SHARIAH and human rights lawyers are split over the high court’s decision yesterday to dismiss an application by Muslim women’s advocacy group Sisters in Islam (SIS) to challenge a fatwa by the Selangor religious authorities declaring it deviant.

The civil court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the bid and said the move to challenge the fatwa should have been referred to the shariah court instead.

It also said the fatwa was applicable to SIS because its office bearers are Muslims.

SIS is registered as a company under the Companies Act as SIS Forum (Malaysia).

The organisation provides legal advice to Muslim women, fights child marriage and female genital mutilation, and promotes gender equality.

Today, shariah lawyer Saadiah Din agreed a fatwa on SIS is applicable, and for any other person or group if they are Muslims, and if the decree was gazetted under shariah law.

“My opinion is that any fatwa that has been gazetted is fully-functioning and is applicable to Muslims, regardless if they are a group or an individual, or even in a company with Muslim board members.

“In this case the fatwa is significant, moreover SIS carries the word ‘Islam’ in its name,” the senior lawyer told The Malaysian Insight, adding that SIS should bring the matter to the shariah court.

SIS yesterday said it would seek legal advice on whether to pursue the matter in the shariah court or to file an appeal in the civil courts.

The Selangor fatwa issued against SIS on July 17, 2014, and gazetted on July 31 the same year, declared it a deviant organisation for promoting “liberalism and pluralism”.

SIS filed for a judicial review to challenge the fatwa on October 2014.

Lawyer Siti Kasim immediately reacted to the high court decision yesterday, calling it “crazy” and “dangerous” for Muslims.

She said a company could not profess a faith and the judge’s decision that an organisation could be deemed “Muslim” if its shareholders and directors were Muslims had far-reaching implications.

However, senior lawyer Haniff Khatri Abdulla said he agreed with the judgement and said it had to be understood based on the federal constitution.

“Article 3(1) of the federal constitution states Islam as the religion of the Federation. Islam is the religion of the federation but the federation is not a living thing. The majority of the people are Muslims, therefore, the official religion of the federation is Islam.

“It is the same concept in this matter. The office bearers are Muslims, therefore the fatwa applies to the directors and board members,” he said when contacted.

Haniff Khatri drew a parallel with company directors who are charged with environmental offences.

“We can look at cases involving environmental issues. When a company is found guilty for offences pertaining to environmental issues (such as pollution), it is those (the director or management) who are held responsible, who will face the law, not the company,” he said.

However, legal rights advocacy group, Lawyers for Liberty (LFL), disagreed and said the court’s decision was “disturbing”.

“The shariah courts have no jurisdiction over SIS, which is a company.

“The corporate veil can only be lifted in instances of fraud, which is not justified in this case and will have troubling ramifications on corporate entities in Malaysia,” said LFL legal co-ordinator Zaid Malek.

He also noted the distinction between the shariah and civil courts, citing Article 121(1) of the federal constitution, which takes that judicial power is vested exclusively in the civil high courts and their jurisdiction and powers is not confined to federal law.

LFL said declaring SIS as a deviant entity would open room for undesired action to be taken against the women’s advocacy group, either by the State or by misguided non-state actors.

“SIS has been targeted by religious authorities despite its decades of human rights and advocacy work focusing on women’s rights in Islam and to give legitimacy to the intolerant fatwa suggests that all the aforesaid work of SIS is against the teachings of Islam.

“We call on the authorities to protect all human rights defenders and organisations, which is crucial in ensuring that they can work in a safe, supportive environment that is free from attacks, reprisals and unreasonable restrictions.”

Human rights lawyer Firdaus Husni also disagreed with the court’s ruling, saying corporations cannot profess a religion.

“Item 1 of state list to the federal constitution is clear in that matters pertaining to Islam in respect of the areas stated, apply (to) ‘persons’ professing the religion of Islam.

“Corporations cannot be said to profess a religion,” she told The Malaysian Insight.

“A couple of other cases have addressed and affirmed the same,” she added.

In its bid against the Selangor fatwa, SIS had said that under the Companies Act 1965, it was a company limited by guarantee and not bound by the decisions of the Selangor Islamic Religious Council and its fatwa committee. – August 28, 2019.