Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 (Act 355)

Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 · Act 355
Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang Kuasa Jenayah) 1965
Applies to: Federal (all states and the Federal Territories; extended to Sabah and Sarawak in 1989) · Official text ↗

Key points

The Constitution says Syariah courts have no criminal jurisdiction except as conferred by federal law; Act 355 is that law.
Syariah courts may try Muslims for offences against the precepts of Islam created by written law.
Ceiling: jail up to 3 years, fine up to RM5,000, whipping up to 6 strokes, or any combination (s 2).
The Act has only three sections; every state Syariah offence must stay within its limits.
A 2016–2017 private member's bill (RUU355) to raise the limits to 30 years, RM100,000 and 100 strokes was tabled but never debated or passed.
Government plans to amend Act 355 have been under consultation since 2023; no amendment had been passed as of October 2026 (based on reports found).

What this law does

Under the Constitution (Ninth Schedule, List II, item 1), states may create offences by Muslims against the precepts of Islam, but the Syariah courts "shall not have jurisdiction in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law". Act 355 is that federal law. Its key provision, s 2, gives Syariah courts constituted under state law (or federal law for the Federal Territories) jurisdiction over offences against the precepts of Islam committed by persons professing Islam, as prescribed by written law.

The proviso to s 2 sets the ceiling. The jurisdiction may not be exercised for any offence punishable with:

imprisonment for more than 3 years;
a fine of more than RM5,000; or
whipping of more than 6 strokes,

or any combination of these. This is the familiar "3-5-6" limit. Every state Syariah criminal enactment, and the Federal Territories' Act 559 and Act 303 offences, must keep their maximum penalties within it.

Section 1 applied the Act to the States of Peninsular Malaysia. Section 3 refers to its extension to Sabah and Sarawak by an amending and extension Act of 1989, and validates earlier trials of Islamic offences. The text checked is the reprint as at 1 January 2006, as revised in 1988.

What Act 355 does not do

It does not create any offences. Offences come from state enactments, or Acts 559 and 303 in the Federal Territories.
It does not widen the subjects on which states may legislate. In Iki Putra (2021) and Nik Elin (2024), the Federal Court struck down state offences that fell within Parliament's criminal-law power, whatever their penalties. Raising the 3-5-6 ceiling would not by itself change that. See Sharia in the Constitution.
It does not apply to non-Muslims; Syariah courts have jurisdiction only over persons professing Islam.
It does not cover civil (family, property) jurisdiction, which comes directly from state law and Act 505.

The RUU355 debate (2016–2017)

"RUU355" (Rang Undang-Undang 355) is the popular name for proposals to amend Act 355.

26 May 2016: PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang (MP for Marang) moved a private member's bill at first reading. As first worded, it would have let Syariah courts impose any punishment allowed by Hukum Syarak other than death.
6 April 2017: a revised version was tabled. It proposed raising the ceiling to 30 years' jail, a RM100,000 fine and 100 strokes. Hadi said it would apply only to Muslims. Opposition MPs raised points of order for about 40 minutes.
The motion was not debated or voted on before the sitting ended, and the then government did not take it over as a government bill. It lapsed without becoming law.

Supporters argued the 3-5-6 limit, unchanged for decades, was too low to deter offences and that Syariah courts should be strengthened. Critics, including many non-Muslim groups and some Muslim lawyers, argued that higher whipping limits could pave the way for hudud-type punishments, that the bill's process lacked consultation, and that it raised constitutional and federal-state questions.

Later developments (2023–2026)

2023: the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Religious Affairs), Datuk Mohd Na'im Mokhtar, told Parliament that the government intended to table its own amendment to Act 355, together with a proposed Syariah Courts (Federal Territories) Bill, after consultation and Cabinet approval. In October 2023 it was still at the consultation stage, including with state religious councils and the palace.
17 October 2024: the Deputy Minister, Dr Zulkifli Hasan, told the Dewan Rakyat that engagement sessions, including with non-Muslim organisations, had been held. The proposals had to go through the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs (MKI) and the Conference of Rulers before Cabinet. The Prime Minister had said in July 2024 that the amendments "must be made carefully".
August 2025: an opposition MP called publicly for the bill to be re-tabled, confirming it had not been brought to Parliament.
October 2026: no report was found of a bill to amend Act 355 being tabled or passed. On the sources available, the 3-5-6 limit remains the law. Check Parliament's website (parlimen.gov.my) for the latest position.

Sharia basis (for information)

Classical Islamic criminal law distinguishes three kinds of punishment: hudud (fixed penalties for a few offences specified in the Qur'an and Sunnah), qisas (retaliation or compensation for bodily harm), and ta'zir (discretionary punishment set by the ruler or judge for other wrongs). For example, Qur'an 24:2 prescribes one hundred lashes for unmarried persons who commit zina, which explains the "100 strokes" in the 2017 proposal. Because of the 3-5-6 ceiling, punishments imposed by Malaysian Syariah courts today are in practice of the ta'zir type, even for acts that carry hudud penalties in classical law. Proof of hudud offences classically requires a very high standard (for zina, four witnesses or a confession). Scholars differ on how and when such penalties should be applied in a modern state. This page takes no position and is not a fatwa.

How the limit affects you

If you are charged with a Syariah offence anywhere in Malaysia, the maximum sentence the Syariah court can impose cannot exceed the 3-5-6 limit, whatever the state enactment says. A sentence above it would be beyond jurisdiction and can be challenged on appeal or revision under the state's criminal procedure law (in the Federal Territories, Act 560). Syariah whipping is carried out differently from civil caning (Act 560 s 125). Where the same conduct is also a crime under federal law (for example the Penal Code), prosecution in the civil courts is a separate matter.

Laws cited on this page

Act 303	Islamic Family Law (Federal Territory) Act 1984 · Akta Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984	Official text
Act 355	Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 · Akta Mahkamah Syariah (Bidang Kuasa Jenayah) 1965	Official text
Act 505	Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 · Akta Pentadbiran Undang-Undang Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1993	Official text
Act 559	Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 · Akta Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1997	Official text
Act 560	Syariah Criminal Procedure (Federal Territories) Act 1997 · Akta Prosedur Jenayah Syariah (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1997	Official text
Act 574	Penal Code · Kanun Keseksaan	Official text

Listed automatically from the federal Acts named on this page. All laws of Malaysia →

Key sections

Provision	What it says, in plain words
s 1	Short title; applies to the States of Peninsular Malaysia (extended to Sabah and Sarawak in 1989).
s 2	Confers criminal jurisdiction on Syariah courts over Muslims for offences against the precepts of Islam prescribed by written law.
s 2 proviso	No jurisdiction over offences punishable with more than 3 years' jail, RM5,000 fine or 6 strokes, or any combination.
s 3	Validates earlier Syariah criminal trials, including in Sabah and Sarawak before the 1989 extension.
FC, Ninth Sch, List II item 1	Syariah courts have no criminal jurisdiction except as conferred by federal law.
Act 559 (FT) penalties	The heaviest Federal Territories offences carry exactly the Act 355 maximum (RM5,000 / 3 years / 6 strokes).

Worked examples

Example 1: A state proposes a RM10,000 fine

Facts. A state assembly wants to raise the fine for selling alcohol to Muslims to RM10,000.

The law. Under Act 355 s 2, the Syariah court has no jurisdiction over an offence punishable with a fine above RM5,000.

Outcome. The state cannot validly do this unless Parliament first amends Act 355. A conviction under such a provision could be challenged.

Example 2: Sentence above the limit

Facts. Faizal is convicted of a single Syariah offence and sentenced to 4 years' jail.

The law. Under s 2 the Syariah court has no jurisdiction over an offence punishable with more than 3 years' jail, so no single offence can carry a 4-year term.

Outcome. His Peguam Syarie should appeal within 14 days. Where several offences are involved, how separate sentences combine depends on the state's procedure law, so take advice.

Example 3: Would RUU355 let states make anything an offence?

Facts. Mei Ling, a non-Muslim, worries that raising the Act 355 limits would let states punish non-Muslims or create hudud crimes.

The law. Act 355 covers only persons professing Islam. States' power to create offences is limited by List II item 1 and the Federal List (Iki Putra 2021; Nik Elin 2024). Changing the penalty ceiling does not change those limits.

Outcome. Higher limits would affect only Muslims and only offences states can already validly create.

Examples are simplified illustrations with invented names; real cases turn on their own facts.

Questions & answers

What does '3-5-6' mean?

It is shorthand for the Act 355 s 2 ceiling on Syariah criminal punishment: 3 years' jail, a RM5,000 fine and 6 strokes of whipping, or any combination.

Has RUU355 been passed?

No. Hadi Awang's private member's bill (2016, revised 2017) was never debated or passed. The government's own amendment has been under consultation since 2023. No report was found of it being tabled or passed by October 2026.

Does Act 355 apply in Sabah and Sarawak?

Yes. The Act was originally for Peninsular Malaysia and was extended to Sabah and Sarawak in 1989; s 3 validates earlier trials there.

Would amending Act 355 bring in hudud?

Act 355 only sets a ceiling. Whether a state could create hudud offences depends on the constitutional limits in List II item 1 and the Federal List, which the Federal Court has applied strictly (Nik Elin, 2024). Raising the ceiling would not on its own remove those limits.

Can a Syariah court impose hudud punishments now?

No. Whatever a state enactment says, the Syariah court cannot impose more than 3 years' jail, RM5,000 fine or 6 strokes (s 2).

Does Act 355 apply to non-Muslims?

No. It confers jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam.

All questions & answers → · Ask your own →

This page explains the general position in Malaysia (last reviewed October 2026). It is not legal advice — check the current law and get advice on your own facts.

Sources

Sharia in the Federal Constitution Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 (Act 559)Syariah Criminal Procedure (Federal Territories) Act 1997 (Act 560)Syariah courts State Islamic laws: a guide to the 13 states and the Federal Territories Malaysian law and Sharia compared