![]() ![]() These eight laws are Perlis’s Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2006’s Section 117, and its equivalent in other states: Administration of Islamic Law (Kedah Darul Aman) Enactment 2008’s Section 80 Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002’s Section 105 Administration of the Religion of Islam (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 2003’s Section 117 Pahang’s Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1991’s Section 103 Administration of the Religion of Islam (Perak) Enactment 2004’s Section 106 Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Johor) Enactment 2003’s Section 117 and Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993’s Section 95.Īpart from Ipoh-based Indira and the two women, the others who filed the lawsuit include former Malaysian Hindu Sangam president and former Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) president S. Indira and the 13 others who filed the lawsuit listed the eight laws which they say are unconstitutional due to their enabling of unilateral conversions of children to Islam with just the consent of either the mother or father, instead of requiring both parents to consent. If the High Court declares the state laws enabling unilateral conversion to be invalid and declares unilateral conversion to be an unconstitutional practice, Indira and the 13 others are seeking for a further declaration that any and all unilateral conversions that took place in Malaysia before the Federal Court’s January 2018 decision in Indira’s case to be void or invalid for breaching Article 12(4).Īlternatively if the first two orders are granted, they want the court to require any and all unilateral conversions in Malaysia - after the Federal Court’s 2018 Indira decision - to require the consent of both parents, and to reverse the unilateral conversion of these children if either parent refuses to grant consent within a one-year period from the date of the court’s order in this lawsuit. The other court orders that Indira and the 13 others are seeking include a declaration that the practice of unilateral conversion is unconstitutional and contrary to Article 12(4). ![]() In other words, the Federal Court had decided in 2018 in the Indira case that for children born from a civil marriage or a couple who were both non-Muslims, the consent of both the mother and the father (if both are still living) is required before a certificate of conversion to Islam can be issued to such children. ![]() The Federal Court had on Janualready decided in a case - involving Indira’s successful challenge against her three children’s unilateral conversion into Islam by the Muslim convert ex-husband without her knowledge or consent - that the word “parent” in Article 12(4) is to be interpreted as “parents” if both are still alive. Under Article 12(4), the religion of a person aged under 18 is to be decided by his “parent or guardian”. In the lawsuit, Indira and the 13 others are seeking for the High Court to declare the state enactments which allow the unilateral conversion of children into Islam as being void or invalid due to its breaching of the Federal Constitution, especially Article 12(4) and in light of the Federal Court’s 2018 decision.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |