Court dismisses lawsuit by sisters seeking declaration they were never Muslim
Judicial Commissioner Rozi Bainun ruled that the matter of religious status falls under the jurisdiction of the Shariah Court, Free Malaysia Today reported.
She noted that the sisters had already initiated proceedings in the Shariah Court to determine their status but later withdrew the case.
Rozi said the case should not have been withdrawn and urged the pair to present witnesses and evidence to support their claims of forced conversion.
The sisters, now 26 years' old, alleged that they were compelled to convert to Islam at the age of 14 by their biological mother.
Their mother, who had embraced Islam after remarrying a Muslim man, brought them to the Muslim Welfare Organisation Malaysia (Perkim) office in 2013.
There, the twins said they were made to recite the 'kalimah shahada', the Islamic declaration of faith, without understanding its meaning and later received conversion certificates.
They claimed they have never practised Islam, continued observing Taoist beliefs, and sought a court declaration that they were never Muslims, naming the Selangor government and Islamic council as defendants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
11 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Twins fail in civil court bid to exit Islam
SHAH ALAM: The High Court here has dismissed a suit filed by 26-year-old twin sisters seeking to renounce Islam. Judicial Commissioner Rozi Bainon ruled that the matter falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, as it involves questions of faith, conversion, and Islamic legal status. The plaintiffs claimed they were forced to recite the syahadah and convert to Islam at the age of 14 by their mother, who had embraced the religion several years earlier. They argued that the conversion was done without their consent or understanding and maintained that they had never lived as Muslims nor professed the faith. Their mother, who embraced Islam in 2007, admitted in court via affidavit that she had forced the children to convert, and now regretted the decision. The plaintiffs also stated that they continued to practise Chinese religious customs and identified with their ancestral beliefs. The plaintiffs filed an originating summons in December last year by naming the Selangor Islamic Religious Council (Mais) and the Selangor state government as defendants. The defendants argued that the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court as provided under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The defendants submitted that any claim challenging the validity of conversion to Islam, particularly involving the syahadah recitation and questions of faith, must be addressed according to Islamic law and determined by the Syariah Court. Mais said the plaintiffs had already acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court when they previously filed two suits there in 2023, seeking declarations that they were no longer Muslims. The suits, however, were later withdrawn without explanation. Mais viewed the subsequent filing of the present civil action as an abuse of court process and a form of "court shopping." The defendants stressed that the plaintiffs remained Muslims in the eyes of the law unless and until a valid renunciation is recognised through the proper Syariah legal process. The court, agreeing with the defendants' submissions, ruled that although the plaintiffs now claimed they never embraced Islam voluntarily, the validity of their conversion must be determined under Islamic law. The court said that civil courts cannot usurp the role of the Syariah Court in determining issues related to aqidah (faith) and religious identity, especially where there is no constitutional challenge or judicial review involved. Rozi stressed that the absence of a Syariah Court declaration meant their status as Muslims remained intact. "The civil court is not the proper forum for such a declaration. The matter of religious status must be brought before the Syariah Court. "The subject matter of this suit touches directly on questions of faith and religious identity, matters which the Federal Constitution places squarely within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. "Plaintiffs cannot simply abandon one court and turn to another in search of a more favourable outcome. "This amounts to court shopping and is a misuse of judicial process," she said in her ground of judgment dated yesterday. Lawyers Muhammad Firdaus Danial Tan and Crystal Jan Wong Mae appeared for the plaintiffs. Mais was represented by Majdah Muda while State assistant legal advisor Nurul Izzah Abdul Mutalib appeared for the state government.
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Dewan Rakyat passes Cross-Border Insolvency Bill to boost investor confidence
KUALA LUMPUR, July 29 — The enactment of the Cross-Border Insolvency Bill 2025 is expected to support Malaysia's long-term goal of attracting foreign direct investments (FDI) as well as strengthening the nation's economic stability. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said, in her winding-up speech on the bill, said it reflects Malaysia's commitment to progressive international legal standards. The bill is also expected to enhance Malaysia's position as an investor- and trade-friendly country in line with the challenges and demands of globalisation, she said. 'By recognising standard global principles such as the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (MLCBI), Malaysia will gain more confidence from foreign investors in terms of the clarity, transparency, and effectiveness of cross-border insolvency dispute resolution. 'This will help investors know what to expect when facing any financial risk, thereby increasing foreign investor confidence to invest and expand their businesses in Malaysia,' she said. The Dewan Rakyat today passed the Cross-Border Insolvency Bill 2025, which aims to establish an effective mechanism for managing cross-border insolvency cases. The bill was passed by a majority voice vote after being debated by 11 members of Parliament from both the government and opposition. Earlier, when tabling the bill for its second reading, Azalina said cross-border insolvency in the corporate context refers to insolvency proceedings involving companies experiencing financial distress and unable to repay their debts, with creditors and assets located in more than one country. She explained that the bill promotes formal cooperation between courts and insolvency authorities in Malaysia and other countries, which previously depended only on the principle of comity. 'It provides legal certainty to investors and stakeholders by establishing clear procedures regarding the recognition of foreign proceedings, court access, and the granting of relief. 'This bill supports efforts to rescue viable businesses in line with the recent amendments to the Companies Act 2016, thereby safeguarding investments and people's jobs,' she said. — Bernama
Free Malaysia Today
an hour ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Dzulkefly's bid to recuse Apandi's daughter from libel suit dismissed
Dzulkefly Ahmad is suing former prime minister Najib Razak over claims the health minister had practised nepotism by securing the appointment of his daughter, Nurul Iman, to the board of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia. KUALA LUMPUR : The High Court has dismissed health minister Dzulkefly Ahmad's bid to recuse the judicial commissioner currently presiding over his RM5 million libel suit against former prime minister Najib Razak. Judicial Commissioner Arziah Apandi held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a credible risk of bias arising either from her judicial remarks or her familial connections with former attorney-general Apandi Ali. Earlier, the plaintiff's lawyer Stanley Sabastien Sinnappen submitted that statements made by Arziah during case management on March 7 and April 7 – that the suit would be struck off if no settlement was reached and no notice of withdrawal filed – amounted to a real danger of bias. The parties had, in March, informed the court that they were working towards an amicable solution. Stanley further raised concerns that Arziah being the daughter of Apandi – appointed attorney-general in 2016 during Najib's administration – had created actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias. Delivering her broad grounds of judgment, Arziah said the plaintiff's contention had no basis. She said the statements made during case management were standard directions aimed at preventing cases from remaining dormant, not expressions of partiality. 'Courts routinely make such directions to prevent cases from remaining dormant indefinitely,' she said. Addressing her relationship with Apandi, Arziah stressed that there was no evidence of any continuing relationship between her father and Najib beyond a brief court appearance as a witness in 2019. She said Apandi ceased to hold the office of attorney-general in 2018 and that any connection he had with the litigation was tenuous and historical. She also said familial relationships alone were insufficient to justify her recusal as it did not create a real danger of bias. 'Familial connections between members of the judiciary and legal professionals are common and do not automatically give rise to bias. 'Children of judges regularly appear before courts without raising concerns,' she said. Arziah dismissed the application with costs which will be decided at the end of the proceedings. Case management is set for Aug 13. Dzulkefly filed the suit in his private capacity on Dec 31, 2021, over Najib's claim that he had practised nepotism by securing the appointment of his daughter, Nurul Iman, to the board of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia two years earlier. In his statement of claim, the Kuala Selangor MP alleged that Najib's Facebook post on Aug 24, 2020, subsequently reported by a Malay daily, had defamed him.
