Share to help stimulate good governance, ensure future of people & M’sia
No News Is Bad News
Why are non-Muslims so muted against the proposed Mufti Bill?
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 11, 2024: It will be a folly and “fatal” to Malaysians, especially non-Muslims, to ignore the proposed Mufti Bill (Federal Territories) 2024 which is slated for second and third readings on Oct 16 or 17 in the Dewan Rakyat (Parliament).
To pass the bill is like signing a “death warrant” for Malaysians and their rights to freedom of choice.
It takes two Muslim women lawyers, socio-activists Siti Kasim and Latheefa Koya, to warn non-Muslims against the domino effect of the bill.
Why then are non-Muslim politicians and parties so muted on an issue that has disastrous effects on them?
Stop idolising politicians and believing everything they say. Most politicians only serve their own selfish political agenda.
No News Is Bad News reproduces below a FocusM article on Siti Kasim’s warning to Muslims and a letter-to-the editor by Latheefa published by Free Malaysia Today:
Siti Kasim warns non-Muslims against domino effect of Mufti Bill to their citizenry rights
CITING how Lebanon’s 80% Christians population “got wiped out from their land due to their past tidak apa attitude”, human rights activist Siti Kasim has urged non-Muslim Malaysians to oppose the Mufti Bill (Federal Territories) 2024 which is slated for second and third readings on Oct 16 or 17 in the Dewan Rakyat.
Stating that the said Bill which she deemed as unnecessary will not only rob the constitutional rights of Muslims but also that of non-Muslims, the legal eagle regarded the Bill as an attempt to empower the Syariah Court in the long-term.
“Those people (non-Muslims) who think that this won’t affect you, please think again wisely,” she berated in a three-part Facebook video.
“Look at Lebanon which in the past boasted 80% Christian population yet they (the Christians) didn’t say anything (allowing Muslims to gain foothold in the country and Islamisation to thrive).
“Apparently, Lebanon becomes what it is today. Don’t think you’ll escape for eventually there’s bound to be domino effect … If the Bill gets through, it’ll be difficult to turn back; I hope MPs in the Parliament will take notice by not letting the Bill through.”
For the uninitiated, historians are still baffled yet impressed at how Lebanon went from being majority Christian in the early 20th century to predominantly Muslim in less than 100 years. Whatever the case is, this demonstrates how political Islam is capable of conquering a non-Muslim state even in the contemporary age.
Apart from Siti Kasim, former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has recently hit out at the Mufti Bill (FT) 2024 as he contended that Muftis are not the people’s elected representatives while elevating their influence would eventually result in “the whole Federation being ruled by Muftis”.
“If I walk in to have my sushi or oyster bar at BSC (Bangsar Shopping Centre), I could have committed an offence for such places do not usually carry the halal sign,” fumed the former defence counsel of now incarcerated former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak.
“Do I have any personal liberties left, a constitutional right to eat wherever I please? Under Madani, no.
“What happens to democracy and religious freedom? What if the Muftis ruled that Muslims could no longer shake hands with their female colleagues? Or deny Muslims to wish Merry Christmas? Or Happy Deepavali?”
Earlier, Siti Kasim has lambasted the Bill as having “challenged our constitutional rights, our intellectual freedom and the balance of power between the religious and civil authorities”.
“We’ve to ask if fatwa (Islamic jurisprudence) can be made a law – if yes, then wouldn’t it be right to question how individuals who were not elected are accorded the authority to enforce binding law and order,” the Orang Asli advocate echoed the opposition-slant Zaid.
“Section 11 of the Bill states that it is binding to all Muslims in FT to adhere to the fatwa and that this is recognised by the court of law. Does this mean it only refers to the Syariah Court or both the Syariah Court and civil court?”
Added Siti Kasim: “I really don’t understand why the Madani government needs to introduce this Bill. Is PMX (Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) trying to do what he did in 1987 with the inclusion of new clause (1A) into Article 121 whereby there is now a problem of which court (between Syariah Court and civil court) to go to?”
If two Muslims have a problem involving their personal law (for example, a divorce between a Muslim couple), then this is a “matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts”. The civil courts should not interfere when one party comes to the civil court after losing a case in the syariah courts. – Oct 9, 2024
The Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024 interferes with Muslims’ rights
-10 Oct 2024, 03:43 PM
The bill is a blank cheque given to the mufti, who is an unelected official, to govern and direct the lives of Muslims.
From Latheefa Koya
I refer to the Mufti (Federal Territories) Bill 2024 (Mufti Bill) which is to be tabled when Parliament opens on Monday. This bill has serious implications and consequences for Muslims in this country.
Firstly, clause 4(1) of the bill makes the mufti the chief authority on matters of Islamic law in the federal territories, next to the king. This derogates from the position of the king as the head of Islam in Malaysia as provided for in Article 3(5) and 34(1) of the Federal Constitution.
There cannot be two chief authorities on Islamic matters in the federal territories.
Under this new law, the mufti can, through the issuance of binding fatwas, interfere in the daily life of Muslims and their right to practise their religion according to the Quran and hadith.
The mufti is appointed upon the advice of the minister. Therefore, the federal government will obtain wide power and authority over every aspect of the religious practices of Muslims in this country once the Mufti Bill becomes law.
This is not the role envisaged for the federal government under our constitution. It is against the basic structure of our constitution and thus unconstitutional.
The mechanism of control is the unprecedented new type of fatwa provided in clause 11 of this bill. It prescribes that a fatwa issued by the mufti as chairman of the national fatwa committee shall be binding on every Muslim. There is no exception or qualification.
This is a huge departure from the current legal position of fatwas, where Section 34(3) of the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) 1993 contains an exception for departure from a fatwa in matters of personal observance, belief or opinion.
In contrast, the edict of a mufti under the proposed bill’s content is ironclad and immutable.
Consequently, the offences already enumerated in the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 may be widened by the operation of the Mufti Bill to cover almost every aspect of a Muslim’s social, economic and political life.
In other words, any fatwa on any aspect made by the mufti can potentially give rise to an offence under the Act. Thus, the bill will lead to the unfettered increase of the types or categories of offences enforceable against Muslims.
All this has far-reaching consequences for the country. While this bill is confined to the federal territories, similar laws are bound to be adopted throughout the states.
It will give power to the government through the mufti to control or police every aspect of the life of Muslims in this country.
For example, what Muslims wear, where they eat, who they associate with or how they interact with fellow Malaysians may all be subject to such fatwas, which will be enforceable.
No government should have such powers over its people in a democracy, purportedly under the guise of religion.
To make things worse, by clause 8(b), the mufti may, on his own initiative without any direction by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, issue fatwas.
This is a blank cheque given to the mufti, who is an unelected official, to govern and direct the lives of Muslims.
Clause 7(2) of the bill provides for a representative from the Attorney-General’s Chambers who is a Muslim to sit upon the national fatwa committee. It is shocking to see such a clause in a federal bill presented by the government.
It has been 67 years since Merdeka, but they are still dividing us by religion and race. It is in breach of Article 8 of the Federal Constitution for any appointment from a federal body such as the AGC to be reserved for a person of a particular religion.
Clear and present danger
It is also plainly absurd as the bill itself will be debated and voted upon by non-Muslim MPs in the Dewan Rakyat as well as Muslim MPs.
In conclusion, this Mufti Bill poses a clear and present danger to the right of Muslims in Malaysia to practise their religion and carry on their daily lives without interference from the government or unelected religious officials.
I urge the government to withdraw this bill for further consideration and throw out the offending clauses. If the government attempts to proceed with the reading and debate of the bill in the Dewan Rakyat next week, MPs must in good conscience reject the bill overwhelmingly.
In this regard, the silence and timidity of DAP and Sabah and Sarawak MPs on this bill is greatly disappointing. I urge them to act for the good of the people and to uphold the constitution, as they have sworn to do.
Latheefa Koya is a lawyer and activist and a co-founder of Lawyers for Liberty.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
No comments:
Post a Comment