Malaysia case crucial for understanding sharia courts in west

In the past few years there have been a number of complex issues facing the western world in terms of Islamic demands for accommodation within non western cultures. The two most important and confusing perhaps, are the notions of sharia courts and Islamic financing within the greater context of western law and banking systems.


Many Muslims and apologists tend to argue that in many nations including Canada, Jewish and Catholic systems of family jurisprudence are already set up and operating, so it is a gross travesty to not allow Muslim sharia courts to operate also.

The problem is as it often is, the intellectual slight of hand of what I call ‘the levels of abstraction game.’

Let me illustrate:

‘Catholicism is a religion. Judaism is a religion. Islam is generally thought of as a religion. So if the first two can operate their own system of family law etc, within the greater western framework why cannot Muslims?’

This question is tantamount to:

‘Hitler wore pants, Mary Tyler Moore wore pants, 1960s TV beauties must therefore lead the Nazi party.

Consider this example from multicultural Malaysia where sharia courts operate along side secular courts.

Malaysian court orders Muslim woman to be flogged with a cane for drinking beer:

Tue Jul 21, 6:43 AM

By Julia Zappei, The Associated Press

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – An Islamic court in Malaysia has sentenced a Muslim woman to be flogged with a rattan cane for having a beer in a nightclub, a court official said Tuesday.

It is rare for a woman in Malaysia to be sentenced to caning – a punishment usually reserved for men in various crimes ranging from rape to bribery.

Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno was sentenced Monday to six lashes and a fine of 5,000 ringgit ($1,400) for consuming alcohol, said a Shariah High Court official who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to make public statements.

Shukarno, a 32-year-old model, pleaded guilty in the court in eastern Pahang state to a charge of drinking beer when Islamic authorities raided a hotel nightclub in August 2008.

Consuming alcohol is a religious offence in Malaysia only for Muslims, who make up nearly two-thirds of the population. Offenders are prosecuted in Shariah courts, which handle cases mainly related to family and moral issues for Muslims.

Most offenders are fined, but the law also provides for a three-year prison term and caning. Shukarno was the only Muslim caught in the raid at the Pahang nightclub.

Malaysian clubs and lounges typically serve alcohol but are not legally required to check if customers are Muslim before serving them, so the hotel nightclub operators were not charged with any offence.

Shukarno plans to appeal the sentence, the New Straits Times daily reported.

The punishment “is aimed at making the accused repent and serves as a lesson to Muslims,” the newspaper quoted Judge Abdul Rahman Yunus as saying.

The judge did not elaborate on why he imposed a relatively severe sentence, but local media noted that he had a history of being tough on alcohol offenders.

Rattan canes used in the punishment are made from palm plants common in tropical parts of Asia. They have been used for decades for corporal punishments in countries such as Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei.

The caning sentence is generally carried out by specially trained officials at prisons

Now how many reading this imagine that this woman had any choice whatsoever in the matter of what court she would be tried in? Clearly she had no options. She cannot simply declare herself ‘not a Muslim’ as that would mean apostasy and she would be killed for it. There is no rational comparison between sharia law and Jewish or Christian law, in as much as such a thing even exists, whatsoever. Only Islam is a complete system, legal, religious, sexual, even absurdly medical. It is crucial that Islamic apologists do not further inculcate gullible westerners with relativist nonsense. Islam is so different from religion as we think of it, that it must not be allowed the usual exceptions and privileges of Christian and Jewish traditions to secular law. As another example, a church may from time to time harbour certain people who take refuge from the law. This is an ancient tradition where the church agrees to certain concessions and the state agrees to allow them certain minor immunities. Shades of Norjiega hiding at the Papal Nuncio in Panama spring to mind. However churches are never fronts for bomb making factories and mosques so frequently are, it isn’t even news anymore.

Mosque in fact, equals arsenal. Ultimately, we in the west must come to certain realizations. We are being hoodwinked by our own leftists who use this intellectual slight of hand to force us to concede to false comparisons with respect to Islam. These concessions may destroy our own culture values and freedoms as it did the indigenous people of the various nations Islam now lays claim to today.

Remember, no nation which is now Islamic simply converted by choice. All where conquered even Saudi Arabia itself and by bloody conquest, deception rape and theft.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

One Reply to “Malaysia case crucial for understanding sharia courts in west”

  1. “Remember, no nation which is now Islamic simply converted by choice. All where conquered even Saudi Arabia itself and by bloody conquest, deception rape and theft.”

    I’ve heard Raymond Ibrahim mention, on two occasions where debates or lectures in which he participated were audiotaped, that Somalia and Indonesia are the only countries where mahoundianism actually spread, despite the claims in PC schoolbooks and bogus academic work by apologists and appeasers that the “spread” occurred throughout all of mahoundistan. Aside from those two examples, mahoundianism was indeed imposed by the sword everywhere else; even, as Eeyore has pointed out, during mahound’s supposed lifetime in Saudi Opensewerabia, despite Karen Armstrong’s ridiculous claims that it (not he) actually put an end to the everyday carnage and inter-clan, inter tribal fighting that had been part of life in that cesspool for ages among inbred bedouin savages.

    And let’s recall once again, for the sake of remembering what’s at stake regarding giving in to any demands that this mahoundian toilet-clogger named sharia be allowed to settle legal disputes in civilized countries, how it places mahoundian males above everyone else, as far as the values of their lives and testimony in court are concerned; that the testimony of two tent-wearing jihadist-breeding, non-penis-possessing males (individuals known as WOMEN in civilization, where they’re not discriminated against on the basis of gender before the law) is required to equal that of one single penis-possessing inbred bedouin savage; that never would such mahoundian courts allow the testimony of a Christian, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, an agnostic or an atheist to be used against mahoundians in court (and that certainly makes those swines all the more enthusiastic about setting up their supremacist courts/toilet-cloggers, since I’d give them a license to kill and rape human beings, among whom I don’t include them, without fearing any punishment.) Moreover, according to Mein Qurampf 4:34, not only does toilet-clogging sharia makes individuals known in civilization as women “officially” inferior, but it gives mahoundian male swines the right to beat the living crap out of their wives without ever being liable to punishment of any sort for that.

    And, as far as the value of mahoundian males’ lives versus everyone else’s is concerned, here’s a revealing bit from Fjordman’s “Camel Economics” to shed light on the topic:

    ‘Ali Sina puts it this way in his essay “Is Political Islam Fascism?”:

    In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.

    100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man
    50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman
    50,000 riyals if a Christian man
    25,000 riyals if a Christian woman
    6,666 riyals if a Hindu man
    3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

    According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is non-existent?’

    For those still unsure about whether or not mahoundian demands that this travesty of justice system be allowed to legally exist within civilization should be acquiesced in, perhaps the undeniable fact that equality for all, regardless of ethnicity, gender religious belief (or lack thereof) would eventually no longer exist should truly give them enough evidence of what’s at stake here for a decision between allowing that or forbidding it once and for all, even through constitutional amendments if necessary (and it’s just too bad that I have heard of no Western country whose leaders have the guts to give mahoundians such a well-deserved slap in the face, by protecting secular democracies and their cornerstones in civilization through such measures.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.