My journey in Islamic jurisprudence and the halal-haram dilemma

 

I began my journey in attempting to read the Holy Quran at the tender age of five at the Tamil Muslim Mosque along Jalan Duke in Johor Bahru. The imam who taught us was a Hanafi scholar from the reputable Lalpetai Madrasah in Tamil Nadu, India.

He would come with a metre-long cane, sufficient to gently strike students from his sitting position at the back whenever our pronunciation of the Arabic alphabet did not meet with his own style.

We were taught to recite each alphabet together with its vowels using a particular rhythm. The first alphabet, Alif, would be followed by 

aa, ee, uu

, then Ba, followed by 

ba, bi, bu

, and so on until we had gone through all 28 alphabets.

Whenever the rhythm became more challenging, the imam would wave his cane or land it on some unlucky student to ensure the recitation returned to the correct rhythm.

Getting the rhythm correct is important when it comes to reading the Quran, but I would soon learn that the reading method I was taught was not universal.

In those days, visiting imams from different countries would visit my father’s shop, reading the Quran with different accents, but always with sufficient clarity to allow listeners to pick up the recited verse in the correct context.

The Quran itself does not put in place a reading methodology, leaving it instead to the common sense of human usage and understanding to express its message according to their context in the best way possible.

The Quranic text of what is haram is specific, allowing my imam to teach me in the clearest of terms what is prohibited in Islam. On the other hand, we never entered the human rhetoric of what is halal.

In Islam, the word 

halal

 simply denotes what is not sinful within the context of the Quran, the teachings of the Prophet (s.a.w.), etc.

A renowned former chief justice here once said in the context of Islamic banking that whatever is not prohibited is permissible and, therefore, Islamic.

This is indeed a great line in Islamic jurisprudence to shut out those who rely on rhetoric to explain the difference between what is haram and what is permissible.

During Quranic reading sessions, my imam also exposed me to Islamic jurisprudence written in an Arabic text similar to Jawi, called Simthu Sibian. This text captures the good deeds as taught by the Prophet for Muslims to follow.

My imam would also emphasise that, apart from the five pillars of Islam, which must be strictly followed, strict obedience to the Quranic message and good deeds are also necessary to secure a place in paradise.

He said corruption and cheating through trade monopolies and manipulation for personal gain or unjust enrichment are haram. In Islamic banking unjust enrichment is equated to riba, a prohibited element in Islamic governance and trade etc.

My imam would also say that Islam does not permit employers to shortchange workers and the poor by not paying the appropriate remuneration. Even at a tender age I knew he was canvasing this line to earn a decent living from his own work, as imams at the time were poorly paid.

Only years later when pursuing a degree in economics at Madurai Kamaraj University did I understand its economic importance.

The late professor Lakshimini Narayanan explained that the success of a country is dependent on good governance without oppressive laws, as well as the economic success of the working class.

I later came to realise that such success cannot be attained in countries where the corruption index is high.

When reading law in England I also read papers at degree and master’s level related to Islamic jurisprudence. Even there, the concept of haram was mentioned clearly, but without the rhetoric of what was halal.

Back in Malaysia, I attended postgraduate programmes in Islamic jurisprudence, banking and practice. There was emphasis on what is haram but, again, nothing to define what is halal.

Relying on what I had learned up to that point, my books on Islamic and property law and the many articles and judgments that I wrote never forayed into the rhetoric of what is halal.

I also recall how, at the tender age of four, I tagged along with my mother and a long parade of ladies from various religious backgrounds, including Muslims, carrying pots to a nearby pool at Thopputhurai to fill drinking water.

It was a pool the humans shared with many other creatures, including cows, goats, donkeys and dogs. These animals were on the opposite side of the pool, using its precious water in full sight of our parade.

None of our village ladies ever stopped to question whether the water source was halal or haram. Everyone simply accepted it as a blessing from the Almighty.

The practice there continues to this very day, as it does in many parts of the world.

In many ways, the Malaysian authorities’ desire to force its interpretation of halal and haram appears unnatural and inconsistent with what I learned from my imams and in my own spiritual journey.

It is also inconsistent with the multi-religious and multi-cultural makeup of the country and the rule of law.

Under the country’s constitutional framework Islamic law operates only within the confines of personal and family law and is only enforceable on persons who profess the Muslim faith.

That means the shariah authorities, including the Islamic affairs department (Jakim), which are religious bodies, have no power over non-Muslims in the country.

In the context of the current halal-haram debate it is constitutionally erroneous for Jakim and the shariah authorities to dictate conditions to food establishments owned by non-Muslims, including the need for them to secure a halal certificate.

To my mind, Muslims in this country are more than capable of regulating what they eat and drink without excessive government intervention. Likewise, non-Muslim business owners understand what they must do to attract Muslim customers.

Nonetheless, if at all it is necessary to regulate food served to Muslim patrons, then that task should fall on the city halls and municipalities across the country.

They can do this by including reasonable conditions in licences issued to outlets that seek to attract Muslim customers, including those owned by non-Muslims.

These conditions can require such businesses to source for and use materials and prepare food in accordance with prescribed halal practices.

Jakim’s role should be restricted to working with these city halls and municipalities to set the standards.

Ultimately, the rule of law as encapsulated in the Federal Constitution and the Rukun Negara dictates that disputes of a public nature which arise be referred by the government, public interest bodies and aggrieved parties to the civil courts for resolution. - FMT

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