Concerns over mufti bill

 

When PAS took over the state government in Kelantan in 1990, it was alleged that the first law (or one of the first) that was passed was the 

Dasar Wanita Kelantan

 (Kelantan’s policy on women) which dictated what the women of the state could or could not do.

Thus, it was compulsory for women to wear the tudung, apply only light make-up (bright red lipstick was forbidden), high heels and figure-hugging clothes were banned, and married women who wished to leave the house to work, visit friends, or go shopping, had to seek their husband’s permission.

Of all the laws that could have been speedily pushed through in Kelantan, like protecting the environment, having clean water supply, imposing penalties on littering in its capital, cracking down on Mat Rempits and drug-dealing, and banning child marriages and incestuous relationships, why did the men in the state administration feel it necessary to control their women first?

Now, what if the proposed Federal Territories Mufti 2024 Bill becomes law, and an overzealous mufti were to pass similar oppressive laws, just to flex his muscles?

The growing opposition to the contentious mufti bill, including from Sabah and Sarawak, must have come as a matter of concern to the Madani administration.

These politicians had underestimated the normally pliable, and largely silent electorate, and were probably caught unawares by the rakyat’s growing criticisms. Many want the bill to be rejected.

Very few Malay MPs opposed this bill. Why? Were they in agreement or had they been silenced into submission?

We are told that the mufti will be nominated by politicians to decide on matters which will dictate the lives of Muslims. Why is a civil servant given sweeping powers over our lives?

Another bone of contention is that the mufti will have legal immunity. Why should a normal civil servant be immune from prosecution? By the reasoning of the people behind this bill, the mufti becomes untouchable, and we have no recourse to appeal his decision.

Contrary to what some supporters of this bill have said, the bill does threaten our individual freedom and human rights. It goes against the Federal Constitution and it undermines the position of the Agong.

Under Section 11 of the proposed Bill, the fatwas will be legally binding on all Muslims in the federal territories. What was it that made it so necessary in recent times to subject the ordinary Muslim to even more governmental controls?

If the mufti decides that women should not go to work but gazettes a fatwa for them to stay at home and look after the family, are they supposed to down tools and obey orders or face prosecution?

Various states have had some questionable fatwas in the past. Like those concerning yoga and the poco-poco dance. It was claimed, among others, that yoga mantras were Hindu chants, and the poco-poco’s line-dancing made a sign of the cross. In Selangor, there was a fatwa that banned Malay women from entering beauty contests, and Pokemon-Go was deemed haram.

Fatwas issued by the state mufti are the preserve of a particular state. How ridiculous will we look if we were to circumvent the fatwa just by leaving that state?

Moreover, there may come a time, probably sooner rather than later, when the fatwas will be nationalised and standardised and, therefore, the MP who argues that the fatwa will not affect Muslims in other states, exposes his naivety. - FMT

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