Federal court can rule Ten Commandments has force of law

No difference between PAS and CCP communist control freaks.


Opinion is not law. Only the court can declare law.


Civil law cannot be harmonised with Islam. Islam should harmonise itself with civil law.

The fact that many people in Malaya are Muslims has nothing to do with law.


No confusion. There’s clarity.

Hudud out of the question.

The question of hudud does not arise.

The Constitution is secular. There’s separation of Church and State.

Jesus said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”.


What happens between two consenting adults in private is no business of the law.

The court does not get into theology, as ruled by the Federal court on the Allah case by the Herald.

Religion is not law.

It’s a form of delusion probably based on the brain deceiving the person being deceived.

Delusion may not be mental illness but based on the differentiated consciousness, trapped in space and time in the gross human body, seeking certainties in its comfort zone.

Jesus was not promoting delusions but preaching on the spiritual nature of truth.

Word of God, the basis of the Holy Bible, refers to eternal laws on eternal truths. These have a spiritual nature.

The Supreme Court of India, in refusing to ban Syariah, said that Syariah is not law but based on the willingness of a person to accept it.

Having said that, the court said that it would be unconstitutional to impose Syariah on anyone.

The court is only about law. Since Syariah is not law, the court virtually refused to hear an Application calling for it to be banned.

The court will also refuse to hear Applications on conventions. Conventions are about the working of the Constitution but are not law.

The syariah court in the sultanates exist under a little known Amendment in the Federal Constitution which facilitates the state assembly to empower syariah court on personal and family law.

The superior law prevails over inferior law. It’s in the Federal Constitution.

Article 4 . . . this Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation –see Federation of Malaya Act 1948 and Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957 — and any law passed after Merdeka Day (31 Aug 1957) which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

I have pointed out many times that the so-called syariah court in the sultanates in Malaya is not based on Islam, Quran, Allah, Mohd, Sirat, syariah, Hadith and Fatwa, and cannot be based on them.

Law and/or force of law must have source to have jurisdiction, authority and power.

According to jurisprudence, God is not a source in law. Allah was a deity in the Middle East. The jury will always be out on whether Deity may be linked to God or something that manifests from within ourselves as the brain has been noted to deceive ourselves, perhaps to protect us from reality.

Islam, Quran, Allah, Mohd, Sirat, syariah, Hadith, and Fatwa cannot be a source in law but can have force of law if God is not mentioned and if they are based on customary practices.

Islam is not law, does not have force of law, but is based on the concept of sin. Sin if not criminalised, and cannot be criminalised, is not law.

If Muslims claim that syariah was based on customary practices, then it will have force of law. However, Muslim claim that syariah is from Allah the deity seen as God.

The Ten Commandments existed before Moses, based on customary practices, and no doubt has force of law. Moses may have been high on something, or the brain may have been deceiving him, when he came down from the mountain with two tablets containing the Ten Commandments and claimed that they were from God.

The ten commandments, in order, are:

“I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.”

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.”

“Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.”

“Honour thy father and mother.”

“Thou shalt not kill.”

“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

“Thou shalt not steal.”

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.”

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.”

Adat, based on customary practices, is not law but has force of law.

MA63 is not law but has force of law as the ultimate political document for Sabah and Sarawak as Equal Partners — based on legitimate expectations — with Malaya in Malaysia.

MA63 exists whether incorporated or otherwise in the Federal Constitution as law.

The Malaysia Constitution is not law, but based on the constitutional documents on Malaysia, has force of law.

The Federal Constitution is not law but has force of law as the ultimate political document for Malaya, and for Malaysia by extension, taking its cue from MA63 for Sabah and Sarawak.

In Saudi Arabia, the law is based on the differing and often contradictory interpretations of Islamic judges who may be making up things as they go along. They claim they are guided by Islam.

Saudi Arabia has since announced that it will codify “Islamic law”.

Codification of law will leave no room for interpretation by the court. It violates the spirit of the law and is tantamount to making the letter of the law as the sum total of the rule of law.

Law ultimately is the power of language.

Law exists, and has always existed, based on common sense, universal values and the principles of natural justice.

The rule of law is the basis of the Constitution. In the rule of law, there’s greater emphasis on the spirit of law, read together with the letter of the law. Letter of the law alone is not the sum total of the rule of law, is no law at all. Rule BY law, i.e. based on letter of the law as in China, is not law at all, it’s dictatorship, there being no democracy, no legitimacy, no consent of the governed, no sovereignty.

Read further here . . .

‘Islamic’ loans may cost DOUBLE conventional facility!


The banks and finance companies, probably insurance too, have probably converted their conventional facilities to Islamic.

Author: fernzthegreat

Joe Fernandez holds a honours degree in management, majoring in economics, and has opted from academia in law to being a jurist. He was trained professionally on the job as a journalist. He's a longtime Borneo watcher, keen on the history and legal aspects of Malaya's presence in Sabah and Sarawak. He teaches the English language privately and has emerged as a subject matter expert in public examination techniques.

2 thoughts on “Federal court can rule Ten Commandments has force of law”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: