Rebranding of Sisters in Islam: The Need to Judge by Deed, Not by Name

On 31 July, Sisters in Islam (SIS), a Malaysian women’s rights organisation, announced that it would drop “Islam” from its public name and operate under its registered legal name, SIS Forum (Malaysia). The decision followed a request from the Sultan of Selangor, who argued that the use of “Islam” in the group’s name might mislead Muslims into thinking that SIS constitutes a part of the community’s religious leadership, which include the ulama, theologians, and preachers. The move came shortly after a landmark Federal Court ruling determined that Selangor’s 2014 fatwa (legal opinion) declaring SIS “deviant” for promoting liberalism and pluralism could not legally apply to corporate entities. While the rebranding drew mixed reactions among supporters and critics, the move could strengthen, rather than weaken, the organisation’s long-term advocacy efforts.

The formation of SIS in 1988 was a direct response to concerns about Islamisation, which begun in the 1980s. Beginning with dakwah movements such as the Malaysian Youth Islamic Movement (ABIM) advocating for the integration of Islamic values in all aspects of life, Mahathir Mohamad’s (1981-2003) Islamisation initiatives later reinforced the process in its bid to out-Islamise Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS). During this period, the sharia courts also expanded their scope through the implementation of the Islamic Family Law in 1984. These reforms, however, reinforced male prerogatives in polygamy and divorce, restricting women’s legal recourse.

SIS Forum advocates gender justice by challenging the “predominant discourse on Islam and women’s rights” built on patriarchal interpretations of Islamic law. It offers alternative interpretations through broad universal principles aligned with Islam. However, some religious authorities have been hostile to its work; they have accused the group of misinterpreting Islam and departing from accepted Islamic jurisprudence. Critics of the group have cited its lack of formal religious or theological training. They have also questioned its authority to speak on religious matters.

Carrying the “Islam” in an organisation’s name may grant legitimacy to speak on religion, but it also invites heightened scrutiny if its views diverge from mainstream interpretations. This has long been the case for alternative and progressive voices like SIS and the Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF), which have faced negative labelling and public attacks. Against this backdrop, SIS’s decision to remove “Islam” from its name is pragmatic. By heeding the Sultan of Selangor’s request while reaffirming its commitment to advocacy, SIS Forum underscores that an organisation’s worth should be judged by its values and impact rather than its label. It also signals the group’s respect for the Malay rulers, who are constitutionally the heads of Islam.  

More importantly, dropping “Islam” allows the public to assess the organisation’s work objectively. SIS has been at the forefront of advocating for women’s rights. It contributed to a campaign that secured the Domestic Violence Act in 1994, pushed for family law reforms such as ending child marriage and criminalising marital rape, and provided legal aid to women. Yet, accusations of deviancy from mainstream Islamic teachings have often overshadowed its contributions. Rebranding may help mitigate the legal and political pressures that have long constrained the group. Without the implied claim to religious authority in its name, Islamic enforcement bodies — who view SIS as encroaching on the domain of the ulama—  may find it harder to frame its work as an illegitimate theological venture.

Ultimately, progress can only happen if organisations that wish to project their Islamic identity remain committed to universal principles that align with Islam and its core mission over symbolism, slogans, and labels.

In addition, like-minded civil society groups may feel less pressure to work with SIS in the face of conservative religious criticism. This could encourage broader alliances, with various stakeholders within Malaysia and beyond. They could include secular and religious groups and even government institutions that might otherwise have been deterred by the potential religious controversy. This would likely expand the SIS’s reach and impact.

In short, dropping of the ‘Islam’ label might do more for women’s rights in Malaysia. Religious bureaucracies in Malaysia, which act as gatekeepers of Islam, will continue to challenge individuals and organisations advancing alternative discourses within the Islamic tradition. While SIS’s rebranding does not eliminate these obstacles, it offers the progressive voices in Malaysia a strategic way forward: to redirect their work from merely challenging dominant religious interpretations to highlighting the tangible impact of such interpretations on communities. The latter is a tangible benefit to communities, which would make it hard for the religious authorities to dismiss.

Alternative voices like SIS Forum remain vital in Malaysia, as they navigate challenges facing women. SIS Forum’s advocacy for gender justice is especially crucial amid ongoing Islamisation, which is why it needs to engage the religious elite in more fruitful means rather than posing a political challenge to their authority. It serves as a counterweight to fatwas by bringing in the sociological, psychological, and legal perspectives. As one of the country’s oldest women’s rights organisations, its work is indispensable and irreplaceable. The task for SIS Forum remains the same: to highlight the realities of gender inequality, particularly the real and lasting impact that such laws, fatwas, and policies have on communities, in addition to pushing for interpretations that uphold justice and equality.

Ironically, SIS’s rebranding has led to calls for other entities to do likewise. This includes UMNO Supreme Council member Puad Zarkashi, who has urged PAS to similarly drop “Islam” from its name, citing the party’s recent controversial track record in Kelantan and Terengganu. Puad’s statement is politically motivated to belittle a rival party, but if viewed objectively, there is truth that organisations should be judged by their actions and impact rather than their religious labels. True religiosity is reflected in how values and ethics are embodied in organisational practices. Ultimately, progress can only happen if organisations that wish to project their Islamic identity remain committed to universal principles that align with Islam and its core mission over symbolism, slogans, and labels.

2025/278