Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Status and Implementation of Islamic Law in Malaysia

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Religious Rules, State Law, and Normative Pluralism - A Comparative Overview

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 18))

Abstract

In the Federation of Malaysia, Islam is the religion of the Federation but this does not extend to the legal perspective. In other words, Islamic law is not the supreme law of the Federation because the Federal Constitution has clearly stated that the supreme law of the country is the Constitution itself. This article aims to examine the status and implementation of Islamic law in Malaysia. At the onset, the article analyses the historical background of Islam in pre-Malaysia era with particular focus on its Islamic law perspective. The independence of Malaya in 1957 led to the formation of the Federal Constitution which is considered the main source of law in the country. This article assesses a number of provisions in the Constitutions and some related cases that touch on Islamic affairs. Also, the divisions of jurisdictions for both civil laws and Islamic laws is analysed against the backdrops of the Federal Constitution and other relevant legislations. To sum up, it can be said that despite the fact that Islam is given a special position under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, Islamic law is not fully implemented in Malaysia. The jurisdiction awarded by the Ninth Schedule, List II State List is very limited, only confined to Muslim followers and is mostly related to personal laws, including amongst others: marriage; divorce; inheritance and other offences that are against the precepts of the religion of Islam. Civil laws, on the other hand, are subject to federal jurisdiction, which cannot interfere with the State laws such as the Islamic laws which fall under the State jurisdiction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Economic and Planning Unit (EPU), Prime Minister’s Department of Malaysia. Socio-Economic statistic. (2000) Accessed on 20 November, 2013 from: http://www.epu.gov.my/html/themes/epu/images/common/pdf/eco_stat/pdf/1.2.5.pdf

  2. 2.

    US Department of State. Background Note: Malaysia. (2011) Accessed on 22 November 2013, from: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2777.htm

  3. 3.

    Ninth Schedule, List II, State List, the Federal Constitution.

  4. 4.

    Article 3(1), the Federal Constitution.

  5. 5.

    Ninth Schedule, supra.

  6. 6.

    Ibid.

  7. 7.

    The Malay Rulers, also called the Sultans, are the constitutional heads of the nine Malay States in Malaysia.

  8. 8.

    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 on par with other religions such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and others. It is placed beyond other religions in the Federation.

  9. 9.

    [1988] 2 MLJ 55.

  10. 10.

    Ibid.

  11. 11.

    Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution.

  12. 12.

    Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution.

  13. 13.

    See Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55.

  14. 14.

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

  15. 15.

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

  16. 16.

    See Article 4(1) of the Federal Constitution.

  17. 17.

    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’.

  18. 18.

    Prof. Harding suggests that “there is no provision for the Shari’a to be a source, or the basic source, of legislation”.

  19. 19.

    Ninth Schedule, List II – State List.

  20. 20.

    Article 76 (2).

  21. 21.

    Article 76 (1) (b).

  22. 22.

    Article 76 (1) (c).

  23. 23.

    Article 3 (1192) of the Federal Constitution.

  24. 24.

    [1988] 1 MLJ.

  25. 25.

    See note 31.

  26. 26.

    Article 74 (2).

  27. 27.

    Article 75 of the Federal Constitution.

  28. 28.

    The discussion of this subheading is entirely based on Siti Zubaidah Ismail, “Islamic Criminal Law: The Reality of Implementation in Malaysia”, in Kamali and Adil (2016).

  29. 29.

    See note 31.

  30. 30.

    Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v Ketua Pengarah Penjara Malaysia & Anor (Sukma) [1999] 2 MLJ 241 (FC); [1999] 1 MLJ 266 (CA); [1998] 4 MLJ 742 (HC).

  31. 31.

    Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, as amended in 1988. Ninth Schedule, List II – State List of the Federal Constitution.

    Sukma Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v Ketua Pengarah Penjara Malaysia & Anor (Sukma) [1999] 2 MLJ 241 (FC); [1999] 1 MLJ 266 (CA); [1998] 4 MLJ 742 (HC).

  32. 32.

    Section 2 of the Shari’a Courts Act (Criminal Jurisdiction) of 1965 (Amended in 1984).

  33. 33.

    Ta’zir are offenses that are given to the judge or authority to make punishments. They are also offenses which are prescribed under hudud but due to lack of evidence, the punishment is subject to the discretion of the judge.

  34. 34.

    Article 149 deals with legislation against subversion, action prejudicial to public order, etc. Article 149 deals with legislation against subversion, action prejudicial to public order, etc.

  35. 35.

    Article 150 is proclamation of emergency which excludes the power of Parliament to enact law pertaining Islam.

  36. 36.

    [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, a law was passed in 2004 that prohibits the use of conspicuous religious symbols (including the headscarf) in all public schools, except at universities. This development has prompted Muslims around the world to protest 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; see The Independent, 18 January, 2004, p. 1; In Turkey, two students were expelled from their university on the ground that they wore a 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 ZeynepTekin v Turkey, http://press.coe.int/cp/2004/330a(2004).htm , www.coe.int

  37. 37.

    [2000] 5 MLJ 375.

  38. 38.

    Ibid, at p. 383.

  39. 39.

    See Fatimah Bte Sihi & Ors v Meor Atiqulrahman Bin Ishak Ors [2005] 2 MLJ 25.

  40. 40.

    See “Islamists Denounce Malaysian Court’s Decision on Muslim Headgear” in www.harakhdaily.net, 23 November 2004.

  41. 41.

    Civil Application No. 01-3-2005 (N) Federal Court, July 12, 2006.

References

  • Abdul Majid, Mahmood Zuhdi. 1997. Pengantar Undang-undang Islam di Malaysia, 52–53. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adil, Mohamed Azam Mohamed. 2007. Law of apostasy and freedom of religion in Malaysia. Asian Journal of Comparative Law 2: 145–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • al-Attas, Syed Muhammad Naguib. 1969. Preliminary statement on a general theory of the Islamization of the Malay-Indonesia Archipelago, 11. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bari, Abdul Aziz. 1999. Murtad Dalam Konteks Kebebasan Beragama. MJLS 3: 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bari, Abdul Aziz. 2000. Islam in the Federal Constitution: A commentary on The decision of Meor Atiqulrahman. 2 MLJ at cxxxviii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bari, Abdul Aziz. 2001. Negara Islam dan Kerangka Perlembagaan Malaysia. Dewan Masyarakat, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka 39: 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bari, Abdul Aziz. 2005. Islam Dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, 21–23, 80–81. Petaling Java: Intel Multimedia and Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faruqi, Shad Saleem. 2004. Constitutional perspectives on freedom of religion, secularism and theocracy. In Islam, democracy and good governance – The Malaysian experience essays in Honour of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, 88. ed. Ibrahim Abu Ashah. Shah Alam: UPENA, UiTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, H.E. 1964. The Constitution of Malaysia, 215. Singapore: Malaysian Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, A. 1996. Law, government and the Constitution in Malaysia, 136–137. London: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, A. 2002. The Keris, The crescent and the blind goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia. Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law 154: 166–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassan, Abdullah Alwi Haji. 1996. The administration of Islamic law in Kelantan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, Ahmad Mohamed. 1997. Pentadbiran Undang-undang Islam di Malaysia, 61–74. Kuala Lumpur: Institut Kefahaman Islam Malaysia (IKIM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibrahim, Ahmad, and Joned, Ahilemah. 1995. The Malaysian legal system, 2nd ed, 15–16. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jusoh, Hamid. 1991. The position of Islamic law in the Malaysian Constitution with special reference to the conversion case in family law, 35. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, and Adil, Mohamed Azam Mohamed. (ed.). 2016. Islamic law in Malaysia: Major themes and developments (Forthcoming). Kuala Lumpur: IAIS Malaysia.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoldrick, D. 2006. Human rights and religion: The Islamic headscarf debate in Europe, 140–172. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed Adil, Mohamed Azam, and Nisar Mohammad Ahmad. 2014. Islamic law and human rights in Malaysia. Islam and Civilisational Renewal: 43–67. IAIS Malaysia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noor, Mansor Mohd, Abdul Rahman Abdul Aziz, and Mohamad Ainuddin Iskandar Lee. 2006. In Hubungan Etnik di Malaysia, 124. Petaling Jaya: Prentice Hall Pearson Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, L.A. 1961. The Federation of Malaya Constitution – Text, annotations and commentary, 4. Singapore: University of Malaya Law Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, Poh-Ling. (ed.). 1997. Asian legal systems – Law, society and pluralism in East Asia, 267. Sydney: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K., et al. 1996. Constitutional law in Malaysia and Singapore. Malayan Law Journal Sdn. Bhd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria, Zainur. 1993. Religious freedom – Right to wear Purdah 3 MLJ xxv–xxx.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies Malaysia/Universiti Teknologi MARA, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil

  2. Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Nilai, Malaysia

    Nisar Mohammad Ahmad

Authors
  1. Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nisar Mohammad Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Facoltà di Scienze Politiche e Sociali, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

    Rossella Bottoni

  2. Università degli studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Rinaldo Cristofori

  3. Università degli studi di Milano , Milan, Italy

    Silvio Ferrari

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Adil, M.A.M., Ahmad, N.M. (2016). The Status and Implementation of Islamic Law in Malaysia. In: Bottoni, R., Cristofori, R., Ferrari, S. (eds) Religious Rules, State Law, and Normative Pluralism - A Comparative Overview. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28335-7_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28335-7_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28333-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28335-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation