Yoursay: Perkasa, M’sia is guided by the constitution, not Quran

Perkasa: Ruling on child conversion not based on Islamic interpretation

Vijay47: “The Federal Court’s verdict on the unilateral conversion of a child to Islam runs contrary to interpretations of Islam”?

Well, well, isn’t that just too bad for you, Perkasa? In case you don’t know, as you and your friends indeed don’t seem to, this country is guided by our constitution, not the Quran.

However, nobody is preventing you and your friends from being inspired or led by the teachings of your religious texts, but not to the extent that similar adherence is demanded of non-Muslims also.

You suddenly want to preach about the sanctity of religion, but it appears that this includes Muslims resorting to criminal actions when court decisions do not go their way.

And M Indira Gandhi’s lawyer M Kulasegaran’s comments about the impotency of Parliament and the cabinet is now a provocation against Islam?

This subtlety of jurisprudence you now display surely must be in line with the “insult against Bugis” principle set recently.

Lamborghini: I salute the judges for their clear and correct judgment. In this country, the Federal Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. And the Federal Court judges have interpreted the case in the spirit of the constitution.

By questioning the ruling and implying that the judges are not knowledgeable in Islam and need to be educated by the Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim), Perkasa is insulting the learned judges and being in contempt of the court.

David Dass: Yes, we are a constitutional democracy. Our rights and our freedoms devolve from the constitution. We are all equal citizens and freedom of worship is a guaranteed right.

A Hindu mother does not lose her rights over her minor children because her husband decides one day that he wants to become a Muslim. The courts have now ruled that her consent to the children being converted to Islam is required. A conversion without her consent would be illegal.

It does not matter what the four schools of Sunni Islam say. Non-Muslims are not bound by those schools.

And the suggestion of kidnappings, religious provocations and disharmony have the flavour of threats. The police should investigate this.

The rule of law must prevail. As for educating our judges – the quality of the judgment speaks for the learning of the judges. It also speaks for their courage and independence. The mother had to wait almost 10 years for justice to be done.

Anonymous: First of all, the judges made their decision based on the constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Secondly, the decision makes complete sense, as a father can game the legal system by merely converting to Islam and consequently obtaining superior rights over a non-Muslim wife. It also deprives the children of the right to choose their religion of choice when they reach the age of 18.

Islam is a religion that supports justice. The Federal Court decision is the correct one, consistent with the principle of justice.

If the decision is going to cause provocation or kidnapping et cetera, then those who commit such acts are obviously not religious persons and must be prosecuted.

Anonymous #44199885: Ridiculous statements continue to be made by those who are simply unable to accept that minorities have rights in this country and that these rights cannot be abrogated by a spouse covertly converting to another religion and conveniently avoiding fulfilling his/her marriage obligations.

This crucial point is being purposefully and willfully avoided from the conversation and instead the narrative being driven is these extremists pushing an agenda of their version of Islamic principles with no room for justice for non-Muslims.

Are non-Muslims second-class citizens? Are we to live our lives only at the behest and whim and fancies of Muslims?

Are we to be forced to practise our religious beliefs, our culture, our heritage and our values only with the sanction of the Islamic authorities?

Anonymous_1388029052: Court decisions should reflect the views of Malaysians and not just the spirit of Islam. Otherwise, it would mean that the judges are swayed by their religious convictions, which is totally against fair play and rule of law.

Judges sit on the bench to serve all Malaysians, and not a section of the people.

Tholu: Although the constitution says that Islam is the official religion of the country, it does not mean Malaysia is an Islamic country. The constitution allows for the people to freely practice the religion of their choice.

Therefore can I say that that judges and magistrates who are not knowledgeable in Hinduism or any other religion other than Islam also be briefed by the Malaysia Hindu Sangam or the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism in civil cases?

Raja Chulan: Indeed, our Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. As the judges rightly pointed out, even Parliament cannot amend its provisions if it would change its original purpose and spirit.

Any other laws (including state laws) that run contrary to the Federal Constitution are therefore null and void.

Islam is merely the prescribed religion of the federation, nothing more. The practice of religion (Islam or any other religion) is a personal matter and does not impinge on the law of the land.

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.