Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

I think it is unfair for ACCIN to disagree on this very important issue. The logic of the converting party being denied the right to convert is a callow one. I do not think for a moment that the converting party will be so overcome by guilt that he or she will recant and change their mind.

On the other hand, with effective communication involving all parties, a lot of issues will be put to a rest. An affected spouse may be able to find closure by divorcing the converting spouse. If there are children (and I think this could perhaps be the reason for ACCIN's real objection), then the issue of custody and guardianship can be effectively determined by the civil courts. The converting party can be rest assured that he or she has resolved all outstanding issues as he moves into another way of life.

That would be a win-win situation for all parties.

ACCIN must realise that they are not the only stakeholder in this whole exercise. They must also realise that the non-Muslim party's objection is not so much on whether the converting party is allowed to convert, but rather the inherent difficulty that arises when such conversion takes place.

Conversion by stealth has proven time and again to be difficult and heart wrenching for the non converting party. The rights of the non converting party must be taken into account and properly determined if both parties are to move on with their lives, albeit on separate vehicles.

The PM has, fortunately, got this issue right. I can only hope that the proposed legislation reflects his intention and puts to an end issues surrounding non Muslim conversion.

many thanks
Dipendra A/L Harshad Rai

The need for an amicable settlement :

Since marriage is a privately holy institution, I humbly opine that no other body nor institution should be allowed to come in between this holy union of the two parties getting married and pledging to be for and of one another.

As an amicable solution to this problem of changing religion, therefore, it should also be made mandatory that the parties should also pledge to each other regarding their need to inform the other if any party should decide to change their religion to any other - that is, from the one/ ones which both are known by the other to be following/practising.

Therefore, at the time of saying "I do", it should also be made mandatory and added that :

"...and I shall undertake to inform you in the event I decide to change my religion from henceforth; and, unless you are otherwise informed by me personally, my religion shall always remain the same and there shall be no other party or parties to be allowed to claim on my behalf that I profess any other religion - in all legal and practical matters pertaining to my affairs".

How about that?

Tan Peek Guat

The reason given for their objection is that "the right to convert" should not be denied or be made conditional upon something else. This is indeed the correct universal principle. The problem only arises when this principle is sought to be applied when one wishes to convert into Islam, but not when one wishes to convert into another religion from Islam. That makes the application of this principle selective, and hence unacceptable.

Last week, Nik Aziz said (in essence) that matters of the heart (i.e. faith) cannot be forced upon or regulated. This is again correct in principle. But this principle is not followed, when we have state legislations regulating matters of the heart. Again, it is the selective application of the principle, and not the principle itself, that makes the situation unacceptable, and causes human suffering.

Yeo Yang Poh

Why is there a need for stealth and secrecy in conversion? Is there something sinister? I would have thought I would be joyous and proud with my new found faith and declare it openly.

secondly, no family member should be able to discourage any convert from the conversion if the convert is well advised and spiritually ready in the first place.

Lim Chong Leong

Conversion from one religion to another is a very serious step for most people. The aim and essence of the proposal, as I see it, is to highlight that seriousness by bringing all issues (contentious and mundane) out in the open so that before a new chapter in the life of the convert begins, s/he does not leave any issues unresolved. A clean slate, if you like.

Jason Kay Kit Leon

What I am concerned about now is that this 'right to convert' by non-Muslims should also be accompanied by a mandatory "duty to inform" the married spouse of any future change in religion.

If this mandatory duty is not performed by the converting spouse, then it should act towards the detriment of his own dead body - that it should be given the burial rites according to his religion as at the time of marriage - and that no third party should be allowed to interfere in this determination.

Tan Peek Guat

Dear Chong Leong,

I do not believe that when a non Muslim embraces Islam and the conversion is not immediately made known to the family, there is some sinister plan afoot.

Perhaps an explanation by a convert would best explain that immediate predicament a person faces when he/she embraces the religion. On that note, I ask that you read the following blog which addresses that very issue:
http://pukullima.blogspot.com/...o-you.html

Be that as it may, I am in complete agreement that a solution must be found on the above mentioned though what precisely I have to admit, I do not currently have the answer.

Megat Shaharuddin Merican