The status of religious freedom in Malaysia is a controversial issue.

Islam is the official

state religion and the Constitution of Malaysia provides for limited freedom of religion,
notably placing control upon the 'propagation' of religion other than Islam to Muslims, a
fundamental part of a number of other religions. However, questions including whether
Malaysia is an Islamic state or secular state remain unresolved.

Religious demography
Malaysia has a population of just over 26 million (2006). According to government
census figures, in 2005 approximately 58 percent of the population were Muslim; 22.9
percent practice Buddhism; 11.1 percent Christianity; 6.3 percent Hinduism; and 2.6
percent Confucianism, Taoism, and other traditional Chinese religions. The remaining
percentages were accounted for by other faiths, including animism, Sikhism and the
Bah' Faith. However, this figure may be misleading as all Malays (the majority race of
the country) are required to be Muslim as defined by the Malaysian Constitution.
Additionally, many of the Chinese community, which comprises the bulk of the Buddhist
population, actually practise a mixture of Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese folk religion.
As there is no official name for this particular set of beliefs, many followers instead list
down their religion as Buddhism, mainly for bureaucratic convenience.

Scope of Islamic law in Malaysia

The nation maintains two parallel justice systems in the country (see: Courts of
Malaysia). One is the secular justice system based upon laws gazetted by Parliament. The
other is sharia (syariah, Islamic law). Ostensibly syariah courts only have jurisdiction
over persons who declare themselves to be Muslims. Consequently, this results in nonMuslims not having legal standing in shariah courts.
Where decisions of the syariah court affect a non-Muslim, he or she can seek recourse in
the secular courts who, in theory, overrule the syariah courts as the Syariah courts are
limited in their jurisdiction by Article 121 of the Federal constitution. In 2006 a judge
ruled that Article 121 limited the federal courts from ruling on matters ruled on by the
Syariah court when it touch Islamic matter. This was seen as a misinterpretation of the
article by some, and the case is under appeal in the court of appeals.
The rules of sharia are set by the various sultans of the states. Historically a sultan had
absolute authority over the state. Prior to independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman managed
to convince the sultans to cede some states' powers to the federal government. One of the
terms of this agreement is that the sultans still are the ultimate authority of Islamic law in
their respective states. The same arrangement was long held even during British colonial
rule.
Constitutionally, one of the four tests for being Malay in Malaysia is that one must be a
Muslim. Therefore, all Malays are considered to fall under Islamic law. The rationale for

this is that Islam is considered intrinsic to Malay ethnic identity which culturally and
historically under Sultan rule who is a Muslim.
On September 29, 2001, the then Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad
declared that the country was an Islamic state (negara Islam). The opposition leader at
the time, Lim Kit Siang, is now actively seeking support to declare Mahathir's move as
unconstitutional by repeatedly clarifying that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as its
official religion as enshrined in the Constitution. However, the coalition government
headed by Mahathir at the time held more than two-thirds of the seats in parliament. A
two-thirds majority vote in Parliament is required for constitutional amendments in
Malaysia.

Status of religious freedom

Government in general supports Islamic religious establishment and it is the official
policy to "infuse Islamic values" into the administration of the country.
However, Sunday which is the Christian traditional holiday is the official weekend
holiday in the Federal Territories and ten out of thirteen states, unlike practices in Middle
Eastern Muslim countries. The exception are the states of Kedah, Kelantan and
Terengganu, where the weekend falls on Friday and Saturday. Most Muslims in Malaysia
accept this, although some have expressed disquiet since the most holy period in a
Muslim's week is between Thursday evening and Friday afternoon, when the
congregational Jumaat prayer is held. The practice of having Sunday as the weekend
holiday is a departure from traditional Islamic practices, dating to British colonial days
when the British started bringing in non-Muslim immigrants into the country.
In May 2001, the government decided not to approve the Falun Gong Preparatory
Committees application to register as a legal organization. This action is believed to be
more related to the government's wish to improve relations with China rather than an
attempt to undermine the Falun Gong in favour of Islam. The government has not
prevented Falun Gong members from carrying out their activities in public.
For Muslim children, religious education according to a government-approved
curriculum is compulsory in public schools. There are no restrictions on homeschooling,
although primary school is compulsory. However, private schools and colleges do have
some legal requirements.
Several religious holidays are recognized as official holidays, including Hari Raya Puasa
(Muslim), Hari Raya Korban (Muslim), the Prophet's birthday (Muslim), Chinese New
Year/Spring Festival (Traditional/folk religion), Wesak Day (Buddhist), Deepavali
(Hindu), Thaipusam (Hindu), Christmas (Christian), and, in Sabah and Sarawak, Good
Friday (Christian).

Inter-faith efforts in Malaysia

In this letter purporting to be from the International Islamic University Malaysia, the
university is denying employment to a person based on what it claims to be government
policy "against employing staff from a particular denomination, Shia". Other sources
present similar accounts of discrimination in Malaysia.[1].
In April 2002, the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) initiated an interfaith dialog
aimed at promoting better understanding and respect among the country's different
religious groups. Participants included representatives from the Malaysian Islamic
Development Department, the Malaysian Ulama Association, and the Malaysian
Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS).
In early 2005, much debate was stirred up by a proposed Inter-Faith Commission put
forward by various individuals some of which included academics and lawyers from the
Bar Council.
The steering committee behind the proposal for a draft bill for the commission organised
a national conference that saw about 200+ people from all religious backgrounds
attending it. There they hashed out the framework for a commission that could advise the
relevant parties on the many inter-faith issues that arise in pluralistic Malaysia - such as
conversion from Islam to another faith, which is deemed as apostacy in Malaysia.
However, mainstream Islamic groups in Malaysia boycotted the event, saying that the
commission would undermine the religion. Also they believed that many of the issues
raised by the commission's founders were due to lack of knowledge of Islam even by
Muslims themselves. Contrary to explanations by the commission it was only intended to
advise on such matters (because currently people have nowhere to turn to for advice), and
not to enforce, many Muslims believe that the commission may have other motives.
After much coverage in the local newspapers, the draft bill was put on hold by Prime
Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, due to the controversy surrounding it.

Conversion to Islam
Marriage and divorce
A non-Muslim person who wishes to marry a Muslim person must convert into Islam
before the marriage can be recognised as legally valid.[1][2] A marriage between two nonMuslims (civil law marriages), however, will not become void after one spouse
subsequently converts into Islam.
In 2006, T. Saravanan, a Muslim convert, sought to dissolve his marriage with his nonMuslim wife via the Syariah Court. His wife, R. Subashini, applied to Kuala Lumpur
High Court for an injunction against her husband seeking divorce in the Syariah Court.
The High Court dismissed her application. This was affirmed in the Court of Appeal,
3

where the court also ordered Subashini to take her case to the Syariah Court. As of
September, 2007, their case is pending in the Federal Court after an appeal by Subashini.
[3]
Subashini is also seeking to stop or declare void the conversion of their children.[4]As
of 27 December 2007, R. Subashini failed in an attempt to stop her husband from
divorcing her in an Islamic court. She also failed to persuade the federal court her
husband should be banned from converting their four-year-old son to Islam. The appeal
was rejected on a technicality but court added that she would be able to try again in a few
months. [5]

Voluntary conversion of minors

Conversion to other faiths is allowed in Malaysia once one has reached an age of
majority. A minor may not convert to another faith without explicit permission of his or
her guardian as described in the Guardianship of Infants Act (1961) and the Federal
Constitution (Articles 11 (1) and 12 (3) and (4)).
This case was tested by Teoh Eng Huat vs Kadhi mot of Pasir Mas Kelantan in 1986.[6]
Teoh Eng Huat's daughter was a ward of the state. She married a Muslim. Hence then a
minor, converted to Islam. The high court ruled that the father's right to decide the
religion and upbringing of the infant is allowed "subject to the condition that it does not
conflict with the principles of the infant's choice of religion guaranteed to her under the
Federal Constitution". Through the proceedings, Susie Teoh never appeared in court to
testify.
The decision was overruled on appeal to the Supreme Court, who held "in all the
circumstances and in the wider interests of the nation no infant shall have the automatic
right to receive instruction relating to any other religion other than (her) own without the
permission of the parent or guardian".
The Supreme Court further held that this was "only of academic interest" as Susie Teoh
was no longer a minor at the time of hearing.
In response several states (Islamic laws are passed by individual states) passed laws
providing for conversion by 15 (defined as "baligh" in Islam or the age of majority).
Federal law still provides for the age of majority as 18.

Automatic conversion of minors following parental conversion

The state of Selangor passed a legal amendment in 1989 that if an adult converts to Islam,
any infant children become converted at the same moment. This amendment was quietly
removed by its non-inclusion in future amendments of the state bill.

Conversion of minor by one parent

In the case of Chang Ah Mee v Jbt. Hal Ehwal Agama Islam (2003) heard in the Sabah
High Court,[6] the father converted to Islam and converted the child to Islam without
consent or knowledge of the mother, Chang Ah Mee, on July 28, 1998. The mother
gained custody of the child on Nov 13, 1998 and subsequently sued to declare the
conversion void.
The court determined that as a state court, it had jurisdiction over all state matters even
those concerning Islam. Further, based upon the Federal Constitution (article 12), The
Guardianship of Infants Ordinance (Sabah) 1999, The Law Reform (Marriage and
Divorce) Act, 1976 and The Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1992 (Sabah)
determined the conversion of a two year old child to be void.
In 2003, this issue became prominent again in the case of Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr.
Jeyaganesh C. Mogarajah.[6] In the first hearing before the High Court, Shamala
Sathiyaseelan sought (1) to bring committal proceedings against the father of the infants
for breach of the interim custody order of the High Court of April 17, 2003, and (2) to
declare that she was not bound by any decisions, order or proceedings of the syariah
court.
Earlier the High Court had granted custody to Shamala Sathiyaseelan with access for the
father. He failed to return the children to her on May 25, 2003. Shamala and Jeyaganesh
were married under Hindu rites registered under the jurisdiction of the Law Reform Act.
The husband converted to Islam on Nov 19, 2002. On Nov 25, 2002 he converted the
children without the mother's knowledge or consent. They were still not divorced at the
time.
Without knowledge of Shamala he then obtained a custody order in the syariah court on
Jan. 30, 2003. The High Court ruled that the custody order issued by the syariah court
"did not change the interim civil court order". They ruled that the syariah court order "is
not binding on the plaintiff wife who is non-Muslim". The interim custody order of the
High Court and proceedings were binding on the now Muslim husband as matters arising
out of the Hindu marriage registered under the Law Reform Act. As his Hindu wife did
not file for divorce, she remains "his unconverted wife" under this law.
On April 13, 2004 Shamala once again went to the high court. This time to seek an order
that the conversion of the infants was void. As in Chang Ah Mee, she cited the Federal
Constitution (Article 12), the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961 and the Administration of
Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act, 1993.
The Guardianship of Infants Act for the Federal Territories differed from that of Sabah in
one aspect as it used the term "parent or guardian" and not "both parents or a guardian" as
in AMLE Sabah.

In this case the High Court ruled that only the consent of one parent is required in the
conversion to Islam of a person below 18 in the Federal Territories.
Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution reads "For the purposes of cl. (3) the religion of
a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian."
The High Court interpreted the term parent to mean father. The equality of rights granted
to both parents under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1961 was held inapplicable on the
Muslim father.
In its judgement the High Court held the fatwa or the Mufti of the Federal Territory as
persuasive (legal term). The Mufti stated that the father had the right to unilaterally
convert the infants to Islam.
Shamala once again went to the high court on July 20, 2004 to apply inter alia for
custody, care and control of the infants. The court awarded it with access for the father. In
its judgement, it stated that "the right of religious practice of the two infant children shall
be exercised equally by both parents" based on the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961.
This was in spite of the earlier ruling that this act does not apply to Jeyaganesh who was
now a Muslim.
The court also held that the applicable law at the time of conversion was civil law. It even
ruled that the infants were "still Hindus at the time of conversion" and that the father
should have consulted the mother before converting the infants.
However the court explicitly cautioned the mother from "influencing the infants' religious
belief by teaching them her articles of faith or by making them eat pork" or she would
risk losing her children. The rationale given was that the court "cannot run away from the
fact that the two infant children are now muallaf" (converts to Islam).
As the case has gained prominence various religious organizations, human rights
organizations and women's issues organizations have registered watching briefs. En.
Haris Bin Mohamed Ibrahim has registered a watching brief on behalf of the Women's
Aid Organisation, (WAO), All Women's Action Society (AWAM), Women's Center for
Change, Penang (WCC) and Sisters In Islam (SIS).[7] A. Kanesalingam, held watching
brief for the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and
Sikhism (MCCBCHS). Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Bar Council
are also holding watching briefs for this case.
The various organizations holding watching brief in this case now call themselves loosely
Article 11 after the article of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion.

Conversion from Islam

Muslims who wish to convert from Islam face severe obstacles. For Muslims, particularly
ethnic Malays, the right to leave the Islamic faith and adhere to another religion is a
6

controversial question. The legal process of conversion is also unclear; in practice it is

very difficult for Muslims to change their religion legally. [8]
In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications
by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of
Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts.
The issue of Muslim apostasy is very sensitive. In 1998 after a controversial incident of
attempted conversion, the Government stated that apostates (i.e., Muslims who wish to
leave or have left Islam for another religion) would not face government punishment so
long as they did not defame Islam after their conversion. However, whether the very act
of conversion was an "insult to Islam" was not clarified at the time. The Government
opposes what it considers deviant interpretations of Islam, maintaining that the "deviant"
groups extreme views endanger national security. In 2005 international media attention
focused on the Sky Kingdom sect whose founder Ayah Pin claimed to be God, and whose
members - mostly Malays - were accordingly charged with religious "deviancy" and
"humiliating Islam."
In the past, the Government imposed restrictions on certain Islamic groups, primarily the
small number of Shi'a. The Government continues to monitor the activities of the Shi'a
minority.
In April 2000, the state of Perlis passed a sharia law subjecting Islamic "deviants" and
apostates to 1 year of "rehabilitation" (under the Constitution, religion, including sharia
law, is a state matter). Leaders of the opposition Islamic party, PAS, have stated the
penalty for apostasy after the apostates are given a period of time to repent and they
do not repent is death.
Many Muslims who have converted to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and
other religions lead "double lives", hiding their new faith from friends and family.[9][10]
General interpretation about the freedom of religion as described in the constitution in
Malaysia is that a person has a right to practice his or her religion freely. This freedom
does not grant a person a right to change his or her religion "at a whim and fancy" [11]. For
example a muslim who wants to convert to another religion must get an explicit
permission from a syariah court. The syariah courts rarely grant such requests, except in
cases where a person has actually lived his or her whole adult life as a person of different
religion, and only wants to change the official documents to reflect this fact. The Islamic
interpretation of the situation is that only the syariah courts can decide who is a muslim
and who is not. A person does not have such freedom, and so cannot have a say in the
judgement given in a syariah court.
The Lina Joy case challenged this view of the situation by taking the problem of apostasy
to the Federal Court in 2007. Lina Joy lost the case and was denied conversion to
Christianity. This cleared the situation about the overlapping areas of jurisdiction between

the Islamic and the secular courts in Malaysia. Also it is now clear that renouncing Islam
is practically impossible in Malaysia.

Apostasy under state law

As Malaysia is a federation, certain matters, such as religion, are handled by state
governments. There is subsequently some amount of divergence between different states
in the treatment of converts from Islam.
Statistics indicate that Negeri Sembilan has the largest number of converts, with 840
applications made to renounce Islam in 2005, 62 of which succeeded. An academic has
suggested that this is because Negeri Sembilan is the only state which permits
conversion. A convert must first apply to the Syariah Court for a declaration that he or
she is no longer a Muslim; the convert will then be counseled for about a year by a Mufti.
If, after this period, the convert still wants to convert, the judge may permit the
application. This process is unique to the state; no other state allows Muslims to officially
convert.[citation needed] In 2006, the Negeri Sembilan Court also permitted Wong Ah Kiu, a
convert from Islam to Buddhism legally known as Nyonya binti Tahir, to be buried in the
Buddhist fashion, although her conversion had not been legally recognised while she was
still alive. The case marked the first time non-Muslims had testified in a Syariah court in
Malaysia.[12]
In five states Perak, Malacca, Sabah, Terengganu, and Pahang conversion is a
criminal offense which can be punished by a fine or jail term. In Pahang, convicted
converts may also be punished with up to six strokes of the cane.[13]

Lina Joy
Main article: Lina Joy
Lina Joy, who was born Azalina Jailani, claimed to have converted from Islam to
Christianity, arguing that it came under her right to freedom of religion under Article 11
of the Constitution of Malaysia. She first approached the National Registration
Department (NRD) in February 1997, seeking permission to change her name to Lina
Joy, and also her religious status. The application was rejected in August 1997 on the
grounds that the Syariah Court had not granted permission for her to renounce Islam. In
1998, the NRD allowed the name change, but refused to change the religious status on
her identity card.
Joy appealed against this decision in the High Court, arguing that she should not be
subject to sharia law, having converted to Christianity. In April 2001, Judge Datuk Faiza
Tamby Chik ruled that she could not change her religious identity, because ethnic Malays
are defined as Muslims under the Constitution. Joy then took her case to the Court of
Appeal. On 19 September 2005, the court ruled in a 2-1 majority decision against Joy.
8

Justice Abdul Aziz and Justice Arifin Zakaria agreed that the NRD was correct in
rejecting Joys application and said it was up to the Syariah Court to settle the issue
(Justice Gopal Sri Ram said it was null and void. ). Joy further appealed to the Federal
Court of Malaysia, the highest court and the court of last resort in Malaysia.[14] The
Federal Court heard the appeal in July 2006, and it was presided by the Chief Justice of
Malaysia Ahmad Fairuz Abdul Halim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard
Malanjum, and Federal Court Judge Alauddin Sheriff.
On May 30, 2007, the Federal Court, in a 2-1 decision, dismissed Joy's appeal. The
Court's panel ruled that only the Syariah Court had the power to allow Joy to remove her
religious designation of Islam from her national identity card. Chief Justice Ahmad
Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Federal Court judge Justice Alauddin Mohd Sheriff
delivered the majority decision dismissing her appeal.[15]
Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Justice Richard Malanjum dissented.
The Federal Court judgment as of 12.21pm, 30th May 2007 on the Lina Joy appeal was a
historic one with legal and social repercussions yet to be seen with the decision going
against her.

Nyonya Tahir
Main article: Wong Ah Kiu

Revathi Massosai
Revathi Massosai is a Malaysian woman who was raised as a Hindu but her identity card
designates her as a Muslim. She has declared her religion to be Hindu and has petitioned
unsuccessfully to have the word "Islam" removed from her identity card. Massosai
married a Hindu man, but her marriage is not recognized by the Malaysian government
because of the religion issue. Massosai was incarcerated for six months in an Islamic reeducation camp because of her attempts to renounce Islam in favor of the Hindu religion.
[16]
Revathi was denied the guardianship of her new born baby and was not allowed to
meet her Hindu husband.

Persecution
There has been a few high profile incidences and accounts of persecution of people from
Muslim backgrounds attempting to convert from the Islamic faith. Some notable cases
include:

Hilmy Mohd Noor

Hilmy Mohd. Noor, in his book "Circumcised Heart", describes his experiences
during his detention under the Internal Security Act of Malaysia in what he
described as resulting from religious persecution by Malaysian authorities. In the
9

book, he also mentioned incidences of lobbying by some Muslims in his place of

employment; a multinational oil company; to get his job terminated [17] [18].
Nur'aishah Bokhari
Nur'aishah Bokhari made a writ of habeas corpus by statutory declaration
claiming that she was detained involuntarily by her own family members for
wanting to convert out of Islam before marrying her Roman Catholic boyfriend.
She subsequently escaped and has since left the country [19].

Christian proselytization
Proselytizing of Muslims by members of other religions is not technically prohibited by
federal law. It is however prohibited in most states and can lead to lengthy jail sentences
and many strokes of the rotan (whipping). Most Christian and a few other religious
groups in Malaysia put a standard disclaimer on literature and advertisements stating "For
non-Muslims only".
In 2002 the government banned the Bible in Malay (Alkitab) and in Iban (Bup Kudus).
The Kudus uses the term "Allah Taala" for God. The ban has since been rescinded. Home
Minister Abdullah Badawi (now Prime Minister) claimed it was the work of an
overzealous bureaucrat and he had then repealed the ban personally.
Some states have laws that prohibit the use of Malay-language religious terms such as
usage of the term "Allah" for God by Christians, but the authorities do not enforce them
actively.
Distribution of other materials such as books or tapes translated into Bahasa Melayu
(local Malay) or Indonesian is also discouraged. However, Malay-language Christian
materials are available. Prior to the banning of the Bup Kudus in 2002, the distribution of
Malay-language Christian materials faced few restrictions in East Malaysia.
In recent years, visas for foreign clergy no longer are restricted, and most visas were
approved during the period covered by this report. Beginning in March 2000,
representative non-Muslims were invited to sit on the immigration committee that
approves such visa requests.

Places of worship
The government generally respects non-Muslims' right of worship; however, state
governments carefully control the building of non-Muslim places of worship and the
allocation of land for non-Muslim cemeteries. Approvals for such permits sometimes are
granted very slowly. After a violent conflict in Penang between Hindus and Muslims in
March 1998, the government announced a nationwide review of unlicensed Hindu
temples and shrines. However, implementation was not vigorous and the program was
not a subject of public debate. In April 2006, local authorities demolished several Hindu

10

temples to make way for developmental projects. Their excuse was that these temples
were unlicensed and squatting on government land. One of these temples was 107 years
old. In one instance, the authorities destroyed the Hindu statues and buried them on site.
The new pre-planned capital of Malaysia, Putrajaya, features a grand mosque as a
prominent feature of the planned community.
On November 16, 2005, Archbishop Murphy Pakiam announced that the Malaysian
government had generously allocated a parcel of land in Putrajaya to the Archdiocese of
Kuala Lumpur for building a Catholic Church-run community centre. The Putrajaya
Catholic Church Building Committee was set up on October 3, 2005. According to the
committee, "The architectural planning and design will conform to the Liturgical
requirements complimenting the ambience of Putrajaya's lush greenery and landscape.
We envisage the Putrajaya church to be a hallmark of the Catholic community in
Malaysia and showcase the rich heritage of the Malaysian Catholics."
The Catholic Society of Shah Alam had been lobbying the state government for a permit
to build a church in that city for more than 10 years. It was not until recently that permit
was finally granted. The church opened its doors on 10 September 2005.

Azan
The first Azan (also spelt Adhan), known as "subuh" (or dawn), occurs at around 5.30
AM with the exact time drifting throughout the year. Most Malaysian business start work
at 9 AM. Many mosques amplify the early prayer call by way of loud speakers, and while
in some cases only a few neighbouring homes are affected, some large mosques (for
example the State Mosque of Selangor which has speakers on its minarets) have prayer
calls which can be heard in a large surrounding area.
In 2004 the Bar Council of Malaysia journal "Infoline" carried an article which
questioned the need for the Azan as it was disturbing to non-Muslims and not needful.
The article was condemned.
In December 2004, Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage Datuk Seri Utama Dr Rais
Yatim mentioned in an interview that the Azan may be disturbing. He stated "...the
Muslim call for Subuh (dawn) prayer may disturb the sleep of non-Muslims but they have
accepted this as a fundamental part of Islam. But how loud the volume of the PA system
in the mosque should be, is another matter." (New Strait Times, 20 December 2004)
Excessive noise however is common matter of uneasiness among some Malaysians
because non-Muslims also often practise rituals that cause much discomfort to others
(Muslims and non-Muslims alike). Among these are Chinese funeral processions that are
often accompanied by drums and cymbals, and other rituals not exclusive to the Chinese.
However, it must be noted that such practices are relatively less frequent than the Azan
and are usually confined to a certain area. Firecracker for use during Chinese New Year

11

has also been banned, and the remaining practices are not deliberately amplified using
loud-speakers.
A local daily, The Star reported that a proposal by Kepong MP Dr Tan Seng Giaw to
regulate the Azan so that it will not be too loud or disturb non-Muslims caused a stir in
the House. 28-Sep-2005 issue Muslim MPs accused him of being insensitive and
Minister in the Prime Ministers Department Datuk Mohamad Nazri Abdul Aziz blasted
the DAP member for allegedly trying to destroy the multi-religious tolerance in the
country.

Pork
The sale of pork and pork products is quite common in Malaysia, being found mostly in
Chinese restaurants and hotels. Traders wishing to sell pork in some areas require prior
authorisation, particularly in predominantly Muslim regions. In practice this causes
difficulty for the large Chinese population in Malaysia for whom pork is a part of everyday cuisine. There is constant regulatory pressure upon illegal pig farms which has led to
many being closed down.
Pig farming is allowed in Malaysia with proper controls. This is to prevent epidemics
such as foot & mouth disease, JE, and Nipah. In Pahang (one of the states in Malaysia)
alone, in 2005, there were 7,535 pigs being reared, producing 746 metric tons of pork
valued at RM5.04 million, and in 2004 there were 7,808 pigs producing 773 metric tons
valued at RM5.22 million. [2]
During the JE epidemic, from 27 March 1999 until 23 Jun 1999, 186,793 pigs were
destroyed, costing the government RM2.3 million for the cost of said pigs plus additional
compensation of RM 9.32 million. [3]
Recently in Malacca, the government has ordered some pig farms to close down.

Taxation
In Malaysia, there is a rebate in income tax for money paid to the government in form of
"zakat", or the obligatory alms Muslims must give to the poor. However, money paid to
other causes in the name of other religions under similar circumstances is given only
income tax relief, and such relief is given only if the particular beneficiary has obtained
approved status from the Malaysian Government, which is difficult in practice. Money
donated to such approved beneficiary is only deducted from the income on which the
amount of tax is based, while zakat is deducted from the amount of tax itself. For
example, suppose a person earning RM 50,000 owes a tax of RM 3,000 and donates RM
1,000 to zakat, the whole of the RM 1,000 is directly deducted from the RM 3,000,
whereas donations to other approved beneficiary would permit only a deduction of the
RM 1,000 against the RM 50,000. The former being a tax credit and the latter being a tax
deduction.

12

Additionally, income tax relief granted to companies for donation made to tax exempt
charities is restricted to 5% of the agggregate income of the company. Not all nonmuslim charities are granted tax exempt status, it is only given to registered and approved
charities, partly to prevent abuse. There are stringent requirements to gain this advantage.
Having earned this advantage these charities are further disadvantage in that their
prospective donors are discouraged from donating monies to these charities because the
donors are given tax relief for up to 5% of their aggregate income only.

Inheritance and testamentary freedom

Upon the death of a Muslim, his or her estate shall be distributed according to sharia law.
This is called the Faraid or the Islamic law of Inheritance. A Muslim is allowed to make
a will, called a wasiat, but only one-third of his estate shall be disposed of according to
the will. Furthermore, the requirement under sharia law is that disposition according to
wills shall not benefit any person opposed to Islam as a religion. This situation applies
throughout Peninsula Malaysia and Sabah. In Sarawak, a Muslim testator may dispose
one-third of his property to anyone he or she wishes.

Censorship
Movies which depict people considered prophets in Islam are generally censored or
banned as the depiction of prophets is considered "haraam" (not allowed) under Islam.
One notable case was the banning of The Prince of Egypt when its producers would not
accept censorship of the character Moses (Musa in Islam).
However, in a more recent case, The Passion of the Christ was allowed, after the
intervention of the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, under strict conditions
restricting its viewership to Christians with sales of tickets being carried out by various
churches and para-church organisations.
In 2004, Yasmin Ahmad's (herself a Malaysian Muslim) film Sepet was rejected by
censors who asked that scenes be removed. 10 scenes were objectionable. Among
objectionable material queried in the movie was why the movie did not depict any
attempt to convert Jason (the Chinese non-Muslim main character) to Islam after he had
fallen in love with a Malay girl.
On December 10, 2007, Malaysian authorities banned the Malay-language section of a
Catholic weekly newspaper, The Catholic Herald due to its use of the word Allah.[20]
Their reasoning is that the word Allah by Christians would confuse Malay Muslims. The
Herald meanwhile, filed suit at the beginning of December following warnings that its
permit could be revoked if it did not cease use of the word Allah in the Malay language
section of its newspaper.[21]Countering the Herald's suit, the Malaysian security
authorities on December 30, warned its printing permit would not be renewed if it
continued using the word "Allah," which the government continued to say can only be

13

used by Muslims.[22]The Sabah Evangelical Church of Borneo also took legal action after
the authorities banned the import of Christian books containing the word Allah. [23]

Protest against religious freedom

On the 5th of November 2006, a group of Muslims gathered outside the Church of Our
Lady of Lourdes, Silibin, in the town of Ipoh, Perak to protest an alleged conversion of
Muslim Malays out of Islam. The allegation was spread via a text message that claimed
the church would baptize a group of Muslim Malays. The message proved to be false as
the church celebrated only a Holy Communion service for 110 Indian children. The
message further alleged that a famous Malaysian sportsman Azhar Mansor was leaving
Islam to embrace Christianity. The police had traced the message to a lady who had met
Harussani Zakaria, mufti of the state of Perak in a meeting. He has stated that the
message was to remain within the confines of the meeting but had made no attempt to
verify the authenticity of the message nor report it to the police as converting Muslims is
illegal under Malaysian law.
On 17 November, Azhar Mansor declared that he had not renounced Islam, and Umno
president Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that there should now be an end to the
speculation.

14