Screenshots

Jeff,

I hate to be the English police but it's LOSING not LOOSING. Sorry it's just a pet peeve of mine. Right up there with SPERMS. The plural of SPERM is SPERM not SPERMS (obviously this not referring to this blog).

Somehow I think this issue has been "hijacked" by political parties for thier own agenda.

Issue like this can be easily manipulated and get blown out of proportion, and when that happened, emotions win over reasoning.

After the announcement, the IFC forum "testing the water" roadshow show that (my speculation) :
- it is true that PM has little control over "certain factions" inside his party
- PM has little control the religious factions factions inside and outside his party.
- The high organised "protester" crowd is sponsored by some "quite powerful man" from certain factions
- Besides money politics, some people who has little access to money politics trying to use religious unrest for political gains.

Honestly, IFC dialogue is only possible if all the parties share the similar "human rights" understanding. Otherwise, it is merely an shooting ground for inmature human being.

For humans, you can say that emotions ought never to win "over" reasoning,with few exceptions.You can think of an analogy like, emotions are the horses hitched to the carriage while the coachman or driver represents rational thought. When the horses run away with the carriage, it ends up, broken and upside-down, in the ditch.
Unless the coachman can gradually bring the horses under control.
When emotions are raised, some would say manipulated by certain parties(for political reasons and/or by ambitious persons)then, to give such vociferous people what they want is akin to letting the horses have their way- is this how we achieve a civil society?
There is much that is good about Malaysia. Yet,there are some smelly,decaying pieces of wrong-headed rules that was put in place when the world was very different. They may have served some useful purpose once but they are the cause of much division and acrimony now. I will not refer to them, They are the Things That Must Not Be Mentioned. I fear nothing much will change here. The majority of us are unthinking or frightened folks who will keep on dutifully voting in the same blokes who themselves dare not or lack the wits to make any substantive changes for the better.
David

learned muslims/ulamas are reluctant to allow debate on matters concerning the islamic religion. Yet they insist on the syariah law to be implemented. I have no confidence in the ulamas. Look at iran/ Afghanistan/Saudi arabia/Sudan and you will understand. Like Deng Hsaio Peng used to say, "I know a good thing when see one".

Good move by the PM, probably will be the only decision that I support. In the course of everyone making noises about Article 11, they seem to have forgotten about the existence of Article 3.

- MENJ

Jeff,

You can read the Federal Constitution but you cannot discuss...

The only thing that caught my attention is the passing of Hani Mohsin...may he rest in peace.

The PM's call to call off the Article 11 gatherings will be seen as a shameful betrayal of sensible,reasonable and fair muslims, who I believe are in the majority in the country and ALL nonmuslims as well. Article 11 is talking about religious freedom for all including Muslims and they are not discussing Islam.The message he sends is, to the ultras, carry on, you have my and Govt. support and to the sane and sobre, do not hope. He has played right into the hands of the fanatics.
By the way, his statement was made immediately after an UMNO meeting and presumably not discussed in the Cabinet.When the PM makes a statement as important as this one, he speaks for the Government and not for UMNO as its president. Have the nonmuslim cabinet clowns anything to say about this or are you running, as usual, with your tails between your legs? For God's sake take a stand for once and if you cannot get a fair decision, walk out of the Cabinet in dignity. You owe it to people you claim to represent and elected you.

KSN statement clearly shows that lacks understanding on Islam. Talking about religious freedom for muslim is infact talking about Islam. Please understand that. I am a professional muslim who works for international bank and not a religious fanatic. I am against IFC in totality. Period. I am not an ultra neither am i a fanatic and I belive most Muslim in Malaysia shares the same view of in general, save for so call liberal muslim, a minority group.

Zagato,
I am definitely glad to know that you are not a fanatic and I hope people like you are in the majority in our country, for the country's sake.It is easy to dismiss "the liberal minority" among muslims as not understanding Islam , I personaly plead guilty of not understanding Islam, but it is their right to understand and feel and conduct accordingly.A difference of opinion which , may I take it,Islam permits.
Have a good day.

ELection kambing soon. Hafto do something to satisfy people like the 6th commenter or else, pooshh Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan and Terengganu. ;)

What a waste of opportunity! Just another act of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sweeping the mess under the carpet for the future generation to address instead?

While forums to discuss Article 11 could be hijacked by many parties with their own selfish agenda, it was as well a great opportunity for the current administration to assure the people of it stand on the true spirit of the constituition. Assure the people that the country shall not be divided between races and creed. Assure that the Article 3 and 11 gurantees the rights of the people. Uphold the social contract written by our forefathers while recognizing when there is a need to ammend it with the consensus of the people. Obviously, the current administration fail to do so.

This act only shows the current administration have a totalitarian tendency.
This act only shows the current administration willingess to ignore the need to address controversial case like Lina Joy.

If the Muslims of this country think this is a victory for Islam, they are simply mistaken. Islam does not need defending. This is the victory for a state government willingness to use religion and emotion to further its agenda and the people willingness to accept it.

I am simply sad for Malaysia today.

Jeff,

I can tell you this. Our dear forefathers: Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, Abdul Razak Hussein and Hussein Onn are currently doing 3500 rpm in their graves.

metters pertaining to islam cannot be discussed because it is full of contradictions. zagato is like that. Works in an international banks that presumably collects interest, which is haram, and at the same time refue to indulge in an open discussion on this religion. I should know. I am a muslim.

The PM is wrong..dead wrong...by having no discussions...he thinks the problems will go away..?? He must be mad.

zagato,

If a non-Muslim husband or wife converts to Muslim and forces his/her children to convert too. The spouse and the children disagree. But do they have a choice right? If the spouse find out too late and his/her children have already been converted, any channel for them to appeal or renounce Islam?

What do you say about this? I think this concerns non-muslims who are forced into Islam, you cannot say it purely concerns Islam anymore and should not be discussed by non-muslims.

zagatok,

mind explaining to us why are you against IFC? I don't know much about IFC (they should have set up a website explaining what they do) but as far as I know, they defend the right of non-muslims who are forced into Islam...I don't think this threatens Islam in away way also.

Sydput,

If you are muslim you are one confused muslim. Better get ustaz to teach you rather than just reading books. I will try to follow and adhere to my religion as much as I can and ask for god's forgiveness where I have failed but what I wouldn't do is to provide excuse whenever I can't.

Please respect muslim's sensitivities on religion. IFC would not make this country a better place, trust me. It will not because it does not reflect the majority.

Francophone,

Muslims are against IFC because it affects Muslim. See below some of the examples.

1) Muslim kids are allowed to choose his/her religion once they turn 18

2. Non Muslim who embraced Islam are free to re-convert to original religion
3. All conversion case will be done by civil court instead of syariah court
4. Non Muslims are not required to convert to Islam if they marry a muslim .
5. Muslims are allowed to apostate if they wish to marry a non-muslim

While the matters above may be trivial to non-muslims, the issue of faith is a mojor issue for muslim as this will also affect the social structure.

Is it me or the post is being hijacked by people discussing religious freedom rather then the failure of the current administration in upholding the law, recognizing the need to clarify the interpretation of Article 11 and 3 as well as to fullfill its promises that was given during the last election?

And why do people still insist on playing the 'majority' card when our democracy is about reaching a consensus? IFC was formally drop as there were no consensus so will you all just let it go?

Beside, history have shown that through the betterment of the minorities, it has provided benefits and the betterment of the society in whole. Why then there are implication to ignore the minorities?

While you lot are still keen on drawing the lines between religion, the rest of us are drawing the lines between the supremacy of the law and those who seek to undermine it.

JEFF OOI says:Please beware that this blog topic centres on the larger issue of governance in terms of compliance to the Federal Constitution in its interlocutory entirety, not selectively.

To be fair, I think matters pertaining to muslims should be under syariah law, the christians under vatican or church of england, the buddhist under tibetan law, the taoist etc and so on. I wonder what law a confused muslim falls under.
When it comes to the constitution, muslims consider this as irrelevant as syariah law remains supreme. So its impossible to discuss the constitution when they regard this as a man made law as compared to syariah, which is from god.
On matters pertaining apostates, it is very clear in the Koran on freedom of faith. Maybe we should start some kind of forum to debate on islam. Only through this can we progress.

Sorry Jeff. My bad.

sdyput,

Christians under the Vatican or Church of England? I think the whole Protestant movement would cry foul again.

It took Yasser Arafat more than 30 years to make up his mind for peace deal with Israel. Yet many "idealist" Palestenian still prefer shed blood than making peace. And not to forget some of the distance "supporter" that reject the peace idea are watching it from a far distance.

Grief may pass, but power craze people will use the idealism to grab power for personnel gains.

Some people may argue, "if not now then when?". Well, it took Arafat more than 30 years, IFC can wait.

Dear Zegato:

"Muslims are against IFC because it affects Muslim. See below some of the examples.

1) Muslim kids are allowed to choose his/her religion once they turn 18

2. Non Muslim who embraced Islam are free to re-convert to original religion
3. All conversion case will be done by civil court instead of syariah court
4. Non Muslims are not required to convert to Islam if they marry a muslim .
5. Muslims are allowed to apostate if they wish to marry a non-muslim"

May I ask, Why not?

To be fair, it should be both ways. And then again its about personal religious freedom not a majoritys' believe.

I may not be the best person to know about this topic but I could say these laws are against individual's religious freedom.

Like it or not, If Anyone whishes to embrace or otherwise a religion for a good purpose, then we should all cherish it with all our heart, not restricting it.

If you or anyone sincerely are against it for certain reasons, Its ok as it might be a religious understanding but dont you think you are disrespecting an individual's decision? Hence disrespecting that person at whole?

I would say IFC benefits both sides & we have to face the good & bad points & iron out the dissatisfaction now. Else it will be a clash of civilisation.

Another point is its not wise to embed religion in the administration of a country. It could provide a fanatic approach to solve even the simplest problem.

I am for all Malaysia - Multi racial & religious country & I support this notion. If we want something badly, we must be able to give as well.

Zegato: Ppl like youself have the right mind to think & so please think globally & dont look back. You should also spend some time to those that have converted out, hear what they have to say as well before commenting.

tjwork:

Your arguments are rationally thought-out and articulated. From a neutral point of view, it makes perfect sense. However, as zegato mentioned, for the majority of Muslims, it is a question of faith. Many are reluctant to discuss it as many are concerned that they are questioning the religious edicts themselves! Take for example in the case of Ayah Pin's Sky Kingdom group. Many syariah lawyers are not willing to defend them due to it being a question of faith. To most Muslims understanding of Islam, having just an inkling of thought that the religion 'is not right, somewhere' can be grounds for apostasy!

sydput,
the freedom of faith that mention in the Quran refer to the non-muslim that they are not force to convert to Islam. Please do not take the phrase out of contact. May be some of you wonder why non-muslim need to conver to Islam if they want to marry a muslim. This is because in Islam, if one's want to get married, both parties must be a Muslim.

To Jeff, sorry for straying out of topic.

We cannot discussed about any article in the constitution because it either affects ketuanan melayu or islam. sigh.

Dear Jeff,

The responses in here shows how much your readers are in need of exchange of opinions on Freedom of Religion and why exactly, there are many who disagree with the PM's announcement that discussions on inter-faith matters should stop.

Whilst we are living as a multi-cultural multi-religious community, that does not mean that we understand each other. How else are we to understand each other unless we have discussions and exchange of opinions like what we have here?

As for Zagato, I respect your stand. But I am unable to understand you and your faith unless we are given a chance to DISCUSS in a rational and peaceful manner. I am sure you are not the sort of people who resort to violence when you disagree with other people's views.

I put DISCUSS in capitals because I want to emphasise that only by two-way communication can views be exchanged. Whether it is accepted or not is a different issue altogether. You can't have communication on ONE-WAY basis.