Malaysiakini.com（http://www.malaysiakini.com）
The non-Muslim spouse's options, 22 April 2008
by KJ John
It is said marriages are made in heaven; but many do not believe in this theology! Many prefer to build and develop marriages entirely on earth and let them breakdown, and then find the easy way out, especially in Malaysia, by "converting to Islam."
Thereby taking on new wives, in the plural that is, as if their new-found way preaches and promotes this reality. Nothing could be further from this untruth. I had a former boss in the public services who first educated me on this untruth about marrying many wives; even from an Islamic point of view. Within Islam, marrying more than one is permitted on condition that the husband can "treat each of his wives with dignity and respect as a divine and equal creation of God."
My boss told me, for him, this was impossible because even with his children he favored one over the other; reflecting human weaknesses; what more with spouses who are completely another. Even for those of us who have only one wife or husband, like the majority of us, it is tough enough to treat each like equals in every way. This is the very human frailty, if we care to admit it.
The hot issue and debate being promoted by the Pak Lah Administration is to begin to deal with non-Muslim spouses who, after their civil marriage, decide to convert to Islam and marry more than one wife, for males. Usually this happens with husbands but with the women’s liberation movement; one cannot rule out wives doing the same thing, although limited to one. The particular cases are the Moorthy and Subashini cases of fame. In the Moorthy case it was his purported conversion before death.
The Pak Lah Administration says they are going to amend the Civil Marriages Act to make it compulsory for the spouse to seek "family acknowledgment before any new marriages or such conversions are allowed." Wait a minute! Are we now qualifying the Civil Laws of Marriage with a Syariah-compliancy requirement, in reverse? Is that now a back-door way of meeting with the Islamisation rules? Since when did Civil Law of the Federation of Malaysia have to comply with Syariah law of the Malay States’ as a requirement?
I have always argued against this back-door way of Islamisation in Malaysia. Malaysia is and will always remain a secular state unless the constitution is amended. On this issue, some among the older leaders in PAS are more honest and frank about their Islamic State Agenda; but those in Umno, appear to prefer the back-door entrance. Scriptures declare that only thieves enter the home by the back-door. I believe that the younger and more reason-oriented and educated members in PAS and PKR will be willing to dialogue all such issues without any pre-conceived notions. Not so, with the backdoor entrance intellectuals from within Umno, at least until today.
Cannot have it both ways
Malaysia is a civil law federation, with state laws providing for Syariah under their own jurisdiction, and for Muslims only. One cannot therefore have it both ways. But as Prof SH Nasr used to say, the sacred defines and includes the secular.
Therefore, like with the views of Minister Bernard Dompok, I find the current public policy proposal very problematic. Obviously also, it was not yet been discussed as a Cabinet issue. I assume that the PM’s statement is traditional style public policy announcements to test the waters of their ideas. Mine is simply one response to it. I agree with the simple logic of the Catholic Minister from Sabah. What God has put together through Church and Civil Law, let no man or women put asunder in human law. Of course this is the Christian view and position. In short, if there is a Civil or Common Law pronounced marriage, then the same common law must annul the marriage before the person can "re-marry."
In fact, in very strict Christian interpretation, divorce is never really condoned. The simple logic is that person must legally return to being an individual status first before he can consider "his conversion to becoming a Muslim," and only then can he or she consider marrying a Muslim spouse within Syariah law provisions. Only then is it an issue of merely the individual and from a truly private and personal perspective. Alternatively, it remains and issue of the family perspective, or always from the public perspective; as the family is the larger reality, not just the male or the father or any one spouse alone. To me this is only rational and logical. How can the one spouse ignore the other spouse within the common law marriage and "opt out of the whole system" by simply playing to a new and different set of rules?
Even if the notification principle is adhered to, it remains absolutely necessary that all role responsibilities of the earlier marriage must become enforced before the spouse is released into the new relationship. Moreover, only the "authority that allowed the marriage can now disallow it." Unless this is done, how will the other parties ensuing from the marriage become protected?
Therefore, I strongly agree with the view expressed by the Minister from Sabah and would equally insist that unless the first marriage is properly and appropriately annulled, the new marriage is not merely an issue of informing the relevant families, but more so about ensuring that the rights and privileges of the first marriage are equally, if not more, protected. Some clear and right thinking about this is needed. Maybe a clearer minded new minister of law is the right person to help think this issue without further compounding the core issues. The Bar Council can surely help the Minister on this.
Mishandled religious issues
I believe that non-Muslims, in the large main (except for Sabah and Sarawak) voted against the Federal Government of the day, particularly because of so many mishandled religious issues. Whether it was body-snatching or unfair decisions about the civil law marriage in favor of a Syariah-law marriage or conversion, the core issues relate to the role and privileges of non-Muslims in Malaysia.
To the Sabahans and Sarawakians, of non-Muslim backgrounds, this is neither a simple nor straightforward issue. To them, their racial heritage is not defined by the Federal Constitution. They have been Iban, Malanau, Bidayu, Kelabit, Kadazan or Murut long before the 1957 Constitution of Malaya. To them, they may become "bumiputera" but never a Malay, as the so-called racial definition.
Especially in the interior areas of Sabah and Sarawak, I am told, the various communities all live together, regardless of their religious orientations and preference. Unlike in Peninsular Malaya, they are not as "religion-conscious" in defining their sense of communities. The issues are not less pronounced in Malaya but there is now a more modern sense of "religious-fervor" which appears to highlight this new face of religious thinking more than ever before. But, to my view, much of it is only surface level, until people become emotional.
Consequently, it is very important and critical for "much more serious inter-religious dialogue" before any draconian one-party interpretations are installed. My advice to the relevant policy makers is to have a thorough and serious dialogue about these issues and find solutions that address the majority and do not seek to satisfy the minority who scream the loudest. Maybe the government of the day, at the Federal level, must start with the thought that every Malaysian’s rights and privileges are protected and preserved by the Federal Constitution. Each must be heard and understood.
There is no singular superior race or ethnicity, as I have argued before in the article about the five layers of being Malaysian. Unless we deploy such thinking, it may be futile for a new and vibrant Malaysia to evolve. May God continue to bless Malaysia through this time of searching and uncertainty.
(End)
