Exactly. There are also significant differences between the Federal Constitution and Syariah laws, in terms of scope and applicability, which support the assertion that Malaysia is not an Islamic theocracy, which I will outline in this thread. https://twitter.com/extttc/status/1199308884789227525

First, the FC applies to ALL Malaysians, regardless of race, religion or ancestry. Article 4(1) unequivocally states that it is the supreme law of the land. This is in marked contrast to Syariah laws, which are applicsble to Muslims.

Second, the FC's scope is all encompassing and covers a wide range of matters, as compared to Islamic principles and laws, which apply only in 24 areas (mostly family law) permitted to the states under Schedule 9, List II, Para 1 of the FC.

Third, it is the FC that is the litmus test of the validity of any legislative or executive measures. This point is made crystal clear by Articles 4(1) and 162(6), which permit the courts to invalidate any pre- or post-Merdeka law if it contravenes the FC.

The FC establishes a federal-state division of power and crime is mostly in federal hands. Therefore the states do not have the power to punish Islamic crimes like murder or robbery if there are covered by federal law.

Although Syariah courts are created under state enactments, their jurisdiction to punish crimes and impose penalties are derived from and limited by federal law.

There is also an abundance of case law to support the assertion that Malaysian is not an Islamic theocracy.

In the landmark case of Che Omar Che Soh v PP (1988), a five-member unanimous Supreme Court Bench held that "the term Islam or Islamic religion in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution in the context means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies".

In other cases, too, the concept of Islam has been defined narrowly, eg in Hjh Halimatussaadiah Kamarudin v PSC (1994), a govt clerk who insisted on wearing the purdah to work was sacked and her argument that the purdah was part of her freedom of religion was rejected.

In Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak v Fatimah binti Sihi (2006), three schoolboys defied school regulations relating to school uniforms and insisted on wearing turbans. They were dismissed despite their argument that turbans were part of the prophetic tradition.