Authored By: HO XIN YUE
Multimedia University, Malaysia
INTRODUCTION
SIS Forum (Malaysia) V Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor and Ors [2025] 4MLJ625 (hereinafter “SIS Forum”) was a case heard by the Federal Court of Malaysia and determined on 19 June 2025 by a five-member Constitutional Bench, headed by the Chief Justice Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat. The appellants were SIS Forum, a company by the name of Sisters in Islam, and their Executive Director, Zainah Mahfoozah Anwar. Their organisation, was targeted by a fatwa which was declared on them in 2014 by Selangor Fatwa Committee, as promoting views about Islam that are pluralist and liberal. The appellants argued that the fatwa was unconstitutional since a company cannot claim to be Islamic and that it unreasonably interred federal jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal and High Court rejected the application, and the case was lastly appealed.
FACTS OF THE CASE
SIS Forum, which was a company limited by guarantee and championed the rights of Muslim women, was the first appellant, along with its Executive Director. They contested a fatwa by the Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri Selangor which was given the title of Fatwa Pemikiran Liberalisme dan Pluralisme Agama. This fatwa was rendered on 17 July 2014 and gazetted on 31 July 2014 under the Administration of the Section 47 of Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003 (ARIE 2003). It proclaimed SIS Forum and people or organisations that subscribed to liberalism and pluralism of religion deviant and misdirected according to Islamic teachings. The confiscation of related publications was also ordered by the fatwa and the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) was ordered to block online content that encourages such ideologies.
The appellants requested the court review, stating that the fatwa was invalid, and it went beyond the authority of the Selangor State Legislative Assembly in the Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution, by Items 1 of the State List. They said that being a business company, SIS Forum was incapable of professing the religion of Islam and was not, therefore, under the jurisdiction of state Islamic authorities. They further asserted that the fatwa illegally instructed federal agencies such as the MCMC and the Ministry of Home Affairs to undertake issues that were outside the power of the State Legislature. The application was dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal affirmed the same. The appellants were dissatisfied and took the case to the Federal Court where they raised major constitutional issues regarding the limits and boundaries of state power as well as the application of the Islamic law to corporate entities.
LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS
In this case, several issues raised. First, whether the Fatwa could be properly applicable to the first appellant, which was SIS Forum, a corporate entity. The appellants argued that in the 1st Item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution (FC), the legislative authority of the State over the Islamic law is limited to the persons, professing the religion of Islam. SIS Forum as a corporation is an artificial legal person and cannot make any professions of faith, act of worship or subscribe to any religious belief. Thus, the Fatwa, as far as it purported to bind the organisation became superior to the legislative competence of the State. The appellants used Kesultanan Pahang v Sathask Realty Sdn Bhd1and SIS Forum (M) v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor2to further support the fact that corporations are not allowed to profess religion. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the corporate veil ought to be done away with, since persons behind SIS Forum were Muslims and they directed, administered, and promoted ideas about Islam through the company. Therefore, they argued, the Fatwa might be validly applied to SIS Forum by way of its Muslim employees and Directors, meaning that the organisation was in functional terms bound by it.
Secondly, whether the Fatwa exceed the jurisdiction of the powers of the Selangor State Legislature. The appellants filed that some of the provisions of the Fatwa particularly those which gave the authority to seize the publications and instruct the MCMC to undertake enforcement action encroached upon the matters as listed in the Federal List as of communications, publications, and federal executive powers. These are the areas that are governed by federal law such as Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 and the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, and so are beyond the jurisdiction of the State Legislature. The Fatwa was therefore unconstitutional to that degree. Instead, the respondents argued that the Fatwa only provided religious direction on what is banned and not the provision of enforcement authority. Their argument was that its directives were not to be taken as legal binding orders, but rather as guidelines.
Thirdly, it was whether the civil courts could review the validity of the Fatwa. The respondents would claim that it was purely under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts under Article 121(1A) of the FC as it involved Islamic values and teachings. They argued that having the civil courts undertake the judicial review would violate the sole locus of the Islamic law that the State had. Besides, the appellants stated that they did not dispute the substance of the Islamic doctrine but only alleged the legality and constitutionality of the Fatwa and the boundaries of the power of the State legislature. They also argued that issues of the legitimacy of State action and adherence to constitutional restraint are subject to the public law in the inherent judicial review authority of the ordinary courts under Articles 4 (1) and 121(1) of the FC.
COURT’S DECISION AND REASONING
The Federal Court in a majority decision that was presided over by Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat CJ granted the appeal and said that although the Fatwa was constitutional in principle, it had to be applied within constitutional limitations. The Court declared that the Fatwa was only applicable to natural individuals professing the Islam religion and cannot be applied to corporate organizations like SIS Forum, which, as an artificial legal person, cannot profess any religion. By so doing, the Court upheld the constitutional restraint in the Item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule of the FC, limiting the State legislative power to individuals who profess the Islamic faith.
The Court also made it clear that though the Fatwa was duly issued in S46 of ARIE 2003, and the Fatwa once gazetted valid under Section 49 attains the force of law in relation to Muslims in Selangor, there is a restriction of its scope and enforcement to within constitutional limits. The entirety of the Fatwa which purported to guide federal institutions like the MCMC or permitted the seizure of any publication was construed as ultra vires the Federal List of the State Legislature as these things are included in the Federal List.
In that regard, the Court interpreted some of the provisions of the Fatwa so that the document did not violate the constitutional rights or the boundaries of the State authority. The Fatwa was made valid only to the extent that it was made applicable to natural persons who professed the Islam faith, and invalid to the extent that it purported to be applicable to corporations or non Muslims. This interpretation made the Fatwa act with utmost precision, which was within the confines of the Islamic jurisdiction without encroaching the federal powers and rights of the parties beyond its legal jurisdiction.
In general, the Federal Court found out that the Fatwa is a valid religious edict, but it can only be enforced on Muslim people in Selangor. The case reinstated the principle that religious authorities of the States should exercise their powers under the Federal Constitution and civil courts should have supervisory jurisdiction to examine the legality of such a course to protect the supremacy of the Constitution.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The case of SIS Forum is an important milestone in the history of constitutional jurisprudence in Malaysia, balancing the authority of religion and the constitutional protection. This course by the Court is a sign of judicial sensitivity in ensuring consistency between the independence of State Islamic institutions on one hand and the supremacy of the Federal Constitution on the other hand. The court took a fine-tuned interpretation of the separation of religious and civil jurisdiction by accepting the validity of the Fatwa as a religious edict in the Islamic law, but the limitation of its implementation in the secular legal system. This strategy guarantees that although the Islamic authorities can be allowed to still make the Fatwas within their jurisdiction, such pronouncements cannot be made outside the constitutional boundaries and encroach into the regions that are within the federal jurisdiction.
The ruling once again underscores that religious edict must work under the constitutional framework especially in cases where basic rights, including the freedom of expression, and association are at stake. 3When the Court read between the lines to disqualify any corporation and non-Muslim, the Court secured constitutional freedoms without interfering with the validity of religious law in its rightful area. Such reading down process is an excellent example of the way of preserving the constitutional order without crippling religious governance without impairing both the power of Islamic institutions and the constitutional structure.
At the centre of the decision is the express declaration of the Court that only natural individuals who profess Islam are under the purview of State religious legislation in the Item 1 of the State List, Ninth Schedule of the FC. The Court reiterated that religion is a personal and spiritual thing that cannot be ascribed to a fictitious being by dismissing the contention that a corporation can make a religion claim. Such an interpretation excludes the extension of State religious authority to organisations, associations, or corporations thereby ensuring a required difference between institutional identity and legal personality.4
However, the case also reveals the strains of the dual legal system used in Malaysia, where the religious instructions can either overlap or contradict the secular constitutional provisions. These tensions are highlighted by the dissent opinion of Abu Bakar Jais FCJ who is also of the opposing opinion that organisations that work in the Islamic space, no matter their legal status are under the supervision of religion. Although this view focuses on the religious responsibility, there is a danger of becoming confused on the constitutional lines that uphold the rule of law and civil freedoms.
Finally, the rationale of the Federal Court highlights that constitutional supremacy is the foundation of the Malaysian legal system, even in the question of the relation to religion. The ruling of the Court can be viewed as a lesson that even in cases where the constitutional power of religious authorities is still respected and legally accepted, it should still act within the confines of the Constitution. This case therefore provides a principled precedent that can be affirmed that the plural legal system of Malaysia can be able to offer both religious legitimacy and constitutional protection, if each is within its constitutional bound of operations.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this case has a critical implication on the constitutional system in Malaysia by reinstating the fact that the Federal Constitution prevails over all authorities including religious authorities. The Federal Court has demarcated the boundary between the powers of the state legislature and the appropriate relationship between civil and Syariah jurisdictions to promote harmony instead of conflict. It also stressed the fact that fatwas, however, being in the state authority, should work within the constitutional framework and be applied to those issues that they oversee. Thus, the decision enhances the judicial review and the rule of law under the plural legal system in Malaysia.
REFERENCE(S):
Primary Sources
Legislations
Administration of the Religion of Islam (State of Selangor) Enactment 2003, s46, 47, 49 Communications and Multimedia Act 1998
Federal Constitution, Art 121(1), Art 121(1A) Item 1, State List, Ninth Schedule Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984
Cases
Kesultanan Pahang v Sathask Realty Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 MLJ 513
SIS Forum (M) v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor (Majlis Agama Islam Selangor, intervener) [2022] 2 MLJ 356
Secondary Source
Journal Article
Lim I, “Simplified: Why SIS Won Its Selangor Fatwa Challenge at Federal Court in 3-1 Ruling” Malay Mail (June 24, 2025) https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/06/24/simplified-why-sis-won-its-selangor fatwa-challenge-at-federal-court-in-3-1-ruling/181430 accessed October 29, 2025
Cam, “[Statement] MALAYSIA: Federal Court Overturns Fatwa against Sisters in Islam, Civil Society Celebrates Win for Women’s Rights – FORUM-ASIA” (FORUM-ASIA – “Empowering human rights movements in Asia through research, advocacy, and solidarity,” June 24, 2025) https://forum-asia.org/sis25/ accessed October 29, 2025
1[1998] 2 MLJ 513.
2[2022] 2 MLJ 356.
3 Lim I, “Simplified: Why SIS Won Its Selangor Fatwa Challenge at Federal Court in 3-1 Ruling” Malay Mail (June 24, 2025) https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/06/24/simplified-why-sis-won-its-selangor fatwa-challenge-at-federal-court-in-3-1-ruling/181430 accessed October 29, 2025.
4 Cam, “[Statement] MALAYSIA: Federal Court Overturns Fatwa against Sisters in Islam, Civil Society Celebrates Win for Women’s Rights – FORUM-ASIA” (FORUM-ASIA – “Empowering human rights movements in Asia through research, advocacy, and solidarity,” June 24, 2025) https://forum-asia.org/sis25/ accessed October 29, 2025.
