.
Stating that currently there was no such regulation, he advised all who wanted to convert to inform their families to make things easier for everyone.
"We will have a regulation. When a person wants to convert to Islam, we have to ask them whether their wife knows about it.
"If they want to convert (to Islam), there is nothing wrong, why must they hide (the fact of the conversion); tell (the family).
"We don't want problems later when the man converts and converts the children also whereas the wife has rights too," he told reporters Thursday after chairing a meeting of the National Council on Islamic Religious Affairs here.
Abdullah added that withholding the information from the families also posed a problem to religious authorities performing their duties.
He said he had informed in the meeting earlier that religious issues were very sensitive and should be tackled wisely to avoid religious tension including the demolition of places of worship.

The above announcement came five weeks after this blog issued a Candidate's Compatibility Checklist on March 4, 2008 which include the following statement:

Without prejudice to the generality of Article 5 (Liberty of a person), Article 8 (Equality), Article 10 (Freedom of speech, assembly and association) and Article 11 (Freedom of religion), are you prepared to advocate and support an amendment to Article 12 Clause (4), which requires all individual intending to convert to another religion to seek consent from his/her spouse, or parents if he/she is not married?[ ] YES [ ] NO

The decision by the Federal Government requiring all non-Muslims intending to convert to Islam to declare their intention to their family is laudable but may not necessary avoid problems in the future.

Although the Prime Minister did not elaborate on the legal mechanism to ensure this requirement will be adhered by all parties, I hoped the government will seriously look into amending the respective laws to ensure there will not be any loopholes which can be challenged later by anybody or agencies.

There is a vast difference between a declaration and getting a consent before converting to Islam.

Even if those intending to convert to Islam declared they already informed their families, how can it be foolproof that the declaration has really been done by the convert and the family are truly aware of the conversion? What if in later years the Muslim convert died and the family denied they were informed of the conversion in the absence of an acknowlegement or consent letter? If consent is required, how to ensure it was obtained in accordance to the law?