Excerpts from the Malaysia Insider (dated 28 July 2009)
A model who was ordered to be caned by a Pahang Shariah Court for consuming alcohol in public wants the court to expedite the sentence, which has stirred up a controversy. If her sentence is meted out soon, it could be the first time that a man or a woman is caned under Islamic law.
Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil expressed shock at the ruling while another woman MP from the Islamist party PAS said she was surprised that whipping of women was sanctioned under shariah law. Muslim lawyers, however, dismissed the criticism, saying they were a challenge and an insult to the Kuantan Shariah Court.
The woman at the centre of the controversy, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarnor, 32, told reporters she wanted the ordeal to be over soon to move on with her life. “I will accept this earthly punishment, let Allah decide my punishment in the hereafter... The court has yet to tell me when the sentence will be carried out, so I would like to ask them to hasten it. “I truly respect the court's decision... I admit that it's my offence and not that of others, it's not the offence of my parents, not the offence of my other family members,” a teary Kartika told reporters in her home town in Perak yesterday.
She was drinking beer with her husband in a hotel in Cherating, Pahang, two years ago when she was caught by Islamic enforcement officers. She pleaded guilty last year. She was fined RM5,000 and sentenced to six strokes of the rotan by the Pahang Shariah High Court on Monday.
The mother of two, who is married to a Singaporean and is a Singapore permanent resident, paid her fine on Tuesday and decided not to file any appeal. Earlier this year, two others, a 22-year-old waitress and a 38-year-old man, were ordered to be flogged for drinking in public. But both have lodged appeals against their sentences, which means Kartika would be the first person to be caned if her sentence is meted out.
Her husband, who is in Singapore, told The Straits Times that he was unhappy with the sentence. “As a Muslim, I have the right to teach her and punish her myself because I'm her husband. That's what Islam taught us,” he said, adding that he wanted to remain anonymous. “I don't understand why they decided to punish her. I don't think it's fair but let's leave it to God to judge the actions of those people who punished my wife.”
In Malaysia's dual-track system, women convicted under its civil jurisdiction are not caned. But the caning for women under the shariah system is less harsh.
Kartika's father, Shukarnor Mutalib, 60, said the punishment by the court was according to the Islamic laws in Malaysia and that the incident had taught his daughter a useful lesson. But Shahrizat, the Women, Family and Community Development Minister, did not feel it was a fair and just punishment when she expressed shock at the decision, adding that her ministry was following the case closely. Titiwangsa MP Lo'lo Mohd Ghazali, who is also head of the women's wing of the opposition PAS, said that punishment should educate and not cause hurt.
Responding to the criticism, Shariah Lawyers Association deputy president Musa Awang said the judge had made the decision based on provisions of the law. “Any unhappiness with the shariah court decision must be made via procedures provided by law,” he said. “Although the two leaders' intention was to defend women, they should understand the whipping methods according to Islam,” he was quoted as saying in a statement yesterday. He said the rotan used in caning women should not be more than 1.22m long and not more than 1.25cm thick. He also highlighted the “moderate force” used.
My comment
The above news has registered a lot of feedback from the public. However, I don’t intend to provide my personal views in this matter as I believe the Shariah Court judge is a learned and more capable person to lay down the judgement on the facts of the case presented to him.
However, I am more interested to share with you the views of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (the author of Islam: A Search for Meaning, Islam: A Sacred Law (what every Muslim should know about the Shariah), and What's Right With Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West) on the particular issue . He said :
This is the story of the prophet's companion who would enjoy drinking and when he got drunk, he would go around town of Medina saying slanderous things. So the people got upset about it. So they went to caliph Umar and said [something like], "There ought to be a law against this guy! This guy is saying slanderous things about us!"
Yes, there's no penalty in the Quran for drinking wine, or the hadith, but the guy is committing slander. So saidina Umar consulted, and saidina Ali said, well, when a person drinks alcohol he is prone to commit slander, and in this case this guy committed slander, so we punish him with a penalty for slander, which was 80 lashes.
So the punishment of 80 lashes was not because he consumed alcohol, it was because he was committing slander. This is again an important thing for people to understand, the genesis, or the history of how certain things developed in our jurisprudence. So the application of 80 lashes for the consumption of alcohol is not really a correct application for the consumption of alcohol per se, but rather for a crime committed under the influence of alcohol. So if a person consumed alcohol and committed murder, the penalty would be different.
The same thing happens even under modern law. Let's say in the United States or in some countries, if you drink, there is no penalty.
But if you drink and drive...Then you pay a fine if you get caught. Why? Because driving under the influence of alcohol is considered dangerous. But [paying a fine for] driving under the influence of alcohol, if you have not committed an accident, in fact is like a form of takzir. You're paying a penalty for not having really done any damage yet. But you could.
But if you drive under the influence of alcohol and crash into somebody's property and damage it, then your fine will be much larger. You will be liable for the damage to the property, in addition to the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol. If, because you were drunk, you were involved in an accident where someone was killed, then you will be liable for the diyah, for the blood payment (compensation for murder victim's next-of-kin).
I believe there are others who disagree with Imam Feisal’s opinion, but then again, this is just his opinion….everyone has their own opinions on things but one thing remains – the Muslims must never stray from the teachings in the Holy Quran and Sunnah – only Allah swt knows best!
