| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| Malaysia: Sharia law might trump secular law |
| 2007-04-05 |
| Experts claim Islamic law and Malaysia's Constitution are at odds with one another A heated debate is underway in Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim country, as to which legal system, Islamic or secular, should prevail in cases involving Muslims and non Muslims in matters regarding the family and freedom of conscience. Subashini Rajasingham vs Saravan Thangathoray is the latest case to put Malaysia under the scrutiny of foreign media for its ambiguities regarding religious freedom. Subashini Rajasingham is a young woman of Indian origin, a Hindu by religion, who is in a custody battle with her husband over their children. The husband, Saravan Thangathoray, was born a Hindu but converted to Islam last year and became Muhammad Shafi Saravanan Abdullah. Now he wants to divorce his wife and has filed his case before an Islamic court. The man already has custody of their first child, a three-year-old boy whom he has already converted to Islam. Now he wants the second, a one-year-old boy. Ms Rajasingham wants instead custody of both children and has turned to the Court of Appeal in order to get the case moved to a secular court, but her request was rejected. But on March 30 she was allowed to appeal to the Federal Court, the highest court in the land, where other similar cases are still pending. Should there be another negative ruling, it would mean that for the first time in the country's history a non Muslim would have to appear before an Islamic court. Although the majority of Malaysia's population is Muslim, there are important Christian, Hindu and Buddhist minorities. In theory, Islamic courts have jurisdiction only over Muslim. Members of other groups fall under secular courts. Very often though, the two legal systems are at odds with one another. Here are a few cases: the rest at link |
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #4 The Global War on Terrorism won't be finished until every single last person who openly advocates the imposition of sharia law is dead or dieing. Period. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-05 15:15 |
| #3 Sharia law may trump secular law. But Remington law trumps Sharia law. Unfortunately Kalashnikov law often trumps secular law. Which leaves the question 'Does Remington law trump Kalashnikov law?' It seems that to Pelosi and friends the answer is 'No.' |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-04-05 08:48 |
| #2 Gorb, that is how it was. The islamists are not happy with it. I have on my mind something more radical. ;-) |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-04-05 05:11 |
| #1 Tell ya what: Secular courts are the default and hand out judgments for secular matters. For religious matters, if all parties opt to, they can also take their case to a sharia court. Honestly, it seems fair to me. Wouldn't be perfect, but it would be about as good as you could do and still maintain some semblence of separation between church and state. |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-04-05 04:58 |