From Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa

The restriction on the interpretation of Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah in the controversial Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024, to only those adhering to a certain school of thought, can be challenged in the spirit of constitutional flexibility and the diverse Islamic interpretations.

Article 8 of the Federal Constitution states that there shall be no discrimination against any person, and that all persons are equal before the law.

How then can only persons of certain denominations within Islam be appointed to the position of mufti in the federal territories? This definitely defies Article 8, thus making the bill unconstitutional.

Granting the mufti excessive power also has constitutional implications. We feel that this provision is ultra vires in view of the constitution’s provisions which stipulate that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the head of Islam in the federal territories.

While it is debatable whether it is Islamically right or wrong, it is definitely unconstitutional as it stands. This remains the case unless there is a debate on whether the Yang di-Pertuan Agong should be the head of Islam in the federal territories.

Personal liberty, religious freedom

Furthermore, Article 5 of the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty, while Article 11 protects freedom of religion.

However, the bill states that fatwas shall be binding on every Muslim without exception. This clause contradicts Articles 5 and 11, which makes it unconstitutional.

Making fatwas binding on all Muslims infringes on the rights of individuals insofar as making decisions regarding their personal beliefs and religious practices are concerned.

Undoubtedly, this bill does not celebrate the idea of diversity in Islam.

This quality was obvious even among the first generation of Muslims. It is mind-boggling that some lawmakers could think that having such a retrogressive and restrictive bill would bring unity among Muslims.

Political expediency

Finally, some have argued that the bill contains a veneer of religiosity to pander to the more conservative camp. However, we do not think that the bill will achieve this aim if that was a prime motive.

Lest we forget, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang was the first to go against this bill. Sadly, he is an ulama who is more cherished internationally than domestically. As the saying goes, no man is a prophet in his own land.

If Hadi himself was against this bill, then how would this bill pander to the political conservatives? Therefore, that argument doesn’t hold water.

Of course, we have heard that one of the reasons to come up with the bill was to curb extremism. We think it was a convenient excuse to make this bill more relevant.

Terrorism laws

Suffice to say, there are so many laws in Malaysia — such as the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act — that were meant to curb extremism, and they have been vehemently criticised by human rights advocates.

Human rights advocates have referred to the current terrorism laws as unjust, regressive violations of basic human rights and called for the laws to be abolished immediately. The reformists in Pakatan Harapan used it as a battle cry during the last general election, only to renege when they ascended to power.

Why then do we need the mufti bill? In what sense can it curb extremism? Let us add here that this whole agenda of “countering violent extremism” is a western construct, crafted by the west, especially the US, to tarnish the image of Islamic resistance against foreign occupation, subjugation, and oppression.

Extremist groups such as Isis were created and funded by the west to fulfil their agenda to “liberate” (read: occupy) Muslim lands. We naively swallowed this rhetoric and came up with laws like Sosma and Pota. Enough is enough; there should be no more repressive laws to curb these fanciful and imaginary extremists.

Broken promises

In conclusion, I have expounded on the problematic issues relating to the mufti bill beginning from the fundamental rights of human liberty in terms of freedom of conscience, to the debatable constitutional issues contained therein.

While the prime minister sought neutrality by passing the buck to the religious minister to answer any criticisms against the bill, in the end, it is within the domain of parliamentarians to vote with their conscience.

They have failed many of us with their broken promises to repeal all the repressive and regressive laws such as the archaic Sedition Act 1948, which is a violation of international standards on the rule of law and freedom of expression; what more of the newer undemocratic laws such as Sosma and Pota.

While we are moving towards a more progressive and democratic version of governance; any controversial new laws that disrespect basic fundamental human rights should be prevented from seeing the light of day. We do not want to be seen as replacing one oppressive regime with another.

This article is the second of two letters from Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa about the Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024.

Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa holds a PhD in Surgery from Monash University Australia and is a doctoral candidate in Islamic Studies at Universiti Muhammadiyah Malaysia.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.