The Ahmadiyya respondents are not considered Muslims under Malaysian law based on gazetted fatwas, thus Syariah Courts lack jurisdiction over them.

[1] There are before us two related appeals arising from the same decision of the High Court at Shah Alam. Appeal number B-01(A)-468-07-2018 (Appeal 468) is an appeal by the Selangor State Government and religious authorities against the substantive decision in a judicial review application in which the High Court granted the applicants the various reliefs they sought against the respondents. Appeal number B-01(A)-513-08-2018 (Appeal 513) is a cross-appeal by the respondents, who despite having been granted the remedies they primarily sought, disagree with the High Courts decision that it is the Syariah Courts and not the Magistrates Courts who have jurisdiction to try offences under s 97(2) of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 (ARIE 2003).

[2] For ease of reference, we shall refer to parties in accordance with their respective positions in Appeal 468. The learned High Court Judge below will be referred to as the learned judge.

[3] At the outset of this judgment we recall the wise words of Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, PCA in Indira Gandhi Mutho v. Pengarah Jabatan Agama Islam Perak & Ors And Other Appeals, 2018 MarsdenLR 3081 that, "in deciding the issue before us, as judges we are not swayed by our own religious convictions and sentiments". In upholding the Rule of Law, we now decide these appeals strictly on the basis of the Federal Constitution, relevant statutes and judicial precedent.

The Core Issue: Who Is A Person Professing The Religion Of Islam?

[4] The core issue for consideration in these Appeals is essentially this: who is a person professing the religion of Islam? This question carries both legal and religious ramifications. From a strictly religious perspective, the matter is best reserved for qualified Islamic scholars to determine in accordance with religious tenets and principles. We do not propose to view the matter from a spiritual perspective - which is a matter beyond our expertise and jurisdiction. It is not for us, a civil Court, to decide who is and who is not a Muslim, by belief. Our focus, we must emphasise at the outset, is to determine who is a person professing the religion of Islam in accordance with the Federal Constitution, relevant State Enactments and judicial precedent.

[5] It is an indisputable fact that our Federal Constitution demarcates between two distinct legal systems: the civil legal system, and the Syariah system. Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution recognises the power of the Syariah Courts when it exercises its power within its jurisdiction. Article 121(1A) expressly provides that the High Courts shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts. Thus, the consideration of who is a person professing the religion of Islam, must necessarily be examined in the context of the complex interplay between the two legal systems and the nations constitutional and legal history.

[6] The second issue which is related to the core issue abovementioned is the issue of evidence of religious identity, and in particular, in