|
PRESS STATEMENT
MUSLIM YOUTH MOVEMENT OF MALAYSIA (ABIM)
13 APRIL 2007 | 25 RABIULAWAL 1428H
No to IFC, Yes to Dialogue IFC is not meant for
Interfaith Dialogue
ABIM views with grave concern the call made by the
Opposition Leader Mr. Lim Kit Siang at the
Parliament on Tuesday urging the government to set
up an Interfaith Council. Although the majority of
Muslims objected to the earlier proposal to form an
Interfaith Commission, a fact that is well known to
Mr. Lim himself, he argued that sensitive
inter-religious issues will be resolved with the
formation of such a council. His view on this matter
implies that the IFC is the only means to promote
inter-faith dialogue and that the Muslims' objection
to its formation lacks valid justification
Our objection to the formation of such a body, as
well as the reasons why we objected, was well
documented. However, constant calls made by the
non-Muslim politicians and religious leaders for the
formation of such a body on the ground that it will
promote inter-religious harmony through dialogue and
protect the constitutional rights of the non-Muslims
only serve to cast Muslim organizations opposing to
such a move in bad light. We therefore reiterate our
objections on the following grounds:
IFC is not a mechanism for Interfaith Dialogue. It
is meant to be an institution that promotes a one
sided view about religious freedom, which its
proponents claimed to be based on "prescribed
international norms", without rooms for
disagreements.
IFC started on a wrong footing. Our representatives
who sat on the multi-faith committee which was set
up to discuss the formation of an inter-religious
council in early 2001 was appalled by the incessant
calls by the proponents of the IFC, most of them
were members of the Human Rights Committee of the
Bar Council, for a review of the constitutional
provisions which restrain a Muslim from converting
to other religions. Being insensitive to the
reservations from the representatives of Muslim
organizations, they presented cases on the
application for apostasy, which they lost, and urged
others to support their call. This confirmed our
view that they were not there to hold dialogues but
to promote and impose upon others their own view
about freedom of religion, especially the right of a
Muslim to apostatize.
IFC is set to interfere with matters internal to
one's religion. It is a seemingly "inter-faith" body
with a strong urge to criticize, condemn and make
unsolicited recommendations on intra-faith issues
beyond juristic competence of its members. This is
glaringly evident by the actions of its proponents,
including the non-Muslims, who continuously
condemned basic tenets of Islam for which they have
no competence to do so. Allowing such condemnation
to take root in an "inter-faith" body will only do
more harm than good in our efforts to promote
religious harmony.
There had been deliberate attempts by the proponents
of the IFC to selectively put forth constitutional
provisions which seem to be supportive of their view
about the unbridled freedom of religion and discard
others which are not in their favor in order to
substantiate their arguments. And yet, they claimed
to uphold the Federal Constitution. In the National
Conference Toward the Formation of the Interfaith
Commission of Malaysia organized by the Bar Council
and a host of other organizations in February 2005,
there were heated arguments on why Article 11(4) of
the Federal Constitution, which limits the
propagation of religious beliefs among those
professing the religion of Islam, was not mentioned
at all in the draft Bill for the proposed
Commission. Despite legitimate claims that the
organizers should take Article 11(4) into
consideration in drafting the Bill, the general
atmosphere of the debate during the conference had
been to condemn the Clause 4 of Article 11 for
restraining one's right to unbridled freedom of
religion. Although the constitutionality of the
draft Bill was seriously questioned, it was finally
adopted by the Conference. Now we ask, which
Constitution that the proponents of the IFC,
including Mr. Lim Kit Siang, are adamant to uphold?
To us, this is just an example of "selective
constitutionalism" adopted by the proponents of the
IFC as a strategy to promote sectional interests.
We call on Mr. Lim Kit Siang to stop making
assertion that the IFC is the only mechanism for
interfaith dialogue and hold others at ransom to
accept such assertion. We also call on the
Opposition Leader to take into consideration the
views of the majority of the Muslims who are against
such a proposal when making statements on the IFC
and other related issues. We really want to see that
Mr. Lim and his Democratic Action Party truly
promote the interests of all Malaysians regardless
of race and religion. Reading Mr. Lim's statement in
the Parliament on Tuesday, as well as that of his
other colleagues participating in the parliamentary
debate on that day, we could not but conclude that
the Opposition Leader and his party had not made
much progress in this regard.
We believe that meaningful interfaith dialogue could
only be held when all parties to the dialogue have
sincere intention to promote understanding and
harmony among different religious communities. It
should not be an avenue for imposition of one's view
over the others or an opportunity to demonize other
religions.
KHAIRUL ARIFIN MOHD MUNIR
Secretary General
Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM)
|
