LLB 101B NOTES 2 ISLAMIC LAW POSITION (M’SIA)

Territorial Law / Law of the Land

 Before English Occupation – Islamic Law (Law of the Land)
 During English Occupation – English Law + Islamic Law (Dual Legal System)
o English Law → Primary Law
o Islamic Law → Used Sparingly
o Islamic Matters → Relegated to Islamic Law
 After English Occupation (Reid Commission) – English Law + Islamic Law
Ramah v Laton [1927] | Thorne J | Position/Status of Syariah (Islamic) Law in M’sia as Law of the Land
i. Dispute: Distribution of deceased husband’s asset btw 2 wives
ii. English Civil Law: Only Monogamy Marriage → Distribution of Asset to 1st Wife only
iii. Islamic Law : Polygamy Marriage Allowed → Distribution of Asset to Both Wives
iv. Held : Islamic Law = × Foreign (Alien) Law but √ Law of the Land
: Parties Involved = Muslims
: Islamic Law Prevail
v. English J → Confirmation: Position/Status of Syariah (Islamic) Law in M’sia as Law of the Land

Shaik Abdul Latif & Ors v Shaik Elias Bux [1915] | Edmond JC | Islamic Law = Only Law Before British Arrival
i. Mohammedan “Islamic Law” modified by local custom: -
 Only applicable law to Malays in Malay States before British Administration arrival
 Islamic Law → Law of the State
Anchom Binte Lampong v Public Prosecutor [1940]
Hussin Bin Mandot v Public Prosecutor [1940]
 Ascertained validity ∙ position of Islamic Law in Malaya states; though being relegated from English Law
 Islamic Law → Valid Law during British Colonisation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constitutional Status of Islamic Law (M’sia)

1. FC Art 4 Supreme Law of the Federation | FC Art 4(1) FC = Supremacy Law of Federation

2. FC Art 3 Religion of the Federation | FC Art 3(1) Islam → Official Religion of Federation
 Mere ceremonial purpose
 × Exclusive
 × Absolute Religion

3. FC Art 11 Freedom of Religion

 FC Art 11(1) Everyone’s Right to Profess ∙ Practice ∙ Propagate; except FC Art 11(4)
 FC Art 11(4) Control / Restriction of Fed vs Propagation of Religious Doctrine / Belief among Muslims

4. Che Omar Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] | Salleh Abbas

 A → Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 Drug Trafficking → Mandatory Death Sentence
 A (Muslim) argued Death Sentence → Unconstitutional Against FC Art 3 & FC Art 4
i. FC Art 3 → Upholding Islam as the Religion of the Federation
ii. FC Art 4 → FC as Supreme Law of the Land
 A → Punished (hudud) under √ Islamic Law ∙ × Civil Law
 hudud → Drug Offences ≠ Mandatory Death Sentence
 Held : M’sia = √ Secular State; × Islamic State
: FC Art 3 → Strictly Ritual & Ceremony
: √ Civil Law √ Mandatory Death Sentence
5. Meor Atiqulrahman & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors [2000]
 3 Muslim Students wore “Serban” (Turban) to school; Against school dress code
 3 Muslim Students refused to remove “Serban” in school → Expelled
 P Argued Removal of “Serban” is ≠ FC Art 11 Freedom of Religion & FC Art 3 Islam Religion
 HC Held : FC Art 11 & FC Art 3 Prevail | School should protect & promote Islam
 COA & FC Held : FC Art 11 & FC Art 3 ≠ Applicable over small matter such as dress code
: “Serban” → Nothing to do with Islam

6. Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah & Anor [2004] | Faiza Tamby Chik J
 Muslim → Convert / Murtad (Keluar Islam) → Christian
 JPN → Rejected P From → Change Name → Joy Lelani
i. Fiance = Christian
ii. Believe in Christian
iii. Practice Christian
 P Argued Rejection of Islam Conversion ≠ FC Art 11 Freedom of Religion
 HC Held : Freedom of Choice ≠ Freedom of Religion | FC Art 11 ≠ Applicable
: Murtad (Islam Matters) → Exclusively Syariah Court Jurisdiction; not Civil Court