GRAND MUFTI OF MALAYSIA

A Grand Mufti Of Malaysia?
We say why not?
An office somewhere along the lines of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.
As a unifying head for the 14-odd muftis of Malaysia and a solution to the possible scenario of 14 differing fatwas or interpretations of a religious ruling.

The following article by Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad Senior Fellow / Director Centre for Syariah, Law & Political Science, Institiut Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (IKIM) expands on the idea.

Growing need for Grand Mufti

THE lack of uniformity and standardisation of Islamic law in Malaysia, in addition to certain arguable legal restrictions, has led to an apparent disunity among Muslims, followed by misperception among non-Muslims, leaving both perplexed and confused.

This is partly reflected in the fact that Islamic law is only applicable to Muslims.

Currently, there are 14 muftis in charge of all matters concerning Islamic law but restricted in terms of jurisdiction to within their own states.

On many occasions, we are amazed by conflicting legal rulings (fataawa, singular fatwa) issued on matters like cigarette smoking, pageant contests, monthly income tithes, ASN, khalwat, and the like.

Some attribute the root of the problem to our Federal Constitution. If that were true, are the constitutional provisions carved in stone?

The Constitution, via the Ninth Schedule (Legislative List), List II (State List), grants exclusive jurisdiction to state governments to administer all matters pertaining to Islamic law, but only on Muslims and within their respective state boundaries.

The various state assemblies consolidated this authority by passing enactments leading to the creation and formation of, inter alia, the department of mufti and the syariah courts system.

Examples of certain state laws are the Selangor Administration of Islamic Law Enactment, 1989; and the Administration of Islamic Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993.

It is by virtue of the same constitutional provision that a number of national bodies, namely, the National Islamic Consultative Committee (Jawatankuasa Fatwa Kebangsaan – JFK), the Syariah Judiciary Department Malaysia (Jabatan Kehakiman Syariah Malaysia – JKSM) and the Islamic Development Department Malaysia (Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia – Jakim), are unable to play their unifying roles more effectively.

In saying this, we do not deny their long list of notable achievements thus far.

In the case of JFK, its establishment was for the purpose of discussing and issuing fatwas to solve any major unsettled legal issue, and to standardise conflicting legal edicts, if any, at the national level.

However, in reality, these objectives oftentimes cannot materialise, as their resolutions carry no legal binding powers on any state.

Though members of the committee comprise all state muftis, the states enjoy absolute power in whether or not to accept or reject any conclusion reached by the committee.

If the Constitution is perceived as being a stumbling block towards reformation and improvement, why don’t we amend it?

After all, our Constitution had been amended several times to suit the changing needs and conditions of the population.

All these were done, ultimately, for the smooth running of the country and for the sake of the people at large.

Legally speaking, in bringing about the much-awaited standardisation of Islamic law in Malaysia, the Federal Constitution may be amended by putting Islamic law on the Federal List.

Then the whole business of standardising and upgrading the Islamic legal system will become the responsibility of the Federal Government.

This is an advantage in terms of devising mechanisms to make the two currently running different legal systems – Islamic and civil – an operational one in our pluralistic community.

Parliament may include new provisions to the Constitution creating new credible positions to put an end to all conflicting legal rulings and jurisdiction limitations.

One of these reputable positions, with executive powers, would be the “Grand Mufti.”

The idea of establishing the position of Grand Mufti in Malaysia is not new.

IKIM’s current Director-General, Dr Syed Ali Tawfik al-Attas, towards the end of 2006, once again put the proposal forth.

The issue, despite its sensitive nature, proves its relevance and, therefore, cannot be simply discounted based on pseudo arguments.

A “Mufti” refers to a Muslim expert competent in interpreting or expounding the Syariah and issuing legal rulings in all matters coming under the purview of the law. ‘Grand Mufti’ signifies the head of all muftis, i.e. the highest authority of Islamic law in a given Muslim nation.

Other alternatives may be considered, too, for instance, granting more executive powers to JFK, JKSM and Jakim.

In fact, for the very same purpose of uniformity of law, apart from further upgrading the status of Syariah courts, one may propose the position of a Syariah Attorney-General, on par in status with the present Attorney-General.

The above, I believe, are things that have been idealised for ages by and among the syariah legal fraternity or by those concerned with the status and relevance of Islam in this country.

Source: The Star