The Federal Court decision yesterday to dismiss Christian-convert Lina Joy's appeal has been described as 'landmark' and is set to affect other cases with religious elements.

However, other lawyers in these cases currently undergoing trial beg to differ and said Lina's decision that has captured the world's attention will have little impact on their cases because the circumstances are very different.

Malaysiakini speaks to lawyers in those cases and here is what they have to say:

M Manoharan, lawyer in Moorthy's case

( Everest hero and alleged Muslim-convert M Moorthy's wife S Kaliammal is seeking a conclusive ruling on her husband's religious status. However, the Court of Appeal will only decide on whether the application by Kaliammal should be heard before the civil or Syariah courts. The case is set for Dec 12 this year.)

It should have no bearing on Moorthy's case because this is for the civil courts to decide on whether he had converted or not. The civil courts have jurisdiction because none of his family has said he is Muslim. He was born a Hindu and this is rightly within the ambit of the civil courts to decide on his religion.

Perhaps there are limitations on apostasy but Moorthy is not an apostasy issue. This is a religious status issue. However, I think Lina Joy should take it further for a review by a five-judge panel in view of the 2-1 judgment. Look at her case, non-Muslim judges decided in her favour while Muslim judges decided against.

(In the Court of Appeal, justices Abdul Aziz Mohamad and Arifin Zakaria dismissed her appeal while Gopal Sri Ram dissented. Yesterday, justices Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim and Alauddin Mohd Sheriff dismissed her appeal while Richard Malanjum dissented)

K Shanmuga, lawyer for R Subashini

( Subashini's case involves a Hindu wife trying to stop her Muslim-convert husband from bringing divorce proceedings and converting their second child in the Syariah Court. In the Court of Appeal, the majority decision said she has to seek relief in the Syariah Court. She has been granted leave to apeal in the Federal Court and is currently waiting for a date to be set )

No, it shouldn't have any impact on Subashini's case but I haven't read the majority or the dissenting judgment fully.

The thing is, the questions posed in Lina Joy's case are very different, it shouldn't affect Subashini's case which primarily concerns a mother's rights.

The Lina Joy case would be read in hearing but whether it has any impact, it is something we have to see.

R Sivarasa, lawyer for S Shamala

( Shamala is seeking a declaration to have the conversion of her two children declared null and void as it was carried out without her consent by her estranged husband upon converting to Islam. The case currently awaits a date to be heard in the Court of Appeal.)

As a matter of logic, it shouldn't. The issue in Shamala's case concerns a dispute between a non-Muslim who is still a non-Muslim and conversion to Islam of the children of a non-Muslim, it's quite different from Lina Joy who is born Muslim wanting to be a non-Muslim.

Whatever the outcome of Lina Joy, Shamala's case should be decided differently based on its own facts. What is more similar to this case is Subashini's situation, more than Lina Joy's.

Lina Joy is a Malay Muslim and there was ruling needed whether she has to go to the Syariah Court or the civil courts for remedy. Whereas Shamala is a non-Muslim so she cannot go to the Syariah Court. It would be horrible to think that non-Musliams are forced to go to the Syariah Court. Also, Shamala's case involves two parties whereas Lina Joy's case was a one-person situation.

You can also take Moorthy's case for example where he was born and raised as a non-Muslim and it is quite clear that his Hindu wife can only go to the civil courts to decide on her husband's religious status.

There's a misconception that the Lina Joy's judgment will have a major impact on other religious cases. Her situation is really quite different from the others.