Talk:Religious freedom in Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

For a January 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia

Contents

[edit] Dispute and delete

Some clown has put a total dispute on this page without disputing this page previously and slapped a VFD. I have removed it and urge others on this page to defend the knowledge space.

As the tag says "this page HAS been disputed". If you do not dispute it (and the talk page would be the logical forum for that) then bugger off until you do dispute it. We want to know

1) Which FACTS you dispute - and this doesn't just mean disagreeing with the source. 2) Which parts of the article you feel must be removed. 3) What else you think is wrong.

If you are not here to contribute and want to be a "censor" then i believe that the north korean domain for wikipedia is still open for registration.--Malbear 05:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Clown"? You violated two wikipedia policies. (1) Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and (2) Removing VFD tag while the question is being discussed. Do not do that again. OneGuy 06:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
wikipedia does not belong to exclusively to you. relax if somebody put an vfd. __earth 00:37, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Harsh word. But I must agree, simply put a VFD without a facts violate the prime-directive of wikipedia. It is similar to punish people without trial, and worst, without facts and evident. Sltan 10:30 07 feb 2004 (GMT+8)

[edit] US Government POV

I find this article disturbing. Almost all of the text was copied down from the US government site. As if the US government's view is the one that should be featured here. Can someone please revise with NPOV? --Aleen1412 05:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep, original text was by RK with text from the US Dept. of State website. I'd say just be bold and refactor those that isn't factually right. With those you're not sure of, just move it here. -- sabre23t 07:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia readers, and Users more interested in this issue than I am, should be aware that vetted US State Department information on discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia is being deleted from this article under various pretexts. The Page history link will give details. --Wetman 08:11, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that someone named Andylkl deleted parts of article, but the parts that he deleted were not even in the State Department report[1] ... I suggest you should pay more attention when you post comments on RfD or talk pages OneGuy 08:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hahaha...er... what's wrong with the State Department report? As I said on the VfD, I don't see anything wrong with its content; seems quite accurate to me (and we're all Malaysians here, so really, we should know better than foreigners). I think the material Andy removed was the most POV material in the article, especially since I never hear anyone complaining about the Azan (so it must be some fringe group doing so). I suggest you define POV material not only by its source but also by its actual content. Johnleemk | Talk 08:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Source can be relevant too. I don't see why the US government report about Iran (anti-Iranian bias) or Israel (pro-Israel bias) should be posted verbatim. In any case, I just replied to Wetman because he doesn't seem to pay attention when he is posting on talk pages or VfD. The part removed were not in the State Department report. He should have checked that before posting above comments OneGuy 08:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I said "not only by its source". The US government's material describes the situation accurately and is released in the public domain. Can you give me any reason not to use it except for some politically correct bullshit? I don't see anywhere Andylkl implied he believed the material he removed was from the report anyhow. Johnleemk | Talk 09:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You need to read more carefully before you post replies. I never said Andylkl implied he removed State Department material. I said Wetman claimed that the material removed by Andylkl was from the US State Department. Do not post nonsensical replies. Please read carefully what is being posted. I said that the US government report about Iran cannot be accepted verbatim as a neutral source (since there is another similar article about Iran) OneGuy 09:37, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ah, then my apologies then. Johnleemk | Talk 09:43, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

"The Government generally restricts remarks or publications that might incite racial or religious disharmony. This includes some statements and publications critical of particular religions, especially Islam."

The government has not restricted any view critical of any religion except Islam. Please re-write --Malbear 09:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The Government also restricts the content of sermons at mosques. Some state governments ban certain Muslim clergymen from delivering sermons."

Already mentioned in previous para. --Malbear 09:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"In family and religious matters, all Muslims are subject to Shari'a law. According to some women's rights activists, women are subject to discriminatory interpretations of Shari'a law and inconsistent application of the law from state to state."

If these women are muslim then....--Malbear 09:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"(the Government also grants limited funds to non-Islamic religious communities)"

Will remove this in 7 days from now if an example is not offered. Intuitively this cannot be true in Malaysia. --Malbear 07:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"==State control of Religion== After the November 1999 national elections, the Government significantly expanded efforts to restrict the activities of the Islamic opposition party at mosques. Several states announced measures including banning opposition-affiliated imams from speaking at mosques, more vigorously enforcing existing restrictions on the content of sermons, replacing mosque leaders and governing committees thought to be sympathetic to the opposition, and threatening to close down unauthorized mosques with ties to the opposition. The Government justified such measures as necessary to oppose the "politicization of religion" by the opposition. Throughout 2001 government officials and ruling party politicians claimed that opposition Islamic party members were giving political sermons in mosques around the country."

"In June 2000, the Government announced that all Muslim civil servants must attend religious classes, but only Islamic classes are conducted. In addition, only teachers approved by the Government are employed."

"The Government continues to monitor the activities of the Shi'a minority, and the Government periodically detained members of what it considers Islamic "deviant sects" without trial or charge under the Internal Security Act (ISA) during the period covered by this report. "

"In November 2000, the Shari’a High Court in the state of Kelantan, which is controlled by the Islamic opposition party, sentenced four persons to 3 years in prison for disregarding a lower court order to recant their alleged heretical beliefs and "return to the true teachings of Islam." The High Court rejected their argument that Shari’a law has no jurisdiction over them because they had ceased to be Muslims."

Again this article is not about how muslims treat other muslims. --Malbear 09:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rephrasing

The last two sections at the end are factually accurate, and there seems to be no remarkable ommission or twisting of facts. However, the wording reads to me like an editorial opposing these practices. I guess some work could be done on making them more encyclopedic. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All right, now this is definitely not NPOV. After rereading it, it sounds like somebody is seriously exaggerating how we're discriminated against in Malaysia. I personally have never been woken up by the call to prayer, and I've never heard anybody complaining it about before, despite living in neighbourhoods where we're right next to a mosque. The section on this exaggerates the problem. The only way you'd get waken up is if you're right next to the mosque. And lots of people I know own dogs. The Subang Jaya council's discrimination against non-Muslims in Subang Jaya has little to no bearing on the overall state of discrimination against non-Muslims in Malaysia. And we don't need a separate section for Aslina Jailani's case — put her as an example of Malays not being given the right to convert. Her having her own section reeks of trying to make it seem like her case is a unique one, and overblowing it. Johnleemk | Talk 16:36, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Actually the call to prayer has been an issue in Malaysia but possibly not where you live. Uncertain about where that is. It has so far been raised in the Bar Council newsletter and in a Malay newspaper. A brouhaha erupted when a writer for the bar council newsletter compared this to a barking dog.
As for the Subang jaya dog thing. This is discrimination against non-muslims. do you have a counter rationale, thus far no one has offered any other alternatives, please feel free to be the first to provide any other rationale?
Oh sorry one last thing. The "opposing" bit. Yes its quite natural that any writing on discrimination would oppose it. However feel free to rephrase it without ommiting any facts. --Malbear 06:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My main point is that the article does not make any of this clear. It makes it seem like the Azan call is a major issue, when I have never heard a single person commenting on the annoyance, despite staying in urban, mostly Chinese, areas, directly next to mosques (I live somewhere in Damansara currently).
Depending on which part of Damansara you live in there are no major mosques close to you. Try moving over to my old house in Bangsar--Malbear 08:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There's a surau within walking distance of my house. I didn't expect it to blow the prayer call, since I've never been awakened by it, but my mother has told me that they do air the Azan in the mornings. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In practically every paragraph in the last half of the article, the tone is accusatory, trying to defend every action taken by those diametrically opposed to certain practices the Malays have. The article focuses a lot on the rationale for stopping the Azan, such as noting that most Malaysians own timepieces, but doesn't present any arguments given by the Muslims for keeping the Azan, beyond stating that an article supporting the Azan's removal "was condemned" (which is a weasel word, I think).
Actually there are no reasons for the Azan as far as I can tell except that it is a demonstration of power. I have spoken to Muslim neighbours who do not believe there is any religious reason, its a tradition (like fire crackers on chinese new year) but traditions which are a hazard to society and disturb the peace have to be sanctioned (like fire crackers on chinese new year) --Malbear 08:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The azan is intended to remind Muslims that a prayer's period of time has begun. The Muslim neighbours are right in saying that it's not specifically proscribed in the Quran, but I believe there is basis in Sunnah for it, which makes it more than just a tradition. Additionally, it has a specific purpose, as I mentioned, for which an alternative eludes most Malaysian Muslims. Now, there are watches and wall clocks that keep track of prayer times, but not every place in Malaysia has such a clock and the watches are rarely seen on the market. Considering this, the azan, as broadcast on the radio, television and sung (yes, we Malays call the recital of the azan singing) from the mosque is a necessity. - chibikit
So an activity which can maim people is the same thing as an activity that might wake up a few unlucky people who happened to have chosen a house near a mosque? You seem to have forgotten that bamboo cannons, once a traditional activity during Hari Raya Aidilfitri, are now banned. Likewise, we aren't prohibited from making our own religious noise. When one of my neighbours passed away, her family and friends sang hymns throughout the night. Whenever a Taoist/Buddhist dies, there's a traditional funeral procession, and you know as well as I do that gongs and whatnot are part and parcel of this. The all-night-long vigil, depending on the family's religiousness, may also feature gongs, etc. (I know my great-grandfather's funeral did). None of these are illegal, AFAIK. You've omitted these key points from the article. In the first place, the article makes it sound like everyone is woken up by the Azan call. I can attest that neither me nor my siblings have ever been awakened by the sound of the Azan. As usual, the article is telling only one side of the story. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually IMHO the act of setting of a bamboo cannon versus the Azan is sort of like smoking versus rock climbing. In rock climbing you choose to go up. Knowing full well you may break your fool neck onthe said rocks. However, in smoking you endanger the people around you. This is why smoking is banned and rock climbing is not. This is why pollution is banned yet drinking is not (YET). One affects your neighbour and the other yourself. The azan impacts the neighbours and the crackers do not. Clearly natural selection displays that crackers have not wiped out chinese civilization, yes accidents happen, people slip in the bathroom and die, but banning soap is not the answer. But anyway we have deviated far on this. Will speak on the taoist prayers for the dead.--Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
First of all I am not a toaist but I know toaists knock and chant till late when a person dies. Incidentally the priests or "lo moh louh" do not chant beyond 12 anymore. Doing so results in a fine. Please check with your local toaist since this is only hearsay on my part. (See the government does fine religious activity). Anyway death is a "one off" event. Its not a day after day condoned activity which disturbs the peace. If your neighbour has a "kenduri" and blocks the road for one day, ok, int he spirit of neighbourliness we can be tolerant. If your neighbour parks three abreast on the road every day then something has to be done. If your neighbour burns some paper money for departed relatives during the hungry ghost month you will see paper flying every where. That's one off (or rather once a year). But if your neighbour comes over and throws paper scraps outside your house EVERY DAY then we may have a problem on our hands. If your neighbours cultural organization has one lousy party where they play music till 3AM (this happens in a home in Lucky Garden annually when the ceylonese association meets) I guess we can be tolerant, but if you choose to open a pub next to my home... --Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From what I understand (looked up a PJ map and asked our tea lady who lives there and is Muslim). The only mosque in the vicinity of Damansara is located in Karu Ara. There is a Surau in SS22 and SS21 but these don't count. I am not sure if Surau's do the Azan. Tell you wh--Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)at, in the spirit of truth seeking we do this experiment. Go to the Damansara NKVE entrance before the start of morning prayers (I think 5AM++ depending on time of year), if it can be heard from there (it's deep in Kayu Ara and from across the highway) this is some indication it is not a quiet activity. How do I know? I tried this morning --Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually Kayu Ara is very near where I stay; I know many people from Kayu Ara. I have never been awakened by the Azan call from the mosque there either. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Finally, let me see if it's possible to share the point here. The point is that the government is against noisy things in neighbourhoods. Notice how pub licenses are not granted when the buildings are too near residences ont he understanding that it is noisy and disturbs the residents. Secondly, the noise level from a mosque is "louder" than from a pub. You can't hear any damansara pub from across the highway. Additionally, there is no benefit to anyone from laying that EXCEPT to the muslim and even this is debated (by some muslims no less). That all have to suffer, that this form of suffering is acknowledged by the government (cf. pubs) and that this is allowed and encouraged to persist is clearly discrimination. --Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Discrimination, yes, but rather, I was presenting points currently not made in the article. As it is, the article lacks any context on the subject of restrictions regarding religious practices; although it is implicit that similar (albeit less frequent) activities by other religious groups are permitted, it is not explicitly stated. Stating this would provide context. Btw, do you know of any religion which has tried to hold such noisy activities on a regular basis and was forbidden from doing so? Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
As for the was condemmed part I agree its a bit sketchy but again the move against the editor who spoke out against the Azan shows the mindset and the actions of people who condemm such practices. Feel free to flesh it out more in that specific instance. That the MPSA published an official condemnation of the bar council shows that there was condemnation. I am uncertain as to what you are hoping for. --Malbear 08:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Cite sources clearly states that articles should provide some means for the reader to confirm the claims. If you're going to say the protest was condemned, the least you could do is say where it's from. Right now the article doesn't even do that. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Apologies. Kindly quote the statements I need to cite for and provide me a window of 48 hours. It shall be done. --Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just say who condemned the article. That's all. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The section on dogs needs to be toned down. It occasionally speaks in a sarcastic and accusatory form.
No it explains that there is no reason for such a ban. I am sorry but I personally feel the ban is silly. My cousin who lives in SS18 under the NSJ had a breakin every year for three years running. After having a dog (now three dogs). The break ins stopped. then the council decided to change licensing rules. Ok then you ask how this is relevant to discrimination? Well if a license requires that you get "permission" from your Muslim neighbours then surely is a Muslim issue? Or is it totally unrelated? You tell me...--Malbear 08:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's an injustice, but you haven't explained why the facts need to be stated in a sarcastic manner. Why do we need quotes around "approval"? Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok I'm glad you think it's an injustice since its an injustice that is for the benefit of muslims it is a discriminatory practice. Note that we never mentioned whether it is good or bad. That is unsaid. "approval" is in quotes because it was never defined in the form properly. Does it mean tacit approval, as in they never complained. Does it mean, explicit approval. In this case do they need to fill up a form (non existant), do they need to write a letter/does it have to be signed?, do they have to go and make a statutory dec. in front of a Commisioner? The term approval there is unclear so it is put in scare quotes directly from the application guidelines as informed to us. --Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Um...generally most readers will find the quotes to be sarcastic. We don't need them anyway, since the next sentence clearly states that how approval could be shown was not stated in the policy. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think we can safely remove the "rationale" paragraph part off the article. Again, wikipedia should provide a normative statement, not positive. __earth 19:42, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally will be adding that dogs are the only animals needing health certification before licensing. Cats, birds, iguanas, and other domestic pets (including fighting hens who may carry bird flu) do not need any such certification. --Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The charges of insults don't even provide proof that those being accused are non-Muslims. And in any case, I don't see how this is discrimination. Whether you're a Muslim or not, you're in trouble if you mess with these peoples' legalistic religion.
It is discrimination. The very fact that only Islam is defended when other faiths may be attacked shows that they discriminate (i.e. make a difference between religions). Simple definition of the word --Malbear 08:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then why isn't that stated in the article? Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Because that's the English meaning of the word discrimination. " Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners." We do not define words here unless they deviate from the common usage of the term. else every article would need to start by defining each word used. That would be facetious but please do feel free to add a definition of every word at the bottom of the article. I was inclined to do it myself but hopefully you can be a kind editor who will do it so that I can see the consequences of such an action :) --Malbear 07:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Apparently you have a knack for misunderstanding. What I mean is, the article completely fails to provide context. It merely states that Islam is defended when insulted; it does not state that such defence is not provided for other religions. Therefore, the article as it is does not provide any rationale for keeping the section in question. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And just because we oppose this discrimination and just because this article is about it is not a license to start flinging accusations in a biased tone. The article needs serious reworking if it's going to become NPOV any time soon. Johnleemk | Talk 08:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok feel free to rework any of the sentences. I already agree with you as to a rework but I cannot figure out a way to rework it to be any more neutral. You try and if any "facts" (provable statements etc.) are ommited they will be added back and we will try to pass it through the churn again. Don't worry. Articles are never right the first time. Let's work on it. --Malbear 08:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Do we need to include the incident where the PAS Youth lodged a police report against Astora Jabat? Clearly it was merely a report but no action was taken against Astora Jabat. Furthermore, that case looked more like a libel case rather than a discriminatory move. __earth 19:46, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)


In 2004 the Bar Council of Malaysia journal "Infoline" carried an article which questioned the need for the Azan as it was disturing to non-Muslims and not needful. The article was condemmed.

Condemned by whom? please complete the sentence. __earth 00:49, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed: Murtad

As for Aslina it is an on going case right now. Also there is the case of the indian converting and then taking his children (against the rule of the family court may I add). However I need to get the facts right before writing so it has not been done. Am thinking to pick up the law journals this week but my schedule is a bit tight since I do have a day job and this is "for fun". Additionally before Aslina there were notable cases of Citibank Aishah (she was imprisoned by her own family), there waa joshua jamaluddin (who was imprisoned and tortured) and nur himli (cannot remember spelling, who was hounded out of his job bythe authorities). Also there is the case of some old dude (cannot remember name so have to dig up) who had to move from his village and eventually had to give up his race on his IC. Yes each is a small thread and taken alone it doesn't amount to much but all these threads together form a picture. --Malbear 08:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And just the fact that Aslina's case is on-going does not make it special. She doesn't deserve her own section. As you yourself have admitted, her case is not unique, so why does she deserve a section of her own? The Subang Jaya thing shouldn't be removed, but it needs to be toned down a lot. Johnleemk | Talk 08:02, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually Aslina is not a section. she is a subsection of those covnerting out. As mentioned earlier Jamaluddin, Aishah et al. will be added as and when I do have the time to do research. Please feel free to help me. There isn't a better palce to do it. Incidentally legally in Malaysia you can only be brought to a syariah court a person who "declares himself a muslim". Once a person does not do so then any attempts to bring a person before syriah are already ipso facto extra-legal in nature. Again this is something I do not know how to add in. How is each case relevant? the indian lady lost her child, this lady lost her right to marry, Nur lost his job and livelihood, jamaluddin lost his freedom and was tortured, aishah was imprisoned by her own family and the old chap lost his racial identification. I could instead categorise by that rather than by the person i guess (let me know what makes you more comfortable). Then we add the person as an example of each situation.....again let's see how this can be worked out. --Malbear 08:27, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, my point really is that we shouldn't have sections about individuals. And neither should we go into detail about them into this article. Just summarise each individual's case. If you want to write more about them, create a separate article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ok fair enough. I think it can be re-positioned as having a sub-section on the consequences of leaving Islam. Since thats what the section is about. We could then put these people in as arche-types of each consequence and then route their stories to individual articles. Good?--Malbear 11:44, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sure. Johnleemk | Talk 13:38, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Non-muslims were granted limited funds in Malaysia

This never happened to the Wisma Tiong Hua in Johor Bahru, according to the reports from the Chinese. I removed that unfair sentence stating this. User:Chan Han Xiang

Just because one group doesn't receive funding does not mean all groups don't receive funding. Johnleemk | Talk 05:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs a cleanup

From Dictionary.com

Discrimination [2]

  1. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

Right now most of the content is just a big lump of religion-related issues in Malaysia. I'd be cutting down the content and sticking with what the current title says. Any objections? --Andylkl 07:49, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the only objection I have is that the title is not NPOV and has to be moved, and that's going to happen. This article won't stay with this title on Wikipedia OneGuy 07:55, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The title is NPOV. If discrimination does not occur then the article would be "Discrimination against non-Muslims does not occur in Malaysia". As it stands the article describes the issues of discrimination against non-Muslim (views, people, practices etc.).--Malbear 09:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, you claim discrimination occurs. That's you POV. You can't take your POV to the title of the article. Keep the title neutral and discuss your POV (as your POV) in the article, presenting other views that contradict yours as well .. that's NPOV OneGuy 09:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, discrimination does happen in Malaysia, as with the other places on Earth. The only thing POV with the title is the "against non-Muslims" part, cut that part and it should be appropriate enough. --Andylkl 09:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Again, that's your opinion that discrimination occurs everywhere in the world. You seem to have real trouble comprehending what NPOV means. Do not move your opinion to the title of articleOneGuy
And it is also your opinion that discrimination does not occur everywhere in the world. My point is that discrimination itself is a fact, as with racism, ageism and sexism. I agree that the article needs to be NPOV, and I do stand by on my earlier comments. I will not impose my "opinions" on the title, so don't worry. --Andylkl 09:51, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
That's the point. So we disagree whether discrimination occurs or doesn't occur everywhere in the world. You should not move your opinion to the title of the article. Keep the title NPOV (i.e. neutral). If I change the title to non-Discrimination in Malaysia, I would be moving my opinion to the title. That would be POV. Keep the title neutral and discuss your opinion about discrimination in the article. OneGuy 10:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I'm a Malaysian and let me point this out to you. Discrimination does exist in Malaysia and IT IS serious. It is happening in every part of Malaysia as we speak. I totally agree with the articles posted in WIKIPEDIA and I would say whoever that did the research, did a very good job. It's not unfounded and basically it's just the truth that all these years the Malays evade. Islam always do this to others. They go somewhere, they spread their religion. Once strong, they take on the weaker ones. Then lastly, they'll turn the table around and say that they are the victim (doesn't matter victim of what but that's what they always do too - we're victims of USA, Jews, blah.. blah..). I do not have online evidence to support my opinion and you may even consider this input as a void but however, I AM A LIVING EVIDENCE and also witness of the atrocities of the Malaysian/Malay Government. -Idolater of hogs-
  • sigh* That may well be true, but we need to represent the Malays' viewpoint as well. I'm not a Bumi nor a supporter of theirs (personally I consider this whole NEP bullshit to be racism through and through), but even I can see the need for NPOV in articles like these. Johnleemk | Talk 08:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who wish to carried out further discussion should read the definition about Humantarianism. It doesn't care about the country you are from and what value your culture held. If the culture permit the act of against humanity, it should not afraid of being document in wikipedia!

Do take note that the current Malaysia constitution are not the same version to independent.

In addition, there is little touch and research on the native "Orang Asli" religious rights. Unlike the native in East Malaysia, Native in West Malaysia are involuntery converted.

--sltan

[edit] Discrimination policy mentioned in letter

Letter
Letter

Greetings,

I have a letter in my possesion, scanned here, from a Malaysian university. I am unable to find any English sources from the govt websites of malaysia that supports one way or the other the malaysian law against Shias that the letter talks about.

I think this is not a federal policy, but rather a state policy. But I cannot verify it.

Can anybody help verifying this?--Zereshk 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an existing fatwa (Islamic religious edict) that is binding on Malaysian Muslims that proscribes the practice of the Shia Islam in Malaysia (Link)
It basically says that only the practice of Sunni Islam (Sunnah Wal-Jamaah) is permissable among Muslims in Malaysia and the practice and propagation of any other practices outside Sunnah Wal-Jamaah are against Islamic law and thereby forbidden. It further defines Islamic law as based on Sunnah Wal-Jamaah and all Muslims in Malaysia are subject to that interpretation of Islamic law. Further searches on the same site will also find similiar fatwas against Ahmaddiyas which is considered a heresy. -- Bob K 17:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism

Who has some verifiable information about the Malaysian attitude to Judaism? I know from experience that it is not well covered in schools, that malaysian passports are stamped 'valid in all countries apart from Israel' and that the TV stations tend to favour Palestinian footage over Israli suffering.

I highly doubt there would be any, as many state controlled media would lump up Christianity and Judaism as one as well as Americans and Jews as one. Therefore it would be relatively safe to say that a Malaysian's attitude towards Judaism would be similar to it's attitude about Christianity. Those who are apathetic towards Christianity would also feel the same towards Judaism. changed 16:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Not true. Racist propaganda funded by Wahaabists from Saudi Arabia and distributed in Malaysia proclaims Jews to be the root of all evil, even though there are virtually no Jews in Malaysia for them to come contact with. In addition, Israelis are generally not allowed to enter Malaysia. It's obvious that in any Muslim country the attitude to Jews will be far below that of Christians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] citation needed

Up to 1000 protesters chanted slogans such as "Jika Azhar datang, kita bakarkan gereja ini sampai jadi abu!" (when translated, it says: If Azhar comes, we will burn this church down to ashes).

where did u ppl get this? we need a citation pls and stop fired-up the religion discrimination,theres no such thing in malaysia, come to malaysia if u want to know, see it for ur self.

well should we take a high prist in Malaysia as citation for the discriminatio, since its all pointed over the christian.

btw, in msia we respect all religion (include bahai and judaism) but we do not insult our religion by equalize our religion with other religion, but its different with apostace(watever), they are still under shariah court juridiction, plus this apostace can go convert over the border as in singapura, they dont have to fight in msia, since msia is a Islamic nation. --tearfate 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Malaysia is a full racist country which discriminates religions as well as there own citizens, if you fill out a form you will have to tell whether you are Bumiputra, Indian or Chinese. If you are a Bumiputra then you are lucky because you get alot discount in property. Being a Muslim is not so huge in Malaysia but being a Bumiputra is like they are trying to be the Royal Saudi families. I am a foreigner Shia Muslim in Malaysia I asked many Imams of what they think about the Shia's, I didnt tell them I was Shia otherwise I would have been sitting in Jail, all the informations that the Imam's gave were roumers none of them true. For Muslims they are like this then I dont know what they will be for others.

vnethussain

[edit] Rewrite needed

While I can understand the emotions that issues like this can bring about, I don't think writing this article the way it is written does any justice to Wikipedia. Let's stick to the facts, folks and keep the personal opinions out of the articles. If its a cited opinion within context of the article, then make sure the citation is provided but keep in mind the article needs to be neutral.

I think its high time this whole article is rewritten, not as a whitewash, but to remove some of the more anti-Muslim bias tone from it. - Bob K 17:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and while we're at it, let me make my own suggestion. Malaysia has been independent for half a century, yet events pre-2000 are barely mentioned. Let's have some history, shall we? Biruitorul 03:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Incidences like the Maria Hertogh riots are also part of the historical context of inter faith relations in Malaysia. - Bob K 04:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-muslim female marrying a muslim male

The article suggests a non Muslim cannot marry a Muslim in Malaysia. Definitely many Google results and also anecdotal evidence I heard from one party involved in such a situation this is true. However also from Google re Malaysia and also from memory of a Catholic news paper in Malaysia and I think other sources it's suggested a Christian female can in fact marry a Muslim male although she obviously can't teach her children her religion. In general terms this is mentioned Interreligious marriage. Is anyone aware of any case or evidence to suggest it is in fact practiced in Malaysia and is not simply theoretical 'should be allowed' but has never actually been done? I suspect there would be strong pressure on the female to convert in any case and by not converting your likely to have even bigger problems in the event of divorce & custody disputed but it would be good to add details on this if any are available both on the theoretical side as supported by Malaysian sources and on the practical side Nil Einne 19:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ive never come across this. So u saying, a non-muslim male must, as required by law, convert before he can marry a muslim lady, and that a non-muslim lady is not required by law to convert? kawaputratorque 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter

I have some concerns about the letter. Given the way it's presented and the fact it appears it hasn't been referred to in a reliable source I feel it's a bit ORy. Do others agree? Nil Einne 19:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)