2408183 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1433

2408183 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1433 (28 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative:  Mr Abu Siddique
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2408183

Tribunal:General Member T Flood
Date:28 March 2025

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria:
·s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 28 March 2025 at 10:48am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Malaysia – Federal Circuit Court remittal – religion – GISB group member – particular social group – victim of loan shark – threats from criminal gang – marriages not recognised – banned religious group – fatwas declared against GISB – state protection – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and transitional Provisions No1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 367, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 17 February 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 5 October 2017. The visa was refused on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied there is a real chance or a real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm on return to Malaysia for the reasons claimed in the application for the Protection visa.
On 1 March 2017 the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of the delegates decision. On 11 September 2018 a differently constituted AAT affirmed the decision.
The applicant sought a review of the AAT decision by the Federal Circuit Court. [In] February 2024 the matter was remitted back to the AAT for reconsideration.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 February and 4 March 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s husband. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence before the Department
In the application for the Protection visa the applicant indicated that she was born in Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia. She indicated she is a Malay Muslim and was previously married [in] July 2009 but divorced [in] July 2015. She indicated that her parents and [number] children reside in Bintulu, Sarawak.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] July 2016 holding a Visitor visa. Previously she made a business trip to China from [in] April 2012.
The applicant declared that she resided at [Address 1], Bintulu in Malaysia. She indicated she completed two certificate qualifications and was employed as a Sales Advisor in [product 1] store in Bintulu from [specified year] onwards.
The applicant claims that she left her country because she was threatened by a money lender at her house and her workplace. She said her ex-husband used her name to lend money from the money lender. She said she lost her job due to the money lender disturbing her at her place of employment. Even when she tried to move to another place the money lender kept hunting her and threatening to kill her.
The applicant claims that she is traumatised by the violence they inflicted on her and if she returns to her country she might be killed by the money lender. Even though she lodged a report she received no protection.
The applicant attached a copy of her passport, a copy of her Malaysian Identity Card and a copy of her birth certificate to the application. She also attached a copy of her marriage and divorce certificate.
Also attached to the application is a copy of a police report dated [in] July 2016.
Delegates decision
The delegate considered country information relating to law enforcement and the judiciary generally and police operations against loan sharks and concluded that the applicant could avail herself of protection from the Malaysian authorities against the harm she fears.
Evidence before the Tribunal
On 7 February 2025 the applicant submitted an amended statement of claims to the Tribunal. She states the following:
She fled Malaysia due to the extreme threats and danger she faced after her ex-husband used her identity without her consent to secure a loan from an illegal money lender. The money lender demanded repayment of the loan and threatened her with abduction, forced prostitution, sexual assault and even death if she failed to pay.
The applicant claims she was in a situation where she could not escape nor rely on the authorities to protect her. She claims that the situation was made worse by her family’s association with the Al-Arqam/Rufaqa/GISB group which is a target of discrimination and persecution in Malaysia. For this reason she found herself further isolated and vulnerable.
The applicant claims that the Malaysian authorities have consistently failed to provide protection for victims of money lenders. She claims that when she went to the police they dismissed her case, claiming that the loan was a private matter and in any event she had no proof of the loan arrangement made by her ex-husband.
The applicant claims that as a member of the Al-Arqam/Rufaqa/GISB group she faced further challenges. She states that the group was banned by the Malaysian government in the 1990’s due to its unorthodox religious practices and its members are often subjected to severe social stigma, harassment and discrimination. She herself suffered this treatment and her family’s continued affiliation with this group made her and her children targets of public ridicule.
The applicant further claims that the legal framework in Malaysia also presents significant barriers for women in situations like hers. She states that personal status laws are strictly governed by Islamic and state laws and there is little recourse for individuals who marriages or relationships are not officially recognised by the authorities. She states that as her marriage in Australia was not registered with the Malaysian Religious Department or approved by her family, there is a strong possibility that it could be deemed invalid under Malaysian law. This would not only threaten the legitimacy of her marriage but would also call into question the legitimacy of her daughter’s birth as the law stipulates that children born to a couple not legally married under Malaysian law can face issues regarding their birth certificate, inheritance rights and social standing.
The applicant further states that children of unmarried couples, or those whose marriages are not recognised by the authorities, can face extreme difficulties. She states that her daughter could be denied access to state-run schools or if she is allowed to attend she could be subjected to discrimination and bullying because of her legal status and their family’s affiliation with the Al-Arqam/Rufaqa/GISB group. She fears that her daughter would face severe isolation from her peers and her future opportunities could be severely limited.
The applicant also states that female circumcision (known as “sunat Perempuan”) is commonly practised among Muslim communities, with the government supporting the practice as part of Islamic tradition. She states that she strongly opposes this practice, as it violates her personal beliefs and her understanding of the rights of women and children. She states that the thought of her daughter being subjected to this procedure against her will and beliefs is terrifying. She fears her daughter could be left with permanent physical and emotional scars. She states that in Malaysia, refusing to comply with cultural practices could result in legal consequences as well as social ostracization and backlash from both the government and community members.
Furthermore, the applicant states that her ability to provide for her family would be severely compromised if she returns to Malaysia. She states that she is the sole financial provider for her parents who have lost their jobs due to their association with the Al-Arqam/Rufaqa/GISB group and returning to Malaysia would leave her unable to support them.
The applicant claims that the legal framework in Malaysia provides no protection for women who have been victims of domestic violence, harassment and discrimination and who belong to a religious group that has been banned by the state. She claims the police and the authorities have failed her at every turn and the laws regarding marriage, family and personal status offer her no relief.
The Tribunal also received the following documents in support of the application:
-Copies of two photographs showing an injured man lying on the ground being attended to by medical personnel (the Tribunal notes it was confirmed at hearing that this evidence was mistakenly provided by the applicant’s representative and does not relate to her case).
-Copy of Counselling Notes following two therapy sessions held on 18 and 25 January 2025.
-A letter from [Ms A], Vice-President of [Community Group 1] dated 28 January 2025. [Ms A] relates that the applicant has told her about her experiences in Malaysia due to her philosophical beliefs and the extreme behaviour of her ex-husband.
-A letter from the [Mr A], [specified Islamic leader], dated 13 January 2025 offering clarification of the practice of circumcision of Muslim girls in Malaysia.
-A media statement of The Office of the Children’s Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia titled ‘PDRM Raid GISB’s Care Homes: CC Troubled for Child Victims Involved’, dated 13 September 2024.
-A letter from [Ms B] dated 11 February 2025 attesting that she knows the applicant through her attendance at the Ikhwan [venue in] Sydney, a business subsidiary of GISB Australia. The letter states that through this interaction insight was gained into the applicant’s family background and their affiliation with Al-Arqam. The letter states that GISB has long been a target of scrutiny and government suppression in Malaysia and members of GISB have endured a wide range of injustices, including slander, systemic discrimination and social ostracism. The organisation and its members have been stigmatised and treated as pariahs in Malaysian society and are frequently depicted as deviants. It is claimed that being a member of GISB the applicant will receive the same treatment if she returns to Malaysia.
-Copies of photographs showing the appliant in various settings, including a home, which display Al-Arqam imagery.
-Copies of covers of Al-Arqam literature.
Tribunal hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 February 2025. The oral testimony she gave during this hearing is summarised as follows:
She was born in Sibu, Sarawak and is a citizen of Malaysia.
She declared her religion to be Islam.
She was previously married in Malaysia. She separated from her husband in May 2015 and they divorced in July 2015. She is unaware of the whereabouts of her former husband and has no contact with him.
She has [number] children from her first marriage. The children are aged [respective ages]. Before she came to Australia she left them in a GISB welfare home. Recently her sister took the children from the home after it was raided by the government in a crackdown against the organisation in 2024. They remain living with her sister. Her ex-husband has no contact with the children.
She remarried in Australia [in] July 2017 to a Malaysian citizen from Pahang. He unsuccessfully applied for a Protection visa. Her marriage was performed in accordance with Islamic law and she has a valid marriage certificate. She has a child from this marriage who was born on [date].
Her father married twice. Both her parents and [number] siblings reside in Sarawak, Malaysia. Her parents and her siblings work in GISB businesses.
She maintains a relationship with her family members in Malaysia. They are aware that she has remarried and has a child. Her husband is Muslim but does not follow her adherence to Al-Arqam beliefs. Her parents are not very happy that she has married a person who doesn’t follow their faith and they do not speak to him.
Her husband was raised by relatives and does not have a good relationship with his biological parents. His family are aware of their marriage and child. She has not met them.
Before coming to Australia she lived in Bintulu, Sarawak. She worked in a [product 1] store. It was not a GISB business but she frequented GISB businesses on the weekends.
She is uncertain whether her husband would return to Malaysia with her and she does not know where she would return to.
She departed Malaysia because she was threatened by a loan shark. Also she was discriminated against from a young age because she grew up in an Al-Arqam congregation. She did not mention the latter when she made the application for a Protection visa as she did not know what was involved and relied on her migration agent. She also had no evidence to prove this claim.
Her ex-husband borrowed money from a loan shark in 2015 in her name without her knowledge. She does not know who the loan shark is or how much was borrowed. When her husband left her the lenders came looking for her and threatened her to repay the loan. Initially they came to disturb her in early 2016. They dragged her from her car and told her she had to pay the loan. She went into hiding for about one month but then returned home. Later the lender came to her house and accused her of trying to run away. They said she must repay the loan or they would kidnap her. She decided to report them to the police. The police asked her for proof which she didn’t have. The day after she made a report the loan shark attacked her at her home. They removed her clothes and videotaped her and they threatened to make her a prostitute because she reported them to the police. She ran to the kitchen and took a knife and during a struggle she stabbed one of the lenders in the leg. She shouted for help and they ran away. She has not repaid the loan and she is afraid that the lender will circulate the video. She has never mentioned any of this to her family in Malaysia and the lender has not approached her family as far as she knows.
She was born and raised in the Al-Arqam tradition. In 1994 Al-Arqam was banned and her father was arrested and forced to repent. All her father’s businesses were frozen and because of these events her parents divorced. She continued living with her father.
While she was at school she was abused verbally and accused of following deviant Islamic teachings and ostracised. She and other believers were ostracised by the community and continually humiliated. They were not treated equally by the government. She was eventually chased out of school due to the discriminatory behaviour of her teacher. She then went to a village school run by GISB where she studied religion. When she was [age] she was married off to another GISB member.
She and her community were identified as Al-Arqam believers because they lived in a close community and because of the way they pray. She explained that Al-Arqam believers practice a form of chanting when they pray. She said their attire was also different. The men wear a different headdress and the women used to wear the burqa although this practice was eventually banned by the authorities.
All GISB businesses use the same name and logo and are easily identifiable as such.
If she is required to return to Malaysia she would seek out other Al-Arqam/GISB members to live and work with.
In Australia she mostly prays at home and sometimes she attends a mosque. Her husband initially had a biased view toward her religious practice but now he does not mind. Now they both visit GISB businesses together when they have the opportunity to visit Sydney.
In Malaysia Al-Arqam followers did not join together with other Muslims or attend mosque together. They attended their own chapels. Their activities were always monitored and they had to pray quietly.
The events that occurred in 2024 and resulted in large scale arrests of GISB members are very serious and prove that the government wants to eradicate Al-Arqam believers and GISB. She confirmed that GISB advocates the teachings of Al-Arqam despite some claims that they do not. Her father managed to avoid arrest last year and is now living in hiding as are some of her other family members. Presently, any known associate of GISB is at risk of being detained, interrogated and subjected to harsh treatment in detention. She has copies of Al-Arqam literature in her possession and such publications are banned in Malaysia. If she is found in possession of any of these books she will face criminal charges. She confirmed she owned such books in Malaysia but was never arrested for that reason.
During a second hearing held on 4 March 2025 the applicant stated that while growing up in Malaysia she lived and socialised exclusively with other Al-Arqam followers. She said they didn’t engage with the outside community. They prayed separately to other Muslims, socialised separately and shopped and ate only in GISB businesses. The majority of believers are not allowed to work in other establishments and they have to marry within the group. She lived in this manner until she departed Malaysia.
If she is required to return to Malaysia she will still follow the Al-Arqam teachings. This is against Sharia law and she doesn’t know how long she could conceal her beliefs. For example, her neighbours may become aware that she is practicing her prayers differently and report her. They will also notice that she is not attending mosque.
Selangor is the first Malaysian state to issue a fatwa against GISB and this practice has now spread all over the country. The national Islamic religious department has also issued a fatwa.
If she returns to Malaysia she will find other Al-Arqam followers either in her home area or elsewhere in Malaysia. She will find them through contacts. There are followers in every state and there is a contact person in each area.
In Australia she lives in [Town 1] and she and her husband attend a mosque which is used by both Sunni and Shia Muslims. If she goes to the mosque to pray she chants her prayers out loud and nobody is bothered by it. She cannot do this in Malaysia.
Regarding her marriage she confirmed that it is registered with the Malaysian authorities in Australia. She has proof of such. Similarly, her daughter’s birth is registered with the Malaysian authorities in Australia.
Even though they have registered the marriage in Australia they will be required to re-register it under Sharia law in Malaysia. Only after this can they register their daughter’s birth under Sharia law. They will encounter problems because they married without a letter of approval from a relevant religious office and without a witness affirmed by the Malaysia Islamic Department. The marriage also ought to have been approved by her father. These circumstances will cause the religious department to doubt the credibility of her marriage. She could be fined or sentenced to 6 months imprisonment.

If her daughter is subjected to FGM she, as her mother, will be traumatised and mentally disturbed. She doesn’t oppose FGM because it is mandated by a fatwa and if her daughter was going to be circumcised this should have occurred when she was born so that she does not remember it. Now her daughter is [age] and both she and her husband are opposed to it happening now. However, if they return to Malaysia they will have to follow the law. She does not know anybody in Malaysia who is not circumcised. If one day her daughter revealed that she is not circumcised they will be punished.
The Tribunal heard testimony from the applicant’s husband during the hearing held on 4 March 2025.
He stated that he is a Malaysian citizen and met and married his wife in Australia. He confirmed he is Muslim. He said that his wife is an Al-Arqam believer and her religious beliefs are different to mainstream Sunni Muslim beliefs. He said his wife reads her prayers differently, in a loud chanting manner.
He was aware of the existence of Al-Arqam in Malaysia and he knows there is a fatwa in place forbidding people to follow those teachings.
He is not against his wife’s religious practice but if they were to return to Malaysia they would encounter problems with the government as her beliefs are banned.
If they are required to return to Malaysia they would re-enter through Kuala Lumpur airport. Due to his wife’s strong religious beliefs he does not know where they could safely settle. He would not be willing to live among Al-Arqam followers in Malaysia.
He confirmed that he does not have a good relationship with his family in Malaysia. He said he was the subject of harm from family members and he grew up with his grandparents. His grandparents have passed away as have his parents.
He is strongly opposed to the practice of FGM. Even so he fears his daughter may be forced to under FGM. He said that every child born outside of Malaysia is subjected to a full medical check up on return which includes their circumcision history.
Post-hearing submissions
The applicant provided the following documents for consideration:
-Copy of a Marriage Certificate issued in Victoria, Australia and dated [on] July 2017.
-Copy of her daughter’s Birth Certificate issued in Victoria, Australia. The date of birth is shown to be [date].
-Copy of a news article titled ‘Police to raid and seize GISB premises in Sabah, Sarawak’, News Straits Times, 26 September, 2024.
-Copy of a document titled ‘Prohibition on the involvement of civil servants and royal agencies in activities that are related to Al-Arqam’, Traveling Letter AM bil. 4 years 1994.
-Copy of a document titled ‘Rufaqa Company’ regarding a decision of the meeting of the Johor State Fatwa Committee convened on 26 July 2007.
-Copy of a document titled ‘Rufaqa Corporation Sdn. Bhd. (Former Followers of Darul Arqam Group)’ regarding a decision of the eleventh Sarawak State Fatwas Institute Meeting convened on 10 Zulkaedah 1427H/ December 1, 2006.
-Copy of a document titled ‘Laws of Sarawak, Online Version of Updated Text of Reprint, Chapter 46, Syariah Criminal Offences Ordinance, 2001, Incorporating all amendments up to 30 June 2007’, Prepared and published by the Commissioner of Law Revision, Sarawak, Under the authority of the Revision of Laws Ordinance 1992, 2007.
-Copy of a document titled ‘Laws of Malaysia, Reprint, Act 355, Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965.
-Source document and Translated Copy of a Media Statement, Chairman of the Muzakarah Committee, National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs, Malaysia (MKI) Regarding Legal Opinion Decision of the MKI Muzakarah Committee Meeting on the Study of Aqidah, Sharia and Morality/Sufism Issues in GISB Holdings SDN. BHD. (GISBH) dated 13 November 2024.
-A translated copy of a document titled ‘Decision of the Sarawak Fatwa Board Meeting’ dated 1 December 2006 regarding a report on the activities of Rufaqa Corporation SDN. BHD. (Former followers of the Darul Arqam Group).
COUNTRY INFORMATION
Al-Arqam/Rufaqa/GISB
Country information indicates Al-Arqam is an alternative name for the Islamist organisation also known as Darul Arqam.[1] Al-Arqam was founded as a study group by religious teacher Ashaari Muhammad (Ashaari) in 1968.[2] Al-Arqam followed the Sunni school of Islam but engaged in practices characteristic of a Sufi order.[3] Additional background information about Al-Arqam states:
Al Arqam emerged in 1968 as a small community of purified Muslims that sought to resurrect the classical Islamic society that existed in seventh century Median, Saudi Arabia. Over the years, Al Arqam grew in size, membership and popularity and became quite a formidable force in Malaysian politics questioning the political system and arguing for the establishment of an Islamic theocracy. The movement did not get to realise its political agenda because in 1994 that is after twenty-six years in existence the Malaysian government decided to ban it on charges that Al Arqam’s messianic messages about the coming of a messiah called Imam Mahdi, deviated grossly from established beliefs.[4]
[1] Political Islam in Malaysia – The rise and fall of Al-Arqam, Sharifah Zaleha Syed Hassan, Asian Cultural Studies, 19 March 2006.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Malaysia: Further information: Arrests and harassment of Islamic followers: Khadija Aam, Ashaari Muhammad, Mubaraka Muhammad, Soad Sulayman’, Amnesty International, 4 September 1994
[4] Political Islam in Malaysia – The rise and fall of Al-Arqam, Sharifah Zaleha Syed Hassan, Asian Cultural Studies, 19 March 2006.
Sources indicate Al-Arqam set up trading companies, including manufacturing concerns, department stores, retail shops, restaurants and a number of publishing and printing companies, video centres, schools and clinics and amassed total assets amounting to billions in US currency through its business activity, regimentation of commune labour and donations from supporters.[5]
[5] Islamic Cult Banned in Malaysia, Religion in Modern Asia Newsletter, 1 December 1994
A further report from Amnesty International dated 31 august 1999 provides additional detail in relation to the banning of Al-Arqam and imprisonment of members including, Ashaari Mohammad:
In August 1994, after the National Fatwa Council (the highest authority on Islamic law in Malaysia) ruled that the teachings and beliefs of the group contravened Islamic practice and tenets, the government declared Al Arqam unlawful under the Societies Act[…]. Some 150 members were subsequently arrested as a result of the banning, but were released on bail. Seven senior members were detained under the ISA, including Al Arqam leader in exile Ashaari Muhammad, who had been handed over to Malaysian police by the Thai authorities in September 1994. In October 1994 Ashaari announced the disbanding of Al Arqam, saying that he had accepted the charges of ‘deviationist’ beliefs while discussing religious issues with police during his detention. Amnesty International declared the detainees possible prisoners of conscience held solely for the peaceful expression of their religious beliefs. The organisation’s concerns about possible ill-treatment of the Al Arqam detainees were confirmed when, during Anwar Ibrahim’s trial in November 1998, a Special Branch officer stated that ‘turning over’ techniques had been used against Al Arqam detainees.
All the Al Arqam ISA detainees were subsequently released, though most were subject to orders restricting their freedom of movement and association. In mid-1996, 18 former members of Al Arqam were detained under the ISA and nine were served two-year detention orders on suspicion of attempting to revive the movement. All were subsequently conditionally released.[6]
[6] Malaysia: Human rights undermined: Restrictive laws in a parliamentary democracy, Amnesty International, 31 august 1999
Regarding the fatwa imposed on Al-Arqam on 5 August 1994, the National Fatwa Council decided that the ideology of the Al-Arqam group, as contained in two books titled Aurad Muhammadiah Pengangan Darul Arqam Sekaligus Menjawab Tuduhan (Reply to Accusations) and Manaqib (Biography) Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdullah As-suhaimi, were deviations from true Islamic teachings. This decision by the National Fatwa Council was gazetted in State Islamic Administration enactments in Malaysia.[7]
[7] Legal provisions and restrictions on the propagation of non-Islamic religions among Muslims in Malaysia’, Universiti Sains Malaysia Press, Kusrin, ZM, nasohah, Z, Samuri Ma-Z MNM, 31 august 2013
Country information indicates that on his release Ashaari and his followers opened the Rufaqa Corporation, which continued the work of preaching Islam through businesses and welfare activities.[8] Sources indicate the Malaysian authorities issued a fatwa against Rufaqa in 2006 due to deviations from the officially sanctioned form of Islam and this resulted in raids on the premises of the organisation, arrests of alleged ring-leaders and charges in the Syariah Court for subscribing to and propagating false Islamic doctrines. Rufaqa was deregistered due to pressure placed on the organisation by Malaysian authorities and a further company was later incorporated – Global Ikhwan.[9]
[8] Islam in Malaysia, an Entwined History, Oxford University Press, 1 September 2019
[9] Fatwa on Rufaqa already issued, Associated Press (AP), 29 November 2006; The Aurad Muhammadia Congregation: Modern Transnational Sufism in Southeast Asia, Ahmad Fauzi Abdul Hamid, Institute of South East Asian Studies, 1 January 2012.
Country information indicates that from 2011 Malaysian authorities had concerns that Global Ikhwan was still following the ideology and practices of Al-Arqam.
Jakim [Department of Islamic Development Malaysia] director-general Othman Mustapha said its members and their activities were being monitored not only by Jakim but also the state religious departments and other enforcement agencies.
…
“When Al-Arqam was banned, they had about 10,000 members nationwide and we had to spend a substantial amount of money to bring them back to the true teachings of Islam.
“We held continuous programmes for them, with the help of state religious departments”, he told the New Strait Times yesterday.
“However, there is still a large number of them who are still adamant and continue to practise its teachings. They have been found to be very active in recruiting new members and spreading the doctrine.
……
“Despite all the different names, they are still the very same Al-Arqam”.
Some sources suggest that the leadership of Global Ikhwan dismissed links between the organisation and Al-Arqam:
In an exclusive interview with FMT, Chief Executive Officer Lokman Hakim Pfordten said GISB has eroded its image as the business wing of Al-Arqam and is focused on strengthening its position as an international company.[10]
[10] Kikis ‘stigma’ Al-arqam, Global Ikhwan appears international Malay-Islamic example company, Free Malaysia Today, 19 June 2022
An earlier media article from 2015 states:
After Ashaari passed away in 2010 one of his widows, Hatijah Aam, took over his business empire. In May 2013 she was arrested when returning from Saudi Arabia on charges of trying to resurrect the movement through the company.
….
Lokman, however, is adamant those days of controversy are over. Following the outrage, he and a few hundred Global Ikhwan employees attended 500 hours of “rehabilitation courses”, conducted by the Selangor Islamic Religious Department, and in a public ceremony in October 2013, renounced their beliefs. [11]
[11] Polygamy Inc: how Global Ikhwan is becoming a lifestyle choice for many devout Muslims, South China Morning Post, 18 July 2015
Regarding the visibility of Al-Arqam followers in society country information indicates they are identifiable due to wearing traditional Islamic clothing, living in communes and practicing polygamy.[12] Later, however, the members of Global Ikhwan reportedly embraced the Islamic dress of other Malaysian Muslims.[13] Further, there is information that indicates Al-Arqam followers have been known to engage in various spiritual practices including chanting and reciting prayers. One specific practice associated with Al-Arqam is the recitation of the Aurad Muhammadiah, which is a set of chants and prayers. When Al-Arqam was banned in 1994 many of its practices including the Aurad Muhammadiah were also prohibited at both state and national levels.[14]
[12] Radical chic: Islamic fringe groups again influence among the elite, 26 May 1994; Holier than them, 23 July 1994
[13] Life after Al-Arqam sees Global Ikhwan expand on halal business, The Malaysian Insider, 21 December 2014
[14] Chapter 12: Al-Arqam and Nadamurni Chapter 12: Al-Arqam and Nadamurni – Dr Zulkifli Mohamad Al Bakri; Rahman Arifai, Ishak Saat, al-Arqam: Pioneer of Nasyid Art in Malaysia, 1975-1997 al-arqam-pioneer-of-nasyid-art-in-malaysia-1975-1997.pdf
Extensive news coverage from late 2024 indicates that the Malaysian authorities launched an operation against GISB run care centres across the country. Raids reportedly resulted in the rescue of hundreds of children who were being sexually exploited in day-care centres run by GISB. Reportedly the nation reacted in shock and anger to the discovery as complaints against the homes run by GISB were reportedly first made as early as 2011. The raids on premises across the country resulted in the arrest of hundreds of individuals, the freezing of bank accounts; widespread closure of GISB businesses and confiscation of assets. The raids on GISB premises reportedly also uncovered hundreds of books and pamphlets associated with the teachings of Al-Arqam indicating that the group continues to embrace doctrines declared deviant since 1994.[15] GISB has denied running the homes and all allegations of abuse.[16]
[15] After shocking discovery in ‘care homes’ linked to banned cult, decade-long delay raises questions, Malaysia Now, 13 September 2024; From Bank accutns, books and bling to tech gear, real estate, and peacocks: a laundry list of GISB assets frozen, closed or confiscated by police, Malay Mail, 23 September 2024; Police intensify crackdown on GISBH activities, seizing books, pamphlets linked to Al-Arqam, The Malaysian Reserve, 22 September 2024; In public they ran a successful global business. In private, police allege they abused hundreds of children, CNN World, 1 February 2025
[16] Child abuse case puts banned Malaysian sect back in the spotlight, VOA, 16 September 2024
An article published by The Straits Times on 15 November 2024 states:
“The Muzakarah Committee of the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs Malaysia (MKI) declared that the teachings, beliefs and ideology of GISB Holdings (GISB) are deviant and stray from Islamic teachings. MKI Muzakarah Committee Chairman, Dr Nooh Gadut, stated that the committee which was convened from Sept 24 to 26 is convinced and satisfied with the arguments and evidence presented by the researchers regarding GISB.
He explained that the teachings propagated by Nasiruddin Mohd Ali from GISB, as well as his followers or anyone connected to the company, firm, organisation, association or group associated with it, or anyone else exhibiting deviationary characteristics are considered deviant and straying from Islamic teachings.
…..
He urged Muslims to avoid these teachings, beliefs and ideologies and he prohibited from adhering to, believing in, teaching, spreading, practising or becoming their followers or agents.
“Anyone who adheres to, believes in, teaches, spreads, practices, or becomes a follower of these teachings, beliefs, and ideology must sincerely repent”, he said.
Dr Nooh added that the MKI has recommended that relevant government agencies at the federal and state levels assist in carrying out the process of istitabah (repentance) and provide the necessary funding for this purpose.
He stated that the public is prohibited from possessing, storing, selling, uploading, downloading, spreading, distributing, displaying, or publishing any posters, books, magazines, pamphlets, or other reading materials, whether printed, typed, handwritten, or produced in any form or reproduction – including any films, audiovisual recordings, websites, print media, or electronic media that contain elements of the teachings, beliefs and ideologies of GISB.
Meanwhile, Dr Nooh said the Islamic Development Malaysia has submitted it legal opinion on this matter to MKI chairman, Sultan Nazrin Muizuddin Shah or Perak, and subsequently to the 267^th Conference of Rulers held on Oct 23 and 24.
“The council has taken note of the legal opinion that has been approved, and state authorities may consider this decision to enact the fatwa in their respective states” he added. [17]
[17] Malaysia’s Islamic council declares GISB teachings deviant, The Straits Times, 15 November 2024
The Malaysian Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, reportedly told Jakim and enforcement agencies to take concerted, serious action to curb the spread of deviant teachings, according to an article published by The Star on 24 September 2024.[18]
[18] PM tells Jakim to take ‘concerted, serious action’ on deviant teachings, The Star, 24 September 2024
A Malay Mail article published on 4 November 2024 indicates that about half of the states in Malaysia have declared GISB deviant and six states have issued fatwas against the organisation (Perlis, Selangor, Pahang, Melaka, Sabah and Penang). In Selangor the fatwa was gazetted on 16 October 2024. The article goes on to explain what happens if a Muslim goes against a gazetted fatwa and gives examples of individuals being charged in Shariah courts over deviant beliefs.[19]
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
[19] GISBH’s ‘deviant’ label raises legal implications: A closer look at fatwa enforcement in Malaysia, with prison a possibility for defiance’, Malay Mail, 4 November 2024
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
Country of reference
Attached to the Department file is a copy of the applicant’s Malaysian passport. Based on this evidence and in the absence of any information to the contrary the Tribunal accepts the applicant is a citizen of Malaysia and has assessed her claims against Malaysia.
Fear of harm based on the applicant’s religious beliefs
The applicant first raised the claim of adhering to the religious beliefs of the Al-Arqam group in a submission given to the Tribunal on 7 February 2025. During the first hearing the Tribunal put it to the applicant that the late introduction of this claim might cause it to be viewed adversely. She explained that she had no knowledge of the requirements for seeking protection when she arrived in Australia and was reliant on assistance obtained from an agent. She said she was advised that her claims in respect of the loan shark would be sufficient and in any event she felt she had no evidence to provide in respect of her religious beliefs. The Tribunal was persuaded that her response accounts sufficiently for the late introduction of this claim and it has not drawn any adverse inference from its late introduction.
Having carefully considered the applicant’s testimony given over the course of two hearings the Tribunal is persuaded that she was in fact born and raised in the Al-Arqam religious tradition. She was able to explain how her religious beliefs differ to those of mainstream Muslims and why they are considered ‘deviant’ in Malaysia; the different ways in which Ar-Arqam believers observe their religious prayers and how the followers live and work together as a community, including under the auspices of GISB businesses. The Tribunal considers her husband’s oral testimony and the letter of support from [Ms B], a GISB associate in Australia, also provides support for her claims and accords with country information the Tribunal has consulted. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was an adherent of Al-Arqam religious beliefs in Malaysia. Based on her testimony, and having regard to the abovementioned country information, the Tribunal also accepts that her father may have been arrested and detained for some months in 1994 when the Malaysian authorities banned the practice of Al-Arqam beliefs and ideology. Similarly, the Tribunal accepts the applicant was likely the victim of past societal and state discrimination on account of her religious beliefs in Malaysia.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant continues to adhere to Al-Arqam religious beliefs and will want to do so if she is required to return to Malaysia. The Tribunal accepts her evidence that she will attempt to locate fellow believers to gather with wherever she lives in Malaysia and that at the very least she will observe her prayers at home in accordance with the Al-Arqam practice which involves a form of chanting. The Tribunal also accepts, on the available evidence, that she keeps and reveres copies of banned Al-Arqam imagery and literature and that she will not discard this material if she is required to return to Malaysia.
Despite that Al-Arqam and Rufaqa were banned in Malaysia the applicant’s testimony indicates that she continued to observe her beliefs together with other followers until she departed Malaysia without any serious incident. She declared at hearing that although they were monitored and had to practice their beliefs somewhat discreetly she was never arrested or otherwise harmed by the authorities for doing such. During the hearing the Tribunal suggested to the applicant that it appears she may be able to continue her usual practice of praying at home if she returns to Malaysia. She replied that it wouldn’t be her preference to pray alone in Malaysia and in any event she fears that her neighbours would soon discover she is an Al-Arqam follower due to her prayer ritual and her non-attendance at mosque and would likely report her to the authorities.
Based on her past experience, the Tribunal considers the risk of harm to the applicant arising through her current form of worship, namely private prayer at home, to be low ordinarily, however, the country information detailed herein indicates that the Al-Arqam and/or GISB members are once again in the spotlight in Malaysia as a result of the operation launched against GISB business holdings in 2024. The reporting outlined above indicates that the police raids launched in 2024 were widely reported and drew the ire of the Malaysian population and state and national authorities regardless of GISB’s attempts to defend the organisation. This situation is reportedly serious, ongoing and widespread and the Tribunal is persuaded that where a person to be suspected of following Al-Arqam beliefs and practices at this point in time their behaviour might likely be reported to either religious or enforcement authorities in Malaysia. As the applicant has declared she chants her prayers often and loudly and does not attend mosque the Tribunal is persuaded that there is a chance, which is not remote, that her religious beliefs could come to the attention of the religious or enforcement agencies in Malaysia. Should this occur, the Tribunal considers it is likely that she would be visited in her home and that the banned Al-Arqam literature she keeps might also be discovered. Given the current environment, the Tribunal is satisfied that her religious beliefs, which are considered deviant and banned in Malaysia, will be detected.
Current reporting indicates that fatwas have been declared against GISB and its teachings in about half the states of Malaysia but only gazetted as yet in Selangor. However, there is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that the nationally gazetted fatwas against Al-Arqam and Rufaqa are no longer in place. The above reporting and information provided by the applicant in submissions indicates that punishments under Sharia law including fines and imprisonment have been handed down in Malaysia to Muslims who go against fatwas and following the events in 2024 there are calls, including from the Prime Minister and MKI, to initiate processes to force adherents of Al-Arqam beliefs to repent. The Tribunal considers such treatment towards a person trying to peacefully observe their faith, would amount to serious harm and that the harm will be due to the persons religious beliefs.
Additionally, the applicant also claims that she was discriminated against, socially ostracised and humiliated in Malaysia because her religious beliefs are considered deviant. The country information sourced by the Tribunal supports this claim and the Tribunal accepts it is such. The Tribunal is satisfied she will again experience such treatment from community members in the likely event her religious beliefs are discovered upon her return to Malaysia.
For the above combined reasons the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a chance, which is not remote, that the applicant will suffer serious harm upon return to Malaysia for reason of her religious beliefs.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the harm the applicant fears exists throughout Malaysia and as it involves harm administered by or with state approval that she will not be able to avail herself of effective protection in Malaysia.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant could not take reasonable steps to modify her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of serious harm given that any modification would require her to alter her religious beliefs including by concealing her true religious beliefs or ceasing to be involved in the practice of her religious beliefs [s5J(3)(c)(i)].
Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Malaysia and that she satisfies the criterion under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that indicates the applicant has a right to enter and reside in any other country and the Tribunal accordingly finds that she is not excluded from Australia’s protection by s 36(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal notes the applicant has raised additional claims but in light of the above finding it has not found it necessary to assess any of those claims further.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside and remits the application for a protection visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Dates of hearings:               13 February and 4 March 2025
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…