In the first place, Kartika was charged in an open court, allowed to have legal representation and chose to admit to her crime. The punishment was given based on her confession, which explains why there was no appeal.
Second place, consumption of alcohol is a felony in Islamic shariah by agreement of all scholars, then and now. It's a felony and must be punished by the state.
The parent of Kartika Sari accepts the punishment to be carried out and Kartika herself has no objection to the punishment, although she has every right to appeal her punishment.
The issue is an issue that embarass Barisan Nasional, but BN is trying to offload the burden to PAS. In truth, the BN has to uphold the Shariah laws because it is the wishes of the Muslim majority. It is not a political issue.
As for lashing for women under shariah, although it is allowed, but the way lashing is carried out under shariah is miles apart compared to that off civil. For one, lashings under shariah DOES NOT HURT. It’s never meant to hurt. Just to shame and be an example to others not to commit the same crime.
Again let me repeat the phrase “IT DOES NOT HURT”. By every school of thoughts in Islam, lashings must never hurt. It’s not meant to be hurting. It’s meant for educating the masses.
I also deplore a statement made by Maria Chin representing JAG which says:
“Maria Chin Abdullah said "Kartika's case also illustrates how Muslim women are discriminated, contrary to the constitutional guarantee in Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution, which is against discrimination on the grounds of religion and gender."
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/111322
Maybe JAG should open their eyes and look at the case again. Kartika is punished not because she is a woman. Kartika is punished because she consumed alcohol. It has nothing to do with her gender because punishment of the same sort is also given out to men who is caught drinking liquor.
It’s a normal tactic by all feminists to invoke the call for discrimination each time they are going against religion. You should ask the Christians in America and how the Christians have been painted in the wrong color by the Feminists in America for decades.
So, I never care about what feminists like JAG thinks. They will almost always reject such ruling because they are anti religion to start off with.
They quote Articles in the Federal Constitution that they like while completely missing out the Article in the Federal Constitution that states the religion of the Federation is Islam. They interpret what they like and promote their interpretation. They don’t speak on behalf of the constitution.
Although SIS is very ineffective in Malaysia among Muslims due to the fact that SIS themselves are unable to present any hard evidence proving the Syariah courts as being discriminatory to women.
Thus far, we have seen zero evidence from JAG or SIS pertaining to the defectiveness of Malaysia’s various Syariah courts.
Artikel asal oleh Tulang Besi
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan