Kudos to COA for brave, humane ruling in wedlock case

COA: Child conceived out of wedlock can bear father’s surname

Anonymous_1421806811: In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that a child conceived out of wedlock can take on his or her father’s surname, and that the edict on this by the National Fatwa Committee does not have the force of law.

We should commend the judges’ decision. In this age where the weak and the poor are always being suppressed by people who take to playing God, this decision is refreshing.

The importance of keeping a father’s name is extremely important in Islam, especially in but not limited to adoption cases.

It is sad that this Quranic injunction is seldom followed: “Call them (the adopted children) by (the names of) their fathers; it is more just in the sight of Allah.

“But if you do not know their fathers – then they are (still) your brothers in religion and those entrusted to you.

“And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but (only for) what your hearts intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 33:5)

Hang Tuah PJ: My adopted son asked his sisters why he carried a different father’s name, “bin Abdullah”, compared to them.

He is a very quiet kid, and always very angry and abusive. At family gatherings, he keeps to his own and he walks with a perpetually bowed head.

The National Fatwa Committee must enjoy torturing these children and making them pay for their parents’ sins.

I also noticed that Malays prefer not to adopt such children. My son was offered to two childless Malay couples, and one even said that they didn’t want a bastard child. My late Malay mother-in-law told me that adopting such a child will be “panas” for my marriage.

I eventually adopted him even though I have my own children. We do live in a weird world nowadays, where religious people play God and dish out their own version of punishment to the innocents.

And, by the way, at least he has citizenship, unlike many non-Muslim children whose parents are fighting it out in court with the National Registration Department (NRD) for their stateless children to be given citizenship.

Maybe this verdict might help future cases.

Yellowhero: “A fatwa or a religious edict issued by a religious body has no force of law, unless the fatwa or edict has been made or adopted as federal law by an Act of Parliament,” Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli stated.

Well said.

Bravemalaysian: This is an excellent judgment from a brave and learned judge. Otherwise, there would be children born prematurely at 21 weeks who would be considered children born out of wedlock, which does not make sense.

And worse, fatwas have usurped the powers of Parliament and made a mockery of the Constitution.

Vgeorgemy: We hope the little Napoleons will obey the constitution and comply with the ruling accordingly.

This is the time we need to reflect on our authority, which derived from our beloved secular constitution. Kudos to the members of the judiciary, who have acted without fear or favour.

Fair Play: As they say, there are still a few good men around. So, it seems this also applies to the judiciary. Not all is lost yet for the nation.

P Dev Anand Pillai: Finally, some sense, and the NRD can now stop behaving like some moral or religious police department. Well done to the family’s lawyers.

Wira: This is a good and courageous decision. Nowadays we often find the Court of Appeal having more gumption than the higher Federal Court to come out with such landmark decisions.

Gov’t takes ‘child conceived out of wedlock’ case to Federal Court

Tan Kim Keong: The government and the NRD has filed an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court over the Court of Appeal’s landmark decision that children conceived out of wedlock can bear the surname of the father.

Why is the government taking this case to the Federal Court when there is rectitude in the Court of Appeal?

The decision of the Court of Appeal is judicious. So what is the motivation of the government in appealing the decision of the appellate court?

Freethinker: I suggest to all that they should read the judgment. It is sound and humanises the situation, unlike certain quarters who want religion to creep into our robust multicultural society.

Protect our Constitution and protect our diverse society. Extremism has no place in Malaysia.

Guyintheglass: Why is the government appealing this? Which part of the judgment is erroneous or is this another one of those “save face” appeal?

The Observer: This shouldn’t even have been an issue if the government had not allowed its administration to be tainted by religious rulings.

Vgeorgemy: The NRD is wasting its time, which should have been spent solving the thousands and thousands of outstanding registration matters in the department.

If NRD is using the taxpayers’ monies and time for the case, it shall be a crime against humanity. Shame on them.

SIS: Decision on out-of-wedlock child in line with Islam

Freethinker: His son, his religion. Why does a government entity put so much of interest in this? First or not, let him answer to his god.

Focus on the 1MDB scandal and find out the truth. People’s money is at stake. Our livelihood is at stake. Are we and our next generation going to pay for all the missing money in one form or another to cover the hole?

Rick Teo: It boggles the mind why would the government appeal when the decision was a fair one and in the interest of the child born out of wedlock?

Is Islam not a compassionate religion? Why punish the child who has to go through life with that blemish when it is no fault of his?

The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.

These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.