The case of Ms. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno

The post below is a response to Mr. Tulang Besi on his blog commenting on the recent case of Ms. Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, who was fined RM 5000 and sentenced to 6 lashes of the cane for drinking an alcoholic beverage at a hotel in Pahang two years ago.

The link to Tulang Besi's post - http://www.malaysiawaves.com/2009/08/why-make-issue-of-kartika-saris-case.html

My response:

Assalamualaikum


Dear TB, just wanted to give my opinon on your blog piece pertaining to this issue.


The facts are as such:


Kartika was charged for her misdemeanour and admitted that she was guilty of consuming alcohol which is against Malaysian Syariah law. Under this law governing the conduct of Muslims in Malaysia, she is fined RM 5000 and sentenced to six strokes of the rotan (in the manner in which it is administered under Syariah law).


My points:


We should all respect and recognise Kartika for her courage and determination to have the sentence of whipping carried out regardless of the surrounding controversy. We should also recognise that she has admitted to doing something wrong and is willing to face the consequences of her actions. This is something many of us here would have trouble doing. I agree with you, TB, that this is not, never was and should not be made into a political issue. However, I do disagree with you on the issue of whipping/ flogging/ canning/ lashing. Whipping, in my opinion, is unacceptable whether it is the Penal Code or under the Syariah law regardless of whether they are men or women. Yes, whipping as conducted under syariah prescription is theoretically much milder compared to how it is administered under the Penal system. However, there is enough precedence and examples of how whipping is administered under the syariah sistem in many different Muslim countries to enable me deny you your statements that "lashings under syariah DOES NOT HURT. It's never meant to hurt...BY every school of though in Islam, lashings must never hurt." I beg to differ on that. Evidence? See the following incidents which were all in Muslim countries:


- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxbRcqmdtTk (The King had to "pardon" her for her crime of being raped and sentenced to being whipped 200 lashes and prison time)

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u55M7cdHQQ4

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxbRcqmdtTk


Yes, I recognise that whipping is also meant to shame and educate the masses as you say. And yes, maybe the way whipping or lashing is actually done in Malaysia is different (done with a bamboo rod) compared to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia which may use actual whips. However, whipping whether it "hurts" or not, has never been proven to be an effective deterent for future crimes or misdemeanors, particularly if they deal with morality. Ask those countries which I mentioned. They whip numerous persons for different crimes each year. What whipping/ flogging/ canning/ lashing has proven to be is to be a form of torture. This sort of punishment and other forms of corporal punishment have failed as retributory and deterrent sentences as well as being cruel, inhumane, degrading and humiliating. It may have worked in the past but what we must recognise and acknowledge is that it doesn't work in these times. We shouldn't continue living in the past.


Also, let's not be blind to the fact and be honest with ourselves that when it comes to "crimes of morality" very often, women are the target of any crackdown or enforcement of morality laws, particularly when it comes to "immoral behaviour" which can extend from not wearing a tudung to being in close proximity with a person of the opposite sex who is not your spouse to yes, drinking beer. Consider these examples:

- In Iran, according to Article 102 of their constitution, “Women who appear on the streets and in public without the prescribed ‘Islamic Hijab’ will be condemned to 74 strokes of the lash”. Participating in mixed-gender parties and walking alone with a non-familial member of the opposite sex are also cause for punishment by lashing.


- In Saudi Arabia, women appearing in public without a male guardian can be whipped.

- In the Aceh province of Indonesia, men and women out in public together and women violating the dress code can also be whipped.


So when sisters and brothers from groups like JAG and Sisters in Islam express concern that this sort of sentencing is biased to women, it is not without reason. Our advocates of the Malaysian syariah system have never been shy to take inspiration from the abovementioned countries and we could very well be taking the first steps down a path which takes us away from becoming better Muslims. We should live Islam and not just try to show we practice it by victimising women. As such, just because it is law doesn't mean that the law is right and infallible. Laws can be amended to reflect our better understanding and maturity.

Also, let me also make this clear. Based on her misdemeanour of drinking alcohol, Kartika is not a criminal. She didn't hurt anyone, kill or rape anyone, sell drugs, steal money from others. She should not be treated in the same manner as if she was a criminal. It is her personal behaviour for which she will be judged by Allah one day in the hereafter. Who are we to be so vindictive and judgemental? This display of vindictiveness and eagerness to punish does a disservice to Islam and its jurisprudence which has always stressed on gender equality, dignity, justice, compassion, forgiveness and mercy.

Finally, whipping is also a serious violation of International Human Rights Law. Whipping violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). Sure, we may say that these are the instruments of the West, feminists, and liberals and that we shouldn't follow them. But we should all ask ourselves these questions: Does condoning the whipping of another Muslim woman or man make us a better person? Are we better Muslims because of it? Or do we lose our a bit of compassion and humanity with each stroke of the rotan?

The terms, whipping, flogging, canning, lashing, have now become part of the reference to Malaysia and I am not sure that it is the way I want to remember this year's Ramadhan and Independence Day.

Who really is a better Muslim?

Interesting isn't it that:

If a person is not a Malay and not a Muslim, that person is deemed as having no right to comment on things affecting Muslims. Nevermind that it is often on things that could be solved or discussed using plain common sense.

If a person is not a Malay and a Muslim, we then say that we do things differently here in Malaysia and our way of practicing Islam is different compared to those in Indonesia, China, the US etc. Somehow our brand of Islam is much better than everybody elses and our solutions work.

If a person is a Malay and a Muslim, this person is deemed to not know enough about Islam to qualify to make a comment or be a critic on things such as fatwas. Nevermind that God gave everyone a brain, blessed us with thinking intelligently and rather than straight jacketed us to be automatons, gifted us with a consciousness and conscience.

If a person is a Malay, a Muslim and qualified, we just brand the poor sod as a traitor to race, religion and has abused his or her knowledge of Islam.

The loudest voices (and those who often get their way) are those of the ones who are less tolerant of others, less forgiving, more judgemental and claim to be fighting to uphold Islam.

Is it not possible for us Muslims to recognise that there is so much for us to learn from non-Muslims? Why is there so much emphasise on punitive action, punishment, banning this and that, etc.

I believe that there is a crisis of faith amongst Malaysian Muslims today. Choosing to ostrasize or to pulaukan your brothers and sisters who you deem to be unfit, to be sinners, and confused, is unworthy of a Muslim.