Upon reading the news concerning the tussle over the burial of Arayapan, many held their collective breaths for over a week anticipating a quick an amicable solution to the issue fearing it would again stir public anxiety. After nine days many heaved a sigh of relief when MAIS withdrew its claim from the Shariah High Court, allowing Arayapan to be buried according to Christian burial rites.
I am saddened yet again that the authorities chose to legitimize their conduct by turning to the Shariah courts to assert their authority, at once causing a public outcry.
It appears to have been resolved for now, yet we are uncertain if the same could recur in future. Since it seems that no one is in control of ones own death, not much can be done unless truly authoritative and fair mechanism is developed at the administrative level to ascertain the status of one’s religion when in dispute.
We agree that the courts should be the last resort when disputes cannot be settled amicably for no matter what the courts decision, in cases like this there are bound to be parties left feeling dejected and that justice was denied.
In delicate cases like this, affirmative action on the part of the religious authorities becomes pertinent and if necessary be reviewed particularly with regard to the execution of their responsibility. Observing from the few cases which have emerged in recent times, it is amazing that lessons have not been learned, or such cases would not recur.
Given the facts glanced from newspaper reports, one may not have the best solutions yet one considers the reaction by the authorities to be hasty and unjust, both to the Muslims in general and to the family of the deceased. It would appear that no meticulous efforts were initiated to justify an application to the Shariah court. As a result, the Shariah was insulted and scorned.
It is unjust that the applicant strained the judge to decide on such an important issue without prior due diligence. As a result, the Shariah was ridiculed and the courts were viewed with much disdain and contempt.
As a result the Shariah Courts and the system which is supposed to be ennobled and is empowered with a superior degree of integrity and justice as intended by the religion of Islam are once again viewed as being unjust and petty. We are not even aware if the judge or the courts castigated the applicant for their shoddy “investigation”.
In relation to that, examining the notion of ‘khayrat’ which exists in Malay tradition and communities (qariah) has been grossly neglected and its role misconstrued. Perhaps its only role nowadays is narrowed to the performance of obligations surrounding “fardhu kifayah” only in relation to death and burial rites, thus limiting its scope of action and performances of their collective responsibility (fardhu kifayah) . The only role that one see of the ‘khayrat” sadly, in many neighborhoods and communities today is collecting funds, disbursing them to grieving families of the dead in their own neighborhoods and perhaps sometimes using those funds as tithes for those performing the burial rituals and grave digging.
Let us concentrate on reviving the true function of the khayrat and qariah to avert some of the more unjust moments like the ones that we have seen in the recent past.
In the case of a convert, efforts must be made by the authorities to determine his domicile – not just his postal address but to which qariah he belongs so as to facilitate the obligatory fardhu kifayah by other members of his qariah. In the same token, other members of his qariah would know of their responsibilities and could react accordingly, thus performing their duties required of them.
Building a conducive and benevolent atmosphere (silattulrahhim) and nurturing feelings of acceptance through the notion of qariah and khayrat are the best way to prevent apostasy and confusion over the status of a convert’s faith when it arises. The qariah should be able to provide strong evidence for the authorities to act upon in addition to the other available evidences and documents.
We are not claiming to have a comprehensive solution, but perhaps our suggestion provides the relevant authority with awareness of his duties before rushing to court. Perhaps this mechanism may ease the burden of proving the status of the convert’s faith when in dispute.
Reviving the forgotten and neglected functions of the qariah and khayrat transforming it into a truly dynamic and functional social agent in Muslim neighborhoods is therefore an option which should be considered seriously by the relevant authorities instead of hastily using their misguided religious notions resorting to the court of law or other regulatory mechanisms to address such dispute.
We are reminded that the shariah is not the only mechanism to resolve social ills. Other options are available if proper research is conducted. No amount of law, regulations and procedures can effectively address all problems. The involvement of the society at large is equally important.