The group said the proposed bill did not align with the principles of justice and equality, and would contravene the Federal Constitution.
“The arguments made in favour of the bill thus far do not sufficiently outweigh the potential risks and implications posed by the legislation.
“A balance must be struck that respects constitutional rights and ensures that any authority is held accountable to the people it serves,” it said in a statement.
G25 said that while Islam is the religion of the federation under Article 3 of the constitution, Article 4 states that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that other laws inconsistent with it will be deemed void.
“It is therefore pertinent that any bill drafted and discussed in Parliament must first and foremost be consistent with the Federal Constitution.”
The group cited a few clauses from the bill which it claimed contravened provisions in the constitution, including one which outlined the definition of adherence to the Sunni school of Islam.
G25 said that “Islam” under Article 3 of the constitution should be given a liberal interpretation and encompass a wide spectrum of schools of thought and jurisprudence.
The group also said Clause 4 of the bill would essentially see two chief authorities on Islamic matters in the federal territories – the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, who is the constitutional head of Islam in the federal territories and states without a sultan, and the mufti.
Previously, religious affairs minister Na’im Mokhtar had spoken out against those spreading confusion by misinterpreting the proposed law, dismissing claims that it threatened the religious freedoms guaranteed under the constitution.
The bill, which is set to be tabled for debate in the Dewan Rakyat this month, has been opposed by women’s rights group Sisters in Islam and lawyer-activist Latheefa Koya, who claimed it would give unchecked power to religious authorities.
It was also criticised by Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin, who claimed it would hinder freedom of thought as well as academic freedom in the name of religion.