Religion goes with compassion
By: (Tue, 03 Jan 2006)
http://www.sun2surf.com/articlePrint.cfm?id=12475
Race and religion are two subjects that tend to be extremely touchy. So it is hardly surprising that the country's laws place strong restrictions on their open discussion.
Wrongly handled, these contentious issues can inflame public opinion, with serious consequences for the nation's peace and stability.
The mass media have been mindful of these points for a long time and would rather leave these issues untouched than allow the remarkable tolerance that has been the hallmark of our society to be disturbed in any way.
In addition to the constitutional caveats on questions touching on these two subjects, there are also laws against sedition, and various other pieces of preventive legislation that are meant to
pre-empt the airing of ill-considered opinions that may reverberate through our communities. So there are many reasons why we should not discuss the case of the late commando L/Kpl M. Moorthy, whose widow Kaliammal Sinnasamy is questioning the legality of his conversion to Islam, despite the Syariah Court ruling that it is valid.
In addition, it would be prejudicial to the cause of justice to discuss the High Court ruling, which Kaliammal is appealing, that it has no jurisdiction over the case, since the Syariah Court has accepted Moorthy's conversion.
The point that needs to be made however is far removed from any legal issue. Rather, it concerns the social environment in which we live and how issues that involve inter-communal relations are handled.
For all our sakes, and the harmonious development of our society, we must turn away from narrow, hardline approaches that rob the spirit from the letter of our respective scriptures, leaving us with empty dogma.
Such attitudes, ironically, discredit the spirit of universality and compassion that draw humanity to seek solace in religion.
To walk in the path shown by the leaders of the world's great religions, we should evoke a sense of humility in ourselves, so that what we believe to be correct may be in tune with the wisdom of our religions.
In this spirit, we hope that the members of Moorthy's family can come to terms with the circumstances that they have suddenly found themselves in.
And for the officials on whose shoulders rest the public's confidence in the justice and compassion of our religious institutions, we hope that their judgment reflects as far as humanly possible the unfathomable will of the Almighty.
===
非回教徒的困境updated:2006-01-04 19:18:37 MYT
http://www.sinchew-i.com/commentary/index.phtml?sec=9&sdate=&artid=200601042442
登山英雄（我选择使用这个俗气的形容词来称呼他，因为他究竟是家属口中的莫迪，或是官方记录中的莫哈末阿都拉，已经无从争辩）虽然已经埋葬地底，但是这个国家的宪法和宗教问题，从他下葬那一刻起，却彷如从地底冒了出来。
摆在眼前的两个问题∶回教法是否已经成为国家至高无上的法律？非回教徒的权益是否已经被侵蚀？
当民事法院的法官宣判说，他对本案没有审判权，因为回教法庭的判决，已经是最后的决定。
用简单的语言来诠释，一位民事法庭的法官，承认回教法庭的地位凌驾民事法庭，并且将决定权让予回教法庭；这个结果，替第一个问题提供了参考答案。
由此进入第二个问题，案中的主角，其真正的宗教归属有很多疑点，譬如他是否真正皈依回教？如果已经皈依，却没有遵守回教的规定，是否叛教？
或者，假使他曾经皈依，但在生命中的最后日子，他祭拜兴都神明，依循兴都教徒生活，是否说明他已经脱离回教？
此外，死者遗孀是百份百的兴都教徒，作为一位非回教徒，她入禀民事高庭，却没有获得审理的机会，而她又没有资格向回教法庭上诉，因此她虽然是身份完整的公民，却没有得到法庭应该给予公民的保护，她的权益受到侵蚀，也成为事实。
登山英雄的案件，给了我们一个相当悲观的答案。在现阶段，这也许还是一个参考答案，然而，如果政府没有采取改变措施，而非回教徒社会麻木接受，那麽答案将会随著时间演进而确定下来。
登山英雄的案件，不是第一宗，也不会是最后一宗。如果大家不善忘的话，几年前一名皈依回教的父亲，把两名孩子带入回教，导致孩子的母亲失去抚养权，当时法庭也声称对那位非回教徒母亲的遭遇无能为力。
之前，更有一名私下皈依回教的华裔人士，在他死后，他所有的财产都转归州回教理事会，而他的非回教徒家属一分未得。最后在政治斡旋下，州回教理事会才将部份财产“捐赠”给他的家属。
在回教优先的环境下，一旦涉及回教问题，非回教徒就要面对问题和挫折；而在宗教属於“敏感”课题的思维下，非回教徒缺乏一个发言和争取权益的平台。
联邦宪法121（1a）条文在1988年被修正，规定民事法庭不能介入回教事务，使到回教法庭地位大为提升，这是问题的根源。当下非回教徒应该争取修改121（1A）条文，恢复非回教徒应有的保障。
此外，在皈依问题上，也应该要有比较透明和完整的程序，因为这不只是当事人的选择，而也影响到他的非回教徒家人。
在马来西亚，我们曾经引以为傲的是多元开放，互相尊重的价值；这是马来西亚最值得珍惜的资产，把它摧毁，肯定是最愚蠢的做法。
星洲日报／情在人间?作者∶郑丁贤?2006/01/04
（作者言论不代表星洲日报立场）
No comments:
Post a Comment