THECONSTITUTIONOFAMUSLIMMAJORITYSTATE:

THEEXAMPLEOFMALAYSIA

ProfessorShadSaleemFaruqi

Apaperpresentedatthe
ConstitutionmakingForum:AGovernmentofSudanConsultation
2425May2011
Khartoum,Sudan

Withsupportfrom

AdvisoryCouncilforHumanRights

CONTENTS

I:INTRODUCTION&OVERVIEW

II:PROMINENTCHARACTERISTICSOFMALAYSIASCONSTITUTION

Asupremeconstitution
Afederalsystem
Constitutionalguaranteeoffundamentalrights
Specialpowerstocombatsubversionandemergency
Constitutionalmonarchy
TheConferenceofRulers
InterethnicbargainsaffirmativeactioninfavourofMalaysandthenativesof
Sabah&Sarawakbutwithsafeguardsfortherightsofothercommunities
specialamendmentprocedures
Westminstersystemofparliamentarygovernment
Universaladultfranchise
Electedparliaments
Islam as religion of the federation but with freedom of religion to all other
communities
Independentjudiciary
Legal pluralism and multiple court systems ordinary courts, shariah courts,
nativecourtsandadministrativetribunals
Anonpoliticalpublicservice
Indigenousfeatures

III:ISLAMASRELIGIONOFTHEFEDERATION

1. INTRODUCTION

2. THEISLAMICSTATEDEBATE:COMPETITIONBETWEENSECULARISM&
THEOCRACY?

3.MALAYSIANCONSTITUTIONSSECULARFEATURES

Secularhistory
Caselawaffirmsthenontheocraticnatureofthestate
Adat(custom)appliessidebysidewithIslam
TheConstitutionissupremeArticle4(1)
PreIndependencelawmustbereconciledwithconstitutionalsupremacy
Article162(6)
Seculardefinitionoflaw

ProvisionforIslamasofficialreligiondoesnotderogatefromanyother
provisionoftheConstitutionArticle3(4)
Shariahcourtshavelimitedauthority
Higherstatusofsecularauthorities
Islamisnotaprerequisiteforfederalpostsandpositions

4.MALAYSIANCONSTITUTIONSISLAMICFEATURES

Americanstylesecularismrejected
IslamiceducationcompulsoryforMuslims
StatesupportforIslamicreligiousinstitutions
ShariahcourtsindependentofcivilcourtsArticle121(1A)
AllMuslimsaresubjecttoShariahlawsinareasenumeratedintheConstitution
PreachingofanyreligiontoMuslimsisregulated
IslamicmoralityisenforcedonMuslims
MostStateConstitutionsrequiretopstatepoststobelongtoMuslims
Race&religionareintertwinedintheconceptofaMalay
IslamicInstitutionsabound
Islamicpracticesarebecomingmainstream
Islamiceconomyisexpanding
Islamisationofthelegalandeconomicsystemsisinswing

5.TENSIONSINMALAYSIASBODYPOLITIC

Delayingrantofplanningpermissionsforplacesofworship
BanoninterreligiousmarriagesbetweenMuslimsandnonMuslims
Norighttoatheism
StrictregulationofpropagationofanyreligiontoMuslims
Constitutionalrestraintsonfreedomofreligion
ApostasybyMuslimsiscriminalised
Widespreaddemandforhududlaws

IV:CONCLUSION

I:INTRODUCTION&OVERVIEW

History:InearlyhistoryMalaya(nowMalaysia)consistedofseveral,independent,
sovereignMalaykingdoms.From1511to1640thePortugalcolonizedpartsof
Malaya.From1641to1824theDutchruledmanypartsoftheMalaykingdoms.In
1786therewasadventofBritishcolonialismwhichlastedtillMalayas
independencein1957.

WhenMerdeka(independence)camein1957,thenewnationwascalledthe
FederationofMalaya.In1963theBritishterritoriesofSingapore,Sabahand
SarawakjoinedtheFederationofMalayaandthenewexpandednationwasre
namedtheFederationofMalaysia.In1965Singaporewasexpelledfromthe
Federationandbecameaseparateindependentstate.

Topography:Malaysiaisalush,green,tropicallandwithavastcoastline.Theland
massisapproximately358,977sq.kmandthepopulationisapproximately26
million.Geographicallyitismadeupoftwodistinctregions.TotheWestis
PeninsularMalaysia(consistingof11federatedstates).TotheEastarethetwo
formerBorneostatesofSabahandSarawak.ThePeninsularandEastMalaysian
regionsareseparatedbyapproximately1,000kmoftheSouthChinaSea.

Culture&Religion:Malaysiaisadeeplydiverseandheterogenoussocietywith
manycultures,religionsandlanguagescontributingtotherichculturalmosaic.For
mostofits54yearstherehasbeenacceptanceofdiversityandnoofficialattemptto
createculturalhomogeneity.Insteadofameltingpot,Malaysiabuiltacultural
mosaic,asortofculturalrainbowinwhichthevariouscomponentsareseparatebut
notapart..

IslamisthereligionoftheFederationbutallotherreligionsareallowedtobe
practisedinpeaceandharmony.Nearly60%to65%oftheoverallpopulationis
MalayandMuslim.

MuslimsarecompulsorilysubjectedtotheShariahandtothejurisdictionofthe
Shariahcourtsinpersonallawandafewotherenumeratedmatters.However,the
ShariahisnotappliedtononMuslimsandnononMuslimissubjecttothe
jurisdictionoftheShariahcourts.

Withintheirjurisdiction,theShariahcourtsareindependentofthecivilcourts.

The35%to40%nonMalay/nonMuslimpopulationisconcentratedinthe
peninsularregionsofPenang,Perak,SelangorandKualaLumpurandintheEast
MalaysianstatesofSabahandSarawak.
TheprominentnonMuslimreligionsareBuddhism,Hinduism,Christianityand
Sikhism.

TheMalaylanguageistheofficiallanguagebutallotherlanguagesareallowedfor
nonofficialpurposes.Vernacularschoolsarepermittedatprimaryandsecondary
levels.Englishiswidelyusedbothinthepublicandprivatesectorsforcommercial
andeducationalpurposes.

Legalandpoliticalsystem:MalaysiaisaMuslimmajoritydemocraticstate
fashionedontheconstitutionalmonarchyandparliamentarygovernmentmodelof
theUK.ItsmaindifferenceswiththeUKarethatunlikeparliamentarysupremacyin
theUK,MalaysiahasawrittenandsupremeConstitutionwhichisenforceable
throughjudicialreview.UnliketheunitarysystemintheUK,Malaysiahasaquasi
federalsystemofgovernment.

ThesupremeConstitutionseekstoestablishapopularlyelectedgovernment,an
electedandrepresentativeParliament,anindependentjudiciarywithpowerof
judicialreview,anaccountablegovernmentundertheruleoflawandafederalstate
divisionofpower.

Economy:Thecountryiseconomicallyblessed.Ithasalargecoastline.Itssoilis
fertile.Thereisrainfallthroughouttheyear.Thoughincloseproximityto
earthquakeandtsunamipronezones,itissparedthesecalamitiesmostofthetime.
Therearevastreservesofoil,gas,mineralsandforesttimber.Theoveralleconomy
isopen,marketoriented,andgloballylinked.Thereare,however,significant
controlsoverpricesofessentialcommoditiesandstateregulationoflicencesand
permitstoensureBumiputra(indigenous)participationintradeandcommerce.

Preindependenceinterethnicbargaining:Dividedsocietieshavespecial
challengesinthedraftingoftheirbasiclaw.Malayadidwelltoforgemiddlepaths
andtoachievebroadconsensus.Tobuildunityinthemidstofdiversity,theleaders
ofthevariousethnicgroups(theMalays,theChineseandtheIndians)forgeda
multiethnicpoliticalpartnershipcalledtheAlliancein1955.Togetherthe
Alliancedrewupthebasicprinciplesfortheemergingnewnation.Thecoalition
agreedtodrawupanewConstitutionthatwouldensurethepoliticaldominanceof
themajorityMalaysandaffirmtheindigenousfeaturesoftheMalayPeninsulabutat
thesametimegivetothenonMalayscitizenshipentitlementsandotherguarantees
oftheirrights.Theinterethnicbargainingamongtheethnicgroupsin1956and
1957revolvedaroundthefollowing:

Affirmativeactionpoliciesinfavourofthepoliticallydominantbuteconomically
weakMalaycommunity.Thiswouldencompassreservationsandquotasofsuch
proportionasthefederalKingdeemsnecessaryinfourareas:positionsinthe
publicservices;scholarships,educationalortrainingprivileges;permitsor
licencesfortheoperationofanytradeorbusiness;andplacesintertiary
educationalinstitutions;
MalayReserveLandstoensurethatgazettedlandscouldnotbetransferredto
othercommunities;
5

 ThesettingupofaMalayregiment;
ToppositionsintheStatesoftheFederationtobereservedforMalays.

InreturnfortheprivilegestotheMalays,theChinese,theIndians,theCeylonese
andothernonMalayswouldreceivethefollowingrightseitherintheConstitution
orthroughordinarylaws:

Rightoffullcitizenshipontheprincipleofjussoli;
Freedomofreligiontoprofess,practiceand(subjecttosomelimitations)to
propagatetheirreligions;
Equalrightsinrespectofprimaryandsecondaryeducation;
Protectionofminoritylanguages,righttoteachandlearntheselanguagesin
schools;righttosetupvernacularschools;
Protectionforculturalpractices;
Freedomoftradeandcommerce;
Powersharingarrangementinthedistributionofcabinetportfolios.

ThedraftingofthenewMalayanConstitution:AttheLondonConferenceof1956
theprinciplesonwhichindependencewastobegrantedandthemannerofdrafting
the new Constitution were agreed upon. There was also broad consensus on the
terms of reference for the new Constitutional Commission. However, the Malay
Rulers,theleadersofthepoliticalAllianceandtheBritishhadsomedifferenceson
the composition of the proposed new Commission. For this reason a totally
independentgroupoffiveoutsiderswasgiventhedelicatetaskofdraftingMalayas
newdocumentofdestiny.

TheCommissionconsistedoffivelegalluminariestwoBritish,oneAustralian,
one Indian and one Pakistani. The Chairman was Lord Reid, a distinguished
Englishjudge.
TheCommissionheld118publicandprivatehearingsbetweenJuneandOctober
1956andsubmitteditsrecommendationsinFebruary1957.
ATripartiteWorkingPartyoftheRulers,theAllianceandtheBritishmadesome
significantchangestotheReidDraft.
TheTripartiteWorkingPartysreportwasconsideredandapprovedwithsome
modificationsattheLondonConferencein1957.
There then flowed a lengthy process of ratification by the Federal Legislative
Council,theAssembliesoftheMalayStates,theUnitedKingdomParliamentand
theBritishCrown.
At the stroke of midnight on August 31, 1957, Malaya began its tryst with
destiny.

Developments since 1957: No Constitution can stand still. The Malayan

Constitutionhassurvivedthevicissitudesofwar,fouremergencies,incorporationof
newterritoriesandexpulsionofonestate.

On September 16, 1963 Malaya transformed to Malaysia by admitting on very

specialtermstheBritishpossessionsofSingapore,SabahandSarawakintothe
Federation.
Due to fundamental differences between the Prime Minister of Malaya and the
leadersofSingapore,theislandwasexpelledfromMalayain1965.
TheConstitutionoftheFederationofMalaysiahassurvivedsincethenthoughit
hasbeenamendedsignificantlyinmanywaystoenlargeexecutivepowersand
tostrengthenthefederalgovernmentvisvistheStates.

II:PROMINENTCHARACTERISTICSOFMALAYSIASCONSTITUTION

Constitutionallawislinkedwithphilosophyatoneendandpoliticsattheother.Itis
silhouetted against the panorama of history, economics and culture. More than
otherfieldsoflaw,itreflectsthedreams,demands,valuesandvulnerabilitiesofthe
bodypolitic.AConstitutionislikeapoliticalarchitectsmasterplanforthenation.It
is a body of fundamental law that describes the manner in which the state is
organised;governmentcarriedonandjusticeadministered.

Attheorganisationallevel,itcreatesthevariousorgansofthestate;describesand
limits their powers and functions; prescribes rules about their relationship with
each other and with the citizen. At the political level it concerns itself with the
locationofauthorityinthestate.Ittellsushowtomanagepowerandsecureliberty.
At the philosophical level it supplies the fundamental or core values on which
societyisfounded.

The183Articlesand13Schedulesonwhichtheconstitutionaledificerestsembody
thefollowingbasiccharacteristics.

ASupremeConstitution
UnliketheUnitedKingdomwherethereisnowrittenConstitution,Malayain1957
adopted a written and supreme charter. Articles 4(1) and 162(6) affirm the
supremacy of the basic law over all pre and post independence legislation. These
ArticlesimplythatParliamentisnotsupreme.Thereareproceduralandsubstantive
limits on Parliaments powers. State Assemblies are, likewise, limited in their
legislativecompetence.Courtshavethepowertonullifyfederalandstatelegislation
ifthereisinconsistencywiththesupremeConstitution.On18occasionssince1957,
this power was exercised with telling effect. Likewise, executive actions can be
testedinthecourtsfortheirconstitutionality.

AFederalSystem
UnliketheunitarysystemintheUKandSingapore,Malaysiahasafederalformof
government.Thereisdivisionoflegislative,executive,judicialandfinancialpowers
betweentheCentreandtheStatesthoughtheweightageisheavilyinfavourofthe

Centre.ThisdivisionisprotectedbytheConstitutionandjudicialreviewisavailable
iffederalorstateagenciesexceedtheirpowers.

ConstitutionalGuaranteeofFundamentalRights
Inresponsetothehumanitarianismoftheera,theConstitution,inArticles5to13
and elsewhere, protects a large number of political, civil, cultural and economic
rights. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to such extensive
regulationbyParliamentthattheirdescriptionasfundamentalposesproblemsin
politicalphilosophy.

SpecialPowerstoCombatSubversion&Emergency
Thecommunistinsurgencycastadarkshadowonconstitutionaldevelopment.The
forefathersoftheConstitution,throughArticles149and150,armedParliamentand
theexecutivewithoverridingpowerstocombatsubversionandemergency.These
special powers have been employed extensively to restrict many fundamental
rights.

ConstitutionalMonarchy
TheYangdiPertuanAgong(thefederalKing)andtheStateSultansarerequiredby
federalandstateConstitutionstoactontheadviceoftheelectedgovernmentinthe
wholerangeoftheirconstitutionalfunctionsexceptinasmallareawherepersonal
discretion has been conferred. Even in this area, constitutional conventions limit
royal discretion. In the overall scheme of the Constitution, the monarchs are
requiredtoreign,nottorule.

TheConferenceofRulers
The primary function of this unique, august institution is to elect and remove the
Yang di Pertuan Agong (federal King), elect the Deputy Yang diPertuan Agong,
consentorrefusetoconsenttosomeconstitutionalamendments,andtoofferadvice
onsomeappointments.

InterethnicbargainsAffirmativeActioninFavourofMalaysandtheNatives
ofSabah&Sarawakbutwithsafeguardsfortherightsofothercommunities
One oftheunique features of theConstitution is thataffirmative action policies in
favourofthemajorityMalaysandthenativesofSabahandSarawakareentrenched
in the basic law. These special privileges are offset by safeguards for the other
communities.

SpecialAmendmentProcedures
Unlike ordinary laws which can be amended or repealed by simple majorities of
legislators present and voting, most constitutional provisions are entrenched
against easy repeal. Special twothirds majorities are required. In respect of some
provisions,theconsentoftheConferenceofRulersoroftheGovernorsofSabahand
SarawakoroftheStateAssembliesisalsomandated.However,unlikeAustraliathe
amendmentproceduredoesnotrequiretheconsentofthepeopleatareferendum.


WestminsterSystemofParliamentaryGovernment
UnlikethesystemofindependentgovernmentintheUSAwhichisbuiltonarigid,
institutional separation between the executive and the legislature, in Malaysia the
governmentispartofparliament,isanswerable,accountableandresponsibletoit
andcanbedismissedonavoteofnoconfidencebythelowerHouse.

UniversalAdultFranchise
The Constitution provides for periodic elections, universal adult suffrage and an
independent Election Commission. A unique feature of the electoral landscape is
that rural constituencies may have less than half of the population of urban
constituencies.

ElectedParliaments
Elected Parliaments exist at both the federal and state levels. At the federal level,
ParliamentisbicameralwithpreponderanceofpowerintheDewanRakyat(House
of the People) over the mostly appointed Dewan Negara (the Senate). State
Assembliesareunicameral.

IslamasReligionoftheFederation
Islam arrived in Malaya in the 14th century and gradually became the defining
featureoftheMalaypersona.InArticle3oftheFederalConstitution,Islamismade
thereligionofthefederationbutthereisfreedomtoothercommunitiestopractise
theirownfaithsinpeaceandharmony.ThoughthewordIslamismentionedinthe
Constitutionnearly24times,theadoptionofIslamasthereligionofthefederation
doesnotconvertMalaysiaintoanIslamicstate.TheConstitutionandnottheshariah
isthesupremelawoftheland.

IndependentJudiciary
Superiorcourtjudgesenjoymanyspecialsafeguardsinmattersofappointmentand
dismissal. Their terms and conditions of service cannot be altered to their
detriment. They are insulated from politics. They have power to punish for
contempt of court. In the performance of their functions, they enjoy absolute
immunity.

Legal Pluralism & Multiple Court System Ordinary Courts, Shariah Courts,
NativeCourts&AdministrativeTribunals
An elaborate system of civil and criminal courts exists. The hierarchies of the
ordinarycourts,theconstitutionalpositionofsuperiorcourtjudges,safeguardsfor
theirsecurityoftenure,thejurisdictionofthevariouscourtsandtheimmunitiesof
judgesareprovidedforbythelaw.

In addition, the Constitution permits Islamic courts to be established and Shariah

officials to be hired. The jurisdiction of the Shariah Courts is protected by Article
121(1A) against interference by ordinary courts. Shariah Courts were till
10.06.1988 regarded as subordinate to the High Court. But by Act A704 it was
9

providedthattheHighCourtsandtheinferiorcourtsreferredtoinArticle121(1)
shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the
Syariahcourts.ThejurisdictionoftheShariahcourtsisdefinedandlimitedbythe
law and covers mostly personal law matters though in the last two decades the
Shariahauthoritieshaveinterpretedtheirpowersratherbroadly.

IntheEastMalaysianstatesofSabahandSarawak,NativeCourtsexisttoadminister
nativelawinalimitedjurisdiction.

Parallel to the ordinary courts there exist hundreds of administrative tribunals

knownbymanynames.Ingeneral,mostofthemaresubordinatetotheHighCourt
and are amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court through
remedieslikecertiorari,mandamusetc..

ANonPoliticalPublicService
Civilservantsarerequiredtomaintainareserveinpolitics.Theirterminofficeis
unaffected by the rise and fall of governments. They enjoy many procedural
safeguardsagainstarbitrarydismissalorreductioninrank.

IndigenousFeatures
For hundreds of years, Malaya has been the homeland of the Malays. It is
understandable,therefore,thatwhentheMerdeka(independence)Constitutionwas
drafted it reflected a number of features indigenous to the Malay archipelago,
among them the Malay Sultanate, Islam as the religion of the nation, Malay
privileges, Malay reservation land, Bahasa Melayu as the official language of the
federationandspecialprotectionforthecustomarylawsoftheMalays.

Insum,thedocumentofdestinythatwasadoptedastheConstitutionborethemark
ofidealismaswellasrealism.Itblendedtheoldandthenew,theindigenousandthe
imported. According to Hickling the ideas of Westminster and the experience of
India mingled with those of Malaya to produce a unique form of government. The
MalayMuslimfeaturesoftheConstitutionarebalancedbyotherprovisionssuitable
for a multiracial and multireligious society. Malay privileges are offset by
safeguards for the interest of other communities. The spirit that animates the
Constitutionisoneofmoderation,compassionandcompromise.

Fiftyfour years into independence, the Federal Constitution, though amended

significantlyinmanyparts,isstilltheapexofthelegalhierarchy.Ithasendured.It
has preserved public order and social stability. It has provided the framework for
Malaysias spectacular economic prosperity. It has reconciled the seemingly
irreconcilableconflictofinterestbetweenethnicandreligiousgroupsinawaythat
hasfewparallelsinthemodernworld.

But all this has entailed a price in terms of curtailed liberties, the persistence of
emergencyandsubversionlaws;lackofopennessandtransparencyinmanyaspects

10

of government; and the strengthening of the apparatus of the state at the cost of
individualfreedoms.
Some lament that the price is too high. Others accept the sacrifices for peace,
prosperityandstability.Onlytimewilltellwhoisright.

III:ISLAMASRELIGIONOFTHEFEDERATION

1.INTRODUCTION

TheConstitutionofMalaysiainArticle3(1)providesthatIslamisthereligionofthe
federationbutallotherreligionsmaybepractisedinpeaceandharmony.1

InSchedule9,ListII,Paragraph1Statelegislaturesarepermittedtolegislateforthe
applicationofIslamiclawstopersonsprofessingthereligionofIslaminavarietyof
areas including personal and family law, succession, betrothal, marriage, divorce,
dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, guardianship, gifts, partitions, trusts,
zakat,fitrah,baitulmal,similarIslamicreligiousrevenueandmosques.

TheStatelegislaturesarealsoauthorizedtocreateandpunishoffencesbyMuslims
againstthepreceptsofIslamexceptinrelationtomatterswithinthejurisdictionof
the federal Parliament. Shariah Courts may be established by State law and it is
declaredthattheyshallhavejurisdictiononlyoverpersonsprofessingthereligion
of Islam. In the exercise of powers within their jurisdiction, Shariah Courts are
independentofthecivilcourts:Article121(1A).

2.THEISLAMICSTATEDEBATE:COMPETITIONBETWEENSECULARISMAND
THEOCRACY

Whatarethelegal,political,moral,socialandeconomicimplicationsofArticle3(1),
Article 121(1A) and List II of Schedule 9? During the last ten years an engaging
debate has been raging about whether Malaysia is an Islamic or secular state. The
nonMuslims of the country are adamant that Malaysias Constitution is, and was
fromthebeginning,meanttoprovideasecularfoundation.TheoppositionMuslim
party, Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) agrees with them that the Constitution is
secular. But it says this in an accusatory tone and has made it clear that once in
power it will amend the basic law to convert Malaysia into an Islamic state. The
ruling Muslim party, United Malay National Organisation (UMNO), dismisses the
proposal by PAS on the ground that Malaysia is already an Islamic state and,
therefore,noconstitutionalamendmentsareneeded.Itrestsitscaseonthefactthat
Muslims constitute the majority of the population. The constitutional monarchs at
thefederalandstatelevelsareMuslims.Thepoliticalexecutive,thecivilservice,the
1

The word Islam is mentioned at least twenty-four times in the Constitution. The words Mufti, Kadi
Besar and Kadi at least once each.
11

police,thearmy,thejudiciaryandthelegislatures,whilemultiracial,areunderthe
control of Muslims. The Federal and State Constitutions are replete with Islamic
features. Islamic practices are gaining ground. Islamic economic and religious
institutionsthrivewithstatesupport.

The Islamic state discussion is riddled with the error that a state must be either
theocratic or secular. In fact, many hybrid versions exist and ideological purity
evenifdesirableisnoteasilypossible.WhethertheMalaysianpolityis"Islamic"or
notdependsalsoonwhetheroneviewsthingsinapurelydejurewayorwhether
onebrushesintothelegalcanvasthedefactorealities.

ItissubmittedthatthedifferencesofopinionoverwhetherMalaysiaisanIslamicor
secular state are attributable partly to semantics the assignment of different
meanings to the same word by participants in a discourse. Opinions are clashing
becausethereisnolitmustestoruniversallyagreedlistofcriteriatotypifyasocial
orlegalsystemastheocraticortemporal.Theproblemiscompoundedbythefact
thatthereisnoidealorprototypesecularorIslamicstatethatonecouldholdupas
ashiningmodelorparadigmofoneortheother.Asinotherreligious,politicaland
economicsystems,diversityanddifferencesarepartofIslamicideologyandofthe
practice of 57 or so Muslim majority countries.2 The Shias and the Sunnis (and
withintheSunnistheHanafi,Shafei,MalikiandHambalischools),arenotalwaysin
agreementoverdetails.Asineveryothersystemthatdependsonhumanendeavor
forrealisation,thereisamassivegapbetweentheoryandrealityandpromiseand
performance. A theoretical discussion of the fundamentals of secularism and
theocracymayhelptounderstandtheconstitutionalpositioninMalaysia.

Conceptofasecularstate
A secular constitution separates the state from the church and law from religion.
The functions of the state are confined to mundane matters and religion is left
entirely to religious establishments. There is no legally prescribed official or state
religion and no state aid is given to any religion or for any religious purposes.
Freedom of religion is, however, generally guaranteed and private religious
activitiesbyindividuals,groupsandassociationsarenotinterferedwithexcepton
grounds of public order, national security, public health or public morality. Well
known examples of secular states are India, the United States, Singapore and
Turkey.

India:InIndia,thePreambletotheConstitutiondeclaresIndiatobeasecularstate.
Thereisnoofficial,statereligioninIndia.TheConstitutionhasneitherestablisheda
religionofitsownnorconferredanyspecialpatronageuponanyparticularreligion.
Of course, a wide gap exists between theory and practice. Under Article 27 of the
Indian Constitution, the state cannot compel any citizen to pay any taxes for the
2

John Donohoue & John Esposito (eds), Islam in Transition Muslim Perspectives (Oxford University
Press, New York, 1982); John L. Esposito, Voices of Resurgent Islam (Oxford University Press, New
York, 1983).
12

promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious institution. No

religiousinstructioncanbeprovidedinanyeducationalinstitutionwhollyprovided
bystatefunds.Denominationalinstitutionsreceivingaidfromthestatecanimpart
religiousinstructionbutcannotcompelanyonetoreceivesuchinstructionwithout
his or his parent's consent. The attitude of the law towards religions is one of
neutrality and impartiality though actual practices diverge from theory. Personal
lawsareallowedbutnoonecanbecompelledtoobservethem.Inaddition,thestate
exercisesanoverridingpowertoregulateorsuppressreligiouspracticesthatoffend
moralityandpublicorder.

UnitedStates:LikeIndia,theUnitedStatesdoesnothaveastatereligion.However,
manylawsoftheUnitedStatesaregroundedinProtestantChristianity.MostState
ConstitutionsintheUSApaydeferencetoGodintheirPreambles.However,inthe
area of public education, the separation between the church and the state is very
pronounced.In1963theUSSupremeCourtinAbingtonvSchempp3heldthatBible
reading exercises in public schools were unconstitutional. Public funds cannot be
usedtosupportanysectarianactivity.InEngelvVitale4statesponsoredprayerin
public schools was held to violate the constitutional clause that forbade the state
from establishing any religion. A high school principal who allowed a group of
studentstoconductaprayermeetinginhisofficewasprohibitedbythestatecourt
from using a public premise for a sectarian purpose. In McCollum v Board of
Education5 releasing students for a short time to enable them to pray constituted
unconstitutionaluseoftaxsupportedpropertyforreligiousinstruction.IntheU.S.,
distributing religious literature in public schools is not allowed. The wearing of a
distinctive religious garb by a public school teacher while engaged in the
performanceofdutiescanbeprohibited.Intheinterestofmaintainingthechanging
valuesofapluralistsociety,Americancourtshavetakensecularismtoextremesby
tryingtoremoveGodfromtheclassroom.AfewyearsagotheUniversityofNorth
CarolinaprescribedabookApproachingtheQuran:TheEarlyRevelationsbyMichael
Sells.AChristianorganisationimmediatelychallengedthisasaviolationoftheFirst
Amendmenttoreligiousfreedom.

Turkey and Singapore: As in the United States, Turkey maintains a strict divide
between religion and politics. In 1998, the Turkish Supreme Constitutional Court
banned the electorally popular Islamic Welfare Party. A woman MP who chose to
wearascarftoParliamentwasdismissedfromParliament.Schoolgirlswhodefythe
banonheadcoveringareexpelledfromschools.SimilarattitudesexistinSingapore.
Intheguiseofneutrality,manysecularstatesadoptanattitudeofhostilitytowards
organisedreligions.

3
4
5

374 U.S. 203 (1963)

8 L.Ed. 2d 601 (1962)
333 U.S. 203 (1948)
13


Conceptofatheocraticstate
Incontrastwithsecularstates,intheocraciesreligionisinterwovenintothefabric
ofgovernment."Theocracy"literallymeansrulebyGod.Inpoliticalsciencetheterm
hascometomeaneitheroneoftwothings.First,thetemporalrulerissubjectedto
thefinaldirectionofthetheologicalheadbecausethespiritualpowerisdeemedto
behigherthanthetemporalandthetemporalistobejudgedbythespiritual.Iran
hassuchaconstitutionalrule.Second,thelawofGodisthesupremelawoftheland.
ThedivinelawisexpoundedandadministeredbypiousmenasGod'sagentson
earth.SaudiArabiaandtheVaticanaretheocraciesofthiskind.

3.MALAYSIANCONSTITUTIONSSECULARFEATURES

Secularhistory
Malaysia's document of destiny does not contain a preamble. The word 'secular'
doesnotappearanywhereintheConstitution.However,thereishistoricalevidence
in the Reid Commission papers that the country was meant to be secular and the
intention in making Islam the official religion of the Federation was primarily for
ceremonial purposes. In the White Paper dealing with the 1957 constitutional
proposals it is stated: "There has been included in the proposed Federal
ConstitutionadeclarationthatIslamisthereligionoftheFederation.Thiswillinno
wayaffectthepresentpositionoftheFederationasasecularstate6Thisviewofa
secularhistoryisstronglychallengedbythosewhoarguethatbeforethecomingof
theBritish,Islamiclawwasthelawoftheland.7Withallduerespect,suchapicture
oversimplifiesanimmenselycomplexsituation.Alookatthelegalsystempriorto
Merdekaindicatesthepresenceofamyriadofcompetingandconflictingstreamsof
legalpluralism.

TheNeolithicpeoplewholivedinthealluvialfloodplainsofMalayabetween2500
BC and 1500 BC possessed their own animistic traditions. Likewise the Mesolithic
culture(encompassingtheSenoisofCentralMalaya,theBataksofSumatraandthe
Dayaks of Borneo), the ProtoMalays and the DeuteroMalays had their own tribal
customs.

HinduismfromIndiaandBuddhismfromIndiaandChinaheldswayinSouthEast
Asia between the first to the thirteenth centuries and left an indelible imprint on
Malay political and social institutions, court hierarchy, prerogatives and
ceremonials,marriagecustomaryritesandMalaycriminallaw.Theincorporationof

M.Sufian Hashim, The Relationship between Islam and the State in Malaya, Intisari, Vol 1, No 1,
p 8.
Ahmad Ibrahim & Ahilemah Joned, The Malaysian Legal System (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala
Lumpur, 1987) p 54.
14

thepatriarchalandmonarchicalaspectsoflawaresaidtohavebeeninfluencedby
Hinduculture.Someoftheseinfluenceslingeruntiltoday.8

InPeninsularMalaysia,Chinesetradersbroughtwiththemtheirownwayoflifeand
the close relationship between Malacca and China during the days of the Malacca
SultanateopenedthedoortoChineseinfluenceonMalaylife.

Before1963,SabahandSarawakwereguidedbytheirnativecustomsandbyBritish
laws.TheinfluenceofIslamwasmarginal.

IslamcametoMalaccaonlyinthe14thcenturyfromvariousregionsinArabia,India
andChina.ButitgainedalegalfootinginMalayaonlyinthe15thcentury.Sincethen
the legal system of the Malays shows a fascinating action and reaction between
Hindulaw,MuslimlawandMalay indigenoustraditions.Insome Malaystateslike
Malacca, Pahang, Johore and Terengganu, vigorous attempts were made to modify
MalaycustomsandtomakethemconformtoIslamiclaw.Buttheseattemptswere
thwartedbytheBritishwhorelegatedIslamiclawprimarilytopersonalmatters.R.J.
WilkinsonsaysthattherecanbenodoubtthatMuslimlawwouldhaveendedby
becoming the law of Malaya had not British law stepped in to check it.9 There is
verylittledoubtthatatthetimeofMerdeka(independence)theIslamiclawthat
existedinMalayawasanIslamiclawwhich(had)absorbedportionsoftheMalay
adatand,therefore,not(the)pureIslamiclaw.10

Caselawaffirmsthenontheocraticnatureofthestate
It was held in Che Omar Che Soh v PP11 that though Islam is the religion of the
federation, it is not the basic law of the land and Article 3 (on Islam) imposes no
limitsonthepowerofParliamenttolegislate.Islamiclawisnotandneverwasthe
generallawofthelandeitheratthefederalorstatelevel.ItappliesonlytoMuslims
and only in areas outlined in Item 1 of List II of the Ninth Schedule. In the law of
evidence, for example, the Evidence Act applies to the exclusion of Islamic law:
Ainan v Syed Abubakar12. The Shariah Courts have limited jurisdiction only over
personsprofessingthereligionofIslam.13Itmustbenoted;however,thattheHigh
CourtinMeorAtiqulrahmanIshakvFatimahbteSihi14didnotfollowtheCheOmar
CheSohdecision.ItheldthatIslamis addeenawayoflife.Regulationsviolating
Article3canbeinvalidated.However,theHighCourtwasoverruledbytheCourtof
AppealandtheFederalCourt.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

ibid, p 8.
R.J. Wilkinson, Papers on Malay Subjects, Law (Kuala Lumpur, 1971).
Ahmad Ibrahim & Ahilemah Joned, supra, p 3
[1988] 2 MLJ 55
[1939] MLJ 209
Refer to Schedule 9, List II, Paragraph 1 of the Federal Constitution
[2000] 5 MLJ 375
15

Adat(custom)appliessidebysidewithIslam
OnemustalsonotetheverysignificantinfluenceofMalayadat(custom)onMalay
Muslimpersonallaws.InsomestateslikeNegeriSembilan,adat(custom)displaces
agama(religion)insomeareasoffamilylaw.

TheConstitutionissupreme:Article4(1)
Under Article 4(1) the Constitution and not the syariah is the supreme law of the
federation. Any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the
Constitutionshall,totheextentoftheinconsistency,bevoid.Despitetheprocessof
Islamisation since the early eighties, no constitutional change has been made to
weaken Article 4(1) or to put the syariah on a higher pedestal than the law ofthe
Constitution.

Preindependence law must be reconciled with constitutional supremacy:

Article162(6)
UnderArticle162(6)and(7)anypreindependencelawwhichisinconsistentwith
theConstitution,maybeamended,adaptedorrepealedbythecourtstomakeitfall
inlinewiththeConstitution.

Seculardefinitionoflaw
Article 160(2) of the Constitution, which defines law, does not mention the
Shariah as part of the definition of law. The term law includes written law,
commonlawandcustomorusagehavingtheforceoflaw.

Provision for Islam as the religion of the Federation does not derogate from
otherconstitutionalprovisions
Though Islam is adopted as the religion of the federation, it is clearly stated in
Article 3(4) that nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of the
Constitution. This means that no right or prohibition, no law or institution is
extinguishedorabolishedasaresultofArticle3'sadoptionofIslamasthereligion
of the Federation. This is what was held in Che Omar Che Soh. A controversial
parliamentary law on drug trafficking which provided for mandatory death
sentencesandapresumptionofguiltcannotbeinvalidatedonthesolegroundthat
itisunIslamic.

Shariahcourtshavelimitedauthority
Shariah courts have no jurisdiction over nonMuslims. Even as to Muslims the
poweroftheShariahcourtsisconfinedbytheConstitutiontomostlypersonallaw
matters.Crime,tort,commerce,contract,bankingareallinthehands

Higherstatusofsecularauthorities
Ifbyatheocraticstateismeantastateinwhichthetemporalrulerissubjectedto
thefinaldirectionofthetheologicalheadandinwhichthelawofGodisthesupreme
law of the land, then clearly Malaysia is nowhere near a theocratic, Islamic state.
Shariah authorities are appointed by State governments and can be dismissed by
them. Temporal authorities are higher than religious authorities. Except for those
16

areas in which the shariah is allowed to operate, the law of the land is enacted,
expoundedandadministeredbysecularofficials.

Islamisnotaprerequisiteforfederalpostsandpositions
The Yang diPertuan Agong must, of course, be a Muslim. But Islam is not a
prerequisite for citizenship or for occupying the post of the Prime Minister.
Members of the cabinet, legislature, judiciary, public services (including the police
andthearmedforces)andtheCommissionsundertheConstitutionarenotrequired
to be of the Muslim faith. In the Sixth Schedule, the oath of office for cabinet
ministers,parliamentarysecretaries,SpeakeroftheDewanRakyat,Membersofthe
DewanRakyatandSenators,judgesandmembersofConstitutionalCommissionsis
quitenonreligiousinitswordinganddoesnotrequireallegiancetoadivinebeing
ortoIslam.

4. MALAYSIANCONSTITUTIONSISLAMICFEATURES

TheConstitutionofMalaysiainArticle3(1)providesthatIslamisthereligionofthe
federationbutallotherreligionsmaybepractisedinpeaceandharmony.15There
aremanysignificantimplicationsofthedeclarationoffaithinArticle3(1).

Americanstylesecularismisrejected
TheimplicationofadoptingIslamasthereligionofthefederationisthatMalaysiais
not a fullfledged secular state. Government support for the religion of Islam is
permitted. The government is not required to maintain neutrality as between
religions.

Islamic education iscompulsory forMuslims:Islamiceducationandwayoflife

can be promoted by the state for the uplifting of Muslims. Article 12(2) provides
thatitshallbelawfulfortheFederationoraStatetoestablishormaintainIslamic
institutions, provide instruction in the religion of Islam to Muslims and incur
expenditurefortheabovepurposes.

StatesupportforIslamicreligiousinstitutions
Taxpayers' money can be utilised to promote Islamic institutions and to build
mosquesandotherIslamicplacesofworshipandtokeepthemunderthecontrolof
stateauthorities.

ShariahCourtsareindependentofcivilcourtsArticle121(1A)
TheConstitutionpermitsIslamiccourtstobeestablishedandsyariahofficialstobe
hired.ThejurisdictionoftheSyariahCourtsisprotectedbyArticle121(1A)against
interference by ordinary courts. Syariah Courts were till 10.06.1988 regarded as
subordinatetotheHighCourt.ButbyActA704itwasprovidedthattheHighCourts
15

The word Islam is mentioned at least twenty-four times in the Constitution. The words Mufti, Kadi
Besar and Kadi at least once each.
17

and the inferior courts referred to in Article 121(1) shall have no jurisdiction in
respectofanymatterwithinthejurisdictionoftheSyariahcourts.Thiswatershed
amendment catapulted the Islamic religious courts to equal constitutional status
withthecivilcourts.Sadly,theamendmentdidnotclarifyanumberofthings.

First, who has the power to determine whether a matter is within or outside the
jurisdiction of the syariah courts?16 If there is a difference of opinionbetween the
civilandthesyariahcourtswhosedecisionwillprevail?Theanswerisbynomeans
clear.InTongiahJumalivKerajaanJohor[2004]5MLJ41theplaintiff,aMuslimat
birth,hadconvertedtoChristianityandmarriedthesecondplaintiff,anonMuslim.
SheclaimedthathermarriagewasvalidunderMalaysianlaw.Acontentiousissue
waswhetherherconversionoutofIslamwasvalidandwhoshoulddeterminethat
issue? The Johor State Enactment had provisions regarding conversion into Islam
but the Enactment was silent on the issue of conversion out of Islam. The High
Court, adopting the implied power approach, held that the jurisdiction of the
SyariahCourttodealwithconversionsoutofIslamalthoughnotexpresslyprovided
forintheStateEnactmentsmaybereadintothembyimplicationderivedfromthe
provisionsconcerningconversionintoIslam.Butadifferentattitudewasadoptedin
NorlelaMohamadHabibullahvYusufMaldoner[2004]2MLJ629.Thepartieshad
contractedaMuslimmarriageabroadanddivorcedundercivillawabroad.Neither
the marriage nor the divorce was registered under the Muslim laws of Selangor.
Whentheissueofcustodyoftheinfantchildcameup,theplaintiffobtainedacivil
High Court order. The respondent challenged the right of the High Court to issue
suchanorderinthelightofArticle121(1A).ItwasheldbyFaizaTambyChikJthat
the Selangor Islamic Family Law Enactment did not apply to the unregistered
marriageandtheunregistereddivorce.Syariahcourtshavenoinherentjurisdiction
unlikecivilcourtsthatarecourtsofgeneraljurisdictionandhaveinherentpowers.
InPPvMohdNoorJaafar[2005]6MLJ745itwasheldthatanoffenceunders.5(1)
of the Islamic Religious Schools (Malacca) Enactment 2002 was not an offence
againstthepreceptsofIslamandwasthereforeexcludedfromthejurisdictionofthe
Syariah Courts. The court clarified that Article 121(1A) was attracted only if a
particularmattercomeswithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheSyariahCourts.

AsecondunresolvedissueisaboutwhereacaseshouldgoifonepartyisaMuslim
and the other a nonMuslim? In Saravanan a/l Thangathoray v Subashini a/p
Rajasingham[2007]2MLJ705thecouplewasmarriedundercivillawin2001and
hadtwoinfantchildren.In2006thehusbandconvertedhimselfandhisinfantson
toIslam.Thewifecomplainedthatthesonsconversionwascarriedoutwithouther
knowledge and consent and she sought an ex parte injunction to restrain the
husband from converting either child and commencing or continuing with any
proceeding in any Syariah Court with regard to the marriage or the children. The
learned Judicial Commissioner held that she had no jurisdiction to grant an
16

Cases involving jurisdictional conflicts between syariah and civil courts have been meticulously laid out
in a recent learned judgment by Abdul Hamid Mohamed, FCJ. The learned FCJ listed 46 such judgments.
Refer to Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati & Another, Rayuan Civil No. 02-39-2006(W).
18

injunctionagainstacourtnotsubordinatetotheHighCourt.OnappealtotheCourt
of Appeal, the majority expressed inability to grant the injunction sought because
the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. The court expressed
sympathyforthewifesplightandtooknotethatthewifesremedyinthecivilcourt
was preempted by the husbands petition in the Syariah Court. But the court was
unable to grant any relief. Hassan Lah JCA, however, recommended that the
aggrieved nonMuslim wife should apply to the Syariah Appeal Court against the
judgmentoftheSyariahCourt.ThelearnedJCAsopinionisoutoflinewithSchedule
9ListIIParagraph1whichconfinesthejurisdictionoftheSyariahCourtstopersons
professingthereligionofIslam.

A third problem is about where the case should go to if the issue is mixed and
involveselementsofbothsyariahandcivillaw?InIslamicbankingcasesvigorous
arguments have been submitted that the High Court should not exercise
jurisdiction17. Fourth, what if a syariah related law or decision involves a grave
constitutional law question about fundamental rights or federalstate division of
power?18InPriyathasenyvPegawaiPenguatkuasaAgama[2003]2MLJ302thefirst
plaintiffwasbornaMalayandaMuslim.SherenouncedIslam,adoptedHinduism,
changedhername,marriedthesecondplaintiff(anethnicIndianandaHindu),and
gavebirthtotwochildren.Shewasarrestedandchargedfortwooffencesfirstof
insultingIslambyheractofconversionandsecond,ofcohabitationoutsideoflawful
MuslimwedlockwithanonMuslim.Sometimeafterherarrest,herHinduhusband
convertedtoIslam.ThefirstplaintiffsoughtadeclarationthatshewasaHinduand
thatherconstitutionalrightswerebeingviolated19.Thesecondplaintiff,herHindu
husband,alsosoughtadeclarationthathewasnotsubjecttoIslamiclawbecausehe
hadbeencoercedintoconvertingintoIslaminordertosavehiswifefromjail.The
HighCourtdeniedbothdeclarationsandrefusedtoanswertheconstitutionalissues.
While admitting that interpretation of the constitutional word profess was
involved,thecourtheldthatthecoreissuewaswhetherthefirstplaintiffwasstilla
Muslimdespiteherallegedconversionandwhetherthesecondplaintiffremaineda
Muslim despite his allegation that he was coerced into conversion. The court held
that both issues were for the Syariah Courts. The decision is problematic because
the High Court should not abdicate its responsibility to interpret the Federal
Constitution.

A fifth problem relating to Article 121(1A) is that sometimes the remedy being
prayed for is unavailable in the syariah courts. This issue was resolved by Soon
Singh v Pertubuhan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (PERKIM) [1999] 1 MLJ 489 which
17

See Mohamed Ismail Mohamed Shariff, The Legislative Jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament in
Matters Involving Islamic Law, [2005] 3 MLJ cv
18
A recent learned judgment by Abdul Hamid Mohamed, FCJ clarified that constitutional issues are the
exclusive preserve of the civil courts: Latifah bte Mat Zin v Rosmawati & Another, Rayuan Civil No. 0239-2006(W).
19
A similar case on point is the as yet unreported Federal Court decision in Lina Joy. By a majority the
court decied that whether Lina Joy was a Muslim or had converted out of Islam was an issue for the
Syariah Court and not thecivil authorities.
19

adoptedthesubjectmatterapproachratherthantheremedyprayedforapproach.
The fact that the remedy prayed for is not available in the Syariah Court does not
deprive the Syariah Court of jurisdiction if the subject matter is within its
competence20.InAzizahbteShaikIsmailvFatimahShaikIsmail[2004]2MLJ529,
there was a custody dispute between the natural mother and her sister over an
infantchild.ThenaturalmotherappliedtothecivilHighCourtforthewritofhabeas
corpus.TheFederalCourt,infollowingthesubjectmatterapproach,refusedhabeas
corpus. The subject matter was in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court
eveniftheremedywasnot.

Since1988,thecivilcourtshavegenerallyshowngreatreluctanceandrestraintin
any matter where there is the slightest whiff of an Islamic religious issue. Barring
someexceptionstheyhavegenerallyhiddenbehindArticle121(1A)togivewayto
the Syariah Courts and to adroitly evade or avoid constitutional issues21. Article
121(1A),addedbyActA704in1988,insulatestheSyariahCourtsfrominterference
by the civil courts in matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts. In actual
practice, however, what has happened is that on any issue that is connected with
Islamiclaw,whetheritiswithinoroutsidethejurisdictionoftheSyariahCourts,the
civil courts are extremely reluctant to pronounce a judgment even if issues of
jurisdiction,constitutionalityandhumanrightsareinvolved.22Article121(1A)was
not meant to give superiority to Syariah Courts over the civil courts. But with the
activecooperationofthecivilcourtsthisiswhathashappened.

In any system with legal pluralism, overlaps are bound to occur and jurisdictional
conflicts are unavoidable. The conflicts can be resolved either through judicial
interpretationorthroughlegislativeguidance.Thecivilcourtshavesingularlyfailed
in this area. A legislative initiative is, therefore, necessary to clarify issues arising
underArticle121(1A).

All Muslims are subject to Shariah laws in areas enumerated in the

Constitution
AllMuslimsaresubjectedtoIslamiclawinanumberofareas.First,inpersonallaw
matters such as succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce,
dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy and guardianship. Second, in relation to
issues such as Islamic gifts, wakafs23, zakat, fitrah, baitulmal or similar Islamic
religious revenue. Third, a limited number of Islamic crimes like drinking liquor,
unlawfulsexualrelationsandnotfastingduringthemonthofRamadhanareinthe
20

See also Majlis Ugama Islam Pulau Pinang v Shaik Zolkaffly Shaik Natar [2003] 3 MLJ 705; Abdul
Shaik Md Iibrahim v Hussein Ibrahim [1999] 5 MLJ 618
21
Refer e.g. to Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan, Mahkamah Persekutuan Rayuan Sivil
No. 01-2-2006(W).
22
In a recent unreported judgment, Latifah Binti Mat Zain v Rosmawati Binti Sharibun (Rayuan Civil No.
02-39-2006(W), Abdul Hamid Mohamad, FCJ lists out 46 cases in which jurisdictional issues between
syariah and civil courts came to light.
23
In the matter of trusts, Muslims have the option to create Muslim wakafs or create ordinary trusts under
the Trustees Act.
20

handsoftheShariahcourts.24AMuslimcannotoptoutofIslamiclaw.25He/shecan
be compelled to pay zakat and fitra and canbe tried and punished by the Shariah
courtsforminorIslamicoffences.

PreachingofanyreligiontoMuslimsisregulated
Propagationofonesreligiontoothersispartoftheconstitutionalrighttofreedom
of religion under Article 11. However, this right is subject to one important
limitation. Missionary activity amongst Muslims may be regulated. Under Article
11(4)statelawand(forfederalterritories)federallawmaycontrolorrestrictthe
propagationofanyreligiousdoctrineamongstMuslims.ThisArticleisdirectednot
onlyatnonMuslimattemptstoconvertMuslimsbutalsoatpropagationtoMuslims
by unauthorised Muslims. Application of such laws, however, poses a serious
constitutional dilemma. Syariah Courts cannot have jurisdiction over nonMuslims
and it appears that a federal criminal court will have to try a nonMuslim whose
proselytizing zeal violates a state law that was enacted to shield Muslims against
missionaryactivities.

IslamicmoralityisenforcedonMuslims
StateenactmentscanseekvigorouslytoenforceIslamicmoralityamongstMuslims.
Forexample,beautyandbodybuildingcontestsareforbiddentoMuslimsinmany
States. In areas permitted by the Federal Constitution's Ninth Schedule, List II,
paragraph1,IslamiccivilandcriminallawsareappliedtoallMuslims.

Paragraph1ofListIIoftheNinthSchedulepermitsStatelegislationtocreateand
punishoffencesbypersonsprofessingthereligionofIslamagainstthepreceptsof
that religion. However, the power of the state to enforce Islamic criminal law is
severelycircumscribedbyListsIandIIoftheNinthSchedule..ThepowerofState
Assemblies in Schedule 9, List II, Item 1 to create and punish offences against the
preceptsofIslamisaresidualpowerandnotanunlimitedorsovereignpower.Itis
subjecttoanumberofconstitutionallimitations.

First,Shariahcourtshavejurisdiction"onlyoverpersonprofessingthereligionof
Islam".ThereisnojurisdictionovernonMuslims.Schedule9,ListII,Item1isquite
clearthatnonMuslimscannotbesubjectedtotheshariah.Theycannotbe
compelledtoappearbeforetheShariahCourts.26Eveniftheyconsent,theShariah
Courtshavenojurisdictionoverthem.Jurisdictionisamatteroflaw,notofconsent
oracquiescence.
24

Almost all of criminal law is in federal hands and is administered by the ordinary courts over all citizens
irrespective of religion.
25
However in many areas Muslims are allowed to have a choice between shariah provisions and ordinary
civil laws. Among these areas are banking, trusts, adoption and a whole range of commercial transactions.
26
See also Articles 12(3) and 11(2). However under Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, state law and
in respect of the federal territories, federal law, may control or restrict the propagation of any religious
doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. This permits the States to punish attempts
by non-Muslims to proselytize Muslims. The prosecution will, however, have to be initiated in ordinary
courts. For an illustration of such a law, see Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic
Religious Enactment 1991, sections 4-9 (Johor).
21


Second,thepowertopunishtransgressorsofthepreceptsofIslamappliesonlyto
thebelieverstothosewhoprofessthereligionofIslam.Initsdictionarysense,
thewordprofessmeanstoaffirmonesfaithorbeliefinorallegiancetoareligion.
Italsomeanstofeign,allege,assert,aver,openlydeclare,state,pronounce,
announce,annunciate,enunciate,maintain,acknowledge,avow,claimtoaqualityor
feeling,pretendtobeordo,ortomakeavowonenteringanorderorcalling.
Professingisamatterofinnerfeeling.Itisnotsomethingthatcanbeimposedfrom
outside.Thismeansthatthosewhodenythereligionorvoluntarilyrenounceitand
becomemurtadsorapostatesarenomoreinastateofprofessingthereligionof
Islam.Itcouldbearguedthattheyshould,therefore,benomoresubjecttothe
criminaljurisdictionoftheShariahCourts.ThecivilandShariahCourtshaveboth
rejectedthislineofreasoning,andfortwounderstandablereasons.First,itisnot
exceptionaltoholdthatstatuscannotbeselfdetermined.Statusisalmostalways
otherdetermined.Second,ifduringthependencyofShariahCourtproceedings,a
personisallowedtorenounceIslam,thatwouldamounttoacleverattemptto
escapeprosecutionbydeprivingthecourtofitsjurisdiction.Perhapsthesecond
argumentisunnecessarybecausethelawapplicabletoachargeisalwaysthelawat
thetimeoftheallegedcommissionoftheoffenceandnotbywhathappens
afterwards.

SomejudgeshavegonesofarastoholdthatMuslimscannotrenouncetheirreligion
atall.ThispointofviewisdifficulttoreconcilewithArticle11sprotectionof
freedomofreligion.Article3onIslamdeclaresinitsclause(4)thatnothinginthis
ArticlederogatesfromanyotherprovisionofthisConstitution.Notemustalsobe
takenthatinmostConstitutionsandunderinternationallaw,therighttobelieve
includestherightnottobelieve.Therighttoconvertfromonereligiontoanotheris
awellestablishedaspectoffreedomofreligion.InMalaysiathisrightwas
unquestionedtillthelate80s.

Amajorityofjudgeshandlingapostasycaseshavetriedtowalkthemiddlepath.
Theyhavestatedthatrenunciationislegallypermissible.Buttheyhaveruledthat
renunciationmustbedonethroughtheShariahCourts.TilltheShariahCourt
determinestheissueaccordingtoIslamiclaw,theapostateremainsaMuslimand
canbesubjectedtotheShariahCourtscriminaljurisdiction.Theproblemwiththis
pointofviewisthatSyariahCourtsoftenfailtoadjudicateonarenunciation
applicationdespiteanunconscionablepassageoftime.Noremedyseemstobe
availableifashariahjudgeindefinitelypostponesthedeterminationofanapostates
status.TheadministrativelawremedyofMandamus(Orderundersection44
SpecificReliefAct)isunlikelytoliebecauseoftheexistenceofArticle121(1A)of
theFederalConstitution.

Third,StateAssemblieshavejurisdiction"inrespectonlyofanymattersincludedin
paragraph(oneofListII)"andnotovertheentirefieldofIslamiclaw.Thepower
oftheStatestopasslawsonIslamisaresidualpower.Contrarytowhatisbelieved,
noteverythingconnectedwithIslamisinthehandsoftheStateAssemblies.Some
22

mattersofIslamiccivillawareassignedbytheConstitutiontofederaljurisdiction.
Forexample,administrationoftheHajjfallsundertheFederalList,Item1(h).
Islamicbankingandinsurance,Islamiccommercialandcontractualagreementsare
withinthejurisdictionofthecivilcourts.

Fourth,statelegislativeauthoritytocreateandpunishoffencesagainstpreceptsof
Islamislimitedbythewords"exceptinregardtomattersincludedintheFederal
List".27UnderSchedule9,ListII,Item1,Stateshaveauthorityrelatingtocreation
andpunishmentofoffencesbypersonsprofessingthereligionofIslamagainst
preceptsofthatreligion,exceptinregardtomattersincludedintheFederalList.
AmongmattersincludedintheFederalListarecivilandcriminallawand
procedure(ListI,Item4).

Fifth,stateauthoritytolegislateonIslamiccrimesisfurtherqualifiedbythewords
"ordealtwithbyfederallaw".28ListI,Item4(h)statesthatcreationofoffencesin
respectofanyofthemattersincludedintheFederalListofdealtwithbyfederallaw
areinthehandsofthefederalParliament.Bettingandlotteries,murder,theft,
robbery,rape,incestandunnaturalsex29arealloffencesinIslamiclawbuttheyare
clearlyinfederalhandsbecauseofSchedule9,ListI,Items4(l),4(h)andthefederal
PenalCode.ThismeansthatthecriminallawpowersofStateassembliesarepurely
residual.ManyStatelawsare,however,indisregardofthisconstitutionallimitation.
ItishumblysubmittedthatStatecriminallawsdealingwithmatterssuchas
homosexuality,incest,bettingandlotteries(whichmattersarealreadydealtwithby
federallaws)areultraviresthepowersoftheStates.

Sixth,thejurisdictionoftheShariahCourtsisderivedandnotinherent.Schedule9,
ListII,paragraph1statesthatShariahCourts"shallnothavejurisdictioninrespect
ofoffencesexceptinsofarasconferredbyfederallaw".Therelevantfederallawis
theShariahCourts(CriminalJurisdiction)Act1965.Itconfinesjurisdictiontosuch
offencesasarepunishablewithmaximumthreeyearsjail,RM5,000fineandsix
lashes.Anystatelawimposinglargerpenaltieswouldbeultraviresand
unconstitutional.

Seventh,federalandstatelegislativepowersinSchedule9,ListsI,IIandIIIareall
subjecttothegiltedgedprovisionsofthechapteronfundamentalrights.Schedule9
doesnotgivetoParliamentortotheStateAssembliesacarteblanchetopasslaws
onIslamirrespectiveoftheconstitutionalguaranteesinArticles5to13.Schedule9
doesnotandcannotoverridetherestoftheConstitution.Itdoesnotauthorize
punishmentsforactswhichareprotectedbytheguaranteesofPart2.Forexample,
manystateenactmentspenalizeanycriticismorchallengetoafatwa30.Thisappears
tobeaviolationofArticle10(1)(a)and10(2)(a)becausefreespeechcanbe
27

See Schedule 9, List II, paragraph 1.

Schedule 9, List 1, paragraph 4(h).
29
Section 53, Enactment 3/1992 (Perak)
30
Section 21, Crimes (Syariah) Enactment 3/1992 (Perak); Section 12 Enactment 3/1996 (Penang); Section
12, Act 559 (Federal Territories)
28

23

restrictedonlyonthegroundsexplicitlypermittedbyArticle10(2)(a).Further,it
hasbeenheldinDewanUndanganNegeriKelantanvNordinSalleh[1992]1MLJ343
thatthepowertorestrictArticle10rightsbelongstotheFederalParliamentandnot
totheStateAssemblies.

Eighth,statepowertocreateandpunishcrimesisapplicabletoviolationofthe
preceptsofIslam.WhatamountstopreceptsofIslamhasnotbeen
authoritativelydefinedbutprobablyreferstothebeliefs,tenets,dogmas,principles,
articlesoffaith,canons,maxims,rules,doctrinesandteachingsofIslam.InPPv
MohdNoorJaafar[2005]6MLJ745,violationofs.5(1)oftheIslamicReligious
Schools(Malacca)Enactment2002washeldnottorelatetopreceptsofIslamand
thereforenotinthejurisdictionoftheShariahCourts.Anuntestedissueisthatif
thereisoverexuberanceintheexerciseofthispowertopunishcrimesagainstthe
preceptsofIslamforexampleifactsaremadepunishablethatarenotpunishablein
Islamictheory,istherescopeforconstitutionalreview?Itisarguable,e.g.,thatIslam
doesnotmandatecriminalsanctionsagainstthosewhoskipFridayprayersorwho
inhonestdisagreement,questionthedesirabilityofafatwa.

Ninth,Article75isausefulguidetoeverysituationinwhichastatelawcomesinto
conflictwithafederallaw.Ineveryfederationjurisdictionalconflictsbetween
regionalgovernmentsandthecentralgovernmentarecommon.Thereisalsothe
possibilitythatontopicsintheConcurrentList,bothtiersofgovernmentmayhave
enactedlaws.Toresolveconflictswherelegalmultiplicityexists,Article75provides
thatifanyStatelawisinconsistentwithFederalLaw,thentheFederalLawshall
prevailandtheStateLawshall,totheextentoftheinconsistency,bevoid.Despite
theprovisionofArticle75,inactualpracticeStatelawsonIslamicmattersseemto
haveadministrativeascendancyoverconflictingfederallaws.Forexample,social
security,workmenscompensation,insurance,pensionsandprovidentfundsare
partofitem15oftheFederalList.ButifaMuslimdiesleavinganyoftheabove
funds,federallawseemstogivewaytothepoweroftheSyariahCourtsoverIslamic
succession.Inrecentyears,severalStatesarerequiringmandatoryHIVtesting
beforeMuslimmarriagescanbesolemnized.Thismaywellbeinclashwiththe
federalpoweroverpreventionofdiseasesinListIII,Item7andlongstanding
federallawsoverdiseasecontrol.

TheabovepointstothelegalrealitythatnotallIslamiccrimesareinthehandsof
ShariahCourts;onlythoselikekhalwatandzinathatarenotdealtwithbyfederal
law are assigned to the Shariah Courts. In actual practice. however, the States are
interpreting their powers over Islamic law expansively and are trespassing into
many civil and criminal areas assigned by the Federal Constitution to the central
government.

MostStateConstitutionsrequiretopstatepoststobelongtoMuslims
AllStateConstitutionsintheMalaystatesprescribethattheRulerofthestatemust
beapersonoftheIslamicfaith.AllstateConstitutionsotherthaninMelaka,Penang,
Sabah and Sarawak require that the Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) and state
24

officialsliketheStateSecretaryshallprofessIslam.ExceptforSarawak,Islamisthe
officialreligioninallstates.

Race&religionareintertwinedintheconceptofMalay:ThestatusofaMalay
carrieswithitmanyadvantages.TheconstitutionalconceptofMalayisinextricably
tiedupwithobservanceofthereligionofIslam.31

Islamicinstitutionsabound
GovernmentsupportedIslamicinstitutionsabound.ThereisaNationalCouncilfor
Islamic Affairs, State Councils of Muslim Religion, Fatwa Committees, the Islamic
ResearchCentre,theDepartmentofReligiousAffairs,UniversitiIslamAntarabangsa
Malaysia,TabungHajiandInstituteofIslamicUnderstandingMalaysia(IKIM).

Islamicpracticesarebecomingmainstream
Quran competitions are held; the azan (call for prayers) and Islamic programmes
areairedoverradioandtelevision.TV1andTV2devoteatleast15hoursaweekto
Islamic programmes. Islamic salutations and prayers are offered at most
government functions; Islamic form of dressing is becoming increasingly
mainstream.Inmanygovernmentdepartments,Quranicversesarerecitedoverthe
publicaddresssystematthebeginningoftheday.

Islamiceconomyisexpanding
In the financial field Islamic monetary institutions are being vigorously promoted.
Among them are Bank Islam, Takaful (Islamic insurance), Tabung Haji, Pilgrims
ManagementandFundBoard,AmanahIkhtiarMalaysia,QaradHasan(interestfree
loans),jualjanji,wakafs,Baitulmal,zakatandfitrah.

Islamisationofthelegalandeconomicsystemisinfullswing
TheIslamisationandIslamHadharipoliciesofthegovernmenthavewonMalaysia
many admirers abroad. At the world stage, Malaysia is recognised as a model
Muslimcountry.

5.TENSIONSINMALAYSIASBODYPOLITIC

Despite Malaysia's exemplary record of overall religious tolerance, there is no

denyingthatthereareareasofconcerntoMuslimsandnonMuslimsalike.

Delayinthegrantofplanningpermissionsforplacesofworship
It is alleged that local authorities often drag their feet in granting planning
permission for religious buildings if the area is heavily populated by religious
communitiesotherthantheapplicantscommunity.32

31
32

See definition of a Malay in Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution.

Where Religious Worship Centres Can Be Located, New Straits Times, Dec. 22, 2000, p 10.
25

BanonInterreligiousmarriagesbetweenMuslimsandnonMuslims
Muslimsarenotallowedtomarryunderthecivillawofmarriagesandmustmarry
underShariahlaw.Assuch,nonMuslimsseekingtomarryMuslimshavetoconvert
toIslamifthemarriageistobeallowedtoberegistered.Thishascausedpaintothe
parents of many converts. Likewise, it has led to several troublesome cases of
apostasybyMuslimswho,forreasonsoftheheart,wishtomarrytheirnonMuslim
counterparts.TheLinaJoycaseisthemostdivisiveone.

Norighttoatheism
Does the right to believe include the right to disbelieve and to adopt atheism,
agnosticismandrationalism?Inmostdemocraticcountriestherightnottobelieve
is constitutionally protected. But not so in Malaysia. The Rukun Negara declares
beliefinGod(KepercayaankepadaTuhan)asacardinalpartofnationalideology.
ThelanguageofArticle11(2)notaxtosupportareligionotherthanonesown
andArticle12(3)noinstructioninareligionotherthanonesownimpliesthat
thereisnorighttorejecttaxfororinstructioninonesownreligion.Themandatory
applicationofshariahlawstoMuslimsinmanyareasmakesitpossibletoarguethat
atheismisnotprotectedbyArticle11atleastnotforMuslims.

StrictregulationofpropagationofanyreligiontoMuslims
UnderArticle11(4)oftheFederalConstitution,nonMuslimsmaybeforbiddenby
statelawfrompreachingtheirreligiontoMuslims.ManyMuslimscomplainthatthis
partofthesocialcontractisnotbeingobservedbysomeevangelicalgroups,someof
whom are from abroad. On many occasions in recent years news has spread like
wild fire that thousands of Muslims have converted or are waiting to convert to
Christianity.Invariablythisraisestensions33.

In turn, many nonMuslims complain that Article 11(4) amounts to unequal

treatmentunderthelawbecauseMuslimsareallowedtopropagatetheirreligionto
nonMuslims. It is respectfully submitted that Article 11(4) is part of the pre
Merdekasocialcontract.ItsaimistoinsulateMuslimsagainstaclearlyunequaland
disadvantageous situation. During the colonial era, many nonindigenous religions
were vigorously promoted by the merchants, the military and the missionaries of
the colonial countries. Even today, the proselytising activities of many Western
dominatedreligiousmovementsthatareinternationallyorganisedandfundedhave
aroused resentment in many Asian and African societies. Some aspects of their
activities, like seeking deathbed conversions, generous grant of funds to potential
converts and vigorous proselytising activities amongst minors have distinct
implicationsforsocialharmony.Prof.Harding34isoftheviewthatArticle11(4)was
insertedbecauseofpublicorderconsiderations.Accordingtohimtherestrictionon
proselytismhasmoretodowiththepreservationofpublicorderthanwithreligious
priority. To his view, one may add that Malays see an inseparable connection

34

Theoverzealousnessofproselytizinggroupsisknowntohavecausedtensionsandevenviolenceinmany
AsiansocietieslikeIndia.TheStateofGujrathaslegislatedadministrativecontrolsovertheworkof
missionaries.

Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia (1996), p 201
26

between their race and their religion. Any attempt to weaken a Malays religious
faithmaybeperceivedasanindirectattempttoerodeMalaypower.Conversionout
ofIslamwouldautomaticallymeandesertingtheMalaycommunityduetothelegal
fact that the definition of a Malay in Article 160(2) of the Federal Constitution
contains four ingredients. Professing the religion of Islam is one of them. A pre
Merdeka compromise between the Malays and the nonMalays was, therefore,
sought and obtained that any preaching to Muslims will be conducted only by
authorised syariah authorities. Missionary work amongst Muslims whether by
nonMuslims or Muslims may be regulated by state law under the authority of
Article11(4)oftheFederalConstitution.

Constitutional restraints on freedom of religion: Under Article 11(5) the

religious conduct of nonMuslims can be regulated on the grounds only of public
order,publichealthandmorality.ButMuslimsaresubjectedtomanymorereligious
restraintsduetothepowerofthestatestopunishMuslimsforoffencesagainstthe
preceptsofIslaminaccordancewithSchedule9,ListII,Paragraph1.Thepowerof
thestatestopunishMuslimsforIslamiccrimeswasrecentlyconfirmedbytheCourt
ofAppealinKamariahbteAlilwnKerajaanKelantan35.TheCourtheldthat:

Article11oftheFederalConstitution(inrelationtoIslam)cannotbeinterpreted
so widely as to revoke all legislation requiring a person of the Muslim faith to
perform a requirement under Islam or prohibit them from committing an act
forbidden by Islam or that prescribes a system of committing an act related to
Islam. This was because the standing of Islam in the Federal Constitution was
differentfromthatofotherreligions.First,onlyIslam,asareligion,ismentioned
bynameintheFederalConstitutionasthereligionoftheFederationandsecondly,
the Constitution itself empowers State Legislative Bodies (for States) to codify
IslamiclawinmattersmentionedinListII,StateList,ScheduleNineoftheFederal
Constitution(ListII).

Persons of the Islamic faith and Muslim religious groups that are not mainstream
are subject to severe restraints in relation to what are deemed to be deviationist
activities. From a constitutional law point of view laws that punish deviationist
activities raise difficult legal issues. For example, section 69 of the (Perlis) State
Islamic and Malay Customs Enactment criminalises deviationist activities. This
section may be constitutionally permissible under Paragraph 1, List II of the 9th
Schedule.Butanyonepunishedunderitmayputupavigorouschallengethatthe
lawgoesfarbeyondthepermissiblerestrictionsofArticle11(5).Article11(5)ofthe
ConstitutiongivestoeverypersonincludingaMuslimarighttoprofessandpractise
his religion save to the extent that he/she does not endanger public order, public
healthormorality.ThedifficultyisthatthefreedominArticle11seemstobe,inthe
case of Muslims, qualified by Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule. State
Enactmentsarepermittedtocreateandpunishoffencesbypersonsprofessingthe
35

[2002] 3 MLJ 657

27

religion of Islam against precepts of that religion. It is submitted, however, that

despitetheundoubtedgrantofpowertotheStatestopunishMuslimsforoffences
against Islamic precepts, some limits need to be drawn on this power so that the
guarantee in Article 11 is not extinguished. Further, the proper recourse against
deviationist activities is to resort to excommunication and not to criminalisation.
Excommunication should be resorted to after the parties concerned have been
givenafullandfairopportunitytodefendthemselvesandtoexplaintheirconduct.

ApostasybyMuslimsiscriminalizedinmostMalaysianStates
TherighttoconvertoutofonesfaithisnotmentionedexplicitlyintheMalaysian
Constitution though it is enshrined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights 1966 and in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of
HumanRights1948.

For nonMuslims the right to opt out of ones faith and choose another has been
regardedasanimplicitpartofreligiouslibertyguaranteedbytheConstitution.But
because of its implications for childparent relationships, the court in the case of
TeohEngHuat36heldthatachildbelow18mustconformtothewishesofhis/her
parents in the matter of religious faith. Thus, a Buddhist girl of seventeen had no
constitutionalrighttoabandonherreligionandembraceIslam.

InrelationtoMuslimstheissueofconversionorapostasyraisessignificantreligious
andpoliticalconsiderations.ManyMuslimsfeelconsiderabledisquietaboutArticle
18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 which was
adopted at the behest of a Christian delegate from Lebanon despite strong
opposition from the Muslim delegates who were in attendance. Christianitys link
with the merchants, missionaries and military of the colonial era is still fresh in
many minds. The disproportionately strong support that Christian missionary
activities receive from abroad also arouses fear and resentment. The adoption of
IslamasthereligionofthefederationandthecompulsorysubjectionofMuslimsto
the syariah in a number of matters are other reasons why the conversion of a
Muslim out of Islam arouses deep revulsion and anger among the Malay/Muslim
citizens. The situation is exceedingly complex due to the intermingling of politics,
lawandreligion.

Due to the fascinating connection between race and religion among the Malays, a
conversion out of Islam automatically means deserting the Malay community.
DeclineinthenumberofMuslimsmeansdeclineinthenumberofMalays.Thishas
obviouspoliticalconnotations.

A Muslim apostate will lose his Malay status. His marriage will be dissolved.
Questions of inheritance, custody and guardianship will arise. Posers over Malay
reserve land will arise. If he is holder of a Malay reserve title, will the title be
revoked?
36

[1986] 2 MLJ 228.

28


If unilateral conversions were allowed, a Muslim, who is facing prosecution in a
SyariahCourt,coulddefeatoravoidthesyariahsapplicationtohimbyasimpleact
ofrenunciation.

Islamic jurisprudence is unanimous that apostasy is abhorrent. There is, however,

difference in opinion on whether apostasy is a sin or a punishable crime; and if a
crime then whether it is punishable with death or a lesser penalty. Three lines of
argumentexist:

First, apostasy is a hudud offence punishable with death. There are Hadith to
support this view. (Muslim, 3:506507). Apostates should be advised,
imprisoned, and if they still persist, then beheaded. But some Muslim scholars
like Prof. Hashim Kamali are of the view that the Hadith must be read in the
contextinwhichitwasmadeintimesofwar,emergencyandgravethreatto
theIslamiccommunity.TheyalsopointoutthattheProphetneverorderedthe
executionofanapostate.37TheNobleProphetisalsoknowntohavesignedthe
TreatyofHudaibiyatopermitapostatespeacefulpassagefromMuslimlandsto
jointheirnewcommunities.

Second, it is a tazir offence with a discretionary punishment. (Ibn Taimiyyah,

IbrahimalNakhaiandalBiji).ThisapproachisgenerallyacceptedinMalaysia.
MalaysianMuslimscholarsarguethatrepeatedreferencesintheHolyQuranto
theneedfortoleranceandnoncompulsion38referonlytofreedomofconscience
for nonMuslims. Muslims themselves have an absolute duty to uphold their
faith. In the context of Malaysia it is argued that as Islam is the religion of the
federation and Malays are, by constitutional definition, required to be of the
Muslim faith, all Muslims are liable to prosecution if their conduct violates
Islamic precepts. No Muslim can lay a claim to opt out of syariah laws the
constitutionalguaranteeoffreedomofreligionnotwithstanding.Thenotionthat
freedomtobelieveincludesthefreedomnottobelieveisrejectedbythebulkof
Malay society and has been rejected in national courts.39 Despite international
normstothecontraryinArticle18oftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights
and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (that
freedomofreligionincludesfreedomtochangeonesreligiousbelief),theimpact
oflocalcultureandbeliefscannotbediscounted.

Third, it is a serious sin and will be punished in the hereafter but there is no
requirementtoimposeaworldlypunishment.Insupportofthisviewitisargued
thatIslamisareligionofpersuasion,notforce.Theproposaltodetainapostates
runscountertothespiritofIslam,whichisoneoftoleranceforthedisbeliever.It
37

38
39

For a view of the jurists see Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Punishments in Islamic Law an Enquiry
into the Hudud Bill of Kelantan (Institut Kajian Dasar, Kuala Lumpur, 1995) pp 33-37.
Holy Quran Surah 2 Ayat 256; Surah 109 Ayats 1-6; Surah 10 Ayat 99.
Daud Mamat v Majlis Agama Islam [2002] 2 MLJ 390.
29

is noteworthy that the Holy Quran nowhere prescribes a worldly punishment

for apostates even though it is stated repeatedly that their conduct shall incur
thewrathofAllah(SWT)inthehereafter.40InfactSurahAliImran41recognises
thepossibilityofrepentanceandremindsusthatAllahisallforgiving.Onlyifthe
apostateturnsagainsttheMuslimcommunityishetobeseizedandkilled42.The
GrandImamofAlAzhar,SheikhMuhammadSayyedTantawiisoftheviewthat
aslongastheapostatesdonotinsultorattackIslamortheMuslims,theyshould
be left alone. Action should not be taken against them on the basis that they
renouncedIslam.OnlywhentheyinsultIslamortrytodestroythereligion,one
should act (against them).43 Tantawi bases his opinion on Surah AnNisa44.
Those who believe, then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then
increase in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the right
path.

InresponsetotheMuslimvolksgeist,anumberofstateshave,inthelastfewyears,
enactedrehabilitationlawsthatpermitdetentionandreeducationofconvertsout
ofIslam.VariouslyreferredtoasRestorationofAqidahorapostasyormurtadlaws,
these enactments shake constitutional theory to its roots. They pit state law on
apostasy against the Federal Constitutions guarantee in Article 11(1) of religious
liberty. They pit national law against international law. They put Article 11 of the
Constitution on a collision course with the conservative interpretation of religious
freedom in Islam. From a constitutional law point of view, apostasy laws raise
difficultconstitutionalissuesunderArticles11,5,3,10and12.

Article11:FreedomofreligioninArticle11(1)isbroadenoughtopermitchangeof
faith.ThoughArticle11(4)restrictspropagationofanyreligiontoMuslims,thelaw
nowhere forbids voluntary conversion of a Muslim to another faith. In the case of
Minister v Jamaluddin Othman45 the Supreme Court implicitly acknowledged the
rightofaMuslimtoconverttoanotherreligion.Asimilarsentimentwasexpressed
inKamariahbteAli46.

Article 5: Forced rehabilitation will be an interference with personal liberty

guaranteed by Article 5(1). Habeas corpus may be applied for. But a difficult
jurisdictionalissuewillarisewhetherduetotheexistenceofArticle121(1A)aHigh
CourtcaninterferewithadetentionorderarisingoutofthejudgmentofaSyariah
Court.Article121(1A)statesthattheordinarycourtsshallhavenojurisdictionin
respectofanymatterwithinthejurisdictionoftheSyariahCourts.Thisleavesopen

40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Surahs Muhammad 47:25, 27-28; Ali Imran 3:86-89; Baqarah 2:217; Nahl 16:106.
3:86-89
Surah An-Nisa 4:89
The Star, 29.8.98, p 22.
4:137
[1989] 1 MLJ 369
[2002] 3 MLJ 657
30

thepossibilityofhabeascorpusifthestatelawisunconstitutionaloriftheSyariah
Courtisactingoutsideitsjurisdiction.

Article 3: The aqidah (basic faith) laws cannot be saved by Article 3s declaration
thatIslamisthereligionofthefederationbecauseArticle3(4)clearlyprovidesthat
nothinginthisarticlederogatesfromanyotherprovisionofthisConstitution.This
meansthatArticle3cannotoverrideArticle11.

Article 10(1)(a): Article 10(1)(a) guarantees speech and expression. A murtad

(convertoutofIslam)mayclaimthattherehabilitationlawviolateshisrightsunder
Article10unlessaspectsofpublicordercanbeusedtodefendthemurtadlaw.

Article 10(1)(c): Article 10(1)(c) guarantees the right to associate. Inherent in this
rightistherighttodisassociate.SeeDewanUndangan Negeri Kelantan v Nordinb.
Salleh47abouttherighttoleaveapoliticalpartyandjoinanother.

Article12:Article12(3)saysthatnopersonshallbeforcedtoreceiveinstructionor
take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own. The
forcedrehabilitationlawswillfallfoulofthisguarantee.

The aqidah laws are triggering a massive constitutional debate that pits religion
against the Constitution and disturbs the delicate social fabric that has held all
Malaysianstogetherfor50years.Atthemomentthefollowingjudicialattitudesand
conflictshaveemerged.

AccordingtooneHighCourttheactofexitingfromareligionisnotpartoffreedom
of religion at least not in the case of Muslims: Daud Mamat v Majlis Agama48. A
contraryviewwasexpressedbytheCourtofAppealinanappealfromaKelantan
High Court decision. It was held that a Muslim is not forbidden from renouncing
Islam: Kamariah bte Ali lwn Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan.49 But this renunciation
cannotbedoneunilaterally.AMuslimwhowishestodeclareapostasymustfirstget
thesyariahcourttoconfirmthathe/shehasleftthereligion.Astatutorydeclaration
of apostasy is not enough. The matter has to be determined by the syariah courts
using Islamic law: Daud Mamat50 and Mad Yaacob Ismail51. Until the act of
renunciationisvalidatedbythesyariahcourt,aMuslimisdeemedtobeapersonof
theMuslimfaith:KamariahbteAli52.AMuslimcannotescapethejurisdictionofthe
syariahcourtbyaunilateralactofrenunciation.Thesyariahcourtcontinuestohave
jurisdiction till the issue of status is determined at law. The issue of whether an
individualisanapostateornotwasoneofIslamiclawandnotcivillaw.TheFederal
CourtaffirmedthisviewintherecentLinaJoycase.Intheabsenceofaninquiryby
47
48
49
50
51
52

[1992] 1 MLJ 343

[2002] 2 MLJ 390
[002] 3 MLJ 657.
[2002] 2 MLJ 390
[2002] 6 MLJ 179
[2002] 3 MLJ 657
31

the syariah court, the civil court must accept a Muslim to be still a Muslim till the
syariah court has made a pronouncement. Civil courts should not interfere with
decisionsofthesyariahcourtsbecauseofArticle121(1A).

WidespreaddemandforHududlaws
In the last few years a number of State Assemblies, as part of their quest for an
Islamicstate, are enactinghudud laws i.e.,laws relating tocrime,punishments
and rights and duties that are mentioned in the Holy Quran.53 The States are
claiming to exercise this jurisdiction on the ground that under the Federal
Constitution Islamic penal law is in State hands. This is an overstatement for a
numberoflegalreasons.

First, under Schedule 9, List II, Paragraph 1, States have authority relating to
creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam
againstpreceptsofthatreligion,exceptinregardtomattersincludedintheFederal
List (emphasis added). This means that any matter assigned to the federal
ParliamentisoutsidethelegislativecompetenceoftheStates.InSchedule9,ListI,
Paragraph 4, subparagraphs (b) and (h) criminal law and procedure,
administrationofjustice,jurisdictionandpowersofallcourts,creationofoffences
inrespectofanyofthemattersincludedintheFederalListordealtwithbyfederal
lawareinfederalhands.Itiswellknownthattheft,robbery,rape,murder,incest,
andunnaturalsexarealldealtwithbythefederalPenalCode.Therefore,theStates
arenotpermittedtoenacthududlawsonthesecriminalmatterseventhoughthese
crimesarealsocrimesagainstIslam.

Second, Schedule 9, List II, Paragraph 1 clearly provides that shariah courts shall
have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam. This means
thatshariahcourtshavenopowertoapplythehududlawstononMuslims.

Third,thejurisdictionoftheshariahcourtsisnotinherentbutmustbederivedfrom
federal law. The Constitution, in Schedule 9, List II, Paragraph 1 says that shariah
courtsshallnothavejurisdictioninrespectofoffencesexceptinsofarasconferred
by federal law. The relevant federal law is the Shariah Courts (Criminal
Jurisdiction) Act 1965. It imposes limits on jail terms and fines that the shariah
courts can impose. The limit is three years jail, five thousand ringgit fine and six
lashes.Anypenaltyotherthanthesepermittedpenaltiesareunconstitutional.

The implication of the above is that the States and the State Shariah Courts have
jurisdictiononlyoversuchIslamiccriminaloffencesasarenotdealtwithbyfederal
law viz, offences like consuming alcohol, not fasting during bulan puasa, zina,
khalwatandmissingFridayprayers.

53

Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Punishment in Islamic Law an Enquiry into the Hudud Bill of Kelantan
(Institut Kajian Dasar, Kuala Lumpur, 1995)
32

Fourth, in addition to the question as to who has the jurisdiction to enact hudud
laws,thereisthefurtherconstitutionalproblemofenforcementofhududlawsand
the arrest and detention of shariah offenders. The State authorities are entitled to
setuptheirownenforcementunits.Butiftheywishtoseekthehelpofthefederal
police,therearelegaldilemmas.

UndertheConstitutionsNinthSchedule,List1,Item3(a)thepoliceforceisafederal
force.ItspowersandfunctionsarederivedfromtheFederalConstitutionandfrom
federallawslikethePoliceAct1967(Act344).Undersection3(3)ofAct344,the
Force shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime and the
apprehensionandprosecutionofoffenders.ThecontroloftheForceinanyareaor
StateisinthehandsoftheCommissioner,ChiefPoliceOfficerorsuchpoliceofficer
astheInspectorGeneralofPolicemayspecify:section6.Section19statesthatevery
policeofficershallperformthedutiesandexercisethepowersgrantedtohimunder
Act 344 or any other law at any place in Malaysia where he may be doing duty
(emphasisadded).Itisarguablethatthewordsinitalicscouldcoverstateshariah
laws. This could mean that police officers are obliged under section 19 to enforce
Statelaws.Itmustberemembered,however,thatsection20(1)and(2)clarifythat
in the performance of his duties, a police officer is subject to the orders and
directionsofhissuperiorsintheForceandnottheorderoftheStateexecutive.In
any case, sections 3(3), 19 and 20 of the Police Act must be read subject to the
ConstitutionwhichidentifiesthePoliceasafederalforceandconfersonitpowers
andfunctionswhichareentirelyinrelationtotheFederalList.Anygeneralpowers
ordutiesinsections(3),19and20shouldbereadejusdemgeneriswiththespecific
dutiesenumeratedinsection20(3)subparagraphs(a)to(m).Thedoctrineofejus
dem generis teaches us that if in a statute general words are followed by specific
words, then the general words should be interpreted narrowly to make them fall
intothegeneratowhichthespecificwordsbelong.Allthedutiesinsubparagraphs
(a) to (m) are federal duties. The general duties in sections 3, 19 and 20 must be
confinedtomatterswithinfederaljurisdiction.

Fifth, as with the police, prisons, reformatories, remand homes and places of
detention are in the Federal List: Ninth Schedule List I, Paragraph 3(b). It is,
therefore,submittedthatstaterunrehabilitationcentresforaqidahoffendersor
murtadsareoutsidethepowersofthestateauthorities.

IV:CONCLUSION

On the existing provisions oftheConstitution, Malaysia isnot a theocratic, Islamic

state.IfitistheintentionoftheGovernmenttoconvertMalaysiaintoafullfledged
Islamicstate,thefollowingprovisionsoftheConstitutionneedreexamination.

Article4(1):ThisArticledeclaresthesupremacyoftheConstitution.Itmustbe
rewordedas follows:The shariah shall be the supreme law ofthe Federation
and any law passed after the coming into force of this amendment which is
inconsistent with the shariah shall, to the extent of theinconsistency, be void.
33

Alternatively, Article 4(1) could be amended to provide: Except in relation to

matterscoveredbySchedule9,ListII,Item1,thisConstitutionisthesupreme
law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is
inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be
void.
Article 3(4): The provision that Nothing in this Article derogates from any
otherprovisionofthisConstitutionshouldbedeleted.
Article160(2):IntheConstitutionsdefinitionalclause,thetermlawshould
beredefinedtoincludetheshariahaspartofthedefinitionoflaw.
Article 11(1): This Article on freedom of religion should be amended as
follows:Exceptastopersonssubjecttotheshariah,everypersonhastheright
toprofessandpracticehisreligionand,subjecttoClause(4),topropagateit.
Schedule 9, List II, Item 1: In this paragraph, Muslim apostasy should be
mentionedexplicitlyasacriminaloffence.
Schedule9,ListII,ItemI:InsteadofspecifyingthetopicsonwhichtheStates
can pass law, the States should be given general power to pass laws on all
matterscoveredbytheshariah.

The implications of the above changes will be that legislation and administrative
decisions inconsistent with the shariah will be open to judicial review. All issues
involvingMuslimswhethercriminal,civil,constitutionalor commercialwillbe
heard by the shariah courts. The federal executive and legislature will have no
jurisdictionoverIslamicmatters.IslamwillbethesoleprerogativeoftheStates.54
Ordinary courts will handle cases involving nonMuslims only. There will be two
legal systems one for the Muslim majority based totally on the shariah and the
otherforthenonMuslimminoritybasedonsecularprovisions..

How many Muslims support such a fundamental change is open to debate. No

independent public opinion poll has been conducted. Needless to say that not all
Muslims are in support of moving away from the moderate, eclectic and all
embracingpoliciesofthepast.

OntheissueofanIslamicversusasecularstate,itcanbestatedcategoricallythat
theMalaysianlegalsystemisneitherfullysecularnorfullytheocratic.Itishybrid.It
permits legal pluralism. It avoids the extremes of American style secularism or
Saudi,IranianandTalibantypeofreligiouscontroloverallaspectsoflife.Itmirrors
the rich diversity and pluralism of its population. It prefers pragmatism over
ideological purity; moderation over extremism. It walks the middle path. It
promotes piety but does notinsist on ideological purity. Muslims are governed by
divinely ordained laws in a number of chosen fields. In other fields their life is
regulated by Malay adat (custom) and by nonecclesiastical provisions enacted by
54

This will be a return to the pre-Merdeka position in the Malay States. In the negotiations leading to the
Reid Commission Report, the Alliance representatives had objected to the proposal of the Rulers that Islam
should be solely in the hands of the State governments. The final draft of the Merdeka Constitution divided
jurisdiction over Islamic matters between the federal and state governments.
34

democraticallyelectedlegislatures.NonMuslims,inturn,areentirelyregulatedby
secularlaws.

This milieu of increasing Islamisation arouses great antipathy among the non
Muslimcommunities.ButmanyMuslimscholarsseetheresurgenceofIslamasthe
correctionofanimbalance;asacountertothehegemonicinfluenceofthedominant
Westerncivilisationwithitsmassivelysuccessfulappealtohedonism,consumerism
and capitalism. It is not wrong to suggest that the rise of Islamic influences has
addedtoandnotsubtractedfromthepluralismofMalaysiansociety.Forwhatever
itisworth,Islamoffersanalternativeworldviewofeconomics,politicsandculture.
This worldview has to be tested in the fires of scrutiny. It has to compete with a
whole range of powerful and deeply entrenched forces from the past and the
present.AttheworldstageIslamhasjustemergedfromtheshadowsofthelastfew
centuriestoclaimarighttocompeteforaplaceinourheartsandminds.InMalaysia
thefutureislikelytoseeactionandreaction,pullandpushandasymbiosisamong
the many factors and forces that have shaped and are shaping the political, social
andmorallandscapeinMalaysia.

Given the multiracial, multicultural and multireligious composition of Malaysian

society, the imperatives of coalition politics, the demands of a federal polity, the
powerofthenonMalayelectorate,the54yearoldpoliticaltraditionofcompromise
and consensus, the increasing democratisation of life, the greater sensitivity to
human rights, the emergence of many powerful NGOs including those espousing
women's issues, the juggernaut of globalisation, the pulls of secularism and
modernism, the glitter of a capitalistic, hedonistic and consumerbased economy,
the power of the international media to shape our values, and the overwhelming
controlthatWesterninstitutionswieldoveroureconomic,culturalandeducational
life,itisunlikelythatIslamwillhavea"walkover"inMalaysiaandwillsweepaway
everythinginitspath.Malaysiansocietyis,andislikelytoremain,aculturalmosaic.
Islam in Malaysia will continue to coexist with modernity, with Malay adat
(custom) and with the dominant American and European culture that shapes our
worldview,ourthinkingprocessesandourframeworkassumptions.

35