Advertisement

Case Study 2: The Detention of Sharī’ah Offenders in Pusat Pemulihan Akidah (Islamic Rehabilitation Centres) in Malaysia

  • Muzammil QuraishiEmail author
Chapter
  • 5 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia book series (PACCJA)

Abstract

As with case study 1, the increasing Islamisation of Malaysia has produced increasing application of Islamic law including detention in Rehabilitation Centres. This chapter explores the source of authority in the Federal Constitution for the Islamic legal system and jurisdiction for sentencing offenders. The controversial penalties of whipping and caning are explored as well as highlighting the wide discretionary powers granted to the Islamic judiciary. The case study illustrates a lack of consistency in judicial interpretation and an absence of guidelines on what constitutes minimum sentences. The case study outlines the key offences which could be subject to detention as well as their reach to juveniles. The draconian nature of the sentences puts them at odds with international commitments and directions in many nations which have decriminalised corporal punishment and public displays of humiliation.

References

  1. Abdullah, N. 2007. Legislating Faith in Malaysia. Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 1(26), 264–289. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://law.nus.edu.sg/sjls/articles/SJLS-Dec-2007-264.pdf.
  2. Ahmad, A., & Mazlan, N. H. (2014). Substance Abuse and Childhood Trauma Experiences: Comparison Between Incarcerated and Non-Incarcerated Youth. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 113, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AlJazeera English. (2007, July 3). The Crime of Apostasy. Al Jazeera: Everywoman. Retrieved February 14, 2014, from http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/everywoman/2007/05/2008525185836888153.html.
  4. Brisbane Times. (2009, July 26). Malaysian Model’s Whipping Sentence Sparks Backlash. The Brisbane Times.Google Scholar
  5. Case, W. (1994). Malaysia in 1993: Accelerating Trends and Mild Resistance. Asian Survey, 34(2), 119–126.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2645111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniels, R. J., Trebilcock, M. J., & Carson, L. D. (2011). The Common Law Inheritance and Commitments to Legality in Former British Colonies. American Journal of Comparative Law, 59(1), 111–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Harding, A. (2002). The Keris, the Crescent and the Blind Goddess: The State, Islam and the Constitution in Malaysia. Singapore Journal of International and Comparative Law, 6, 154–180.Google Scholar
  8. Holman, B., & Ziedenburg, J. (2004). The Dangers of Detention: The Impact of Incarcerating Youth in Detention and Other Secure Facilities. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/dangers_of_detention.pdf.Google Scholar
  9. Ismail, S. Z. (2008). dasar dan amalan penghukuman kes jenayah di Mahkamah Syariah: Ke mana halatuju? Jurnal Hukum, 27(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  10. Ismail, S. Z. (2011). Hukuman alternatif dari perspektif undang-undang syariah. Sharī’ah Law Report, 4, 25–41.Google Scholar
  11. JAKIM. (2007). Program Pemulihan Aqidah Di Baitul Iman (Online). Retrieved from http://www.islam.gov.my/en/program-pemulihan-aqidah-di-baitul-iman.
  12. Jasri, J. (2003). Konsep Hukuman Takzir di dalam Kanun Jenayah Syariah di Malaysia. Proceeding of National Contemporary Fiqh Seminar 2003, pp. 172–189.Google Scholar
  13. Joseph, A. L. R. (2009). Unfettered Religious Freedom Hangs by the Thread of Minority Dissent in Malaysia: A Review of the Dissenting Judgment of the Federal Court in the Lina Joy Case. Review of Constitutional Studies, 14(2), 205–226.Google Scholar
  14. Kirby, M. (2008). Fundamental Human Rights and Religious Apostasy: The Malaysian Case of Lina Joy. Griffith Law Review, 17(1), 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kosmo. (2013). Pusat pembimbing memurnikan akidah, 9 Januari (Online). Retrieved from http://www.kosmo.com.my/kosmo/content.asp?y=2013&dt=0109&pub=Kosmo&sec=Rencana_Utama&pg=ru_01.htm.
  16. Kuppusamy, B. (2009, August 26). Should a Muslim Mother Be Caned for Drinking a Beer? Malaysia Today.Google Scholar
  17. Muhammad, R. W., & Khairunnasriah, A. S. (2018). The Concept of Retribution and Restorative Justice in Islamic Criminal Law with Reference to the Malaysian Syariah Court. Journal of Law & Judicial System, 1(1), 8–16. ISSN 2637-5893. Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2859/b49578c61c583bf3c0979b5acbace5fd4020.pdf.
  18. Peletz, M. G. (2002). Islamic Modern: Religious Courts and Cultural Politics in Malaysia. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Seda-Poulin, M. L. (1993). Islamization and Legal Reform in Malaysia: The Hudud Controversy of 1992. Southeast Asian Affairs, 224–242.Google Scholar
  20. Shuaib, F. S. (2008). Powers and Jurisdiction of Syariah Courts in Malaysia (2nd ed.). Petaling Jaya: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  21. Siraj, M. (1994). Women and the Law: Significant Developments in Malaysia. Law and Society Review, 28(3), 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taib, R. M. (2011). Educating and Rehabilitating the Child and Young Offenders in the Prisons: A Practice in Malaysia. International Business Education Journal, 4(1), 111–120.Google Scholar
  23. Teik, K. B. (2006). Between Law and Politics: The Malaysian Judiciary Since Independence. In K. Jayasuriya (Ed.), Law, Capitalism & Power in Asia: The Rule of Law and Legal Institutions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Utusan Malaysia. (2012). Baitul Iman kendali 15 kes murtad, 26 Januari (Online). Retrieved from http://www.utusan.com.my/utusan/info.asp?y=2012&dt=0126&pub=Utusan_Malaysia&sec=Keluarga&pg=ke_02.htm.
  25. Yoong, S. (2009, August 24). Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, Malaysian to Be Caned for Drinking Beer Gets Ramadan Reprieve. The World Post.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health and SocietyUniversity of SalfordSalfordUK

Personalised recommendations