NECF Malaysia "For Your Intercession" No. 63 – December 8, 2006 www.necf.org.my
The Burial Dilemma
He died of diabetes in Kuala Lumpur Hospital on 29 Nov 2006.
His Mykad still says Rayappan A/L Anthony, does not bear the word “Islam” and lists his religion as Christian! His temporary identification document issued by the NRD testifies this. His immediate family members, with whom he had lived for years, confidently affirm it. How else should a dead person prove that he died as a Christian?
Yet, the Selangor Islamic Affairs Department (MAIS) wanted his body for a Muslim burial believing that he died as a Muslim, while his own grief-stricken wife had to fight to give him proper funeral rites. Another legal brawl on whose right to the body after the controversy of M. Moorthy’s case!
It was reported that Rayappan converted to Islam in 1990 to take a second wife, a Muslim woman. His name was changed to Muhamad Rayappan Abdullah. He then renounced Islam through a Deed Poll in 1999 at the National Registration Department (NST, 1 Dec).
On 1st Dec, Shah Alam Syariah High Court granted MAIS an ex-parte order to claim the body (subject to the endorsement of Federal Territory Syariah Court). The order was later revoked for a review. Subpoenas were issued to the daughters to testify on their father’s religious status. Although they did not show up at the court, it has raised the very question: Can Syariah Court subpoena non-Muslims to attend its proceeding?
Laywer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar purportedly said that “the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court is strictly delineated in the Constitution as being only for Muslims” (NST, 8 Dec). Some opined that the onus of proof lied with the Islamic authorities (i.e. to prove that the deceased did not died as a Christian), not with the Rayappan’s family (i.e. to prove that he died as a Christian).
Lim Kit Siang, the Parlimentary opposition leader, commented that such injustice rooted in the 1988 amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution (theSun, 6 Dec). Some lawmakers and lawyers also observed that the clause 121(1A) must be clarified, taking into account the extent of Islamic law under 9th Schedule List II of the Federal Constitution. Earlier in August, the government had declared that it had no intention to review Article 121.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Rayappan has filed a suit against the Kuala Lumpur Hospital and the government at the Civil High Court, seeking a declaration that she was the lawful wife and her husband died as a Christian. The case has been fixed for hearing on 11th.
The matter was also brought up at the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. The Cabinet interfered and decided that the Attorney General should determine the deceased’s religious status (NST, 7 Dec). The case took an abrupt turn thereafter.
On Thursday, MAIS dropped its claim citing not having “enough evidence to back its case” (NST, 8 Dec). The body was then released to his Christian family for burial. The withdrawal inevitably drew criticism from several Syariah lawyers and politicians.
Muhamad Burok, the president of Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association, was reported to have said that the action was embarrassing, “If you lacked evidence from the beginning, if that’s not an abuse of process of court, I don’t know what is…” (NST, 8 Dec). Some MPs felt that cases like this could have been dealt with administratively without having to involve the Syariah court. Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, an MP from Kota Baru, believed that the much contended Interfaith Council proposal (which was intended to resolve issues like Rayappan’s) would be able to give appropriate advice (theSun, 7 Dec). Others perceived that MAIS’ imprudent action had somehow tarnished the image of Islam.
While we praise God that Rayappan’s case is resolved, many are still wary over the manner the constitutional provisions are interpreted. Is the present legal system sufficient to safeguard the rights of Malaysian citizens of other faiths in a legal entanglement such as this? Must the Cabinet interfere whenever a similar incident occurs?
As long as there are overzealous religious authorities, as long as the article 121(1A) is not clarified, the dilemma of the dual-legal system remains.
Continue to pray for:
- The grieving family: peace and comfort of Christ; continue to draw strength from God for He sustains them (Ps 40).
- The Judiciary & Attorney General: justice and righteousness to prevail; uphold individual’s religious freedom; and interpret laws wisely.
- The Religious authorities: respect civil law as supreme law of the land; have compassion on family members who have lost their loved ones.
- The government: be opened for an interfaith council as mechanism to deal with inter-religious matters; be willing to review Article 121.
|
