Islam and the state
This page sets out what the Federal Constitution actually says about Islam, how legislative and judicial power over Islamic matters is split between the federal government and the states, and which parts of that arrangement remain legally and politically disputed.
Two provisions of the Constitution sit next to each other, and readers draw different conclusions from reading them together. Article 3(1) declares that "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation." Article 3(4) then adds that nothing in that Article derogates from any other provision of the Constitution. Article 11(1) guarantees every person the right to profess and practise their religion, with Article 11(4) allowing state law — and, in the Federal Territories, federal law — to restrict the propagation of other doctrines among Muslims. How those provisions fit together is what the dispute set out below turns on, and it has not been resolved.
Structurally, most legislative power over Islam sits with the states rather than the Federation — but not all of it. Item 1 of the State List in the Ninth Schedule gives state legislatures Islamic personal and family law, zakat, wakaf, mosques, and the power to create and punish "offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion". Each Ruler is Head of the religion of Islam in his own state; the Yang di-Pertuan Agong holds that position for the four states without a Ruler and for the Federal Territories. Syariah courts are creatures of state law, apply only to Muslims, and can only sentence within limits set by a federal statute, the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965, which caps punishment at RM5,000, three years' imprisonment and six strokes.
Three things cut against reading that as a clean federal-state split. Islamic law in Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya is federal, not state: the State List excepts the Federal Territories and the Federal List picks them up. The Federal List also gives Parliament the ascertainment of Islamic law for the purposes of federal law. And Article 12(2), after guaranteeing every religious group the right to run its own religious schools, expressly makes it lawful for the Federation as well as a State to establish, maintain or assist Islamic institutions and Islamic instruction, and to spend public money doing so.
The federal sentencing ceiling is the legal obstacle usually identified to the Kelantan enactment of 1993 and the Terengganu provisions of 2002, both of which provide for hudud punishments beyond what Act 355 allows a Syariah court to impose; neither has been brought into force. Whether that ceiling is the whole reason for their non-commencement is not something this page can establish, and no statement by either state government giving its own reason has been located. The ceiling is also what Abdul Hadi Awang's private member's bill — RUU355 — would have raised. That bill drew street rallies both for and against, which RSIS commentators analysed as a gauge of public support for expanding Syariah criminal jurisdiction; it was not passed. The 2024 Federal Court decision in the Kelantan case narrowed the state power further: eight of nine judges, led by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat, held that 16 of 18 challenged provisions of the 2019 Kelantan code exceeded what a state legislature may enact. The Edge reported that the Kelantan government maintained its position afterwards, and scholars continue to disagree about how far the reasoning reaches.
A second line of dispute runs between the civil and Syariah courts. Article 121(1A), inserted in 1988, says the civil High Courts have no jurisdiction over matters within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. In Che Omar bin Che Soh that same year, Lord President Salleh Abas held that "Islam" in Article 3 referred to rituals and ceremonies and that the country's law remained secular law. In Lina Joy in 2007 a 2-1 majority held that the registration authorities could require a Syariah court determination before changing a religious entry, with Richard Malanjum dissenting. In Indira Gandhi in 2018 the Federal Court took a different route, holding that Article 121(1A) does not oust the civil courts and does not transfer judicial power, and reading Article 12(4) to require both parents' consent to convert a minor.
Around the case law sits a political argument about what the country is. Mahathir Mohamad said in September 2001 that Malaysia was already an Islamic state while insisting no constitutional amendment was needed; Lim Kit Siang and the DAP disputed both the claim and the authority to make it. Those who describe the Federation as secular point to the Reid Commission's 1957 formulation that the observance of Islam as the religion of the Federation "shall not imply that the State is not a secular State", and to Che Omar. Writers at the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies argue the secular label does not fit. The federal government has said the same on the record: in June 2014 the minister responsible for Islamic affairs, Jamil Khir Baharom, told Parliament in writing that Malaysia is not a secular state, resting on Article 3 and on the Sultanates' Islamic administration before independence. Abdul Hamid Mohamad, Chief Justice from 2007 to 2011, argues that the Constitution never uses the word "secular" and that Che Omar has been quoted out of context to make it say so. Mahathir, for his part, said in 2014 that the country is neither one nor the other. On the other side, Lim Heng Seng argues Article 3 has been reinterpreted over time into a source of affirmative obligations. Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid describes the party competition around all of this as an "Islamisation race". This page does not choose between them.
How much of this can be argued in public is itself shaped by law. Section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948 defines a "seditious tendency", and paragraph 3(1)(f) puts the questioning of matters protected by Part III and Articles 152, 153 and 181 of the Constitution inside that definition; the offence itself is created by section 4, which covers doing such an act, uttering such words, or publishing or importing such a publication. Intention is deemed irrelevant, and the section 3(2) savings that would otherwise protect pointing out defects in a constitution do not apply to the paragraph (f) matters. Parliament also passed a 2015 amendment that would add a provision on promoting ill will, hostility or hatred on the ground of religion — though that amendment only comes into operation on a date the minister appoints by notification in the Gazette, and whether that has happened could not be established. Those provisions are part of the context in which any account of Islam and the Malaysian state — including this one — is written.
That is the answer. Everything below is the working: each claim the explanation rests on, labelled with how certain it is and linked to where it came from. You can stop here.
The working
What the sources say
34 claims, 34 of them carrying a linked source. Each one shows how certain it is — that label is written in the knowledge base alongside the claim, not decided here.
How to read the labels
- established
- multiple independent reliable sources, and uncontested.
- contested
- reliable sources disagree, or official and independent accounts differ.
- uncertain
- genuinely unknown at the time of writing.
The constitutional text
established
Article 3(1) reads: "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation."
Federal Constitution of Malaysiacorroborated by the Government of Malaysia's official portal
established
Article 3(4) reads: "Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution."
established
Article 3(2) preserves the position of each Ruler as Head of the religion of Islam in his State; Article 3(3) requires the constitutions of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak to confer that position on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong; Article 3(5) makes the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Head of the religion of Islam in the Federal Territories.
Federal ConstitutionFederal Constitution (Reprint as at 15 October 2020)
established
Article 11(1) reads: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it."
established
Article 11(4) reads: "State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam."
established
Article 10(4) permits Parliament, when restricting freedom of speech, to prohibit "the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, Article 152, 153 or 181."
established
Article 160 defines a "Malay" as, among other requirements, a person who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.
What is state and what is federal
established
Item 1 of List II (the State List) of the Ninth Schedule assigns to the States, "[e]xcept with respect to the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam, including the Islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy, guardianship, gifts, partitions and non-charitable trust; Wakafs...; Malay customs; Zakat, Fitra and Bait al-Mal...; mosques or any Islamic public places of worship, creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion".
Federal Constitutioncorroborated in the Islamic Family Law country profile for Malaysia
established
The same item confines the offence-creating power to offences "against precepts of that religion" and excludes matters included in the Federal List, so criminal law and procedure generally remain federal.
established
Syariah courts are state institutions, established under state enactments, and their criminal sentencing powers are capped by federal law — the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355) — at a fine of RM5,000, three years' imprisonment, six strokes of the cane, or a combination.
Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355)Legislation and Regulation of Islamic Law in Malaysia
established
Islamic law in the three Federal Territories is federal, not state, business. Item 1 of the State List opens by excepting Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, and item 6(e) of the Federal List assigns to the Federation the "Government and administration of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya including Islamic law therein to the same extent as provided in item 1 in the State List". Item 4(k) of the Federal List separately gives the Federation the "ascertainment of Islamic law and other personal laws for purposes of federal law".
established
Article 12(2) expressly permits public support for Islam by either level of government: after guaranteeing every religious group the right to establish institutions for the education of children in its own religion, it provides that "it shall be lawful for the Federation or a State to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose".
established
Syariah courts apply only to persons professing the religion of Islam; non-Muslims are not subject to their jurisdiction.
Federal ConstitutionLegislation and Regulation of Islamic Law in Malaysia
Article 121(1A) and the courts
established
Article 121(1A) was inserted by constitutional amendment in 1988 and provides that the two High Courts and the courts subordinate to them "shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts".
established
The same 1988 amendment package removed the earlier wording vesting "judicial power of the Federation" in the courts.
established
In Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor [1988] 2 MLJ 55, the Supreme Court, in a judgment written by Lord President Salleh Abas, rejected the argument that the mandatory death penalty was void for inconsistency with Islamic injunctions, holding that "Islam" in Article 3 referred to acts relating to rituals and ceremonies and that the law of the country remained secular law.
*Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor* [1988] 2 MLJ 55Lim Heng Seng
established
In Lina Joy v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan the Federal Court dismissed the appeal by a 2-1 majority on 30 May 2007, holding that the National Registration Department was entitled to require a Syariah court determination before removing the entry "Islam" from her identity card; Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum dissented.
established
In Indira Gandhi a/p Mutho v Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak [2018] 1 MLJ 545, decided 29 January 2018, the Federal Court quashed the certificates of conversion of three children and held that Article 121(1A) "does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil courts nor does it confer judicial power on the Syariah Courts".
established
The Indira Gandhi court read the word "parent" in Article 12(4) as requiring the consent of both parents for the conversion of a minor.
established
In Rosliza Ibrahim v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (2021) the Federal Court allowed the appellant's appeal, holding that where the question is a person's original religious status — whether she was ever a Muslim — rather than renunciation of Islam, jurisdiction lies exclusively with the civil High Court. It declared that she was not a person professing the religion of Islam and that the Selangor Syariah Court had no jurisdiction over her.
established
On 9 February 2024, a nine-member Federal Court bench led by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat held, 8-1, that 16 of 18 challenged provisions of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (I) Enactment 2019 were beyond the state legislature's power and void; the single dissent was confined to the question of standing.
Legislation and legislative attempts
established
The Kelantan State Legislative Assembly passed the Syariah Criminal Code (II) Enactment in 1993, providing for hudud offences and punishments and for special Syariah courts to try them; Terengganu passed comparable provisions in 2002. Neither has been brought into force.
Legislation and Regulation of Islamic Law in MalaysiaMalaysiakini
established
PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang tabled a private member's bill to amend Act 355 — known publicly as RUU355 — which would have raised the sentencing ceiling for Syariah criminal offences well above the existing limits; it was not passed.
established
The Bill has not progressed since. Parliament's own bills list showed it still at first-reading status as of July 2026, with no second reading or passage recorded. It covers the Federal Territories, not all states.
established
A Federal Mufti Bill covering the Federal Territories was introduced in July 2024 and, as of February 2025, awaited its second reading.
Legal limits on how this is discussed
established
Section 3 of the Sedition Act 1948 is headed "Seditious tendency" and defines that term. Paragraph 3(1)(f) makes it a seditious tendency "to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution".
established
Criminal liability arises not under section 3 but under section 4, headed "Offences", which makes it an offence to do, attempt or prepare to do, or conspire to do, an act having a seditious tendency; to utter seditious words; or to print, publish, sell, offer for sale, distribute, reproduce or import a seditious publication. Section 3(3) provides that the intention of the person charged is deemed irrelevant if the act, words or publication in fact had a seditious tendency.
established
The saving provisions in section 3(2) — which protect, among other things, pointing out errors or defects in a government or constitution with a view to their remedy — are expressly disapplied in respect of the matters listed in paragraph 3(1)(f), otherwise than in relation to the implementation of the provisions concerned.
established
Parliament passed the Sedition (Amendment) Act 2015 [Act A1485], which received royal assent on 28 May 2015 and was published in the Gazette on 4 June 2015. Among other things it would insert into section 3(1) of the Sedition Act 1948 a new paragraph (ea), covering the promotion of feelings of ill will, hostility or hatred between persons or groups of persons on the ground of religion.
established
Section 1(2) of Act A1485 provides that the Act "comes into operation on a date to be appointed by the Minister by notification in the Gazette." The text of the Act as published carries no commencement date.
uncertain
Whether that notification was ever made, and so whether any part of Act A1485 is in operation, could not be established from an official source. Malaysiakini reported in October 2024 that Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said in a written parliamentary reply that the 2015 amendments are still not in force; the group Madpet, in a statement by Charles Hector dated 7 December 2024, likewise said the Act "has not yet been put into force" and called on the minister to bring parts of it into operation. Former inspector-general of police Musa Hassan was reported by Malay Mail in September 2023 as saying he believed the amendments were enforceable from the date of gazetting.
established
On 10 March 2021 the High Court in Kuala Lumpur, per Nor Bee Ariffin J, held that a 1986 Home Ministry circular banning the use of the words "Allah", "Kaabah", "Baitullah" and "solat" in Christian publications was unlawful and unconstitutional, in the judicial review brought by Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill.
established
The government withdrew its appeal against that decision in May 2023, leaving the 2021 High Court ruling standing.
established
A separate and earlier line of litigation over the Catholic weekly Herald, Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri, ended against the Church: on 23 June 2014 a seven-member Federal Court panel led by Chief Justice Arifin Zakaria dismissed the application for leave to appeal by a 4-3 majority, and on 21 January 2015 the Federal Court dismissed the Church's application to review that decision.
What is still argued over
Where reliable sources disagree
These are set out side by side, with each position attributed to whoever holds it. No winner is picked.
contested
Whether Malaysia is properly described as a secular state or an Islamic state is a long-running constitutional dispute rather than a settled question.
Tamir MoustafaInternational Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies
contested
The position that the Federation was founded as a secular state with Islam as its official religion is grounded by its proponents in the Reid Commission Report 1957, whose proposed provision recorded that the observance of Islam as the religion of the Federation "shall not imply that the State is not a secular State", and in Che Omar bin Che Soh.
Reid Commission Report 1957 (Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission 1957
contested
Writers at the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies argue that the secular characterisation understates Article 3 and the constitutional architecture around Islam, and that Malaysia is not accurately described as a secular state.
contested
The federal government has stated the same position on the record. Jamil Khir Baharom, then Minister in the Prime Minister's Department with responsibility for Islamic affairs, said in a written parliamentary reply reported on 16 June 2014 that Malaysia is not a secular state, grounding that on Article 3 and on the Malay Sultanates' Islamic administration before independence.
contested
Abdul Hamid Mohamad, Chief Justice of Malaysia from 2007 to 2011, has argued publicly that the Federal Constitution nowhere uses the word "secular" and that the secular characterisation rests on quoting Che Omar out of context. Speaking at an Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM) discourse, he was reported as saying that "because of group and political interests, it was quoted out of context to say that Malaysia is a secular country although the Federal Constitution never once used the word."
contested
Not every prominent figure takes one of the two positions. Mahathir Mohamad was reported on 19 June 2014 as saying Malaysia is neither a secular nor an Islamic state.
uncertain
On the specific question of why the Kelantan and Terengganu hudud enactments have not been brought into force, the KB has not found a statement by either state government, or by the federal government, giving its own reason on the record. The sources cited above establish the federal sentencing ceiling as a legal obstacle; they do not establish that it is the whole explanation.
no source located; recorded here as a gap rather than filled by inference
contested
Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad stated on 29 September 2001 that Malaysia was already an Islamic state; he also said the declaration required no constitutional amendment. Lim Kit Siang and the DAP publicly disputed the declaration, describing it as lacking Cabinet or parliamentary sanction.
Universiti Utara Malaysia repositoryLim Kit SiangDAP Malaysia
contested
Lim Heng Seng, writing in 2016, argued that Article 3 has been progressively reinterpreted by legislative initiative and judicial reasoning from an "innocuous" declaration into a source of affirmative state obligations towards Islam, and characterised this as a threat to the legal order's secular character.
contested
Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid has described competition between UMNO and PAS over Islamic credentials as an "Islamisation race", and argues the two parties' positions converged from whether Malaysia should be an Islamic state to when and how one could be achieved.
Ahmad Fauzi Abdul HamidISEAS Trends in Southeast Asia 17/2023
contested
Whether Article 121(1A) creates a genuine jurisdictional bar or merely a rule of allocation has been read differently across cases: the reading in Lina Joy deferred to Syariah determination of religious status, while Indira Gandhi held that constitutional and judicial-review questions remain with the civil courts.
contested
The scope of the "basic structure" doctrine recognised in Indira Gandhi — under which judicial power is said to be unamendable — is itself debated among Malaysian constitutional scholars.
The Contemporary State of the Basic Structure Doctrine in MalaysiaIACL-AIDC Blog
contested
The consequences of the 2024 Nik Elin decision for the wider body of state Syariah criminal enactments are disputed; The Edge reported that the Kelantan state government maintained its position after the ruling, and academic commentary differs on how far the reasoning reaches.
The Edge MalaysiaThe Aftermath of Nik Elin: Does It Affect the Position of the Malaysian Syariah Court?