foreigners, who are refugees recognised by the UNHCR. [25] The uncontroverted evidence shows that except for Applicants No. 5, 10 and 27 to 36, who became members of the Ahmadiyya sect sometime during their lifetime (2nd Category), the rest of the Applicants were born to Ahmadi parents (1st Category). Hence, Applicants No. 1 to 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 26 and 37 to 39, who are in the 1st Category had been followers of the Ahmadiyya sect since birth. Thus, they are Ahmadis by original faith and not persons professing the religion of Islam. Thus, the question of them renouncing Islam does not arise. They would for reasons given in my earlier judgment, be beyond the reach of the Respondents’ jurisdiction. [26] There is overwhelming evidence showing that Applicants No. 1 to 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 26 and 37 to 39, are part of the Ahmadiyya community in Malaysia. I have delved in some detail on the historical presence of the Ahmadiyya community in Malaysia. This is summarised in paragraph [76] of my earlier judgment that is reported as Maqsood Ahmad & Ors v. Ketua Pegawai Penguatkuasa Agama Selangor & Ors [2019] 8 CLJ 96: [76] The existence of the Ahmadiyya community in Selangor, since at least from the 1950s, is a fact that was well known to the Selangor State Religious Authorities. The Ahmadis were declared as non-Muslims after a hearing before HRH The Sultan of Selangor in 1953. Thereafter, separate burial grounds for 19 Ahmadis were reserved on State land by the Selangor State Government. Then, sometime in 1963, the Ahmadiyya community were moved from Kampung Baru in Kuala Lumpur and resettled in Kampung Nakhoda, Batu Caves, on several plots of land given to the community by the Malaysian Government, by the good office of the then Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. Thereafter, the two fatwas, namely, 'Fatwa Tentang Ajaran Ahmadiah/Qadiani' gazetted as Jil. 51, No. 20, Sel. P.U. 15 on 24 September 1998, and the 'Pindaan Fatwa Tentang Ajaran Ahmadiah/Qadiani' gazetted as Jil 53, No. 17, Sel. P.U. 36 on 17 August 2000 were published declaring the members of the Jama'at as non-Muslims. The Selangor State Religious Authorities knew well of the Jama'at's religious activities at their base in Kampung Nakhoda and this is evidenced by the signboards erected around the 'Bait-us-Salam' notifying the public that "Qadiani is not Islam" and also by the notice of prohibition issued by the MAIS in 2009 to the Jama'at to cease all prayer activities on the premises. The applicants were then forced to conduct their prayers at the rented premises. There is no evidence of the applicants being a nuisance or being a cause of concern in respect of public order and security. They were peacefully conducting their religious affairs. [27] The government of Malaysia had recognised the Ahmadiyya Jama’at as a distinct community and had given them land in Batu Caves for the purposes of their religious activities. These 1st Category Applicants regularly worshipped together with the larger Ahmadiyya community, particularly at their 'Bait-us-Salam' base at Kampung Nakhoda, Batu Caves, where they have been carrying out their religious practices for some years, including congregational prayers within the compound. Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor, the 4th Respondent, knew well of the activities of the Ahmadiyya Jama’at at ‘Bait-us-Salam’, and had erected or caused to be erected by the Majlis Perbandaran Selayang sometime in 20 2005 three signboards in front and to the side of 'Bait-us-Salam', identifying it as 'Bait-us-Salam' and a further three signboards around Kampung Nakhoda, Batu Caves, with the words, "Qadiani Bukan Agama Islam" - a phrase meaning that the Ahmadiyya belief is not Islam. Hence, there is express recognition by the 4th Respondent of the existence of the members of the Ahmadiyya Jama’at in Selangor, and that the Ahmadis practised their religious beliefs in peaceful congregation at the ‘Bait-us-Salam’. The 4th Respondent clearly regarded the Ahmadis gathering for their religious practices at the ‘Bait-us-Salam’ as persons professing the religion of Islam. [28] These Applicants had congregated at ‘Bait-us-Salam’ until April 2009, when they received a letter from Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (“MAIS”) stating that the Applicants could not use the 'Bait-us-Salam' as a place of worship or to perform any prayers therein without prior written approval from MAIS. [29] Not wanting any confrontation with the authorities, the Ahmadis stopped using the 'Bait-us-Salam' as a place of worship and relocated themselves to the Premises, solely for prayer and worship purposes. When the arrest of the Applicants took place it was at this premises, which the Respondents knew very well was the congregational place of worship 21 for the Ahmadiyya community, after having forced their relocation from Kampung Nakhoda. [30] On Friday 11 April 2014 at around 2pm, officers of the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor ("JAIS"), i.e., the 4th Respondent, raided the Premises, which was being privately used by the Applicants to perform their congregational prayers. The raiding officers were informed that all those present at the premises were members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at religious group. However, these protestations fell on deaf ears, and the raiding party proceeded to arrest all the Applicants who were gathered at the Premises. [31] Hence, not only by birth, but also by their lifelong association with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at, the 1st Category Applicants, namely Applicants No. 1 to 4, 6 to 9, 11 to 26 and 37 to 39 have clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of this court that they are members of the Ahmadiyya Jama’at and that they are Ahmadis who would be deemed to be persons not professing Islam by virtue of the two fatwas. [32] The 2nd Category Applicants, that is Applicants No. 5, 10 and 27 to 36, on the other hand, are those who were not born into Ahmadi families, but had subsequently come to adopt the Ahmadiyya faith. The evidence adduced shows that these 2nd Category Applicants, who had adopted the Ahmadi faith in later part of their lives, had been adherents of the sect for 22 a considerable period of time. Some are Malaysians, while some are foreigners who are either legally in the country or as refugees. They regularly worshipped together with the Ahmadi community in Malaysia, particularly at the 'Bait-us-Salam' base at Kampung Nakhoda, Batu Caves, where they have been carrying out their religious practices, including prayers within the compound, before relocating to the Premises. The evidence, on a balance of probabilities, establishes the fact these 2nd Category Applicants are also followers of the Ahmadiyya sect. However, whether that by itself is sufficient to establish in law that they are also persons affected by the two fatwas, and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Respondents is another matter. [33] The subject matter of the present exercise is the determination of whether the Applicants are or are not Muslims under the law, i.e. particularly for the purposes of any offence under the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 ('ARIE') and the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965. [34] The Applicants in the 2nd Category, who are Malaysians, and who were persons who professed the religion of Islam, and who had subsequently embraced the Ahmadiyya teachings will definitely fall within the renunciation cases, i.e. ‘one who no longer professes the religion of Islam’. Despite their adherence to the Ahmadiyya faith, the law deems 23 such persons to be persons who profess the religion of Islam, until and unless they obtain an order of renunciation of Islam from the Syariah Courts. This is a necessary requirement of the law as expressed by the Federal Court in several judgments, the most recent of which was in Rosliza’s (supra) case. [35] Thus, the Applicants in the 2nd Category who are Malaysians fall squarely within the renunciation cases, i.e. ‘one who no longer professes the religion of Islam’. They would still come within the jurisdiction of the Respondents, until and unless they obtain on order from the Syariah Court to the effect that they are followers of the Ahmadi sect, and/or are persons affected by the two fatwas, and/or are no longer persons professing the religion of Islam. Those falling within this category would be Applicants No. 27 to 36. [36] Now whether, the non-Malaysians within the 2nd Category Applicants are also required to obtain such an order from the Syariah Court is less clear. There are two such Applicants, namely, Applicants No. 5 and 10. Having given it some thought, I find that it does not make sense for a refugee or a foreigner who is on a transient journey through the country, to first get an order from the Syariah Court before he/she can join the local Ahmadi congregation in their prayers and religious practices. That’s just impractical. In any event, it is not even certain if such persons 24 were professing the religion of Islam, as defined in our statutes, before they embraced the teachings of the Ahmadi sect in their country of origin or some other place beyond our shores. In this regard, I had observed in my earlier judgment as follows: Should every foreigner who professes to be an Ahmadi be also required to make an application to the Syariah Court after he enters the country if he intends to participate in the religious rituals and prayers of the Jama'at. Surely not. When the religious authorities have by law excommunicated a sect from the State-recognised mainstream or dominant orthodox Islam, then by implication all members of that sect would not be members of the State-sanctioned mainstream orthodox Islam, ie, Ahlul Sunnah Wa Jamaah. [37] As far as such persons are concerned, I am of view that a more reasonable legal construct would be for their religious belief to be determine as at the time of their entry into the country, just as we would for any person not professing the religion of Islam. Just as we do not require any non-Muslim entering the country to get proof of their status from the Syariah Court, we should not require a foreigner professing to be an Ahmadi to first get an order from the Syariah Court. When such a person upon entering the country declares himself to be an Ahmadi, and there is evidence in support of that, he would for all intents and purposes be Ahmadi by origin when entering the country. Such persons would, thus, come within the ambit of the two fatwas, and as such be regarded as persons not professing the religion of Islam when they entered the 25 country. In the circumstance, it would be sufficient to classify them as members of the Ahmadi community by origin, and they would thus be beyond the reach of the Respondent’s jurisdiction. [38] This court is seized with jurisdiction to make that determination according to the principles enunciated in Rosliza’s case, for when they first entered into Malaysian territory, and more specifically into Selangor, they were already persons who were not professing the religion of Islam by virtue of the two fatwas. To my mind, it does not matter whether such persons were Ahmadis by birth or whether they had subsequently embraced it, they are Ahmadi by origin when they entered the country. In the premise, there should not be any legal impediment for such persons joining the 1st Category Ahmadiyya community in their religious practices, as Applicants No. 5 and 10 were doing at the time of the raid and arrest. [39] Having considered the evidence as a whole, I find that Applicants No 1 to 26 and 37 to 39 have established their case for judicial review. The decision and action of the Respondents against Applicants No 1 to 26 and 37 to 39 are in excess of jurisdiction and these applicants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for. As for Applicants No. 27 to 36, they are deemed to be persons professing the religion of Islam until and unless they obtain an Order from the Syariah Court to the contrary. And until they do they would be within the jurisdiction of the Respondents. 26 [40] Wherefore, I make the following orders: