Ajaran-ajaran Islam

1. Bahawasanya ajaran dan pegangan Ayah Pin adalah palsu, sesat, menyeleweng dan boleh membawa ancaman kepada ketenteraman orang awam serta merosakkan akidah. 2. Oleh yang demikian orang ramai di negeri ini hendaklah menghindar diri daripada terlibat dengan pegangan dan ajaran Ayah Pin tersebut. Itu adalah keputusan Jawatankuasa Fatwa Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu yang telah menjalankan kuasa-kuasa yang diberi di bawah Seksyen 25 Enakmen Pentadbiran Hal Ehwal Agama Islam 1986. Maka tampil lah beberapa peguam yang mendabik nama atas perjuangan hak-hak konstitusi ( constitutional rights) untuk membela pengikut Ayah Pin ini. Semoga tindakan mereka ini hanyalah bersandarkan untuk mendapatkan pandangan yang lebih jelas tentang interpretasi undang-undang dan konflik antara Federal Law and State Law, bukan untuk menegakkan perjuangan Ayah Pin dan kerajaan langit beliau. Sesungguhnya perbuatan itu bergantung kepada niat. Entri ini bukan untuk mengulas tentang mana pihak yang betul, mana pihak yang benar kerana telah menjadi satu perkara yang " makluman bidharuroh" bahawa ajaran Islam itu adalah bersandarkan Al-Quran & Assunnah. Mana-mana ajaran yang terkeluar daripada lingkaran yang telah digariskan syarak, maka jelas ianya terpesong. Jelas bukan? Cuma apa yang dibawa oleh peguam pengikut Ayah Pin ini adalah cuba untuk memisahkan antara kuasa Majlis Fatwa dan kuasa State Assembly dan bahawa pelanggaran kuasa ini telah bersalahan dengan peruntukan Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Persoalan ditimbulkan bahawa untuk membuktikan bahawa pelanggaran keputusan Majlis Fatwa bukanlah bermaksud melanggar Precepts of Islam sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Sekali lagi diulangi entri ini tidak akan mengulas persoalan undang-undang. Apa yang ingin di paparkan disini bagaimana Mahkamah telah membuat pendekatan yang sungguh berhikmah dengan mengambil kira pandangan tiga orang ahli cerdik pandai dan cendekiawan islam iaitu Tan Sri Sheikh Ghazali bin Haji Abdul Rahman , Dr. Mohd. Kamal bin Hassan dan Dr. Muhammad Hashim Kamali dalam menentukan maksud atau definisi "Precepts of Islam" atau "Ajaran-ajaran Islam". Berikut adalah petikan penghakiman oleh Abdul Hamid Mohamad CJ : Precepts Of Islam [51] It was argued that the offences created by the impugned sections are not offences against the precepts of Islam. As has been said earlier, one of the limits imposed by the Constitution on the State Legislative Assembly in creating offences under the Item 1, List II is that the offences must be offences against the precepts of Islam. So, the question is what is the meaning of the words 'precepts of Islam' as used in the Constitution. It is important to remember that this Court is interpreting the Constitution, not writing a thesis on the 'precepts of Islam.' [52] There is no definition of the word 'precepts' in the Federal Constitution. The Malay translation of the Constitution uses the word 'perintah'. The 'Istilah Undang-Undang' 3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell Asia uses the word 'arahan' for 'precepts'. The Kamus Inggeris Melayu Dewan, uses the word 'ajaran'. According to 'Siri Glosari Undang-Undang' of the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka 'precepts' means 'perintah', ie, 'Suruhan dan Larangan melakukan sesuatu, contohnya dalam agama.' According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word 'precept' means 'a general command or injunction; an instruction, direction or rule for action and conduct; esp. an injunction as to moral conduct; a maxim. Most commonly applied to divine commands ...' In my view, the meanings of the word 'precept' quoted above point to the same thing as described in greater detail in the Oxford English Dictionary. I accept them all. [53] Opinions of three 'experts' were also produced. They are Tan Sri Sheikh Ghazali bin Haji Abdul Rahman who was the Director General of the Syariah Judicial Department, Malaysia and had served as Chief Syariah Judge for the Federal Territory and still sits on in the Syariah Court of Appeal in eight States. The second is Professor Dr. Mohd. Kamal bin Hassan who was the Rector of the International Islamic University, Malaysia. Their opinions were produced by the Intervener, the Government of Malaysia. The third is Professor Muhammad Hashim Kamali who was the Dean of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation. Reading their Curriculum Vitae and knowing them personally, I have no hesitation to say that they are worthy expert witnesses on Islam. One point I wish to make even though it is not the basis for the preference of their opinion is that while Tan Sri Sheikh Ghazali and Professor Dr. Mohd. Kamal Hassan are Malaysian Malays, Professor Dr. Muhammad Hashim Kamali is an Afghan and may not belong to the Shafii School, as in the case of the first-mentioned two experts. The other point to be noted is that Tan Sri Sheikh Ghazali had his first degree in Syariah from Al-Azhar University in Cairo followed by a Diploma in Education at 'Ain Sham University, Cairo and another diploma from the International Islamic University, Malaysia. [54] Professor Dr. Mohd. Kamal Hassan obtained his first degree in Islamic Studies from the University of Malaya, M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D from the Columbia University, New York majoring in Islamic Contemporary Thought with reference to Indonesia. [55] Professor Dr. Muhammad Hashim Kamali had his first degree in Law and Political Science at Kabul University, Afghanistan, L.L.M. and Ph.D in Comparative Law at the University of London. [56] We see, therefore, that of the three experts, Tan Sri Sheikh Ghazali is the product of Al-Azhar University in Syariah, taught in Arabic while the other two are the products of Western Universities with English as the medium of instruction. [57] Whatever their backgrounds are, let us look at their opinions. Tan Sri Sheikh Ghazali starts of by saying: 'Precepts of Islam' bermaksud ajaran-ajaran atau perintah-perintah agama Islam sebagaimana yang terkandung di dalam Al-Quran dan As-Sunah. Ia bukan hanya terhad kepada rukun Islam yang lima. Ajaran Islam meliputi 'Aqidah, Syariah dan Akhlak. [58] Professor Dr. Mohd. Kamal Hassan opines, inter alia, as follows: 2.2 In the context of the religion of Islam, the expression 'precepts of Islam' has a broad meaning to include commandments, rules, principles, injunctions - all derived from the Qur'an, the Sunnah of the Prophet, the consensus of the religious scholars (ijma') and the authoritative rulings (fatwas) of legitimate religious authorities, for the purpose of ensuring, preserving and/or promoting right beliefs, right attitudes, right actions and right conduct amongst the followers of Islam. 2.3 With regard to the scope of applicability of the precepts of Islam, human actions and behaviour fall into three major and interrelated domains, namely creed (aqidah), law (shari'ah) and ethics (akhlaq). The creed is concerned with right beliefs and right attitudes (deemed as actions of the heart), the law with right actions and ethics with right conduct, right behaviour and right manners. 2.4 Therefore the precepts of Islam possess the force of enjoining or commanding or prohibiting actions or behaviour which Islam considers good (ma'ruf) or bad (munkar), correct or deviant, obligatory (wajib), recommendatory (sunnah) undesirable (makruh), permissible (halal), prohibited (haram), allowable (mubah). [59] Professor Dr. Muhammad Hashim Kamali, inter alia, opines as follows: A precept of Islam is an indisputable fundamental principle, or a fundamental principle in connection with which there is no serious dispute or debate amongst jurists. The 'precepts of Islam' essentially refer to the cardinal principles of belief, law and morality that constitute the core of the Islamic identity of a Muslim individual and society which are enunciated in the clear text of the Qur'an and authentic hadith. Yet not all that is established in the clear text, such as certain commercial contracts and punishments, on which the Qur'an is clear, yet one would hesitate to classify these under 'the percepts of Islam'. Precepts must be founded in the 'syariah', that is derived from the Holy Qur'an and the authentic and undisputed hadith of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him (pbuh). 'Syariah' must be distinguished from 'fiqh', the latter being a derivative of the former in which juristic reasoning has been employed. Precepts cannot be founded on 'fiqh' alone; The most commonly accepted precepts are the recital of the 'syahadah', the five daily prayers at designated times, the fast in the month of Ramadhan, the payment of alms and the pilgrimage of the Haj to the Holy city of Mecca. [60] The learned Professor goes on to give his opinion that acting against a fatwa does not amount to acting against the precepts of Islam. For that reason the offence created by s. 10 is not an offence against the precept of Islam. Similarly section 14 SCOT is not an offence against the precept of Islam. With respect, these are matters for this court to decide and not for him. [61] It can be seen that all the three expert witnesses agree that: (a) precepts of Islam cover three main domains ie, creed or belief ('aqidah'), law ('shari'ah) and ethics or morality ('akhlak'); (b) precepts of Islam are derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah. [62] Learned counsel for the petitioner urged this court to accept the opinion of Professor Dr. Hashim Kamali which, according to him, confines precepts of Islam to the 'five pillars' of Islam only and nothing else. With respect, it is not correct to say that Professor Dr. Hashim Kamali said that only the five pillars of Islam form the precepts of Islam. In fact, he started off para 7.3 with the words 'The most commonly accepted precepts are ...' They are not exhaustive. [63] In any event, what is most important for our present purpose is that all of them agree that 'aqidah' forms one of the precepts. Indeed, I would say that the word 'aqidah' falls squarely within the meaning of the word 'precept' used in the Constitution. [64] However, if I have to choose between the opinions of Tan Sri Sheikh Ghazali and Professor Dr. Kamal Hassan and the apparently more restrictive view of Professor Dr. Hashim Kamali, in Malaysian context and bearing in mind the English word 'precepts' used in the Constitution, I would prefer to broader views of Tan Sri Sheikh Ghazali and Professor Dr. Kamal Hassan. [65] In my judgment offences created by s. 10 SCOT are offences regarding the 'precepts of Islam'. [66] Coming now to s. 14 SCOT. The offence is for printing, publishing, producing, recording, distributing, having in possession etc of any book, pamphlet, document etc. containing anything which is contrary to 'Hukum Syarak'. [67] We have seen that the three experts agree that 'precepts of Islam' include 'law' or 'Shariah'. We should also note that the Federal Constitution uses the term 'Islamic law' which, in the Malay translation, is translated as 'Hukum Syarak'. Indeed, all the laws in Malaysia, whether Federal or State, use the term 'Islamic Law' and 'Hukum Syarak' inter-changeably. It is true that, jurisprudentially, there is a distinction between 'syariah' and 'fiqh', as pointed out by Professor Dr. Hashim Kamali. However, in Malaysia, in the drafting of laws and in daily usage, the word 'syariah' is used to cover 'fiqh' as well. A clear example is the name of the 'Syariah Court' itself. In fact, 'Syariah' laws in Malaysia do not only include 'fiqh' but also provisions from common law source - see, for example the respective Syariah Criminal Procedure Act/Enactments, Syariah Civil Procedure Act/Enactment; the Syariah Evidence Act/Enactments, and others. We will find that provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, The Subordinate Courts Rules 1980 and the Evidence Act 1950, used in the 'civil courts' are incorporated into those laws, respectively. [68] Coming back to the offences created by s. 14 SCOT, the key words are contrary to Hukum Syarak, which necessarily means the same thing as precepts of Islam. Even if it is not so, by virtue of the provision of the Federal Constitution, the words 'Hukum Syarak' as used in s. 14 SCOT and elsewhere where offences are created must necessarily be within the ambit of 'precepts of Islam'. Rujuk SULAIMAN TAKRIB V. KERAJAAN NEGERI TERENGGANU; KERAJAAN MALAYSIA (INTERVENER) & OTHER CASES (2009) 2 CLJ 54 Soalan : Apakah dengan mempertikaikan hukuman sebat kepada peminum arak dan menganggap hukuman tersebut adalah barbaric telah termasuk dalam definisi melanggar 'precepts of Islam'? Astaghfirullahal'azim. La ila ha illa anta subhanaka inni kuntu mina zaalimin.