MALAYSIA
Legal framework on freedom of religion and actual application
The Constitution of Malaysia protects religious freedom. Yet the rights of religious communities are constrained by constitutional and legal privileges granted to Sunni Islam. According to Article 3 (1) of the constitution, “Islam is the religion of the Federation [of Malaysia] but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”[1] Article 11 stipulates that everyone “has the right to profess and practice his religion” but paragraph 4 of the same article declares that federal and state laws “may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”. The courts have interpreted the constitution to allow states to prevent Muslims from converting to other religions and to restrict any Muslim minority sect that is considered deviant by Malaysia’s religious authorities.
Article 160 of the constitution defines a “Malay” as, among other things, “a person who professes the religion of Islam”. Bumiputeras, ethnic Malays in peninsular Malaysia, and indigenous groups in East Malaysia (who are mostly animist or Christian) represent nearly 70 percent of the population. They are constitutionally defined as ethnically and religiously distinct from people of Chinese and Indian origin[2] who adhere mostly to Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and other religions, or have no religion.[3]
Non-Malays are free to convert to any religion, including Islam. In contrast, conversion from Islam by Malays is deemed apostasy and is forbidden in many Malaysian states.[4] However, a procedure is technically in place whereby Muslims can convert from Islam via a lengthy process that requires the consent of a Shari‘a (Islamic) court. In some states, those wishing to convert must spend months in “rehabilitation” centres where they are pressed to remain Muslim.[5]
In a series of judgments, civil courts have ruled that apostasy cases must be directed to Shari‘a courts. However, in recent years, civil courts have intervened in cases where there is a strong presumption that people were never Muslims in the first place.[6]
For Muslims in Malaysia, state laws place all matters of personal life, such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance, under the jurisdiction of Shari‘a courts. A constitutional provision stipulates that civil courts do not have any jurisdiction over matters that fall within the jurisdiction of Shari‘a courts.
Each state has its own Islamic authority that governs Muslim affairs. These authorities have largely sidelined minority forms of Islam through regulations on religious activity. On a wider scale, the National Fatwa Council declared Shi‘a Islam deviant in 1996 and banned it outright, even though Malaysia is home to hundreds of thousands of practising Shi‘as.[7] The federal religious authority, the Department of Islamic Development (JAKIM), along with state fatwa committees, closely monitor and systematically control all forms of Islam. State religious authorities play a supervisory role over mosques, influence the content of sermons, and ensure that teachings convey Sunni orthodoxy as interpreted by the state.
Malaysia has a dual judicial system where state law and Shari‘a law coexist and are both applied to Muslims. However, in February 2024, the Federal Court of Malaysia declared 16 Kelantan state Shari‘a laws to be “void and invalid”. Two lawyers had challenged the constitutionality of the Kelantan Shari‘a Criminal Code (1) Enactment 2019 which criminalised actions such as destroying houses of worship, sodomy, sexual harassment, and the use of intoxicating substances. The chief justice who delivered the majority judgment said that the northeastern state lacked the authority to enact the laws since the issues fell under Parliament’s legislative powers.[8] The Kelantan rulings follow a precedent from the Iki Putra case of 2021, which overruled the State of Selangor’s anti-sodomy Shari‘a law.[9]
On the other hand, a recently proposed Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill would give Muslim legal experts (muftis) in federal territories powers that Parliament could not challenge. Muftis would have legal immunity, and the bill could thus create “a second source of laws in Federal Territories, unintended by the Malaysian Constitution”.[10] One lawyer argued that the bill would derogate from the position of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. According to Articles 3(5) and 34(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Agong (a rotating position equivalent to a king), is the constitutional head of Islam in Malaysia. The proposed bill would not only grant muftis more power by making their rulings (fatwas) legally binding in all courts affecting both Muslims and non-Muslims, but it would enable the Federal Territory fatwa committee to trump democratic institutions and make decisions on matters of “national interest” without the agreement of Parliament. Currently, fatwas count merely as opinions unless they become an official part of Shari‘a. Under the Mufti Bill, fatwas could become law once they appeared in the Official Gazette, a government publication about new laws.[11] Latheefa Koya, a Muslim lawyer and a former Chief Commissioner of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, warned that, since muftis are appointed on the advice of a minister, the bill would give the federal government the power to police every aspect of the life of Muslims. “No government should have such powers over its people in a democracy, purportedly under the guise of religion,” she said.[12] Furthermore, Muslims from various traditions, including Maliki, Hanbali and those who practice liberal Nusantara Islam, would risk persecution under the proposed Mufti Law.[13]
Many Shi‘a publications remain banned under the Communications and Multimedia Act of 1998, and since 2015 there has been an increase in legal action to “pressure, investigate and/or arrest media outlets, senior editors and individual journalists who had allegedly pushed the boundaries of critical coverage”.[14] Additionally, proselytising or promoting Shi‘a Islam can result in a higher risk of official discrimination, and may lead to arrest or other forms of harassment by state authorities.[15]
The Printing Presses and Publications Act of 1984 poses problems for non-Muslim groups concerning the use of the word “God”. According to the act, the word “Allah” (the Arabic term for God) is exclusive to Islam. This has led to a ban on a Malay Bible that uses the word “Allah” for God, and the seizure of more than 20,000 copies.[16] In 2023, the Ministry of Home Affairs withdrew its appeal against a High Court ruling allowing non-Muslims to use the word “Allah,” in publications identified as being for Christians only.[17]
On 23 June 2014, the Federal Court of Malaysia refused to hear an appeal by the Catholic Church challenging the ban on the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims. The Herald Malaysia, a Catholic weekly, argued that banning the use of “Allah” by non-Islamic publications was unconstitutional and constituted a violation of religious freedom.[18] The government interpreted the decision as applying only to the Catholic publication in question, even though it set a legal precedent concerning the use of the term by non-Muslims. The court declared that the use of the word “Allah” is not essential or integral to Christian faith and went on to rule that any non-Muslim religious speech or practice must be tested against its potential to offend Muslims.[19]
On 11 March 2021, the High Court overturned the judgment. Justice Nor Bee ruled that the ban was “illegal and unconstitutional” and that “the freedom to profess and practice one’s religion should include the right to own religious materials”.[20]
In Sarawak, the majority of the population is Christian. However, discrimination against certain Christian groups is entrenched in the state. Larger, more well-known Churches are recognised under a Missionary Societies Ordinance (MSO), but smaller Churches face significant difficulty in registering and securing government support. Smaller Churches also have difficulties applying for grants from UNIFOR (Unit for Other Religions), a state government agency in Sarawak established in 2017.[21]
In 2023, the Malaysian government considered but later dropped a bill which would have imposed penalties on individuals who inflame sentiments about race or religion. In December 2024, the Deputy Minister of National Unity, Saraswathy Kandasami, said existing laws were enough to safeguard the country’s racial and religious unity.[22]
In 2023, the Parliament of Malaysia voted to remove the mandatory death penalty existing for certain crimes, reduce the number of offences punishable by death, and abolish natural-life prison sentences.[23]
Incidents and developments
The period under review saw significant societal and governmental concerns regarding religious freedom in Malaysia.
Arrests of individuals who disrespect Islam continue. On 4 June 2022, a 26-year-old Malaysian woman, Siti Nuramira Abdullah, was arrested under Section 7 of the Syariah Criminal Offences Federal Territories Act for allegedly insulting Islam during a performance at a stand-up comedy club. She was released on 19 July 2022, a day before she was supposed to be charged.[24] However, in April 2023, she was charged with “deliberately wounding the religious feelings of others” and fined 8,000 ringgit.[25]
In June 2023, a trader in Johor was charged with “making and initiating transmission of offensive communication mixed with insults against Islam, Allah, and the Prophet, through a Facebook account”.[26] Earlier, in May 2023, police had arrested a man in Kuala Lumpur under Section 298A of the Penal Code, which criminalises causing disharmony or enmity on the grounds of religion. The man had allegedly mocked Islam’s traditional greeting of “salam”.[27]
In August 2024, the Malaysian King, Ibrahim Iskandar, urged Malaysians not to use social media to insult Islam or sow divisions among Muslims or individuals of other faiths.[28]
In 2023, a Hindu mother, Loh Siew Hong, whose children were unilaterally converted to Islam by her ex-husband in 2020, contested their conversions and sought custody of the children. In May 2023, the Federal Court of Malaysia ruled the conversion of the children unconstitutional. It furthermore rejected an attempt by the Perlis State government and the Perlis Islamic Religious and Malay Customs Council (MAIPs) to overturn the ruling. The Chief Justice referred to Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, which states that the religious conversion of a person under the age of 18 requires the consent of both parents.[29]
On 31 January 2024, a 37-year-old single mother was sentenced to caning after being convicted of khalwat, the offence of being in close physical proximity to a man who was neither her husband nor a mahram (close male relative).[30] For years human rights experts have been warning about growing extremism in this field, as forms of punishment (hudud) under Shari‘a include stoning, and amputation, and Islamic groups including the Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) have proposed adopting these measures into the Penal Code of Malaysia.[31] A Malaysian parliamentarian, Wan Ahmad Fayhsal Wan Ahmad Kamal, when asked about the stoning of women convicted of adultery, replied: “Well, I would not be happy to see it, but it is God’s law and as a politician I am mandated to see His law implemented.”[32]
Teresa Kok, a veteran Catholic politician, was questioned by police in 2024 regarding her comments on compulsory halal certification. She had said it might be a financial burden for small business owners. During police questioning, she stressed that she did not “disrespect Islam” and was merely wondering about the financial costs.[33]
In October 2024, 137 Orang Asli (indigenous people from Peninsular Malaysia)[34] won the right to appear in court to challenge their religious status. The individuals, who belong to the Bateq Tanum tribe in Pahang, claimed to have always professed a traditional animist religion and to have been “forcibly converted to Islam” because they did not understand the Malay language. The situation came to light after an Orang Asli lawyer and human rights activist, Siti Kasim, took up their case.[35]
In the State of Sabah, government officials were accused of allegedly arbitrarily changing the official identity of Christians to that of Muslims. Lawyers specialising in human rights reported instances where Christians were marked as Muslims on their identity cards. In August 2024, after years of trying to remove the description “Islam”, from his identity card, Rieno Glant Oleant George won his case to restore his Christian identity. A crucial piece of evidence for the court was a letter from the local Islamic Religious Affairs Department stating that Rieno was not included in the list of Muslim converts in Sabah.[36]
In November 2024, John Ilus, a Member of the Sarawak Legislative Assembly, called on the Ministry of Education to reintroduce Bible classes for students at local schools, to enrich “the character development of young Sarawakians”. Two thirds of Malaysia’s Christian population live in the states of Borneo (Sarawak and Sabah).[37]
Firdaus Wong, a well-known Islamic preacher, came under investigation in 2024 for inciting teachers and religious leaders to surreptitiously convert non-Muslim minors.[38]
In an atmosphere of widespread xenophobia, Rohingya refugees from Myanmar have continued to face persecution and hostility, with social media stoking “fear of losing jobs to foreigners”.[39] Despite their Muslim identity, Rohingya are seen mostly as unwelcome illegal immigrants. In addition, most Malaysian Muslims conform to the Shafi‘i legal school (madhab), while Rohingya traditionally follow the Hanafi school. Consequently, some Rohingya are adopting Malaysian Sunni ways to fit in.[40] Although Malaysia has accepted Rohingya refugees in the past, it has increasingly limited the number of those entering the country; for example, in early January 2025, authorities turned away two boats carrying a total of nearly 300 Rohingya Muslim refugees.[41]
Prospects for freedom of religion
Despite certain positive developments during the reporting period - such as the overturning of state Shari‘a laws in Kelantan and court interventions to prevent the conversion of minors without the explicit consent of both parents - serious concerns persist. These include the continued arrest and prosecution of individuals accused of offending religious sentiments. The government has yet to introduce a long-promised religious harmony bill.
The newly proposed Mufti Bill, if enacted, would significantly expand the authority of Muslim legal scholars in the Federal Territories.
While some progress has been made, the overall outlook for religious freedom - both for Muslims and non-Muslims - remains negative.
Sources
Malaysia