Constitutional Law - Before Merdeka And Courts Decision Which Were Not Inconsistence With Islamic Law

Rahmah v Laton

Islamic Law is the law of the land and the court must take judicial noteice.

Wong Ah Fook v State of Johore

The defense put by the state that the state is not liable for the act of the sultan who is the supreme authority of the state because:-

1. State governed by Muhammadan Law under which sultan is absolute.

2. No restriction put on sultan’s authority under state constitution. Held: it is not true as a general statement that the state is governed by Muhammadan Law. The state governed by law of country which in some respect even antagonistic with Muhammadan Law. Sultan is not above law.

Anchom bte Lampong v PP

Muhammadan Law is one of the branches of the law of Johore and it was never adopted in its entirely in the state of Johore.

Ainon v Syed Abu Bakar

Held: Section 112 of Evidence Act applies to the exclusion of the Islamic on the question of legitimacy of a child.

Tg Mariam v Comm of Religious Dept Terengganu

Federal Court Held that wakaf for purposes of religious is bad but since the parties agreed to abide fatwa and must follow the fatwa.

Prof LA Sheridan (1988) 2 MLJ:

In so far as federal business involves religious matter, that business is to be regulated in accordance with religious of Islam.

Che Omar b. Che Soh v PP

Since Article 3(1) of Federal Constitution Islam is the religion of the Federation and Article 4 states that the constitution is the supreme law of the federation, the imposition of death penalty for DDA and Firearms (Increase Penalty) Act is against Islamic injunction because it is not Hudud or Qisas case.

Supreme Court held that Article 3(1) of Federal Constitution is solely concern with rituals and ceremonies it is because Article 162 of Federal Constitution preserve the continuity of secular prior to constitution unless such law contrary to the later.

The court further held that islam under Federal Constitution confine to personal law ie marriage, inheritance etc it is this the framer understood.

Comments: Court fail to define what is secular law. Article 3 of Federal Constitution cant used as a test for legality of a statute. Article 4 of Federal Constitution states any law inconsistent with Federal Constitution void. Court fail to comment on Article 3(4) of Federal Constitution. Logically government cant impose capital punishment under Ta’zir. Therefore death penalty is valid.

Mamat b Daud v Govt of Malaysia

Plaintiffs were charges under Section 298A of Penal Code doing an act likely to cause disunity amongst Muslim ie Bilal, Imam and Khatib unauthorized. Plaintiffs seek that Section 298A of Penal Code is ultra vires to Article 74 of Federal Constitution because in pith and substance it deals with Islam, a state matter. Supreme Court decide that the matter is a religious matter and ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Please note that Article 74 of Federal Constitution clearly states divide the legislative power between federal and states legislative.

Re Dato’ Bentara Luar(decd)

Waqaf matter must be dealt according to Islamic Law (Federal Court)

Minister of Home Affairs & Anor v Jamaluddin Othman

Supreme court held that the freedom of religion under Article 11 of Federal Constitution override the power of preventive detention under ISA. A Malay Christian preachers preach Christianity to Malays. Since only 6 were attracted it won’t cause disunity.

Halimattussadiah v PSC

A female employee wearing purdah against the PSC order were dismissed. Held the dismissal was valid because Article 11(5) of Federal Constitution on the ground of public order, health or morality.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Need Law Introduction ... click HERE
Private Policy About Us Contact Us Content References

LAW (LLB) NOTES is intended merely as an informational and educational resource and is not intended to offer legal advice, nor does it offer legal advice. The exchange of information, by electronic mail or otherwise, relating in any way to LAW (LLB) NOTES is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.