Mother Allegedly Harassed Over Unilateral Conversion Suit

---

 


One of the 13 plaintiffs in a legal challenge against eight states’ unilateral conversion laws has been allegedly harassed by Johor state religious authorities, her lawyer claimed.
A livid Rajesh Nagarajan told Malaysiakini that Mimi Mastura Abdullah - who contended via affidavit that she was a victim of unilateral conversion when young and never practiced Islam - was visited by five state Islamic religious officers at her home in Kota Tinggi around 3pm this afternoon.
The lawyer said his 33-year-old client had contacted him to reveal that during the visit, the officers from the Kota Tinggi Islamic Religious Council had questioned her over her role in the civil challenge which happens to also target Johor’s unilateral conversion law.
“The first thing they did (after entering her house) was to scold her for not wearing the hijab when she was at home even though she never considered herself a Muslim.
“Then they interrogated her about why she filed the suit. It is unnecessary for them to scold her for filing the suit.
“This is harassment of the highest order. How dare they harass my client. I am absolutely livid. I would think that once a matter was filed in court, then they should just fight it out in court,” Rajesh said, adding that this should not happen as she is a witness in the ongoing civil court action.
The lawyer said what made it worse was that the religious officers then proceeded to interrogate Mimi’s three children - aged between four and nine - about whether the kids know about Islam among others.
“My client sounded very scared when she called me, her voice was trembling when she spoke to me. (According to Mimi) Before leaving, the officers took pictures and video recordings of my client and her children as well as their home,” Rajesh said, adding that her brother and husband were both at work at the time and not at home.
The lawyer said that they will be lodging a police report over the incident, and then they would also file at the High Court (Civil) in Kuala Lumpur an application to cite the Johor state government and Kota Tinggi Islamic Religious Council for contempt of court.
Malaysiakini is attempting to reach out to the state religious department for a response over the matter.
On March 3 before the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, Mimi and M Indira Gandhi as well as 12 other plaintiffs filed the originating summons to strike down the unilateral conversion laws of eight states, including Johor.
The plaintiffs seek to rely on the landmark 2018 apex court ruling linked to the case of Indira’s Muslim convert ex-husband, who unilaterally converted their three children without her knowledge and consent.
Seeking to nullify laws
The lawsuit seeks a court declaration to nullify the unilateral conversion laws contained in the state enactments of the Federal Territories, as well as Perlis, Kedah, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, and Johor.
Besides Indira, 48, the other 13 plaintiffs are NGOs Malaysia Hindu Sangam, its former chairperson S Mohan, Indira Gandhi Action Team chairperson Arun Dorasamy, Mimi and another alleged victim of unilateral conversion, and eight citizens from the states.
The other purported unilateral conversion victim is Aisyah Muhammad Ali, 26, while the states’ citizens are P Sathesh Kumar, 45 (Perlis), S Puveneshwaran, 46 (Kedah), A Krishnan, 57 (Malacca), R Sentul Kumaran, 43 (Negeri Sembilan), S Sathy Vel Naidu, 61 (Pahang), M Selvaraj, 69 (Perak), S Sivaprakash, 48 (Johor), and M Ranjeet Kumar, 44 (Kuala Lumpur).
The plaintiffs contended that the impugned state enactments are invalid for contravening Articles 12(4) and 75 of the Federal Constitution as well as the 2018 Federal Court ruling regarding unilateral conversion.
According to a copy of an affidavit in support of the civil action, Aisyah, who is from Ulu Tiram, Johor, contended that she was nine years old when she was unilaterally converted to Islam by her father without her mother’s consent at the Kota Tinggi Islamic Religious Council.
Aisyah also claimed that Mimi was unilaterally converted when she was 10 by her mother without her father’s consent at the Johor Bahru Islamic Religious Office.
Aisyah contended that she and Mimi neither professed nor practiced Islam and followed Hinduism instead.
She referred to the 2018 apex court ruling of M Indira Gandhi n Perak Islamic Religious Department Director and Others, which ruled in the affirmative to the question of “Whether the mother and the father (if both are still surviving) of a child of a civil marriage must consent before a conversion to Islam can be issued in respect of that child.”
Aisyah then listed the eight state enactments that allegedly contravened the Federal Court ruling over the phrase “ibu bapa” of Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which the apex court interpreted as “ibu dan bapa”(mother and father) for the purpose of consent for child religious conversions.
These enactments are Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion Islam (Perlis) Enactment 2006, Section 80 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Kedah) Enactment 2008, Section 105 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Malacca) Enactment 2002, Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 2003, Section 103 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Pahang) Enactment 1991, Section 106 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004, Section 117 of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Johor) Enactment 2003, and the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) 1993. - Mkini

---