KUALA LUMPUR – The Federal Court decision yesterday recognising Rosliza Ibrahim, 39, was not brought up as a Muslim but a Buddhist, has provided a clearer distinction between civil and shariah courts, said lawyer Larissa Ann Louis, who has involvement in cases on citizenship and statelessness.
The apex court decided that the phrase “persons professing the religion of Islam” as a constitutional term, and Larissa said, this reasoning permits the court to decide on the matter.
“Six years is a long time for someone to fight for what she doesn’t believe in.
“Rosliza’s case has shed some light on the ongoing jurisdictional problem between the civil and shariah courts. It has cropped up in many cases over the years and yesterday, we finally see a clear distinction between the two courts,” she told The Vibes.
Meanwhile, former Malaysian Bar president Ragunath Kesavan said the Federal Court came up with a “good decision”.
“This decision recognises Rosliza’s constitutional right. It would have been most cruel and unjust to not allow her to move on with her life,” he told The Vibes.
The Federal Court ruled on Thursday that Rosliza was never a Muslim since her birth, although born to a Muslim father and a non-Muslim mother.
The nine-person bench chaired by Chief Justice Tun Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat found that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the woman is a Muslim, since she was raised as a Buddhist.
She sought three court orders, one of which is to declare that she is illegitimate and the late Yap Ah Mooi is her mother.
Another declaration is for Selangor’s Islamic laws to not apply to her and the shariah courts to have no jurisdiction over her.
Her last declaration is that she is not a person professing the religion of Islam. The court granted all the declarations she sought.
However, Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association president Musa Awang said the courts should not only look at legal sources when deciding someone’s religious status but in context.
“The court should look at the chronology and practices of a person’s life up to the time when he or she files the case in court.
“Were they practising Islam? Were they brought up according to Islamic teachings? And did they receive benefits from the Islamic community?”
He said there are no provisions in the hadiths and Quran on the religious status of a child born out of wedlock where one of the parents is a Muslim.
He added that in such situations, religious scholars could be consulted.
“When a matter is referred to the interpretation of ulamas, usually there will be many views put forth
“With that said, the view chosen should be one that is suitable and adaptable to a particular community.”
Musa said religious importance should be placed first compared to other matters, and hoped the Federal Court decision will open the eyes of all parties to review the available laws and make improvements where necessary. – The Vibes, February 6, 2021
