KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia’s top court on Friday struck down Shariah-based criminal laws in an opposition-run state, saying they encroached on federal authority. Islamists denounced the decision and said it could undermine religious courts across the Muslim-majority nation.

In an 8-1 ruling, the nine-member Federal Court panel invalidated 16 laws created by the Kelantan state government, which imposed punishments rooted in Islam for offenses that included sodomy, sexual harassment, incest, cross-dressing and destroying or defiling places of worship.

The court said that the state could not make Islamic laws on those topics because they are covered by Malaysian federal law.

Malaysia has a dual-track legal system, with both government laws and Shariah — Islamic law based on the Quran and a set of scriptures known as the hadith — covering personal and family matters for Muslims. Ethnic Malays, all of whom are considered Muslim in Malaysian law, make up two-thirds of Malaysia’s 33 million people. The population also includes large Chinese and Indian minorities.

  • Adanisi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What a shame.

    EDIT: Downvoters, would you like to live under Sharia law? Didn’t think so.

      • Adanisi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I read it. They invalidated Islam-based laws in favour of the state’s laws.

        A lot of the things that would be covered are bad, but religion should be nowhere near a state. It’s up to the government to make secular laws on these things. And of course perfectly okay things (like cross dressing) would have been caught up thanks to religious dogma.

        • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          So why do you think this is a “shame” that it was struck down then if you accurately state that it would have been bad if it was allowed to go into effect??