The landmark judgment yesterday to allow non-Muslim lawyers to practice in syariah courts in the Federal Territory will “open the floodgates” to a host of other problems related to positions in Islamic authorities, said a group of Muslim lawyers.

NONE The Persatuan Peguam-Peguam Muslim Malaysia (PPMM) said the Court of Appeal ruling on the Victoria Jayaseele Martin ( right ) case was "disappointing" as it opens a Pandora’s box.

“(The ruling may) open the floodgates to other problems because in many sections (of the law) there is actually no mention specifically that (certain positions) must be filled by Muslims”.

Citing a number of sections in the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, they said, “In all the sections (cited) the laws are not stated specifically in Islamic terms."

"Therefore the question arises whether the Federal Territories Islamic Council (MAIWP) can limit the appointments (in those sections) only to Muslims," said PPMM president Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar in a statement today.

He cited such possible areas of conflict as:

  • Section 32: On the appointment of mufti and deputy mufti
  • Section 37: Appointment of Islamic law legislation committee
  • Section 41: Appointment of Syariah Court chief judge
  • Section 42: Appointment of Syariah Appeals Court judge
  • Section 43: Appointment of Syariah High Court judge
  • Section 44: Appointment of Syariah Subordinate Court judge
  • Section 45: Appointment of Syariah Court registrar
  • Section 76: Appointment of mosque heads
  • Section 96: Appointment of religious education oversight committee

“Would there then come a time in future when it would arise that a non-Muslim applies to fill the posts mentioned?

“Such a situation would be extremely problematic if it happens, and action must be taken to prevent such things from taking place.”

Zainul said while Section 59(1) cited in the ruling did not specifically mention a limitation to Muslims only, the objectives of the law to uphold and defend Islamic laws had to be considered.

He argued that the laws must be seen “as a whole”, to the ends that “only Muslims are eligible to be a syarie lawyer in the syariah courts in the Malaysian context”.

To further his argument, he cited the controversial Lina Joy versus MAIWP case as an example of how this has been applied in the past.

He added that he has been told that the appeals court has suspended the ruling on Victoria’s case as MAIWP is reportedly to appeal the ruling at the Federal Court.

Proposal to block non-Muslims

Meanwhile another group, the Syariah Lawyers Association of Malaysia (PGSM) also expressed regret with the ruling, saying it nevertheless can be appealed and urged further measures to prevent such an occurrence.

He pointed out that Kaedah 10 of the Federal Territories Rules for Syariah Lawyers in the said Act states that one of the requirements to be accepted as a syarie lawyer in the Federal Territories is that the lawyer must be Muslim.

PPGM president Musa Awang in a statement last night urged all states that have not included this clause in their rules to “do so immediately”.

“We hope that this incident has served as a lesson to states such as Perlis, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak that have not placed Islamic requirements in their rules as mentioned, to immediately amend their rules to include Islam as one of the requirements for eligibility as a syarie lawyer,” he said.

He also urge the Agong to instruct these states to do so immediately, “to block the presence of non-Muslims in the Syariah Court for the sake of the well-being of the Muslims or to avoid any great harm caused”.