Islamic criminal law

I shudder when all and sundry can become \”moral police\” in the public spaces of life. Is policing the purpose and agenda of every human soul, and the responsibility of every other human?

Does not jihad really mean the policing of one\’s own soul? As a Christian, I am taught to use the Holy Scriptures to evaluate my life. I have, almost, never used it to examine someone else\’s personal and spiritual life!

When I worked at Mimos, with the National IT Council, I one day received an email from a friend, who had forwarded what he received from a so-called surau committee member who argued that Muslims should not patronise a certain banana leaf food caterer in the Mimos canteen  – because tangan yang menghidangkan makanan kurang halal .

I forwarded the email to my CEO and at the following Monday morning briefing for company staff, the CEO reminded everybody that Malaysia is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation where diversity is celebrated. Therefore he told the Mimos community, j angan menghapuskan apa yang tersirat and tersurat .

I fully agreed with my boss. I am no lawyer, just a student of constitutional law on civil issues related to governance of this nation.

But, my simple heart and mind is confused with the phrase \”Islamic criminal law\”, used by New Straits Times (NST) in an article disparaging a Selangor executive councillor for instructing MPSJ to \”revoke the administrative by-law which appears to criminalse\” citizens who are Muslims from working in any place selling liquor\”.

I therefore seek a clarification: What exactly does the the phrase mean? Lawyers are invited to educate me and other readers as well.

Pardon my ignorance, but since when has Malaysia applied Islamic criminal law in areas other than personal and family law?

I know that Islamic sultanates may have had them because they are conducted by the traditional edict of one supreme person, or a restricted Council as in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

But since when has a constitutional parliamentary democracy like ours bring personal religious values into public and common spaces?

Islamic republics do, but they do not claim to be democracies. My understanding is that syariah law is limited to personal and family law; and that too is the limit of the jurisdiction of the law.

Although my knowledge of this matter is limited, I do understand enough to say that in Islamic teaching, most Godly judgments or pronouncements are based on or premised on intentions and actions of the actors, especially in the public spaces.

Therefore, for example, a complaint of sexual misconduct must have four witnesses to make the case, and even more important is that there must be a correlation between action and intention. I suppose that is why four witnesses are needed to make the absolute correlation and equate observation to predefine intention.

\’Intention\’ to consumer liquour

But, how does one police officer enforce \”the intention to consume liquor just because one works in a pub or a Chinese restaurant that sells beer?\” And, really whose responsibility is all this anyway?

I do know that this is not the jurisdiction of the Polis Di Raja Malaysia or the Royal Malaysian Police Force. Their members are civilians because they are not a military or a religious force; they enforce civil law. The military police enforce military law, but only on members of the armed forces!

Is not all criminal law related to actions against the state? Is this definition ‘the state\’ the same as one of the nine Malay states? Is not ‘the state\’ really the Federation of Malaysia, and consequently, mean federal laws?

Likewise, are not the so-called religious authorities only to enforce religious adherence in private places, not in public places?

In my eyes and my knowledge of our constitutional history;, such religious issues relate only to personal and family matters and their respective teachings in Islam. Even here, depending on the teachers and their interpretive bias, as some teachings may vary or differ.

Do then consequential attempts to \”generalise personal faith and individual actions into any religious enforcement code\” not create a formal system of faith and related enforcement, which often fall very short of the good intentions of most religious systems?

An Islamic state can be an excellent idea. But, can someone please tell me where we can find it executed, with excellence, now or in the past?

From a very Christian theological point of view any human attempt at ‘such human execution of idealism\’ runs the risk of \”who is to bell the cat?\”

Who will be able to set up the right, good and perfect human example?

Are we not being set up to fail?

If no human being can set such an example, are we, therefore, not being set up to fail? We have a saying among Christians: \”Do not look for a perfect congregation, because if you find it, you cannot join because of your imperfection!\”

Organisation Theory states that there is often a very clear distinction, and difference, between ‘behaviour\’ and ‘action.\’

Behaviour is action observable by others, from which they can impute their meaning or intentions that they assign, as did Pavlov or Skinner who became fathers of behaviourism – even if only studying dogs and rats!

Action, on the other hand, is defined by the personal intentions of the actor. While an actor\’s \’behaviour\’ can be used to impute the motives or intentions of his or her action, the behaviour alone cannot be the judge of real and true intentions.

That is also why, in any court of law, such as in a murder case, the evidence must illicit facts and evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. Even then, we hear of mistrials and misjudgments.

Therefore, I find it frightening and dangerous that MPSJ could willfully ask its officers to seek to \”criminalise\” public space actions of seeking very legitimate and kosher work as a waiter in a place that serves food and drinks. So what if they serve alcoholic drinks?

What should really be of greater concern is excessive consumption of alcohol by any one person. That is why we have laws about drinking and driving, which the police enforce.

And, may I warn any holier-than-thou judges, that as a matter of practise, I do not ordinarily drink alcohol. I only drink wine, with selected company and in appropriate settings.

Moral policing is a very slippery slope that will lead to the \’talibanisation\’ of Malaysia.

I strongly appeal to all Malaysians to vehemently reject such moves. Far greater will be our reward if we focus on the eradication of bribery and corruption. And I believe even the extent of moral corruption will also reduce.

May God bless Malaysia to find a true answer to these problems!