KUALA LUMPUR: A 56-year-old woman failed to nullify her conversion to Islam, which she alleged was "illegally" done by her former husband 34 years ago.
Judicial Commissioner Roz Mawar Rozain made the ruling after dismissing a legal bid filed by the woman, who also brought her three children as plaintiffs in their attempt to renounce their status as Muslims.
They named the Malaysian Islamic Welfare Organisation (Perkim) permanent chairman, Federal Territories Islamic Religious Council (MAIWP) and Selangor National Registration Department director as defendants.
According to the facts of the case, the woman (first plaintiff) married her former husband on March 23, 1990, in Kedah by way of Hindu rites and the marriage was recorded in the civil registry.
In early April 1990, the first plaintiff became aware that her husband was a Muslim when she was pregnant with her second daughter.
Her husband then gave the first plaintiff a copy of an Islamic conversion card dated Nov 8, 1990, which bore her photo, and told her that she was a Muslim.
Throughout the marriage, she was frequently physically abused by her husband, who threatened her whenever she wanted to inform the authorities that the purported conversion was not valid.
In 2007, the husband left the matrimonial home, and the family has had no contact with him since.
In 2016, the first plaintiff filed a suit against the Selangor Islamic Religious Council to declare that she was no longer a Muslim, but it was dismissed by the Syariah Court on April 22, 2021.
In her suit at the present court, the first plaintiff contended that her conversion to Islam was invalid and unlawful as she never uttered the syahadah as required under Sections 85 and 86 of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.
The plaintiffs' case is that they were never Muslims to begin with and had always practised Hinduism.
MAIWP argued that based on documents from the proceedings in the Syariah Court filed by the first plaintiff herself, she had affirmed that she embraced Islam on Nov 8, 1990.
MAIWP maintained that this is not a case where the first plaintiff was never a Muslim, but one where she is seeking to renounce Islam, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.
Roz Mawar, in her judgment, said it was the Syariah High Court's findings that the first plaintiff's conversion into Islam was properly conducted based on documentary evidence and witness testimony.
She said the Syariah Court also held that the first plaintiff had been taught the syahadah and her conversion was duly registered with Perkim, which then issued her a conversion certificate.
The judge said this case is distinguishable from the precedent case of Rosliza Ibrahim in that there was no evidence that the latter had ever professed Islam.
"In contrast, the evidence here shows that the first plaintiff had affirmed on affidavit in her divorce proceedings before Syariah Court that she was a Muslim.
"Unlike Rosliza, the first plaintiff here had made several averments of her status as a Muslim and had submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court, which had ruled on the matter.
"Accordingly, this court finds that the case of Rosliza Ibrahim does not assist the plaintiffs," she said in her ground of judgment dated yesterday.
Roz Mawar said the Syariah Court had considered the first plaintiff's contention that her conversion was involuntary and resulted from deception and fraud by her former husband.
"The trial judge specifically found that the first plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence to show that her conversion was materialised by way of force, compulsion, fraud or misrepresentation.
"The Syariah Court's decision, therefore, constitutes a valid and binding pronouncement of the very issue now sought to be raised by the first plaintiff in this action, namely the validity of her conversion to Islam."
"The Syariah Court's findings operate as res judicata and preclude the first plaintiff from agitating the same issue before the civil courts," she said, adding that to allow the present action to proceed would be tantamount to sitting on an appeal or review of the Syariah Court's decision.
She said the plaintiff's case falls within the category of renunciation of Islam, rather than a person who was never a Muslim to begin with, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Syariah Court by virtue of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.
"The case advanced by the plaintiffs, though tugging at the strings of sympathy, cannot be sustained when examined in the cold light of day.
"To allow her to now resile from those statements and mount a collateral attack on the findings of the Syariah Courts would be to countenance and abuse of the judicial process.
"She cannot be allowed to have a second bite at the cherry by seeking to re-litigate the matter all over again in this forum," she added.
The court also awarded RM20,000 in cost to the defendants.