Bill to grant mufti lawmaking powers stokes concern among Malaysia’s Muslims
Malaysian Religious Affairs Minister Mohd Na'im Mokhtar came under fire over the new Bill seeking to grant lawmaking powers to muftis. PHOTO: BERNAMA
Azril Annuar
Malaysia Correspondent
UPDATED
OCT 20, 2024, 08:05 PM
KUALA LUMPUR – A Bill that grants the federal territories’ (FT) mufti the power to enshrine religious edicts into law has raised concerns among Malaysia’s Muslims, who fear it will infringe on their freedom of choice.
The Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill is intended to formalise the position of the mufti, or Islamic jurist, of the FT, which covers the capital Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan.
The new law will prescribe the mufti’s qualifications, duties and scope of authority.
It represents a substantial overhaul of the existing legal framework governing Islamic jurisprudence in the FT, said human rights lawyer Siti Kasim.
In Malaysia, Islamic jurisprudence falls under each of its 13 states’ purview, but in the FT, it falls under the federal government.
Article 10 of the Bill allows the mufti to propose a fatwa, or religious ruling, to the King and have it gazetted into law without parliamentary debate. Under Article 11 of the Bill, the fatwa will then become legally binding on all Muslims who are in the FT. Non-Muslims are not affected.
Human rights activists and prominent Muslims, along with several non-Muslim groups, are alarmed by elements of the Bill, which was introduced in Parliament on July 2 by Religious Affairs Minister Mohd Na’im Mokhtar.
“While this Bill is confined to the federal territories, similar laws are bound to be adopted throughout the states. It will give power to the government, through the mufti, to control or police every aspect of the life of Muslims in this country,” rights lawyer Latheefa Koya wrote on X on Oct 10.
“For example, what Muslims wear, where they eat, who they associate with or how they interact with fellow Malaysians may all be subject to such fatwas, which will be enforceable,” she added.
Legal experts such as former law minister Zaid Ibrahim and Ms Siti argued that the articles infringe upon the rights of Muslims in the FT and are undemocratic, since muftis are not lawmakers.
“Suppose the FT mufti issues a fatwa (for example) that all tobacco is haram, or Muslims must eat only in restaurants with a halal certificate on display. In that case, that’s the law in the FT,” said Datuk Zaid in a post on X on Oct 7.
“What happens to democracy and religious freedom? What if the muftis ruled that Muslims could no longer shake hands with their female colleagues? Or deny Muslims (the right) to wish merry Christmas? Or happy Deepavali?” he added.
Backbencher Syahredzan Johan has refuted Mr Zaid’s claims, saying that the power to bind Muslims under a fatwa is not new as there are already provisions for it under the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act, and Muslims can be convicted for going against a fatwa under the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act.
In an analysis shared with The Straits Times, Ms Siti pointed out that unlike these two laws, the current Bill is of concern as it seeks to bind all Muslims in the FT instead of just Muslims residing in those three areas. The proposed law, she says, also removes the element of personal choice.
“This contrasts also with the current law, which allows for personal deviations from fatwas based on individual observance, belief or opinion. If enacted, the Bill would eliminate this personal choice.
“A critical question arises: Does a fatwa constitute law? If so, it is pertinent to question why an unelected body or individual is granted the power to create binding laws,” said the lawyer.
Sunway University’s Professor Wong Chin Huat observed that by tabling the Bill, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s administration appears to want Islam to be more entrenched in state structure.
“Anwar might hope to win more support from conservative Muslims, who want the expansion of Islam’s role (in Malaysia),” said the political scientist.
G25, a group comprising retired prominent civil servants, said that elements in the Bill were fundamentally unconstitutional.
“It must be remembered that Malaysia is a constitutional democracy. While Islam is indeed the religion of the federation by virtue of Article 3 of the Federal Constitution (FC), Article 4... makes it clear that the FC is the supreme law of the federation, and any laws inconsistent with it will be void,” it said in a statement on Oct 16.
Meanwhile, the Malaysian Chinese Association, a component party of Barisan Nasional, which is part of the ruling alliance, said in a statement on Oct 16 that the Bill has already caused unease among non-Muslims as it indicates that the current administration’s control over religious affairs is increasing.
“We urge the government to ensure that any legal changes take into account Malaysia’s multicultural society, adhere to the spirit of constitutional democracy and safeguard the values of diversity, moderation and inclusivity from being eroded,” said the party.
Another point of contention, raised by Perlis mufti Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin and opposition party Parti Islam SeMalaysia’s president Abdul Hadi Awang, is the narrow definition of who can be appointed as a mufti.
According to Article 3 of the Bill, a mufti can be appointed only from the Sunni Muslim branch and those that follow the Syafie, Hanafi, Maliki or Hanbali schools, whereas Islam has more diverse schools of thought.
In a Facebook post on July 2, Datuk Asri said it is not appropriate for the government to pass any legislation or enactment that restricts the thinking of the people, and seizes freedom of thought and academic freedom, especially in the name of religion.
He was backed by the Sultan of Perlis, Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Putra Jamalullail, who on July 10 expressed his displeasure over the use of the Conference of Rulers’ name in efforts to garner support for the Bill.
Some Muslims living in Kuala Lumpur whom ST spoke to were apathetic about the proposed law, citing the lack of enforcement of existing fatwas that are already binding on them.
Advertising executive Syed Jamal Syed Ahmad said he does not believe the Bill will make any difference. “There are fatwas issued prohibiting Muslims from purchasing and drinking alcohol, but there has been no enforcement by the authorities. You can see Muslims drinking in pubs and bars around the city,” he noted.
Others were against the new law.
“How is this democratic? What happened to our personal liberties? The mufti is a civil servant; he is not a lawmaker. The mufti can issue fatwas but if it must be turned into a law, it should be passed by Parliament. Submit the law to Parliament,” said bank employee Hafiz Ghulam.
Defending the Bill, Datuk Na’im told ST that the power granted to the mufti to gazette a fatwa into law is similar to directives issued by other senior civil servants.
He cited the example of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, where the director-general of the Department of Occupational Safety and Health has been granted the power to ban any materials that are hazardous to the safety of workers.
“The power granted to any individual, such as the mufti and Occupational Safety and Health Department’s director-general, follows his respective expertise. Their appointment is based on the legislation and not merely administration,” added Mr Na’im.
He also pointed out that the power to gazette a fatwa into law is critical in stamping out Islamic deviancy.
In Malaysia, Islamic deviancy often equates to practices that fall outside of the Sunni sect and by extremist factions that may be linked to terrorism.
The Bill is expected to be tabled and debated for its second and third readings during the current parliamentary sessions, which run from Oct 14 to Dec 12.
