Whipping for Muslims caught drinking beer in public is against human rights.
To generally consider the offence as 'trivial' and that the punishment has no basis in Islamic legal theory is grossly inaccurate.
The Quran and the authentic narrations of the Prophet Muhammad provide the evidence in which the guiding principles of believing Muslims are derived
Among the overriding principles is that a Muslim mind must always be sane to exercise self-control so as to exercise his or her duty as a viceregent of God on earth
The evidence shows taking substances that can lead to losing of self-consciousness and control (although only for a fraction of a second) for matters that have even a grain of potential in causing harm to self and others is seriously forbidden and thus beer-drinking is a serious offence.
There is evidence the Prophet sanctioned whipping for Muslims who openly drank alcohol in public. Intoxication and addiction to alcohol cause a detrimental impact on the social milieu (6% of world GDP according to WHO). Such an offence may over time be tolerated and be 'normalised' if people perform it openly and unashamedly in public.
However, whipping that inflicts physical pain and injury is, of course, forbidden.
Our Syariah court is very slow at granting women’s rights that are accorded to them by Islam (due to divorce, domestic violence etc) but is very quick at implementing penal codes
It is unclear whether the whipping that the Syariah court wishes to conduct results in physical injury, which will be contrary with the above evidences
The social milieu we are currently living in does not really shun the usage of alcohol, where even rich, politically-linked Muslims serve as directors in companies that produce alcohol, and invitations to drinking alcohol is allowed through print advertisements in broad daylight.
Many other good governance problems and corrupt practices create bureaucratic bottlenecks that enhance the final perception that alcohol intake in public should be tolerated.
Muslims should strive their best to understand the above principles and social contexts, and prioritise their actions. The Muslim directors of beer companies and distributors should be whipped in this case.
How about the print ads distributed in papers openly sold to Muslims? Why is Kartika alone in this matter when there are more Muslims involved in the process?
How about other cases of domestic violence and divorces which the courts fail to solve in a timely manner, which creates more and more social problems?
On the other hand, JAG should know that fighting against substance abuse is fundamental in their fight for women's rights. But who cares?
A prominent women’s NGO recently held a charity drive by conducting a ‘bachelor auction party’ in a clubbing environment where binge-drinking is rampant. In fact, NGOs like this only indirectly succeed in perpetuating the sufferings of Malaysian women.
Actions by such un-Islamic NGOs as JAG, Suaram, Hakam, and especially SIS, in generally accusing whipping (and the public will perceive that Islam never prescribes whipping as a valid punishment, which is wrong) as against human rights, and alcohol drinking as 'trivial', without the consideration of the above principles, evidences and contexts for thorough understanding by our non-Muslim friends, will only prove that these NGOs are championing against Islam in the long run.
To generally consider the offence as 'trivial' and that the punishment has no basis in Islamic legal theory is grossly inaccurate.
The Quran and the authentic narrations of the Prophet Muhammad provide the evidence in which the guiding principles of believing Muslims are derived
Among the overriding principles is that a Muslim mind must always be sane to exercise self-control so as to exercise his or her duty as a viceregent of God on earth
The evidence shows taking substances that can lead to losing of self-consciousness and control (although only for a fraction of a second) for matters that have even a grain of potential in causing harm to self and others is seriously forbidden and thus beer-drinking is a serious offence.
There is evidence the Prophet sanctioned whipping for Muslims who openly drank alcohol in public. Intoxication and addiction to alcohol cause a detrimental impact on the social milieu (6% of world GDP according to WHO). Such an offence may over time be tolerated and be 'normalised' if people perform it openly and unashamedly in public.
However, whipping that inflicts physical pain and injury is, of course, forbidden.
Our Syariah court is very slow at granting women’s rights that are accorded to them by Islam (due to divorce, domestic violence etc) but is very quick at implementing penal codes
It is unclear whether the whipping that the Syariah court wishes to conduct results in physical injury, which will be contrary with the above evidences
The social milieu we are currently living in does not really shun the usage of alcohol, where even rich, politically-linked Muslims serve as directors in companies that produce alcohol, and invitations to drinking alcohol is allowed through print advertisements in broad daylight.
Many other good governance problems and corrupt practices create bureaucratic bottlenecks that enhance the final perception that alcohol intake in public should be tolerated.
Muslims should strive their best to understand the above principles and social contexts, and prioritise their actions. The Muslim directors of beer companies and distributors should be whipped in this case.
How about the print ads distributed in papers openly sold to Muslims? Why is Kartika alone in this matter when there are more Muslims involved in the process?
How about other cases of domestic violence and divorces which the courts fail to solve in a timely manner, which creates more and more social problems?
On the other hand, JAG should know that fighting against substance abuse is fundamental in their fight for women's rights. But who cares?
A prominent women’s NGO recently held a charity drive by conducting a ‘bachelor auction party’ in a clubbing environment where binge-drinking is rampant. In fact, NGOs like this only indirectly succeed in perpetuating the sufferings of Malaysian women.
Actions by such un-Islamic NGOs as JAG, Suaram, Hakam, and especially SIS, in generally accusing whipping (and the public will perceive that Islam never prescribes whipping as a valid punishment, which is wrong) as against human rights, and alcohol drinking as 'trivial', without the consideration of the above principles, evidences and contexts for thorough understanding by our non-Muslim friends, will only prove that these NGOs are championing against Islam in the long run.
02/10/09
No comments:
Post a Comment