[ad_1]
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal and the High Court were wrong to equate Lina Joy’s legal principle with the case of a woman who never professed the Islamic religion, the Federal Court heard today.
Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram said that his client, Rosliza Ibrahim, wants a statement that she was never Muslim, as both courts followed Lina’s pattern of events.
“This is not a case of a departure from the religion (Islam), as she (Rosliza) was never Muslim before,” Sri Ram said in her presentation to a nine-member court chaired by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan. Mat.
Others were Rohana Yusuf, Azahar Mohamed, Nallini Pathmanathan, Abdul Rahman Sebli, Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim, Mary Lim Thiam Suan, and Rhodzariah Bujang.
He said that the fact that the high court did not conclusively determine the dispute meant that the faith of Islam could be imposed on Rosliza against her will to be a Buddhist.
Sri Ram said that the two courts below relied on a 1988 constitutional amendment to article 121 to cede power to the Syariah Court.
He said this also led them to hold that the jurisdiction to determine their client’s matter was in the religious court.
Lina, a Muslim woman, sought, but was unable, to be allowed to change her religion from Islam to Christianity.
The Federal Court, in a majority ruling in 2007, held that Lina must first obtain a certificate from the Syariah Court to leave the religion before submitting it to the Department of National Registration (JPN) in order for the word “Islam” to be removed from her identity. card.
The current court to decide on the merit of Rosliza’s appeal is governed by two legal questions, whether the civil court had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether or not a person is Muslim under the law.
The other is whether the information on the identity card is conclusive proof that one is Muslim.
The state government and the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) are the defendants in the lawsuit filed by Rosliza, while the federal government is presented as a friend of the court to assist the judges in the case.
Rosliza, who was born to a Muslim father but was raised as a Buddhist by her Buddhist mother, had taken the position that the Islamic laws of Selangor do not apply to her and that the Court of the Syariah has no jurisdiction over her.
He said that she was presumed to have been born Muslim, based on the assumption of a valid marriage between her parents and the assumption that her late mother had converted to Islam.
Rosliza said that she had gone to religious authorities in 10 other states and had obtained confirmation that her parents had no record of her mother converting to Islam or that a Muslim marriage had taken place.
The Shah Alam High Court dismissed his claim in April 2017 on the grounds that the evidence he presented was insufficient and his appeal was the Syariah Court.
Salim state legal advisor [email protected] alleged that the establishment of the Syariah Court in the states was provided for in Article 74 and in the Ninth Annex, List Two of the constitution.
He said that the High Court had concluded that Rosliza’s father was a Muslim and the mother was a Buddhist.
“So the appellant is Muslim,” he added.
Azahar, who is also a Chief Judge of Malaya, asked Salim what the status of Rosliza would be assuming both courts were wrong.
“So she is an illegitimate daughter,” Salim replied.
However, Salim said that the 2003 enactment of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (Selangor State) establishes that a person at birth professes the religion when one or both parents are Muslim.
Tengku Maimun intervened that Salim’s submission was against Islamic law, as the child could only be Muslim if both parents were validly married and practiced the religion.
“How could the appellant be Muslim if the religious law states that an illegitimate child follows the mother’s faith?” He said.
Abdul Rahim Sinwan, who represented MAIS, said that he adopted Salim’s presentation.
He also said that Rosliza was Muslim based on the evidence presented to the JPN and on her identity card.
Tengku Maimun then asked Rahim, “How do you reconcile your argument with Regulation 24 (1) of the 1990 National Registration Regulation?”
The regulations establish that it was up to the defendants to prove the content of Rosliza’s identity card when they disputed it.
Like Salim, Rahim also took the position that the burden fell on Rosliza to prove that the content of her identity card was false.
The lawyer told the court that the marriage of Rosliza’s parents was valid even if there was no record.
Tengku Maimun then asked if the record was not important in the case of khalwat raids carried out by religious authorities.
“The marriage is valid. They (the couple) need to show that they have lived together, ”he added.
Senior federal adviser Suzana Atan said the burden of contesting what Rosliza had presented in her affidavit rested with the state government and MAIS.
“Rosliza also takes the mother’s religion if she is born out of wedlock,” he added.
Lawyer Mansoor Saat, who represented the Malaysian Human Rights Commission as he was also granted friend of the court status, said that he adopted Sri Ram’s presentation.
“Every person should have the right to profess the religion of his choice, as established in the constitution.
Lawyer Philip Koh Tong Ngee, who made an observation report for the Malaysian Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism Advisory Council, said the enactment of Selangor must be consistent with Islamic law.
“A child of an unmarried couple cannot be Muslim, even if one of the parents practices the faith,” he said.
The bank has reserved the judgment.
