KANGAR: The High Court here has dismissed an application by GISB Holdings Sdn Bhd (GISB) and its chief executive officer, Nasiruddin Mohd Ali, for leave to appeal against a decision by the Perlis State Fatwa Committee, which ruled that the company’s teachings contain deviant elements, particularly in its spiritual beliefs.
Justice Datuk Mohamad Abazafree Mohd Abbas said on Friday (Jan 16) that a fatwa (edict) issued by the 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 Raja of Perlis.
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 Raja’s legislative function in approving a Bill.
ALSO READ: Perlis issues fatwa banning GISB
"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 Raja of Perlis. Consequently, this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine any challenge to it,” Justice Abazafree said.
The committee issued the fatwa on Oct 14, 2024, declaring the beliefs of the group as deviant, misguided and rooted in esoteric teachings.
Earlier, on Sept 20 that year, Perlis Mufti Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin announced that a special meeting of the committee on that date had concluded that the beliefs and teachings propagated by the group 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.
Justice Abazafree 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 the group and its network, which were found to contain elements of deviation that were fundamentally contrary to the teachings of Islam.
ALSO READ: Muftis: GISB was on our radar
"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 Perlis State Fatwa Committee were incorrect, or in other words, that the understanding, teachings, beliefs or practices of the group's leaders, followers, employees and members were in accordance with the true teachings of Islam.
He said thismade 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 the group's members and their network are in accordance with Islamic teachings and, consequently, whether or not 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.
In the proceedings, the Attorney General was represented by Senior Federal Counsel Ahmad Hanir Hambali and Federal Counsel Mohammad Solehheen Mohammad Zaki, who objected to the application for leave. – Bernama
