“False Doctrine” in the Administration of Muslim Law Act

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

When they propose further amendments to the Administration of Muslim Law Act, I sincerely hope this section is defined better: 

False doctrine

139.—(1)  Whoever shall teach or publicly expound any doctrine or perform any ceremony or act relating to the Muslim religion in any manner contrary to the Muslim law shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. 

How do we define a false doctrine?  We have a lot of people espousing the positions of the Wahhabi sect, many of them registered in the ARS, teaching in our mosques and present in our Muslim organisations.  Should not a theology that states explicitly that Allah (s.w.t.) has a form, that other Muslims are kuffar, and is the underlying ideology of ISIS, JI, Al-Qaeda and almost every other terrorist group be considered a false doctrine? 

On the other hand, we have these same people with extremist ideas making takfir of Shi’ah, Sufis, and anybody who espouses a position that is different to theirs.  Are we saying that the Shi’ah fall under this “false doctrine”?  What about certain Sufi doctrines or the more esoteric positions of taswawwuf? 

When these sections talk about “false doctrines”, does it refer to theological positions or jurisprudential ones?  If theological, what are the accepted schools of creed, and what are the parameters that “take someone out of Islam”?  If jurisprudential, that is even more problematic, since it makes differences in legal opinion sufficient cause for takfir.  Are we going to have a new mihna and relive the Mu’tazilah persecution of the Hanbalis, for example?  We need to relook this and define it.  Otherwise, we should remove it.