The recent media report where the minister for Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan (KPDNKK) was quoted as saying that his ministry is mulling a new legislation that requires supermarkets nationwide provide separate trolleys for halal and non-halal products naturally drew many negative comments.

Whilst the ministry’s worry about the viability of the proposed new legislation is the significant cost it would incur on businesses concerned, for many it is the further segregation of Muslims and non-Muslims that is uppermost. The last thing we need is a new law that will likely exacerbate polarization along religious and racial lines.

Before the ministry comes up with the idea of legislation, we wonder to what extent, such a measure is demanded by Muslims apart from that espoused by the spokesperson of Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia (PPIM), Datuk Nadzim Johan, “Ia satu cadangan yang baik kerana akan mendidik masyarakat untuk memahami batasan dan keperluan rakyat pelbagai kaum dan agama.”

Or from the deputy president of  FOMCA, Mohd Yusof Abdul Rahman who agreed with the idea, “terutamanya bagi mencegah pencampuran produk halal dan tidak halal, yang boleh membawa kepada pencemaran silang (cross-contamination).”

And if a significant proportion of Muslims sees it as a necessity or a priority in the present climate of religious over-zealousness, has it been thoroughly studied and explained by the religious authorities?

There is likely a spectrum of scholarly opinions on this matter if we include independent but well respected scholars outside of the official religious establishment.

We would like to humbly pitch our understanding of the higher objectives of the Islamic jurisprudence (Maqasid Shari’ah) on this matter. This issue is neither new nor problematic elsewhere in the Muslim world but somehow hits a raw nerve with some Muslims in Malaysia.

The religious scholars agree unequivocally that porcine meat is not allowed, haram, for consumption by Muslims based on the injunctions in the Quranic verse 145, Surah al-An’Am;

“Say, I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine – for indeed, it is impure – or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful.”

However, the Muslim scholars differed on three major aspects related to the flesh of swine, namely:

1.    Is it categorised as najis (impure) mughallazah or mutawassitah?

2.    How should it be cleansed? This would depend on its category.

3.    They also differed if body parts of the swine (skin, hair, bones) can be utilized after it has been cleansed

The majority of Muslims scholars opined that it is categorized as najis mutawassitah, and only requires cleansing with one wash only upon touch. It is similar to cleansing of impurities like blood, pus, faeces, urine and wounds.

Imam Shafie, the “official mazhab” in Malaysia, categorized it as najis mughallazah which has similar najis properties as a dog and must be cleansed 7 times, one wash with soil water. This is the accepted opinion in mazhab Shafie with the notable exception of Imam Nawawi.

However, further interrogation into the basis for this najis mughallazah  opinion shows that it is neither a sound nor correct inference of verse 5 of Surah al-Maidah or the authentic hadith from Abu Hurarirah on cleansing as compiled by Imam Muslim in his Al-Jami’ al-Sahih.

This “minority” Shafie opinion is obviously burdening the Muslims in Malaysia and has been illustrated in the proposed legislation, is very provocative and unnecessarily creating a further hostile divide along religious and racial lines.

And besides, the Quran clearly stipulates;

“And strive for Allah with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you and has not placed upon you in the religion any difficulty”
(Al-Hajj 22:78)

And it was narrated from Aisha (RA) that, given a choice, the Prophet (SAW) will opt for “the less burdensome, provided it was permissible”
(Bukhari & Muslim).

Clearly, this calls for more in-depth study, dialogue and communication between ALL stakeholders (not just KPDNKK, FOMCA or PPIM), all religious communities and religious experts before we even think about a new law.

In the final analysis, it is hoped that authentic religious mutual respect and common sense will prevail over religious bigotry and insensitivity.

Often times, one wonders whether these parochial and trivial issues are mainstreamed by design to derail us from the acute and  critical issues plaguing our nation.

In a national ambience of ambiguity, lack of accountability, transparency and failure of political governance, we should not be easily distracted by petty and shallow issues like “halal trolleys” but instead focus our attention and energies on “fiqh awlawiyat” (jurisprudence of priorities),  to uplift this country from the  abyss of religious and racial strife, economic meltdown and a failed nation state.

Board of Directors
Muslim Professional Forum