INTRODUCTION TO ISLAMIC LAW

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT
Case review
Lina Joy v Federal Islamic Territory Council and Ors [2007] 3 AMR 693

Name : Syafinaz Binti Idrus

Group : A
Lecturers Name : Dr. Mohammad Azam b. Hussain
Student ID : 244653
Date of Submission : 26th October 2016

Lina Joy v Federal Islamic Territory Council and Ors [2007] 3 AMR 693
Facts of the case
The plaintiff was born as a Muslim, so did her parents. She was raised up by her Muslim
parents and they practiced the religion of Islam. At the age of 26, she converted to Christianity
and get baptized in 1998. The plaintiff applied to the National Registration Department (NRD) to
change her name from Azlina Bt. Jailani to Lina Lelani, which was her first attempt, then to Lina
Joy. Reasons for doing so were she had renounced Islam for Christianity and she intended to
marry a Christian
However, her first application to change her name was rejected on 15 th March 1997 but
the plaintiff made another application to change her name and remove the word Islam from her
new identity card. Again, her application was unsuccessful as NRD refused to accept her
application without an order from Syariah Court on the ground of her renouncement from the
religion of Islam. The plaintiff sought for legal remedies in the High Court of Malaya.
Issues
a) Whether or not the plaintiff has an absolute freedom to profess a religion of her own choice as
what been propounded in Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution.
b) Whether or not the National Registration Department should insist a certificate or an order
made by the Syariah Court pertaining to the conversion out of Islam.
c) Whether or not the State Enactments were null and void as they were inconsistent with Article
11(1) of Federal Constitution.

Court held
The case of Lina Joy been held in Federal Court of Malaysia, and her appeal was dismissed.
(a) The freedom of religion stated in Article 11 of Federal Constitution but it does not mean
that the plaintiff was given the freedom of choice to profess and practice the religion of her
choice.
Article 11(1) of Federal Constitution does provide that every person has the right to profess and
practice his religion, but this provision must be read with Article 11(4) and Article 11(5) because
the issue of change a persons religion is directly connected to the rights and obligations of that
person as a Muslim and the issue of conversion to other religion by a Muslim must be decided by
Islamic Law jurisdiction provided in Article 11(3)(a) of the Federal Constitution.

Review of the case

Lina Joys case been highly criticized by most of people in Malaysia back then on her
desire to convert from Islam to Christianity. This case brought a lot of controversial issues as she
was born as a Muslim, and the name given by her Muslim parents was Azlina Binti Jailani. She
was born in Malaysia on 28th of July 1964 and had been raised up by her parents who are
practicing the religion of Islam. At the age of 26, she converted to Christianity and was baptized
in 1998 which is a Christian sacrament of admission and adoption by using water. On 21st of
February 1997, she applied to the National Registration Department (NRD) for the purpose of
changing her name to Lina Lelani. In this case, she stated in a statutory declaration that she
converted to another religion because she intended to marry a Christian. However, her
application was rejected in August 1997. Again, she changed her name from Azlina binti Jailani
to Lina Joy in the early 1999 at NRD and it has been approved to change it in October 1999, but
her previous name and the religion of Islam was still stated in her new identity card. For the third
time she made an application in early 2000 to remove the word Islam in her identity card and
her original name from her new identity card but her application was rejected because it was
incomplete as there was no order been made by Syariah Court. However, she sought in the High
Court of Malaya on certain declarations against the Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan as
the first defendant, the second defendant is Government of Malaysia.
First of all, the plaintiff sought on the basis propounded in Article 11(1) which stated that
Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and she claimed that she has an
absolute freedom to profess a religion of her choice without being controlled or restricted by any
law, for instance is Administration of Islamic Law by Syariah Court or by any other authority. On
the ground of her claim, Article 11(1) of Federal Constitution is valid enough to confirm her

status as a Christian and also she hoped that her progress in life would no longer be hampered by
any claim that she is a Muslim. However, Article 11(4) of Federal Constitution stated that State
law and in respect of Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya may control or
restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion
of Islam. This is obvious that her claim previously shall be declared invalid as it is
unconstitutional and contradicted the provision stated in Article 11(4) of Federal Constitution.
This shows that the jurisdiction of Islamic Law has a wide and broad scope as it gives the power
to control or restrict the propagation of any religious among persons professing the religion of
Islam. In accordance to Article 11(4), it can be seen that the responsibility to decide the
plaintiffs conversion as valid or invalid is on the Administration of Islamic law.
During her case was brought to the High Court of Malaya, she was still a Muslim. She
ought to be aware that her case should probably be brought to Syariah court instead of High
Court due to her current religion status as a Muslim. It has been propounded in Article 121(1A)
that The courts referred to in Clause (1) (High Court in Malaya and also High Court in the
states of Sabah and Sarawak) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the
jurisdiction of Syariah courts. In addition, the provision of Article 121(1A) provides that the
finality of her decision to convert her religion from Islam to Christianity have to be within the
competency of a Syariah Court not the civil courts.
As what been mentioned earlier, she sought for legal remedies in the High Court of
Malayia but it dismissed Lina Joys application. However, she appealed. The Court of Appeal
faced with the questions of whether the National Registration Department (NRD) was right in
rejecting her application to have the statement of deleting Islam from her new identical card
(IC) and was it required a certificate or an order from the Syariah court on the ground of her

application. By majority of the Court of Appeal, answered the question in the affirmative. Later,
her case was brought to Federal Court and several questions were asked. Firstly, whether NRD is
entitled in law to impose such requirement which was an order from Syariah Court to remove the
word Islam in her Identical Card (IC). Secondly, whether or not NRD has correctly construed
its power under the National Registration Regulations 1990 to impose the requirement as stated
earlier when it is not actually been expressed in the Regulations. Lastly, whether Soon Singh
case was rightly decided when it adopted the implied jurisdiction in Md Hakim Lee v. Majlis
Agama which declared that the civil courts will retain their jurisdiction.
Her case is dismissed by learned judge, Faiza Tamby Chick J, held that the right of
freedom of religion under Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution is not absolute and is subject
to the second part of Article 11(1) as well as other limitations imposed by Article11(4) and (5).
He also ruled the right that the right of freedom of religion could not be exercised unilaterally
which must be seen in the light of Article 11(3) which put the plaintiff under the provisions of the
1993 act. Next, the judges of Federal Court of Malaya, by a majority of 2 to 1, Ahmad Fairuz
FLJ answered on the first question that NRD is entitled and such decision is justified. NRD is
indeed have the right to insist the plaintiff any form of documentation as an evidence to support
her declaration that she is officially a Christian and no longer a Muslim and NRD itself has been
warned by Ahmad Fairuz FLJ.

Commentary
First of all, it is true that Federal Constitution provides the provisions on fundamental
liberties of people and one of them is Freedom of Religion as propounded in Article 11.
However, the application of this provision is different from Islam and other religion because a
Muslim is not free to choose a religion of his choice. Even though this provision has brought a
lot of controversial issues because it is still shrouded on mystery and contradictions on the basis
that every person shall be treated equally the same but Article 11 is still remain in the Federal
Constitution in order to maintain social stability.
Besides that, the courts emphasized that A person as long as he or she is Malay and by
definition under Article 160(2) of Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which is a Malay person
cannot renounce his or her religion at all. A Malay under this provision should remain in
Islamic faith until his or her dying days. The said Malay cannot renounce his or her religion
through a deed poll and seek a declaration by virtue of Article 11 of Federal Constitution of
Malaysia on freedom of religion as Article 11 does not provide freedom of choice of religion.
Even if one is non-Malay and embraces Islam and becomes a Muslim convert (Mualaf) and later
decides to leave the Islamic faith, he or she is still required to report and see the relevant State
Islamic authority who will decided on her renunciation of Islam
In addition, the provision of freedom of religion by the virtue of Article 11 of Federal
Constitution should be read with Article 3(1) which places Islam has a special position and it is a
dominant religion of the Federation. Thus, it is the duty of the Federation to make sure it is
protected. In my opinion in accordance to Lina Joys case, the judgement made by the judges of
the highest court of Malaysia, which is Federal Court to dismiss this case is true and it should be
held that way if such case would occur in the future. This is because, the decision is in line with

Islamic Law (siyasah syariyyah) principle under maslahah amah or saddu zarai or darul mafasid
muqaddam ala jalbil masalih, which means avoiding harm is more important than taking the
benefit.
The question that frequently been asked by most of the people in Malaysia is that why is
it hard to allow Muslim to convert into another religion when the other religions are free to do it
so? This is because, it brings harm rather than good to a Muslim who decides to renounce Islam
and also the authority or people who allows she or he to do it so. Even though there is inequality
on freedom of religion between Muslim and the other religions but people should bear in their
minds that it is downright important in order to protect the religion of Islam by respecting it and
it should be strictly restricted to allow any Muslim in Malaysia to renounce from Islam.
It is also cannot be denied that the case of Lina Joy has brought a plethora of negative
impacts on Islam until today but this view can be rebutted by the administration of Islamic Law
in Malaysia which whenever it comes to any matter pertaining to Islamic law, it should be and no
matter what, the matter have to be referred to Syariah Court as it is the main body to deliver
justice in accordance to Islam. The renouncement of Islam is part of Islamic law, therefore the
Syariah Court is the only place to resolve this issue, not High Court.
As a conclusion, Lina Joys case makes it clear on the position of Islam and the freedom
of religion by a Muslim. Article 11 of Federal Constitution has it several exceptions by the
provision of freedom of religion which says that Syariah Court is only competent to determine
the matter of renouncement of Islam by a Muslim.

References
Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan &Amp; 2 Ors 2005 [CA]. The
Malaysian Bar. Last modified September 24, 2005. Accessed October 25, 2016.
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/selected_judgements/lina_joy_v_majlis_agama_isla
m_wilayah_persekutuan_2_ors_2005_ca.html.
Bari, Abdul Aziz. The Relationship between the Position of Islam and the
Scope of Religious Freedom. IIUMLJ ed. Vol. 12. Series 142.