High Court declares Muslim preacher’s secret conversion video unlawful
A TikTok video shows the cleric secretly encouraging non-Muslim children to convert. The court ruled such practice unconstitutional and ordered controversial Firdaus Wong Wai Hung to delete the videos. The case fuels ongoing debates in Malaysia over religious freedom, parental authority, and the role of faith in public institutions.
Kuala Lumpur (AsiaNews) – In a landmark ruling today that reaffirms parental rights enshrined in Malaysia’s Constitution, the High Court has declared a controversial video by preacher Firdaus Wong Wai Hung - encouraging the covert conversion of non-Muslim minors to Islam – as unlawful and unconstitutional.
Justice Amarjeet Singh, presiding at the Kuala Lumpur High Court, ordered Firdaus to take down the video from all social media platforms and issued a permanent injunction barring him from publishing similar content in the future. He also ordered Firdaus to pay RM10,000 (US$ 2,350) in costs to the eight non-Muslim parents who initiated the suit.
The legal action stemmed from a video posted by Firdaus in June last year, in which he was seen advising a man – later identified as a writer and social media influencer – on how to respond to underage non-Muslim children expressing interest in converting to Islam without informing their families. The preacher allegedly suggested keeping such conversions secret and unregistered.
The clip, originally posted on TikTok, ignited a firestorm online, sparking widespread concern among non-Muslim parents and triggering a flurry of police reports. The controversy deepened when the video was initially believed to show Firdaus counselling a schoolteacher – an assumption that heightened fears of proselytisation within national schools. That claim was later corrected.
Still, the core issue remained deeply troubling: the preacher’s advice to facilitate unregistered, concealed conversions of minors – an act that parents viewed as not only a breach of trust, but a violation of their constitutional rights.
On 18 July last year, the group of parents filed a civil suit, seeking legal redress and constitutional clarity. Their lead counsel, M Visvanathan, argued that Firdaus had infringed Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which states that “the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.”
“The video disregards the authority of parents in a matter as personal and consequential as a child’s faith,” said Visvanathan, adding that such covert encouragement amounted to a dangerous precedent if left unchecked.
He further invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25 and the Second Schedule of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, arguing that the judiciary has a duty to enforce fundamental liberties outlined in Part II of the Constitution.
Sanjay Nathan and Pushan Qin Nathan also represented the group in what is seen as a rare but significant public interest case.
Firdaus’ counsel, Norazali Nordin, informed the court that he would seek instructions from his client on whether to file an appeal.
The case adds to ongoing debates in Malaysia over religious freedom, parental authority, and the role of religion in public institutions. While the courts have occasionally weighed in on unilateral conversions and interfaith disputes, this case marks one of the first where digital proselytisation and underage conversion were squarely tested in constitutional terms.
With this ruling, the High Court has effectively drawn a line in the sand: the right of parents to guide their children’s faith remains protected under the highest law of the land – and that right cannot be undermined by digital sermons cloaked in secrecy.
.png)
