Isu kalimah Allah : Rupanya ini punca asal kes tersebut, ramai tak tahu.
Gegak gempita bumi Malaysia apabila KDN menarik balik rayuan ke atas keputusan kes Jill Ireland bt Lawrence Bill v Menteri bagi Kementerian Dalam Negeri Malaysia & Anor [2021] 8 MLJ 890.
Namun ramai yang tidak membaca teks asal laporan kes tersebut oleh Hakim Nor Bee Ariffin.
Sebaiknya rujuklah teks asal laporan kes tersebut sebelum menzahirkan kemarahan terhadap Kerajaan Perpaduan Malaysia Madani. Gunalah panduan dalam usul fiqh iaitu sebelum membuat hukum,
seorang ahli fikah akan merujuk kepada sumber utama iaitu Quran, Sunnah, Ijmak dan Qias. Sumber utama dalam isu Jill ini adalah laporan kes dalam Jurnal Undang-Undang.
Sama juga dalam hal ini, rujuklah teks asal supaya kita tidak sembrono menghentam kononnya Malaysia Madani sudah menjadi liberal dan tidak boleh diharapkan untuk menjaga agama Islam.
Bagi yang sukar untuk mendapat teks asal bolehlah membaca laporan ringkas yang ditulis dalam portal Malay Mail. Boleh rujuk link ini https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/03/24/explainer-high-courts-96-page-judgment-on-why-malaysias-1986-allah-ban-was/1960449
Fakta ringkasnya Jill Ireland seorang warga Sarawak, bumiputra suku Melanau beragama Kristian mencabar tindakan pegawai kastam yang merampas merampas 8 cakera padat audio pendidikan Kristian (‘CD tersebut’) yang mempunyai kalimah ‘Allah’ pada tajuknya pada 11 Mei 2008. Jill mendakwa bahawa CD tersebut adalah untuk kegunaan peribadinya kerana selama ini beliau dan keluarganya menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia dan AlKitab (terjemahan bahasa Indonesia untuk AlKitab di mana perkataan ‘Allah’ digunakan) dan bahan-bahan bertulis dan audio-visual dalam Bahasa Indonesia dalam amalan kepercayaan Kristian mereka.
Dalam penghakimannya, Hakim menyatakan dengan jelas bahawa beliau tidak akan menyentuh mengenai penggunaan kalimah Allah. Kata Hakim:
[32] It is plain and clear that the Court of Appeal in the Jill Ireland appeal case has, in light of the Federal Court majority decision in Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors [2014] 4 MLJ 765 (FC), narrowed the issues that can be ventilated in this judicial proceeding and confined them only to the declaratory reliefs sought by the applicant based on arts 8 and 11 of the FC in paras (c) and (d). These are prayers that were found not inextricably tied down specifically with the use of the word ‘Allah’ and thus was not caught by the majority decision in the Federal Court.
[33] The Court of Appeal decision is explicit in its terms. It is not for this court to decide on issues that had sought to challenge the prohibition on the use of the word ‘Allah’ as the same could not be done in a collateral manner. That was the reason for not remitting prayers (e) and (f) because the Enactments which contained those prohibition on the use of the word ‘Allah’ had to be challenged specifically for want of jurisdiction and the impugned provision in the Enactment could not be challenged in isolation.
This court would not descend into the controversy.
[34] This in my view will necessarily exclude this court from canvassing the theological issues. I am guided by the majority decision in the Federal Court in the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, which did not proceed with the question in Part C that relate to theology issues as the facts show that the Minister ‘s decision was never premised on theological consideration and found that the views expressed by the learned judges of the Court of Appeal on those issues were mere obiter. Likewise, as the facts in the present judicial review show, the Minister’s decision that was being challenged was not predicated on theological considerations. His decision was predicated on public order consideration.
[35] Therefore, it is incumbent on me to proceed cautiously so as not to travel out of the parameters/setting the further conduct of this judicial review was placed in.
Kita lihat pula bahawa keputusan Mahkamah pula hanya membenarkan perenggan (c), (d) dan (d)(B) sahaja.
Perenggan (c) – a declaration that pursuant to art 11 of the FC it is the constitutional rights of the applicant to import the eight CDs in the exercise of her right to practice religion and right to education;
Perenggan (d) – a declaration that pursuant to art 8 of the FC the applicant is guaranteed equality of all persons before the law and is protected from discrimination against citizen, inter alia on the grounds of religion in the administration of the law, in particular Act 301 and Act 235; (the Printing Presses And Publications Act 1984 (Act 301) and Customs Act 1967 (Act 235).
Perenggan (d)(B) – a declaration that the Government Directive issued by the Publication Control Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs Circular: S. 59/3/9/A Klt.2 dated 5.12.1986 is unlawful and unconstitutional.
KESIMPULAN :
1. Melihat kepada fakta dan keputusan kes ini, Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi tidak membuat sebarang keputusan terhadap penggunaan kalimah Allah. Hakim hanya melihat daripada segi teknikal perampasan CD itu sama ada dibuat secara mengikut prosedur atau tidak.
2. Keputusan kes Jill ini lebih bersifat peribadi sahaja dan tidak menjejaskan kedudukan agama Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan.
3. Keputusan kes ini tidak menyentuh kedudukan Enakmen Kawalan dan Sekatan Pengembangan Agama-Agama Bukan Islam yang ada di seluruh Malaysia (ada 4 negeri yang tiada enakmen ini iaitu Wilayah Persekutuan, Pulau Pinang, Sabah dan Sarawak) sekaligus tidak timbul isu bahawa ianya akan menjejaskan kuasa dan hak Raja-Raja Melayu sebagai Ketua Agama Islam di negeri masing-masing.
4. Tiada isu bahawa Kerajaan Perpaduan Malaysia Madani menjadi liberal dan longgar terhadap kedudukan agama Islam.
Dr Zulqarnain Lukman
BACA: