Sekali lagi kedaulatan Islam sebagai agama rasmi federation of Malaysia tercabar oleh golongan yang memang tidak akan redha dengan Islam..
Walan tardha 'anka alyahudi walan nasara hatta tattabia' millatahum.
Mungkin Melayu mudah lupa bahawa Non Muslims akan sentiasa melakukan segalanya sehingga muslim mengikut ajaran mereka, tapi Muslims tidak akan sama sekali melupakan peringatan yang Allah turunkan lebih 1426 tahun dahulu.
Kali ni isu penggubalan Article 121 (1A) pulak. Bersandarkan kes Allahyarham Muhammad Abdullah @Moorty, 10 Non Muslims ministers mendesak Pak Lah untuk menggubal Article 121 (1A).
Tindakan mengantar memorandum kepada Pak Lah seleaps Cabinet Meeting merupakan satu tindakan yang tidak sopan terhadap Pak lah. Ini menunjukkan bahawa mereka tidak langsung menghormati Pak Lah sebagai Head of the Cabinet.Kalau isu betul-betul sensitif dan memerlukan Cabinet untuk menetukannya, sepatutunya mereka mengemukakan isu ini terus sewaktu Cabinet meeting.Mengapa perlu dalam bentuk memorandum?
Inikah yang dikatakan "Collective Responsibilty" yang akan diamalkan sewaktu mengangkat ikrar apabila dilantik menjadi menteri dahulu?
Beralasankan "civil conflict" iaitu M.Kaliammal tidak mempunyai apa-apa remedy before the civil and the Syariah court.Lantas golongan bukan Islam ini terus melatah. I see this issue is not really about the case of Muhammad Abdullah tapi adalah salah satu agenda mereka seperti mana yang dinyatakan oleh Allah dalam Surah Al-Baqarah diatas.
We have no doubt at all that both Courts have clear jurisdictions conferred in the Sehedule 9 of the Federal Constitution. All the ministers mungkin terlupa nak semak judicial notice on this matter. Cases like
Mohamed Habibullah b Mahmood v Faridah binti Dato' Talib [1992] 2 MLJ 793 and Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah balai Polis Daerah Bukit Mertajam [1992] 1 MLJ 7 were decided based on Article 121 (1A).
Kaie melihat Article 121(1A) bukalah satu masalah kepada case yang melibatkan bukan Islam kerana
1). memang Article 121(1A) merupakan proper forum untuk membicarakan case yang melibatkan Muslims. Memang M. Kaliamal tidak mempunyai apa-apa remedy dalam civil court sebab dalam isu dalam case ini ialah Muhammad Abdullah is a Muslim and Civil court has no jurisdiction at all.Ini melibatkan isu pegislaman seseorang, maka mahkamah yang selayaknya ialah mahkamah Syariah dan bukannaya mahkamah sivil.Sesuatu urusan itu perlu dilakukan oleh yang pakar dan mahir dalam bidang yang berkenaan. Urusan keluar masuk agama adalah kepakaran mahkamah Syariah, maka mahkamah Syariah perlu menguruskan hal itu.
As Harun Hashim SCJ (as he then was) interpreted the inclusion of the Article 121(1A) as
"[i]t is obvious that the intention of the Parliament by Aricle 121(1A) is to take away the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court" per wide
Dalip Kaur v Pegawai Polis Daerah, Balai Polis Daerah Bukit Mertajam.
2.) It is not a matter of jurisdictioanl conflict between Civil court and Syariah court as Article 121 (1A) had settled this issue.It is about the administartion of the Islamic Law per se.It is nothing wrong in the Article 121 (1A). In fact Article 121(1A) gives the clear seperation of power and jurisdiction between both courts which prior to that a lot of cases, which involving Muslims were tried according to Civil Law. cases like
Myriam v Mohamed Ariff and Ainan Mahmud v Syed Abu Bakar. I submitted, in case of Muhammad Abdullah, should
JAWI tell the wife of Abdullah or his family about the conversion of Abdullah then this issue will not arise. Should the family know about the conversion then this matter could be be settled by divorce due to the conversion or M. Kaliammal may be interested to convert into Islam..Who knows? Maybe non conversion of M. Kaliammal due to the fact that she didn't know about Abdullah conversion.There is lacking in the admninstration Islamic Law which opens the door to non-muslims to attack Islam by provocking to amend the Article 121 (1A). I suggest the administaration of Islamic Law should be reviewed or be updated.
3) If we were to amend the Article 121 (1A), seems to me that Syariah Court wil ceast to exist or will limit the jurisdiction of Syariah court as it is already limited.The reason is that this Article ousts the jurisdiction of civil court over matter competent by Syariah court, then if we amend or delete it then all matters are now competent by civil court only even relating to Islam or jurisdiction of Syariah court will be limited.Thus, it denies our rights to be tried according to our law.With due respect I call non Muslims to respect our rights as majority in this country nad please not to provoc us with this issue. If we can respect your rights why dont you respect our rights.
Thank you to Pak Lah for his firm stand on this issue and I agree with him that other laws maybe amended to maintain the satus quo of this issue. I believe that all Muslims in Malaysia who love their religion will support you Pak Lah notwithstanding with the diferences of our political stand.
Late Tan Sri Prof. Ahmad Ibrahim pernah berkata
"
Cara yang lebih baik ialah dengan memandang kepada Perlembagaan Malaysia itu secara positif dan menerimanya dan berusaha melaksanakannya supaya menegakkan prinsip-prinsip kerajaan Islam."
