COMMENT | PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang’s bill was not the only evidence of the ongoing deceptions played on non-Muslim communities that we have witnessed in this sitting of Parliament.

While it did not surprise me one bit that the Islamists' agenda would find a way through procedural legerdemain to raise its malicious visage in this sitting of Parliament through an airing of Hadi’s bill, I was extremely upset that the amendments to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 was postponed for “refinements”.

“Extremely upset” is a rather twee expression considering the deep anger I felt that this issue of unilateral conversion was not resolved because the Islamists in this country want to steal minors in the name of religious and racial supremacy. This is a fact. There is no other reason why this issue was not resolved and the reality is that nobody in support of unilateral conversion has attempted to provide an alternate rationale to this agenda. Indeed, proponents of unilateral conversion have relied on the theme of religious and racial supremacy in support of this agenda and have twisted the constitution of this country and played up racial and religious sentiments to bolster their arguments.

They have relied on the state security apparatus to enforce their will contrary to the rulings of civil courts and have had the overt approval of the ruling hegemon to carry out this agenda, all the while promoting the idea of a “moderate” Islam. There is nothing moderate about unilateral conversion. When people ask me, why I am so “obsessed” about “Islam” and why I consider this issue the existential threat facing this country, I ask them to think about this for a moment. Let us take the issue of unilateral conversion. Islamists like Hadi and the numerous other peddlers of hate like to remind us that their laws do not affect non-Muslim communities.

We are told that we are bullying the Muslim community by arguing for rights applicable to all. We are warned that our secular trespass into their religious domain would lead to violence. Unilateral conversion is the corrosive truth that it is the Islamists who would invade our scared domain of family in the name of their religion. When you convert a child unilaterally to Islam, you are denying that child the right to choose his or her religion.

Faith by fiat is what I call it, with the onerous obligation that comes with a state-sanctioned religion. This non-Muslim child is suddenly converted, thus becoming a Muslim and thus subjected to Islamic laws, and the narrative that only Muslims are subject to Islamic laws is exposed for the lie that it is.

Please consider two points that I made last year when discussing unilateral conversion as a means of cultural cleansing -

1) “What unilateral conversion does, and we should be clear that this involves Islam as the Islamic (sic) minister is wont to remind everyone, is rob the child of the right of his or her religious freedom. This has far-reaching consequences in Malaysia because race and religion have legal obligations along with the so-called special privileges that places a Muslim in the harsh glare of federal and state Islamic authorities.

2) “If an adult wishes to place his or herself under such obligations, then it is their right to do so, but a parent unilaterally deciding to convert a child without the consent of their partner is not only morally reprehensible but should also come with legal consequences, preferably jail time with a couple of stokes of the rotan.” Now do people understand why I consider the Islamist agenda the existential threat facing us as a people?

Death knell

This brings me to other establishment’s fabrications. When Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi claims that these refinements are not backtracking from the government’s political will of protecting non-Muslims interests, this is total bull manure. This is exactly what the Umno establishment is doing.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with non-Muslims “interests”. These are “rights” guaranteed under the constitution. These are secular rights meant to protect every citizen of this country. Secondly, what does it say about the religion - Islam - when non-Muslims' interests have to be protected? Ipoh Barat MP M Kulasegaran raised the alarm bells when he warned, “I understand there are powerful people who want the bill to be withdrawn at all costs, come what may.”

The honourable representative from Ipoh Barat was correct but these powerful people made their intentions pretty clear. Was it not Islamic affairs minister Jamil Khir Baharom who claimed in his written parliamentary reply that “any legislation to ban unilateral conversion is unconstitutional”. So why this charade of attempting to refine the amendments by Umno politicians?

When Islamists like Hadi, thundered, “PAS is of the view that the overall implications which may arise from (amendments to) Act 164 is very serious, namely on rights of Muslims to practice their religion and defend their faith with no interference from any parties, as enshrined under the federal constitution”, it was the death knell of these amendments.

I want people to think about this. These amendments were to “to prevent abuse by Muslim convert spouses who convert their children to Islam without the knowledge of the partner”. What do Islamists think of these amendments? People like Perak mufti Harussani Zakaria think it is an insult to Islam.

In other words, preventing a parent from deceptively and arbitrarily changing the religion of a child, is considered an insult to Islam. Here is a profile of Muslim convert who apparently is not an insult to Islam - “Let us take, the most recent unilateral conversion case, that of S Deepa. Jamil Khir wants us to understand that the party (sic) protected is someone like Muslim convert, N Viran @ Izwan Abdullah.

“An alleged domestic abuser, a known kidnapper (this according to Tourism and Culture Minister Nazri Abdul Aziz), a man who has reportedly admitted that he converted to Islam to enjoy special privileges and in an instance of extreme self-pity and display of blame shifting, exclaimed, ‘If this is how it will be, do they want me to go back and drink ‘arak haram’ (liquor)?’”

Let me be very clear. The malicious attitude of the federal government in not making these amendments is nothing short of an attempt at religious and cultural cleansing. This is the existential threat that faces us, and this will not be the last we hear of these criminally converted stolen children.