Dare Mice gl TDD cetyco0 Un ODD arc eo fla eae SANS NE Sh Sew ere (2006) 14 IIUMLJ 33 ISLAM AS THE RELIGION OF THE MALAYSIAN FEDERATION: THE SCOPE AND IMPLICATIONS Shamrahayu A, Aziz* ABSTRACT Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution declares Islam as the religion of the Federation. Over the years the Provision has given rise to multiple interpretations and endless argument strewn over judicial decisions, academic writings and political discussions. This article attempts to highlight and discuss some of the possible implications of the provision, which includes the religious character of the Federation and the special Position of Islam, Islamic law and Muslims in Malaysia. These positions may appear to contradict one another but that is the unique character of Malaysian Constitution. INTRODUCTION Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution declares Islam as the religion of the Federation.' The provision has been described as a > Lecturer, Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, International Islamic * University Malaysia. Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution says “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” It is to be noted that this34 HUM LAW JOURNAL VOL. 14 NO. 1, 2006 traditional element,” a basic feature, a basic structure* and a unique character® of the Federal Constitution. The meaning and the purpose of inserting the provision into the constitution were not clarified by its framers.° This was not surprising as the provision was only inserted in the final draft of the constitution which was done by a working party. Be that as it may the provision was said to be “innocuous.” Despite that the provision eventually became quite significant given the various interpretations - academic, judicial, and political - given to it. One could say that in view of the multifarious views the scope of the provision is uncertain. This essay seeks to examine this state of affairs. As it stands there are several academic writings on this subject which merit scrutiny given the seriousness of their content;’ the most clause contains two limbs; namely (i) the religion of the federation and (ii) the practice of other religions. Mohamed Salleh bin Abas, Selected Articles and Speeches on Constitution, Law & Judiciary, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Law Publishers Sdn. Bhd., 1984, at 42. Mohamed Suffian, An Introduction to the Legal System of Malaysia, Petaling Jaya: Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd., 1989, at 10. “Basic structure” argument was proposed by the applicant’s counsel in Phang Chin Hock v Public Prosecutor [1980] 1 MLJ 70. Although the proposition was not accepted by the Federal Court, it did not reject iteither. Abdul Aziz Bari, Malaysian Constitution a Critical Introduction, Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2003, at 46, Except that, the provision “shall not impose any disability on non- Muslim nationals professing and practicing their own religions and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State.” See para. 169, Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission, 1956-1957 Report, found in Kevin YL Tan & Thio Li-ann, Constitutional Law in Malaysia & Singapore, 2" edition, Singapore: Butterworths Asia, 1997, at 930- 985 (Appendix A). Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission, 1956 ~ 57 Report; Note of Dissent by Justice Abdul Hamid, Paragraph 11. These include Mohamed Ismail bin Mohamed Shariff, “The Legislative Jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament in Matters Involving Islamic Law,” [2005] 3 MLI cy; Shad Saleem Farugqi, “Secularism or Theocracy—A Study of the Malaysian Constitution,” [2004] Vol. 2, UITM Law Review, at 146 — 183; Ibrahim Ismail, “Agama Persekutuan: Jurisprudens Islam dalam Pentafsiran Perlembagaan,” (2003) 15 Kanun (4) 1; AhmadIslan as The Religion of The Malaysian Federation: The Scope And luplications 35 recent writing being Islam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia by Abdul Aziz Bari.’ As its title suggests, this book not only discusses the position of Islam in the Constitution in a conclusive manner, but also illuminates the position Islam in Malaysia, THE BACKGROUND FOR THE PROVISION It was common to the constitution of the Malay states before the independence to have a provision declaring Islam as the religion of the state.'° However, the same provision was not found in the draft of Ibrahim, “The Position of Islam in the Constitution,” in Mohamed Suffian, H.P. Lee & F.A. Trindade (eds), The Constitution of Malaysia Its Development: 1957 ~ 1977, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press, 1978, For further readings, see also Ahmad Ibrahim (et.al), Al-Ahkam Jilid 4: Islam dalam Perlembagaan, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1994. Opinion on the matter are also found in some constitutional law books, such as Abdu! Aziz Bari and Farid Sufian Shuaib, Constitution of Malaysia Text and Commentary, 2" edition, Petaling Jaya: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006, at 5 — 10; Abdul Aziz Bari, Malaysian Constitution A Critical Introduction, Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2003, at 46-47; Sheridan & Groves, The Constitution of Malaysia, 5" edition, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law Journal Sdn. Bhd., 2004, at 30 - 36, Other books discussing the subject includes, Mohd. Salleh Abas, Unsur-Unsur Tradisi dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1992, at 10~ 16; HashimA. Sani, Our Constitution, Kuala Lumpur: The Law Publishers (M) Sdn. Bhd., at 149 - 165. The position of Islam is also highlighted in case commentaries, such as Abdul Aziz Bari, “Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the decision of Meor Atiqulrahman,” [2000] 2 MLJ cxxix; Abdul Aziz Bari, “The Relationship between the Position of Islam in the Constitution and the Scope of Religious Freedom Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah & Anor,” (2004) 12 WUMLJ 145 and AJ Harding, “Islam in Public Law in Malaysia: Some Reflections in the Aftermath of Susie Teoh’s Case” [1991] 1 MLJ xci. Abdul Aziz Bari, /slam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, Petaling Jaya: Intel Multimedia and Publication, 2005. On the Independence Day, all states in the Federation had had the provisions on Islam (as the religion of the states), except for Penang, Malacca and Sarawak. Nowadays all states in Malaysia, except36 TUM LAW JOURNAL VOL. 14 NO, 1, 2006 the constitution prepared by the Constitutional Commission. The Commission wrote in its report that the majority of its members thought that it is best to leave the matter regarding the status of Islam as there was no provisions in the draft Constitution which interfered with the recognised position of Islam in the state, either in legislation or otherwise," This was because the Rulers did not welcome the Alliance Party’s suggestion to declare Islam as the established religion of the Federation. In fact, Lord Reid himself admitted that he played very little part on this matter as he accepted the Royal Highnesses’ considered view on the non-desirability of having a provision declaring Islam as the religion of the Federation as a ‘specific instruction.’!? Despite that, Justice Abdul Hamid, a Muslim representative from Pakistan took exception and wrote a note of dissent, In his note, Justice Abdul Hamid stated that the Alliance Party’s recommendation on Islam as the religion of the Federation was unanimous and therefore, should be accepted by the Commission. Furthermore, according to him, itis an ‘innocuous’ provision as there are at least fifteen countries of the world have such a provision entrenched in their constitutions. Therefore, the insertion would not impose any disability on non-Muslim citizens to profess, practice and propagate their religions and will not prevent the state from being a secular state. The declaration was also considered by Justice Abdul Hamid as a mere transplantation of the existing position on Islam from the State Constitutions.'? Apart from that, Justice Abdul Hamid also suggested that the provision should be inserted in Part 1 of the Constitution, i.e. after Art. 2, or at the beginning of Part XIII of the Constitution. Part 1 of the Federal Sawarak, have a provision declaring Islam as the state religion. Some states, such as Kedah, Pahang, Perak, Selangor and Trengganu, use “Muslim religion” and Perlis uses the terminology Ahli Sunnah Waljama'ah, See Art. 57 of Johore Constitution, Art. 5 of Kelantan, Negeri Sembilan, Perak and Perlis Constitutions, Art. 23 of Pahang Constitution, Art. 3 of Trengganu Constitution, Art. 47 of Selangor Constitution, Art. 33A of Kedah Constitution, Art. 4A of Malacca Constitution (Ins. En 9/93), Art. 5 of Penang Constitution (Ins En 3/ 95), Art. SA of Sabah Constitution. Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission, 1956 - 57 Report. Para, 169. a Ibid. ie Id. Note of Dissent by Justice Abdul Hamid, Paragraph 11.Islaw as The Religion of The Malaysian Federation: The Scope And Lmplications 37 Constitution contains provisions establishing the state, which includes the territories of the Federation and supremacy of the Constitution. Part XIII contains nineteen temporary and transitional provisions, which until this date nine articles were repealed. When the special committee formed to study the recommendations of the Reid Commission eventually submitted its report, it was recommended that Islam should be declared as the religion of the Federation. The declaration, however, according to the Report, must not affect the secular nature of the state and it should not deny the right of every person to profess and practise his religion and subject to State law, the right to propagate the religion. Finally, when the draft of the constitution was completed, the provision on Islam as the religion of the Federation was inserted into Part 1 of the Constitution, i.e. in Art. 3. Although no reason was recorded, it indicates the importance of the provision in constitutional structure and it was not meant to be ‘temporary or transitional in nature.’ This would complement the argument that Art. 3(1) is a basic structure of the Constitution. UNDERSTANDING THE PROVISION Before one could embark on evaluating the implication of Art. 3 on the entire constitutional structure, one needs to see the provision in its context, Justice Abdul Hamid in his note of dissent proposed that the provision was to be phrased, as “Islam shall be the religion of the State of Malaya... However, the suggestion was not imitated. The provision was phrased as ‘Islam is the religion,..’ which is also the phrase, used in the White Paper. The word ‘is’, instead of ‘shall be’, has been said as an assertion of the clearly accepted fact that Islam is the recognised religion in the states, either in practice or in the state constitutions."* Thus, the Provision is said as giving recognition to Islam as the state ideology or that has made Islam the “official religion” of the Federation." It is noteworthy that the word “official” is nowhere found in the Constitutional Commission Report, Be that as it may, “Official religion” is used ‘ See also Abdul Aziz Bari, /s/am dalam Perlembagaan Malay'sia, at 12. * Ibid.38 TIUM LAW JOURNAL VOL, 14 NO. 1, 2006 synonymous to “state religion”, which means, “a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.”!* Art. 3(1) is therefore, an endorsement on the official status of Islam. The provision, thus, has unequivocally, bestowed upon Islam a special status as compared to other religions. By virtue of Art. 3(1) Islam is placed at an “exalted position”"” and “Islam exerts a dominating if not powerful influence in Malaysia cultural, social and political affairs. ..”"* Shad S. Faruqi views that Art. 3(1) demolishes the church-state separation.'* In this writer’s opinion, the view would give to Art.3(1) a far-reaching effect, especially in formatting the general standard in legal and public domain; It would complement the idea that Islam is a state ideology. In the same vein, Aziz Bari noted that Art. 3(1) has effectively “de-secularised” the state though that does not mean that Malaysia is a full-fledged Islamic state either.” This is quite true as acceptable there is no country in the world that falls into the categroy.”" Aziz Bari also put forward the view that subject to certain modifications, the existing constitutional structure and framework could accommodate an Islamic system.” 6 viewed on 29 Mar 2006. The word state in this context refers to “country.” Farid Sufian Shuaib, Powers and Jurisdiction of Syariah Courts in Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Malayan Law Hournal, 2003, at 16. Wu Min Aun, The Malaysian Legal System, 3° edition, Kuala Lumpur: Pearson Longman, 2005, at 187. Shad Saleem Faruqi, reported in Malaysiakini, at //www. malaysiakini.com, viewed on 22™ Dec 2004. Abdul Aziz Bari, “Islam in the Federal Constitution: A Commentary on the decision of Meor Atiqulrahman,” [2000] 2 MLI cxxix. See also Abdul Aziz Bari, Perlembagaan Malaysia: Asas dan Masalah, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 2001, at 249-255. Ahadjan Hazanov, “The First Muslim Community: The Transition from Religious to Secularity,” in Z.I. Munavvarov & W. Schneider-Deters (eds.), Islam.and Secular State, Tashkent: International Fund of Imam al-Bukhari and Friedrich Foundation, 2003, at 171. See Abdul Aziz Bari, “Enforcement of Shari’ah in Malaysia: Divine Principles in Constitutional Democracy” in Hussin Mutalib (ed), Islam and Democracy: The Southeast Asian Experience, Singapore: KAD & CCIS, 2004, at 35-32. See also Abdul Aziz Bari, Islam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, supra, at 77-96. 2 aIslam as The Religion of The Malaysian Federation: The Scape And Implications 39 Such was also evident in Mohamed Imam’s view which asserted the argument that Art. 3(1) imposes an obligation of the country to preserve and promote the religion. This view is acceptable because, having recognised Islam as the state religion, the state should be responsible to preserve and promote its status. This view is quite acceptable given the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s oath of office in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.* Salleh Abas put forward the view that the consequences arising from the provision in Art. 3(1) are that the Government (federal or state) has the “liberty, power and privilege to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing institution in religion of Islam and to incur necessary expenditure for the purpose.”*’ Furthermore, the “Federal and state governments, through annual Supply Act and Enactments, are authorized to spend money on the administration of Islamic religion and its laws.”** This opinion has constitutional approval as Art. 12(2) of the Federal Constitution consents to the government to provide financial help to Islamic educational institutions. Shad S. Farugi observes that the declaration on Islam as the religion of the Federation is for the purpose of promoting “Islam as religious, moral, social and economic force,” allowing the state to promote Islamic education and Islamic way of life for the uplifting of Muslims?’ and Mohamed Imam, “Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia - A Reappraisal” [1994] 2 CLJ lvii; quoted in Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah & Anor [2004] 2 MLJ 119, at 128. The oath reads: “... Wallahi; Wabillahi; Watallahi; ... Further We do solemnly and truly declare that We shall all the time protect the Religion of Islam and uphold the rules of law and order in the Country....”. Similar wordings of oath of office are is found in the First Schedule of Johore Constitution: see also Abdul Aziz Bari, “Ketua Negara, Ketua Negeri dan Majlis Raja-Raja” in Ahmad Ibrahim et. al, Perkembangan Undang-undang Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 1999, at 40-99, 70-71. Mohamed Salleh bin Abas, Selected Articles and Speeches on Constitution, Law & Judiciary, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Law Publishers Sdn. Bhd., 1984, at 45. Id., at 46. Shad Saleem Farugqi, “Secularism or Theocracy — A Study of the Malaysian Constitution” in Abdul Razak Baginda and Peter Schier % 740 TUM LAW JOURNAL VOL. 14 NO. 1, 2006 permitting “the use of tax-payers money for Islamic purposes and to promote Islam,”** Except for promoting Islamic education, these supposed implications of Art3(1) does not have backip from constitutional provision. However, possibly, they could be the implicit effect of the Clause to recognise Islamic standard in legislating laws and the making and applying government policies — for instance, Art. 3(1) could be the basis to apply Islamic standard in enforcing moral laws. These supposed implications of Art. 3(1) have recognised the superior status of Islam over other religions not being the established religion of the country. Be that as it may, it must be mentioned that, in this, writer’s opinion, the constitutional provisions giving privileges to Islam may not categorically be the implications of Art. 3(1), but are the concrete proof that the Constitution recognises the special position of Islam. Furthermore, itis also possible to say that by having Art. 3(1) in its constitution, the Federation, as an entity, professes Islam and must discharge the religious obligations.” However, there is a view stating that it is impossible for the Federation to manifest all religious obligations and it is unable to posses the ‘agidah ~ the essence of a religious belief —as it is not a human being.” In this writer’s view, the manifestation of religious teachings in the context of a state may not necessarily be the same to that of individuals’ ~ it is sufficient for the Federation to proclaim its religion in the supreme law of the land as the provision preserved in Art. 3(1). In the constitutional context, it may be said that it is inherent in Art, 3(1) the ideology of the state signifying Islam as a way of life, where its doctrines and laws are the integral part of the Malaysian polity. While in the West the state is very much rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, in Malaysia, it is a tradition rooted in Islam that is prevalent.”' It (ed.), Js Malaysia an Islamic State?, MSRC ~ KAF, Intellectual Discourse Series 1, Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Strategic Research Centre/Konrad-Adenaver-Foundation, (n.d), at 50: Shad Saleem Faruqi, reported in Malaysiakini, at //www. malaysiakini,com. Viewed on 22™Dec 2004 Abdul Aziz Bari, Islam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, at 12. See Mohamed Ismail bin Mohamed Shariff, “The Legislative JIurisdiction of the Federal Parliament in Matters Involving Islamic Law,” {2005} 3 MLScy, note 12. " See the interview with Abdul Aziz Bari: Ziauddin Sharudin, “Perspektif baru tangani kelakuan tak senonoh” Beriza Minggu, 9 April 2006, at 4. a » 2°Islan as The Religion of The Malaysian Federation: The Seype Aud Inplications a" is worth noting that Aziz Bari had remarked that the phrase “religion of the Federation” was rather curious as it sounded as if the federation has got Islam as her religion** This may mean that the country is under the obligation to implement the teachings of Islam.» Whatever the objections to this assertion it is not uncommon to find states and associations which put religious teachings or world-view as part of the official objectives. In any case in Islam state is just an instrument to put divine ideals into practice.* Notwithstanding the above interpretation and implications of Art. 3(1), Clause (4) of the same article must be understood. The Clause reads, “Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution.” The derogative effect of Clause (4) seems to limit the scope and application of Art. 3. Though it is not obvious, Clause (4) is viewed as a result of negotiation undertaken to preserve the secular nature of the Federation as itis mentioned in Art. 4(1) that the Constitution, is the supreme law of the land’ or that a Clause to assure the civil rights of non-Muslims.** Surprisingly Shad S, Faruqi argued that, by virtue of Art.3(4), Art.3(1) does not have an influential status.?” With due respect, the influential status of Islam or the position of Islam is not only affirmed in Art.3(1), but it is strewn over various other provisions in the Constitution ~ the special position of Islam is found in the constitutional provisions ubiquitously. Itis quite apparent that Shad $ Farugi is contradicting himself a8 previously he had said something contrary to what he says here. Art. 3(1) also preserves the position of other religions. It mentions that other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of, the Federation, This part of Clause (1) of Art. 3 promotes freedom of religion, despite having an official religion. It may be intended to secure the position of non-Muslims, where it was stated in the White Paper that the declaration of the religion of the Federation in the Constitution shall Abdul Aziz Bari, /slam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, at 12-13. Ibid. For more on this see, e.g. ‘Abd al-Karim Zaydan, al-Madkhal li dirdsah al-SharT'ah al-Islémiyyah, Beirut: Muassasah al-Risalah, 1999. Abdul Aziz Bari, /slam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, at 13. Hamid Jusob, The Position of Islamic Law, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, 1991, at 32. Shad Saleem Faruqi, reported in Malaysiakini, at //www. malaysiakini.com, Viewed on 22™Dec 2004.42. HUN LAW JOURNAL VOI. 14 NO. 1, 2006 not affect the non-Muslims’ freedom of religion, Aziz Bari says that this part of Art.3(1) is not necessary as the teaching of Islam itself is very igion; namely that Islam does not sanction conversion through coercion let alone force.** This is true because it is the Islamic belief that there is no compulsion in religion.” Furthermore, the right to freedom of religion is guaranteed in Art. 11(1) of the Federal Constitution.” This part of Clause (1) of Art. 3 may also imply that the identity of other religions should not compete to Islamic identity since other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony. Despite being declared as the religion of the Federation, Islam remains a state matter. Art. 3(1) does not make Islam a federal subject and Their Highnesses Rulers of the States shall remain the Heads of Islam in their respective states. For those states without a Ruler and the Federal Territories, the head of Islam shall be the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.”’ This is entrenched in the State Constitutions."? In understanding the position of Islam in the Constitution, Art. 3(1) is not the only relevant provision. Other provisions giving special status to Islam rust also be acknowledged. Art, 11(4) protects Muslims from being proselytized with other doctrines or beliefS. In this respect, Art.11(4) allows such protection be legislated in a state law, or Federal law, in the case of Federal Territories. The constitution also sanctions financial assistance to Islamic educational institution. Article 12(2) of the Federal Constitution allows every religion to establish and maintain educational institution. Nevertheless, the special position of Islam is demonstrated by an explicit provision authorising the government to provide financial assistance to Islamic educational institution, Although * Abdul Aziz Bari, ‘slam dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia, at 13. ” Al-Quran, Surah al-Bagarah: 256, “ Article 11 of the Federal Constitution says: “Bvery person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it” “ Art. 3(2), (3) and (5) of the Federal Constitution, * Art. 57A of Johore Constitution, Art. 33B of Kedah Constitution, Art. 6 of Kelantan Constitution, Art. 5 of Malacca Constitution, Art. 6 of Negeri Sembilan Constitution, Art. 24 of Pahang Constitution, Art. 5(2) of Penang Constitution, Art. 6 of Perak Constitution, Ait, 6 of Perlis Constitution, Art. SB of Sabah Constitution, Art. 4 of Sarawak Constitution, Art. 48 of Selangor Constitution and Art. 4 of Trengganu Constitution.Islam as The Religion of The Molaysion Federation: The Scope And Inplieations “a the government is allowed to give financial assistance to other religious educational institutions, it does not have the constitutional sanction. The Constitution also protects Islamic law even during the state of emergency, when the Parliament may make law inconsistent to the Constitution. Clauses (5) and (6A) of Art. 150 of the Federal Constitution do not extend the legislative power of the Parliament to legislate on Islamic law that is inconsistent to the Constitution. Moreover, the Supreme Head of the Federation, ic. the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, is under a constitutional duty to protect Islam.“ This is obvious in his oath of office as prescribed. in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. Thus, it may be said that “Islam, as the religion of the Federation ... ... has a special status, since it inextricably connected with organs of state."** It must be mentioned that all these protections given to Islam are not, strictly speaking, the effect of Art. 3(1), given the Art. 3(4)’s derogative effect, but Islam has been given privileges, special and exalted position, replete with constitutional provisions and Art.3 (1) is one of them. THE CASE LAW: CLARIFYING OR MAKING IT MORE CONFUSING? Over the years there have been several cases handed down by the courts acknowledging the position of Islam as “official religion” of the country on the basis of Art.3(1), for instance, Mustak Ahmed“ and Art, 150(5) reads: “Subject to Clause (6A), while the Proclamation of Emergency is in force, Parliament may, notwithstanding anything in this Constitution make laws with respect to any matter, it it appears to Parliament that the law is required by reason of emergency::.. Clause (6A) reads: “Clause (5) shall not extend the powers of Parliament with respect to any matter of Islamic law or ....” Fourth Schedule, Federal Constitution. AJ Harding, “Islam and Public Law in Malaysia: Some Reflections in the Aftermath of Susie Teoh’s Case,” [1991] 1 MLY xci, at xci. Mustak Ahmed Bin Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Gulam Rasool Shaik v Abdul Wahid Bin Dato’ Haji Abdul Rahim Gulam Rasool Shaik & “ 4“44 HUM LAW JOURNAL VOI. 14 NO. 1, 2006 Wee Mee Industries.” But it was only in 1988 that a case, Che Omar bin Che Soh,*® which directly dealt with Art.3(1) was eventually handed down by the Supreme Court, the then highest court of the land. Che Omar bin Che Soh, a case dealt with the question of whether a mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking offence and for the offence under the Fire Arms (Increased Penalties) Act is against the injunctions of Islam and therefore, void. It was argued that since the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land, (Art. 4(1)), declares Islam as the religion of the Federation in its Art. 3(1), the imposition of mandatory death penalty on offences in these two Acts of Parliament is inconsistent to the Islamic injunctions and is therefore, unconstitutional. Itwas also argued that, “since Islam is the religion of the Federation, the law passed by Parliament must be imbued with Islamic and religious principles”? and since “Syariah law is the existing law at the time of Merdeka, any law of general application in this country must conform to the Syariah law.” Salleh Abas LP who delivered the judgment of the Court pointed out that there are two meanings of Islam in Art. 3(1). The judge clarified that Islam is more than a mere “collection of dogmas and rituals ...it is a complete way of life covering all fields of human activities... based on divine guidance. ...” Having expressed the meaning oflslam in the eloquent terms, his Lordship posted a question, “Was this the meaning intended by the framers of the constitution?” In answering the question, His Lordship traced the history of Islam in the country after the British intervention and concluded that, “Islamic law was rendered isolated in a narrow confinement of the law of marriage, divorce and inheritance only” and Islamic public aspect was a mere adjunct to ruler’s power, Therefore, concluded that the word “Islam” in Art. 3(1) is referring only to “rituals and ceremonies.” Be that as it may, Sheridan views that the decision does not categorically define the word “Islam” in Art. 3(1) ina conclusive term. Ors; Shafiah Bibi Binti Ibrahim Mysoory & Ors v Abdul Wahid Bin Dato’ Haji Abdul Gulam Rasool Shaik & Ors (1987) 2MLI 449, at 455. ° Public Prosecutor v Wee Mee Industries Co. Sdn. Bhd. {1986} 1 MLI 305, at $07. For the official status of of Islam in Trengganu, see Tengiat Nik Maimunah & Anor v Majlis Ugama dan Adat Melayu Negeri Trengganu & Ors {1979} 1 MLI 257. « Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLI 55. ” Ibid.at 57.