Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:19:44.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law of Apostasy and Freedom of Religion in Malaysia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2015

Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil
Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil*
Affiliation:
MARA University of Technology, Shah Alam, Malaysia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The right to freedom of religion is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Islam. This is emphasised in verse 256 of Sura al-Baqara: “Let there be no compulsion in religion”. However, the majority of classical Muslim jurists opine that the right to freedom of religion is not applicable to Muslims, that Muslims who intend to leave the Islamic faith or who have apostatised should be condemned to the death penalty. In reality, punishment for apostasy is not prescribed in the Qur'an and had not been practised by the Prophet (S.A.W.). Instead, the Prophet (S.A.W.) had imposed the death penalty upon apostates because their acts were contemptuous of, and hostile towards, Islam. Muslims who merely renounced the Islamic religion were only required to undergo a process of repentance (tawba). The right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. However, as Islamic matters belong to the state jurisdictions, most provisions in relation to apostasy are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Shari'a Courts. Apostates are subject to punishments such as fine, imprisonment and whipping. This article makes an in-depth study of the right to freedom of religion and the issue of apostasy from the Islamic law perspective, and argues that Muslims who intend to leave the Islamic faith are only required to undergo a process of repentance (tawba), and any punishment prescribed for apostasy is contrary to the right to freedom of religion.

Keywords

apostasyfreedom of religion
Type
Research Article
Information
Asian Journal of Comparative Law , Volume 2 , 2007 , pp. 1 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 El-Ewa, Mohamed S., Punishment in Islamic Law (American Trust Publications, 1982) at 52 Google Scholar.

2 Collin's Dictionary of English Language (London, 1979) at 67 Google Scholar.

3 Lane, Edward William (Ed.), Arabic English Lexicon, Book I, Part 3, (Williams and Norgate, London, 1867) at 1061–1062 Google Scholar; Mohamed S. El-Ewa, Punishment in Islamic Law, supra n. 1 at 4950; Peters, Rudolph & Vries, Gert J.J. De, “Apostasy in Islam” in Die Welt des Islams, Vol. XVII, (1976–1977) pp. 2–3 Google Scholar.

4 Lisan al-‘Arab, Vol. 3, Dar Sadir, Beirut, 1374 AH/1955 AD, p.173; Bosworth, C.E., et al, The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol. VII. (E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1993) at 635 Google Scholar.

5 Wahbah al-Zuhaili, al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuh, Vol. VII, (Dar al-Fikr, Syria) at 183; al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya, Vol. 22, Wizara al-Auqaf wa Shu'un al-Islamiyya (Kuwait, 1992 AD/1412AH) at 180; Rahman, S.A., Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, Bhavan, Kitab, (New Delhi, 1996) at 9 Google Scholar; Islam, ABM Mahbubul, Freedom of Religion in Shari'a: A Comparative Analysis (A.S. Nordeen, Kuala Lumpur, 2002) at 179 Google Scholar.

6 Al-Dusuqi, , Hashia al- Dusuqi, Vol. 4, Dar al-Fikr, n.d. p. 301 Google Scholar; al-Sharbini, al-Khatib, Mughni al-Muhtaj, Matba'a al-Halabi, 1957, p. 134; Qudama, Ibn, al-Mughni wa al-Sharh al-Kabir, Vol. 10, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, 1404 AH/1983 AD, p. 98 Google Scholar.

7 Ayoub, Mahmoud, “Religious Freedom and the Law of Apostasy in Islam”, Islamochristiana, Vol. 20, 1994, p. 76 Google Scholar.

8 Al-Mawsu'a al-Fiqhiyya, supra n. 5, p. 180; S.A. Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, supra n. 5, p. 9.

9 However, a few modern scholars appear to label this act as blasphemy; see for example Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, Freedom of Expression in Islam (Islamic Text Society, Cambridge, Revised Edition, 1997) p. 213–215 Google Scholar.

10 Al-Sharbini, al-Khatib, Mughni al-Muhtaj, supra n. 6, pp. 134-136; al-Dusuqi, Hashiyya al-Dusuqi, supra n. 6, p. 303; Duff's Miscellaneous Works, Abolition of the Death-penalty for Musalmans Embracing Christianity in Turkey; Correspondence Between Sir Culling E. Eardley & Rev. Dr. Duff, Vol. 5, p. 17 Google Scholar; Mohamed, Mahfodz, Jenayah Dalam Islam: Satu Kajian Ilmiah Mengenai Hukum-hukum Hudud (Nurin Enterprise, K.Lumpur, 1993) pp. 123–129 Google Scholar; Ismail, Paizah, Undang-undang Jenayah Islam, (ABIM, P.Jaya, 1991) p. 224 Google Scholar.

11 Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam, supra n. 9, p. 87.

12 Al-Qur'an, al-Kahf, 18:29 Google Scholar.

13 Zahrah, Muhammad Abu, Tanzim al-Islami Li al-Mujtama’ (Matba'ah Mukhaymar, Cairo, N.D.) p. 190 Google Scholar; see also al-'Ili, , Hassan, ‘Abd al-Hakim, al-Hurriyya al- ‘Ammh (Dar al-Fikr, 1403 AH/1983 AD) p. 330 Google Scholar.

14 Uthman, Muhammad Fathi, Huquq al-Insan Baina al-Shari'a al-Islamiyyah Wa al-Fikr al-Qanun al-Gharbi (Dar al-Shuruq, 1401AH/1982AD) p. 91 Google Scholar.

15 Al-Shafi'I, Muhammad Idris, al-Umm, Vol. V (al-Matba'a al-Amiriyya, Egypt, 1322 AH) p. 165: al-Samara'i, Ahkam al-Murtadfi al-Shari'a al-Islamiyya (Dar al-'Arabiyya, Beirut) p. 192.

16 Qur'an, al-Shams, 91:7–10 Google Scholar.

17 Abdulaziz Sachedina, “Freedom of Conscience and Religion in the Qur'an” in Little, David et al, Human Rights and the Conflict of Cultures: Western and Islamic Perspectives on Religious Liberty, (University of South Carolina Press, 1988) p. 58 Google Scholar.

18 Muhammad Fathi Uthman, Huquq al-Insan, supra n. 14, pp. 29-37.

19 Rida, Rashid, Tafsir al-Manar, Vol. XI, p. 484 Google Scholar.

20 The Qur'an, al-Baqara, 2:256 Google Scholar.

21 Ali, Abdullah Yusuf, The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an (1411 AH/1991 AD) p. 106 Google Scholar.

22 See al-Hakim, Taufiq, Mukhtasar Tafsir al-Qurtubi al-Jami' Li Ahkam al-Qur'an, al-Hai'ah al-Masriyya al-'Amma Li al-Kitab (1977) pp. 191–192 Google Scholar; see also al-Islam, Turath, Tafsir al-Tabari, Vol. 5, (Dar al-Ma'arif, Egypt) pp. 412–413 Google Scholar; see also al-Ta'fah Abi Ja'far Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Tusi, al-Tibyan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, Vol. 2, (Maktaba al-Amin, 1367 AH/1957 AD) p. 311 Google Scholar.

23 The Qur'an, al-Nisa', 4:89 Google Scholar.

24 Al-Tusi, al-Tibyan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, supra n. 22, p. 311.

25 Taufiq al-Hakim, Mukhtasar Tafsir al-Qurtubi, supra n. 22, p. 191; see also Turath al-Islam, Tafsir al-Tabari, supra n. 22, pp. 414-415.

26 Turath al-Islam, Tafsir al-Tabari, ibid, p. 408; Al-Tusi, al-Tibyan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, supra n. 22, p. 311.

27 Turath al-Islam, Tafsir al-Tabari, ibid, p. 408; Taufiq al-Hakim, Mukhtasar Tafsir al-Qurtubi, supra n. 22, p.192.

28 Taufiq al-Hakim, Mukhtasar Tafsir al-Qurtubi, ibid, p. 192.

29 Abduliaziz Sachedina, “Freedom of Conscience and Religion in the Qur'an”, supra n. 17, p. 68.

30 Al-Tusi, al-Tibyan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, supra n. 22, p. 311.

31 Hadd is the singular form of the word hudud. Hadd means an unalterable punishment fixed by the Qur'an or Prophet's Tradition as a right of Allah for a crime. Hadd cannot be increased, decreased, altered or remitted by anyone including the head of an Islamic State.

32 See Adil, Mohamed Azam Mohamed, “Kebebasan Beragama dan Hukuman Ke Atas Orang Murtad di Malaysia” in Buang, Ahmad Hidayat (Ed.), Mahkamah Syariah di Malaysia Pencapaian dan Cabaran (Penerbit Universiti Malaya, 2005) p. 179 Google Scholar.

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid.

35 Mohamed S. El-Ewa, Punishment in Islamic Law, supra n. 3, pp. 51-53.

36 Ibid.

37 Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam, supra n. 9, p. 93.

38 AbuSulayman, AbdulHamid A. , Towards an Islamic Theory of International Relations: New Directions For Methodology and Thought (The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), Hendon, 1993) pp. 108–109 Google Scholar.

39 Ibid, p. 112.

40 Ibid, p. 113-114.

41 See Ayoub, Mahmoud, Religious Freedom and the Law of Apostasy in Islam, Islamchristiana, vol. 20 (1994) p. 89 Google Scholar; Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam, supra n. 9, p. 93. See also Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, Punishment in Islamic Law an Enquiry into the Hudud Bill of Kelantan (Kuala Lumpur: Institut Kajian Dasar, 1995) p. 35 Google Scholar.

42 ‘Abd al-Muta'ali al-Sa'idi, al-Hurriyyah al-Diniyyah fi al-Islam, (Dar al-Fikr, 1955 & 2000)

43 Ibid.

44 ‘Abd al-Muta'ali al-Sa'idi, Hurriyyat al-Fikr fi al-Islam, p. 85.

45 Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam, supra n. 9, pp. 92-107; see also his book, 1995, pp. 33-37 and another book, Islamic Law Issues and Development, (Ilmiah Publishers, K Lumpur, 2000) pp. 207-209 and 214–219 Google Scholar.

46 Rida, Rashid, Tafsir al-Manar, vol XI, p. 484 Google Scholar.

47 Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam, supra n. 9, pp. 92-107; see also his books 1995, pp. 33-37 and 2000 supra n. 45, pp. 207-209 and 214-219.

48 An-Naim, Abdullahhi, “The Islamic Law of Apostasy and its Modern Applicability: a Case from the Sudan” in Religion, vol. 16, pp. 210–217 Google Scholar.

49 Muhammad Saleem el-Ewa, Punishment in Islamic Law, supra n. 3, pp. 50-56 and 61-64.

50 Mahmoud Ayoub, “Religious Freedom and Law Apostasy in Islam”, supra n. 7, pp. 77-91.

51 Shaltut, Mahmud, al-Islam Aqida wa Sharia (al-Shuruq, Maktabah, 1992) pp. 280–281 Google Scholar.

52 Ghanoushi, Rashid, al-Hurriyyat al-Am fi al-Daula al-islamiyya, Markaz Dirasat al-Wahda al-'Arabiyya, 1993, pp. 48–51 Google Scholar.

53 al-Qardhawi, Yusof, Jenayah Murtad dan Hukumannya Menurut Perspektif al-Quran dan al-Sunnah, (Transl: Zaharan Mohamed & Mohd Akhir Yaacob) (Rmi Multimedia Publishing, Shah Alam, 2000) pp. 52, 56–57 Google Scholar.

54 Muhammad Saleem el-Ewa, Punishment in Islamic Law, supra n. 3, p. 50.

55 For further discussion on this topic, see Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Freedom of Expression in Islam, supra n. 9, p. 213.

56 Mohammad Hashim Kamali, ibid, pp. 213-215.

57 Al-Mawsu 'ah al-Fiqhiyyah, supra n. 5, pp. 184-186; see also al-Samara'i, Ahkam al-Murtad Fi al-Shari ‘ah al-Islamiyyah: Dar al'Arabiyyah (Beirut), pp. 92-110.

58 See Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957) notably known as The Reid Commission), Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1957, p.99.

59 Ibid.

60 Ibid.

61 But in Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak dan lain-lain v Fatimah bte Sihi dan lain-lain, the learned judge said that it was the Rulers that demanded such provision on Islam to be inserted and included in the Constitution in recognising the supremacy of Islam; See Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the Decision of Meor Atiqulrahman ” [2000] 2 MLJ at p. cxxxvi Google Scholar; see also Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak dan lain-lain lwn Fatimah bte Sihi dan lain-lain [2000] 5 MLJ at p. 385 Google Scholar.

62 See The White Paper, Article 3(1), p. 33; See also Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

63 This provision had also been proposed in the White Paper.

64 In the White Paper, Article 11(4) provided that “State law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion.”

65 Ibrahim, Ahmad, “Islam and the Constitution”, Paper presented in Conference on The Malaysian Constitution After 30 Years, Faculty of Law, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 22-23 August 1987, p. 8 Google Scholar.

66 See judgement in Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Anor. v Fatimah Bte Sihi & Anor, [2000] 5 MLJ 382; In this case, the learned judge, Dato' Mohd Noor Abdullah interpreted Article 3(1) that states “Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation” which means that Islam is the supreme religion and its position is not in par with other religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and others. It is placed beyond other religions in the Federation; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz “Islam in The Federal Constitution: A Commentary on The Decision of Meor Atiqulrahman ” [2000] 2 MLJ at cxxxv–cxxxix Google Scholar; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Murtad Dalam Konteks Kebebasan Beragama di Malaysia” Malaysian Journal of Law and Society (MJLS) 3(1999) pp. 54–57 Google Scholar; Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Negara Islam Dalam Kerangka Perlembagaan Malaysia” Dewan Masyarakat, Dewan Bahasa dan Pusataka, November 2001, p. 22 Google Scholar.

67 [1988] 2 MLJ 55.

68 Ibid.

69 Sheridan, L.A., The Federation of Malaya Constitution - Text, Annotations and Commentary, University of Malaya Law Review, Singapore, 1961, p.4 Google Scholar

70 See Bari, Abdul Aziz, Islam Dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan (Intel Multimedia and Publication, Petaling Jaya, 2005) pp. 21-23, 80–81 Google Scholar; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Murtad Dalam Konteks Kebebasan Beragama”, (MJLS) 3 (1999) p. 55 Google Scholar; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Islam in The Federal Constitution: A Commentary on The Decision of Meor Atiqulrahman ” [2000] 2 MLJ at cxxxviii Google Scholar; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Negara Islam dan Kerangka Perlembagaan Malaysia”, Dewan Masyarakat, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, November, 2001, p. 22 Google Scholar.

71 See Abdul Aziz Bari, “Islam in The Federal Constitution: A Commentary on The Decision of Meor Atiqulrahman” ibid at cxxxix.

72 Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

73 Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution.

74 See Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55 Google Scholar; see also Tan, Kevin et al, Constitutional Law in Malaysia and Singapore, (Malayan Law Journal Sdn. Bhd, 1996) p. 691 Google Scholar.

75 Ninth Schedule, List 1, Federal List; List 2, State List, and List 3, Concurrent List.

76 Ibid; see also Harding, Andrew, “The Keris, The Crescent and the Blind Goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia”, 6 Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 154 at 166–167 (2002)Google Scholar.

77 Shad Saleem, Faruqi, “Facing A Problem of Semantics”, Sunday Star, 28 October 2001, p. 22 Google Scholar.

78 See The Reid Commission Report, supra n. 58, paragraph 169; However, according to Abdul Rashid Moten, the Reid Commission rejected the proposal when it finally agreed that the religion of the State shall be Islam, refrained from entering the word 'secular' in the Constitution. Given the fact the provision in Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, Rashid Moten believes that Malaysia is an Islamic State; for furher reading see Moten, Abdul Rashid, “Malaysia As An Islamic State: A Political Analysis”, IKIM Journal of Islam and International Affairs, Vol. 1 No.2, 2003, pp. 28–42 Google Scholar.

79 Martinez, Patricia A., “The Islamic State or the State of Islam in Malaysia”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 23, No. 3 (December 2001), p. 490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Andrew Harding, “The Keris, The Crescent and the Blind Goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia”, supra n. 76, pp. 166-173.

80 Patricia A. Martinez, ibid, p. 491.

81 Ibid, p. 492.

82 Verma, Vidhu, Malaysia - State and Civil Society in Transition (Lynne Rienner Publishers, London, 2002) p. 96 Google Scholar.

83 Sheridan, L.A., The British Commonwealth - The Development of Its Laws and Constitution (Stevens & Sons Ltd., London, 1961) p. 49 Google Scholar.

84 For further reading on this, see Alexandrowicz, C.H., “The Secular State in India and the United States” [1960] 2 JILI 271 Google Scholar.

85 Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Murtad Dalam Konteks Kebebasan Beragama”, MJLS 3 (1999), pp. 55–56 Google Scholar; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Perlaksanaan Islam Melalui Kerangka Perlembagaan dan Perundangan Malaysia”, IKIM Law Journal, Vo.3 No.2 July-December 1999, pp. 88–94 Google Scholar; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the Decision of Meor Attiqulrahman”, [2000] 2 MLJ cxxxix Google Scholar; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Halangan-halangan Pelaksanaan Undang-undang Jenayah Islam di Dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia”, Shari'a Journal, Vol. 10, No.2, July 2002, pp. 32–34 Google Scholar; see also Markom, Ruzian, “Peranan Syariah Islamiah Dalam Menangani Kecenderungan-kecenderungan Globasisasi Dalam Konteks Sistem Pemerintahan di Malaysia”, IKIM Law Journal, Vol.7 No.1 January-June 2003, pp.96–98 Google Scholar.

86 Abdul Aziz Bari, “Murtad Dalam Konteks Kebebasan Beragama”, ibid, pp. 55-56; see also Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the Decision of Meor Attiqulrahman”, [2000] 2 MLJ cxlii Google Scholar; see Meor Atiqulrahman bin Ishak & Anor v Fatimah bte Sihi & Anor [2000] 5 MLJ 381–382 Google Scholar.

87 Article 11(4) provides that the Federal and State governments can introduce laws prohibit nonMuslims to proselytise Muslims.

88 Bari, Abdul Aziz, “Negara Islam Dalam Kerangka Perlembagaan Malaysia”, Dewan Masyarakat, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, November 2001, p. 23 Google Scholar.

89 Shad Saleem Faruqi, “Secularism or Theocracy: A Study of the Malaysian Constitution”, Unpublished paper, UiTM, 2001, p. 49; see also Shad Saleem Faruqi, “Constitutional Perspectives on Freedom of Religion, Secularism and Theocracy”, Paper distributed at the MCA forum on the Islamic state, K. Lumpur, 20 October 2001, p.11, cited in Patricia A. Martinez, “The Islamic State or the State of Islam in Malaysia”, supra n. 79, p. 494; see also Shad Saleem Faruqi, “Constitutional Perspectives on Freedom of Religion, Secularism and Theocracy” in Ibrahim Abu Shah (Ed.) Islam, Democracy and Good Governance - The Malaysian Experience (Pusat Penerbitan Universiti (UPENA), Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, 2004) pp. 88-89; see also Choon, Lee Min, Freedom of Religion in Malaysia (Kairos Research Centre, 1991) p. 24 Google Scholar; see also Abdul Aziz Bari, “Halangan-halangan Pelaksanaan Undang-undang Jenayah Islam”, supra n. 85, pp. 33-34; see also Bahrom, Hassan, “Perlembagaan: Isu Perlaksanaan Undang-undang Islam”, Shari'a Journal, 7:1 [1999] pp. 80–84 Google Scholar.

90 Shad Saleem Faruqi, “Constitutional Perspectives on Freedom of Religion, Secularism and Theocracy”, ibid.

91 For instance, Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 11(4), 12(2), 34(1), 150(6A), 160(2), Fourth Schedule, and Ninth Schedule, List II, Item 1; see Shad Saleem Faruqi, “Secularism or Theocracy: A Study of the Malaysian Constitution”, supra n. 89, pp. 52-53.

92 Shad Saleem Faruqi, ibid.

93 [2000] 5 MLJ 375.

94 Cited in Abdul Aziz Bari, “Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the Decision of Meor Attiqulrahman”, [2000] 2 MLJ cxxxii.

95 Ibid.

96 Harding suggests that “there is no provision for the Shari'a to be a source, or the basic source, of legislation”, see Andrew Harding, “Keris, Islam and the Blind Goddess”, supra n. 76, p. 167.

97 Harding, Andrew, Law, Government and the Constitution in Malaysia (Kluwer Law International, London, 1996) pp. 136–137 Google Scholar.

98 It says that ‘Except with respect to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam, including the Islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, guardianship, gifts, partitions and non-charitable trust; Wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and religious trusts, the appointment of trustees and incorporation of persons in respect of Islamic religious and charitable endowments, institutions, trusts, charities and charitable institutions operating wholly within the State; Malay customs; Zakat, Fitra and Bait al-Mal or similar Islamic religious revenue; mosques or any Islamic public places of worship, creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion, except in regard to matters included in the Federal List; the constitution, organisation and procedure of Shari'a Courts which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as concerned by federal law, the control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam; the determination of matters of Islamic law and doctrine and Malay custom’.

99 Ninth Schedule, List II - State List.

100 Article 76(2).

101 Article 76(1)(b).

102 Article 3(2) of the Federal Constitution.

103 Article 74(2); see also Jusoh, Hamid, The Position of Islamic Law in the Malaysian Constitution With Special Reference to the Conversion Case in Family Law (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, K. Lumpur, 1991), p. 35 Google Scholar.

104 Article 75 of the Federal Constitution.

105 [1988] 1 MLJ 119.

106 The Shari'a Courts Act (Criminal Jurisdiction) of 1965 (Amended in 1984).

107 Lee Min Choon, Freedom of Religion in Malaysia, supra n. 89, pp. 33-34.

108 Ibid.

109 [1965] 31 MLJ 121

110 Ibid; see also Imam, Mohammed, “Freedom of Religion Under Federal Constitution of Malaysia - A Reappraisal”, [1994] 2 CLJ at p. lxxiii–lxxiv Google Scholar.

111 The Little Oxford Dictionary, 6th Ed., 1986, p. 429 Google Scholar.

112 Ibid, at p. 122.

113 [1991] 3 MLJ 174.

114 [1992] 1 MLJ 1.

115 Lee Min Choon, Freedom of Religion, supra n. 89, pp. 38.

116 Ibid, p. 37.

117 Ibid, p. 38.

118 Ibid, p. 39.

119 [2004] 2 MLJ 119.

120 Ibid at p. 139.

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.

123 Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Ors. [2005] 6 MLJ 193.

124 See “Deletion of Word Islam in IC: Lina Joy Gets Green Light To Appeal” in www.bernama.com (13 April 2006); see also “Ruling on Renunciation Cases Soon” in New Straits Times, 14 April 2006, p. 4 Google Scholar.

125 [2004] 5 AMR 571

126 See Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions (Johore) Enactment 1991 (Enactment 12/1991); Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions (Kedah) Enactment 1988 (Enactment 11/1988); Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions (Kelantan) Enactment 1981 (Enactment 11/1981); Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions to Muslims (Malacca) Enactment 1988 (Enactment 1/1988); Control and Restriction (Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Among Muslims)(Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Enactment 9/1991); Control and Restrictionof the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions (Pahang) Enactment 1989 (Enactment 5/1989); Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Enactment 10/1988); Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagations Among Muslims) (Selangor) Enactment 1988 (Enactment 1/1988); Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1980 (Enactment 1/1980).

127 Magistrate's Court Case No MA-83-146-2002 (Unreported). See 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, supra n. 32, p. 165.

128 Section 13 of the Perak Islamic Criminal Law Enactment of 1992 deals with merely blasphemy. However, since there is no distinction made between blasphemy and apostasy, section 13 has been regarded as an offence of apostasy.

129 Sabah Islamic Criminal Offences Enactment 1995, s 63(1); Kelantan Council for Muslim Religion and Malay Custom Enactment 1994, s 102.

130 Malacca Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1991, s 66.

131 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(1).

132 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(3).

133 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(4)(a).

134 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(4)(b).

135 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(5).

136 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(6).

137 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(7)(8).

138 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(9).

139 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(10).

140 Ibid.

141 Enactment No 10 of 2003, s 119(11).

142 Negeri Sembilan has recorded the highest number of applications to leave Islam, even under the old law - the Administration of Islamic Law (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991. Of the 84 applications made between 1994 and 2003, 16 applications were allowed, 29 were applications were dismissed, and 39 postponed. This information is based on an interview of YAA Dato' Hussin bin Harun, Chief Shari'a Judge, Shari'a Justice Department, Negeri Sembilan on 22 August 2003.

143 I would like to thank both Ms Noor Halina Ahmad Zabidi, the then Chief Registrar, Department of Islamic Judiciary of Federal Territory (Kuala Lumpur) and Ms. Maimun Mohd, the present Chief Registrar, Department of Islamic Judiciary of Federal Territory (Kuala Lumpur ) for giving assistance in obtaining such information. According to Ms. Noor Halina, prior to 2001, application to register for apostasy was totally rejected ab initio because there was no such provision. However, through Practical Order (Arahan Amalan) from the Department of Islamic Judiciary, Malaysia, a new code was introduced for apostasy application; Interview on 23 July 2003. Until August 2004, there are 12 such applications, which were rejected by the Shari'a Court due to no provision in the Administration of Islamic Law of Federal Territories Act of 1998.

144 Application No. 14200-043-002-2003.

145 The writer would like to thank Mr Leonard Teoh , Advocate & Solicitor, who gave him a copy of letter from the Registration Department of Malaysia to the Chairman of Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) dated 4 Jun 2003, which indicates the new rule.

146 See also Soon Singh v PERKIM [1999] 1 MLJ 489; [1999] 2 AMR 1211.

147 Abdul Rahman Sigamani Bin Abdullah. He was also known as Sigamani a/l Ramalingam.

148 Interview with Mr. Abdul Rahman Abdullah, Registrar of the Kedah Shari'a High Court, 19 August 2003.

149 This information was revealed to the writer by Mr. Sakaria Samela, the Sabah Shari'a Public Prosecutor.

150 Interview with Mr. Sakaria Samela, the Sabah Shari'a Public Prosecutor, 12 August 2003.

151 Soon Singh v PERKIM [1999] 1 MLJ 489, [1999] 2 AMR 1211; Mohamed Habibullah v Faridah Talib [1992] 2 MLJ 793.

152 Interview with YAA Dato' Che Yusof Puteh, Chief Justice, Department of Shari'a Judiciary of Penang, 16 August 2003.

153 Interview with YAA Tuan Haji Sham Haji Obeh, Chief Justice, Department of Shari'a Judiciary of Sarawak, 5 August 2003.

154 Information given by Ms. Rosminah Mohd Yusoff, Registration Department, Malaysia.

155 In the State of Perak, there are 23 Muslims applied to change their Muslims name to non Muslims name. Out of this number, only one involves Malay (Muslim by birth). Interview with YB Dato' Abdul Rahim Uda, Perak Legal Advisor (as he then was), 25 Jun 2003.

156 Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 119.

157 Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan & Anor [2005] 5 AMR 663.

158 [1999] 1 MLJ 489; [1999] 2 AMR 1211.

159 Saeed, Abdullah & Saeed, Hassan, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam (Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Aldershot, 2004) p. 150 Google Scholar.

160 Pawancheek Marican, “Murtad (Apostasy) and Art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution”, [1998] 2 MLJ lxxviii.

161 Ibid; Abdullah Saeed & Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, supra n. 168, pp. 150-159; For further reading, see Farid Sufian Shuaib, Powers and Jurisdiction of Shari'a Courts in Malaysia, Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, 2003, p.51; Shahriman Mahmud, Perbincangan Isu Murtad di Malaysia, Project Paper, Postgraduate Diploma in Administration and Islamic Judiciary, International Islamic University, Malaysia, 1999, pp.38-40; Siti Zubaidah Ismail, “Pertindihan Bidang Kuasa Mahkamah Shari'ah: Sorotan Terhadap Kes-kes Murtad”, IKIM Law Journal, Vol.4, No.2, July-December 2000, pp. 67-82.

162 Ninth Schedule, List II - State List.

163 [1991] 3 MLJ 487.

164 Ibid at p. 489.

165 [1996] 3 CLJ 231. This case was quoted with disapproval in Md Hakim Lee v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur [1998] 1 MLJ 681.

166 [1997] 3 MLJ 281.

167 [1997] 3 MLJ at 293.

168 [1992] 2 MLJ 793.

169 Ibid at p. 800.

170 Marican, Pawancheek, “ Murtad (Apostasy) and Art 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution”, [1998] 2 MLJ lxxviii Google Scholar.

171 [1998] 1 AMR 74; [1998] 1 MLJ 681.

172 [1992] 1 MLJ 1.

173 [1998] 1 MLJ at 685; see also Zubaidah Ismail, “Pertindihan Bidang Kuasa Mahkamah Shari'ah: Sorotan Terhadap Kes-kes Murtad”, supra n. 161, pp. 68-70.

174 [1998] 1 MLJ at 685; see also Siti Zubaidah, supra n 161.

175 [1992] 1 MLJ at 9; see also Siti Zubaidah, supra n 161.

176 Ibid.

177 [1992] 1 MLJ 1.

178 Ibid at p.7

179 Ibid at p. 9-10.

180 Tan, Poh-Ling, “Paying the Price for Religious Freedom - A Non-Muslim Perspective” in Aun, Wu Min (Ed.) Public Law in Contemporary Malaysia, Longman, 1999, pp. 158–159 Google Scholar; see also Choon, Lee Min, “Error of Jurisdiction: Dalip Kaur Revisited”, Insaf, Vol. Xxcii, No. 2 June 1998, p. 91 Google Scholar.

181 [1999] 1 MLJ 489; [1999] 2 AMR 1211.

182 [1999] 2 AMR at p. 1233.

183 [1992] 1 MLJ 7.

184 [1991] 3 MLJ 487.

185 Section 29 of the Terengganu Administration of Islamic Affairs Enactment of 1996 provides that whoever attempts to renounce Islam or declaring that he is no longer a Muslim shall be fined up to RM 3,000.00 or not less than one year imprisonment or both.

186 Section 13 of the Perak Syari'ah Criminal Law Enactment of 1992 provides a fine up to RM 3,000.00 or not less than two years' imprisonment or both for Muslims who renounced Islam.

187 See Lee Min Choon, Freedom of Religion in Malaysia, supra n. 89, p. 45.

188 [2004] 5 MLJ 40.

189 [2004] 5 MLJ at pp. 41-42.

190 Ibid.