Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this

By labeling the recent protest against the Article11 forum in Penang as 'mob rule' and accusing me of 'ignorance, prejudice and dishonesty', Martin Jalleh, in his article , has conveniently ignored the object of the Article 11 road show, which was the reason for the protest.

The object of the road show is to bring the Shariah courts under the control and supervision of the secular civil courts, a position that existed from the British colonial period until the amendment of the Federal Constitution in 1988.

It is to put pressure on the Federal Court to interpret the Constitution in a way to negate the 1988 amendment and lower the status of the Shariah courts. Article11, in its petition, accuses our judges of abdicating their review powers 'largely due to an ill-conceived amendment to the Constitution in 1988' and calls on them 'to uphold the Federal Constitution'

The road show is a clever way of trying to influence the judiciary. These secular crusaders want the Federal Court to declare that our secular courts can hear apostasy cases involving Muslims, and cases involving non-Muslims reverting to Islam, which are now within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shariah Courts.

Therefore, the forum was not 'meant to discuss ways of protecting the constitution', as Martin Jalleh claims, but to subvert it. It is to oppose the Shariah on such matters. Hiding behind the call for the supremacy of the Constitution to relegate the status of the Shariah Courts cannot fool the Muslims. Thus, who is guilty of 'prejudice and dishonesty'?

The petition states that judges have declined to adjudicate on pressing issues simply because they involved some elements of Islamic law, leaving litigants without remedy. This is in reference to the reversion cases of Moorthy, Shamala, and the apostasy cases of Lina Joy and others. In the apostasy cases, it cannot be said that apostates have no remedy. They can always apply to the Shariah Courts.

The reversion cases raise issues concerning the genuineness of a person reverting to Islam, burial rights, custody of children and property rights of non-Muslim next of kin. Under the Federal Constitution, the Shariah courts have no jurisdiction over non-Muslims. As a result of the 1988 amendment to the Constitution, the High Courts have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts.

Therefore, when a matter within the jurisdiction of the Shariah courts involves the interest or rights of a non-Muslim, there appears to be no avenue for him/her to obtain relief by participating in the judicial process as a party. This is certainly unacceptable and must be rectified by creating mechanisms where a non-Muslim party can appear and present his/ her case for adjudication. There have been several suggestions in the media to resolve this problem and I understand the Attorney General's Chambers is studying it.

If Article 11 is genuinely concerned about non-Muslims having access to the courts in reversion cases, it could have put forward proposals to the AG, acceptable to both Muslims and non- Muslims. Going on a road show to put pressure on Parliament and the judiciary to downgrade the Shariah courts is foolish and counterproductive. Pitting secular law against the Shariah will only inflame the feelings of Muslims.

Muslims are not averse to dialogue with non-Muslims concerning Shariah and the problems in a multi-religious society. The recent call for dialogue by PAS, JIM, Abim and Perak Mufti Harussani Zakaria is a move in the right direction. I am glad that Suaram and Hakam have welcomed this initiative.

ADS