FMT:
Shariah court wrong to deny woman’s renunciation bid, says lawyer
Fahri Azzat says not being allowed to renounce Islam means freedom of religion does not exist in Malaysia.
The Court of Appeal is being asked to grant leave to a woman who claims she has never practised Islam to challenge a decision of the shariah court not to allow her to renounce the religion.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal was told that the shariah court’s decision to dismiss a woman’s application to renounce Islam was not done in accordance with Islamic principles.
Lawyer Fahri Azzat, appearing for the 33-year-old woman, said the civil courts have jurisdiction to look into the matter because the shariah court’s refusal to allow her to renounce Islam was “irrational”.
He pointed out that the shariah court had in 2018 denied the woman’s application to renounce the religion on grounds that the court could not contravene Islamic law and must not be seen as aiding a Muslim in an act of apostasy.
“I’m begging for a chance for this case to go to a full hearing (before the High Court).
“She cannot lose (this case) without (being granted) leave,” he told a panel chaired by Justice Azizah Nawawi.
Sitting with Azizah were Justices See Mee Chun and Azizul Azmi Adnan.
Last year, the High Court dismissed the woman’s bid to commence a legal challenge to renounce her religion, saying the civil courts did not have the jurisdiction to hear such cases.
The High Court said that under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the power to determine renunciation cases lay with the shariah court.
Fahri said the woman’s bid to commence judicial review to challenge the shariah court’s decision was important as the woman had no other remedy in her attempt to renounce Islam.
“If she loses her case, then I will have to tell her that there is no freedom of religion here and she has to leave (this country),” he added.
Meanwhile, senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi, appearing for the government, told the appeals court that the “law is clear” in stating that the civil courts were not empowered to review decisions made by the shariah courts.
He added that any ruling that the decisions of the shariah courts could be challenged in the civil courts on grounds of illegality or procedural impropriety would open the floodgates and make even child custody disputes subject to review.
Azizah set Aug 28 to deliver the court’s decision.
The woman, born a Muslim, claimed she never practised Islam and that her mother had allowed her to choose her religion.
She said she had gone to the shariah high court here in 2018 to seek an order to convert out of Islam as she wanted to practise Buddhism.
She then filed an application in the shariah high court seeking to renounce Islam. The court ordered her to attend 12 counselling sessions.
The shariah court eventually denied her application to leave Islam in 2020 and told her to go for additional counselling sessions.
The lower court’s ruling was subsequently upheld by the shariah appeals court.
The woman then turned to the civil courts to nullify the decision of the shariah courts. She claimed the decision to reject her application violated Article 11, which guarantees a person’s freedom of religion.
The application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was denied by the High Court, giving rise to the present appeal.
PUTRAJAYA: The Court of Appeal was told that the shariah court’s decision to dismiss a woman’s application to renounce Islam was not done in accordance with Islamic principles.
Lawyer Fahri Azzat, appearing for the 33-year-old woman, said the civil courts have jurisdiction to look into the matter because the shariah court’s refusal to allow her to renounce Islam was “irrational”.
He pointed out that the shariah court had in 2018 denied the woman’s application to renounce the religion on grounds that the court could not contravene Islamic law and must not be seen as aiding a Muslim in an act of apostasy.
“I’m begging for a chance for this case to go to a full hearing (before the High Court).
“She cannot lose (this case) without (being granted) leave,” he told a panel chaired by Justice Azizah Nawawi.
Sitting with Azizah were Justices See Mee Chun and Azizul Azmi Adnan.
Last year, the High Court dismissed the woman’s bid to commence a legal challenge to renounce her religion, saying the civil courts did not have the jurisdiction to hear such cases.
The High Court said that under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, the power to determine renunciation cases lay with the shariah court.
Fahri said the woman’s bid to commence judicial review to challenge the shariah court’s decision was important as the woman had no other remedy in her attempt to renounce Islam.
“If she loses her case, then I will have to tell her that there is no freedom of religion here and she has to leave (this country),” he added.
Meanwhile, senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambaly @ Arwi, appearing for the government, told the appeals court that the “law is clear” in stating that the civil courts were not empowered to review decisions made by the shariah courts.
He added that any ruling that the decisions of the shariah courts could be challenged in the civil courts on grounds of illegality or procedural impropriety would open the floodgates and make even child custody disputes subject to review.
Azizah set Aug 28 to deliver the court’s decision.
The woman, born a Muslim, claimed she never practised Islam and that her mother had allowed her to choose her religion.
She said she had gone to the shariah high court here in 2018 to seek an order to convert out of Islam as she wanted to practise Buddhism.
She then filed an application in the shariah high court seeking to renounce Islam. The court ordered her to attend 12 counselling sessions.
The shariah court eventually denied her application to leave Islam in 2020 and told her to go for additional counselling sessions.
The lower court’s ruling was subsequently upheld by the shariah appeals court.
The woman then turned to the civil courts to nullify the decision of the shariah courts. She claimed the decision to reject her application violated Article 11, which guarantees a person’s freedom of religion.
The application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings was denied by the High Court, giving rise to the present appeal.
What happened to the great boast the islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?
ReplyDeleteAnd what about "there is no compulsion in religion?"