Fuck Up Council
Right to an identity
By SHAHANAAZ HABIB
The NRD's decision to omit the father's name in the birth certificates of Muslim babies born less than six months of the parents' marriage is causing a lot of heartache for affected families.
ADELA Jalil* was ecstatic when she gave birth to a baby girl in August.
But her joy gave way to pain, disbelief and then anger when her husband Malik* went to register their newborn at the National Registration Department (NRD) in Johor.
The NRD refused to put her husband's name down as the father of their child in the birth certificate.
The baby came early and was born less than six months from the date of their nikah, so the NRD assumed that she was conceived out of wedlock and would not allow the biological father's name on the birth certificate. They put a “binti Abdullah” instead.
In the column for the father's name on the birth certificate, the NRD simply wrote tiada maklumat (no information) even though Malik was there to register the birth.
“My heart is breaking for my child. We are married. I gave birth to the child, the father is known and he acknowledges the baby is his child and wants her to have his name.
“But with one stroke of the pen, the NRD has denied my child all her rights,” says Adela.
These include the child's rights to inherit from her father, to have him as a wali for her wedding in future, and the right to his name, among other things.
To register the birth of a child, parents these days must produce theirsurat nikah (marriage certificate) as proof of their marriage.
And recently, NRD has taken to calculating the number of months from the date of the nikah to the birth of the child. If it's anything short of six months, they do not allow the father's name on it in keeping with a fatwaruling by the National Fatwa Council.
“I want to know if NRD now comes under Jakim? A fatwa is a policy it is not law,” says Adela, who believes that NRD is contravening Section 13 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act by refusing the biological father's name on the birth certificate.
“We are her parents and we want her to have our name. What are they trying to prove with naming and shaming the child? That the child is illegitimate? At whose expense?
“It's cruel to the child. It will be traumatic and totally disrupt her life.
“From the time she is born, she has to bear the brunt of the government labelling her as some pariah of society. It will affect her emotional wellbeing and self-esteem.
“She's going to be a laughing stock in school and the butt of jokes. If they want to punish anyone, it should be us the parents but why victimise the child?” she says, adding that causing emotional injury to a child clearly goes against the Child Protection Act.
Adela is one of the Malaysian professionals overseas who heeded the government's call to return to contribute to her home country.
Now, she is terrified that if she travels overseas with the baby, the immigration in those countries could stop her and her husband and accuse them of trafficking a baby because the child has a different name from theirs.
“I regret coming back. I was living 10 years in Europe and had the option to stay there permanently. I came back because I wanted to contribute. But I don't want to live in a system that is inhumane and doesn't conform to what is right and just.”
Adela is writing an appeal letter to the NRD director-general. She has also met her family lawyer to explore suing NRD if they refuse to amend the registration of her daughter to add Malik's name.
“I hope they come to their senses. I am not going to stand by. If they insist upon it, I'm leaving the country,” she says.
Fauziah Ahmad* is facing a similar predicament with her first grandchild. Her son married in Miri and the baby was born premature and placed in the intensive care unit (ICU) because of breathing difficulty.
When the baby boy pulled through, the relieved father went to register the child but the NRD refused to list him as the father.
He did not register the baby then but went back a second time and again, the NRD said no'. The baby born on Sept 17 remains unregistered till now.
Says Fauziah: “We are still in shock. I want my grandson to bear my son's name. My son is the biological father and loves his baby.
“There were complications with the pregnancy and the baby was born premature.
“I don't know what to do, I feel this sense of hopelessness. The minute you sign bin Abdullah', the fatwa ruling will apply and the baby is like an adopted baby (because it loses rights). ”
The doting grandmother cannot comprehend why anyone would want to punish a helpless baby this way.
“I am begging the Fatwa Council to show some compassion. Allah is all forgiving, all merciful.
“God has blessed the family with a child; why destroy his life before it has even begun?
“I love my religion but this is not what God wants us to do with helpless children. This is so tragic,” says Fauziah whose daughter-in-law is a Muslim convert.
Fauziah does not want her daughter-in-law to have negative feelings about the religion she has embraced to marry her son.
“How can the government allow this ruling to pass without looking at the implications?
“Imagine the kind of stigma and trauma these children are going to face. To me, it's against human rights and really uncharitable.
“The government keeps going on and on about protection of the children.
“Those in power should protect the welfare of our children.”
The matter, she says, has caused her son and daughter-in-law much anguish.
“When I see the young parents crying, my heart breaks. We have named the baby Nur” (light). I hope the light will open their (the authorities) eyes to see that they are punishing a child. God gave this child a second chance and it's wrong for others to destroy it.”
*******************************************************************************************************
National Fatwa Council has done alot of damage to families in Malaysia. They do not use logic and use religion as an excuse to fatwa every damn thing to their fancies. They act like Allah but behind close door they commit sinful act.
National Fatwa Council and the like of Sultans should be abolish in this country. Their continual presence is forcing the backwardness of the Malay community.
The article does not affect me now but who knows what will happen to my grand children.
I am one of many who do not carry pregnancy to full term (9 months). All my five children are premature babies born between seven (7) and eight (8) months. So does that make my children pariahs. And if my girls were to have premature babies would that make my grand children pariahs too?
How about those Tuns, Tan Sri, Datuk who have pariah children? They are allowed to register their kids because of their connection. Then how about their grandchildren who are real pariahs? Who in NRD will dare not register the father's name?
So will the National Fuck Up Council stop being an arse.
****************************************************************************************************
With no centralized Islamic religious authority like a Pope or Dalai Lama, pretty much any Muslim “scholar” can create a fatwa, a religious edict for modern life supposedly guided by the Koran or the (less authoritative) hadiths- stories from Muhammad’s life. In recent years, supply has far outstripped demand, and it’s getting laughable. Most fatwas are harmless and a little mundane, but lately, some Islamic jurists have gone straight crazy.
The Fatwa: Grand Mufti Sheikh Ibn Baaz: The Sun Revolves Around the Earth
In a 2000 Fatwa titled “The Transmitted and Sensory Proofs of the Rotation of the Sun and Stillness of the Earth”, Saudi Arabian Grand Mufti Sheikh Ibn Baaz asserted that the earth was flat and disk-like and that the sun revolved around it. He had insisted that satellite images to the contrary were nothing but a Western conspiracy against the Islamic world.
Source: Al-Ahram Weekly Issue 477, 13-19 April, 2000.
The Fatwa: Ayatollah Khomeini: Kill for A Book None of Us Can Should Read!
In 1988, publication of Salman Rushdie’s novel “The Satanic Verses” led Iranian revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa against Rushdie, with a huge bounty for his death. This triggered several attacks on the novel’s translators, publishers and booksellers, including the murder of Japanese translator Hitoshi Igarashi. Millions of Muslims around the world who had never read a single line of the book, and who had never even met Rushdie before, wanted him dead. Interesting fact, 24% of Iranians at the time couldn’t even read.
Source: “The West Is Choked by Fear”, Der Speigel Jan 4, 2010, Henryk Broder
The Fatwa: Malaysian National Fatwa Council: Tomboy fatwa
A University of Massachusetts study recently reported that girls who play sports have higher self esteem, and are less likely to enter (or remain in) abusive relationships. Could this fact have threatened the he-men at the Malaysia National Fatwa Council? Maybe. Perhaps that’s why Kuala Lumpur had a near riot on their hands when the Sisters in Islam marched against a Malaysian fatwa banning tomboys, which branded any girls who act un-ladylike as violating Islamic tenets. Fortunately, the as-yet undefined punishment for Malaysian girls in t-shirts and jeans hasn’t been incorporated into Sharia law yet.
Source: The Malaysian Insider
The Fatwa: Muhammad Al-Munajid: Bring Me the Head of Mickey Mouse
That’s right, somebody put on hit on Mickey Mouse. Calling Mickey “one of Satan’s soldiers,” Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid decreed that household mice and their cartoon cousins must be “killed in all cases”, according to the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph.
And get this—the guy’s not your average nutjob, either—Munajid used to be a former diplomat at the Saudi embassy in Washington D.C. He made the remarks on Arab television network al-Majd TV after he was asked to give Islam’s teaching on mice.
But don’t worry, Mickey won’t be alone. Munajid also put a hit on Jerry from “Tom and Jerry”. Maybe they could rent a flat with Salman Rushdie (above).
Source: Report: Saudi Cleric Says Mickey Mouse ‘Must Die’.
The Fatwa: Multaqa Ahl al Hadeeth: Emoticon fatwa
I can almost get behind this one. Sure, they’re annoying, but evil? Really? Well, to a Muslim forum looking to make a name for itself—yes.
According to Muslim Internet Forum Multaqa Ahl al Hadeeth, “Emoticons are forbidden because of its imitation to Allah’s creatures whether it is original or mixture or even deformed one and since the picture is the face and the face is what makes the real picture then emoticons which represent faces that express emotions then all that add up to make them Haram.” Additionally, “A woman should not use these images when speaking to a man who is not her mahram, because these faces are used to express how she is feeling, so it is as if she is smiling, laughing, acting shy and so on, and a woman should not do that with a non-mahram man. It is only permissible for a woman to speak to men in cases of necessity, so long as that is in a public chat room and not in private correspondence.”
The Fatwa: Football fatwa
No, not even the beautiful game is safe from stupid fatwas. As part of a government drive to eliminate frivolous fatwas, the Saudi newspaper Al Watan lampooned one very real edict setting out new rules for football. Ridiculous demands included “do not play with 11 people like the heretics, Jews, and Christians”, and “play in your pyjamas or regular clothes (because) colored shorts and numbered T-shirts are not Muslim clothing”. Especially ridiculous is the edict to “remove the crossbar in order not to imitate the heretics and in order to be entirely distinct from the soccer system’s despotic international rules.”
Source: “A Fatwa on Football”, The Guardian, Monday 31 October 2005.
The Fatwa: Infidel Vaccine
Polio is actually increasing in India, Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why? Because an anti-polio fatwa by anti-Western clerics forbid Pakistani children from immunizations, because the clerics are saying the vaccine is a conspiracy to make Muslims sterile. Ironically, it’s the clerics’ plans that would produce this result, as dead/paralytic kids don’t breed all that much.
Source: “POLIO ERADICATION: Looking for a Little Luck”, Roberts Science 6 February 2009
The Fatwa: Rashad Hassan Khalil: No Nudity for Sex
In 2007, the former dean of Islamic law at al-Azhar University in Cairo issued a fatwa that nudity during sexual intercourse invalidates a marriage between husband and wife. Debate was immediate. Suad Saleh, head of the women’s department of Al-Azhar’s Islamic studies, pleaded for “anything that can bring spouses closer to each other” and Islamic scholar Abdel Muti concurred, saying “Nothing is prohibited during marital sex, except of course sodomy.”
For his part, Al-Azhar’s fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar backpedaled and said that married couples could see each other naked but should really cover up with a blanket during sex.
Source: SimplyDumb
The Fatwa: Sheik Ali Gomaa: Urine Fatwa
According to Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, drinking the urine of Muhammad is deemed a great blessing. What, they have a lot of this stuff lying around, going to waste or something? Remember, Muhammad never claimed that he himself was divine—so why does his piss have magic properties? Failing to pass the laugh test with Muslim scholars, Mufti later recanted, saying it was only his “personal opinion”.
Source: “A Fatwa Free-for-All in the Islamic World”, New York Times, Michael Slackman Published: Monday, June 11, 2007
The Fatwa: Ezzat Attiya: Adult Breastfeeding in the Workplace
In May 2007, Ezzat Attiya wondered how unrelated men and women could work together in the same office, when Islam forbids men and women who aren’t married or related to be alone together. His answer: let her suckle him FIVE TIMES. Yes, that’s right, an adult female breastfeeding an adult male coworker will defuse all sexual tension in the office. See, the female worker will now be the male worker’s foster mother, and they can be alone together anytime. Attiya’s ruling was intergalactically mocked, and quickly condemned on the homefront as well. He was later suspended from his job, pilloried in Arab newspapers, and issued a hasty retraction saying it was a “bad interpretation of a particular case.”
Comments