[Malaysia] Hukuman Sebat Minum Arak

The New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur
Caning punishment a Catch-22 situation
Aniza Damis KUALA LUMPUR, June 15 2005

The caning sentence imposed on two Muslim brothers by the Syariah High Court in Kuantan yesterday may result in a Catch-22 situation. This is because the provision which outlines the conditions for caning also states that the offender must be imprisoned until he is caned.

Article 125(4) of the Pahang Syariah Criminal Procedure Code 2003 (CPC), states: "In the case where the offender is sentenced to whipping only, then he shall be dealt with as if he is sentenced to imprisonment until the sentence is executed."

However, there is one snag to this reading where the brothers' case is concerned: When judge Abdul Rahman Yunus sentenced the two to six strokes of the rotan and a fine of RM5,000 each, he did not give them a jail sentence.

Therefore, unless the judge amends his sentence and specifies a jail term, technically, the sentence of whipping cannot be carried out.

"If this section is read in isolation, until and unless the sentence is executed, the offender has to be kept in prison," said a senior lawyer, who did not want to be named.

"But it is possible that, since the section says 'whipping only', and in this case, whipping was not the only sentence, there also being a fine, then perhaps this might not apply."

However, he said, even if the section applied to the brothers, a court order for jail time would still have to be obtained. Unlike the cases where caning has been enforced by the Syariah court in Kelantan, the case of the brothers in Pahang is unique in that they
were not sentenced to imprisonment. Caning sentences normally complement jail terms,
and not the other way around.

Since this is the first time that Pahang's Syariah laws are being tested in this situation, there is no precedent for it and, therefore, no established interpretation of the section.

"Normally, Syariah CPCs are tailored after the Civil Criminal Procedure Code. But in this instance, there is no corresponding section in the Civil CPC," said the lawyer.

Section 286 of the Civil CPC states: "When the accused is sentenced to whipping only, the sentence shall be executed at such place and time as the Court may direct."

This is markedly different from the Pahang Syariah CPC, which does not provide for direction from the court.

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

The Star, Kuala Lumpur

Caning cannot be carried out until law is gazetted
Thurs June 16, 2005

KUANTAN: The caning meted out to two Muslim men found guilty of drinking alcohol can only be implemented after the Pahang government gazettes the Syariah Criminal Enactment.

State Syariah head of prosecution Abdul Rahim Jaafar said specification on the way to carry out caning had been included in the draft enactment submitted to the state government.

"But the punishment cannot be carried out since the enactment has yet to be gazetted by the state assembly," he said here yesterday.

He was commenting on the case of two brothers Mohd Nizam Ibrahim, 32, and Mohd Nasha, 30, who were ordered to be caned six times by the Kuantan Syariah High Court on Tuesday.

Judge Abdul Rahman Yunus also fined them RM5,000 each for the offence at a restaurant.

In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Syariah Lawyers Association president Muhamad Burok also pointed out that Prisons Department personnel were not trained to whip those convicted of offences under Syariah law.

He said they were only trained to carry out whipping under civil law, which was different.

"These officers need to be guided and equipped with the knowledge of whipping under Islamic law," he said. Muhamad said the problem arose as the state Syariah court had yet to come up with a provision on the method to execute the whipping.

Sisters in Islam programme manager Masjaliza Hamzah pointed out that the Quran did not spell out a punishment for the consumption of intoxicants, either in private or in public.

"By making public consumption of alcohol an offence under the Syariah Criminal Offences Act, the Government has criminalised what is deemed a 'personal sin'," she said.

Meanwhile, Bername reported in Johor Baru that National Fatwa Council Chairman Datuk Dr Ismail Ibrahim took the media to task for sensationalising the court ruling.

He said the media should have just reported the case "as usual" because sensationalising it could blemish the image of Islam.

"There will be some people who will think that Islamic law is cruel," he said.

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

The New Straits Times, Kuala Lumpur

'Nothing alarming about decision'
JOHOR BARU, June 15 2005

There is "nothing alarming" about a Syariah court decision that two Muslim brothers be caned for consuming alcohol, National Fatwa Council chairman Dr Ismail Ibrahim said today, as such punishment is provided for under Syariah law.

Ismail was commenting on a judgment by the Syariah court in Kuantan that the two brothers be fined RM5,000 each and be given six strokes of the rotan.

"Compared to penalties under civil law for similar offences, the six strokes of cane and RM5,000 fine imposed by the Syariah Court on the offenders is very light," he told the New Straits Times.

"There is nothing alarming about the sentence meted out, even though they were first-time offenders.

"Muslims should know what is wrong under Syariah Law. The fact that they consumed alcohol in public clearly shows that they were aware of the consequences of their action."

Ismail said these laws had been in existence for years, but were not strictly enforced.

"So when the Kuantan Syariah Court imposed caning for the first time yesterday, everyone seemed to be taken by surprise."

Siblings Mohd Nizam Ibrahim, 32, and Mohd Nasha, 30, were caught drinking stout in a restaurant on Jalan Bukit Ubi in Kuantan on Aug 19 last year.

The two factory workers were arrested by officers of the Pahang Islamic Religious Department.

Earlier, at a Press conference, Ismail said the sentence was justified as Islam forbids Muslims from consuming alcohol.

"The adverse effects of consuming alcohol are well documented. Even non-Muslims forbid their children from consuming alcohol," he said, adding that many road accidents were committed by people under the influence of liquor.

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

APABILA SI JAHIL TURUT BERBICARA TENTANG ISLAM
ROSLAN SMS

Sebaik sahaja Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah di Kuantan menjatuhkan hukuman sebat 6 kali dan denda RM5000 tiap-tiap seorang ke atas 2 orang peminum arak yang didapati bersalah, seluruh akhbar media perdana sebagaimana biasa mensasikan keputusan tersebut.

Ada yang mempertikaikannya dan tidak kurang juga yang menyokong. Blog Jeff Ooi umpamanya secara berseloroh mengulas dengan tajuk:

No it neednt be in Kelantan/ Ia tidak semestinya berlaku di Kelantan

Menurut Pengerusi Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan Dr Ismail Ibrahim pihak akhbar tidak sepatutnya mensasikan hukuman ini kerana ianya seolah-olah memberikan gambaran bahawa perundangan Islam itu zalim.

Yang paling menarik adalah ulasan Sisters in Islam. Menurut pengurus programnya Masjaliza Hamzah sebagaimana yang dilaporkan di dalam THE STAR:

The Quran did not spell out a punishment for the consumption of intoxicants either in private or in public. By making public consumption of alcohol an offence under the Syariah Criminal Offences Act, the government has criminalized what is deemed a personal sin.

Quran tidak menjelaskan darihal hukuman ke atas peminum arak samada dalam majlis tertutup ataupun terbuka. Dengan meletakkan perbuatan meminum arak di khalayak sebagai satu kesalahan di bawah Akta Kesalahan Jenayah Syariah kerajaan sebenarnya telah meletakkan sebagai jenayah satu yang sebenarnya sekadar kesalahan (dosa) peribadi.

Apabila mereka yang jahil darihal Islam turut mahu berbahas dan memperkatakan darihal Islam, ketika itulah sebenarnya Islam akan dihina dan dipandang rendah Islam tidak pernah melarang kebebasan bersuara dan mengeluarkan pendapat namun apabila yang mahu kita ulas itu adalah soal hukum dan perundangan kita seharusnya memiliki atapun menguasai ilmu berkenaannya.

Dalam ilmu dan bidang apa sekalipun demikianlah baisanya disiplinnya.

Sumber hukum di dalam Islam adalah berpandukan al Quran, Hadis, Qias dan Ijmak. Memahami hukum dan perundangan Islam menuntut penguasaan terhadap kempat-empat sumber ini, itullah disiplinnya.

Apabila Masjaliza berhujah yang Quran tidak menjelaskan darihal hukuman yang sepatutnya dikenakan terhadap peminum arak, beliau seolah-olah menolak sumber hukum Islam yang lain. Disinilah bukti kurangnya penguasaan ilmu Masjaliza sedangkan beliau mewakili NGO yang acapkali mahu sahaja mengeluarkan ulasan berkenaan Islam.

Khalifah Umar bin Abdul Aziz pernah berkata:

Barangsiapa melakukan suatu pekerjaan tanpa ilmu pengetahuan tentang itu maka apa yang dia rusak lebih banyak daripada apa yang dia perbaiki.

Manakala Khalifah Abu Bakar ra pula pernah berkata:

Langit mana yang melindungi diriku dan bumi mana yang akan menjadi tempat pijakkanku, kalau aku mengatakan sesuatu yang tidak kuketahui.

Saya sendiri bukanlah pakar tentang hukum dan perundangan Islam namun tahu bahawa ayat-ayat yang mengharamkan arak memang jelas samada dalam al Quran maupun Hadis. Hukuman ke atas pesalah arak ini walaubagaimanapun tidak dihuraikan dalam al Quran kecuali dalam amalan Rasulullah saw sendiri.

Diriwayatkan daripada Husain bin al-Munzir bahawa ketika Saidina Ali ditugaskan oleh Saidina Uthman untuk menghukum sebat ke atas al-Walid bin Uqbah, beliau berkata yang maksudnya : Rasulullah s.a.w. telah menghukum sebanyak 40 kali sebatan begitu juga Saidina Abu Bakar tetapi Saidina Umar menghukum sebanyak lapan puluh kali semuanya aalah sunnah yang ini aku lebih sukai.

Janganlah kita menyalahgunakan platform yang ada untuk memperlekeh dan menghina Islam yang dianuti oleh jutaan insan dalam dunia ini. Rujuklah pada yang pakar dan berhujahlah berdasarkan fakta, kalau perundangan dan hukum Islam yang mahu diulas maka kembalilah kepada sumbernya, jangan ikut akal dan emosi sendiri.

Kesimpulannya eloklah direnungi tulisan Dr Yusuf Qardawi yang berbunyi: Sesungguhnya ilmu pengetahuan mesti didahulukan atas amal perbuatan, karena ilmu pengetahuanlah yang mampu membedakan antara yang haq dan yang bathil dalam keyakinan umat manusia, antara yang benar dan yang salah di dalam perkataan mereka, antara perbuatan-perbuatan yang disunatkan dan yang bid ah dalam ibadah, antara yang benar dan yang tidak benar di dalam melakukan muamalah, antara tindakan yang halal dan tindakan yang haram, antara yang terpuji dan yang hina di dalam akhlak manusia; antara ukuran yang diterima dan ukuran yang ditolak; antara perbuatan dan perkataan yang bisa diterima dan yang tidak dapat diterima.

BLOG ROSLAN SMS ; http://n32.blogpsot.com/

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

Kesalahan minum arak di bawah hudud dikena 80 sebatan
Wednesday, June 15 2005, Harakahdaily

KOTA BHARU, 15 Jun (Hrkh) – Hukuman meminum arak di bawah kesalahan hudud mengikut Kanun Jenayah Syariah (II) 1993 yang dilulus di Kelantan boleh dikenakan sebat tidak lebih 80 rotan atau jangan kurang daripada 40 kali sebatan.

Kanun tersebut dilulus pada persidangan Dewan Undangan Negeri akhir tahun 1993 menyebut bagi kesalahan minum arak ia dikenali sebagai syurb di bawah kesalahan-kesalahan hudud.
Syurb dijelaskan sebagai kesalahan meminum arak atau sebarang minuman yang memabukkan dan sesiapa yang melakukan kesalahan itu sama ada mabuk atau tidak, tanpa mengira kuantiti hendaklah dikenakan sebat tidak lebih 80 kali dan tidak kurang daripada 40 kali sebatan.

Kesalahan itu bolehlah dibuktikan dengan keterangan lisan yang diberi dua orang saksi atau ikrar yang dibuat tertuduh sendiri.

Bagaimanapun malangnya enakmen terbabit tidak dapat dikuatkuasa memandangkan mendapat bantahan daripada kerajaan Persekutuan melalui sepucuk surat Perdana Menteri yang dihantar kepada Menteri Besar.

Namun, selepas hampir 12 tahun berlalu, kerajaan Pahang pula menetapkan kesalahan meminum, menjual, membeli minuman yang memabukkan boleh dikenakan hukuman denda tidak melebihi RM5,000 atau penjara tidak melebihi tiga tahun atau kedua-duanya dan tidak melebihi enam kali sebatan.

Hukuman itu mengikut Seksyen 136 Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang 1982 (pindaan 1987) yang mulai dikuatkuasa kelmarin.

Pesalah pertama yang dihukum di bawah undang-undang tersebut iaitu dua beradik yang mengaku minum arak, di mana mereka dihukum Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah dengan enam sebatan.

Mengulas perkembangan yang berlaku itu, Menteri Besar Kelantan, Tuan Guru Dato’ Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat melahirkan rasa syukur ke hadrat Allah Taala kerana hukuman tersebut sudah berjalan di Pahang.

“Sudah tentu Kelantan juga boleh menirunya. Saya bersyukur kerana negeri lain boleh buat lebih awal daripada Kelantan dan saya ucap terima kasih.

“Kehendak kerajaan negeri supaya hukuman mengikut syariat dijalankan,” katanya ketika ditemui pemberita selepas mesyuarat Exco kerajaan negeri di sini, hari ini.

Sementara itu, seorang pengamal undang-undang Takiyuddin Hassan berkata, peruntukan mengenakan denda kepada kesalahan minum arak memang sudah ada di Kelantan. Bagaimanapun tambahnya, apa yang berlaku di Pahang boleh menjadi contoh yang baik kepada negeri-negeri lain. - MJ