Restrictions in freedom of religion in Malaysia: A conceptual analysis with special reference to the law of apostasy

Muslim World Journal of Human Rights

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2007, Pages

  Mohamed Adil, Mohamed Azam ^a  

^a UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Freedom of religion; Punishment for apostasy

Indexed keywords

EID: 34948832185     PISSN: 15544419     EISSN: 15544419     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2202/1554-4419.1092     Document Type: Article

References (118)

1. The last quarter 2003 report indicates that the total population of Malaysia is 25.32 million, see www.staustics.gov.mv/English/keystats.htm.
2. See Census 2000 in www, statistics.gov.my/English/pressdemo.htm.
3. Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, Kluwer Law International, 1996, p.201;
4. see also Andrew Harding, " The Keris, The Crescent and Blind Goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia", Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law (2002) 6 pp.167-168.
5. However, until present, not every State has enacted such law. Only Johor, Kedah, Kelantan, Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, Pahang, Perak, Selangor and Terenganu have so far enacted such laws. Except in the state of Pahang, other states have yet to enforce the enactment.
6. Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, supra n.3, p. 202.
7. There are two types of limitations of religious freedom, namely constitutional restrictions and normal legislative restrictions. The writer will elaborate these two restrictions later in this article.
8. See Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, supra, n. 3, p. 202;
9. see also Andrew Harding, " The Keris, The Crescent and the Blind Goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia", in Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law [2002] 6 p. 168;
10. see also Poh-Ling Tan, "Paying the Price for Religious Freedom - A Non-Muslim Perspective" in Wu Min Aun (Ed.) Public Law in Contemporary Malaysia, Longman, 1999, pp. 147-149.
11. Andrew Harding, Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, supra n. 3, p. 202;
12. see also Andrew Harding, "The Keris, The Crescent and the Blind Goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia", in Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law [2002] 6 p. 168.
13. See Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957 (notably known as The Reid Commission), Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1957, para 3, p. 99.
14. Ibid.
15. Article 160 defines 'Malay' as a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay customs. In Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 119, the learned judge said that "a person as long as he/she is a Malay and by definition under Article 160 clause (2) a Malay, the said person cannot renounce his/her religion at all. A Malay under Article 160 (2) remains in the Islamic faith until his or her dying days".
16. nd Ed., Malayan Law Journal, 1999, p.879.
17. [1951] MLJ 164.
18. Kevin Tan et.al, Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore supra n. 12, pp. 878-879.
19. Zuliza Kusrin, for instance, has successfully divided these two categories clearly. However, Kevin Tan and others seem to concentrate more on general legislation restricting the right to religious freedom. See Zuliza Kusrin, "Sekatan-sekatan Perundangan Terhadap Kebebasan Beragama di Malaysia" in Isu Syari'ah dan Undang-undang, Department of Shari'a, Faculty of Islamic Studies, UKM, 2001, pp. 79-90;
20. see also Kevin Tan et.al, Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore, supra, n. 12, p. 905;
21. see also Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil, "Hak Tukar Agama Dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia: Konflik Antara Kebebasan Beragama dan Hukum Islam", Shari'a Journal, 11:1 [2003] pp. 34-35.
22. See Abdul Aziz Bari, "Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the Decision of Meor Atiqulrahman" [2000] 2 MLJ at p. lxxxiii;
23. see also Kevin Tan et.al, Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore, supra, n. 12, p. 903;
24. interview with Professor Andrew Harding, SOAS, University of London 21 January 2004; see also Andrew Harding, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia, supra, n. 3, p. 201;
25. see Andrew Harding, " The Keris, The Crescent and Blind Goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia", supra, n. 3, pp. 167-168;
26. see also ABM Mahbubul Islam, Freedom of Religion in Shari'a: A Comparative Analysis, A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, 2002, p. 160.
27. Harry E. Groves, The Constitution of Malaysia, Malaysian Publications Ltd., Singapore, 1964, p 215.
28. ABM Mahbubul Islam, Freedom of Religion in Shari'a, supra n. 16, pp. 160-163; see also Mohammed Imam, "Freedom of Religion Under Federal Constitution of Malaysia - A Reappraisal", [1994] 2 CLJ at p. lxxxiii.
29. ABM Mahbubul Islam, Freedom of Religion in Shari'a, ibid, p. 160.
30. Ibid, p. 162.
31. st. Ed., Malayan Law Journal, 1991, p. 701.
32. ABM Mahbubul Islam, Freedom of Religion in Shari'a, supra n. 16, pp. 162-163.
33. [1992] 1 MLJ 513. In another development in Singapore, three pupils were banned from wearing tudung (veil) during school hours. The Singapore government had directed that all pupils should conform to school regulations, among others, not allowing Muslim schoolgirls to wear tudung in school. The parents have apparently, threatened to take legal action against the school authority as well as the Singapore government, see Utusan Malaysia, 4 February 2002, p. 1; In France, it has also been reported that the government of French has directed that all schoolgirls must not wear any object that represents its religion, and this including wearing the veil. This development has prompted Muslims around the world protesting in public, arguing that the right of religious freedom should not be violated, since wearing a veil is part of the religious practice under Islam;
34. see The Independent, 18 January, 2004, p. 1;
35. In Turkey, two students were expelled from their university on the ground that they wore headscarf within the university campus; see European Court of Human Rights Press Release Issued by The Registrar in Chamber Judgements in the Cases of Leyla Sahin v Turkey and Zeynep Tekin v Turkey, http:press.coe.int/cp/2004/330a(2004).htm, www.coe.int:
36. see also Dominic McGoldrick, Human Rights and Religion: The Islamic Headscarf Debate in Europe, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2006, pp. 140-172.
37. Zainur Zakaria, "Religious Freedom - Right To Wear Purdah", [1993] 3 MLJ xxv-xxx;
38. Abdul Aziz Bari, "Persoalan Murtad dan Kebebasan Beragama di dalam Kerangka Perlembagaan Persekutuan", Seminar on Freedom of Religion and the Issue of Apostasy, Organised by Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic University, 16 December 2004, p. 5.
39. [2000] 5 MLJ 375.
40. Ibid, at p. 383; See Abdul Aziz Bari, "Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the Decision of Meor Atiqulrahman" [2000] 2 MLJ at p. cxli.
41. See Fatimah Bte Sihi & Ors v Meor Atiqulrahman Bin Ishak Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 25;
42. see also "Wearing of Headgear A Disciplinary Matter, Says Court" in The Star Online, www.thestar.com.mv. 23 November 2004;
43. "Serban Issue: Court Allows Appeal" in The New Straits Times, www.nst.com.mv. 23 November 2004;
44. "Serban: Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Diketepikan" in The Utusan Online, www.utusan.com.my, 23 November 2004.
45. See "Islamists Denounce Malaysian Court's Decision on Muslim Headgear" in www.harakhdaily.net, 23 November 2004.
46. Civil Application No. 01-3-2005 (N) Federal Court, July 12, 2006.
47. [2001] 6 CLJ 273; see also [2001] 3 MLJ 385; see also [2001] 4 AMR 4111.
48. In both proceedings, the plaintiff was charged under Police Officers (Conduct and Discipline) (Chapter D), General Orders 1980.
49. Article 7 (2) of the Federal Constitution reads "A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a superior court to that by which he was acquitted or convicted".
50. See Abdul Aziz Bari, "Rights To Protection From Double Jeopardy and Freedom of Religion Under the Federal Constitution", HUM Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2001, pp. 196-197.
51. Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution provides that "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it". One could also argue whether such imposition was in line with provision under Article 11 (5) of the Federal Constitution that allows restriction on religious freedom on the basis of general law, public health and morality.
52. Abdul Aziz Bari, "Rights To Protection From Double Jeopardy and Freedom of Religion", supra n.33, pp. 199-202.
53. [1989] 1 MLJ 418.
54. Unlike Perlis, it is stated that Muslims in this state must adhered to the Sunni's teaching, with no specific school preferable, see Othman Ishak, Fatwa Dalam Perundangan Islam, Fajar Bakti, Petaling Jaya, 1981, pp. 87-89;
55. see also, Ahmad Hidayat Buang, "Analisis Fatwa-fatwa Syariah di Malaysia" in Ahmad Hidayat Buang (Ed.), Fatwa di Malaysia, Jabatan Syariah dan Undangundang, Akademi Pengajian Islam, Universiti Malaya, 2004, p. 166
56. See Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2004, p.128;
57. see also Jamila Hussain, "Freedom of Religion in Malaysia: The Muslim Perspective" in Wu Min Aun (Ed.) Public Law in Contemporary Malaysia, Longman, Petaling Jaya, 1999, p. 125;
58. see also Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil, "Hak Tukar Agama Dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia: Konflik Antara Kebebasan Beragama dan Hukum Islam", Shari'a Journal, 11:1 [2003] pp. 34-35.
59. Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, ibid, pp. 129-130;
60. see also Jamila Hussain, "Freedom of Religion in Malaysia: The Muslim Perspective", ibid, pp. 125-127;
61. see also Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil, "Hak Tukar Agama Dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia: Konflik Antara Kebebasan Beragama dan Hukum Islam", ibid, pp. 34-35.
62. See www.nst.com.mv. December 6, 2006.
63. See www.bernama.com, January 8, 2007; www.mystar.com.my. December 28, 2006.
64. See www.nst.com.mv. December 6, 2006.
65. Ibid; see also www.nst.com.my. December 14, 2006.
66. Article 11 (3) of the Federal Constitution.
67. Lee Min Choon, Freedom of Religion in Malaysia, Kairos Research Centre, 1999, p. 61.
68. Ibid, p. 69.
69. Ibid; see also Abdullah Saeed & Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, supra n. 38, p. 127.
70. See also sections 4, 7 and 10, Sedition Act of 1948.
71. Articles 11 (1) of the Federal Constituton.
72. Lee Min Choon, Freedom of Religion in Malaysia, supra n. 41, p. 65.
73. Ibid, p. 66.
74. [1988] 1 MLJ 119.
75. Section 13 of the Perak Islamic Criminal Law Enactment of 1992 is merely a blasphemy. However, since there is no distinction made between blasphemy and apostasy, section 13 has been regarded as an offence of apostasy.
76. Section 66 (1) of the Melaka Shari'a Offences Enactment of 1991.
77. Section 66 (2) (a) and (b) of the Melaka Shari'a Offences Enactment of 1991.
78. Section 66 (3) of the Melaka Shari'a Offences Enactment of 1991.
79. Section 102 (3) of the Council of Religion of Islam and Malay Custom Enactment of Kelantan, 1994; Section 63(1) of the Enactment of Islamic Criminal Law of Sabah, 1995.
80. Section 185 of the Pahang Administration of the Religion of Islam and Malays Custom Enactment of 1982 (Amended 1989).
81. Section 13 of Perak Islamic Criminal Law Enactment of 1992; Section 29 of the Terengganu Administration of Islamic Law of 1996; Section 209 (1) and (2) of Melaka Administration of Islamic Law of 1986.
82. Section 55 (1) and (2) of Sabah Islamic Criminal Law Enactment of 1995.
83. Section 13 of Perak Islamic Criminal Law Enactment of 1992.
84. Section 29 of the Terengganu Administration of Islamic Law of 1996; Section 209 (1) and (2) of Melaka Administration of Islamic Law of 1986; Section 55 (1) and (2) of Sabah Islamic Criminal Law Enactment of 1995.
85. The Negeri Sembilan's Administration of Islamic Law of 2003 (Amend).
86. Source: Department of Shari'a Judiciary of Negeri Sembilan; Interview with YAA Dato' Hussin Hj Harun, Chief Justice, Department of Shari'a Judiciary of Negeri Sembilan , 22 August 2003.
87. Teoh EngHuat v Kadhi, Pasir Mas & Anor [1986] 2 MLJ 228; [1990] MLJ 193.
88. [1990] MLJ at p. 193.
89. Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution states "This Constitution is the Supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after the Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void".
90. See Abdul Aziz Bari, "Murtad Dalam Konteks Kebebasan Beragama di Malaysia", Malaysian Journal of Law and Society 3 (1999) pp. 54-70.
91. Abdul Aziz Bari, "Murtad Dalam Konteks Kebebasan Beragama di Malaysia", Malaysian Journal of Law and Society 3 (1999) pp. 54-70.
92. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 119;
93. see also Abdul Aziz Bari, Case Note: The Relationship Between The Position of Islam in the Constitution and the Scope of Religious Freedom - Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persejutuan & Anor, HUM Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2004, pp. 145-156.
94. Artilcle 160 (2) of the Federal Constitutions defines 'Malay' as a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.
95. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 119.
96. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2005] 5 AMR 663.
97. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors; Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-2-2006 (W), 30 May 2007.
98. [1999] 1 MLJ 489; [1999] 2 AMR 1211.
99. [1998] 1 AMR 74; [1998] 1 MLJ 681.
100. Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-7-2002 (D) - 01-10-2002 (D), 21 July 2004.
101. Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-11-2002 (D) - 01-14-2002 (D), 21 July 2004.
102. Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-7-2002 (D) - 01-10-2002 (D), 21 July 2004.
103. Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-11-2002 (D) - 01-14-2002 (D), 21 July 2004.
104. [2002] 3 MLJ 657; see also Noor Aziah Mohd Awal, "Ulasan Kes: Kamariah Ali v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan dli Dan Daud Mamat v Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Kelantan dll [2002] 3 CLJ 766" IKIM Law Journal, Vol.6.No.2 July-December 2002, pp. 121-131.
105. [1999] 1 MLJ 489.
106. With the judgment of the Federal Court that ruled until the act of renunciation of Islam is verified by the Shari'a Court, an apostate is deemed to be a person of Muslim faith. As a result, it is likely that the Shari'a Public Prosecutor will proceed charging the apostates under Sections 102 and 120 of the Council of Religion of Islam and Malay Custom of Kelantan Enactment of 1994 respectively. Interview with YAA Dato' Daud Muhammad, Chief Justice, Department of Shari'a Judiciary of Kelantan, 6 August 2003; Interview with Mr.Abu Bakar Abdullah Kutty, Shari'a Public Prosecutor of Kelantan, 6 August 2003. Section 102 of the Enactment prohibits Muslim to declare that he is no longer a Muslim until a court has given its approval to that effect, and "if a Muslim person purposely attempts either by words or deed to abandon the Religion of Islam, the Court, may if so satisfied order such person to be detained at the Islamic Rehabilitation Centre for a period not exceeding 36 months for the purpose of educating him and such person shall be asked to repent according to the Hukum Shara"'. Section 120 of the Enactment states "any person who, whether orally or in writing or by clear behaviour or in any way, brings bout slander or may be deemed to slander or bring into contempt or attempts to slander or bring into contempt the religion of Islam, the ways of any approved mazhab, religious officer, religious teacher and authorised Imam, say fatwa issued by the Majlis or the Mufti but such act does not amount to ridda, shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding RM5,000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both".
107. See Abdullah Saeed & Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, supra n. 38, p. 155;
108. Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil, "Kebebasan Beragama Dan Hukuman Ke Atas Orang Murtad di Malaysia," in Ahmad Hidayat Buang (Ed.), Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia: Pencapaian dan Cabaran, Penerbit Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 2005, pp. 165ff.
109. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors; Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-2-2006 (W), 30 May 2007.
110. Supra.
111. [1999] 1 MLJ 489; [1999] 2 AMR 1211.
112. Article 11 (1) of the Federal Constitution
113. Ninth Schedule, List II - State List.
114. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors; Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-2-2006 (W), 30 May 2007.
115. Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-7-2002 (D) - 01-10-2002 (D), 21 July 2004.
116. Civil Appeal at the Federal Court No. 01-11-2002 (D) - 01-14-2002 (D), 21 July 2004.
117. This information was gained in a research conducted by Ahmad Hidayat Buang, Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil, Suwaid Tapa, Raihanah Abdullah and Khadijah Mohd Khambali@Hambali entitled Penganalisaan Fatwa-fatwa Semasa di Malaysia, IRPA Project 07-02-03-0403, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 2000;
118. see also Khadijah Mohd Khambali@Hambali, "Analisis Fatwa-fatwa Usuluddin: Tumpuan Kepada Ajaran Salah" in Ahmad Hidayat Buang (Ed.), Fatwa di Malaysia, Jabatan Syariah dan Undang-undang, Akademi Pengajian Islam, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 2004, pp. 195-196.