OPINION | Can a Muslim Dine in a Non-Halal Certified Restaurant?
2 Oct 2025 • 8:00 AM MYT
.png)
Fa Abdul
FA ABDUL is a former columnist of Malaysiakini & Free Malaysia Today (FMT)
Photo by Fa Abdul
When photos of Tengku Zafrul tucking into a bowl of Penang Road Famous Laksa started circulating, social media had a field day. Some Malaysians debated whether the broth was authentic, others fixated on the fact that the restaurant was not halal-certified. The real question, though, is this: Can a Muslim dine in a non-halal certified restaurant?
Let’s be clear - Malaysia has a halal certification system for Muslims who want formal assurance that what they’re eating complies with Islamic dietary requirements. But absence of a halal certificate does not automatically make food haram. It simply means the establishment hasn’t applied for, or hasn’t received, certification. That could be because of cost, paperwork, or simply because the stall caters to everyone.
Full confession time: I love Penang food. From apam balik to dim sum; from chee cheong fun to char kuey kak; and prawn noodles to char kuey teow - I live for it. Most of these gems are at morning-market stalls or hawker food courts and, yes, most are non-halal certified.
My ritual is simple: I ask the seller, “Ada pork atau lard?” If they say no, I tuck in. If that’s a crime, then Penangites are serial offenders - guilty at breakfast, lunch and supper.
As a Malaysian, I trust the sellers. If they say “no pork, no lard,” I believe them. And let me tell you, they’ve given me no reason to distrust them. Many times, sellers have been upfront with me, explaining that a dish does contain pork, or that the wok they use was also used to prepare pork dishes. Every time I ask, they always answer sincerely, and I appreciate that honesty.
Photo by Fa Abdul
So, did Zafrul commit an offence? Short answer: probably not. Unless the food actually contained haram elements (pork, lard, alcohol, or non-halal slaughter), there’s no law that criminalises Muslims for merely dining in non-certified premises. If there were, countless Malay makciks selling nasi lemak by the roadside would be in trouble - and we all know that doesn’t happen. Why? Because we trust the makciks by default. Muslim = trusted. Non-Muslim = suspicious. That’s not law. That’s prejudice.
This is exactly why the “No Pork, No Lard” debate is such a circus. As the Law & Disorder piece argued, JAIS or the Selangor Islamic Religious Department’s warning about the phrase smells of “lebih sudu dari kuah.” A sign that says “No Pork, No Lard” doesn’t claim to be halal - it’s information. If the worry is cross-contamination or hidden ingredients, then those hygiene standards should apply equally to every eatery, halal-certified or not. But enforcement and outrage always seem to land in very uneven places.
Look, if our religious departments really want to prove a point, I’ll make this easy: follow me around Penang markets for a day. Bring a clipboard. Ask every stall the same question: “Ada babi? Ada tikus? Ada lipas? Ada lalat?” I’ll even buy you breakfast when we’re done. But the real test isn’t whether I can be policed out of a bowl of laksa - it’s whether we’re using law to police taste and identity instead of protecting public health and fairness.
Muslims who want certainty already have the halal logo. For everyone else, “No Pork, No Lard” is a useful sign - not a theological claim. The bigger problems are hygiene, transparency, inconsistent enforcement, and the lazy slide from consumer information to moral panic.
Will I be summoned by the religious department for this article? Maybe. If they come knocking, I’ll hand them a plate of char kuey teow and ask politely if they’d like to check for lard themselves. But the fuss over Zafrul’s laksa isn’t the scandal - the scandal is how easily we confuse certification with faith, and law with prejudice. If we can’t eat without an anxious moral ledger, the broth isn’t murky - our thinking is.
So, did Zafrul commit an offence? Short answer: probably not. Unless the food actually contained haram elements (pork, lard, alcohol, or non-halal slaughter), there’s no law that criminalises Muslims for merely dining in non-certified premises. If there were, countless Malay makciks selling nasi lemak by the roadside would be in trouble - and we all know that doesn’t happen. Why? Because we trust the makciks by default. Muslim = trusted. Non-Muslim = suspicious. That’s not law. That’s prejudice.
This is exactly why the “No Pork, No Lard” debate is such a circus. As the Law & Disorder piece argued, JAIS or the Selangor Islamic Religious Department’s warning about the phrase smells of “lebih sudu dari kuah.” A sign that says “No Pork, No Lard” doesn’t claim to be halal - it’s information. If the worry is cross-contamination or hidden ingredients, then those hygiene standards should apply equally to every eatery, halal-certified or not. But enforcement and outrage always seem to land in very uneven places.
Look, if our religious departments really want to prove a point, I’ll make this easy: follow me around Penang markets for a day. Bring a clipboard. Ask every stall the same question: “Ada babi? Ada tikus? Ada lipas? Ada lalat?” I’ll even buy you breakfast when we’re done. But the real test isn’t whether I can be policed out of a bowl of laksa - it’s whether we’re using law to police taste and identity instead of protecting public health and fairness.
Muslims who want certainty already have the halal logo. For everyone else, “No Pork, No Lard” is a useful sign - not a theological claim. The bigger problems are hygiene, transparency, inconsistent enforcement, and the lazy slide from consumer information to moral panic.
Will I be summoned by the religious department for this article? Maybe. If they come knocking, I’ll hand them a plate of char kuey teow and ask politely if they’d like to check for lard themselves. But the fuss over Zafrul’s laksa isn’t the scandal - the scandal is how easily we confuse certification with faith, and law with prejudice. If we can’t eat without an anxious moral ledger, the broth isn’t murky - our thinking is.
***
Ever since I came across FA's column (FMT as well as MKINI) I became an ardent fan, as well as a love-sick boy, wakakaka 😂😂😂 just luv this sweetie, and best of all she's a Penang girl too.
No comments:
Post a Comment