What Two Federal Territory Rulings Say About Cosmetic Injectables

What is this page, and what is it not?

This page reports the content of two published documents. It names each document, its issuing body, its serial number and its date, quotes what it rules and on what reasoning, and stops there.

It is deliberately narrow. It is not a general account of Islamic teaching on beauty or aesthetics, it is not a survey of Malaysian state fatwa positions, and it does not resolve questions the two documents leave open. Several such questions are named plainly further down.

It also does not tell you whether you personally may proceed with a treatment. That depends on your intention, your circumstances, the specific procedure, and the authority you follow — and it is a determination for a qualified religious authority to make, not for this page.

What does Irsyad Hukum Siri Ke-599 (4 August 2021) say about V-shape face injections?

Irsyad Hukum Siri Ke-599, published by the Jabatan Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan on 4 August 2021, is titled "Hukum Suntikan pada Wajah agar Berbentuk V (V-Shape Face)". It addresses whether non-surgical facial injections used to create a V-shaped face, including jawline and filler injections, are permissible.

The ruling states that such injections are prohibited ("adalah dilarang") when carried out purely for beautification.

The reasoning cited in the document rests on Surah al-Rum (30:30), read as establishing that no alteration should be made to Allah's creation, and on a hadith stating that Allah curses women who alter Allah's creation for the sake of beauty, with teeth-filing given as the cited example.

The document carries an explicit exception: procedures addressing a genuine medical defect or deformity remain permissible. The prohibition it states is specific to pure cosmetic enhancement.

What does Irsyad Hukum Siri Ke-673 (9 March 2022) say about Botox and aesthetic practice?

Irsyad Hukum Siri Ke-673, published by the Jabatan Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan on 9 March 2022, is titled "Hukum Bekerja Sebagai Doktor Bidang Kecantikan dan Kosmetik (Aesthetic)". Its question is whether it is permissible to work as an aesthetic or cosmetic doctor performing procedures such as nose lifts, face lifts, Botox injections and eyebrow shaping done solely for cosmetic enhancement.

The ruling states that such work is haram where the procedures are performed for purely cosmetic purposes, on the basis that procedures causing bodily change without necessity are forbidden. It states that the same treatments are permitted where they address reconstructive or therapeutic need — the examples given include reconstruction after an accident or burn, and correcting a defect.

The reasoning cited includes Surah al-Nisaa' (4:119) on the prohibition of changing Allah's creation without legitimate purpose, the precedent of a companion whose nose reconstruction after battle injury was approved by the Prophet, cited as establishing therapeutic intervention as permissible, and a hadith on beautification-driven bodily alteration.

The ruling makes one further point that is easy to miss: it states that doctors bear religious accountability for performing purely cosmetic procedures regardless of the patient's consent or request. On this ruling's view, a patient asking for a procedure does not remove the doctor's own responsibility.

This is the most directly on-point Malaysian document located for anyone asking specifically about Botox, because it names Botox injections within its scope rather than discussing injections as a general category.

How do the two rulings compare?

Whose authority are these rulings, and where do they apply?

Both documents are Irsyad Hukum publications of the Jabatan Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan — the Federal Territory Mufti's Department. They are official published religious opinions of that authority, and they are authoritative for the Federal Territories: Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan.

They are widely cited and respected across Malaysia. That is not the same as being binding in every state. Malaysia's Islamic religious administration is state-based: Selangor, Johor, Penang and every other state has its own religious department, its own mufti and its own fatwa committee, each of which may issue separate rulings and each of which has its own gazettement process.

This guide located no ruling from any state authority other than the Federal Territories on aesthetic injectables, and it does not assume that any state has adopted these two rulings verbatim. If you live outside the Federal Territories, your own state's authority is the relevant one to ask.

What do these rulings not cover?

The following questions were not answered by any Malaysian source located during research for this guide. They are listed rather than filled in, because a plausible-sounding answer here would be worse than an honest gap.

If anyone tells you one of these questions has a settled Malaysian answer, ask them for the document, its issuing body, its number and its date.

• No current national ruling: no Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan document on aesthetic injectables with specificity and recency comparable to the two Federal Territory rulings was located. This page therefore makes no claim about a national position.
• A 2006 ruling attributed to the National Fatwa Council, reported in the press at the time as banning Botox for Muslims on the basis of concern about pig-derived materials in production, with medical uses reportedly exempted, was found only through secondary press archives. No primary council document was located, and whether it remains in force, has been superseded, or has been reconciled with the 2021 and 2022 rulings could not be confirmed.
• The two lines of reasoning have not been found reconciled anywhere: the 2006 press-reported reasoning turns on ingredients, while the 2021 and 2022 rulings turn on the alteration of Allah's creation and do not discuss ingredients at all. No located source addresses how the two relate.
• No Malaysian halal certification record naming Botox, Restylane, Profhilo or any other specific injectable was located. Any claim you encounter that a named injectable brand is certified halal in Malaysia should be checked against an actual certificate.
• JAKIM's halal certification scheme for cosmetics operates under standard MS 2634:2019 and is voluntary rather than mandatory, but no evidence was found that it currently covers, or has been applied to, injectable aesthetic medical products as opposed to topical cosmetics. Its applicability to injectables is unconfirmed.
• No located Malaysian ruling addresses hyaluronic acid dermal fillers as a distinct category, or bio-remodelling injectables such as Profhilo by name. The two rulings discuss facial injections generally and Botox specifically.
• No located ruling resolves the grey area between the two categories the rulings use. Cases such as treating acne scarring or post-partum skin changes are neither plainly vanity-driven nor plainly reconstructive, and no located document addresses where they fall.
• No position statement from a Malaysian Islamic medical association or equivalent professional body was located. Academic articles discussing Maqasid Shariah approaches to aesthetic medicine exist, but academic literature is not a ruling and is not cited here as one.

What about the ingredient question?

Ingredient sourcing is a common reason readers ask about permissibility, and it needs handling carefully because the evidence available is weaker than people assume.

General industry and manufacturing literature indicates that modern hyaluronic acid dermal fillers are produced by bacterial fermentation rather than animal extraction, which is what Galderma's "NASHA" — Non-Animal Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid — branding for the Restylane range asserts. For botulinum toxin, patent filings show the manufacturer has developed animal-product-free bacterial culture media for production.

Neither of those is a Malaysian halal ruling, and neither is a product-specific certification. A patent filing describes a method that has been patented, not necessarily how the commercial product sold today is made. A brand name asserting non-animal sourcing is a manufacturer claim, not an independent certification. No Malaysian halal-authority statement on any of these named products was located.

The honest position is therefore this: the ingredient concern that drove some older reasoning appears at industry level to be less applicable to modern production methods than to older ones, but that cannot be stated as a confirmed, product-specific, Malaysian-certified fact — and the two current Federal Territory rulings do not turn on ingredients in any case. Their reasoning is about the purpose of the procedure.

Is the Indonesian MUI fatwa relevant in Malaysia?

No. The Majelis Ulama Indonesia and its certification body LPPOM MUI are Indonesian authorities with no force in Malaysia. They are mentioned here only because they are frequently confused with Malaysian bodies and because their material directly engages the ingredient question, which readers often arrive with.

As summarised by LPPOM MUI, MUI Fatwa No. 21 of 2020 conditionally permits Botox for therapeutic purposes subject to five conditions, including Shariah compliance, halal ingredients, a safety guarantee, absence of harm, and administration by a qualified professional, while prohibiting use that is purely vanity-driven, deceptive, harmful, or that creates dependency.

That is an Indonesian ruling. It is not Malaysian guidance, it does not apply in Malaysia, and it should not be cited to a Malaysian religious authority as though it were. It is reported in this section, separately from the Malaysian material above, precisely so the two are not blurred together.

Who should you actually ask?

The rulings above tell you what one authority has published. They do not tell you what applies to you, because the rulings themselves turn on the purpose of the procedure — and only you and a qualified authority can assess that in your case.

• Your own state's mufti department or religious council, which is the relevant authority if you live outside Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya or Labuan.
• JAKIM, for questions about halal certification and about which certification schemes cover what.
• The Jabatan Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan directly, if you want to read the two rulings above in full or ask about their application.
• A religious authority or teacher you already trust and who knows your circumstances, since intention and medical need both feature in the rulings' reasoning.
• Your doctor, separately, for whether a proposed treatment has a genuine medical indication — because that is a clinical question the rulings' therapeutic exception depends on, and a religious authority cannot answer it for you.

Frequently asked questions

Check before you book

• Doctor Certification Lookup — Check MMC registration, APC and LCP chapter in about a minute.
• RM10,000 Booking Protection — Free and automatic on eligible bookings. Not insurance, and it does not guarantee a cosmetic result.
• Free AI Face Analysis — See what a treatment is actually being recommended for before you pay.

Keep reading

• All BookAClinic guides — The full guide index, including treatment-specific safety pages.
• How to verify a doctor in Malaysia — Irsyad Hukum Siri Ke-673 discusses the doctor's own accountability.
• What is MMC registration? — How Malaysian doctors are registered, separate from any religious question.
• Patient rights in Malaysia — What you are entitled to be told before consenting to treatment.
• Red flags at aesthetic clinics — Including unverifiable claims made about products.
• Botox safety guide (Malaysia) — The clinical safety checks, which are a separate question entirely.
• Dermal fillers in Malaysia — What hyaluronic acid fillers are and how they are made.
• How to verify an injectable is genuine — Confirming the actual product being used, including its registration.
• Consultation questions checklist — Questions worth asking before agreeing to any treatment.
• Aesthetic glossary (Malaysia) — Plain-language definitions of the treatments named in these rulings.

Related guides

Sources

1. Jabatan Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan, Irsyad Hukum Siri Ke-599: Hukum Suntikan pada Wajah agar Berbentuk V (V-Shape Face) (2021-08-04)
2. Jabatan Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan, Irsyad Hukum Siri Ke-673: Hukum Bekerja Sebagai Doktor Bidang Kecantikan dan Kosmetik (Aesthetic) (2022-03-09)
3. The Alabama Baptist, Malaysian fatwa bans Muslim use of Botox (secondary press reporting on a 2006 National Fatwa Council ruling; no primary document located) (2006)
4. Al Jazeera, Malaysia awaits Botox fatwa (contemporaneous secondary reporting) (2006-01-24)
5. Medindia, Muslims in Malaysia Banned from Using Botox (secondary reporting) (2006)
6. ChemLinked, Interview with JAKIM on Malaysia's Halal Certification for Cosmetics (MS 2634:2019; applicability to injectables unconfirmed) (Accessed 2026-08-25)
7. LPPOM MUI, Majelis Ulama Indonesia, What is the Law on Using Botox Injections? citing MUI Fatwa No. 21 of 2020 (Indonesian authority, no force in Malaysia) (Accessed 2026-08-25)
8. Allergan Inc., Animal product free media and processes for obtaining a botulinum toxin, US7148041B2 (patent filing evidence only, not an ingredient statement or a halal certification) (Accessed 2026-08-25)