Court allows Mais, Selangor govt bid to reinstate woman’s Islamic conversion

 

The Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the state government succeeded in their appeal to reinstate the Islamic conversion of a 35-year-old woman.

In a majority two-one verdict today, the Court of Appeal bench chaired by Yaacob Md Sam (who makes up the majority decision with Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali) allowed the appeal involving the woman born to a Hindu father and initially Buddhist mother who later converted to Islam. The dissenting verdict is by bench member P Ravinthran.

The appeal by Mais and the Selangor state government is against a 2021 Shah Alam High Court (civil jurisdiction) decision to allow the woman’s legal challenge to nullify her conversion to Islam when she was young.

In 1991, her mother - then having separated from her Hindu father - converted to Islam and sought the Selangor State Religious Department’s (Jais) assistance to convert the woman, who was then five years old, to Islam as well.

Two years later, Jais issued a conversion certificate for her. However, her mother - having married a Muslim man by then - allowed her to continue practising Hinduism. Various syariah courts since then denied her bids to strike down the conversion prior to 2021.

Firm distinction

In reading out the majority ruling this morning, Nazlan said the present appeal is allowed because it involved a case of renunciation of Islam, which comes within the purview of the Syariah Courts per the Federal Constitution.

He noted that the Shah Alam High Court (civil jurisdiction) has no power to hear issues of renunciation as civil courts only have jurisdiction over cases where a person was never Muslim, to begin with.

He said the civil courts can only hear cases where the person was not a Muslim from the onset.

Nazlan noted that Federal Court precedence, through landmark decisions such as the appeal by Rosliza Ibrahim, lays down the firm distinction between cases where a person no longer profess Islam and someone who never professed Islam.

“It must be appreciated in the instant case that the respondent’s religious status has been determined by the Syariah High Court and Syariah Court of Appeal in Kuala Lumpur.

“The law as enshrined under the Federal Constitution does not allow relitigation of a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court,” he said.

He noted that the civil court cannot serve as a platform for aggrieved parties to review Syariah Court that has been correctly decided.

‘An afterthought’

Nazlan pointed out that the factual matrix in the present case showed the woman did not seek to change the Islam status on her MyKad upon her turning 18 but instead mounted the challenge at the Syariah Court many years later into her adulthood.

“The respondent did not prove there was a challenge against her conversion when she was in her childhood or even by her late (Hindu) father.

“This lends credence to the appellant’s contention that the respondent’s complaint was an afterthought and strengthens the contention she was intending to leave the religion rather than never was in the religion,” Nazlan said.

Meanwhile, in his dissenting ruling, Ravinthran said he is inclined to dismiss the appeal because the Shah Alam civil court had correctly made its verdict to allow the woman’s originating summons for a declaration that she was a non-Muslim.

He said the woman’s conversion on May 17, 1991, was unlawful as the prevailing law due to Section 147 of the Administration of Muslim Law Enactment 1952 then which was still in effect.

Section 147, which is titled “No conversion of children”, states that no person who has not attained the age of puberty shall be converted to the Muslim religion.

However, it was claimed there was a later enactment coming into force later in 1991 that reversed this aspect of Selangor state Islamic law.

Mais and the Selangor state government previously contended that the issuance of the Islamic conversion certificate by Jais for the woman in 1993, when she was aged seven, was conclusive proof of the validity of the conversion.

However, Ravinthran said there is no merit in this contention as the 1991 conversion itself was patently unlawful, thus giving jurisdiction to the Shah Alam civil court to preside over and allow the woman's legal challenge.

The Court of Appeal made no order as to costs.

Mais and the Selangor government were represented by lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla and state legal adviser Salim Soib respectively. Counsel Surendra Ananth appeared for the woman. - Mkini