Syariah Law in Malaysia.

25.8.2009.

Yesterday I saw that news item on CNN about the Muslim Malay woman who was found guilty by the Syariah Court for consuming alcohol in public and handed a fine and 6 lashes. This is new on CNN, but has been highlighted by the local papers for some time, and in fact is an old case. The slant by CNN is obvious. Syariah is cruel.

I remember not too long ago United States of America went one better than the many versions of their Holy Bible, and adopted a particularly harsh but also particularly ineffectual "prohibition" period. Among others, many well-known gangsters, and many, many more less well-known public officials became rich when liquor-brewing went underground, while its consumption remained sky-high. Of course, after the temporary intoxication, the US government sobered up. 

The Quran, like the Bible, prohibits the consumption of alcohol. The Muslim Mufassirins have through more than a thousand years interpreted the teachings of the Quran and the Sayings, Deeds and the Acceptance of the Prophet Muhammad saw, and explained why alcohol is prohibited by Islam. Before the application of English Laws in pre-Independent Malaya, even English writers and several Court judgements referred to an existing Syariah Law practiced in the Malay States. Since the Islamization of the Malays from about the fourteenth century, Syariah Law found its way into the "Kanun" of the Malay States, held as Law by the Sultans. But because of British colonization, and the need to protect the colonizer's interests in the economy and its subtle proselytizing of Christianity, the power of the Sultans were cleverly subverted with the administrative gimmick of the "advisors" and the Executive Council. The long hard lessons from India were brought upon Malaya, so much so until to-day the Malaysian Law Journals are full of Indian-precedent judgements. 

In the meantime, every Muslim Malay, male or female, adult or child, knows it is "haram" to drink alcohol. Now what one does secretly, only God knows. So the Jabatan Agama Islam run by each State has to catch the wrong-doer in public. This woman knew full well what her public action implicated. The remorse shown is as desired by Syariah, but the Judge must pass sentence as also obligated.

The Malaysian Syariah Court is no match for the Malaysian Civil Court in its authority, under the Federal Constitution. It exists on the periphery of the great Constitution as almost an appendix in the form of "Jadual 9 Perkara 2". The Syariah Court's powers have been jokingly referred to as "3-5-6", as opposed to a First Class Magisterate's powers of "10-10-12"- the maximum sentence of 3 months jail, RM 5,000 fine, and 6 strokes of the cane. 

Cruelty has to be defined. Effective laws must be evaluated on both the retribution and rehabilitation factors intrinsic to the law. Otherwise the law become a subject of mirth. The procedures in the application of persecution, judgement and sentence are also comparative distinctions between different legislations. The "caning" in Syariah Law is not the same as the robust lashing on criminals shown on the Civil Courts sentences. A kinder reading of the Syariah Law would show this distinction. It is cosmetic to show a demure Malay woman seemingly surrendering herself to the full might of the law, without alluding to also the circumstances that led her to the sorry tale. 

Obviously CNN has taken the trouble to highlight this eposode, and taken greater pains to go over the top of the many by-lines one expects of a world-class media. But it's also clear that one side of a story is not enough to show the whole picture. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------