According to a statement issued by PAS Youth (Perlis), the IFC is: sebuah suruhanjaya yang dicadangkan penubuhannya seperti sebuah badan berkanun yang mempunyai kuasa undang-undang yang boleh mengubah ajaran sesetengah agama (baca: Islam) akibat desakan penganut agamalain. Badan ini berfungsi mirip sebuah Mahkamah dan segala keputusannya adalah muktamad ke atas agama yang bersabit.”

(Translation: a proposed commission taking the form of a statutory body with legal powers to change the teachings of some religions (read: Islam) due to pressure from those of other faiths. This body will function like a court and all its decisions are final on the religion involved.)

As expected, the draft bill for the setting up of the IFC vindicates all the objections to the IFC made by Muslim NGOs, and proves that its Steering Committee members, and second fiddlers in the English language Press, particularly The Sun and The Star, have attempted to mislead the Malaysian public.

Before considering the effect of the bill, it would be appropriate to repeat the objections[1].

The 1st ground of objection to the IFC is that it aims to give:

a) Muslims ‘rights’ not given by their religion, most seriously the ‘right’ to apostatize; and

b) non-Muslims (and some Muslims),comprising members of the Commission, the power to decide whether or not a Muslim murtad wannabe may exercise such a ‘right’[2].

Whether Interfaith Commission ( IFC) ?

The origin name for IFC is IRC – Inter Religious Council (IRC) that is a commission which propose as a laws body which possess laws authority to change a few religion theory ( read Islamic religion) consequence from non muslim. The function this body as a court and all the final results to implicated religion, the function IFC also as SUHAKAM which receive and attend all reports which in connection with religion.

ACCIN came to this conclusion based on the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism’s-the MCCBCHS- memorandum, the evasiveness of the Steering Committee to the objections raised much earlier, and the interview with its President by the Sun of 28- 29th January, where he was unabashedly frank about non-Muslim objection to, and frustration with, Islam in not allowing apostasy so that their former co-religionists may return to the fold.

The ACCIN memorandum ;

a) any effort made by Islamic authorities to dissuade murtad wannabes;

b) the acknowledgement as Muslim, by the Shariah, of persons one of whose parents only is Muslim;

c) a person being regarded as a Muslim before he professes Islam as his religion, presumably at a suitable age of discretion; till then there is no need for the disclosure of his religion on his I.C.

This clearly means that ‘Muslims-by-birth’ should cease to exist as a category.

The 2nd ground of objection is that the IFC allows interference in the teachings of Islam or, for that matter any, religion by others who do not belong to it.

Religious freedom under the Federal Constitution does not include the right to interfere with, to question or challenge the teachings of another religion or even champion the religious rights of others. Article 11(1) says: “Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion.”

Non-Muslims may champion religious freedom but only in respect of the religions they profess. Non-Muslims have no right to demand that Muslims, even reverts to Islam who have had a change of heart, be allowed to apostatize. This restraint, imposed on followers of all religions, and on Muslims by Islam (Surah Al- Kafirun) has to be observed for the sake of “religious harmony”.

The 3rd ground of objection is that the IFC, comprising non-Muslims and Muslims, is to be a court-like body with powers to make decisions on religious rights and Islamic teachings, and other departments of Government are expected to comply with its pronouncements.

The 4th ground of objection: Interference with existing constitutional arrangements on administration of Islamic matters.

Questions relating to the practice of Islam are dealt with by statutorily-established government bodies: the Malay Rulers, the Majlises Agama of the States and W.P., the Shariah Courts and other specialized bodies e.g. Tabung Haji.

The jurisdiction of these bodies is comprehensive and another organization cannot be set up without it encroaching on the existing Islamic bodies.

Who reserves organize IFC?[3]

IFC have an idea by Malaysian Consultative Council Of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) or Majlis Perundingan Malaysia Agama Buddha, Kristian, Hindu dan Sikh by its memorandum to Majlis Peguam at date 21rd  Ogos 2001.

Who most support incorporate IFC ?

Bar Councils especially subcommittee Human Right very strong support recognize IFC and very confident its shall to succeed. Its chronological like following:

■ At 8th Ogos 2001, Bar Council did receive a memorandum from MCCBCHS abouts its affair and before that plan to recognize IRC be in motion fluent.

■ At 8th Dicember 2001 an celebration ‘Festival of Rights’ held by means of ‘Kebebasan Beragama’.

■ At 10th Dicember 2001, Bar council propose an forum about ‘Religion Right’ and publish an article in INSAF journal

■ At 17rd March 2003 an course for review utility its exists IRC held. This course fail whwn all Islamic NGO attractive self from implicated with commission foundation i.e ABIM, ACCIN, JUST and Sisters In Islam comprise Dr. Chandra Muzaffar the first parties which reserve interfaith dialogue. Whatever, Sisters In Islam accompany again and support this commission formation.

■ At middle years 2004, an conference about established IRC held. To show its exists support, seminar proponent did induct all subcommittee Human Right Syariah members Bar Council as proponent committee members without they knowing.

■ Utter third draf formation law IFC at date January 2005 to reserved established IFC. This conference proponent by an cristians foudation at Germany, namely Konrad Adeneuer Foundation (KAF).

What is the target istablished IFC?

The target IFC are for amend several the basic Islamic theory which shall mislead muslim faith and take sides to non muslim behalf.

The 1st ground of objection to the IFC is that it aims to give:

a) Muslims ‘rights’ not given by their religion, most seriously the ‘right’ to apostatize; and

b) non-Muslims (and some Muslims),comprising members of the Commission, the power to decide whether or not a Muslim murtad wannabe may exercise such a ‘right’.

As defined in the IFC bill, ‘religious harmony’ is the “exercise by any individual or community of persons of his or their freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief” (not necessarily according to the teachings of any religion) but “as prescribed by international norms” listed in the bill (Sec.2)

The international norms are:

· Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

· Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (Ratified by Malaysia on 5thJuly 1995)

· Convention on the Rights of the Child • Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

· Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities

· Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

The Declaration came into existence when Malaysia was not yet an independent, player on the world scene and had no say in its formulation, and has not ratified it since becoming independent.

Considering the vast number of matters covered by the Declaration, going well beyond religious freedom, which requires considerable circumspection on the part of governments everywhere, the IFC bill is an attempt, by a sleight of hand as it were, to make the Declaration a part of the law of the land without regard for its impact.

The concept of ‘religious harmony’, is not to be found in any of the international documents, as they do not deal with religious freedom in the context of its exercise vis-à-vis other religions. The international norms deal with the right to freedom to practice one’s religion, and has been taken out of its context and placed in a’ inter-faith’ context for the purpose of the IFC.

Islamic law is in many respects vindicated by international law and comparatists have often expressed their amazement at its advanced state in respect of communal relations even in the case of the treatment of people who wage war against Islam e.g. the law of war and peace as the Crusaders discovered in the Middle East and took back with them ushering the age of chivalry.

However, Muslims are not willing to concede as superior to the law of God, the international norms of modern times, developed, initially, as the national laws of Western nations to rationalize the conduct of their people as ‘human rights’, and then projected onto the world.

As far as Malaysia is concerned, Muslims will not concede any ground where the applicable law, from even before the coming of non-Muslims, has been Islamic law

for enough concession has been made.

The bill makes no distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. To a Muslim this implies that the law governing the practice of Islam is not the Shariah and Islamic teachings but ‘international norms’ made by Man, in other words the revelations from God are to be observed only to the extent that they are consistent with international norms; God is to be governed by Man and not Man by God.

This is tantamount to having God on one’s terms; if one can do that, then he is not taking about God at all or thinks he is God! This violates the fundamental concept of tauhid: There is only one God; and there being only one God, He is the God of everything.

Whether demand non muslim from IFC?

i.      A new –born baby of human by muslim parent impossible to direct be a muslim

ii.    non muslim which embrace Islamic religion must give freedom return to them origin religion (apostate) and not give law punishment or law action

iii.     Any case apostate or renegade don’t fair its on to manage by shariah courts but ro manage by civil courts.

iv.       not obligatory to record in a muslim identity card (I.C) he or she a muslim religion

v.       Non muslim not obligatory to embrace Islamic religion if its want to marry with muslim religion. A muslim must give freedom to apostate if is want to marry with non muslim and not give law punishment or law action.

vi.     Human being or husband wife couple which to change religion along with embrace Islamic religion not obligatory to giving child guilding right.

vii.   Non muslims which have family relationship with a embrace islamic religion (muslim) must give right to assert hereditary property (fara’id) after demise its. .

viii.     The government must provide an sufficient alms to develop and to organize church, temple and others non muslim house acts of devotion as where the government prepare to develop and organize mosque.

ix.      Non muslims must give right and can’t to obstruct from utilize islamic holy words in dialogue, conversation, colloquial and discussion.

x.      Approve of bible books in Malay and Indonesian translation or interpretation to public disseminate.

xi.     the religion subject non Islamic religion must teach at all school.

xii.     The Islamic element programmer in mother language must avoid. Preach program other religion except Islamic religion must broadcasting mother language each

xiii.    Islamic mankind which pay zakat not obligatory to except better than pay income tax and the zakat money income must also purpose to necessity non muslim.

xiv.  Islamic religion duly not announce as first selection in Malaysia society Malaysia like in fashion close clothes aurat to school student .

Freedom of Religion or Freedom within/from Religion? [4]

Individuals are to be given total freedom to practice their religions as they choose to i.e. not so much freedom to practice one’s religion according to its teachings as freedom within religion to practice it as one wants to which includes practicing against the teachings of one’s religion while claiming the right to be regarded as a follower.

According to the minutes, the Chairman of the Steering Committee at their meeting on 26th June 2005 finessed away freedom to practice one’s religion:

“There will be an appointment panel that would select the 16 members for the Commission who understand inter-faith and free religion.. This would be a neutral Commission whose ideals are to provide a foundation for policy considerations and the articulation of rights issues in inter-faith discourse…There was no concern at all that it would derail certain religious issues because the Commission is to focus on the aspect on the freedom or rights issues as opposed to religious or faiths in religion…”.(sic)


Muslims on the Commission, no matter how many or learned in Islam, will serve no useful purpose as they will have to decide according to international norms For that matter, the IFC bill does not provide, as may be expected, that the Commissioners would represent the religions practiced in the country. A rather vague formula of words is used for their qualification: “The membership of the Commission shall reflect the diversity of the Malaysian population”(Sec. 9 (3)a).

As, seen above, the IFC is less concerned with freedom to practice one’s religion than with freedom within one’s religion, representatives of religions are less important. They were talked out of the roles they expected to play, again, by the chair of the Steering Committee: “There will be an appointment panel that would select the 16 members for the Commission who understand inter-faith and free religion …”

“Everyone except the Majlis (MCCBCHS) representatives here agreed that there was no need to have each of the religious organizations to have direct nominations onto the Commission rights).”

Little wonder than that the members of the MCCBCHS were concerned; they were not going to be represented and their religions were going to be subordinated to free religion.

One can almost sympathies them for their predicament at the hands of a clever lawyer; hijacking from them the process they had initiated, and taking it away in a different direction.

(The disappointment must have been particularly acute for the Malaysian Hindu Sangam as its President had not too long ago resigned his position on the exco of the MCCBCHS citing the distortions and lies spread by the Christians about Hinduism in trying to gain converts.)

The IFC bill, if enacted in its present form, will give rise to serious conflicts between various arms of government: between federal departments; federal and state departments; elected leaders and the Malay Rulers.

As far as law is concerned, there will be conflicts between the Shariah, international norms, the Constitution and other legislation.

It is for obvious reasons therefore that there is no organization of the nature of the proposed IFC any where in the world. There is likely to be more religious disharmony than harmony and Muslims, having stated their objections to the IFC, cannot be blamed for the consequences.


1. The Holy Qur’an.

2. Melenia Muslim magazine, January 2006 no. 43, “ IFC Wajib Ditolak”.

3. Malaysiakin.com, “Setting the record straight on interfaith commission”, by: Malik Imtiaz Sarwar.

4. PENUBUHAN INTERFAITH COMMISSION, by : Allied Coordinating Committee of Islamic NGOs (ACCIN).

5. http://www.bukanliberal.org/index.php/articles/100/, “The IFC Bill: An Anti-Islam Wish List” . By: Baharudeen Abu Bakar.

6. Aliranmonthly.Com

7. www.Mpf.com. Article Islam and Human Rights by Dr. Azzam Tamimi.

8. Political Strategies III: Fighting Fundamentalism, by: Noral Murat.

9. http://bantahifc.bravehost.com/. Analysis Of The Draft Bill For The Proposed Inter-Faith Commission By Zainur Zakaria.

10. ________. IRC: Kami bantah kerana 0rang Islam boleh murtad selepas 25 Februari ini? By: UMAR ZIYAD

11. ________. Setting the Record Straight yet again on Interfaith Commission. by Baharuddeen Abu Bakar.

[1] . Melenia Muslim magazine, January 2006 no. 43, “ IFC Wajib Ditolak”.

[2] . Malaysiakin.com, “Setting the record straight on interfaith commission”, by: Malik Imtiaz Sarwar.

[3] . PENUBUHAN INTERFAITH COMMISSION, by : Allied Coordinating Committee of Islamic NGOs (ACCIN).

[4] . http://www.bukanliberal.org/index.php/articles/100/, “The IFC Bill: An Anti-Islam Wish List” . By: Baharudeen Abu Bakar.


~ oleh ANUAR AHMAD di Februari 25, 2009.

Satu Respons to “IFC”

  1. iFC was engineered by Jesuits managed by roman church of vatican in parallel to their agenda of establishing new world order.

Tinggalkan Jawapan

Masukkan butiran anda dibawah atau klik ikon untuk log masuk akaun:

WordPress.com Logo

Anda sedang menulis komen melalui akaun WordPress.com anda. Log Out /  Tukar )

Google+ photo

Anda sedang menulis komen melalui akaun Google+ anda. Log Out /  Tukar )

Twitter picture

Anda sedang menulis komen melalui akaun Twitter anda. Log Out /  Tukar )

Facebook photo

Anda sedang menulis komen melalui akaun Facebook anda. Log Out /  Tukar )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: