Sumber Undang-Undang – Undang-
Undang Islam
Dalam hal ini, RJ Wilkinson, Paper on Malay Subjects
Law Part 1, 1922, p. 49, pernah berkata;
There can be no doubt that Moslem Law would
have ended becoming the law of Malaya had not
British Law stepped in to check it.
Shaik Abdul Latif and others v. Shaik Elias Bux, [1915] 1
FMSLR 204.
Before the first treaties the population of these
states consisted almost solely of Mohammadan
Malays with large industrial and mining Chinese in
their midst. The only law at that time applicable to
Malays was Mohammedan modified by local
customs.
ISLAMIC LAW
Islam spread in Southeast Asia since the 13th century
and was centered in Malacca during the 15th century.
The effects of the development of Islamic law:
Alteration and modification of the Malay adat law in
accordance with Islamic law
Malay states consequently adopted Islamic law. For example:
Risalah Hukum Kanun or Undang-undang Melaka
Risalah Hukum Kanun- adopted in Malacca, Pahang and Johore
Majallah Ahkam Johore
Hanafi Code of Qadri Pasha
Also, in the development of Laws ofTerengganu 1911, there
were influences of Islamic law
Before the arrival of the British,
Islamic law which has been modified
by Malay Adat Laws was practiced.
Refer to these cases:
Shaik Abdul Latif & Ors v Shaik Elias Bux (1915)
1 F.M.S.L.R 204
Ramah v Laton (1927) 6 F.M.S.L.R 128
See also Straits Settlements’ cases:
Regina v Willans (1856) 3 Ky 16
Yeap Cheah Neo v Ong Cheng Neo (1872) 1 Ky
326;
Isaac Penhas v Tan Soo Eng (1953) MLJ 73
Sumber Undang-Undang – Undang-
Undang Islam
Kedatangan British sememangnya telah menyekat
proses perkembangan undang-undang Islam.
Government of Perak [Link], [1914] 2 FMSLR 44.
In dealing with cases of tort the Court has always
turned for guidance as to fundamental principles
to English decisions.
Mohamed Gunny [Link] Kutty, [1930] 7 FMSLR 170.
But although no code of civil wrongs has ever
been passed the courts in this country have
always followed the la of England.
Sumber Undang-Undang Islam ?
Di dalam Islam terdapat empat sumber rasmi
undang-undang Islam yang diiktiraf iaitu Al-Quran,
Hadis dan sunnah Rasul, Qias dan Ijma.
Al-Quran merupakan arahan serta panduan yang
diturunkan oleh Allah s.w.t. Sunnah pula merupakan
hadis-hadis sahih yang diperolehi daripada Nabi
Muhammad s.a.w. Manakala Ijma pula adalah
persetujuan atau permuafakatan ahli ijtihad dari umat
nabi Muhammad s.a.w. selepas baginda wafat mengenai
sesuatu isu berkenaan hukum syarak. Qias pula
membawa maksud suatu perbandingan yang dilakukan
mengenai suatu hukum dalam perkara yang baru
wujud dengan perkara yang sudah ada hukumnya
berdasrkan kepada Al-Quran dan Sunnah Nabi
Muhammad s.a.w.
Islam di bawah Perlembagaan ?
Artikel 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan
yang berbunyi;
Ugama Islam ialah ugama bagi
Persekutuan; tetapi ugama-ugama lain
boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai
di mana-mana bahagian Persekutuan.
Walaupun, Islam merupakan agama rasmi
namun ia tidak langsung menghalang
agama-agama lain dari diamalkan secara
aman di Malaysia.
Artikel 4(1) PP
Tunku Abdul Rahman, pada 1 May 1958,
semasa bercakap di Parlimen ada
menerangkan bahawa;
I would like to make it clear that this
country is not an Islamic State as is
generally understood, we merely provide
that Islam shall be the official of the State.
Che Omar Che Soh v. Public Prosecutor
[1988] 1 LNS 150
The first point to consider here is the meaning which could be given to the
expression "Islam" or "Islamic religion" in Article 3 of the Constitution. If
the religion of Islam in the context means only such acts as relate to rituals
and ceremonies, the argument has no basis whatsoever. On the other hand,
if the religion of Islam or Islam itself is an all-embracing concept, as is
normally understood, which consists not only the ritualistic aspect but also
a comprehensive system of life, including its jurisprudence and moral
standard, then the submission has a great implication in that every law has
to be tested according to this yard-stick. There can be no doubt that Islam
is not just a mere collection of dogmas and rituals but it is a complete way
of life covering all fields of human activities, may they be private or public,
legal, political, economic, social, cultural, moral or judicial. This way of
ordering the life with all the precepts and moral standards is based on
divine guidance through his prophets and the last of such guidance is the
Quran and the last messenger is Mohammad S.A.W. whose conduct and
utterances are revered. (See S. Abdul A'la Maududi, The Islamic Law and
Constitution, 7th Ed., March 1980.)
Lihat kes Teoh Eng Huat [Link] Kadhi Of Pasir Mas, Kelantan & Anor [1990] 1
CLJ 277.
ISLAMIC LAW UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
(a) Article 3
ISLAM ADALAH AGAMA BAGI PERSEKUTUN;
TETAPI AGAMA-AGAMA LAIN BOLEH
DIAMALKAN DENGAN AMAN DAN DAMAI DI
MANA-MANA BAHAGIAN OERSEKUTUAN
(b) Article 11
(c) Article 160 (does not clearly include Islamic law in
the definition of law)
Cases:
Che Omar bin Che Soh & Anor v PP [1988] 2 MLJ 55
Jamaluddin bin Othman v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam
Negeri (1989) 1 MLJ 368
Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi, Pasir Mas [1990] 2 MLJ 300
Artikel 160 Perlembagaan
Persekutuan
“Undang-undang” termasuklah undang-undang bertulis,
common law setakat yang berkuat kuasa di dalam
Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya, dan apa-apa
adat atau kelaziman yang mempunyai kuat kuasa undang-
undang di dalam Persekutuan atau mana-mana
bahagiannya.
tidak memperuntukkan undang-undang Islam sebagai
salah satu sumber undang-undang di Malaysia.
Oleh yang demikian, adalah benar untuk mengatakan
bahawa undang-undang Islam ketika ini hanya menjadi
undang-undang peribadi masyarakat Islam semata-mata
dan di peringkat Persekutuan pula ia hanya dilihat
sebagai agama rasmi yang digunakan untuk tujuan-tujuan
rasmi semata-mata.
Ninth Schedule, List II of the Federal
Constitution provides for state power in
respect of Hukum Syarak
Islamic law and personal family law of persons professing the religion of
Islam, including the Islamic law relating to succession, testate and intestate,
betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy,
guardianship, gifts, partitions and non-charitable trusts; Wakafs and the
definition and regulation of charitable and religious trusts, the appointment
of trustees and the incorporation of persons in respect of Islamic religious
and charitable endowments, institutions, trusts, charities, and charitable
institutions operating wholly within the State: Malay customs; Zakat, Fitrah
and Baitulmal or similar Islamic religious revenue; mosques or any Islamic
public places of worship, creation and punishment of offences by persons
professing the religion of Islam against percepts of that religion, except in
regard to matters included in the Federal List; the constitution,
organization and procedure of Syariah courts, which shall have jurisdiction
only over persons professing the religion of Islam and in respect only of
any of the matters included in this paragraph, but shall not have jurisdiction
in respect of offences except in so far as conferred by federal law, the
control of propagating doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the
religion of Islam; the determination of matters of Islamic law and Malay
custom.
Its effect:
Syariah courts’ jurisdiction only restricted to:
(a) Persons professing the religion of Islam;
and
(b) Matters provided for the state
governments.
CASES ?
Mamat bin Daud & Ors v Government of
Malaysia [1988] 1 MLJ 119
APPLICATION OF ISLAMIC LAW PRIOR TO 1988
Jurisdictional conflict between the Syariah courts and the Civil
courts occur because of:
(a) Confusion on the interpretation required.
Case:
Nafsiah v Abdul Majid [1969] 2 MLJ 174
(b) Decisions made by the Syariah Courts are easily overruled by
the Civil Courts.
Case:
Myriam v Mohd Ariff [1971] 1 MLJ 265
Roberts alias Kamarulzaman v Ummi Kalthom [1966] 1 MLJ
163
Commissioner for Religious Affairs,Terengganu v Tengku
Mariam binti Tengku Sri Wa Raja & Anor [1970] 1 MLJ 222
OTHER CASES ?
Ainan v Syed Abu Bakar [1939] MLJ 209
Re Dato Bentara Luar [1982] 2 MLJ 264
Mustak Ahmed v Abdul Wahid [1987] 2 MLJ
449
Tengku Haji Jaafar Ibni Almarhum Tengku
Muda Ali & Anor v Government of Pahang
(1987) 2 MLJ 74
Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi Pasir Mas [1990] 2
MLJ 200
ARTICLE 121 AND ARTICLE
121(A) OF THE
CONSTITUTION
Article 121(1A) was inserted through the Constitution
(Amendment) Act 1988 (Act 704):
High Courts and inferior courts established by federal
law “shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.”
Cases:
Mohd Habibullah v Faridah [1993] 1 SCR 229
Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah (OCPD) Balai Polis Bukit
Mertajam & Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Kedah Darulaman
[1992] 1 SCR 257
Sukma Darmawan Samitaat Madja v Ketua Pengarah
Penjara Malaysia & Anor [1948] 4 MLJ 742
Artikel 121(1A) PP
Berdasarkan kepada Artikel 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan ini jelas menunjukkan bahawa
apabila sesuatu kes ini terjatuh di dalam bidangkuasa Mahkamah Syariah untuk mengadilinya
maka Mahkamah Sivil tidak boleh masuk campur.
Artikel ini telah dimasukkan ke dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui pindaan oleh
sekayan Akta A704, yang telah berkuat kuasa pada 10 Jun, 1988.
Pindaan ini dirasakan adalah perlu kerana sebelum kewujudan Artikel 121(1A) Perlembagaan
Persekutuan ini, kebanyakan kes yang diputuskan oleh Mahkamah Syarikah akan dirayu ke
Mahkamah Sivil dan keputusan Mahkamah Sivil kemudiannya boleh dikuatkuasakan mengatasi
Mahkamah Syariah.
Perkara ini secara tidak langsung telah mewujudkan pertindahan bidang kuasa di antara
Mahkamah Syariah dan Mahkamah Sivil.
Kes-kes ?
i. Myriam v. Mohamed Ariff [1971] 1 M.L.J. 265.
ii. Nafsiah [Link] Majid [1969] 2 M.L.J. 174.
Konflik bidangkuasa ini kemudiannya telah berjaya diselesaikan dengan adanya Artikel 121(1A)
Perlembagaan Persekutuan ini.
Mahkamah Sivil selepas pindaan, telah menerima hakikat bahawa apabila sesuatu kes ini
berada di bawah bidang kuasa Mahkamah Syariah maka Mahkamah Sivil tidak boleh masuk
campur.
Kes-Kes Selepas Pindaan ?
Abdul Shaik bin Md Ibrahim & Anor v Hussein bin Ibrahim & Ors [1999] 5 MLJ 618.
Darmawan Sasmitaat Madja v Ketua Pengarah Penjara, Malaysia & Anor [1999] 2 MLJ
241.
Sarwari a [sol] p Ainuddin v. Abdul Aziz a [sol] l Ainuddin (No 2) [2001] 6 MLJ 737.
Mohamed Habibullah bin Mahmood v. Faridah binti Dato Talib [1992] 2 MLJ 793.
Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang v. Isa Abdul Rahman & satu yang lain [1992] 2 M.L.J.
244.
Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah, Bukit Mertajam & Anor [1992] 1 MLJ 1
Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang v Isa Abdul Rahman & satu yang lain [1992] 2 MLJ
244
Soon Singh a [sol] l Bikar Singh v Pertubuhan Kebajikan Islam Malaysia (PERKIM) Kedah
& Anor [1999] 1 MLJ 489
Hajah Amin bte Kassim v. Hj Abdul Rashid bin Abd Hamid [1993] 2 MLJ 338.
Mansor bin Mat Tahir v. Kadi Daerah Pendang Kedah & Anor [1989] 1 MLJ 106.
NEW CASES – MUST READ
INDIRA GANDHI MUTHO [2018] 1
LNS 86
LINA JOY [2004] 6 CLJ 242
SYARIAH COURTS
Syariah Courts are state courts, except in the Federal
Territory of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan where Syariah
Courts are subject to Federal authority and
Parliament. [Refer to the Administration of Islamic
Law (Federal Territories) Act 1993 (Act 505)].
Syariah Courts were established in all states through
respective State enactments. The provisions in these
enactments are quite similar. For example, refer to:
Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1989
(Selangor);
Syariah Courts Enactment 1991 (Perlis);
Syariah Courts Enactment 1993 (Kedah); and
Administration of Islamic Law Act 1993 (Federal
Territories).
Court Structure
Syariah Subordinate Courts.
(b) Syariah High Court.
(c) Syariah Appeal Court, which consists
of:
the Chief Syariah Judge; and
two Syariah Appeal Court Judges selected
by the Chief Syariah Judges.
Judges
Syariah Court judges are appointed by the
states’ respective Sultans
Federal Territories’ judges are appointed
by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong
Jurisdiction
The Syariah courts may hear criminal offences
committed by Muslims;
The Syariah Court have jurisdiction over offences
relating to marriage, sexual offences such as khalwat and
zina, consumption of liquor, non-payment of zakat or
fitrah and failure to fast during Ramadhan.
Cases:
Sukma Dermawan Sasmitaat Madja v Ketua Pengarah
Penjara Malaysia & Anor [1998] 4 MLJ 742
Mohd Habibullah bin Mahmood v Faridah [supra]
Nor Kursia bt Baharuddin v Shahril bin Lamin & Anor
[1997] 1 MLJ 537
Md Hakim Lee v Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan,
Kuala Lumpur [1998] 1 MLJ 681
