Anak dihukum tak berbin bintikan ayah kerana dosa lampau bersama ibu

CG Sponsors




cek mek molek

CG Hardcore Club
Platinum Member
Top Poster #1
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Messages
70,612
Reaction score
11,049
Points
1,906
Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil
17 Februari jam 8:04 PG ·

KEMELUT KES “BIN ABDULLAH” DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG DI MALAYSIA

Prof. Madya Dr Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil
Timbalan Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif
Institut Kajian Tinggi Islam Antarabangsa (IAIS) Malaysia

Pada 13 Februari 2020 negara menyaksikan satu keputusan penting oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan dalam kes “Bin Abdullah”. Dengan keputusan majoriti 4-3, Mahkamah Persekutuan telah mengenepikan keputusan oleh Mahkamah Rayuan bertarikh 25 Julai 2017 yang membenarkan anak tidak sah taraf “dibinkan” kepada bapa biologi.

Secara umumnya penulis bersetuju dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan yang tidak membenarkan anak tidak sah taraf “dibinkan” kepada bapa biologi. Alasan Mahkamah Persekutuan yang pertama: mengambikira kedudukan Islam dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Jadual Kesembilan Senarai II Senarai Negeri yang memberi kuasa mutlak kepada Dewan Undangan Negeri untuk membuat undang-undang berkaitan Islam bagi penganut agama Islam termasuk persoalan undang-undang personal, undang-undang jenayah Islam (setakat bidang kuasa yang diberi) dan juga kesahihan individu itu sebagai seorang Islam.

Memandangkan pihak-pihak yang terlibat dalam kes ini adalah orang Islam dan berkahwin mengikut undang-undang Islam di bawah negeri Johor serta anak yang dilahirkan juga di Johor, maka mereka adalah tertakluk kepada undang-undang Islam di Johor.

Mengikut seksyen 111 Enakmen Undang-undang Keluarga Islam Johor 2003, seseorang anak tidak sah taraf tidak boleh dinisbahkan kepada nama bapa biologi. Oleh itu, tindakan oleh pihak Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) tidak membenarkan bapa biologi membinkan anaknya kepada namanya tetapi “dibinkan” dengan “Abdullah” adalah menepati peruntukan undang-undang yang wujud dalam Johor. Lagipun terdapat fatwa di Johor yang tidak membenarkan anak tidak sah taraf “dibinkan” dengan nama bapa biologi. Tetapi sayangnya semasa kes ini dibawa ke muka pengadilan pada tahun 2016, fatwa tersebut belum diwartakan. Fatwa tersebut hanya diwartakan pada 21 Mei 2018. Meskipun begitu, Mahkamah Persekutuan mengambil pendekatan tersirat fatwa anak tidak sah taraf tidak boleh “dibinkan” kepada bapa biologi.

Alasan kedua yang diambil oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan ialah tidak menggunapakai seksyen 13A Akta Pendaftaran Kelahiran dan Kematian (BDRA) 1957 (Akta 229) di mana “Nama keluarga (surname), sekiranya hendak diletakkan ke atas anak sah taraf hendaklah sedemikian itu menjadi nama keluarga mengikut bapa”.

Manakala seksyen 13A (2) memperuntukkan: “Nama keluarga (surname), sekiranya hendak diletakkan ke atas anak tidak sah taraf di mana ibunya yang melaporkan dan keterangan yang diberi itu adalah bersifat sukarela hendaklah mengikut nama keluarga ibu tersebut, dengan syarat seseorang itu memaklumkan bahawa dirinya adalah bapa kepada anak tersebut mengikut seksyen 13 memohon nama keluarga tersebut adalah mengikut nama keluarga orang tersebut (bapa)”.

Mahkamah Persekutuan memutuskan bahawa orang Islam di Malaysia terutama bagi orang Melayu, tidak mengamalkan penggunaan “nama keluarga” (surname). Justeru itu, seksyen 13A BDRA tidak terpakai ke atas orang Melayu di Malaysia dan tidak boleh diterjemahkan sebagai nama bapa.

Mahkamah Persekutuan turut memutuskan bahawa nama keluarga (surname) adalah satu tambahan maklumat dan bukannya satu kemestian. Sekiranya pemohon mempunyai nama keluarga (surname). Ianya boleh dimasukkan. Malahan seksyen 13A tidak mendiskrimasi antara orang Islam dan bukan Islam tetapi mendiskriminasi antara seseorang yang mempunyai nama keluarga (surname) atau tidak. Tambahan pula, penggunaan nama dan nama keluarga (surname) sangat berbeza dan ini tidak diulas oleh Mahkamah Rayuan sebelum ini. Justeru itu, KP JPN hendaklah mengeluarkan nama "bin Abdullah" dalam surat beranak anak tersebut.

Alasan ketiga: Mahkamah Persekutuan mempertikaikan pemakaian Fatwa Kebangsaan yang mensyaratkan anak tidak sah taraf bagi orang Islam “dibinkan dengan Abdullah” seperti yang diterimapakai oleh Ketua Pengarah (KP) JPN yang berpandukan kepada dua fatwa Mufti/Ulama yang mahir dalam perundangan Islam. Secara umumnya, undang-undang Islam memperuntukkan bahawa anak tidak sah taraf tidak boleh “dibinkan” dengan nama bapa biologi merupakan satu ketetapan hukum yang diperuntukkan dalam enakmen undang-undang negeri-negeri. Namun, dari segi fiqh pula, terdapat perbezaan pandangan di kalangan fuqaha nama apa yang seharusnya diambil oleh anak ini. Ini jelas menunjukkan perbezaan fatwa antara negeri-negeri dalam isu ini. Sebagai contohnya, fatwa di Selangor berbeza dengan Perlis dan Wilayah Persekutuan. Justeru itu, mengambil doktrin Siasah Syariah, negeri boleh menentukan pandangan mana yang sesuai untuk masyarakat setempat. Bagi maksud ini, fatwa negeri tersebut mestilah terlebih dahulu diwartakan supaya ia terikat dari segi undang-undang.

Maka fatwa oleh Jawatankuasa Fatwa Kebangsaan hanya menjadi undang-undang (terikat) di Johor seandainya ia diwartakan di negeri tersebut mengikut seksyen 49 Undang-undang Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Johor) 2003 (Enakmen No. 16, 2003).

Tindakan KP JPN menerima pakai fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh Jawatankuasa Fatwa Kebangsaan ke atas Responden-Responden adalah tidak berasas. Malah KP JPN telah bertindak melampau kuasa yang diberi kepada Sultan Johor berikutan kuasa Sultan Johor bagi memperkenankan pewartaan fatwa berkenaan sebelum ia mengikat Responden-Responden, bukannya KP JPN mengenakan fatwa berkenaan ke atas Responden-Responden.

Memandangkan tiada fatwa yang diwartakan mengenai anak tak sah taraf di Johor, KP JPN tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya mengenakan fatwa yang dikeluarkan oleh Jawatankuasa Fatwa Kebangsaan ke atas Responden-responden. Pemakaian fatwa tersebut hanya terpakai ke atas negeri Johor sekiranya ia mengikut seksyen 52(1) Undang-undang Pentadbiran Agama Islam (Negeri Johor) 2003. Malah KP JPN telah bertindak mengatasi seksyen 47 di mana hanya Sultan Johor yang mempunyai kuasa dalam persoalan fatwa di Johor. KP JPN tidak boleh bertindak sendiri menentukan salah satu dari pelbagai pandangan untuk diguna pakai ke atas Responden-Responden. Justeru itu, KP JPN tidak mempunyai asas undang-undang untuk mengenakan nama “bin Abdullah” dalam kes ini dan keputusan ini tertakluk kepada banyak persoalan yang berkait.

Melihat kepada keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan ini, keperluan kepada memperkukuhkan undang-undang Islam di negeri-negeri. Pewartaan fatwa di negeri-negeri sangat penting supaya ia dapat mengikat dari segi undang-undang. Pandangan oleh Jawatankuasa Muzakarah MKI (Fatwa Kebangsaan) hanyalah bersifat nasihat dan tidak mempunyai kekuatan undang-undang kerana urusan agama Islam diberi kuasa kepada negeri-negeri. Maka usaha supaya penyeragaman fatwa agar ia selaras dan tidak menimbulkan masalah seperti dalam kes ini dapat dikurangkan. Ini dapat dilakukan dalam MKI dan seterusnya dipersembahkan kepada Majlis Raja-raja.

Penyeragaman undang-undang Islam antara negeri-negeri yang sedang diusahakan dengan adanya Jawatankuasa Teknikal Undang-undang Syarak-Sivil perlu digiatkan agar kes seperti ini tidak berulang. Sekali lagi ia perlu dimajukan kepada MKI dan seterusnya dipersembahkan kepada Majlis Raja-raja. Dalam hal ini, pihak-pihak yang terlibat perlu menggunakan sepenuhnya hikmah dan kebijaksaan agar ia tidak mengguris hati Raja-raja kerana urusan agama Islam adalah kuasa mutlak Raja-raja.

Persoalan seterusnya, apakah dengan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan ini dapat menyelesaikan kemelut nama anak tidak sah taraf “dibin/dibintikan Abdullah”. Walaupun keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan mempersoal pemakaian nama keluarga (surname) dan memutuskan bahawa orang Melayu Islam tidak menggunakannya, penulis mencadangkan agar pihak pemerintah dan penggubal undang-undang meminda seksyen 13A BDRA dengan memasukkan peruntukan bahawa ia tidak terpakai ke atas orang Islam. Ini selari dengan gagasan Rahmah yang sedang diterapkan oleh kerajaan agar kanak-kanak tanpa mengira latar belakang agama dan keturunan mendapat hak yang sepatutnya.


Muhammad Najib Al-Segambuti Doc, soalan. Adakah jika ada fatwa negeri yg membenarkan "bin" kpd ayah yg x sah taraf, maka JPN tertakluk kpd fatwa tersebut jgk?

Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil Muhammad Najib Al-Segambuti Ya, JPN tertakluk kpd fatwa yg diwartakan di negeri itu. Ttp keputusan Mhk Perktn baru2 ini cuba membawa pendekatan bhw orang Islam tidak memakai sek 13A BDRA. Krn itu, saya cadang pinda sek ini supaya jelas ia tidak terpakai ke atas orang Islam. Juga, menyelaras fatwa supaya seragam di negeri2.
 
Sponsored Post

cek mek molek

CG Hardcore Club
Platinum Member
Top Poster #1
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Messages
70,612
Reaction score
11,049
Points
1,906
Lukman Sheriff
1 jam ·

Again, as written earlier, no one would have said the legislator contemplated the use of surname for Muslims. That section cannot be meant for muslims. Muslims in the main do not have surnames and you just cannot pluck any name to start a surname trend. Legislators are not that ignorant to lead to such situation. With due respect YAA FC judge Nallini is stretching it.
Clearly the YAA judge Nallini is wrong not to consider personal laws and customs to be applied. The failure to consider this will have wide application. If we follow her then the law can dictate all races to apply bin for all races for example. Is this what we want? Though it’s a federal matter, allow reference to personal laws. That is why the majority is correct. It would be haywire otherwise.


'Bin Abdullah' case: What the Federal Court's minority rulings said
Wednesday, 19 Feb 2020 07:00 AM MYT
BY IDA LIM
https://media.hatred contents/uploads/articles/malaysia_merdeka_flag_28092014.jpgDissenting judges from the Federal Court gave minority judgments that examine what ‘surname’ means in law and if the National Registration Department can impose ‘bin Abdullah’ when recording the names of illegitimate Muslim children. — Picture by Yusof Mat Isa

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 19 — The Federal Court’s majority ruling last Thursday said that the National Registration Department (NRD) was wrong to decide on its own to use “bin Abdullah” for a Johor-born illegitimate Muslim child’s name in his birth certificate, but also said that the NRD was right to disallow the father from using his name for the child.


However, three of the seven judges on the Federal Court panel in this case dissented, holding the opinion that the NRD should not have unilaterally used “bin Abdullah” for the child’s name — but for different reasons, and that the NRD was wrong to refuse the father’s application to have his name be part of the child’s name.

The three dissenting judges gave two separate judgments, with Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri David Wong Dak Wah reading his after the majority decision was delivered by Court of Appeal President Datuk Rohana Yusuf.

Federal Court judge Datuk Nallini Pathmanathan had on that day also read out her minority judgment that was agreed to by fellow Federal Court judge Datuk Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim.

In this case, the Johor-born child (whose name has been withheld) had sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from A Child bin Abdullah to A Child bin MEMK to take after his father’s name MEMK, and for the words “Permohonan Seksyen 13” to be removed from the birth certificate.

(The “bin Abdullah” patronym and the “Permohonan Seksyen 13” entry were seen as obvious giveaways of his illegitimate status that could expose him to stigma).
Here’s a brief summary of what the minority judgments said:

What the case is not about

From the outset and throughout her minority judgment, Justice Nallini noted that it was not disputed that the Johor-born Muslim child was deemed illegitimate under Johor’s state Islamic law, stressing that this case was not about seeking to change this child’s illegitimate status to make him legitimate.

Instead, she said this case revolved around the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths’ scope of powers under a federal law — Births and Deaths Registration Act (BDRA) — when recording and registering the full name of Muslim illegitimate children or recording their “paternity” (who their father is) in the Register of Births and Deaths or the country’s official records.

In dissecting the case, Nallini listed four issues to be determined, including whether a legal provision under the BDRA allowing fathers to ask for their names to be registered as their illegitimate children’s surname were not applicable to Malays and/ or Muslims.

This legal provision refers to Section 13A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act covering the “surname” of children, which states that a legitimate child’s surname in official records is to be the surname if any of the father, while also saying that an illegitimate child’s surname if any is to be the mother’s surname if she provides such information or can be the surname of the person who acknowledges himself to be the father upon his request.

What does ‘surname’ mean?

In answering the first issue on whether Malays are excluded from the BDRA’s Section 13A, Nallini noted that a big part of the arguments presented by lawyers at the Federal Court was on the definition of “surname.”

While the word “surname” is not defined in the BDRA, Nallini said that the expert opinion provided by three academics — which said Malays have no surnames — were “entirely irrelevant” in answering what “surname” means in the BDRA.

This is because the term “surname” under the BDRA requires statutory interpretation or the court to interpret it, as it is a question of law, she said.
Nodding at the experts’ view that Malays have no “surname” based on the literal dictionary meaning and traditional English language and culture, Nallini said that it would be more “logical and reasonable” to interpret the word “surname” in line with the BDRA’s purpose to also include patronymic names. (The use of patronyms in Malaysia — including by Malays — typically sees the names of fathers being part of their children’s names.)

Nallini said that applying a literal meaning to “surname” would exclude Section 13A from applying to a majority of Malaysia’s population and that it would also exclude many other races locally such as Indians and Kadazans who similarly do not have family names or surnames as used in the traditional Western culture, pointing out that including “patronymic surname” would instead enable this provision to cover all Malaysians “regardless of race, culture and social convention.”

“In other words, to conclude that Section 13A is inapplicable to Malays and/or Muslims on the grounds that they do not possess surnames, would amount, in my view, to going against the express purpose set out in Section 13A, namely to afford a child born out of wedlock the right to have his father’s name specified on his birth certificate. This would run awry of the textual meaning to be accorded to ‘surname’ in that Section. Significantly, it would preclude such persons, albeit non-Muslims, from utilising Section 13A too,” she said.

The judge also highlighted that the legal interpretation of what “surname” means has to take into account the purpose of the BDRA, which she noted is a federal law enacted by the federal government to provide for a “full repository or register of births within the country” which would allow children to have an identity with the register recording the identities of their mother and father.

The judge said that BDRA was intended to apply to all Malaysians and did not have separate provisions for different races, noting: “It is applicable to all persons in the country, regardless of race and religion. No differentiation is made in the applicability of the provisions of the BDRA 1957 to the various races who comprise the citizens of this plural population comprising Malaysia. Neither does the Act relate to, provide for, or prescribe stipulations in relation to legitimacy, naming conventions, cultural practices or religious law. In other words it is an entirely secular Act.”

Nallini concluded that the NRD was legally obliged to record the Johor child’s name as ‘Child bin MEMK’ with MEMK’s personal name as a patronymic surname.
Justice Wong, the other judge who dissented, pointed out that the vast majority of Malaysians with the exception of the local ethnic Chinese do not have surnames in the traditional sense, and similarly said “surname” in Section 13A should be defined as including “patronymic surnames” as many Malaysians such as the natives of Sabah and Sarawak would otherwise be excluded.


https://media.hatred contents/uploads/articles/2018/2018-08/20183131RG21.jpg
The minority judgments said the term ‘surname’ in the Births and Deaths Registration Act should be interpreted with the purposive approach to include ‘patronymic surnames’, instead of excluding a majority of Malaysians. — Picture by Razak Ghazali

How the Constitution views state laws and federal laws

Nallini also examined the issue of whether state laws enacted by state governments such as laws governing Muslims’ personal lives apply to federal laws enacted by the federal government such as the BDRA.

The Federal Constitution divides what Parliament can legislate and what state legislative assemblies can make laws on into two lists — Federal List and State List — under the Ninth Schedule.

(The two lists set out the exclusive matters that the federal government and state governments can make laws on, and with both not able to make laws under the other’s jurisdiction unless expressly authorised by conditions in the Constitution).
In explaining the constitutional arrangement, Nallini noted that it meant any laws made by the state government on Islamic personal laws only apply to that state, adding that matters falling strictly under the State List have no impact on matters that are exclusively under Parliament in the Federal List.

She noted that the strict federal nature of the BDRA is shown by the Constitution’s Federal List’s Item 3(e) which is national registration and Item 12(a) covering census and registration of births and deaths among other things.

While Article 3(1) provides for Islam as the religion of the federation with other religions to be practised in peace and harmony, Nallini noted that Article 3(4) — which provides that nothing in Article 3 would diminish other constitutional provisions — meant that the constitutional arrangement under Article 74 which divides the federal and state law-making powers continue to apply.

“Thus, Islamic law has no application insofar as the registration of deaths and births is concerned,” she said when citing the constitutional arrangement.
“The structure of the Federal Constitution in the present context is such that a clear divide is maintained between civil law, which is intrinsically secular in nature and applicable to all citizens on the one hand, and Muslim personal law on the other, which is confined to State legislation promulgated in accordance with the State List and applicable only to Muslims,” she said, describing this unique constitutional structure that embraces both secular and religious laws as “genius” and in keeping with the rule of law in Malaysia’s plural society.

The judge concluded that the contents of Johor’s Islamic Family Law (State of Johor) Enactment 2003 “cannot be imported and applied” in interpreting BDRA which is a federal law, as doing so would conflate or mix up federal law and state law, while also mixing up the two different concepts of “paternity and legitimacy” which are treated differently under state Islamic law and civil law.

The judge also said whether someone is legitimate or illegitimate when it comes to Shariah matters could easily be proven by calculating the difference from their date of birth and the date of their parents’ marriage.

‘Bin Abdullah’ vs with father’s name vs just child’s name

The two remaining issues that Nallini examined were whether the NRD was legally correct to impose “bin Abdullah” on the Johor-born child’s name, and whether — if the NRD acted beyond their powers — the court should order for the birth certificate to have the child’s name carry the father’s name MEMK or for the document to record only the child’s personal name.

Citing the above, Nallini said the NRD was not entitled to arbitrarily ascribe the name “bin Abdullah” to the Johor child’s name, further pointing out that the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths is merely carrying out an administrative function under the BDRA.

Since the BDRA did not provide for “bin Abdullah” to be used, the NRD or the Registrar-General were duty-bound under Section 27(3) of the same law to correct the mistake of using “bin Abdullah” for the Johor child’s name when asked to do so by the parents, as it would otherwise amount to the Registrar-General taking on a function that he has not been given under the BDRA, she said.

“Neither has he been conferred with powers as an adjudicator with the ability to adjudge on the best option to be adopted in relation to the naming convention of a child, be it in relation to religion, culture or otherwise,” she said, later adding that the Johor child should not have only his personal name registered in official records but should also carry his father’s name as Section 13A had been fulfilled.

https://media.hatred contents/uploads/articles/2018/2018-01/20180109_MYKAD_BIN_ABDULLAH_02.jpg
This is how the 'Permohonan Seksyen 13' entry looks like on birth certificates, a phrase that critics argue is an obvious indicator of a child's illegitimacy status. — Picture by Choo Choy May

What the other minority ruling said

Justice Wong, who had also noted that the Johor child’s illegitimate status was not in dispute and under the Shariah courts’ exclusive jurisdiction, pointed out that the Court of Appeal had noted that the Johor case revolved around the administration of civil law by civil authority and not the administration of Islamic law by a religious authority.

Wong also agreed with the Court of Appeal’s previous unanimous ruling that the NRD director-general or registrar-general is not bound by a fatwa issued by a religious body, as the latter’s jurisdiction and power under the BDRA is a civil one and limited to determining if the Johor child’s parent had fulfilled Section 13A(2) requirements for his name to be ascribed to the child’s name.

Wong also agreed with the Court of Appeal that a fatwa or religious opinion by a religious body has no legal effect unless adopted as federal law by Parliament, as such fatwa would otherwise become part of federal law without going through the legislative process. (The NRD had relied on two fatwas by a national-level committee of Islamic scholars when imposing “bin Abdullah” on the Johor child’s name.)

Wong also touched on the Johor child’s welfare and best interests when saying that the “Permohonan Seksyen 13” entry should be removed from the Johor child’s birth certificate, noting the Court of Appeal’s ruling had said the law did not require such an entry and that a child’s legitimacy could be easily determined by comparing the birth date and parents’ marriage date for matters such as inheritance disputes in Shariah courts.

Noting the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child’s Article 3 which places a child’s best interests as the primary consideration in all actions taken by those such as administrative bodies and courts (a clause which Malaysia has placed reservations on), Wong went on to highlight the birth certificate as a significant document that gives a person an identity in the eyes of the state and its use for matters such as school enrolment.

“Is it necessary for anyone to know whether someone was born illegitimate?...What useful purpose does this serve? Thus with respect, I think the Court of Appeal arrived at the right decision by ordering removal of the Section 13 endorsement,” he said of the entry which signals to the public the illegitimacy status of the child.

But with these two judgments being minority rulings, the majority decision is the one that applies in the Johor child’s case — namely both the removal of the “bin Abdullah” patronym and also the disallowing of the father’s name in the child’s name. The Federal Court also said the “Permohonan Seksyen 13” entry will remain on the child’s birth certificate.

Read here to see the reasons for the Federal Court’s majority decision.
https://media.hatred contents/uploads/articles/2020/2020-02/Timeline_BinAbdullahCase_1802.jpg



 

apodio

Fun Poster
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
426
Reaction score
31
Points
30
Saya sedikit terkesan dgn tajuk thread, mungkin lenggok faham ayat saya shj. Harus saya tulis tajuk "Ayah dihukum dgn anak tidak di bin/binti namanya kerana ..."
 

cek mek molek

CG Hardcore Club
Platinum Member
Top Poster #1
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Messages
70,612
Reaction score
11,049
Points
1,906
BERNAMA
4 min ·
Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) sedang melakukan perbincangan dengan Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN), Jabatan Peguam Negara dan semua mufti negeri bagi mengkaji dan menyelaraskan penggunaan 'bin dan binti' bagi proses pendaftaran anak tidak sah taraf.

Ketua Pengarahnya, Datuk Ruslin Jusoh berkata pada masa sekarang pihaknya memutuskan terdapat dua pilihan bagi pendaftaran anak tidak sah taraf iaitu berbin atau berbintikan Abdullah atau menggunakan nama Asmaul Husna (letak Abdul di hadapan nama).


Anak tak sah taraf : JPN selaras nama ayah

Datuk Ruslin Jusoh

Tarikh Kemaskini :
20/02/2020 04:00 PM

KOTA BHARU, 20 Feb -- Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara (JPN) sedang melakukan perbincangan dengan Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN), Jabatan Peguam Negara dan semua mufti negeri bagi mengkaji dan menyelaraskan penggunaan 'bin dan binti' bagi proses pendaftaran anak tidak sah taraf.

Ketua Pengarahnya, Datuk Ruslin Jusoh berkata pada masa sekarang pihaknya memutuskan terdapat dua pilihan bagi pendaftaran anak tidak sah taraf iaitu berbin atau berbintikan Abdullah atau menggunakan nama Asmaul Husna (letak Abdul di hadapan nama).

"Perbincangan ini nanti akan melihat mekanisme yang lebih sesuai dalam proses pendaftaran anak tidak sah taraf supaya tidak berlaku pertembungan.

"Kita tahu kebanyakan negeri mempunyai peraturan dan enakmen masing-masing, yang kita turut menjalin hubungan dengan jabatan agama negeri bagi mencari penyelesaian dari segi dasar selain melihat penambahbaikan atau peraturan baharu dikeluarkan.

"Setakat ini, perbincangan sudah bermula di peringkat KDN terlebih dahulu dan kami akan keluarkan satu arahan baharu dengan dasar sedia ada dalam masa terdekat. Di peringkat JPN, kami sedang melihat kesesuaian dengan keputusan mahkamah baru-baru ini," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita selepas menyerahkan dokumen pengenalan diri kepada lapan beranak di Kampung Demit Sungai, Kubang Kerian di sini, yang turut dihadiri Pengarah JPN Kelantan Asrehan Ab Razak.

Mengulas lanjut, Ruslin berkata pihaknya akur dengan keputusan mahkamah baru-baru ini membabitkan kes di Johor yang memutuskan penggunaan bin Abdullah.

"Dalam konteks ini secara teknikal nama anak akan jadi ‘satu’ sahaja (tanpa bin atau binti). Setakat ini, kita belum membuat tindakan selagi tidak menerima alasan penghakiman namun kes berkenaan hanya berlaku di Johor sahaja," katanya.
Sementara itu, Che Noor Ariffin, 60, dan isterinya, Karimah Mamat, 44, menyatakan rasa syukur apabila lapan daripada 16 anaknya yang berusia antara enam hingga 21 tahun menerima kad pengenalan dan sijil kelahiran.

Che Noor berkata beliau bukan tidak berusaha untuk mendaftarkan kelahiran kesemua anaknya namun disebabkan terlalu banyak prosedur selain perlu menyediakan pelbagai dokumen menyebabkan beliau terpaksa membiarkan lapan anaknya membesar tanpa dokumen pengenalan diri.

“Berikutan masalah itu, anak saya tidak mampu pergi sekolah sedangkan ada pula sebahagian anak saya tidak mempunyai masalah ketika proses pendaftaran kelahiran apabila mereka mempunyai kad pengenalan dan surat beranak.
“Kami bersyukur kerana mendapat perhatian dan usaha ini memudahkan kami memohon bantuan dengan Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Istiadat Melayu Kelantan (MAIK)," katanya.

-- BERNAMA
 

Jackhalid

Super Active Member
Platinum Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
6,465
Reaction score
1,028
Points
151
Kenapa undang2 Islam berlainan antara satu negeri dgn negeri yg lain? Bukan patut sama je ke utk semua?
 

Cricket

Fun Poster
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
267
Reaction score
62
Points
20
kat Malaysia bukan ikut Mazhab shafiee je tuan?
Persoalan.
Mazhab shafie peha lelaki aurat.
Tapi org malaysia tgk je game bola. Tanpa ada isu apa2.

Yes majoriti negara ni ikut shafie.
Tapi ada juga yg tidak mahu hanya terikat dengan shafie. Mereka ikut mazhab lain juga. Contoh perlis
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Post
Top
Log in Register