KUALA LUMPUR: An ethnic Chinese Buddhist family was appealing to a Malaysian high court Tuesday, seeking to overturn an Islamic court ruling that found their late father had converted from Buddhism to Islam, prompting his burial as a Muslim.
The family of Gan Eng Gor said a Shariah court was wrong in ruling he had become a Muslim shortly before his death.
“We want a declaration that he is not a Muslim. Our main intention is to seek justice, not just for our family but for the rest of the non-Muslim community,” son Gan Hock Ming told The Associated Press on Monday.
The case was expected to be heard Tuesday at the High Court in southern Seremban state, Hock Ming said.
It is the latest in an increasing number of interfaith conflicts that have raised tensions in multiracial Malaysia.
On Monday, opposition lawmaker Lim Kit Siang urged the government to end “body snatchings” by Islamic authorities, warning they were aggravating racial polarization and hurting Malaysia’s multiracial harmony.
About 60 percent of Malaysia’s 27 million people are ethnic Malay Muslims. A quarter are ethnic Chinese, who are mostly Taoist, Buddhists and Christians, and 8 percent are ethnic Indians, many of whom are Hindus.
Last week, an Islamic Shariah court ruled that Eng Gor, 74, also identified as Amir Gan Abdullah, was a Muslim and should be buried under Islamic rites.
The man’s body was seized by Islamic authorities shortly after his death on Jan. 20 after a complaint by his eldest son, Abdul Rahman Gan, a Muslim convert. He claimed his father had converted to Islam last July. Other relatives disputed this.
Hock Ming said Islamic authorities claimed his bedridden father made an oral declaration in Arabic to accept Islam, but the family has medical confirmation that his father was unable to speak after a stroke in 2006. He said the alleged conversion papers were also flawed because they weren’t signed and certified.
“We hope the prime minister and the higher ups in the Islamic authorities review this case and ensure that the truth is unraveled,” Hock Ming said, calling for all conversions to Islam to be “fair and transparent.”
Authorities from the Islamic religious department in Seremban could not be reached for comment. No comment was available from the office of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Malaysia has a dual court system for civil matters with secular courts for non-Muslims and Shariah courts for Muslims. In interfaith disputes involving Muslims, the Shariah court usually gets the last word, making a favorable decision for non-Muslims less likely.

Shariah court’s Islamic conversion ruling challenged by Budhhist- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

Their response—initiated by Yale Divinity School and endorsed by other liberal Christian leaders—apologized for the sins of Christians during the Crusades and for “excesses” of the global war on terror, without mentioning Muslim atrocities. It appeared to leave the fundamentals of Christianity—especially the deity of Christ—open for discussion.

It even seemed to acknowledge Allah as the God of the Bible.

“Before we ‘shake your hand’ in responding to your letter,” it stated, “we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world.”

The very name of the Muslim communiqué—A Common Word between Us and You—is from a verse in the Quran that condemns “people of the Scripture” (Christians) for alleged polytheism (the doctrine of the Trinity).

Mohler said the agreement “sends the wrong signal” and contains basic theological problems, especially in “marginalizing” Jesus Christ. He also condemned the apology for the Crusades.

“I just have to wonder how intellectually honest this is,” he said. “Are these people suggesting that they wish the military conflict with Islam had ended differently—that Islam had conquered Europe?”

Neither Anderson nor Cizik could be reached for comment.

On the NAE Web site, Anderson asserts he signed the letter as a private individual, although he is identified as NAE president. He also seems to acknowledge problems with the statement.

“Sometimes we all sign onto things that are not all that we would like them to be,” Anderson wrote. “Even after we write and say our own words, we discover that we wish we had done better.”

Gary Bauer, president of the Campaign for Working Families, told CitizenLink the NAE leaders “have left the (card) table without their pants—that is, they’ve been taken and may not even realize they’ve been taken.” 

Bauer said he already was dismayed by the NAE’s recent controversial excursions into questionable areas such as global warming.

“Many of us have been concerned about the NAE getting into all sorts of areas where it has had no previous expertise,” Bauer said. “And now, I’m afraid, I see signs that they’re going down the same road that the National Council of Churches is going.” 

The National Council of Churches has embraced liberal causes and is affiliated with ultra-liberal groups, such as MoveOn.org and People For the American Way.

Sookhdeo called for Christian leaders who signed the letter to withdraw their names, saying the confession of guilt puts Christian communities in Muslim areas of the world at risk. 

“I find it difficult to understand how senior evangelical leaders in the West can join hands with other Christians who actually are betraying the Christian faith (and) their Christian brothers and sisters in the Muslim world,” he said.

Evangelical leaders pledge common cause with Islam- Christian Examiner Online

Op-Ed: Our jihad to reform: The struggle to define our faith (Stanford Times)

January 28, 2008
By Zaid Adhami

Recent events in the Muslim world raise urgent concerns and questions about the state of Islam in today’s world. Acts of terrorism committed “in the name of Islam” aside, both the Saudi rape case and the Sudan teddy-bear-teacher incident are disturbing examples of the troubling conditions of the global Muslim community.

In the Saudi rape case, the rape victim was sentenced to a much harsher punishment (prior to her pardon) for indecency and having an illicit affair than were the men who gang-raped her. This decision raises questions about the injustice of an oppressive and patriarchal Saudi government that dubiously claims to be Islamic in both letter and spirit.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the case of the British teacher in Sudan who was initially sentenced (again, before being pardoned) to imprisonment and lashing for allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.” More alarming than the sentence were the mobs of Sudanese Muslims displaying their “piety,” as they called for the teacher’s death. This scene of angry and intolerant mobs mirrors a picture-perfect Hollywood scripting of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations.”

For reflective Muslims, these events illustrate the betrayal of fundamental moral principles laid down by the Koran and by our beloved Prophet Muhammad. These incidents beg the question that Stanford Muslims hope to address in the coming weeks: Is the Muslim world in need of reform?

The answer seems to be an obvious yes. Yet when one hears “reform,” we are reminded of the Christian experience of reformation since the 15th century in Europe. The Muslim world does not share the historical and theological contexts that shaped Western reform. As such, we are in need of unique Islamic reform that draws on the long forgotten and corrupted principles articulated in the Koran and by Prophet Muhammad. The injustices committed in the name of our religion, coupled with ignorance and intolerance in some of our Muslim communities, make reform necessary.

Yet such a reform must be inherently rooted in Islamic principles and ideals. Our reform cannot be an attempt to appease our colonizers and masters, because any reform grounded on the wishes of Western ideologues (whether Christian fundamentalists or secular extremists) undermines the effort; rather, it must be based upon our Islamic principles in a sincere and faithful attempt to return to the essence of our religion and fulfill our duty to question, understand and live the principles of our faith. The Islamic notion of reform is not a transformation of the Islamic faith, but a reform of our understanding and articulation of our religion. Such a reform is a struggle to interpret and practice Islam in a way that is faithful to the texts yet compatible with contemporary realities. This struggle is not only essential if the Muslim world is to be part of the global community, but it is also true to the essential Islamic concept of jihad.

Often mistranslated as “holy war,” the Arabic term jihad literally means “a struggle.” The Islamic concept of jihad is a fundamental part of the faith that defines our purpose in life. Submission to God — the meaning of “Islam” and our purpose as human beings — is nothing other than jihad: a constant struggle to subdue our human capacities of aggression, injustice, greed, hate, lust, anger, arrogance and to strive towards God — an upward spiritual climb, toilsome and difficult, yet of absolute and utmost importance.

Yet the notion of jihad is to struggle in all senses of the word: internally and externally, personally, socially and politically. Therefore, it is inevitable that at times this struggle against the lower tendencies of human nature will be manifested in military conflict against injustices, and this is also undeniably a part of the faith; yet this is only one element of jihad, and arguably of much lesser importance than the struggle to reform one’s self before all else.

Part of the Muslim jihad, perhaps the most important after our inner spiritual struggle, is to understand and live our faith in a way that is not merely an external and superficial manifestation of Islam, but is true to the fundamental moral principles that are espoused in our texts. We must be cognizant of contemporary realities and challenges that the Muslim world and the global community face, and confront those realities and challenges with an understanding of our faith that goes beyond the intellectual stagnation that so often plagues our community.

Some of the biggest such challenges that the Muslim world must face up to in today’s world are those of intolerance and coexistence, extremism and terrorism, patriarchy and women’s rights, and the role of Shariah (Islamic law) in governance. To confront such challenges is our jihad. And that is exactly what the Muslim community at Stanford is doing. During Islam Awareness Series 2008, which runs from Jan. 31 to Feb. 24, we will have some of the most profound scholars of Islam in the nation tackle these issues and offer their insight as to our present situation and where we are headed.

For more information, please visit http://msan.stanford.edu.

Zaid Adhami ‘10 is the vice president of the Muslim Student Awareness Network (MSAN).

Op-Ed: Our jihad to reform: The struggle to define our faith (Stanford Times)