Court bins GISBH's leave bid to challenge Perlis fatwa committee's decision

 

The High Court in Kangar today dismissed an application by GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISBH) and its chief executive officer, Nasiruddin Ali, for leave to appeal against a decision by the Perlis state fatwa committee.

The committee had ruled that the company’s teachings contain deviant elements, particularly in its spiritual beliefs.

Judge Abazafree Abbas said a fatwa (edict) issued by the state fatwa committee falls within the expertise of authorities in matters relating to syariah law and is grounded in Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

“This provision clearly states that this court, as a civil court, has no jurisdiction over matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court,” he said.

The judge further ruled that the court also has no jurisdiction to review the fatwa, as it was issued pursuant to the prerogative of the Perlis ruler.

He explained that the approval of a fatwa is a prerogative of the Raja of Perlis, Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Jamalullail, in his capacity as the head of the Islamic Religion in the state and is distinct from the ruler’s legislative function in approving a bill.

“What is required by law is not a mere procedural formality, but a process intended to strengthen the royal institution as the patron and head of the Islamic Religion in the state of Perlis. It is a significant action that transforms a draft fatwa into a binding ruling on every Muslim in Perlis upon its publication in the gazette.

“In this regard, the court concludes that it has no jurisdiction to review the said fatwa, as it was issued pursuant to the prerogative of the Perlis raja. Consequently, this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine any challenge to it,” he said.

The Perlis state fatwa committee issued the fatwa on Oct 14, 2024, declaring the beliefs of the GISBH group as deviant, misguided and rooted in esoteric teachings.

Earlier, on Sept 20, 2024, Perlis mufti Asri Zainul Abidin announced in a statement that a special meeting of the committee held on that date had concluded that the beliefs and teachings propagated by GISBH contained elements of deviant doctrine, particularly inner or esoteric teachings.

The mufti was also quoted as saying that these teachings were a continuation of the al-Arqam movement, which had previously been declared deviant.

Substance of fatwa

The judge said the court’s consideration of the fatwa showed that its substance related to the understanding, teachings, beliefs or practices of the leaders, followers, employees and members of GISBH and its network, which were found to contain elements of deviation that were fundamentally contrary to the teachings of Islam.

“Therefore, the fatwa was issued to prohibit Muslims from practising those beliefs, teachings or practices, or any similar beliefs, teachings or practices,” he said.

He explained that when both applicants sought to challenge the fatwa, the court found that their position was essentially that the findings of the fatwa committee were incorrect, or in other words, that the understanding, teachings, beliefs or practices of GISBH’s leaders, followers, employees and members were in accordance with the true teachings of Islam.

Abazafree said this made it clear that both applicants were, in essence, challenging the substance of the fatwa itself.

He added that if the court were to allow the application, it would be required to embark on complex proceedings to determine matters of Islamic faith, including historical context, comparative principles, interpretation of the Quran and prophetic traditions, as well as principles of religious practice.

He said the purpose of such proceedings would be to determine whether the beliefs practised by GISBH members and their network are in accordance with Islamic teachings and, consequently, whether the applicants are entitled to the relief sought.

“In this regard, this court, as a civil court, is not the appropriate forum to determine such matters. This position reflects one of the underlying raison d’etre behind Clause (1A) of Article 121 of the Federal Constitution.

“That is, only those who possess the requisite knowledge and expertise should be entrusted with deciding such issues. The body legally recognised as having this expertise is the Syariah Court,” he said.

During the proceedings, both applicants were represented by lawyer Zulfikri Ulul Azmi, while the attorney-general was represented by senior federal counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambali and federal counsel Solehheen Zaki, who objected to the application for leave.

- Bernama