When the System Confuses Itself: The Perplexity of Charging Non-Humans in Human Matters

In the heart of a democratic society lies the expectation that its legal and judicial system will remain consistent, rational, and grounded in principles that respect the essence of human dignity and responsibility. But when the courts themselves blur the lines between legal constructs and natural persons, the very integrity of the system is called into question. One such troubling case is the recent ruling involving Sisters in Islam (SIS), an organisation charged under religious law, not as individuals, but as a legal entity, for “deviationist teachings.”

This episode has left many Malaysians, legal observers, and thinkers alike bewildered. How can an entity, a company or foundation, be charged under Syariah law, which is inherently personal and moral in nature, applying only to individual Muslims? How can a body that does not perform ibadah (acts of worship), does not sin or repent, and has no soul, be judged under a framework meant for human accountability before God?

The Source of Confusion: Corporate Law vs Personal Law

In company and commercial law, it is common to treat companies as “legal persons.” This allows companies to enter into contracts, sue, and be sued. The legal separation between a company and its shareholders is fundamental, known famously in law as the doctrine established in Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd.

This concept, while logical and necessary in business, has been improperly extended into areas where it does not belong, such as religious or moral accountability, particularly under Islamic jurisprudence. In the case of SIS, the organisation, registered under the Companies Act, was declared deviant by a Syariah authority, and this decision was upheld by the civil judiciary.

The problem here is categorical: Islamic law governs individuals, not corporations. Its rulings pertain to niyyah (intention), taqwa (piety), amal (actions), and tawbah (repentance), all of which are human experiences. A registered company has no heart, no soul, no mind, no faith. So why then, would a Syariah court deem it fit to issue a fatwa against such an entity?

Misplaced Jurisdiction and Legal Drift

This situation exposes a deeper flaw, the drift of legal reasoning where different legal domains are being carelessly entangled. The civil court, instead of upholding the proper constitutional demarcations, allowed a fatwa, intended for individual Muslims, to be used against a non-human entity. This not only sets a dangerous precedent but opens the door to abuse and misapplication of religious authority.

What’s more troubling is the implication: if religious bodies can now issue rulings against companies, NGOs, or even trusts, and if civil courts refuse to intervene, then who is to stop such overreach? What is the mechanism to safeguard the fundamental liberties of individuals who act through these entities?

The Need for Legal Clarity and Constitutional Courage

Malaysia is a country with multiple legal systems, civil, Syariah, and customary, operating in tandem. That makes clarity and discipline in legal reasoning even more critical. Courts must not allow the tools of one legal discipline to invade another without due process or conceptual grounding.

The doctrine of corporate personhood should not be extended to the realm of moral or religious accountability. Just as a company cannot be sent to heaven or hell, it cannot logically be held accountable under laws designed to measure one’s personal relationship with God.

This confusion dilutes the very spirit of Syariah, turning a law based on mercy, accountability, and personal guidance into a blunt instrument of institutional censorship. It erodes public confidence not only in religious institutions but in the very consistency and logic of our judiciary.

Justice Must Make Sense

Ultimately, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to make sense. When legal judgments reflect confusion between human and non-human responsibility, between business law and moral law, it causes ordinary people to question the very coherence of our system. It is not enough to say “the court has spoken.” The court must also speak rightly.

The case involving Sisters in Islam should be a wake-up call, a reminder that the law is meant to serve the people, not entangle them in contradictions. If we fail to correct these missteps, we risk eroding the integrity of both our religious and civil legal systems, and that is a price too high for any society to pay.