SHARIAsource

English text of Act A945 Federal Constitution (Amendment) Act 1996, amending the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

Malay text of Act A1138 Constitution (Amendment) Act (No. 2) 2001, amending the Federal Constitution of Malaysia

English translation of the 2007 Constitution of Malaysia (1957 Federal Constitution of Malaysia, as amended to 2007).

English translation of Act A1603 Constitution (Amendment) Act 2019, amending the 1957 Federal Constitution of Malaysia.

A Maryland court ruled that Sharīʿa Court lacked jurisdiction in a custody case since the couple never resided in the jurisdiction of the Sharīʿa Court. 

A nine-member panel at the Federal Court of Malaysia led by Chief Justice Tengku Maimun ruled in a unanimous decision that Section 66A of the Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment of 2003 was unconstitutional and void as the power of judicial review that it conferred was not a power that the Selangor state legislative assembly was authorized to give. The petition arose out of the High Court consideration of an application for judicial review wherein an organizational petitioner, the SIS Forum (of Malaysia), sought to challenge the validity of a fatwā [advisory Islamic law opinion].The Court stated that it is not concerned with the procedural or substantive validity of the fatwā, and was not asked to determine the courts are authorized to undertake such evaluations in the first place under clause (1A) of Article 121 of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution. The petition concerns only the question whether the Selangor State Legislative Assembly (SSLA) was authorized to enact section 66A of the ARIE 2003, conferring powers of judicial review on syariah (Islamic law) courts. The Court concluded that Selangor, a Malaysian state, cannot grant syariah courts the power to review the rulings of Islamic authorities, which is a power retained exclusively by civil courts. For further context on Islamic law in Malaysia, consult Tamir Moustafa's Constituting Religion: Islam, Liberal Rights, and the Malaysian State (Cambridge University Press, 2018).

On February 2, 2023, the Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Johor (MAINJ) announced that Sultan Ibrahim of Johor had approved a fatwā on the types of events hosted by non-Muslims that Muslims are permitted to attend. The fatwā states that Muslims are prohibited from participating in religious rituals of other faiths, but they are not precluded from attending celebrations of other faiths that do not involve ritual ceremonies. Along with the issuance of the fatwā, MAINJ also issued more general guidelines on non-Muslim festivals that Muslims are permitted to attend–including ceremonies not accompanied by rituals, non-Muslim religious symbols, and religious songs contrary to the Islamic faith.

In this panel titled “Crypto Conundrum in Islamic Finance: Digital Assets and Shariah Compliance,” Dr. Mohamed Ali El Gari and  Dr. Mohd Daud Bakar consider the question whether cryptocurrency is permissible from an Islamic legal perspective. Dr. Bakar opines that cryptocurrency is an asset and not considered currency because it does not fulfill three conditions: use as a valid medium of exchange, stable stock value, and known unit of measurement. Although he acknowledges that cryptocurrency is in use as a medium of exchange, the electronic product currently lacks a stable stock value and known unit of measurement. However, he adds that if cryptocurrency comes to be backed by gold or silver, it could be deemed to be a rival to traditional currency and thus be understood as valid currency. Dr. El Gary opines that cryptocuruency can be permissible only if it is possible to establish that that it qualifies as wealth (māl) or as an asset according to the Islamic law (sharī'a). Doing so requires determining the presence of three conditions: the currency must be in use with a societal desire to normalize its usage, its use must be permissible under normal circumstances, and its must have a value assigned to it in habitual and customary practice. Applying these criteria to cryptocurrency, he concludes that it does meet all three conditions and thus determines that, while it is permissible to use because it is fungible, all the rules restricting the use of money under the rules of excessive interest (ribā) must apply. He further notes that one must be cautious in its use due to cryptocurrency’s speculative nature, which could border on gambling, but that this is not sufficient to say that it religiously impermissible (ḥarām) at presence. Collectively, the panel advises that those who are not very knowledgeable on the cryptocurrency and its attendant issues are to avoid it.  

The Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) recently shared a post on its Facebook account reminding a 2015 fatwā by the Special Meeting of the Fatwa Committee of the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs Malaysia declaring the use of electronic cigarettes impermissible under Islamic law.