The introduction of the Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024 (Mufti Bill), granting broad powers and insulation from scrutiny to religious authorities in the Federal Territories, is a move that should concern all in Malaysia who value a transparent, accountable and progressive society.
The provisions of the proposed bill will effectively place the office of the mufti and its edicts effectively beyond scrutiny.
Religious institutions and their representatives play an integral role in guiding communities on matters of faith and morality. Their positions, however, must not be placed beyond question or critique.
To do so would be to create an environment where religious authority is wielded without meaningful checks and balances, leaving the community, especially the Muslim community, vulnerable to misinterpretations, overreach, corruption and abuse of power.
Accountability
In a healthy democratic system, every holder of public office or public trust should remain answerable to the people and the institutions that serve them.
If a law exempts certain positions – whether they are political, administrative or religious – from oversight and accountability, it effectively places them above the very system that ensures fairness and justice. No individual or institution should stand above review, critique or the rule of law.
This bill provides these religious officials – which include muftis, deputy muftis, akidah (Islamic creed) consultants and members of various religious committees – protection from suits, legal challenges and proceedings. Why?
Transparency and accountability are not merely political buzzwords clothed in convenient political branding. They are the bedrock on which trust in governance is built.
If the public is to have faith in the religious guidance provided, they must know that those who issue fatwas and shape religious discourse are themselves open to scrutiny.
Religious leaders and their representatives must also recognise that they are not infallible. That they too are vulnerable to error and open to change. They are not immune to personal bias, error in judgment or misinterpretation of religious texts. There is no place in Malaysia for religious authoritarianism.
Freedom of expression and thought
A system where muftis and the fatwas they issue are beyond question could potentially stifle intellectual discourse on religious matters. Critical engagement with religious scholarship would be discouraged.
Criticism especially is an essential element in preventing stagnation and promoting the growth of a society.
Proponents argue that the bill preserves the sanctity of religious rulings and prevents undue criticism of religious authorities.
However, it risks narrowing the space for meaningful conversation and diminishing the rich tapestry of intellectual and theological diversity that has long existed in both our society and the Islamic tradition.
Fatwas as laws
Malaysia is the only country in the world that treats a gazetted fatwa (Islamic religious ruling) as having the force of law. It elevates an opinion formed and issued by a small group of unelected but knowledgeable individuals, to the level of legislation that has gone through review and voted on by a legislative body, whose members were elected through a democratic process.
In almost every state, there is an enactment with a provision similar to Section 34(3) of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993, where upon publication in the Gazette, a fatwa shall be binding on every Muslim resident in the federal territories.
- 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 regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
However, the Mufti Bill appears to now do away with the need for a fatwa to be gazetted before being enforceable or binding. It does not make a distinction between fatwas that are gazetted and ungazetted.
It is important to note that the scope and coverage of fatwas have gone far beyond family law and religious observance. They now cover issues such as smoking and vape, skincare, medical devices, vaccines, bariatric surgery, yoga, food preparation and even skincare. It will have wide-ranging implications affecting non-Muslims, businesses and way of life.
How about a fatwa which prohibits Muslims from working in places that manufacture, prepare, sell or serve alcohol or that are involved in activities which are legal but religiously prohibited such as interest-based banking? Should such fatwas be ignored, as they have the potential to deprive people of livelihoods and cause discrimination by both Muslim and non-Muslim employers?
How do you decide when a fatwa needs to be complied with or ignored? Who decides on when and how these fatwas are binding and enforceable?
“Akidah consultants”
Under Section 29 of the bill, there is the role of akidah consultants who are tasked to advise on cases of apostasy or perceived deviations from religious belief.
While this function is not new, it is odd that there is a need for this bill to now legislate this role, empower such individuals to determine their own procedures based on guidelines by the mufti, and even provide the same level of protection from suits, legal challenges and proceedings as the mufti.
There is no limit as to what these consultants could do, as their interpretation of akidah could be very subjective. Allowing them to decide their own procedures and protect their actions from review could undoubtedly result in abuses of power and corruption as a result of coercion in the name of protecting akidah.
It is also possible that the actions of an akidah consultant could violate Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, which provides for a person’s fundamental freedom to profess their religion without undue interference.
Should Muslims attending a meeting or discussion at a restaurant which serves alcohol be told to leave or risk being fined or charged with an offence?
Should a Muslim woman be warned that she is not allowed to attend an interview with a prospective employer as it could lead to slander?
Can an akidah consultant enter a place of business and inform Muslim workers that they must ensure that they handle only halal items or operations?
Considering that halal has expanded its definition beyond food to include latex gloves, electronics, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and many other consumer products, this would be impossible.
To be honest, Muslim workers would increasingly be perceived and treated as a liability by employers and businesses, including those owned by non-Muslims. It could result in stigma, bias and discrimination by the latter due to fear of prosecution or disruption of operations.
Break the silence
It is sobering to realise that almost half of the members of Parliament representing the federal territories, which will be directly affected, are non-Muslims. Will they be silent during the debate of this bill?
MPs have a duty of care and responsibility to speak on behalf of both Muslims and non-Muslims constituents.
It is also important to realise that just because a person is Muslim, it does not mean she or he supports this bill. I do not support this bill.
Instead of insulating religious officials and bodies from oversight, we should be moving in the opposite direction: enhancing the credibility and integrity of religious institutions through mechanisms that promote trust and confidence.
Ensuring that their edicts can be reviewed and challenged, if necessary, safeguards not only the public but also the institution itself. This bill arguably is heading in the opposite direction.
Malaysia has been standing at a crossroads for a long time. We can either entrench a system that places certain authorities or bodies beyond reproach or advocate for a more inclusive, accountable and dynamic framework that respects the intelligence and agency of the people.
The Mufti Bill as proposed should be carefully reconsidered. It is not a question of undermining religious authority but of ensuring it remains worthy of the esteem in which it is held.
Our country has thrived on dialogue and debate, and these qualities have allowed us to navigate the complexities of faith and governance in a multicultural nation.
By rethinking the Mufti Bill, we ensure that our approach to religious authority remains guided by wisdom, humility and a genuine spirit of service.
Leadership and guidance do not come from placing oneself above scrutiny, but from embracing accountability and the constant pursuit of understanding and truth.
Azrul Mohd Khalib is an Aliran reader.
- 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
