[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

225

IN RE MAHAMMAD HAMED & ANOR

SYARIAH HIGH COURT, MELAKA

MAHAMMAD IBRAHIM J
[CIVIL SUIT NO: 04100-012-0086-2008]
17 SEPTEMBER 2008
MARRIAGE: Wali - Prerequisites - Wali fasiq - Whether could
solemnize a marriage - Marriage solemnized by wali fasik - Whether
could be affirmed by court - Whether requiring support of al-Muddaaii
Oath - Islamic Family Law (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002 s. 7(1)
The applicants in this case, both of whom were residents of the
State of Malacca, have had their marriage solemnized in the
Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur on 16 September 2000. It was
a polygamous marriage for the first applicant husband, he being
already married at the material time. Be that as it may, the facts
showed that the marriage was solemnized by an unauthorized
official (representative wali/Imam) in the presence of two
witnesses and members of the second applicant wifes family. It
was not in dispute that the second applicants father or wali was
present at the ceremony, and had indeed consented to the
representative wali to offer the second applicant in marriage. The
facts further showed that, although the applicants had no difficulty
registering the birth of their three children with the relevant
Government Department, they encountered problems to register
their fourth child as their Marriage Certificate was said to be fake
and invalid. The applicants were unable to resolve the predicament
that arose, and in the circumstances, applied to this court for an
order/declaration that their marriage was valid in law and Hukum
Syarak and could therefore be registered under the Islamic Family
Law (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002.
Held (allowing application):

(1) The representative wali in this case, apart from issuing a fake
marriage certificate, had also forged the particulars in the Form
JAWI 3, ie, the form under s. 26 of the Islamic Family Law
(Federal Territories) Act 1984 used by him to solemnize the
marriage. That being so, a question arose as to whether he
was fit to be a representative wali and solemnize the marriage,
bearing in mind his bad character. (paras 24-26)

226

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

(2) This marriage, viewed from a perspective, appeared to be

invalid as the representative wali did not meet the
requirements of a wali in Hukum Syarak. That
notwithstanding, considering the views of scholars such as
Imam Taqiyuddin al-Dimaysqiy, Imam al-Rafie, Imam al-Ghazali
and Imam Ruyaniy - all of whom opined that a wali fasiq is a
capable wali nonetheless - the representative wali who had
solemnized the marriage herein was an acceptable wali. (paras
21, 22 & 23)
(3) The status of a wali, namely as to whether he is a fasik or
not, ought to be determined at the time and date of the
marriage. This was however not done. This aside, the
applicants themselves did not dispute the status of the
representative wali, as to whether he is a fasik or not. In the
circumstances, since the status of the wali had not been
determined on the day of the marriage and there being no
dispute as to the validity of the solemnization, and considering
further that the issue herein would have bearings upon the
status of the children and their parentage and family lineage,
the court would rule that the solemnization as undertaken by
the representative wali herein was valid. (paras 27 & 28)
(4) It was insufficient of the applicants, in seeking to prove their
case, to have relied only on a male and female witness as
happened here. Hence, upon the authorities of the syarak, the
court would order the first applicant to administer al-Muddaaii
Oath swearing that his application pertaining to his marriage
with the second applicant constitutes the truth and that,
should he lie, the wrath of God shall overtake him both in
this World and the Hereafter. (paras 29, 32 & 33)

Headnotes in Bahasa Malaysia

PERKAHWINAN: Wali - Syarat-syarat - Wali fasiq - Sama ada
boleh mengakadkan pernikahan - Pernikahan diakad oleh wali fasik Sama ada boleh disahkan oleh mahkamah - Sama ada memerlukan
sokongan Sumpah al-Muddaaii - Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga
Islam (Negeri Melaka) 2002 s. 7(1)

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

227

Pemohon-pemohon dalam kes ini, yang bermastautin di Negeri

Melaka, telah melangsungkan perkahwinan mereka di Wilayah
Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur pada 16 September 2000.
Perkahwinan adalah satu perkahwinan poligami bagi pemohon
pertama/suami, yang pada waktu material sudah pun mempunyai
seorang isteri lain. Apapun, fakta menunjukkan bahawa pernikahan
diakadkan oleh seorang jurunikah tak bertauliah (wakil wali/Imam)
dengan disaksikan oleh dua orang saksi serta beberapa ahli
keluarga pemohon kedua/isteri. Tidak dinafikan bahawa bapa atau
wali pemohon kedua turut menyaksikan pernikahan, dan malah
telah memberikan perwakilan kepada jurunikah untuk menikahkan
pemohon kedua. Fakta seterusnya menunjukkan bahawa, walaupun
pemohon-pemohon tiada masalah untuk mendaftarkan tiga anak
mereka dengan Jabatan Kerajaan yang berkenaan, mereka
menghadapi masalah untuk mendaftarkan anak keempat kerana Sijil
Nikah mereka dikatakan palsu dan tak sah. Pemohon-pemohon
gagal mengatasi masalah yang melanda mereka, dan berikutnya
telah memohon ke mahkamah semasa untuk mendapatkan perintah/
perisytiharan bahawa pernikahan mereka adalah sah di sisi undangundang dan Hukum Syarak dan dengan itu boleh didaftarkan di
bawah Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Melaka)
2002.
Diputuskan (membenarkan permohonan):

(1) Jurunikah dalam kes ini, selain dari mengeluarkan surat nikah
palsu, telah memalsukan butiran pada Borang JAWI 3, iaitu
borang di bawah s. 26 Akta Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam
(Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984 yang digunakan beliau
untuk menjalankan akad nikah tersebut. Persoalan dengan itu
berbangkit sama ada, dengan beliau memiliki sifat berdusta
tersebut, adakah beliau boleh menjadi wakil wali untuk
menikahkan pasangan pemohon-pemohon di sini. (perenggan
24-26)
(2) Ditinjau dari satu sudut, perkahwinan di sini kelihatan tak sah
kerana wakil walinya tidak memenuhi syarat-syarat wali
menurut Hukum Syarak. Walaupun begitu, berdasarkan
pandangan ulama-ulama seperti Imam Taqiyuddin al-Dimaysqiy,
Imam al-Rafie, Imam al-Ghazali dan Imam al-Ruyaniy - yang
mengatakan wali fasiq masih boleh menjadi wali - maka wali/
jurunikah yang menikahkan pemohon-pemohon di sini adalah
boleh diterima. (perenggan 21, 22 & 23)

228

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

(3) Status seseorang wali, sama ada fasik atau tidak, harus
ditentukan di hari dan waktu di mana perkahwinan
dilangsungkan. Ini bagaimanapun tidak dilakukan. Selain itu,
pemohon-pemohon sendiri tidak mempertikaikan status wakil
wali tersebut sama ada fasik atau tidak. Oleh itu mahkamah
berpendapat, oleh sebab tidak ditentukan kefasikan wakil wali
di hari pernikahan tersebut, dan tidak ada pihak yang
mempertikaikan akad nikah tersebut, dan mengambilkira bahawa
masalah ini akan membabitkan nasib anak-anak yang telah
dilahirkan serta nasab dan keturunan, maka mahkamah
menganggapkan ia (akad) sebagai tindakan yang sah.
(perenggan 27 & 28)
(4) Adalah tidak mencukupi untuk pemohon-pemohon
membuktikan kes mereka dengan bergantung kepada seorang
saksi lelaki dan seorang saksi perempuan sepertimana yang
berlaku di sini. Berdasarkan dalil-dalil syarak, mahkamah
memerintahkan supaya pemohon pertama melafazkan Sumpah
al-Muddaaii menyatakan bahawa tuntutan beliau mengenai
perkahwinannya dengan pemohon kedua di sini adalah benar
belaka dan bahawa ia akan dimurkai Allah dunia akhirat jika ia
berdusta. (perenggan 29, 32 & 33)

Al-Hadith referred to:

Imam al-Baihaqi
Imam al-Tirmizi
Legislation referred to:
Islamic Family Law (Federal Territories) Act 1984, s. 26
(Akta Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan)
1984, s. 26)
Islamic Family Law (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002, s. 7(1)
(Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Melaka) 2002,
s. 7(1))
Other source(s) referred to:

For the applicants - In person

Reported by Wan Sharif Wan Ahmad

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

229

JUDGMENT

Facts of the Case

[1] Both appellants, prior to their marriage and up to the time

of the filing of this application, were residing in Malacca at an
address known as No. 1, Jalan TTP2, Taman Tambak Paya
Permai, 75460 Air Molek, Melaka.
[2] They have decided to get married in the Federal Territory
of Kuala Lumpur as the first applicant was then a married man
and was intent not to let the news of the marriage reaching his
first wife. Upon the evidence adduced, the first applicant was a
man of means financially and physically, being a contractor earning
an income of some RM9,000 a month.
[3] The second applicant has never married before. On 16
September 2000, between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m, the parties
were married at a double-storey shop house in the Federal
Territory, Kuala Lumpur. A week later, they received their
Certificate of Marriage, since marked as Exhibit P1. At the said
shop house, a jurunikah and two witnesses, not personally known
to the applicants but whose character and personality did not
appear to be questionable to the applicants, were made available
for the solemnization.
[4] The marriage was solemnized upon a maskahwin of RM80
in cash, and the applicants, the wali and the witnesses were
present when solemnization was effectuated.
[5] For the first five years of their marriage, the parties
harboured no doubt as to the veracity of their marriage. Indeed,
during the period, four children had been born to them. They also
had encountered no problem in obtaining the Birth Certificate for
their respective children by using the above Certificate of Marriage
(Exhibit P1). The falsity of the Certificate of Marriage, however,
dawned upon them in 2005 when they were unable to obtain the
Birth Certificate for their fourth child. They then came before this
court to apply for an order that their marriage is valid in law and
for it to be registered pursuant to the Islamic Family Law (State
of Malacca) Enactment 2002.

230

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

[6] In their evidence, the first and second applicants averred

that they have gone to a place, viz a two-storey shop lot
somewhere in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. Their
intention of going there was solely to enable the first applicant to
take a second wife and marry the second applicant. The first
applicant was already married and had a few children. It was
evident that, to facilitate the said marriage, the second applicant
had brought along a wali, ie, in the person of her own father.
Before the applicants were solemnized by the Imam, a man whom
they were not quite acquainted with, the second applicants father
had given his consent for the Imam to be his wali, for the purpose
of offering his daughter in marriage. Upon such representation
being made by the father/wali, the latter then pronounced the
solemnization thus: Upon the representation given me by the wali,
I hereby offer Mercy binti Utuh in marriage to Haji Mahammad
bin Hamed on a maskahwin of RM80 cash.
[7] Thereupon, the groom, namely the first applicant, replied I
accept Mercy binti Utuh in marriage on a maskahwin of RM80
cash. The bride, namely the second applicant did receive the
RM80 maskahwin in question from the groom. According to the
applicants evidence further, two witnesses who were brought by
the Imam, namely Mahuri bin Sahid and Nasrun bin Bardu
respectively, stood witness for their marriage.
[8] Counsel for the applicants had produced the father of the
second applicant as a witness. According to this witness, he had
observed and witnessed the marriage ceremony, and had also
heard the words of Ijab (offer) and Qabul (acceptance) being
therein uttered by the first applicant. Likewise, he also saw the
two witnesses aforesaid at the ceremony, endorsing the marriage
as valid.
[9] The applicants had also called a second witness for this trial,
namely the second applicants younger sister. This witness testified
that she was present at the solemnization and witnessed the
marriage rites thus conducted thereat.
[10] It is the courts view that the wali for the bride who had
observed the marriage ceremony and heard the Ijab and Qabul as
uttered by the first applicant, is qualified to be a witness herein.
However, the court found that the two males, who allegedly stood
witness for the marriage, had not been called as witnesses at the
trial. Consequently, the wali (second applicants father) was the
only witness for the marriage which, according to Kitab Kitayatul

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

231

Akyar, cannot be permitted. When a wali had consented to the

representative wali to solemnize the marriage of his daughter and
then proceeded to be the main witness for the said marriage, such
marriage, according to this kitab, is unlawful.
[11] It is the courts view that there was already a male witness
who had witnessed the marriage, namely the father of the bride
who said that he was there at the material time and had seen the
two male witnesses endorsing and validating the marriage, and
further, had clearly heard the words uttered by the Imam and the
groom. He acknowledged in his evidence that the two witnesses
were present at the ceremony and that they were acting as
witnesses in the Imams behalf.
[12] A question however arose as to why these two men had not
been called as witnesses to give evidence at this trial to support
the applicants case.

[13] Since the second applicants father is an eligible witness for

the marriage, the court is open to admit his evidence.
Nonetheless, it is better that evidence from another male witness
be availed of in support of his evidence.

[14] Upon the evidence adduced, some questions pertaining to

the marriage rites could still arise. Has the solemnization met the
conditions and prerequisites of a valid marriage. To answer this I
need to refer to the Hukum Syarak.
[15] In this respect, a Kitab by the name of

written by as-Sheikh Muhammad Amin al-Kurdiy at p.

312, said:

There are five prerequisites for nikah, viz:

1) Husband
He must (be):

- A Muslim
- Not a mahram to the bride
- Voluntarily soliciting for the marriage himself, not upon duress

- Aware of the wifes name, her nasab and her person

- Genuinely a man

232

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

2) Wife

She must (be):

- Not a mahram to the husband
- Exclusively identifiable

- Not under iddah

- Not another mans wife
- Truly a woman

- A Muslim or a recognized woman of the Book

3) Wali
The antecedents of a wali are that he must (be):

- A Muslim
- Not a fasik (sinner)
- Assuming waliship on his own volition, not under duress

- Of full age
- Matured
- A free man and not a slave

- A real man
- Not in ihram
4) Two Witnesses

The witnesses must (be):

- Muslim
- Of full age

- Matured
- Male
- Not deaf
- Not blind

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

233

- Not mute
- Able to understand the lingua of the man (husband) and wali
- Men of fairness

5) Sighah
The prerequisites for sighah are:

- Ijab (offer), namely by the wali saying I hereby marry or offer

in marriage
- Qabul (acceptance), namely by the husband saying: I accept
the offer in marriage of

[16] In their evidence, the first and second applicants had

testified that the wali (father) to the bride had given his consent
for the Imam to offer his daughter in marriage. The question is,
can a wali who is himself capable of offering his daughter in
marriage appoint someone else to do so on his behalf?
[17] In this respect, s. 7(1) of the Islamic Family Law (State of
Malacca) Enactment 2002 states:
7(1) - A marriage in the State of Malacca shall be in accordance
with the provisions of this Enactment and shall be solemnized in
accordance with Hukum Syarak by:

(a) the wali in the presence of the Registrar;

(b) the representative of the wali in the presence and with the
permission of the Registrar; or

(c) the Registrar as the representative of the wali.

Bearing in mind the above, it is therefore my finding that the first

and second applicants had not adhered to the aforesaid provision,
more so when the marriage was solemnized outside the State of
Malacca.
[18] In the Kitab

by al-Sheikh Muhammad Ibnu Ahmad Ba Fadhal al-Khadramiy,

Dar Ibnu Hazam Publication, Beirut, Lebanon, at p. 169, it was
said:

234

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

a Wali Mujbir (Father and Grandfather) can appoint any qualified

person to be his wali to perform marriage rites for his virgin
daughter who has attained full age without needing her consent.

Taking into view the above authority, it appears that it is

permissible for a wali to have appointed a representative to
solemnize the marriage of his daughter. Nonetheless, question
remains as to the criteria required of the said representative wali
to enable him to undertake the task appointed.
[19] In the kitab

by al-Sheikh Muhammad Ibnu Hazam, Beirut, Lebanon at p. 171,

it was said:

Which means:

the requirement of a representative wali is that he must have the

necessary qualification to solemnize a marriage as clearly he is
acting in the wali's behalf

[20] What then are the prerequisites of a representative wali.

According to the Kitab

By prof. Dr.
Muhammad Redha al-Jabbar, at p. 118-126, the prerequisites
were:

.i
The representative must be Ahliah Tasarruf (able to perform)
vis--vis the matter he was appointed for. A person is said to
Ahliah Tasarruf when he has the following characteristics: (a)
soundness of mind (

); (b) of full age (

); and (c) is
intelligent (

.ii

A man: and consequently a woman is incapacitated to

solemnize a marriage and it is unlawful for one to do so. The
man must also: (a) not be under duress (

); (b) not
be under intoxication (

); and (c) not be doing it in

jest (

).

.iii

The representative must be a person identified.

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

235

.vi

The representative must have some understanding of what a

wakallah (representation) is.

.v

The representative must be a Muslim; and

.iv

Having a sense of fairness. The as-Syafeiyyah jurists stipulated

that a representative wali must be a man of just and fairness.

[21] From one viewpoint, the marriage as herein solemnized

appeared to be null and void as the representative wali had failed
to satisfy the required legal prerequisites. That notwithstanding, the
court would scrutinize the opinions of some jurists on matters
pertaining to wali fasik (sinner wali), specifically on the issue of
whether a marriage as solemnized by a wali fasik is in law valid or
otherwise.

[22] This issue was highlighted in the kitab

by alImam Taqiyuddin al-Dimaysqiy, at p. 447 when it said:

Which means:
Imam al-Rafie said verily the scholars of

had ruled that a

wali fasik is an eligible wali; and

Which means:
And he continued this view was endorsed by the majority of
Khurasan scholars; and

Which means:
further, this view is the choice of Imam al-Ghazali, Imam anNawawi and Imam al-Ruyaniy.

236

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

[23] Upon the opinions of the scholars aforesaid, the court takes
the stance that the representative wali who had performed the
marriage ceremony of the applicants herein is an acceptable wali.
I have also since scrutinized the conditions and prerequisites of a
valid marriage, and in the circumstances, have taken the view that
the marriage that the parties had undergone here appeared valid
and lawful in Hukum Syarak. Some questions and doubts still
lingered though pertaining to the representative wali who had
been appointed to solemnize the marriage.
[24] This was rather understandable as the said Imam had shown
himself to be a liar and a cheat when he issued the relevant forged
marriage certificate. More so when, by his wits, he was able to
obtain the Form JAWI 3, the s. 26 of the Islamic Family Law
(Federal Territories) Act 1984 Form, which was somehow duly
filled up and signed by the Registrar of Muslim Marriages,
Divorces and Rujuk and even carried a Reference Number vide
No. 146061.
[25] Upon scrutiny, I found that the said reference number, and
the serial number accorded to the bride and groom did not tally
with the particulars as recorded for that purpose (by the relevant
authority) in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.
[26] In my opinion, this showed that the Imam is a liar and a
cheater and a man who practices deceit. A question therefore
arises as to whether he is qualified and fit to be an Imam, a
fortiori a representative wali to solemnize the marriage here.
[27] As to the issue of whether a representative wali is a fasik or
otherwise, I am however of the view that such of the walis or
representative walis status must be determined as at the date and
time of the solemnization of marriage, and not at any other time
or day. In this case, on the day of the marriage solemnization, the
issue of whether the representative wali was fasik or not had not
been raised, not even by the first and second applicants. That
being so, the court must assume that the ceremony had been
properly and validly conducted by the representative wali.
[28] In seeking to resolve their predicament, clearly the parties
had only the courts to turn to. This, the court is very much
aware of, and likewise, in deciding to entertain their application
herein, the court had considered the childrens future,
notwithstanding their fathers rash acts. I am concerned as all this
will bear on the childrens nasab and descendants.

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

237

[29] Nonetheless, the applicants must prove their case in

accordance with the precepts of syarak as expounded by the
jurists in the various kitab. In this case, the applicants had
adduced only a male and female witness, and this, in my view, is
insufficient for the court to affirm the marriage and allow their
application.
[30] To resolve the aforesaid issue, reference to authorities of the
syarak is appropriate. These include:

The Kitab

by al-Imam Yahya Ibnu Abi

al-Khair al-Imrany, Vol 13, at p. 313, whereof it was said:
The views of Saidina Abu Bakar r.a, Ubaiy bin Kaab r.a,
Saidina Umar r.a, Saidina Usman r.a., Umar ibnu Aziz,
Abu Salamah ibnu Abdul Rahman, al-Saby, Syuraih, and
other Madinah scholars like Rabiah, Malik and Ahmad are
that:
Every claim for rights (civil cases) may be allowed upon a
male witness and two female witnesses and likewise also
upon a male witness and the claimants oath.

This view is based on:

1. The saying of the Prophet as narrated by Abdullah Abbas r.a,
viz:

Which means:

Verily the Messenger of God s.a.w had affirmed a ruling based

on the evidence of a male witness and his oath.

2. Narration of Imam al-Baihaqi, testifying that: Amru bin Dinar

has said: This principle is allowable only in civil cases.
Saidina Ali r.a. also said:
H

Which means:
I

Verily, the Prophet s.a.w had ruled on a principle upon the

witness of a man and his syarie oath ...

238

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

3. Narration of Imam al-Tarmizi: citing Jabir r.a as saying:

Which means:

The Prophet of God s.a.w has said: Jibrail a.s has come to me
requesting me to adjudicate upon a syariah oath and a male
witness.

4. Narration of Imam al-Baihaqi: Narrated by Jaafar bin

Muhamad from his father from Saidina Ali

Which means:
Verily, the Messenger of God s.a.w, Saidina Abu Bakar and
Saidina Usman had adjudicated upon a male witness and a
claimants oath.

[31] Al-Imam Yahya ibnu Abi al-Khair al-Imraniy in his Kitab

Vol 13 at p. 314, said:

Which means:

Imam al-Masudi said: the way for the claimant to administer a

syarie oath is by him swearing that the male witness so brought
forth by him to the court was a man of truth and that his claim
was genuinely true.

[32] Based on these authorities, the court is thus of the view

that the (first) applicant must administer an al-Muddaaii Oath in
the presence of his witness (Practice Direction 8(2)(b)) as follows:
Wallahi, Wabillahi, Watallahi, by Allah, I Mahammed bin Hameed
do swear in the name of Allah that my claim pertaining to my
marriage with Marcy binti Utuh and the evidence as given my
witness therefor is true and that if I am lying in this oath the
wrath and retributions of Allah shall befall me in this World as
well as the Next World.

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

239

Dated this
Signed by the Administrator of the Oath
Before Me

(Signed by the Judge)

Decision

[33] Upon the evidence as adduced by the applicants and their

witness, and upon the Muddaaii Oath so pronounced by the
(first) applicant, I am satisfied that their marriage herein had
fulfilled the requirements of Hukum Syarak. That being the case,
the court would make the following orders:
1. The court affirms that the marriage between the first applicant
Mahammad bin Hamed and the second applicant Mercy binti
Utuh which was solemnized at a place in Kuala Lumpur on
16 September 2000 has complied with the Hukum Syarak and
is thus valid in law; and
2. The court orders that the Islamic Religious Department, State
of Malacca do cause the marriage to be registered under the
Islamic Family Law (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002.

Bahasa Malaysia Judgment

PENGHAKIMAN
Fakta Kes

[1] Kedua-dua pemohon telah bermastautin di Melaka sebelum

pernikahan berlangsung dan berterusan sehingga permohonan ini
difailkan di No. 1 Jalan TTP 2, Taman Tambak Paya Permai,
75460 Air Molek, Melaka.
[2] Mereka mengambil keputusan untuk berkahwin di Wilayah
Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur kerana pemohon 1 yang telah beristeri
tidak mahu sampai ke pengetahuan isteri pertama. Pemohon 1
melalui keterangan yang diberikan merupakan seorang lelaki yang
berkemampuan dari segi kesihatan dan kewangan sebagai
kontraktor dengan berpendapatan RM9,000 sebulan.

240

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

[3] Pemohon 2 adalah tidak pernah melangsungkan perkahwinan

sebelum ini. Pada 16 September 2000 pada waktu lebih kurang
10.00 ke 11.00 pagi, mereka telah bernikah di sebuah rumah kedai
dua (2) tingkat yang terletak di dalam daerah Wilayah Persekutuan
Kuala Lumpur. Selepas seminggu pernikahan pemohon-pemohon
dikirimkan salinan Sijil Nikah yang ditandakan sebagai Ekshibit P1.
Di tempat pernikahan telah tersedia seorang jurunikah serta dua
(2) orang saksi lelaki yang tidak dikenali tetapi tidak diragui
perawakan dan perwatakannya.
[4] Pernikahan telah diakadkan dengan mas kahwin berjumlah
RM80 tunai. Kedua-dua pemohon, wali serta saksi-saksi hadir di
tempat berlakunya pernikahan.
[5] Selama tempoh perkahwinan selama 5 tahun kedua-dua
pasangan tidak mempunyai syak terhadap perkahwinan. Malah di
dalam tempoh perkahwinan tersebut mereka telah mempunyai tiga
orang anak. Mereka tidak menghadapi masalah untuk mendaftarkan
Sijil Kelahiran anak-anak menggunakan Sijil Nikah (Ekshibit P1)
tersebut. Pemohon 1 & 2 mula menyedari kepalsuan Sijil Nikah
tersebut setelah berdepan dengan masalah untuk mendaftarkan Sijil
Kelahiran untuk anak keempat iaitu pada tahun 2005. Pemohon 1
& 2 kemudiannya telah membuat permohonan kepada mahkamah
ini untuk mendapatkan satu perintah agar pernikahan pemohon 1
& 2 di iktiraf dan didaftarkan di bawah Enakmen Undang-Undang
Keluarga Islam (Negeri Melaka) 2002.
[6] Di dalam keterangan pemohon 1 & 2, mereka menyatakan
bahawa mereka telah pergi ke sebuah tempat iaitu di sebuah
rumah kedai 2 tingkat yang terletak di dalam daerah Wilayah
Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur. Tujuan mereka pergi ke tempat
tersebut adalah semata-mata untuk bernikah satu lagi dengan
pemohon ke-2. Pemohon 1 telah mempunyai isteri dan anak-anak,
manakala pemohon ke-2 juga telah membawa wali iaitu bapanya
sendiri supaya mereka dapat berkahwin dengan berwalikan
bapanya. Sebelum mereka di akad nikahkan oleh seorang Imam
yang tidak dikenali, bapanya telah memberikan keizinan untuk
mewakilkan wali kepada Imam tersebut untuk mengakad nikahkan
mereka. Setelah wali kepada pemohon 2 telah memberi wakil wali
kepada Imam tersebut maka Tuan Imam tersebut telah
mengakadkan mereka dengan katanya Aku nikahkan engkau Haji
Mahammad bin Hamed dengan Mercy binti Utuh dengan berwakil
wali akan daku dengan mas kahwin RM80 tunai.

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

241

[7] Pihak pengantin lelaki iaitu pemohon 1 telah menjawab

dengan katanya Aku terima nikahnya Mercy binti Utuh dengan
mas kahwin RM80 tunai. Pemohon 2 yang terdiri daripada
pengantin perempuan telah menerima mas kahwin RM80 daripada
pengantin lelaki iaitu pemohon 1.
Mengikut keterangan mereka bahawa dua orang saksi yang terdiri
daripada orang Imam tersebut telah menyaksikan pernikahan
tersebut iaitu Mahuri bin Sahid dan Nasrun bin Bardu.
[8] Peguam pihak pemohon 1 & 2 telah memanggil ayah kepada
pengantin perempuan menjadi saksi pernikahan mereka. Mengikut
saksi 1 (Ayah kepada pengantin perempuan) telah melihat dan
menyaksikan majlis upacara akad nikah tersebut. Saksi tersebut
telah menyatakan bahawa beliau dengar perkataan Ijab dan Qabul
daripada pengantin lelaki (pemohon 1) seperti lafaz di atas serta
menyaksikan bahawa 2 orang saksi lelaki yang telah berada di majlis
akad nikah tersebut dan mereka mengesahkan nikah tersebut.
[9] Pihak pemohon 1 & 2 telah memanggil saksi kedua
diperbicaraan ini yang terdiri daripada adik perempuan kepada
pengantin perempuan (pemohon 2). Saksi tersebut telah
memberikan keterangan bahawa semasa upacara nikah tersebut
dijalankan bahawa dia ada menyaksikan sendiri upacara akad nikah
tersebut.
[10] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa wali kepada pengantin
perempuan boleh dijadikan saksi pernikahan tersebut kerana ia
telah menyaksikan dan mendengar sendiri perkataan Ijab dan
Qabul yang telah di lafaz oleh pemohon. Mahkamah mendapati dua
orang saksi yang telah ada di majlis tersebut tetapi tidak dipanggil
untuk memberi keterangan di mahkamah ini. Ini bermakna wali
tersebut hanya menjadi saksi kepada majlis akad nikah tersebut
yang mana tidak boleh mengikut dalam Kitab Kitayatul Akyar.
Apabila wali itu mewakilkan kepada jurunikah untuk menikahkan
anaknya kemudian dia menjadi saksi utama kepada pernikahan
tersebut, maka menurut kitab tersebut pernikahan tersebut tidak
sah.
[11] Mahkamah berpendapat sudah ada satu saksi lelaki yang
menjadi saksi kepada pernikahan tersebut iaitu bapa kepada
pengantin perempuan telah menyaksikan pernikahan tersebut serta
menyaksikan bahawa dua orang saksi telah berada semasa akad
nikah tersebut dan kedua-dua saksi tersebut telah menyaksikan
dan mengesahkan nikah tersebut dan beliau mendengar dengan

242

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

jelas perkataan yang diucapkan oleh Tuan Imam serta pengantin

lelaki. Di dalam keterangannya ia mengakui bahawa dua orang saksi
lelaki telah berada di majlis tersebut dan mereka dikatakan sebagai
dua saksi nikah di pihak Tuan Imam tersebut.
[12] Persoalan sekarang ini kenapakah saksi-saksi tersebut telah
tidak di panggil untuk memberi keterangan di dalam mahkamah ini
bagi menyokong keterangan pemohon 1 & 2.
[13] Oleh sebab saksi bapa boleh dianggap sebagai saksi yang
menjadi saksi di dalam majlis akad nikah tersebut, mahkamah boleh
menerima tetapi berpendapat eloklah satu saksi lelaki lagi memberi
keterangan menguatkan keterangan sokongan.
[14] Di dalam keterangan tersebut timbul beberapa persoalan
mengenai akad nikah tersebut. Adakah akad nikah tersebut telah
memenuhi kehendak rukun-rukun dan syarat-syarat sah nikah
tersebut. Untuk itu saya akan merujuk kepada Hukum Syarak.
[15] Diantara Kitab yang dirujuk ialah

Karangan as-Syeikh Muhammad Amin al-Kurdiy hlm 312

didalam kitabnya ada menyebut bahawa tentang rukun nikah iaitu:
Rukun Nikah ada lima rukun:

1) Suami
Disyaratkan bahawa adalah ia:
- Beragama islam

- Bukan mahramnya
- Ikhtiar suami bukan dasar paksaan

- Mengetahui nama isteri, nasabnya, diri tubuh isteri

- Seorang lelaki tulen
2) Isteri

Disyaratkan bahawa adalah ia:

- Bahawa ia bukan mahram kepada suami
- Bahawa perempuan tersebut tertentu
- Sunyi daripada Iddah

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

- Bukan isteri orang

- Perempuan yang asli
- Islam atau ahli kitab yang diiktiraf oleh syarak

3) Wali
Disyaratkan bahawa adalah ia:
- Seorang yang Islam

- Tidak fasiq
- Atas kerelaan sendiri menjadi wali bukan paksaan
- Baligh

- Berakal
- Merdeka bukan seorang hamba abdi
- Seorang lelaki yang tulen

- Tidak dalam keadaan ihram

4) Dua orang saksi disyaratkan bahawa adalah ia:
- Islam

- Baligh
- Berakal
- Lelaki

- Mendengar
- Melihat
- Boleh bertutur

- Mengetahui bahasa lelaki (suami) dan wali nikah

- Seorang yang adil

243

244

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

5) Sighah

Disyaratkan bahawa adalah ia:

- Ijab iaitu berkata wali (Aku nikahkan dikau atau aku
kahwinkan dikau ...)

- Qabul iaitu berkata suami (Aku terima nikahnya ...)

[16] Di dalam keterangan pemohon 1 dan 2 ada menyatakan
bahawa wali kepada pengantin perempuan telah mewakilkan
kepada Tuan Imam untuk menikahkan anaknya. Persoalan
sekarang timbul, adakah boleh atau tidak seorang wali mewakilkan
kepada orang lain untuk menikahkan anaknya sendiri sedangkan
dia berkemampuan melakukan akad nikah tersebut.

[17] Mengikut s. 7(1) Enakmen Keluarga Islam Negeri Melaka

2002 telah menyatakan bahawa

7(1) - Sesuatu perkahwinan di Negeri Melaka hendaklah mengikut

peruntukan Enakmen ini dan hendaklah diakad nikahkan mengikut
Hukum Syarak oleh:
(a) Wali di hadapan Pendaftar

(b) Wakil wali di hadapan dan dengan kebenaran Pendaftar

(c) Pendaftar sebagai wakil wali

Berdasarkan kepada Enakmen tersebut saya dapati bahawa

pemohon 1 dan 2 tidak mengikut peruntukan tersebut malah
pernikahan tersebut berlaku di luar daripada Melaka.
[18] Merujuk di dalam Kitab

karangan al-Syeikh Muhammad Ibnu Ahmad Ba

Fadhal al-Khadramiy, hlm 169, cetakan Dar Ibnu Hazam Beirut
Lebonan, ada menyebut:

Wali Mujbir iaitu (Bapa dan Datuk) boleh mewakilkan wali kepada
sesiapa yang layak pada menikahkan anak daranya yang sudah
baligh tanpa perlu mendapat keizinan daripada anaknya itu.

Jika dilihat pada nas di atas jelas menunjukkan bahawa harus bagi
wali mewakilkan kepada orang lain untuk mengakad nikahkan
anaknya. Tetapi timbul persoalan, apakah dia kriteria wakil wali
yang membolehkan pernikahan tersebut.

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

245

[19] Di dalam Kitab

karangan al-Syeikh Muhammad Ibnu Ahmad Ba Fadhal alKhadramiy, hlm 171, cetakan Dar Ibnu Hazam Beirut Lebonan,
menyebut:

Ertinya:

Syarat wakil daripada wali ialah wakil itu seorang yang layak
menjadi wali pada mengakadkan nikah, ini adalah disebabkan wakil
tersebut sebagai ganti tempat wali.

[20] Apakah syarat-syarat wakil wali tersebut. Menurut di dalam

Kitab

karangan Prof Dr. Muhammad

Redha al-Jabbar, hlm 118-126 ada menghuraikan syarat wakil
seperti berikut:

.i

Hendaklah wakil itu seorang yang Ahliah Tasarruf (berkuasa

melakukannya) akan perkara yang diwakilkan kepadanya, ciriciri seorang yang Ahliah Tasarruf ialah: (a) Berakal (

); (b)
Baligh (

); (c) Cerdik (

.ii
F

Lelaki, maka tidak sah seorang perempuan menjadi wakil pada

menikahkan orang lain, ini adalah kerana ia tidak ada kuasa
melakukan sedemikian rupa. Lelaki itu hendaklah berkeadaan:
(a) Bukan paksaan (

); (b) Tidak mabuk (

);
(c) Tidak dalam keadaan bergurau (

.iii

Wakil itu hendaklah ditentukan

.vi
Ada pengetahuan wakil itu tentang wakalah

.v
Wakil itu hendaklah beragama Islam

246

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

.iv

Bersifat adil: Ulama as-Syafeiyyah telah mensyaratkan bahawa

wakil pada mengijabkan akad nikah mestilah seorang yang adil

[21] Jika ditinjau dari satu sudut, maka perkahwinan yang di

langsung tidak sah kerana wakil walinya tidak memenuhi syaratsyarat wali menurut Hukum Syarak. Walaupun demikian
Mahkamah akan merujuk pandangan beberapa ulama tentang
permasalahan wali fasiq, iaitu adakah sah pernikahan yang
dilaksanakan oleh wali yang fasiq.
[22] Mengikut Kitab

karangan al-Imam Taqiyuddin

al-Dimaysqiy, halaman 447, ada memperjelaskan masalah ini seperti
katanya:

Kata Imam al-Rafiei: Sesungguhnya ulama

berfatwa
bahawa wali fasiq boleh menjadi wali.

Kata beliau lagi: Pandangan ini diakui oleh kebanyakan ulama

Khurasan.

Pandangan ini juga telah dipilih oleh Imam al-Ghazali, Imam anNawawi dan juga Imam al-Ruyaniy.

[23] Berdasarkan pandangan Fuqaha tersebut mahkamah

mengambil pendirian bahawa wali yang menikahkan pihak pemohon
dalam kes ini boleh diterima. Setelah saya menyelidik rukun-rukun
nikah dan syarat sah nikah saya berpendapat bahawa pernikahan
yang mereka langsungkan di dalam daerah Wilayah Persekutuan,
Kuala Lumpur seolah-olah sah mengikut Hukum Syarak. Akan
tetapi timbul beberapa persoalan dan keraguan mengenai wakil wali
yang telah diwakilkan terhadap pernikahan tersebut.
[24] Ini jelas daripada kes tersebut saya dapati pihak Imam
tersebut telah berdusta, menipu dengan mengeluarkan surat nikah
yang nyata adalah palsu. Lebih-lebih lagi ia telah menggunakan tipu
helahnya dengan mengambil borang JAWI 3 di bawah Akta
Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Wilayah Persekutuan) 1984 s. 26
di taip dan ditandatangani oleh Pendaftar Nikah Cerai dan Rujuk
dengan dinyatakan sekali No. Rujukan iaitu 046061.

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

247

[25] Apabila saya selidik saya dapati bahawa no. rujukan tersebut,
serta bilangan pengantin lelaki dan perempuan tidak sama dengan
nombor bilangan pengantin lelaki dan perempuan di Wilayah
Persekutuan, Kuala Lumpur.
[26] Pada pendapat saya ini menunjukkan bahawa tuan Imam
tersebut adalah seorang yang bersifat pendusta dan berbohong dan
penipu. Maka persoalannya adakah sifat ini layak menjadi Imam
apatah menjadi wakil wali untuk menikahkan pasangan tersebut.
[27] Timbul persoalan di sini bahawa untuk menentukan wakil
wali itu fasiq atau tidak, semasa melangsungkan akad nikah
tersebut, maka saya berpendapat bahawa status wali atau wakil
wali sama ada fasiq atau tidak, maka ia hendaklah ditentukan di
hari dan waktu di mana dilangsungkan perkahwinan tersebut,
bukan ditentukan di hari yang lain. Tambahan pula pihak-pihak
pemohon 1 & 2 serta wali tidak mempertikaikan status wali
tersebut sama ada fasiq atau tidak, maka mahkamah berpendapat
oleh sebab tidak ditentukan kefasiqkan wali dan wakil wali di hari
pernikahan tersebut serta tidak ada pihak-pihak yang
mempertikaikan akad nikah tersebut, maka mahkamah
menganggapkan ia sebagai satu tindakan yang sah.
[28] Ini bermakna, jika bukan mahkamah yang menyelesaikan
permasalahan yang dihadapinya, siapakah yang boleh membantunya
dan bagaimana tentang nasib anak-anak yang telah dilahirkan
angkara perbuatan bapa yang telah memilih jalan singkat. Saya
amat prihatin tentang masalah ini kerana ia membabitkan nasab
dan keturunan.
[29] Saya berpendapat dalam kes ini pihak pemohon perlu
mengukuhkan dakwaannya dengan berpandukan Hukum-hukum
Syarak yang telah sebut oleh para fuqaha di dalam kitab-kitab
mereka. Ini adalah kerana saya dapati pemohon 1 & 2 hanya
membawa seorang saksi lelaki dan seorang saksi perempuan, maka
pada pendapat saya adalah tidak kuat untuk mensabitkan
pernikahan tersebut.
[30] Justeru itu saya cuba merujuk kepada beberapa rujukan
syarak yang boleh merungkaikan kekusutan masalah ini di
antaranya:

Di dalam Kitab

karangan al-Imam
Yahya Ibnu Abi al-Khair al-Imraniy, jilid 13 hlm 313 ada
menyebut:

248

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

Menurut pandangan Saidina Abu Bakar r.a Saidina Umar r.a

Saidina Usman, Saidina Ali r.a, Ubaiy bin Kaab, Umar
Ibnu Al-Aziz, Abu Salamah Ibnu Abdul Rahman, Al-Sabiy,
Syuraih, Fuqaha Madinah, Rabiah, Malik, Ahmad, Ishak
ialah:

Tiap-tiap hak (kes-kes mal) boleh disabit dengan seorang

saksi lelaki dan dua orang perempuan dan boleh disabitkan
juga dengan seorang saksi lelaki dan sumpah plaintif.

Pendapat ini berdasarkan:

1. Hadis Nabi s.a.w yang diriwayatkan daripada Abdullah Abbas
r.a. katanya:

Maksudnya:

Sesungguhnya baginda Rasulullah s.a.w telah mensabitkan hukum

dengan seorang saksi lelaki dan sumpah.

2. Riwayat Imam al-Baihaqi Kata Amru bin Dinar: Hukum ini

diharuskan di dalam kes-kes mal sahaja.

Diriwayatkan daripada Saidina Ali r.a. katanya:

Ertinya: Sesungguhnya Nabi s.a.w telah mensabitkan hukum

dengan seorang saksi lelaki berserta sumpah syarie

3. Riwayat Imam al-Tirmizi: Diriwayatkan daripada Jabir r.a

katanya:

Ertinya: Adalah Baginda Rasulullah s.a.w bersabda: Telah datang

Jibril kepada aku dan menyuruh aku berhukum dengan sumpah
syarie berserta seorang saksi lelaki.

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

A

In Re Mahammad Hamed & Anor

249

4. Riwayat Imam al-Baihaqi: Diriwayatkan daripada Jaafar bin

Muhamad daripada bapanya daripada Saidina Ali r.a.h:

Ertinya:

Sesungguhnya adalah Baginda Rasulullah s.a.w, Saidina Abu Bakar

dan Saidina Usman berhukum dengan seorang saksi lelaki dan
sumpah plaintif.

[31] Merujuk di dalam Kitab

karangan allmam Yahya ibnu Abi al-Khair al-lmraniy, jilid 13, hlm 314 ada
menyebut:

Maksudnya:
E

Kata Imam al-Masuudi: Cara sumpah syarie pihak plaintif ialah

pihak plaintif hendaklah bersumpah bahawa saksi lelaki yang
dibawa ke Mahkamah adalah benar dan dakwaannya adalah
benar.

[32] Berdasarkan dalil-dalil di atas, maka mahkamah berpendapat

bahawa pemohon hendaklah melafazkan Sumpah al-Muddaaii
bersama seorang saksi (Arahan Amalan 8(2)(b))
Sumpahnya adalah seperti berikut:

Wallahi, Wabillahi, Watallahi, demi Allah aku Mahammed bin

Hamed bersumpah dengan nama Allah bahawanya tuntutan aku
berhubung dengan pernikahan aku dengan Mercy binti Utuh dan
keterangan seorang saksi aku adalah benar dan jika aku berdusta
pada sumpah aku nescaya di murkai Allah dan azabNya di atas
aku dunia dan akhirat.
Bertarikh pada

hari bulan

Tandatangan Orang Yang Bersumpah

Di hadapan
I

(Tandatangan Hakim)

tahun

250

Syariah Reports

[2010] 1 CLJ (Sya)

Keputusan
[33] Di atas keterangan yang diberikan oleh pemohon dan saksisaksi pemohon serta sumpah muddaaii yang telah dilafazkan oleh
pemohon maka, saya berpuashati bahawa perkahwinan yang
mereka langsungkan itu telah memenuhi dan menepati kehendak
Hukum Syarak. Dengan ini mahkamah memutuskan seperti berikut:
1. Mahkamah sabit dan sahkan bahawa pernikahan yang
dilangsungkan di salah satu tempat di Kuala Lumpur pada
16 September 2000 di antara pemohon 1 Mohamad bin
Hamed dengan pasangan Mercy binti Utuh adalah sah
mengikut Hukum Syarak
2. Mahkamah perintahkan Jabatan Agama Islam Negeri Melaka
hendaklah mendaftarkan perkahwinan mereka mengikut
Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri Melaka)
2002.