[Malaysia] Free needles: Why refer to Fatwa Council?

Free needles: Why refer to Fatwa Council?

Shanmuga K, Malaysiakini, Jun 28, 2005

The Health Ministry came up with a plan to distribute syringes, condoms and a palliative drug to help slow down the spread of a deadly virus – HIV – amongst Malaysians. It was also explained to us that the disease that results from an infection of HIV, Aids, was reaching the state of an epidemic in Malaysia.

However, some disputed that the plan was proper. Their main complaint was that this would be perceived as governmental encouragement of drug abuse and free sex. Not contented with pressing these arguments purely on its own logic and merits, religion was brought in.

It was argued that as Islam frowned upon sex outside of marriage and drug abuse, the distribution of materials that facilitated these irreligious practices was itself against the religion of Islam.

Now, the deputy prime minister announces that the cabinet has decided to refer the plan to the National Fatwa Council to see whether it can proceed with these proposals. I strongly object to this course of conduct.

The Fatwa Council is unelected by the people and wholly appointed by the government. It is made up of a group of men who make determinations on matters referred to it based on the council’s opinion of what Islamic law requires. Once that fatwa is decreed and gazetted, sections 9 and 12 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 makes it a criminal offence for any Muslim to publicly have an opinion contrary to a fatwa.

(I am uncertain if there is a separate fatwa council for the Federal Territories, but one would suppose that a fatwa of the National Fatwa Council would be implemented by the Federal Territory Islamic Department.)

I do not want this unelected cabal to make determinations as to whether or not a proposal to improve the health and safety of the general populace should go forward. I want my government to act in the best interests of the country. I want the ministers of my government to exercise their independent judgment based on the advice of their civil servants. I want them to act on democratic principles in accordance with the Federal Constitution and based on laws that have been enacted by a law-making body.

We do not elect our government to suborn and delegate their functions to an unelected ‘council of elders’, who sit in secret pouring over religious texts and give opinions which then fetter the freedom of expression of 60 percent of the populace.

The federal government must do what it thinks is best for the health and safety of the Malaysian people. It should not be concerned with what a particular religion dictates is permissible or not. Such religious edicts are not the law of the land.

COMMENT:

I beg to differ to this author’s opinion. Once a fatwa is decreed and gazetted, sections 9 and 12 of the Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997 makes it a criminal offence for ANY MUSLIM to publicly have an opinion contrary to a fatwa. Thus any non-muslim has every right to disagree with the fatwa or perhaps they shouldn’t even disagree or agree as the fatwa has nothing of their concern since they are not even muslims who are govern by the Islamic law! The fatwa does not at all concern the NON-MUSLIMS.

The same analogy could be used for the fatwa recently gazetted in respect of the “sms gambling”. It does not effect the non-muslims who wish to continue “playing” the sms and the same fatwa would not effect any MUSLIMS who doesn’t even care what is forbidden & permissible (haram & halal). The fatwa is being given as guidance to those who seek for one.

Be that as it may, this country is, as what our PM (and our previous PM) claims, an ISLAMIC COUNTRY. So by the power that be, the PM has a DISCRETION on whether or not to refer to the Fatwa Council for advice and/or guidance in respect of this so called Islamic country. Adding to the fact that majority of the drug addicts is MUSLIMS ………..

The Islamic law is not merely the law for the Muslim as it is being recognized as the law of the land as held by the majority of the Appellate Court Judges in the case of Ramah –v Laton [1927] FMSLR 18. It was held in this case that the “Islamic” law (the word used in this case was “Mohammedan”) is not an alien law but is the law of the land and the law of the country. As such the Court (including off course, the GOVERNMENT) must recognize such law.