KUALA LUMPUR, June 18 —The consent of either parent is all that is necessary to convert a minor to Islam, a minister told Parliament in direct opposition of the 2009 Cabinet ruling against unilateral child conversion.

Citing the Federal Court decision in the case of S. Shamala, Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, said the ruling denoted that the agreement of both parents was not necessary to allow a child to be made Muslim.

“Based on the decision, the consent of just one parent was sufficient to determine the religion of the child because the words used in Article 12(4) (of the Federal Constitution) is parent or guardian, instead of parents or guardians, mean either the father or the mother or a guardian,” he said.

The minister’s response today contravenes the Cabinet decision made in 2009 specifically to prevent the complicated custody rows involving cases of unilateral child conversions to Islam.

The ruling itself is not legally binding or enforceable, but legal experts point out that it was a reaffirmation of the Federal Constitution’s position on the matter.

They argue that the word “parent” as it appears in the document must be read in the plural sense, rather than the singular that allows the practice of unilateral conversions.

These experts further contend that no additional legislation were needed, merely the adherence to the correct interpretation of the relevant section of the country’s supreme law.

But despite the Cabinet decision, unilateral child conversions continue to take place on a regular basis.

The issue most commonly manifests itself in the form of a legal limbo surrounding the interfaith custody battles, as one non-Muslim spouse attempts to gain custody via the civil courts while the Muslim half — almost always the husband — tries the same via the shariah route.

The matter has now been exacerbated by the refusal of the police to execute a civil court order for it to return a child taken by a Muslim convert father to the Hindu mother.

The agency argues that it was “sandwiched” between conflicting civil and shariah legal systems in interfaith custody disputes, and has opted to refrain from acting despite lawyers noting that it was a secular body and not bound by Islamic law.

It also remains adamant that it will not do so despite federal ministers saying that it must comply with the civil High Courts.

Putrajaya has advised for the matter to be decided by the Federal Court, saying it was the proper venue to resolve the dispute.