Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 On Islam, Democracy, and Activism
- 2 A Short History of Malaysia
- 3 Malaysia as an Islamic State: The Debate
- 4 Conflict of Jurisdiction: Civil versus Syariah Law
- 5 Islamist Lawyers’ Views
- 6 Social Activism and the Article 11 Coalition
- 7 Questioning Orthodoxies, Criticizing Zealotry
- 8 Electoral Engagements
- Conclusion: Islam, Democracy, and Activism in Malaysia
- Bibliography
- Index
- About the Author
- Plate section
4 - Conflict of Jurisdiction: Civil versus Syariah Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2015
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- 1 On Islam, Democracy, and Activism
- 2 A Short History of Malaysia
- 3 Malaysia as an Islamic State: The Debate
- 4 Conflict of Jurisdiction: Civil versus Syariah Law
- 5 Islamist Lawyers’ Views
- 6 Social Activism and the Article 11 Coalition
- 7 Questioning Orthodoxies, Criticizing Zealotry
- 8 Electoral Engagements
- Conclusion: Islam, Democracy, and Activism in Malaysia
- Bibliography
- Index
- About the Author
- Plate section
Summary
This chapter explores the legal contest over the interpretation of two articles of Malaysia's Constitution: Article 3, which declares that “Islam is the religion of the federation”, and Article 11, which outlines the liberty of freedom of religion. The prism through which this contest is examined is the case of Lina Joy, a woman who wished to officially change her religion from Islam to Christianity.
Lina Joy's series of hearings from the High Court through to the highest court of the land attracted a great deal of (often heated) public attention and spawned the freedom of religion movement described in Chapter 6. Her case crystallized the debate over whether Malaysia was fundamentally guided by a liberal interpretation of the Constitution or by Islamic orthodoxy. If Lina Joy was to be given the right to convert to Christianity without hindrance, as her counsel argued she ought to be, Malaysia could be seen as secular. If she was prevented from so doing, or required the consent of the Syariah courts, Islam could be regarded as forming the framework of Malaysian politics and law.
While she lost her final hearing in the Federal Court on 30 May 2007, the discourses deployed during her case tell us a great deal about the legal and political climate in contemporary Malaysia. I recount below one particular day of a hearing in the Court of Appeal. A point of interest is the response of this woman's counsel when the broader constitutional approach, in which a liberal interpretation of Article 11 was defended, was coldly received by the judges. When this occurred, her counsel turned to a technical argument founded on a legal loophole which I examine. I should note here that the readers’ comprehension of these legal arguments is not necessary for understanding the broader points of three lawyers whose views on the particular laws in question in the case I later recount.
THE CASE OF LINA JOY
Lina Joy was born to Muslim parents and named Azlina binte Jailani. On 21 February 1997, when she was thirty-three years old, she applied to the National Registration Department (NRD) in Malaysia to have her name changed from Azlina binte Jailani to Lina Lelani. This was intended to indicate her conversion from Islam. She had also stated in an affidavit that she had converted to Christianity and had been baptized in a church.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Islamization and Activism in Malaysia , pp. 62 - 73Publisher: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak InstitutePrint publication year: 2010