IPOH.com.my Photo Gallery BIZ Net My Classifieds Property Maps Car Mart Hotjobs2u.com

Web ipoh.com.my

Hot JobsMy ClassifiedsBidValley AuctionsIpoh DatingAutomobileIT NewsPerak WatchReal Estate
Go Back   Ipoh Community Forums > Spiritualism > Understanding Islam
User Name
FAQ Googlemap ME Vb Music Members List Calendar vBRadio Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-03-2016, 11:41 AM
piic's Avatar
piic piic is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 147
piic is on a distinguished road
Default Seek An Amicable Solution To Problem Of Conversion

Referring to the posting by Bar Council at its website, regarding Deepa–Izwan’s case at the Federal Court, and the judgment passed by the apex court, it is evident that the Bar Council, and others who support its views, have failed to give a thought to the core aspect of a most important matter. They are only concerned about the mother’s rights and her feelings towards her children. All these people have failed to take into consideration the biological aspect of parenthood. Were the children born like Jesus – without the involvement of a male partner, the father? If so, the whole right to have the children by the mother, is undeniably unquestionable! But, Nature has designed otherwise – except in the case of Prophet Adam and Jesus. For children to be born, it takes 2 parties – the husband and wife. Thus, logically and naturally, both the mother and father have equal rights over their children.

It is said in Islam that ‘Heaven for children lies at the feet of the mother; and the gateway to that Heaven is the father' – implying, both the father and mother have equal responsibility in bringing up the children; and therefore have equal rights.

In a case of separation, if the children are given to only one party, where is justice? Just because the apex court, taking into consideration the rights of both parties; and the love and feelings of both parties towards their children, and over a very justifiable, unbiased judgment of ‘give the child to whom it likes to live with’, the Bar Council and others cry ‘foul’! Would it be fair if both children were handed over to Deepa, leaving Izwan in anguish and despair? If only Deepa’s feelings and rights were to be considered, what about the feelings, love and rights of Izwan – who was equally responsible for the birth and upbringing of the children? Has that to be totally discarded? What sort of justice would it be then? Would it be fair? Come on, Bar Council! Set aside your prejudiced views, and think straight and fairly. Would any of you agree to part away with your children, in case of some misunderstanding with your spouse?

The judgment by the civil court of giving custody of both the children to Deepa, not taking into consideration the role of the father in the birth and upbringing of the 2 children for quite a number of years is certainly against the law of Nature; and not justifiable in the view of any right-thinking person. Evidently, it is because of this, the apex court has set aside the verdict of the High Court and granted a very fair judgment.

Federal Constitution was drawn up by man. Man is fallible. So, the constitution drawn then, would be perfect, and suitable to all times. In fact, it has undergone many changes, to suit the time and need. Shariah laws are not so. They were formulated by God – the Supreme Being; the All-Knowing. It is suitable for all times, as acknowledged by great scholars and thinkers of all religions. So, evidently Shariah laws would naturally supersede Constitutional laws. Wherever, there arises a doubt, it is Shariah laws that has got to be considered foremost, since the Federal Constitution itself says that ‘the religion of the Federation is Islam’.

Instead of showing bellicosity and blindly criticising the most plausible and just verdict by the wise men of the Federal Court, it would have been very wise if the Bar Council had suggested an amicable solution by which both parties would be pleased and satisfied, by consulting the Muslim Lawyers Association and the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association.

It could be suggested that the person intending to convert, must inform his/her spouse; and if the spouse wants to follow suit, then there would be no problem. If not, the spouse cannot be forced, because Islam says: “There is no compulsion in religion”. Then, an amicable and satisfying agreement must be sought by consulting all the 3 relevant bodies -- Bar Council, the Muslim Lawyers Association and the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association.

There is nothing wrong in Izwan’s snatching of his son, and leaving. It is his son – his own flesh and blood. He is not snatching anybody else’s child. He is merely taking his right. This is not in any way a crime.

If at all, the country’s laws have to be changed, as Deepa has pleaded, the changes must be in conformity with Shariah laws, because ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation’ – as the Federal Constitution says.

Last edited by piic : 01-03-2016 at 11:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT +8. The time now is 11:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Copyright Ipoh-Online Sdn. Bhd. (411730-W) 2006