FORMER de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim is apparently engaged in a legal exchange with DAP Bangi MP Syahredzan Johan who ticked off the former for being irresponsible by making sweeping statements on the Mufti Bill (Federal Territories) 2024 “without proper research and casting aspersions on the Madani government”.
This came about after the opposition-slant UMNO member took a potshot yesterday (Oct 7) at the Madani government for embarking on an authoritarian rule by forging ahead with the Mufti Bill 2024 “without objection from Sabah, Sarawak nor DAP”.
This is despite the proposed law merely “makes or converts a fatwa which is traditionally considered in Islamic jurisprudence as an advisory opinion into law”, according to Zaid.
“Perhaps Datuk Zaid is not aware that there was a HUGE discourse amongst Islamic circles about the Mufti Bill earlier this year so much so that the Bill’s second reading was deferred (purportedly to this upcoming session although I’m not sure if indeed it will be debated),” rebutted Syahredzan on the X platform.
Datuk Zaid Ibrahim perhaps is not aware that there was a HUGE discourse amongst Islamic circles about the Mufti Bill earlier this year, so much so that the bill’s second reading was deferred (purportedly to this upcoming session although I am not sure if indeed it will be… https://t.co/fCBX46kbj0 pic.twitter.com/10wzCdJ6XI
— Syahredzan Johan (@syahredzan) October 7, 2024
“He should engage more with those outside his circle.”
The first term lawmaker who is also a lawyer also claimed that Zaid has misrepresented the impact of the Bill on two grounds:
- Firstly, this Bill is only applicable to the Federal Territories where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is the head of Islam. It does not and cannot apply to the individual states especially where the Sultan is the head of Islam.
- Secondly, the provisions relating to fatwa in the Mufti Bill is not novel. Currently, many provisions in state enactments relating to mufti’s fatwa binds Muslims (usually if it is gazetted). Clearly, they are similar provisions.
“So, Datuk Zaid’s claim that this will pave the way for binding fatwas nationwide is simply incorrect as states already have similar provisions,” Syahredzan pointed out.
“The process of issuing a fatwa under the Bill is also not just based on the whims and fancies of the Mufti. Malay rulers have and will continue to have the final say on matters of Islam.”
In his counter, Zaid questioned the need for the Mufti Bill 2024 given that the Syariah Criminal Offences Act 1997 (Act 559) already has provisions that recognise the Mufti’s authority to issue a fatwa which, if not followed, constitutes an offence.
Lawyer Syarezhan
He is a DAP lawyer and MP. He has described my interpretation of the Mufti Bill 2024 as lacking accuracy. He said I should be more responsible, as what I write is carried by the media.
The Syariah Criminal Offences Act 1997 provisions recognise the mufti’s…
— Zaid Ibrahim (@zaidibrahim) October 8, 2024
“Unless the powers of the Muftis are being expanded under the new Bill which Syahredzan is not telling you. As an MP, he should be more responsible than me,” argued the founder of Zaid Ibrahim & Co, the largest private law firm in Malaysia (which he no longer owns).
“So, which part of my statement is lacking in accuracy? I didn’t say that the provision that renders a fatwa having the force of law is something new. I’m just disappointed that the Madani era continues to practise making a fatwa (an opinion) to become the law of the land.”
Added Zaid who was the defence counsel of now incarcerated former premier Datuk Seri Najib Razak: “My question to this hot-shot lawyer is: Why do we need to entrust a religious official who is unelected to make laws? Why can’t all offences, religious or otherwise be created by the legislature?”
In his feedback to Zaid’s contention whether “he (as a Muslim) will have any personal liberties left or a constitutional right to eat wherever I please”, Syahredzan contended that “all the examples that you have, Datuk Zaid, is possible under the current law”.
“And it was possible under Pak Lah, Najib, Mahathir, Muhyiddin, Ismail Sabri and now Anwar. Why? Act 505 (Administration of Islamic Law [FT] Act 1993) was enacted in 1993 and Act 559 in 1997,” justified the former political secretary to retired DAP supremo Tan Sri Lim Kit Siang. “But your tweet makes as if only under Madani.”
Main image credit: Malay Mail
