I think ANY law that is based on religion is absolutely ridiculous, although I don't have much legal experience. Secondly, isn't the purpose of the law to protect people? Different standards for different people does not grant them greater protection or respect, and it certainly fails to make all people equal.

Law should be standardised in Malaysia I think for everybody though, to answer your question properly. Implementing such a system in the US would be disastrous in my opinion... and wouldn't it contradict the Constitution under the First Amendment? Again, I could be completely wrong I'm not a US citizen..

And as a side note I think Muslim law is completely ridiculous and outdated. It's any person's right to drink alcohol and I wish Malaysian politicians could identify this.
Permalink | Report

How exactly do they prove she is Muslim? Is there a registration process? Does she have an ID with the Muslim box checked? Even if she dresses a certain way, that isn't necessarily proof that she is Muslim.

Anyway...no laws should be made based on religion anywhere in the world.
Permalink | Report

All legal systems are complicated. Here in the USA we are subject to Federal, State, and often Municipal law. And, just wait until a crime involves anything that happens on the water if you like complicated. So I don't think that in itself is the problem.

For the government to enforce or allow the enforcement of religious laws is outrageous and evil.

Also note that this type of legal system would not work at all if people were allowed to change their religion. It goes hand in hand with racism and lack of religious freedom.

Fortunately our Bill of Rights in the Constitution prevents any such ideas from being introduced in the USA. However, constant vigilance is necessary to prevent the majority religion from introducing their religious doctrines into the general law in disguised form.

Even well meaning people in the Western Democracies can sometimes be badly confused and misled on this issue. The Archbishop of Canterbury recently made very unfortunate remarks in this regard. One should remember that tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance at all.
Permalink | Report

Firstly, let me introduce myself as a Malaysian. It seems that Malaysia is once again under international spotlight for the wrong reason. You are right about Malaysia having a dual-justice system - secular laws for all citizens and sharia laws for Muslims.

As a non-Muslim in Malaysia, I rarely take notice of these kind of issues because it basically doesn't affect me. The Muslim-majority government of Malaysia is voted in by our Muslim-majority population, which means that Muslims in Malaysia do not mind being subjected to such laws, even though they may seem unfair to others.

Despite that, sharia laws have a major problem when it comes to enforcement. The fact is that these laws are rarely executed, with enforcement only done when the authorities want to prove that they're actually "doing something" and not getting paid for nothing. This is the reason why the majority of Malaysians like me rarely pay attention to such laws, pretending they don't exist.

One dilemma in implementation is identifying who is Muslim. I doubt Muslims will don their traditional attire when drinking alcohol or gambling. The only way of identifying them is by sight; Muslims in Malaysia are usually Malays with brown skin colour. For verification, they have to produce their identity cards which clearly state their religion.

Most of the time, this type of enforcement is error-prone and will cause unnecessary trouble for people not subjected under such laws. One such embarrassing situation happened in 2006 to an American Christian couple - religious officers knocked on their door at 2 am and accused them close proximity, which is illegal according to sharia law (see here). This raised concerns among non-Muslim Malaysians because such actions are clearly violating the rights of non-Muslims in the name of law enforcement.

Given the situation here in Malaysia, I'm opposed to the implementation of religious laws on citizens. Ideally, the concept of religious freedom should prevail, which grants each individual the right to choose his/her own religion and to what degree he/she is devoted to that religion. This method eliminates a lot of complications besides saving public funds.

If the U.S. truly wants to be seen by the world as a progressive, modern country and a "land of freedom", then allowing such ambigious and brutal laws to prevail will be a step backwards.
Source(s):
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/10/28/nation/15839442&s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Malaysia

Permalink | Report

And this is why religion should NEVER have any say in any form of government whatsoever! Religion should never be given this much power. To be religious, and to which religion you subscribe, is a personal choice and should never have anything to do with laws or punishment and is essentially nobody else's business but your own, including how you worship, where you worship, and to whom you worship.

Just out of curiosity, could she have told them she wasn't Muslim at the time of the raid in order to avoid the beating? Is there some religious list the religious department refers to that lists all the Muslims in the country and if you are on the list you are subject to the stricter laws of the land? That's ludicrous! That is absolutely ridiculous!

My other question is....Did all the Muslims in the land get together and decide they wanted these dual laws? Or was it forced on them?
Permalink | Report

I think that this is not excessive or wrong in any way.

Malaysia as well as many parts of the world have many cultural aspects that make them beautiful and unique, even if they are "old" "outdated" or barbaric to other cultures. Caning in southeast Asia is a common tool and is definitely worse through the American school of thought then for most in many other places of the world.

In various visits to schools in southeast Asia, it was not uncommon for unruly students to be caned in front of the entire student body. It was definitely not a shock at all for locals. If you break certain rules, it is written that X offense = Y amount of cane strikes. So as long as the locals understand the rules and they are enforced evenly and fairly, there really should be no cause to have problems with enforcement methods. Take the death penalty for example. That is definitely not standard worldwide, so neither should caning be.

So setting aside the enforcement, the rule of drinking is the same thing. In Malaysia, a Muslim country, drinking is against the Koran and is considered a very direct immoral/illegal act. So the rules are clearly stated, though it is my understanding, in certain places or at certain times for certain reasons it is allowed. It is not a totatlitarian culture, rather one with varying degrees of conservative religious beliefs.

I think cultural integrity is important. In certain cases, for example Malaysia and the US would alter their ways for a business reason. For example, the US can send people over to do business and inform them not to drink in a Muslim country so as not to offend the locals. And Malaysians might also act slightly differently to find a cultural middle ground, which is common in the business world. So we must bridge divides and understand and respect, if not adopt or condone in our country, these things that make us unique. Diversity should be a good thing, a uniter, not a divider.

thanks
Permalink | Report