Activists and NGOs against Mufti Bill: violates rights of Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims

The controversial legislation presented for second and third reading in the current parliamentary session. Opponents reject without appeal the text that would grant broad powers to an unelected but ministerial-appointed official and turn a fatwa (also for non-Muslims) into law. For the promoters, it aims to define the role and responsibilities of the mufti in the federal territories.

Kuala Lumpur (AsiaNews) - The controversial bill dubbed the Mufti Bill, presented for second and third reading in the parliamentary session that began on 14 October, undermines the authority and power of Malaysia's ruler (Agong) and harms citizens by binding them to government control, according to lawyer and pro-human rights activist Latheefa Koya, who appealed to all Assembly members to reject the proposed legislation on the Mufti (and federal territories) by a large majority.

The lawmaker rejects without appeal the law that aims to regulate the office of mufti of the federal territories because, according to her, it would end up ‘granting broad powers to an unelected official, but one appointed by a minister, dictating the lives of Muslims and the way they should practise the Islamic faith’.

In her appeal, Latheefa also blamed parliamentarians for remaining silent on the issue for months, since the bill promoted by Religious Affairs Minister Mohd Na'im Mokhtar was first tabled in July.

According to the MP and activist, the bill ‘will effectively create “two main authorities” for Islamic affairs in the federal territories, a mufti in addition to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (the Sultan), who is the head according to the Constitution of Islam in the federal territories and states that a sultan does not rule’ in this matter. In this way, the Mufti becomes ‘the highest authority “next to the Agong” and ends up derogating from the position of the Agong himself as the head of Islam in Malaysia’ as stipulated in Articles 3(5) and 34(1) of the Federal Charter.

The Mufti Bill 2024, as it is known, seeks to define the role and responsibilities of the Mufti in the federal territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya. The duties include advising the king on Shariah rules (Section 4), issuing fatwas (Section 10), fatwa monitoring committees (Section 7), moon sightings (Section 22) and matters relating to Islamic religious education under Section 26.

The bill fuels controversy over adherence to the Sunni denomination and the al-Asyairah and al-Maturidiyah theological schools, is deemed unconstitutional and a threat to individual freedoms and human rights.

Harsh criticism is also voiced by lawyer and activist Siti Kasim, according to whom the law will not only ‘rob Muslims of their constitutional rights, but also those of non-Muslims’ by unduly strengthening Islamic courts (Sharia courts).

Hence the call for a review of the text, to avoid a drift that would end up sinking the country. In this regard, the expert puts forward the example of Lebanon ‘which in the past boasted a population made up of 80% Christians, yet they allowed Muslims to gain a foothold in the country and allowed Islamisation to flourish unchecked’. ‘Be that as it may, this shows,’ he concludes, ’how political Islam is able to conquer a non-Muslim state even in the contemporary era.

In a joint note, a coalition of 14 NGOs from the Borneo states of Sabah and Sarawak states that if passed, the bill would ‘effectively sideline the constitutional monarchy, secular government and secular parliamentary democracy’ at the heart of the country. Activist Peter John Jaban, founder of Saya Anak Sarawak (Sas), said the Mufti Bill is also ‘opposed’ by Muslims who fear ‘a more explicit sectarian turn’ favouring one community in particular. Jaabn also warned that the politicisation of ideologies ‘will foster intolerance and radicalism by promoting dehumanising values and undermine democracy’.

The Minister for Religious Affairs takes a different view, according to which the law includes provisions on the role of the muftis, on Islamic rulings and doctrines, and on issues related to federal territories, but does not affect the freedoms and rights of Muslims and non-Muslims.

Words that do not convince experts and former high-ranking government officials, including former Justice Minister Zaid Ibrahim, who emphasises peremptorily: ‘What is so bad about the proposed law on the Mufti? It transforms or converts into law a fatwa, traditionally considered in Islamic jurisprudence only as an advisory opinion'.

• Islam
• Fundamentalism