The Covid-19 pandemic came to us as a surprise. What started as a domestic outbreak of a flu virus has now escalated into a global crisis of health, economy and socio-politics.

It has not since been a year when the first case was reported in Wuhan, China, but it seems that our life before the pandemic has become so distant.

The "new normal" has brought another problem — moral dilemma. In confronting a crisis of this magnitude, it is nearly impossible to live up to all of our moral convictions and beliefs. We are always confronted with contradicting choices.

Choosing one will lead to the abandoning of the other. Take for example the healthcare services in which our medical practitioners have to leave behind their long-held practice in clinical ethics in favour of public health ethics that are better suited with the global pandemic situation.

The goal of public health ethics is to protect the collective interest of society and prioritise the need of the many over an individual patient. Therefore, decisions such as rationing medical resources and postponing nonessential procedures will be made based upon calculated, strategic, and utilitarian choices to accomplish this goal.

But, it is not without a cost. They are carried out at the expense of established clinical ethics focusing on the individual doctor relationship, which promises the best medical treatment and resource allocation based on the patient's best individual interests, regardless of the situation.

Another example is the case of developing a vaccine. While it is unmistakable that the only way out is to have a vaccine, enormous pressure may lead to cutting corners and hastening its production, resulting in unsafe vaccine with hidden risks.

On the other hand, adhering and following conventional testing procedures will take years, with the risk of sacrificing millions more. The same goes for the economy, raising the dilemma between "lives" and " livelihoods".

The Covid-19 pandemic has forced the government to introduce movement control orders, quarantine, and border closing to contain the spread of the virus. While they were undoubtedly taken in good faith to protect lives, they are causing negative economic repercussions.

Last but not least, the Covid-19 crisis also calls into question some important fundamental values that we hold dearly.

Political and constitutional values such as human rights, liberties, and respect for privacy are at risk to be traded off with national security and effective containment actions.

This happens as this pandemic is perceived as a precarious threat to our national security that justifies the government's security measures in the form of closing national borders, cracking down on illegal immigrants, restricting movement, and public surveillance.

These actions, while arguably necessary to some extent, may open the floodgates to xenophobia, far-right movement, restriction of freedom, and privacy concerns.

Hence, all of these conflicts and tensions in our "new normal" life can turn into moral distress. However, Islam provides us with moral and legal guidance.

This guidance, care and respect for others, and the prevention of harm to them can provide us with important inputs and guidelines in managing this moral dilemma.

First, Islamic ethics, with the maqasid al-shariah at its core, teaches us to give preference to the higher objectives and spirits behind the law over its literal and technical senses.

Thus, in the event of a contradiction between our current practices in managing this pandemic with the spirit of Islam — such as the preservation of religion, life, intellect, progeny and property — such practices will have to be amended accordingly.

Second, Islamic ethics offer a sophisticated multi-dimensional structure of priorities, ranging from the highest level of necessities (daruriyyat) to needs (hajiyyat) an d then luxuries (tahsiniyyat).

It will then simulate the various situations in which these values conflict with each other, and then provide resolutions and principles on which values have to be prioritised (fiqh al-awlawiyyat).

Lastly, Islamic ethics also limit the state's preventive actions. It is only allowed to interfere as much as needed and should not take advantage of the situation to suppress individual freedom and liberty.

To conclude, although our struggle with Covid-19 is far from over and the proposed solutions here are by no means conclusive, this deliberation offers a departure point towards a more meaningful discussion on the role of ethics in post-pandemic crisis resolution.

The writer is a Special Officer to the CEO of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia and analyst. His email is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in: New Straits TIme, Friday 30 October 2020

Source: https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2020/10/636479/ethics-crucial-pandemic-resolution

Kekerapan kes kemalangan maut oleh pemandu mabuk sebagaimana yang dilaporkan dalam akhbar saban hari telah menimbulkan kebimbangan dalam kalangan masyarakat. Hal ini telah menyebabkan sesetengah golongan terutamanya masyarakat Muslim menggesa kerajaan untuk terus mengharamkan penjualan arak di Malaysia bagi mengelakkan kejadian seperti ini berulang. Arak yang merupakan sesuatu yang diharamkan dalam Islam dilihat tidak mempunyai sebarang kepentingan untuk terus dibenarkan di Malaysia. Manakala seruan ini telah disambut dengan suara-suara kebimbangan daripada pihak yang lain yang melihat tindakan ini akan menceroboh dan mengganggu hak kebebasan ruang peribadi masyarakat minoriti bukan Muslim di negara ini.

Walhasil, polemik berkenaan pengharaman arak di Malaysia seakan telah menemui jalan buntu. Ini kerana kedua pihak tersebut dilihat tidak mempunyai titik pertemuan. Hujah agama dan kesan buruk daripada arak yang dibawa oleh pihak pertama yang menyeru kepada pengharaman arak dilihat belum mencukupi untuk menjustifikasikan pengharaman arak secara menyeluruh. Manakala hujah berkenaan hak dan kebebasan yang dibawa oleh pihak kedua dilihat lebih bersifat mementingkan diri, kerana mengancam kepentingan masyarakat umum yang lebih besar.

Langkah pertama dalam mencari penyelesaian tuntas bagi isu ini ialah dengan mencari titik perbincangan yang sama di antara dua golongan ini. Satu mekanisme yang jelas diperlukan dalam menyelesaikan pertembungan di antara dua kepentingan, iaitu di antara kebebasan peribadi peminum arak dan kesan mudaratnya kepada orang lain. Justeru, sesuai dengan realiti masyarakat majmuk berbilang bangsa dan agama di Malaysia, berbanding hujah-hujah agama yang emosional, perbincangan daripada aspek kemudaratan arak dilihat lebih berpotensi bagi mencapai sebuah penyelesaian realistik bagi masalah ini.

Dari segi perspektif Islam, arak diharamkan bukan semata-mata di atas dasar ketaatan (ta’abbudi) kepada Allah SWT. Alasan utama di sebalik pengharaman arak ini ialah kemudaratan yang lebih besar kepada manusia berbanding manfaatnya, sebagaimana jelas dinyatakan di dalam al-Qur’an di dalam ayat pengharaman arak, iaitu:

“Mereka bertanya kepadamu (Wahai Muhammad) mengenai arak dan judi. Katakanlah: “Pada keduanya ada dosa besar dan ada pula beberapa manfaat bagi manusia tetapi dosa keduanya lebih besar daripada manfaatnya…” (al-Baqarah: 219)

Manakala menurut perspektif perundangan moden, kemudaratan (harm) jelas merupakan asas yang kuat bagi mengkategorikan sesuatu perbuatan sebagai jenayah yang perlu dilarang. Sebagai contohnya, John Stuart Mill, seorang ahli falsafah Inggeris yang terkenal sebagai pembela kebebasan individu daripada campur tangan negara turut mengakui bahawa kebebasan individu perlu dihadkan apabila ia dilihat mendatangkan kemudaratan kepada orang lain. Hal ini kemudiannya diperincikan oleh Joel Feinberg dengan membahagikan kemudaratan kepada empat kategori berdasarkan turutan keutamaannya untuk dijadikan asas kepada limitasi kebebasan individu.

Pertama sebagaimana yang telah disebutkan Mill ialah perbuatan yang mampu mendatangkan kemudaratan kepada orang lain (harm to others). Kemudaratan secara langsung kepada orang lain seperti mencederakan dan menyebabkan kerugian harta benda orang lain merupakan asas yang paling kuat untuk menjadikan sesuatu perbuatan itu sebagai jenayah. Di tahap yang kedua ialah gangguan kepada orang lain (offense to others), walaupun kemudaratan yang dilakukan dalam kategori ini tidak dapat dilihat secara fizikal, namun ianya tetap berlaku seperti mengganggu ketenteraman awam dengan perbuatan yang tidak senonoh serta kata-kata kesat. Manakala kategori yang seterusnya ialah memudaratkan diri sendiri (harm to self). Perbuatan seperti ini lebih rumit untuk ditentukan, kerana melibatkan persoalan kebebasan dan autonomi individu yang sangat dipelihara di dalam falsafah perundangan Barat. Namun dalam sesetengah keadaan, pihak berkuasa tetap mempunyai kuasa untuk campur tangan bagi menghalangnya seperti larangan cubaan membunuh diri dan perbuatan yang membahayakan nyawa seperti tidak memakai tali pinggang keledar. Kategori keempat yang merupakan tahap paling rendah di dalam pembahagian kemudaratan ini ialah salahlaku yang tidak memudaratkan (harmless wrongdoings) seperti maksiat yang dilakukan secara bersendirian yang tertakluk kepada kesedaran moral individu serta tidak memerlukan kepada campur tangan penguasa dan undang-undang.

Oleh itu, jelas bahawa secara umumnya aspek kemudaratan dapat diterima sebagai parameter bagi penentuan pengharaman sesuatu perkara, baik menurut perspektif Islam mahupun perundangan moden. Justeru, dalam membincangkan polemik pengharaman arak ini, jelas bahawa perbuatan meminum arak mampu untuk membawa pelbagai kemudaratan baik kepada orang lain mahupun kepada diri sendiri. Arak boleh menyebabkan kemudaratan kepada orang lain sebagaimana yang berlaku di dalam kes kemalangan maut yang disebabkan oleh pemandu mabuk dan keganasan domestik oleh suami dan ayah yang merupakan kaki botol. Begitu juga arak boleh mendatangkan gangguan kepada orang sekeliling seperti mengganggu ketenteraman awam, membuat kelakuan tidak senonoh dan menghemburkan kata-kata kesat. Manakala perbuatan meminum arak itu sendiri, walau dilakukan dalam keadaan tidak melibatkan orang lain, ianya tetap memudaratkan peminumnya sendiri. Ini tidak dapat disangkal dengan kewujudan bukti-bukti saintifik kajian perubatan yang mengesahkan kesan negatif arak terhadap kesihatan.

Sebagai kesimpulannya, kerajaan sebagai pihak yang bertanggungjawab dalam memelihara kemaslahatan umum rakyat perlu mengambilkira kesemua aspek ini dalam menambahbaik polisi sedia ada berkenaan arak di negara ini. Situasi sekarang jelas menyaksikan polisi sedia ada memberi kelonggaran yang berlebihan terhadap arak, baik daripada aspek penjualan sehinggalah kepada langkah penguatkuasaannya lantas membuka pintu kemudaratan besar kepada umum. Maka langkah yang amat tegas perlu diambil bagi kes dimana peminum arak telah mendatangkan kemudaratan kepada orang lain disekelilingnya, terutama yang mengakibatkan kehilangan nyawa. Begitu juga di dalam kes di mana peminum arak telah mengganggu ketenteraman umum di tempat-tempat awam.

Manakala sekiranya kerajaan memilih untuk bertoleransi terhadap arak bagi meraikan kebebasan sesetengah golongan, ianya perlulah terbatas bagi kategori ketiga sahaja, dimana peminum arak tersebut memilih untuk mendatangkan kemudaratan kepada dirinya sendiri tanpa melibatkan orang lain. Untuk itu, satu limitasi yang jelas perlu disediakan dimana arak dibenarkan di dalam ruang peribadi individu serta dipastikan bahawa mudaratnya tidak akan merebak kepada orang lain di sekelilingnya, baik keluarga, jiran mahupun masyarakat.

Akhir kata, dalam kita sibuk berbicara tentang memperjuangkan hak dan kebebasan peribadi, satu perkara yang perlu sentiasa diingat ialah:

“Kebebasan anda berakhir apabila ia mula menganggu kebebasan orang lain.”

Muhamad Sayuti Mansor merupakan Pegawai Khas kepada CEO dan Penganalisis di International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia. Beliau boleh dihubungi di: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in: BebasNews.my, Tuesday 2 June 2020

Source: https://bebasnews.my/?p=38028&fbclid=IwAR0GT-OynsiHcSSyPE16zmuZXeuPQa1wsmTeDaHFxBy7NHlNU2MMY6hdzxE

When Datuk Dr Zulkifli Mohamad Al-Bakri stepped down as the Mufti of the Federal Territories of Malaysia to pursue his service as the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Religious Affairs), speculation arose as to who would fill the vacancy.

This came as a result of his phenomenal muftiship from 2014-2020, during which he completely revolutionised the office and its fatwa institution, and the high esteem in which he is held by Malaysian Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

All speculation came to a halt with the appointment of Dr Luqman Haji Abdullah. He is a prominent Muslim scholar with a distinctive religious background – son of the renowned Tuan Guru Haji Abdullah of Pondok Lubuk Tapah, who currently serves as the Head of Department of Fiqh and Usul, Academy of Islamic Studies, and also respected member of several syariah and fatwa committees in banks and Councils of Religious Affairs.

Without a doubt, Dr Zulkifli has left some big shoes to be filled in the Federal Territories Mufti's Office. However, we will not do justice by merely making a comparison between the two, as surely, Dr Luqman has his own personality and preferences in manoeuvring his office.

We may refer to the criteria that we look for in a state mufti. First, we have to comprehend the reality of a state mufti. Not many realise that the office of a state mufti is a modern phenomenon. Muftis, as an official position in the state, are influenced by modern developments and nation-state policy orientations.

Unlike the qadi (judge) who was always a state-appointed post, muftis, in earlier times, were independent of the state and acted in private capacity. To issue a fatwa, a mufti had to conduct his own independent reasoning (ijtihad) based on his religious knowledge and piety (taqwa).

The Ottomans were the first to appoint a chief imperial mufti, with the title 'Shaykhul Islam' who had the authority to appoint jurists to various other positions, and serving as head of the religious hierarchy, marked the starting point of official muftiship in the Muslim world that still continues.

For Malaysia, the official fatwa institution and the state mufti's office we see today are strongly influenced by the structure and bureaucracy of British colonialism in Malaya where Islam was increasingly furnished with a formal, institutional structure.

It was with this background that the fatwa issuance became official and a state mufti was appointed to each of the Malay states and the Federal territory. Nowadays, state muftis are responsible directly for advising the Sultans and Yang di-Pertuan Agong in all religious matters, including the issuance of fatwa. They also chair the state's fatwa/syariah committee, are members of the national fatwa council and committee of religious bodies such as the baitulmal/zakat.

As far as fatwa issuance is concerned, the mufti does not have to act alone. The mufti may himself issue his individual fatwa, but in more complex and controversial matters, he solicits the help of the State Fatwa Committee which consists of prominent Muslim scholars. The mufti as the chairman has to call upon the fatwa committee to discuss and take into account expert opinion in related fields before issuing any fatwas.

The more complex issues can also be brought up to be discussed among the state muftis and scholars at the national level during the Muzakarah Committee of the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs (MKI). This collective approach to fatwa is the common practice nowadays in line with the concept of collective ijtihad (ijtihad jama'i).

The role of a modern mufti has also gone through considerable change. He is not necessarily required to be a full-fledged mujtahid (mujtahid mutlaq). But the mufti must have bureaucratic, administrative and leadership skills, because the job scope is no longer limited to private ijtihad activity, but involves the complexities of the state's administration of religious affairs. To be a modern mufti, therefore, is to be a religious bureaucrat.

Looking at Dr Luqman's religious and academic background, as well as his experience and expertise in both fatwa issuance and administration, he undoubtedly satisfies all the criteria stated above. If one were to judge him, then it also should be based on his own merits.

The writer is a Special Officer to the CEO of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia and analyst. His email is This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Published in: New Straits TIme, Friday 22 May 2020

Source: https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2020/05/594623/religious-bureaucrat-contemporary-underpinnings