You might be interested to read this post found in KrisisPraxis Blog LINK

“Perhaps conceding that on Muslims have a right to use the word Allah results from a misunderstanding of Arabic grammar, that is, the view that Allah is a personal name. Allah, as such, refers solely to the individual Supreme Being whom Muslims (and no other believers) worship…”

CHRISTIAN FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA
(PERSEKUTUAN KRISTIAN MALAYSIA)
Address: 10, Jalan 11/9 Sec. 11, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Telephone: (03) 7957 1278, (03) 7957 1463, Fax: (03) 7957 1457

Email: cfmsia@yahoo.co.uk

CFM media statement on 15,000 Bahasa Malaysia Bibles held by authorities

CFM CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF 15,000 BIBLES

The Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) calls for the immediate release of the 15,000 Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia currently being withheld by the authorities.To withhold the use of the Bahasa Malaysia Bibles is an infringement of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution which gives every Malaysian the right to profess his/ her faith as well as to practice it.

This constitutional right is rendered illusory if Christians in Malaysia are denied access to Bibles in a language with which they are familiar.

This action of withholding the Bahasa Malaysia Bibles deprives Christians in Sabah, Sarawak , and in Semenanjung, a large majority of whom use Bahasa Malaysia, the right to use the Holy Scriptures in Bahasa Malaysia, to practice and profess their faith and, to nourish themselves spiritually.

It is baseless to withhold the Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia on the ground that they are “prejudicial to public order”.  Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia have been used since before the independence of our country and has never been the cause of any public disorder.

Since the 1970s and in consonance with the government’s policies in education and the national language, Christians in Malaysia have received their education in Bahasa Malaysia. To deny the same Christians in Malaysia the right to read and study the Bible in Bahasa Malaysia is thus ridiculous and offensive. In fact, it is this action by the authorities themselves which is an affront to good public order.

We call on the relevant government officials who have neither the authority nor the right to act in this unconscionable manner to explain their action to the church leaders and to the public.

Church leaders and the Executive Committee of the CFM in “An Affirmation to the Churches in Malaysia” (6-8 Sept 1989, the Kuching consultation) and then later in “A Declaration to Churches in Malaysia” (30 January 2008) have stood on their commitment to Bahasa Malaysia  as our national language and have used and continue to use Bahasa Malaysia in the life and witness of our Churches and Christian organizations.

The government and CFM have exchanged letters on this matter previously and we have a written agreement in December 2005 that Bahasa Malaysia Bibles can be distributed so long as the symbol of the cross and the words “A Christian publication” are printed on the front page.

We call on the government to walk the talk of its 1Malaysia policy and vision and not to curtail or impose conditions on the freedom of citizens to worship, pray and read the Holy Scriptures in Bahasa Malaysia. How can the first pillar of the Rukunegara i.e.  Belief In God, be made a living reality in the lives of Malaysians if the government imposes restrictions and conditions on the constitutional and fundamental right of citizens to freedom of religion?

We ask that the relevant authorities resolve this matter promptly and release these Bibles for the use of Christians without any further delay or excuse.

signed

__________________

Bishop Ng Moon Hing,

Chairman and the Executive Committee,

The Christian Federation of Malaysia

Dated :   4 Nov 2009

—————

Relevant Document from the Malaysian Church -

CFM – Kuching Declaration – English 30 Jan 2008.doc

A DECLARATION TO THE CHURCHES
IN  MALAYSIA

CHRISTIANS IN MALAYSIA, together with the rest of the nation, are COMMITTED to Bahasa Malaysia as our national language and have used and continue to use Bahasa Malaysia in the life and witness of our Churches and Christian organizations.

LEADERS OF CHURCHES represented in the CHRISTIAN FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA (CFM) met in consultation at Kuching, Sarawak from the 6th to the 8th of September, 1989 to consider the restriction sought to be imposed by law in various States on the use by non-Muslims of certain words and expressions in Bahasa Malaysia and the increasing difficulties encountered with the relevant authorities  in the publication, distribution and importation of the Alkitab and other Christian literature particularly in Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia.

Having deliberated at length and depth on these matters and their effect on Christians in Malaysia, THE LEADERS OF CHURCHES present at THE KUCHING CONSULTATION wish to declare and assure all Christians that :
1.    the restriction sought to be imposed are contrary to the Federal Constitution and objectionable in law as are the various administrative actions and measures taken to deny access to Christian literature in Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia;
2.    we have a right and are entitled to use the national language, Bahasa Malaysia, in its entirety as with any other language without any distinction on the grounds of differing faith;
3.    all efforts will be taken to inform the relevant authorities and the people who have influence on public policy of our stand and to seek ways to have the restrictions revoked and to pursue a fairer and just implementation of administrative measures in the case of religious material.

WE AFFIRM our stand to continue our use of Bahasa Malaysia in its entirety;

RESTATE our solidarity as Christians in facing together whatever may arise on account of our stand and conviction;

AND URGE all Churches to be vigilant and unceasing in prayers for wisdom on the part of all concerned to amicably resolve this issue and for the maintenance of a united, harmonious and peaceful nation where justice, human rights and human dignity are upheld at all times.

Issued by Leaders of Churches and the Executive Committee of CFM
At The Kuching Consultation, Sept 1989
Revised and released by the decision of the Executive Committee of the Christian Federation of Malaysia on 30th January 2008.

It is bad enough that Malaysian government officials continue to seize and detain the Al Kitab (Malay Bible) at their whims and fancies. It is worse as the government is supposed to have a gentlemen’s agreement dating from the mid 1980s with the leaders of the Malaysian Church that allows the Al Kitab to be used within church premises.

I shall first outline the historical trajectory of this gentlemen’s agreement:

In the early 1980s, the Ministry of Home Affairs banned the Al Kitab (Malay Bible) on grounds of national security. Of course, to avoid the suggestion that the government was victimizing the Church, it lumped the Al Kitab alongside some Malay books judged to be promoting deviant teachings on Islam. For good measure, some communist books were also thrown in to be banned.

The Malaysian Church leaders appealed to the government and a compromised solution was hammered out. There was to be no public display of the Al Kitab in shops, but 8-9 churches were allowed to import the Al Kitab and distribute it to Christians in Malaysia.

In 1986, the government came out with a list of 16 so-called Islamic words that were not to be used by other religions, words like Allah, Iman (faith), wahyu (revelation), nabi (prophet), kitab (scripture), and  solat (prayer). Even the word injil (gospel) was banned. After some discussions with Church leaders, the government reduced the list to 4 words: Allah, Kaaba, baitullah and solat.

Note that while the government reduced the list, it maintained its position that it is the sole authority to decide what words may be used and what may not be used by non-Islamic religions. On the other hand, the Malaysian Church leaders have consistently rejected the authority arrogated by the government to ban usage of these words by other religions even as they continued to talked with the government in good faith to work out an just policy.

Fast forward to the years when Abdullah Badawi was Prime Minister. The government was concerned about challenges brought to the Court about its restrictions to the use of the Al Kitab. It was evidently embarrassed by coverage of this issue in the international media. One result was a suggestion from the government that churches be allowed to use the Al Kitab so long as the symbol of the cross and the caption, “A Christian Publication” is printed on  the book cover.

The  concession from the government amounts to an admission that it has no legal and moral grounds to prohibit the Malaysian Church from using the Al Kitab. This concession also calls to mind the government’s decision to back down from its earlier decision to ban the Iban Bible (Bup Kudus) after vehement protests from East Malaysia.

The government’s requirement for the imprint of the cross and the caption still amounts to religious discrimination. Why should only Christians (and not Buddhists or Hindus) be required to imprint the cover of their Holy Scripture? Nevertheless, the government suggests that the imprint  on the front cover will help weak Muslims who are no strongly grounded in the Islamic faith from inadvertently reading the Al Kitab and coming under its influence.

It was taking into account the sensitivity of the government’s concern that Church leaders agreed to go along with the suggestion to imprint the cross and the caption on the cover of the Al Kitab. Still, it must be insisted that this is a gesture of peace and Christians reserve the right to use the words that the government has banned simply because Christians have been using these words for centuries, long before the Malaysian government makes their usage an issue for their political interests .

There is no end to surprises when one is dealing with the Malaysian government. It did not take long for the government to go back on its word. The past two years witnessed a series of events when government officials seized the Al Kitab and other Christian publications. More disturbingly, these government officials seem to be very high handed and uncompromising, and all too willing to defend their actions even though Christians have no choice but to seek recourse from the Courts.

Some observations:

1) The recent Court challenges initiated by Christians certainly point  to the desperation of Christians in the face of a betrayal by the government. There were some suggestions that the Church take the government to Court when the government first issued a ban in the 1980s. This was a feasible option since the judges then were admired for their fairness and independent judgment even by judges from our neighboring countries. But the Church leaders opted to resolve their differences with the government through quiet discussion, all in the name of peaceableness – Why resort to confrontation if the matter could be resolved in a quiet and respectful manner? Presumably, the Church leaders expected the  Malay officials to honor their verbal commitments. After all, Malays are proud of their saying, “Apa yang tersirat adalah lebih penting daripada apa yang tersurat – What is implied (in agreement) is more important than what is written.”

2) The government never once gave the Church a written statement that acknowledges the Church the right to preach, practice and propagate its faith in the Malay language implied by the fundamental liberties enshrined in the National Constitution. All that they have been giving (especially in meetings called up before General Elections) are merely verbal assurances.

Unfortunately, the Church finds out that these verbal assurances are never good enough. Sooner or later, some official s will simply ignore these verbal assurances and launch a new seizure of the Al Kitab and other Christian publications. Without any written guarantee, government officials feel they have no moral obligations to refrain from seizing the Al Kitab anytime now or in the future. I note that the affidavits submitted by these officials in the current Court cases simply regurgitate the original circulars from the Ministry of Home Affairs that banned the Al Kitab, without giving a hint of acknowledgment to all the verbal agreements/assurances given by some Cabinet Ministers to Church leaders in the past dialogues. In effect, the dialogue and agreements were so quiet that no officials seem to have heard of them!

I wonder if all the government does is just to play ‘good cop and bad cop’ with the Malaysian Church leaders. Perhaps, all their assurances represent just some form of temporary concessions from the Islamic point of view, that is, enter into a temporary truce – hudna - with the unbelievers until the Muslims gather enough strength to defeat them.

3) Since earlier verbal assurances have been disregarded when government officials repeatedly violated the fundamental rights of Christians when they seized the Al Kitab, Christians have to bring their grievances to the Courts. It is unfortunate that Christians no longer share the same confidence they had in the past about the ability of the Court uphold justice and give a fair and independent judgment, even in matters so fundamental as religious rights. But the Church has no choice but to go through the whole judicial process, hoping with feeble hopes that the judges will be righteous in discharging their duties without fear or favour.

4)  Christians may have to reckon with the possibility that the Court might uphold unjust laws by affirming the government’s ban of the Al Kitab. The question is – will Christians then have to adopt passive resistance and continue to use the Al Kitab regardless of arrests and punishment?

More importantly, the ban on the Al Kitab puts Christians on the wrong side of the (wrong) Law. It conveys the  nasty suggestion that Christians in Malaysia must be up to mischief and as such the action of the government is a good preventive action. Unfortunately, given the present ban, Malay readers in the country are unable to read the Al Kitab and come to an informed judgment for themselves.

I think the time has come for the Bible societies to put the Al Kitab online. Such a move will emphasize that Christians are open about what they believe and that they have nothing to hide.  Christian spiritual authenticity will be evident when the Al Kitab as the Word of God is freely shared and this can only impress both ill-informed doubters and curious researchers.

We do well to remind ourselves, that in principle Christians should do all that is necessary to be righteous and peaceable with the government, try  their best to obey the Law (to the extent that it is just) and that includes even some ridiculous laws and government policies (to the extent that this does not lead to injustice towards others), BUT when it comes to upholding the Gospel through God’s Word (represented by the Al Kitab) we will obey God rather than man/human authorities.

——————-

More than 15,000 Bibles in Bahasa Indonesia have been detained by the government this past year.

Herald Malaysia Online LINK

Kuala Lumpur: On Sept 11, Gideons International consignment of 5,000 Indonesia Testaments (Vest) and 5,000 Indonesia/English Bilingual Testaments that Alpha Publisher sent from Jakarta to Kuching were detained by the Malaysian Home Affairs Ministry (Publication).

While in March this year, 5,100 Bibles in Bahasa Indonesia ordered by the Bible Society of Malaysia were also detained by the same ministry.

The reason given for the detention of the Scriptures was because they contain the banned words of Allah, Kaabah, Baitumal and Solat.

“The Borneo Evangelical Church (S.I.B) had written an appeal letter dated Sept 17 to the Home Affairs Ministry in Putrajaya for the release of this consignment. We are now waiting for the answer of the appeal,” said Low Boon Leong, National Field Officer of The Gideons International.

“Even now as the books are detained, we have to pay for the warehouse charges which cost a fair sum of money,” he added. “In the event that we are unsuccessful in this appeal, we will have to send this consignment back to Alpha Publisher in Jakarta,” Low explained.

Rev Wong from the Bible Society of Malaysia said that besides asking the people to pray, the society has written an appeal letter which will be hand delivered to the Prime Minister by representatives of the Christian Council of Malaysia (CCM) and the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM).

He added that there was a high demand for Bibles in Bahasa Indonesia and appealed to the ministry to release the Bibles as soon as possible.

The Christian Council of Malaysia is following up on their appeal to the Malaysian Government to release these Scriptures.

“Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) has been slammed for defying the Selangor state government by confiscating beer worth RM620 at a 7-Eleven outlet in Shah Alam on Wednesday (29 July 2009).”

State executive councillor Ronnie Liu condemns the action as serious defiance of the state government and said action will be taken against those who act without any directive from the state. Apparently, a task force has been set up by the state to come up with guidelines to regulate the sale of beer by the end of August.
Hopefully, the guidelines will ensure that non-Muslims will not be harassed just because some Muslims take offence at what non-Muslims are doing. Still, at the end of the day, we should not need to rely on directives of the state to declare which non-Muslim activity is haram or hallal. Why should non-Muslims need approval from Muslims for their personal life style? The freedom to profess and practice one’s faith as one sees fit is a fundamental liberty enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

Muslims regardless of their personal scruples should be mature enough to accept cultural differences of their neighbors. I would have thought that a tolerant outlook should be natural in a pluralistic society like Malaysia. Unfortunately, it seems to be the case that the Muslim society (or at least officials who claim to act on their behalf) has increasingly shown less tolerance towards people of other faiths. The seizure of beer from the 7-11 shop in Shah Alam is only one incident amidst a disturbing trend of rising incidents of threats and harassment directed towards small time traders who are easily cowed by the Muslim officials.

It is therefore important that we analyze and critique the mindset of these Muslim officials.

We begin with the statement from MPSA: “the sale of all alcoholic drinks including beer will not be allowed at Muslim-majority areas”.

Note that the statement assumes that Muslim majority has more cultural rights than non-Muslim minorities in Muslim majority areas. Once the assumption is accepted, prohibition of sales of alcohol flows logically:

1) The majority population has the right to decide whether a cultural practice is acceptable
2) Muslims are the majority in Shah Alam
3) Muslims decide what is culturally acceptable and prohibited in Shah Alam
4) Muslims cannot accept sales and consumption of alcohol
5) Therefore the sales of alcohol is not allowed in Shah Alam

How do we challenge this argument? We challenge it right from the beginning, that is, analyze and reject the assumption or presupposition of the position of the Muslim officials. We assert that while the argument is logically valid (the truth of its premises entails the truth of its conclusion), nevertheless, the argument is not sound (the argument is valid but the premise (s) is not true) and it therefore rightly rejected).

We begin by asking, “what is this “Muslim majority?” Do Muslims in Shah Alam actually all and one object to the selling of alcohol/beer? There was no survey or referendum done to confirm that the majority of Malays in Shah Alam approve the high handed action of the authorities. Even if the present authorities is elected in the last General Election by the majority, it is illegitimate to conclude that their votes could be transferred to every policy implemented by the present authorities. It is a fallacy to equate a vote in the last General Elections against a corrupt and unpopular government that was thrown out with as a vote for intolerance exhibited by the present authorities.   The truth is “the majority” does not share the same intolerance as the officials. For example, a recent social survey shows that 83% of Peninsular Muslims favor interfaith dialogue when the Prime Minister issued a ban on interfaith dialogue.

Furthermore, even if we grant for argument sake that the majority wants a ban on sales of alcohol by non-Muslims – that is, that proposition (1) is true -  it must be judged that such a decision violates the spirit of justice and democracy. Indeed, political philosophers have consistently warned against granting the majority unqualified entitlement in a healthy democracy. We do well remember the memorable words of John Stuart Mill when he describes a situation where the majority has arrogated so much power for itself that it freely and readily imposes its arbitrary demands onto minority communities as “the tyranny of the majority.” It is a more dangerous tyranny than the tyranny of ancient kings. Ancient kings were basically interested in gathering the material produce of its citizens through arbitrary taxation. In contrast, the tyranny of the majority formulates and implements social policies that incarcerate, suffocate and eventually snuff out the inner spirit and outward cultural identity of the minority.

This grave threat of the tyranny of the majority can only be resisted with two fundamental democratic propositions:

a) The equality of all cultures and religions as enshrined in the Constitution

b) The non-negotiable fundamental liberties for all citizens enshrined as basic laws of the Federal Constitution.

(As a passing note, the fundamental liberties in the Malaysia Constitution are not entrenched under the category of “basic law” (Grundgesetz) or “basic norm” (Grundnorm) – norms that override ordinary ’statute law’ passed by the legislature. Without this special status, our fundamental liberties cannot be guaranteed and in principle Parliament could still rescind them by a special act).

These liberties then are expressed to include the following – i) inner cultural freedom grounded in a clear conscience with freedom for outward expression in thought, opinion and cultural practices, ii) liberty of “taste and pursuits” consistent with our self-chosen lifestyle and iii) liberty to associate with other citizens and organize such social groups to promote fundamental liberties for all citizens.

Liberties should be comprehensive since each culture has its own complexities. No liberty is too trivial either as fundamental liberties exist as a seamless fabric. Finally, liberties should not be interfered with by other people simply on grounds of subjective dislikes or different religious outlook. We can be pretty sure that liberties should be wide ranging and is meaningful only with minimal state interference in the lives of citizens.

Statement (a) suggests that Muslims, majority or not, have no business to limit and interfere with the personal lives of non-Muslims, especially in matter of “tastes and pursuits.” Interestingly, Mill himself cites the issue of pork eating in Muslim countries in his classic political tract, On Liberty:

“As a first instance, consider the antipathies which men cherish on no better grounds than that persons whose religious opinions are different from theirs, do not practise their religious observances, especially their religious abstinences. To cite a rather trivial example, nothing in the creed or practice of Christians does more to envenom the hatred of Mahomedans against them, than the fact of their eating pork. There are few acts which Christians and Europeans regard with more unaffected disgust, than Mussulmans regard this particular mode of satisfying hunger. It is, in the first place, an offence against their religion; but this circumstance by no means explains either the degree or the kind of their repugnance; for wine also is forbidden by their religion, and to partake of it is by all Mussulmans accounted wrong, but not disgusting. Their aversion to the flesh of the “unclean beast” is, on the contrary, of that peculiar character, resembling an instinctive antipathy, which the idea of uncleanness, when once it thoroughly sinks into the feelings, seems always to excite even in those whose personal habits are anything but scrupulously cleanly and of which the sentiment of religious impurity, so intense in the Hindoos, is a remarkable example. Suppose now that in a people, of whom the majority were Mussulmans, that majority should insist upon not permitting pork to be eaten within the limits of the country. This would be nothing new in Mahomedan countries. Would it be a legitimate exercise of the moral authority of public opinion? and if not, why not? The practice is really revolting to such a public. They also sincerely think that it is forbidden and abhorred by the Deity. Neither could the prohibition be censured as religious persecution. It might be religious in its origin, but it would not be persecution for religion, since nobody’s religion makes it a duty to eat pork. The only tenable ground of condemnation would be, that with the personal tastes and self-regarding concerns of individuals the public has no business to interfere” (p. 82).

Mill famously declares that the only interference acceptable is one based on the ‘Harm Principle’. As Mill puts it, “That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (p.12).

Applying this principle would mean that it is acceptable to punish people who drive under the influence of alcohol. Sales of alcohol to minors should also be prohibited. I can imagine a borderline case whereby vendors are advised not to set up a liquor store right next to an existing mosque, not because Muslims are harmed so much as distracted from their worship by wafts of alcohol. But such considerations do not in any way apply in the indiscriminate and callous action committed by the Shah Alam authorities.

Applying the ‘Harm Principle’ obviously requires a nuanced discernment but accommodation to the sensitivity of our neighbors and should not be taken as license for the majority to impose its subjective preferences unto others. As Mill puts it, “the  strongest of all the arguments against the interference of the public with purely personal conduct, is that when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place.”

I shall conclude with a further observation. Applying the principle, “the majority population has the right to decide whether a cultural practice is acceptable” (1) initiates a slippery slide and erosion of fundamental liberties for non-Muslims. Today, sale of alcohol is prohibited because Shah Alam has a Muslim majority. Tomorrow,Muslims officials will extend the prohibition beyond Shah Alam to the whole nation, since “Malaysia is a country with a Muslim majority.” A fortiori, Muslim official will further ban whatever they regard as activities that are even more ’sinful’ and objectionable than sales of alcohol. The consequence of accepting the ‘majority principle’ is the limitation (and violation) of the fundamental liberties of non-Muslims.

I therefore strongly urge the Selangor government to bear in mind how the ‘majority principle’ does more harm than good when drafting the forthcoming guidelines. The guidelines should not be strictly based on the principle that the majority can unilaterally decide what is socially acceptable and should take into account the legitimate interests and rights of the various cultural communities in the country.

Quotations taken from John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and Utilitarianism. Everyman Library (Alfred Knopf,  1992).

————————————

THE SUN LINK

Local Council slammed by State Govt for confiscating beer
Karen Arukesamy

PETALING JAYA (July 30, 2009) : Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) has been slammed for defying the Selangor state government by confiscating beer worth RM620 at a 7-Eleven outlet in Shah Alam on Wednesday.

MBSA officers confisticating the beer cans and bottles in a 7Eleven
outlet in Section 8, Shah Alam on Wednesday evening.
State executive councillor for local government, research and development Ronnie Liu described the action as serious defiance of the state government and said action will be taken against those who act without any directive from the state.

“No local council is bigger than the state government. Nobody should do anything before the guidelines (to regulate the beer sales) are out,” he told theSun today.

MBSA had seized some 70 cans and bottles of beer from a 7-11 outlet at Section 8 in Shah Alam at 4.35pm on Wednesday, despite there being no directive from the state government to do so.

A task force set up by the state was expected to come up with guidelines to regulate the sale of beer by the end of August.

Liu, who sent officers to investigate the matter after being contacted, said the MBSA officers claimed there were “unaware of the status quo” and admitted there had been a “big misunderstanding”.

“The officers have returned the cans and bottles of beer which were seized on Wednesday upon learning the sale is allowed,” he said.

7-Eleven executive director Ng Su Onn when contacted said he was upset with the city council’s actions.

“The state government said there will a task force to come up with guidelines, incorporating views of all parties, for retailing beer in Selangor,” he said.

“Ronnie Liu had made it clear that retailers are allowed to do what they are doing and no action can be taken by the councils,”

“The fact that MBSA acted on its own leaves us retailers confused,” he said.

MBSA had sent a letter to retail outlets on May 13 stating that the sale of all alcoholic drinks including beer will not be allowed at Muslim-majority areas in Sections 1 to 25 in Shah Alam.

The ban of sale of beer also covered outlets in Bandar Baru Sungai Buloh (Section U20) and TTDI Jaya (Section U2).

The state government, however, froze the ban on May 27 until the task force comes up with its findings.

In response to the council’s move, Guinness Anchor Berhad managing director Charles Ireland said: “We believe alcohol producers, retailers and consumers should respect cultural and religious sensitivities in Malaysia. At the same time, we think their rights to go about their own business should also be respected.

“With that in mind, we look forward to the state government’s response to discussions that we have had. We hope it will be fair and reasonable to those with interests in this matter, including Muslims, and individuals whose religion allows them to consume alcohol.”

He said actions that infringe on the lawful right of businesses to trade, exacerbate an (currently) already difficult business environment.

————————————–

First News Update added on 5 Aug 2009

S’gor PAS: Ban alcohol in Muslim areas

MALAYSIAKINI 4 Aug 2009 LINK

Selangor PAS wants the Pakatan Rakyat state government to implement a blanket ban on the sale of alcohol in all Muslim-majority areas.

Speaking at a press conference in Shah Alam, Selangor PAS commissioner Hassan Ali said the proposed ban will only concern Muslims and not impinge on the right of non-Muslims to consume alcohol.

Asked if the move would be unfair to non-Muslims living in Muslim-majority areas, the PAS leader said they would just have to travel further to get the beverages.

Hasan also called on the state government to switch the portfolio of DAP exco member Ronnie Liu, who has “meddled in Islamic affairs.”

He said Liu, who oversees local councils, had misunderstood the ban and therefore overstepped his jurisdiction.

“We are disappointed when certain quarters intervene in our initiatives to control the sale of alcohol among Muslims,” he added.

Decision is unanimous
Hasan said Liu had meddled in an incident in Shah Alam on July 30, when he questioned local authorities and the Shah Alam municipal council (MBSA) decision’s to seize alcohol put up for sale in Muslim areas.

“Besides, PAS Selangor had also received reports about it and his action disturbed and affected the local authorities’ work,” he said.

However, Hasan denied when he was asked whether Liu should be dropped as a state executive councillor.

“No, I don’t want him dropped, maybe shift his portfolio. That would, to some extent would mitigate the problems of the past,” he said.

He contended that Liu (right), as an exco member, can interfere in matters of policy under his portfolio but not in its implementation.

Flanked by Selangor information chief Roslan Shahrir and PAS liaison secretary Kamaruddin Osman, Hasan said enforcement should be streamlined with the Syariah Criminal Enactment (Selangor) 1995.

The enactment, enforced by Selangor Religious Department (JAIS), can now be implemented by the local authorities such MBSA although guidelines have yet to be approved by the state government.

“It has been decided at the MBSA full board meeting that the selling of alcohol in Muslim areas should not be happening, and the decision is unanimous,” said Hasan.

However, this does not necessarily mean that the MBSA board is disobeying the state government.

“It means, it can act on whatever it has decided. The guidelines have been passed and unless the state government steps in and amends it it should be adhered to,” said Hasan.

Non-muslims rights intact
Hasan stressed that the non-Muslims are not are not bound by the local authorities’ ban on alcohol.

“We are not stopping them (non-Muslims) from drinking. We are only stopping Muslims,” he said.

Hasan said the non-Muslims can consume alcohol outside the banned areas. “In Shah Alam, there are many outlets selling alcohol several kilometres from one another. So there is no problem,” he said.

Although Muslims could travel outside banned areas to get alcohol, Hasan said a guideline on it will be included in the draft which will be approved by the state government soon.
In an immediate reaction, Liu while refusing to comment on the matter of his portfolio, said the MBSA officer involved in the alcohol seizure in Shah Alam was an Umno member.
He claimed the officer could be politically motivated when he issued the directive despite being aware that the state government had approved the sale of alcohol in convenient stores until such time it came out with a guideline to prevent Muslims and minors from consuming it.

Liu also said no full board meeting was ever held to approve the ban on alcohol by local authorities.

“There was no such meeting which unanimously imposed a ban on alcohol in Muslim majority areas in Shah Alam as claimed by Hasan,” said Liu.

According to Shah Alam Mayor Mazalan Mohd Noor who was with Liu, the full board meeting referred to by Hasan were “merely discussions”.

Mazalan stressed that Liu had acted within his powers when he asked the enforcement officers regarding the seizure of alcohol.

Mazalan also said the local authority did not have the jurisdiction to seize alcohol from convenience stores unless they are found selling it to Muslims and minors.

Beer-Drinking Model Faces Caning in Malaysia

MySinchew  21 July 2009 LINK and BERNAMA. July 20, 2009 19:45 PM LINK

For Further News Updates, please read below.

————-

Caning for beer drinking has reared its head in Malaysia. Given the jurisprudential logic of Shariah I wonder what is the next ‘offence (s)’ that becomes punishable by caning – or worse.

Today Shariah punishment for Muslims, tomorrow for Dhimmis (Subordinate underclass non-Muslims tolerated under Islamic/ Shariah majority rule).————————–

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – A religious court in Malaysia has sentenced a tearful Singaporean Muslim model to six strokes of the cane after she drank beer in a nightclub, reports said Tuesday.

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, 32, pleaded guilty to consuming alcohol at a hotel nightclub in the eastern state of Pahang last year, the New Straits Times newspaper reported.

“We feel the sentence is fair after going through the prosecution’s argument and since the rotan (cane) is provided for in the law,” Pahang Sharia High Court judge Abdul Rahman Yunus said, according to the paper.

“The rotan is aimed at making the accused repent and serves as a lesson to Muslims,” he added, also fining Kartika 5,000 ringgit (1,412 dollars).

The model, who cried when the judgement was delivered, said she would appeal.

State religious officials could not be reached for comment on the case.

Malaysia, which has large Indian and Chinese minorities freely enjoying alcohol, has a two-track legal system. Civil courts operate alongside state-based sharia courts, which can try Muslims for religious offences. (AFP)

———————–

BERNAMA July 20, 2009 19:45 PM LINK

Model Fined, Whipped For Consuming Beer

KUANTAN, July 20 (Bernama) — The Syariah High Court here Monday sentenced a model to a RM5,000 fine and six whippings after she pleaded guilty to consuming an alcoholic drink in public last year.

In his judgement, Syarie judge Datuk Abdul Rahman Yunus said in the event Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor, 32, from Sungai Siput, Perak failed to pay the fine, she would be imprisoned for three years.

Kartika was accused of consuming a beer at Cherating Bay Lounge, the Legend Hotel in Cherating at about 11.40pm on July 11 last year.

She was charged under Section 136 of the Pahang Administration of the Islam Law and Malay Custom Enactment.

The accused, who cried when the judgement was delivered, said she would file an appeal through her counsel, Mohd Zuki Che Mat Ghani.

Syarie deputy public prosecutor Saiful Idham Sahimi appeared for the prosecution.

RELATED NEWS UPDATES

Update 1 – BERNAMA July 22, 2009 17:57 PM LINK

Model Wants Court To Expedite Whipping Sentence

IPOH, July 22 (Bernama) — A part-time model who was fined RM5,000 and ordered to be whipped six times by the Kuantan Syariah High Court after pleading guilty to consuming beer, has expressed repentance and wants the court to expedite the whipping sentence.

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor, 32, wants to get the ordeal over with as soon as possible so that she may focus on continuing life with her family and two children.

“I will accept this Earthly punishment, let Allah decide my punishment in the hereafter…for now the court has yet to tell me when the sentence will be carried out, so I would like to ask them to hasten it.

“I truly respect the court’s decision…I admit that it’s my offence and not that of others’, it’s not the offence of my parents, not the offence of my other family members,” a teary Kartika Sari Dewi told reporters when met here, on Wednesday.

Kartika Sari Dewi, who has been residing in Singapore for the last 15 years after marrying a local citizen, also expressed disappointment in herself and resignation to her fate.

She added that her husband was aware of her desire to undergo the whipping sentence as soon as possible and respected her decision.

On the RM5,000 fine, she said she had settled it on Monday.

“I want to advise youngsters to learn from my experience, to not repeat my mistake and cause shame to yourself and family,” she said.

Meanwhile, her father Shukarnor Mutalib, 60, said the punishment by the court adhered to the Islamic laws of the country for Muslims who consume alcohol.

“When I found out about the case, I left promptly for Singapore. My feelings on the matter was shock, because this is a big matter,” he said.

He said his daughter was given adequate care and religious lessons and the the incident had taught her a very useful lesson.

Yesterday, her lawyer Mohd Zuki Che Muhamad Ghani had said that she would not be appealing the sentence.
————————————-

Update 2 – BERNAMA. July 22, 2009 20:56 PM LINK

Syariah Lawyers Association Regrets Shahrizat’s Statement On Whipping Of Model

KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 (Bernama) — The Syariah Lawyers Association regretted the statement by Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil on the Syariah Court decision to whip a model for consuming liquor.

Its deputy president Musa Awang said the statement was a challenge and insult to the Kuantan Syariah Court.

He was also replying to a similar statement by Titiwangsa Member of Parliament Dr Lo’lo Mohd Ghazali.

Musa said Judge Datuk Abdul Rahman Yunus made the decision based on provisions of the law.

“Any unhappiness with the Syariah Court decision must be made via procedures provided by law,” he said in a statement here Wednesday.

Shahrizat said she was shocked by the Syariah Court decision and called for a fair and just punishment.

Dr Lo’lo was surprised that whipping of women was sanctioned by the Malaysian syariah law adding punishment should be educational, and not to cause hurt.

Musa said although whipping for women was not allowed by civil courts, Islam did not differentiate between men and women offenders.

“Their rights and punishments are the same according to Syariah law and in the eyes of God.”

“Although the two leaders intention was to defend women, they should understand the whipping methods according to Islam.”

He said the whipping implemented by Syariah Court was different from that done by Civil Courts.

“Whipping procedures in Pahang are spelled out in detail under section 125 and section 126 of the Syariah Criminal Procedure Enactment 2002.”

Musa said a rotan or small branch should be used for whipping and that it sholud be not more than 1.22 metre long and not more than 1.25cm thick.

Whipping would not be done on pregnant offenders and would only done two months after delivery. It must not hit the face, head, stomach, breast or private parts.

“It must be done using moderate force. The punisher should not raise their hands over the head so as not to injure the skin.”

He added offenders health should be checked by government health officers who should also be present during whipping.

SACRILEGIOUS ACTS BY UNBELIEVING SPIES IN CHURCH:

IGNORANCE CAN BE FORGIVEN BUT MALICE MUST BE CONDEMNED

I have just been asked what I think of the recent event in which two journalists from Al Islam surreptitiously joined a worship service in a Catholic church, supposedly to verify if there are Malay Christians in the church. LINK1 Malaysiakini; LINK2 (Nutgraph); LINK3 (STAR).

In general I have no problem with Muslims coming to churches to spy on us. Indeed, we Christians welcome all visitors and that includes spies who harbor ill feelings and mischievous intent towards us.  After all, it is only when people hear the good news being preached that they then realize the need to receive freely God’s healing grace and salvation. Hopefully, even spies may be positively impressed and return the good will that should be evident in an ambience filled with Christian love and fellowship.

We need however, to note that the act in which the two Muslims took communion and spit off the host (bread) is not acceptable to Catholics. Catholics will be offended by such an act of sacrilege (given their doctrine of transubstantiation).   Hmm – I wonder whether they managed to spit out the wine served in the communion.

The question is whether these Muslims acted out of ignorance or out of malice. By malice I mean an act intended to belittle or insult Catholic worship or incite prejudice or hatred from their readers. We can make a conclusion on their motive based on how they report it in Al Islam.

If they acted out of ignorance, it is reasonable that the Catholic Church demands an apology from these Muslims. If the journalists from Al Islam admit that they have acted out of  ignorance, the Church will accept their apology.

But if their reportorial piece shows evidence of malice – a deliberate insult, belittling an object deemed holy by the Catholics – that is disseminated in the media with no hint of regret, then I think it is fair that a police report be made with expectations that the authorities bring these people to task. A deed (however awful) done in private and kept in private may be addressed in private. But a deed done in public and publicised as such demands a public response.

I am confident that the Church remains open to any sign of regret from Al Islam and will be magnanimous enough accept any apology that is conveyed with an assurance that such a deed will not be repeated in future.

There is no need to demand a legally entitled pound of flesh even though the Penal Code allows for it. As the STAR (13/07/2009) reports, “It is learnt police have classified the case under Section 298A (1) of the Penal Code for causing disharmony, disunity or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing harmony or unity on religious grounds.  If convicted the duo could be jailed from between two years and five years.”

I would like also to put on record that many of us disagreed with the severe punishment introduced when the Penal Code was amended in the mid-1980s since the provisions can easily be abused by authorities to suppress freedom of religion based on all sort of vague notions about acts  “causing disharmony, disunity of feelings or enmity etc”. Indeed, the Penal Code can even be used against reformers within different religions who speak up against abuse of power by incumbent authorities within their own religious tradition.

In short, the Penal Code as it stands denies believers of all religions of their liberty of conscience. However, this is a different matter from what Al Islam seems to be doing when it publicizes the covert activities of its journalists.

Anguished mom knocks on PM’s door
S Pathmawathy |Malaysiakini Apr 17, 09 2:09pm LINK

Her three young children were forcefully converted to Islam by her estranged husband. And M Indira Ghandi is taking her plight straight to the doorstep of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Calling on newly-minted Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to explain the matter, the 35-year-old kindergarten teacher said: “He talks about an united Malaysia. But what does this mean when only the Muslims have rights.”“I am not anti-Islam and I am not saying that they (Muslims) are doing wrong things but why do non-Muslims have to suffer like this?” she asked as tears welled up in her eyes.

Indira’s marriage is now is a limbo after her husband, K Patmanathan, 40, converted without her knowledge on March 11.

She claimed that her husband, who has since assumed the name Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, had also converted their three children – aged one to 12 – on April 12 without their presence and using only their birth certificates.

“He took my baby (their youngest child) from me and ran away… I have not seen her ever since and I don’t know how she’s doing,” lamented Indira.

As for her marriage, the teacher, who also claimed to have been physically abused, said the couple were married for 16 years and had been facing problems for a long time.

“It started so many years back that I can no longer keep track of when it started.

“Recently he asked for a divorce and I thought to myself that since that was what he wanted, I consented but he did not want to start the process and demanded that I do so.

“So I went to a marriage tribunal and filed for counselling in Ipoh but he never attended any of the counselling sessions,” she said.

Indira claimed that after one particular explosive argument, which also involved her mother and sisters, her husband fled with their youngest daughter, Prasana Diksa.

“When we went to the police station and lodged a report, no immediate action was taken although my baby was still very young and needed to be breast-fed,” she said.

Since that incident, Indira has filed six police reports, with one alleging that she feared for her life because her husband had threatened her.

Indira said the police managed to locate her husband later but only to discover that he had converted the children.

‘I don’t know what to do’
The couple’s two other children – Tevi Darsiny, 12 and Karan Dinesh, 11 – are currently living with Indira, but both have sought refuge with a relative fearing that Islamic officials would take them away.

“I was neither told nor asked about it (the conversion)… I don’t know what to do,” she lamented.

According to Indira, her husband had called her last Wednesday and promised to return her youngest child.

“He asked me to come to the Islamic Department (Jais) in Ipoh and collect my baby because he could not care for her. But he didn’t show up.

“Instead, there was a man waiting there to serve me papers from the Syariah Court granting custody of my other children to him,” she said.

However, she refused to accept the papers as she believed that syariah laws had no jurisdiction over her.

As for her husband’s conversion, Indira said he had spoken about his interest in Islam but she claimed this was related to monetary gains.

“I have no idea what his intentions are… but he mentioned once before that we will get RM5,000 each if we ‘nikah’ (marry according to Islamic rights) and money would also be given on a monthly basis to each of our children for education purposes.

“Over the past couple of days, he kept calling me and asked me to convert to Islam. He told me that I should convert first and then we, as in the whole family, can opt out later and go back to Hinduism,” she said, adding that she wanted to remain a Hindu.

‘I love my wife very much’
Contacted later, her husband dismissed Indira’s allegations as absurd, saying he converted because he was passionate about Islam which he had discovered during his business trips.

Denying that he had physically abused her, Mohd Ridzuan said: “I don’t want to say anything but I love my wife very much… right now, I only want her back.”

Asked why he had converted the children without informing his wife, he replied: “You see, all the children must follow the father’s religion no matter whether he is a Hindu, Christian or Muslim.

Indra Gandhi, “This is not a political issue, this is my family matter and I don’t want to shame my wife,” said the businessman, who has filed for custody of the children with the Syariah Court.

Meanwhile, Indira has sought the help of several legal advisers, non-Muslim organisations and the public.

“This is not only my case, many people are suffering because of this. We are filing for the custody of my children because they don’t want to go to their father, and they (the other party) are rejecting this.

“But the question is even if I can get back my children, will they be Hindu again? Why does it only take a day to convert my children but it is so difficult to return to their old religion?” she asked.

“Don’t I have say in it, when I was the one who carried them for nine months… aren’t they my children too? What exactly is my right and my children’s rights?

“The government say this is a country where it is free to practice your own religion but what is the right of a non-Muslim in this situation?” she asked.

——————————————–

Children’s conversion: Rulers’ help sought

Malaysiakini LINK
S Pathmawathy | Apr 22, 09 6:45pm
An embattled Hindu wife whose three children were converted to Islam by her estranged husband is seeking the intervention of the Conference of Malay Rulers to solve the matter.

She would be seeking the rulers’ help through the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) which said today that it would approach the rulers to help solve the predicament of the mother, M Indira Ghandi.

Council president A Vaithilingam said the council would be writing to the Keeper of the Rulers’ Seal requesting that the Conference of Malay Rulers intervene in this particular case.

“The rulers are responsible for the religion of Islam in their respective states and the King is responsible for the country.

“As we are all their subjects, so we call upon the rulers to see that there is justice and fair play for all of us,” he said.

The inter-religion affairs council – which held a two-hour meeting this morning with 35-year-old Indira – expressed their disappointment with act of the syariah court in Perak which granted custody of her three children to her husband without her knowledge.

“The children were born to a couple married under civil law, therefore until the civil court has decided on a divorce, if there is one and on alimony and custody, the children cannot be converted,” said Vaithilingam.

“The conversion of the children, to us, is illegal as we believe that all those who are below 18 years of age should be allowed to decided on their faith only when they old enough,” he added.

Children’s schooling affected
Indira’s plight came about after her husband, K Patmanathan, 40, converted to Islam without her knowledge on March 11 and kept it a secret until an argument between the two exposed the matter.

In an exclusive interview with Malaysiakini, Indira recounted how her husband had snatched their one-year-old toddler Prasana Diksa from her during the heated argument.

She said he then fled along with a bag containing the birth certificates of their two older children, Tevi Darsiny, 12, and Karan Dinesh, 11, as well as documents pertaining to her educational qualifications.

VaithilingamIndira claimed that her husband, who has since assumed the name Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, had then converted the three children on April 12 without their presence and using only their birth certificates.

Her husband then attempted to pass her the syariah court notice granting him custody of the two older children but failed as Indira refused it accept it. The two older children are staying with Indira.

Redzuan had then sent the notice to the children’s school and succeeded in halting Indira’s efforts to transfer the two older children to another school.

“The way things are going I don’t know if this (case) is going to be the last,” lamented Vaithilingam.

“Indira is living a nightmare and she is in fear as she is expecting them (the Islamic Affairs Department officials) to take her children away from her,” he said.

‘Promised so many times’
When the issue hit headlines last week, the cabinet appointed a five-minister committee to find an amicable solution as there are no clear guidelines under the law pertaining to the conversion to Islam of minors born in a civil marriage.

The ministers tasked to look for a long-term solution are Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Department Koh Tsu Koon (Unity), Jamil Khir Baharom (Islamic Affairs) and Nazri Abdul Aziz (Law and Parliament) as well as Human Resources Minister Dr S Subramaniam and Women’s, Family and Community Development Minister Shahrizat Jalil.

Vaithilingam, who met the five ministers yesterday, said they told him that they were sympathetic to Indira’s predicament and gave their assurance that it would be solved soon.

“But this assurance has yet to materialise[...]we don’t want to reconvene again with another man or woman who has become another victim,” said Vaithilingam.

He reiterated the MCCBCHST was not against Islam but stressed that the conversion process should be more stringent in tandem with the reform of existing family laws.

“We were promised so many times that there would be reforms to family laws to ensure that such a situation will not reoccur. Yet here we are again[...]no attempts have been made to make the changes although there has been a lot of talk of reform,” said Vaithilingam.

He said grey areas under the law dealing with conversion should have been resolved ever since the controversy following the death of famous mountaineer M Moorthy, popularly known as ‘Everest Moorthy’, who was buried with Muslim rites despite his family’s claim that he had not converted.

Fast solution needed
The council appealed for a fast solution to resolve Indira’s matter as the pressure had taken a heavy toll on the young family.

“Frankly, since the council had been formed in 1983, we have achieved very little,” said Vaithilingam adding that he hoped that Indira’s youngest child, who is with her father, would be reunited with the mother.

————-

Additional Relevant Report – Conversion row: Hindu Sangam turns to new cabinet S Pathmawathy | Malaysiakini Apr 17, 09  LINK

Baby converted to Islam 7 Apr 2009  LINK

Translation by Sharmila Valli Narayanan editor@thenutgraph.com

Baby’s conversion

The Hindu baby’s conversion into Islam without her mother’s consent is brewing into a potentially explosive situation in Ipoh. In a press conference, M Indira Gandhi revealed that her husband used to beat her and tried to force her to convert to Islam, but the mother of three refused. One day, she said, her husband came into the house, beat her up and then took away their baby daughter.

Tamil Nesan first reported the story on 4 March. The story was buried on page 6 and headlined Husband beat and tortured me. Wife Indira Gandhi lodges police report. The story focused more on the husband’s abuse, and there was no mention of the baby’s conversion.

But the next day, Makkal Osai and Malaysia Nanban carried the story on its front page. Eleven-month-old baby converted to Islam, read Makkal Osai’s headline; while Malaysia Nanban’s report was titled Conversion of child: mother’s worst fears come true. Tamil Nesan reported the story on page two as Husband converts baby. It was puzzling why the paper, which first broke the story, did not highlight this fact when it had a chance to.

Makkal Osai reported that the incident has shocked and angered Hindus in Ipoh. “I have lodged three police reports about my husband’s beatings and how he is forcing us to convert to Islam. Nothing was done,” said Indira.

Accompanying Indira to the press conference were Sungkai state assemblyperson A Sivanesan and Ipoh Barat Member of Parliament M Kulasegaran. The two described the father’s act of forcefully taking away the child from the mother and converting her to Islam (without the mother’s consent) as “cruel”.

They demanded for the father to be arrested immediately, and for the police to launch an investigation into the affair.

You may visit my other blog to read my response”:Krisis & Praxis LINK

A shorter version is also published by the SUN on 17 March 2009 LINK

COMMENT: Is this a religious-quarantine country? Just look at the fretfulness/nervousness displayed by Malaysian Islamic authorities as they lurch about blocking all manners of potentially bad influence (perceived or otherwise) that might fall upon Malaysian Muslims! Is it the case that Muslims cannot mount a calm and rational defence of their faith or that Islamic culture just cannot compete with other cultural influences in a free and open society or that somehow Muslims are just so weak that they must be protected all the times from undue influence?

In any case, they have no business banning activities that are essentially carried out by non-Muslims for non-Muslims.

“… anyone found playing the song can be fined up to RM1,000 under the Non-Muslim Religious Enactment 1988.”

Wow! At the moment, the ban is on playing the song. Whether MAIS’ interpretation can be defended in a court challenge remains to be seen, and obviously I think it is against our Constitutionally guaranteed religious liberty. More importantly, we should not miss the underlying principle invoked to justify the ban and the threat of a fine – it is that non-Muslims can be punished for uttering ‘Allah’. In principle this would mean every Malay speaking Christian could be fined for singing in Church hymns  that contain the word ‘Allah’.

MAIS Wants Agnes Monica’s Song Declared Haram LINK

MySinChew.com 13 March 2009

SHAH ALAM: The Selengor Islamic Council (MAIS) wants action to be taken to declare haram an Indonesian song entitled Allah Peduli (Allah Cares) because its lyrics, among other things, says “…sebab Allah Yesusku mengerti (…because my Allah Jesus is meaningful).”

MAIS chairman Datuk Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa said although he has not heard the song, it is appropriate to declare it haram considering that the song touches on sensitivity that affects the question of religion.

“In Islam, our belief in Allah does not have the same meaning as god which is worshipped other than Allah and Prophet Muhammad is his messenger, it is clear that we acknowledge Allah is One, therefore a prohibiton of the use of Allah by other religions is to avoid confusion among Muslims” he told reporters here Friday.

He was asked to comment on the songs by Indonesian singer Agnes Monica. In that song, the word Allah is repeated several times and the words ‘because my Allah Jesus is meaningful’ is heard in the final verse of the song which runs for 3 minutes 40 seconds.

“There is among us who do not understand the lyrics and sing it blindly. The lyrics affect our faith unconsciously,” said Mohamad Adzib.

He said MAIS will declare the song haram and will withdraw all albums in circulation that contain this song to scrutinise it.

“We are asking the relevant authorities at the Federal level to monitor and take appropriate action to protect the sanctity of Islam,” he said. (Bernama)

———————–

Selangor bans Indonesian song containing ‘Allah’ LINK
By Neville Spykerman

The Malaysian Insider 17 March 2009

SHAH ALAM, March 13 – The Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) has now banned the Indonesian song ‘Allah Peduli’ (Allah Cares) because of the word Allah in its lyrics.

MAIS chairman Datuk Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa said today the song by Indonesian singer Agnes Monica used the word ‘Allah’ when referring to Jesus Christ and anyone found playing the song can be fined up to RM1,000 under the Non-Muslim Religious Enactment 1988.

Mohamad Adzib said the word “Allah” was repeatedly used in the song and the lyrics ended with words “Tak akan pernah dibiarkannya ku bergumul sendiri sebab Allah Yeses ku mengerti.”
He said under the enactment, action can be taken against non-Muslims for using ‘Allah’ to describe their God.

This latest move comes just a day after MAIS threatened legal action against the Bar Council for conducting two online polls on the usage of  ‘Allah’ for non-Muslims, under the same enactment .

It was reported that the council was consulting their legal advisers on the appropriate action to take against the Bar Council.

Mohamad Adzib said the ban is in place to prevent Muslims from being confused.