By Sisters in Islam
In light of the proposed Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024 (Mufti Bill), which was announced to be debated in Parliament on 16-17 October by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Mohd Naim Mokhtar, there is an urgent need to draw attention to the far-reaching consequences this legislation poses.
The Mufti Bill is part of a broader five-year roadmap to strengthen Sharia laws within the Federal Territories, as announced by then deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Ahmad Marzuk Shaary in 2021 when Perikatan Nasional was in power.
Besides the Mufti Bill, three other bills would be introduced as part of this roadmap – the Wakaf Bill, the Sharia Court Bill, the Control and Restriction on the Propagation of Non-Muslim Religions Bill and the amendment to seven existing legislations.
The Mufti Bill, which was first read in Parliament on 2July under the “unity government” threatens to undermine individual freedoms, human rights and institutional accountability in the Constitution of Malaysia.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Additionally, it risks violating Malaysia’s commitments to humanity and Islamic moderation under the Amman Message.
Bill emboldens religious authoritarianism
The Mufti Bill proposes significant changes that will grant unprecedented powers to religious authorities and entrench these powers with protection against suits and legal proceedings.
This means the mufti, deputy mufti, akidah consultants and members of the newly formed religious committees – including the fatwa committee, Falak Syarie committee and Islamic teaching supervisory committee – further consolidates religious authority into a state-driven apparatus and will be shielded from legal accountability.
Without oversight and recourse for appeals or legal challenges, the unchecked powers of institution or figures directly undermine the rule of law and justice.
Additionally, the bill seeks to entrench religious control over both the public and private lives of Malaysian Muslims, further complicating the relationship between personal religious freedom and state-sanctioned restrictions.
Legality of gazetted and ungazetted fatwas
While the bill outlines the procedure of issuing a fatwa more distinctly, it also blurs the legal status of gazetted and ungazetted fatwa.
Malaysia is the only country in the world that constitutes a gazetted fatwa (ie published in the Gazette) as having the force of law. In Section 34 (3) of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, upon publication in the Gazette, a fatwa shall be binding on every Muslim resident in the federal territories.
In addition, Muslims, while required to abide by and uphold the fatwa, are still permitted to depart from the fatwa in matters of personal observance, belief or opinion.
Additionally, the fatwa shall be recognised by all (Sharia) courts in the federal territories as all matters laid down therein.
In the proposed Mufti Bill, Section 11 seeks to make fatwas binding on all Muslims in the federal territories, not just residents of federal territories. It is silent on Muslims being permitted to depart from the fatwa in matters of personal observance, belief or opinion.
In addition, the fatwa shall be recognised by any court regarding all matters stated in the fatwa and doesn’t indicate the scope of jurisdiction to the federal territories only.
This raises the question of whether Section 11 applies to fatwas that are both gazetted (diwartakan) and ungazetted (tidak diwartakan).
Additionally, Section 13 outlines the procedure for issuing fatwa affecting the national interest.
Thus, does a fatwa constitute law? If so, why is an unelected body or individual being granted the power beyond the democratic remits to create binding laws that affect the personal and religious lives of millions of Muslims in the federal territories?
Role of the akidah consultant
Of particular concern is the role of the akidah consultant (Section 29), who will be tasked with advising on cases of apostasy or perceived deviations from religious belief.
There is already an existing akidah consultation unit with very specific functions, thus raising the question why there is a need to legislate person(s) as akidah consultant who shall also perform any other function as directed by the mufti (Section 29(3)(d)) and who may determine his own procedure based on the guidelines as may be determined by the mufti (Section 29(6)).
Given this vague yet vast provision, there is high concern that such interventions risk violating Articles 5 and 8 of the Federal Constitution which protect personal liberty and guarantee equality.
This role will likely lead to coercion in personal matters of faith, infringing on the right to religious self-determination.
Malaysia’s reputation as a diverse, multi-faith nation is at risk, and the bill threatens to plunge the country into a situation where religious conformity is mandated and enforced by law, thus stripping away the core tenets of personal freedom.
Mufti, fees and services rendered
The drafters of the bill have done the most enormous disservice to making the mufti as an individual vulnerable to public scrutiny even before the act is passed through Section 30:
(1) The Mufti may impose fees for the services rendered under this Act and that
(2) the Mufti may exempt any person from the payment of any fee in relation to services rendered on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.
What services are being rendered by the mufti that would require fees to be charged?
In addition, Section 32 protects the mufti and all related persons in the act to be protected against suits and legal proceedings.
Without an oversight body or any legal recourse, these provisions do not protect the integrity of the mufti and all persons and committees related to this act.
At a time of high public distrust against institutions or causes related to Islam and vulnerable persons or communities where money is concerned, it is untenable for individual religious figures to be given carte blanche, especially with a legislative mandate to make decisions that affect the lives of millions of Muslims in the federal territories.
International scrutiny
The implications of the Mufti Bill also extend to Malaysia’s international commitments under human rights conventions.
During the constructive dialogue session at the 88th Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw), Sirajuddin Suhaimee, the current director general of Jakim, stated that female genital cutting is “none obligatory by law and purely voluntary” in Malaysia.
He further acknowledged that Malaysians have become more aware that the practice is grounded in culture and carries no health benefits.
First, the statement from one of the highest bureaucrats in the religious institution suggests that fatwas are not inherently binding. Therefore, it is perplexing that the Mufti Bill would now seek to make fatwas legally binding contradicting the statement made at Cedaw and other international platforms.
Second, this shows the evolving awareness among Malaysian Muslims that not all fatwas are universally applicable.
This move raises the question: why are fatwas now being elevated to the status of law when even culturally sensitive issues like female genital cutting are not legally enforced?
Leaders’ commitment to Amman Message?
Malaysia is known as a moderate Muslim nation.
However, the Mufti Bill could harm this long international reputation, particularly given Malaysian leaders’ endorsement of the Amman Message.
The Amman Message, issued on 9 November 2004, by King Abdullah II of Jordan, was a significant effort to promote tolerance and unity within the global Muslim community. It clarified the nature of Islam, aiming to counter global misconceptions and tensions linked to Islam following events like the 9/11 attack.
Crucially, the Amman Message included:
- Recognition of all eight legal schools of Islam, including Sunni, Shia and Ibadi
- A prohibition on declaring other Muslims as apostates (takfir)
- Guidelines for issuing religious edicts (fatwas) to prevent illegitimate rulings and abuses of authority
Malaysian leaders, including Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, are signatories to the Amman Message.
This endorsement obliges Malaysian leaders with a moral responsibility to respect Muslim diversity, prohibit takfir or excommunication of other Muslims, and ensure that fatwas are issued with caution and respect for differences in religious interpretation.
The Mufti Bill flies in the face of these commitments. By proposing legally binding fatwas and elevating a single-state interpretation of Islam, the bill threatens to marginalise minority sects, disregard the diversity of Islamic thought, and empower religious authorities to impose their views unchecked.
Religious and human rights
The Mufti Bill places Malaysia at odds with international human rights norms, particularly those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Beirut Declaration.
By creating legal frameworks that discriminate against certain religious practices or beliefs, the bill could lead to systemic oppression of minority sects within Islam, as well as the marginalisation of non-Muslim communities.
If this bill is allowed to pass, Malaysia’s standing in the global community could be compromised, with international organisations and human rights bodies taking note of the sharp decline in religious freedom and the rise of authoritarianism in religious governance.
The bill sends a clear message that Malaysia is moving away from its commitment to human rights and constitutional protections.
Recommendations
- The provisions of the Mufti Bill must be immediately reviewed. The existing legal framework under Act 505 already governs the administration of Islamic law, and it would be far more prudent to strengthen this act rather than create new, standalone legislation with the potential for abuse
- The dangerous precedent of granting legal immunity to muftis and their committees must be abolished. Regardless of their position, citizens should be equally held accountable under the law and democratic processes
- Fatwas should remain advisory rather than legally binding. Making fatwas enforceable by law threatens to encroach on individual freedoms and personal beliefs, leading to coercion and discrimination
- Malaysia’s legal system must uphold the rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution, including freedom of religion, belief and thought, equality before the law, and personal liberty. These rights are the backbone of the nation’s democratic values and must not be compromised to expand religious authority
- Malaysia must ensure that its laws align with its endorsement of the Amman Message and other international human rights conventions. Respecting Islamic diversity, refraining from takfir and ensuring that fatwas remain non-binding are essential to preserving religious harmony and peace
If passed, the Mufti Bill will set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of personal liberties, religious autonomy, human rights and democracy.
It is imperative that the public, legal experts, civil society and human rights organisations rally to oppose this bill before it irreversibly alters Malaysia’s legal and religious landscape.
The time to act is now – before the forces of authoritarianism and religious control overwhelm Malaysia’s democratic institutions and global commitments. – SIS
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
This informed comment by the Sisters In Islam has to be heeded. Is there a clear alteration of the position of the Yang dipertuan Agong and the Malay Rulers on this matter?