MALAYSIAN LEGAL SOURCE:

ISLAMIC LAW
By Sh. Nuridah Aishah (FUHA)
What you will learn..

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
2. ISLAMIC LAW UNDER FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION
3. ADMINISTRATION OF ISLAMIC LAW
4. PREVIOUS CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION
5. AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 121 OF FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION & ITS EFFECT
6. CONCLUSION

2
1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Islamic law was applied widely during Malacca
Sultanate through Undang-Undang Melaka.
• It compiled Islamic law & Malay custom &
later was adopted by other states.
• It covers various matters such as crimes,
transactions, family, evidence & procedure,
and Ruler.
• In criminal law, it contained zina, qazaf,
theft, robbery, apostacy, drinking
intoxicants, qisas & diyah, causing injury,
etc. The punishment was combination of
customary law & Islamic law.

3
• Example of law relating to the punishment
for zinā was interpreted as: "Those who
commit unlawful intercourse between male
and female, the order by the King are; if they
are free person (not a slave) and unmarried,
they will be flogged hundred lashes and if the
free man had a wife or the free woman had a
husband, they will be buried till waist and
will be stoned to death."
• In administration, Rulers appointed Qādis
(judges) as their advisers in religious matters.
• In family law, it provided for conditions of
marriage & talaq.
• In transaction, it provided for riba &
admissible & prohibited type of goods in
trade.
4
BEFORE THE COMING OF BRITISH TO
MALAY STATES

• Islamic law was the law of the land.

Refer to the case of SHAIK ABDUL
LATIF V SHAIK ELIAS BUX
• Held: The validity of a will (wasiat) of
Muslim who domiciled in Federated
Malay States is governed by Islamic
law. The only law applicable to the
Malay States before British arrival is
Islamic law modified by local
customs.
5
ONG CHENG NEO V. YAP KWAN
SENG
• English law does not prevail in these
Courts except in so far as it has been
adopted. The entire Muhammedan law
is a personal law … it gives rights only
to those who acknowledge Islamism.
Only a Muslim has a right of
succession regulated by the laws of
Islam.
RE ISMAIL v LIAH
• Islamic law was recognized by court as
part of common law of the land as far
as the Malays were concerned.
6
DURING BRITISH ADMINISTRATION IN
MALAY STATES

• Civil courts recognized applicability /status

of Islamic law.
RAMAH V LATON
• Held: Muslim law was not foreign law but
local law, and the law of the land of which
the court must take judicial notice. The
court must propound the law and it is not
competent for the court to allow evidence to
be led as to what is the local law.

7
RE TIMAH v MAGARI
• Islamic law was part of the law in force in
Pahang and it was the law of the land. Thus
under Islamic law, a non-Muslim is excluded
from and cannot succeed to the estate of a
Muslim converter.

CHULAS v KOLSON
• General rules of English law do not apply to
the local inhabitants who have their own
different religions & social institutions. To
apply such rules would result intolerable
injustice & oppression.

8
• The Malay Rulers agreed to accept the advice
of British Residents/Advisors in all matters
except on questions pertaining to Islamic law
and Malay custom.
• However, British had directly & indirectly
interfered with Islamic law & its
administration.
• Acting on advice of the British administrators,
Malay Rulers enacted several laws by
adopting Indian models based on principles of
English law in matters eg criminal law,
evidence & procedure and contract.
• These legislations had replaced Malay custom
and Islamic law.
9
• Islamic law was applied only in matters
relating to family, inheritance & ta’zir offences
(small offences other than hudud & qisas).
• Administration of Islamic law had also been
interfered by British. As a consequence, the
jurisdiction of shariah courts was restricted
and the shariah courts was made inferior to
the civil courts.
• Before 1948, the shariah courts (Courts of
Kadhi and Assistant Kadhi) in Malay States
were part of the structure of the civil courts.
However in 1948, the Court Ordinance
established a judicial system for the
Federation and excluded shariah courts from
the Federal Court System.

10
ARE YOU OK?
 2. ISLAMIC LAW UNDER FED CONSTI
1. Article 3 of Fed Consti:
• Islam is the official religion of Malaysia but other
religions may be practiced in peace and harmony.
Examples:
-Prayers could be conducted in official functions
-The government may establish Islamic Institution
such as mosque and incur expenditure
-The government may spend money on the
administration of Islamic Law.
• However, Article 3 (4) limits it. It says: "Nothing in
this Article derogates from (revokes/repeals) any
other provision of this Constitution.“
Ashgar Ali pg 286
CHE OMAR CHE SOH v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
• It was argued that the enactment of a mandatory death
penalty for drug trafficking was contrary to Islam.
• The Supreme Court, referring to the history of Islam in
Malaysia, rejected this argument, holding that Article 3
was not a clog or fetter (restraint) on the legislative power.
• In doing so, the court drew a distinction between private
law (where Islamic law applied) and public law (where
Islamic law did not apply), adding that Islamic law was
historically confined to private/personal law in Malaysia.
• Article 3 of FC was never intended to extend the
application of sharī`ah to the sphere of public law.
FATIMAH BTE SIHI & ORS. v. MEOR ATIQULRAHMAN BIN ISHAK
& ORS [2005]
• Facts: Right of Muslim pupils in school to wear serban.
• HC held in favour of the pupils. Article 3 should be given a
proper interpretation in that it should extend beyond rituals
and ceremonies so long as it did not deny peaceful and
harmonious practice of other religions.
• This judgment implies that Islam is the primary religion which
takes precedence over other religions in the country. This is
the implication of the stipulation of Islam as the religion of
the Federation. Islam would not have been put as the religion
of the Federation if its position was just as one the religions
existing in the country.
• However, Court of Appeal (COA) reversed the
decision of HC. Based on Art 11 of Fed Consti, the
issue (whether or not the wearing of serban formed
important part of Islam) involved a question of
evidence & thus the Respondent has to produce
sufficient evidence to prove that wearing serban is
mandatory in Islam. Respondents failed to prove it.
• Federal Court affirmed the decision made by COA.
2. Article 11 of Fed Consti:
• Freedom of religion.
• The right of individual to profess & practice his religion.
However, the state law may control/ restrict the
propagation/spread of any religious belief to the Muslims.
Thus, a Muslim cannot convert/change his religion. The
purpose of this restriction is to give power to the states to
make laws to protect Islam from being exposed to the
influence of other beliefs.
• JAMALUDDIN v MENTERI HAL EHWAL DALAM NEGERI
[1989]: Applicant was detained under Internal Security Act
due to his activities in practising & propagating Christianity.
Held: Minister has no power to prevent a person from his
right to profess & practice his reigion & thus his detention
was not valid.
3. Art. 160 Fed. Consti:
– Islamic law is not included in the definition of
Malaysian law. Article 160 provides that the
word “law” means written law, English law and
customary law only.
– However, this does not mean that Islamic law
could not be applied/recognised in Malaysia.
– Islamic law is applicable in Muslim personal
law (like obligation of fasting & performance of
Jumaat prayer) and minor offences against
the belief of Islam (ta’zir) .
4. Article 74(2) & List II (State List) of 9th Schedule of
Fed Consti:
– Islamic law is a subject matter under the state
government. Thus the state has power to
enact laws relating to Islamic law. However,
the Federal Territories of KL, Labuan and
Putrajaya are under the power of federal
government.
– Thus, application of Islamic law may vary from
one state to another state (not standardized in
all states).
• Art 74(2) states that the state legislature may
make laws relating to any matters listed in the
State List (List II in 9th Schedule) or Concurrent
List. The list includes marriage, divorce,
maintenance, guardianship, wakaf, Malay
custom, zakat, mosque & jurisdiction of
Syariah Courts, etc.
 List II—State List
“1. 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 trusts; wakafs and the definition and regulation of charitable and
religious trusts, the appointment of trustees and the 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, Fitrah and baitulmal or similar Islamic religious revenue;
mosques or any Islamic public place 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, organization and procedure of Syariah 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 conferred
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”.
Any questions?
3. ADMINISTRATION OF ISLAMIC LAW
IN MALAYSIA
• Article 12 (2) of the Fed. Consti gives
rights "for the Federation or a State to
establish or maintain or assist in
establishing or maintaining Islamic
institutions or provide or assist in
providing instruction in the religion of
Islam and incur such expenditure as
may be necessary for the purpose.“
• There are 3 main bodies in
administration of Islamic law:
1. Majlis Agama Islam

• Responsible for all matters relating to

Islam except Islamic law and
administration of justice.
• Its function is to advise the Rulers on
matters of Islam.
• Conduct day-to-day operation by
Department of Religious Affairs.
• The Majlis may buy, hold and dispose of
properties, build company/ school/
mosque & collect zakat for faqir, etc.
• Also act as the executor of wills &
administer the estate of deceased
Muslims.
• Also has duty to promote economic &
social well-being of Muslim community.
2. Mufti
• Appointed by Sultan / YDPA (state /
federal government)
• His main function is to issue fatwa on
any unsettled/controversial issues
relating to Islamic law.
• The Council of Mufti will have
discussion and come out with fatwa &
publish it in Gazette.
• The fatwa issued concern with
jurisprudence of Islamic Law.
3. Syariah Courts
•As a result of British influence, Malaysia has
inherited a dual system of courts. Firstly, the civil
courts which deal with the majority of the laws
and everyone in Malaysia is subject to the
jurisdiction of the civil courts. Secondly, the
Syariah Courts, which deal mainly with Islamic
family law & some criminal offences relating to
practice of Islam and which have jurisdiction only
where the parties are Muslims.
•Each state has its own Syariah Court
established under Administration of Islamic Law
Enactment. In Federal Territories, the court is
established by Administration of Islamic Law
(Federal Territories) Act 1993.
 SYARIAH COURTS

Syariah Appeal Court 1) Appellate - Sit by Chief Syariah Judge

2)Supervisory -Supervise the proceeding in
3)Revisionary SHC and SSC

Syariah High Court 1) Original civil - Sit by judge of Syariah High

and criminal Court
2)Appellate civil
- Hear appeal from SSC
and criminal
3)Revisionary and - Supervise the proceeding in
supervisory SSC

Syariah Subordinate Court Original civil and

criminal jurisdiction -sit by judge of SSC
only
Most states have three
courts and some do not
have Syariah Appeal
Court
26
• Even it is said that the state government has
a power to enact the laws for Muslims and
can be enforced to them, it is only relating to
the Muslim’s personal laws and family only.
• These laws, if related to criminal law, depend
on the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction)
Act 1965.
• This means that even the state government
can enact the laws for Islamic criminal
matters, their jurisdiction are still limited.
• For example, the Muslim who commits zinā,
cannot be punished as prescribed by the
Islamic punishment as mentioned in the
Qur'ān.
• Based on Syariah Courts (Criminal
Jurisdiction) Act, the punishments that can
be imposed by Syariah Court for criminal
offences (including zinā) are as below:
i) imprisonment not more than 3 years, or
ii) fine not more than RM 5,000, or
iii) whipping not more than 6 strokes, or
iv) the combination of all those
punishments.
• The state government also cannot
implement or enforce the Islamic law other
than what have been mentioned under the
State List.
 4. PREVIOUS CONFLICTS IN DECISIONS
The High Court had interfered with the jurisdiction of
Syariah courts. Many decisions given by HC were in
conflict/contrary with Islamic law principles:
• MYRIAM v ARIFF
• TG MARIAM v COMM OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS
• AINAN v SYED ABU BAKAR
• NAFSIAH v ABDUL MAJID
• PP v WHITE
• MARTIN v UMI KELSOM
29
MYRIAM V. MOHAMAD ARIF
• Held: a woman who had married again (after
being divorced) had a right on the custody of
the child even though according to Islam the
said woman had no right anymore.
• In this case, the court rejected the judgment
of Qādi who decided that the right of custody
of the child should be given to the father.

30
COMMISSIONER FOR RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS,
TERENGGANU & ORS V. TENGKU MARIAM
• Issue: validity of a waqf made by Tengku Chik
for the benefit of his family and relatives, with
an ultimate gift for religious purposes.
• The matter had earlier been referred to the
Mufti who had issued a fatwá declaring the
waqf to be valid.
• However, the judge of the High Court ignored
the fatwá and declared the waqf as void.

31
AINAN V. SYED ABU BAKAR
• Held: Section 112 of the Evidence Enactment
1950 was implemented to all people whether
they are Muslims or non-Muslims.
• Thus, by virtue of this provision, a child who
was born by a woman less than 6 months
after the marriage was a legitimate child even
though according to Islamic law the said child
is considered to be an illegitimate child.

32
NAFSIAH V. ABDUL MAJID
• Held: A woman who had a sexual
intercourse with her consent and on her
belief that the man will marry her, can bring
a claim against the man on the ground of a
breach of promise to marry even though
according to Islamic law, this kind of claim
cannot be entertained.

33
RE MARIA HUBERDINA HERTOGH.
• Maria Hertogh came into the custody of Aminah
binte Mohamed in 1942 and from that date she was
brought up as a Muslim (named Natrah).
• During that time, Maria’s father, a Dutch citizen, was
a prisoner of war detained by the Japanese.
• After the war, the father commenced proceedings in
the High Court in Singapore seeking Maria’s custody,
but the proceedings were held to a nullity.
• On 1st August 1950 Maria was married to Mansor bin
Adabi in Singapore.

34
• On 24 August 1950 the father continued proceedings
asking for a declaration, inter alia, that the marriage
was invalid & that he, as Maria’s father, be given
custody of the child.
• Held: since Maria was under 16 years of age during
the marriage, the marriage was not valid because
according to her lex domicilii (which was the law of
Holland), the consent of the Queen of Holland was a
pre-condition for its validity. As the consent had not
been obtained, the marriage was void and thus
custody was awarded to the father.

35
5. AMENDMENT TO ART 121 OF FED CONSTI
& ITS EFFECT
• Due to the conflicts of decisions & interference
by civil courts with the jurisdiction of syariah
courts, Article 121 Fed. Consti. was amended by
adding in a new provision ie Article 121 (1A).
• Article 121 (1A) provides that the civil courts
shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any
matters which are within the jurisdiction of the
syariah courts.
• Thus, HC cannot interfere / decide cases which
are under jurisdiction of Syariah Courts.
36
• Jurisdiction of Syariah Courts is :
i. to try cases only if both parties (plaintiff &
defendant) are Muslims AND
ii. subject matters triable by Syariah Courts are
only those listed under State List (List II) of 9th
Schedule Fed Consti eg. Succession, testate &
intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower,
maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, guardianship,
trusts, wakaf, Malay customs, zakat, baitul mal,
mosques, offences by Muslims against teaching
of Islam (other than matters included under
Federal power), organisation & procedure of
syariah courts, etc.
37
• Despite of the amendment made, HC still
interfered with jurisdiction of Syariah Courts,
as shown in the following cases:
FARIDAH v HABIBULLAH
SHAMIN FAIZUL KUNG v ASMA
RE SUSIE TEOH
NG SIEW PIAN v ABDUL WAHID
MAIPP v ISA
SUKMA DARMAWAN

38
SHAHAMIN FAIZUL KUNG V. ASMA
• Held: what Article 121 (1A) has done is to grant
exclusive jurisdiction to the Syariah Courts in the
administration of Islamic law.
• In other words, Article 121 (1A) is a provision to
prevent conflicting jurisdiction between the civil
courts and the Syariah Courts.
• It is obvious that the intention of Parliament by
enacting Article 121 (1A) is to take away the
jurisdiction of the High Courts in respect of any
matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.

39
FARIDAH BTE DATO' TALIB V. MOHAMED HABIBULLAH BIN
MAHMOOD
• Both parties were Muslims.
• The plaintiff (the wife) applied for and obtained a
temporary injunction against the defendant (the husband),
restraining him from assaulting, harassing or molesting her
and members of her family. The defendant applied to set
aside the temporary injunction.
• Issue: whether High Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate on
the plaintiff’s claim since it involved a matter which fell
within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.

40
• High Court: decided in favour of the plaintiff because her action
was grounded on the actionable wrong of assault and battery,
which is both a civil and criminal wrong.
• The jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the plaintiff’s
action was provided for under section 23 of the Courts of
Judicature Act 1964. Further, under the Federal List of the
Federal Constitution, actionable wrongs were matters in respect
of which Parliament, and not the State Legislature, may make
laws.
• Therefore, this case did not fell exclusively within the jurisdiction
of the Syariah Court. High Court examined the Islamic Family
Law Enactment of Selangor 1984 and section 45 (3) of the
Administration of Muslim Law Enactment of Selangor 1952, and
found that the actionable wrong pleaded by the plaintiff was not
within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.
• Defendant (husband) appealed to Supreme Court.
41
• Supreme Court: allowed the appeal on several grounds.
• Primarily, the respondent’s (wife) claim related to the
conduct of the appellant as a husband during the course
of a Muslim marriage, and that ‘in fact and in law’ the
assault and battery by the appellant constituted a
matrimonial offence or misconduct which might entitle
the respondent to a dissolution of her marriage under
section 52 (1) (h), paragraph (i) of the Islamic Family Law
Enactment of Selangor 1984.
• Since the parties had submitted to the jurisdiction of the
Syariah Court, and the court had taken cognisance of the
matrimonial cause, it was an abuse of process for the
respondent to go before the High Court and file a
complaint over the same misconduct.
42
• The effect of Article 121 (1A) is that when there is a
challenge to jurisdiction, the correct approach is first
to see whether the Syariah Court has jurisdiction, and
not whether the State Legislature has power to enact
the law conferring jurisdiction on the Syariah Court.
• Since section 45 (3) (b) of the Administration of
Muslim Law Enactment 1952 (Selangor) conferred
jurisdiction on the Kuala Lumpur Syariah Court to hear
and determine all actions relating to marriage and
divorce in which all parties professed the Muslim
religion, the High Court’s specific jurisdiction under
section 24 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 on the
subject of matrimonial causes would be excluded by
Article 121 (1A).
43
SUKMA DHARMAWAN V. KETUA PENGARAH PENJARA
• The offence committed by the Appellant was both an
offence under section 377D of the Penal Code and under
the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act
1997.
• By virtue of Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution,
the Appellant argued that the Syariah Court would have
exclusive jurisdiction, and not the Sessions Court.
• However, Federal Court decided that where an offender
had committed an offence triable by either the civil court
or a Syariah Court, he may be prosecuted in either of
those courts.

44
• The expression ‘jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts’
refers to ‘the exclusive jurisdiction’ of those courts.
• In other words, if a person professing the religion of
Islam does an act which is an offence both under the
Penal Code and the Syariah Criminal Offences
(Federal Territories) Act 1997, then the courts
referred to in Article 121 (1) will have jurisdiction to
try such an offence.
• It is only in respect of offences under the Act that a
Syariah Court may have exclusive jurisdiction.

45
SUBASHINI RAJASINGAM v SARAVANAN THANGATHORAY
• Facts: The parties were Hindus who married under civil
ceremony of marriage registered under LRA 1976. Two male
children were born. Later the husband converted himself and
the elder son to Islam. The wife then received a notice from
Syariah High Court informing that her husband had applied for
dissolution of marriage and asked for custody of the elder son.
• 2 months after conversion, the wife filed a petition for
dissolution of marriage under Law Reform (Marriage &
Divorce) Act with application for custody in the High Court.

46
• Issue: Whether the High Court or Syariah
Court has the jurisdiction to grant divorce of
marriage registered under LRA and all other
related orders like division of matrimonial
assets, maintenance of spouse & children,
custody etc ?
• Federal Court held: the High Court and the
Court of Appeal were the correct forum to
decide the case.

47
• However, there are cases where HC respected the
competency of syariah court to decide cases & did
not interfere with syariah courts’ jurisdiction eg:

DALIP KAUR v PEG POLIS BKT MERTAJAM

NOR KURSIAH v SHAHRIL
LIM CHAN SENG v PENGARAH JAIPP

48
DALIP KAUR V. PEGAWAI POLIS DAERAH, BUKIT
MERTAJAM
• Appellant had applied for a declaration that her
deceased son at the time of his death was not a
Muslim and/or he had renounced the Islamic faith.
• The deceased was born a Sikh and brought up in the
Sikh faith. His conversion to Islam was duly registered
with the Majlis Agama Islam, Kedah.
• The appellant contended that subsequent to the
conversion the deceased had by deed poll renounced
the Islamic faith and resumed the practice of the Sikh
faith.

49
• It was alleged that the deceased had been re-
baptised into the Sikh faith, that he had regularly
attended the congregation at a Sikh temple and that
he had continued to eat pork and had not been
circumcised.
• There was evidence that the deceased was engaged
to be married to a Muslim girl and that a date for the
marriage had been fixed.
• The Judicial Commissioner of HC who heard the case
held that the deceased was a Muslim at the time of
his death

50
• Supreme Court: remitted the case to the High Court for
the learned Judicial Commissioner to refer certain
questions of Islamic law to the Fatwá Committee of
Kedah.
• The Fatwá Committee after answering some specific
questions was of the opinion that on the facts the
deceased was a Muslim as he had been duly converted to
Islam and there was no decision of a Syariah Court which
decided that he had renounced or left the Islamic faith.
• It is imperative that the determination of the question in
issue requires substantial consideration of the Islamic law
by relevant jurists qualified to do so. The only forum
qualified to do so is the Syariah Court.

51
NOR KURSIAH BTE BAHARUDDIN V. SHAHRIL BIN
LAMIN & ANOR
• The applicant applied to the High Court under
section 365 (1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code
for a child who was alleged to be illegally detained in
the private custody of the two respondents, to be set
at liberty.
• There was a temporary order made by the Kuala
Lumpur Syariah High Court on 15 August 1996 to the
effect that the child be placed under the care and
control of the second respondent at the first
respondent’s residence.

52
• The appellant argued that the child was kidnapped
by the first respondent on 16 August and that
although the order of the Syariah High Court gave
custody of the child to the second respondent, the
order was not served on the applicant before the
child was taken away and therefore, the order had no
effect because the kidnapping had vitiated the order.
• Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary
objection relating to the jurisdiction of the High
Court.

53
• High Court: the order that was made by the
Syariah High Court of Kuala Lumpur was made
in respect of a matter that was well within its
jurisdiction, and that it was an order that
affects Muslim parties.
• The High Court, under Article 121 (1A) of the
Constitution, had no jurisdiction to question
the validity of the order, which was made in
respect of a matter that was obviously within
the jurisdiction of the Syariah High Court.

54
 6. CONCLUSION
LATIFAH BTE MAT ZIN V ROSMAWATI BTE SHARIBUN & ANOR
[2007] 5 MLJ 101
• The point to note here is that both courts, civil and syariah, are
creatures of statutes. Both owe their existence to statutes,
Federal Constitution, Acts of Parliament and State Enactments.
Both get their jurisdictions from statutes i.e. Constitution,
federal law or State law, as the case may be. So, they should look
to the relevant statutes to determine whether they have
jurisdiction or not. Even if the syariah court does not exist, the
civil court will still have to look at the statutes to see whether it
has jurisdiction over a matter or not. Similarly, even if the civil
court does not exist, the syariah court will still have to look at
the statute to see whether it has jurisdiction over a matter or
not.
55
• Each court must determine for itself first whether it has
jurisdiction over a particular matter in the first place, in
the case of the syariah courts in the States, by referring
to the relevant State laws and in the case of the syariah
court in the Federal Territory, the relevant Federal laws.
Just because the other court does not have jurisdiction
over a matter does not mean that it has jurisdiction over
it. So, to take the example given earlier, if one of the
parties is a non-Muslim, the syariah court does not have
jurisdiction over the case, even if the subject matter falls
within its jurisdiction. On the other hand, just because
one of the parties is a non-Muslim does not mean that
the civil court has jurisdiction over the case if the subject
matter is not within its jurisdiction."
56
END OF TOPIC

57