Over the course of a few days, the issue of the fatwa (religious decree) issued against women who dress up as men has become an issue of Muslims versus non-Muslims.

In the past two weeks, women were the target of a religious decree banning them from dressing up as men and partaking in lesbian sex. The National Fatwa Council of Malaysia issued a fatwa condemning women from dressing up as men – which the newspapers report as an opposition against tomboyism, or gejala pengkid (in Malay). Other media services report that the NFC is banning lesbian sex.

Protests soon followed that drew the ire of the police and, as of today, the spiritual leader of Parti Islam Malaysia. The Inspector General of the Police, a few days ago, issued a statement sayig that “non-Muslim” (see note below) NGOs should stay out of the issue. “The fatwa is only applicable to non-Muslims.” It was a warning telling non-Muslims not to interfere. Today, the spiritual leader of PAS issued a statement that such protests were going against the “teachings of Allah”.

What these sentiments fail to understand is that the issue has nothing to do with religion. It is not a matter of protecting the rights of non-Muslims to be free from following religious law, but protecting the rights of every individual to dress the way he or she likes. Both Muslims and non-Muslims who are against the fatwa find that the prohibition of certain dress codes on a particular sex is a breach of fundamental human rights. It is also a form of discrimination against individuals who identify as queer, lesbian, or transgendered.

The fatwa is problematic because it assumes a stable definition of gender and sex. In a time when fashion is becoming increasingly androgynous, practical, and gender-neutral, the fatwa fails to integrate the present conditions of society. T-shirts are worn by women because they are sometimes just practical for work, for hot weather, and for convenience. Pants are worn for the same reasons. They could also be worn for fashionable reasons.

What the fatwa does is to draw a specific distinction between manly and womanly clothes, thus disparaging and destroying the many intersectionalities found within fashion and between man and woman. It upholds the archaic and patriarchal dichotomy between man and woman. It creates spaces for men and women, and segregates one from another. Such limitation on individuals within society can only be seen in terms of a state endorsed institution trying to impose on the privacy and personal decisions of an individual.

Making the issue a Muslim/non-Muslim one only avoids the real issue of the matter. It veers the discussion into contentious debate, pitting non-Muslims against Muslims. This gross misrepresentation of the reasons behind our opposition of the fatwa perverts the real discussion that has been prematurely cut short: the issue of personal rights, gender identity, and the policing of privacy by the state.

We are opposing the fatwa not because it limits our non-Muslim preclusion from Islamic law, but because it limits and condones the limitation of self-expression and personal choice of individuals.

A note on the media reports: the reports are calling the NGOs “non-Muslim NGOs” or “NGO bukan Islam”, which is not true. The NGOs involved are bukan anything, or not anything. They don’t represent Muslims, nor do they represent the non-Muslims. They are representing individuals, regardless of their religious or areligious affiliations, who, for the reasons above, find the fatwa problematic. I hope the media will properly reflect this in their future reports.