The Federal Constitution protects the fundamental liberties of non-Muslims, but does Islamic law afford the same protection?

On the one hand, the fundamental liberty of all who "profess and practise his religion" is guaranteed by the constitution. But state Islamic enactments govern "persons professing the religion of Islam".

Is there a conflict in terms of who is and who is not a Muslim?

K Shanmuga, secretary in the legal think tank of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism, said there is no mention of the word "Muslim" in the constitution.

Noting that "all references to believers of Islam are to persons professing the religion of Islam", he explained that Malaysian case-law defined "profess" as "to affirm one's faith in or allegiance to (a religion, principle, God or Saint, etc.)".

"In its ordinary meaning therefore, a person professing the religion of Islam must mean a person who himself says and acknowledges himself as a believer of Islam."