I refer to the Malaysiakini report Protesters stop Bar's 'conversion' forum.

The disruption of the conversion to Islam forum by a mob is very disappointing. Religious elements such as tolerance and peace disappeared into thin air and violent and racist language were used by the mob participants.

At the end of the event, the plight of the families of Subashini, Shamala, Lina Joy, Rayappan and Moorthy remained unresolved.

The protesters should look seriously at this issue as there are increasing number of families which suffer from an identity crisis due to conversion to Islam. This group of people who were not born Muslim, cannot seek redress because there is a gray area in jurisdiction between the civil courts and the syariah courts.

Those NGOs which oppose open discussions, either Pembela or Abim, should propose countermeasures instead of storming the Bar Council building. Such a move would be in line with the Islamic principle, justice for all.

I applaud the successful religious dialogue sessions held by the National Unity and Integration Department as they provided a channel for other religious communities to voice their concerns and submit recommendations.

Below are a few recommendations for settling disputes which arise from socio-religion circumstances:

a. Enhance civilisational dialogue. The Centre for Civilisational Dialogue in UM should be tasked with conducting religious dialogue and act as a platform for reaching a consensus.

The intervention of political powers and government machinery will only make such disputes more acrimonious and derail their agendas.

Religious groups and civil society members should hold their dialogue in an academic environment and we must give up the concept that governments or political parties could safeguard religion.

We must believe in the people’s and civil society's intellect to discuss issues rationally, reach a consensus and then propose a civil society solution to the government.

b. Respect the contract of marriage. I support the view of Bernard Dompok last year that in a divorce case involving one converted party, ‘it should be settled where it started’.

The public must respect that marriage is a private contract made by the two of them, hence it can only be dismantled by them and a party that acts as a witness.

It is akin to a couple creating a joint bank account. Even if one party had registered for another account in another bank, any changes to the first joint account must be done in that account’s bank, not another bank.

c. Review the requirement for conversion. Islamic scholars should study the necessity of conversion in the case of inter-faith marriages. Will there be any conflict if the husband and wife profess different religions?

Shouldn't the non-Muslim partner have the right to remain with his/her religion without change? I believe by reviewing this requirement, it will encourage more inter-ethnic marriages, promote better national unity and reduce a lot of bickering.

It could be a good suggestion for a multi-racial society like Malaysia.

Minister in Prime Minister’s Office Ahmad Zahid has announced such conversion disputes will be managed by a joint consultative committee comprising both civil and syariah court lawyers. This is a positive move from the government.

However, without amending the existing law and clearing the confusion of the jurisdiction of both the courts, the framework does not solve the problem. Moreover, there is the lack of transparency.

Lastly, while managing their religious affairs carefully and rationally, Malaysians must focus on the democratisation process instead of creating more racial and religious conflicts.

When the GPMS representative shouted at the recent Bar Council forum that he represented Umno, we need to be extra cautious.

It could be a plot to split the reformasi force for the coming Permatang Pauh by-election.