MUSLIM YOUTH MOVEMENT OF MALAYSIA (ABIM)
PRESS STATEMENT
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 ones 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 ones 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. Lims 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 ones view over the others or an opportunity to demonize other
religions.
KHAIRUL ARIFIN MOHD MUNIR
Secretary General
Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM)
Sekretariat ABIM Pusat
Anjung Rahmat
Batu 6, Jalan Gombak
53100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-6188 0300
Fax: 03-6189 6700
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
