No compassion in court’s conversion judgment

YOURSAY l ‘Surely the wife has a lawful grievance and the civil courts must provide her with a remedy.’

Certificate conclusive proof of conversion, say judges

Kim Quek: The majority judgment read out by Justice Balia Yusof Wahi is fundamentally flawed because he mistook the crux of the issue as whether the relevant Islamic authority’s declaration of a conversion to Islam can be challenged, whereas the true issue is whether the process through which a person is converted to Islam has violated the Federal Constitution.

In other words, the dispute, in this case, is not whether the certificate of conversion issued by the Perak Islamic authority is valid or not valid; rather, it is whether the manners in which Indira Gandhi’s children were converted had breached the Federal Constitution.

The facts of the case indicate that the Federal Constitution was indeed breached, in particular, Article 12(4) and (4) which effectively stipulate that conversion of children under 18 can only take place with the consent of the parents.

This is a typical case where two jurisdictions intersect, caused by the conflict of religious interests between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, whereupon, such cross-jurisdictional dispute must be settled in a civil court, and not a syariah court.

We must realise that the syariah court is always subordinated to the civil court, for the simple reason that syariah laws are state laws which derive its legal legitimacy from the Federal Constitution (the supreme law of the country); and who can interpret the Federal Constitution, if not the civil court?

Indira is right to appeal to the Federal Court, where such fundamental error must be rectified to set a precedence so as to stamp out future recurrence of such unnecessary disputes which have caused so much dissension in the past.

Roy69: This is flawed judgment bereft of legal substance, and I will tell why.

The certificate of conversion was issued to minor children who were not Muslims. Being a minor, the consent of the parent is a necessity - that means the consent of the non-Muslim mother too.

Failure to do so is a fundamental breach of not only the Federal Constitution, but also the Guardianship Act, Child Act and Law Reform Marriage Act.

The registrar of mualaf (converts) has no powers on non-Muslims and being so has no judicial nor quasi-judicial powers. Thus the civil courts have the powers to quash an illegal or a void act exercised by the registrar.

Basically: It doesn’t matter whether there is a certificate or not, that is a technical matter. It is shocking our judges do not recognise the concept of equal right of both parents and age of consent, which is absent here.

It also rubbishes the ruling that since the marriage was made under civil laws, it must be heard in the civil court. This reflects very badly on our judicial system.

David Dass: How can it be right and just for a mother to be denied her right to determine the religion of her children in this manner?

How could it be right for the Hindu father to alter the religion of his Hindu children without the mother's consent after his conversion to Islam?

Is it right that that non-Muslim wives will lose their ability to complain about the wrongful acts of their once Hindu husband when he converts to Islam?

Is it right to allow a Hindu husband to escape his duties under law to his Hindu wife and his children by simply converting to Islam?

How can it be right to hold that the civil court loses jurisdiction when the husband converts to Islam and converts his children to Islam without the consent of his wife?

Surely the wife has a lawful grievance and the civil courts must provide her with a remedy.

Rakyat Malaya: Syariah courts are mere state courts established by state law, and under the Federal Constitution these state courts do not enjoy the same status and powers as the high courts established under the Courts of Judicature Act.

Indeed, the civil high courts have supervisory power over syariah courts just as high courts have supervisory powers over other inferior tribunals like, for instance, the industrial courts.

Vijay47: It is frightening to learn of the principles our judges are guided by in reaching their decisions.

What protection can a non-Muslim cling to when judges forsake the Constitution to provide light in their search for justice and instead preach of the supremacy of syariah law?

What assurance can a non-Muslim obtain of a judge's wisdom when the judge trawls the Internet for insights into religion to decide on the sanctity of the Constitution?

Balia Yusof Wahi, who I cringe to view as a judge, ruled that the certificate of conversion was conclusive proof of conversion.

That miserable piece of paper means nothing, not when the real issue was whether minor children born of Hindu parents can surreptitiously become Muslims by the unilateral actions of one parent choosing Islam as his religion.

The father's conduct was shameful and the connivance of Muslim agencies in abetting him was as contemptible as it was cruel. As to the Court of Appeal's decision, I cannot find words to express my revulsion.

Open Minded: Indeed, forget about the 35-page majority judgment, or for that matter, the 74-page minority judgment.

Let us look at a human point of view in a compassionate and loving manner which all religions claim is the main focus of their teachings. -Mkini