Tips for travelers wishing to avoid loopholes

For some reason, I was under the impression that Malaysia was one of those modern, “progressive” Muslim countries, where things like caning people for drinking alcohol did not go on. Wrong!

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia – An Islamic court in Malaysia on Tuesday indefinitely put on hold the caning of a woman found guilty of drinking beer, saying the sentence was too harsh, a news report said.
The chief judge of Pahang state’s Shariah court decided to defer the caning pending a review “as it was deemed too extreme,” The Star newspaper reported on its Web site.
The report did not give details and court officials were not immediately available for comment.
Separately, Malaysia’s home minister indicated the caning was unlikely to be carried out, arguing the prisons department did not have staff with the expertise to administer the caning according to Shariah laws.
The developments were likely to defuse growing consternation in Malaysia over the unusual sentencing, which if carried out would have made Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno the first woman to be caned in the country.
The 32-year-old woman’s plight has drawn international attention to the use of Islamic laws and raised questions whether a radical brand of Islam is taking root in this traditionally moderate Muslim-majority country.

It certainly does raise questions. The fact that this woman could be sentenced to be caned in the first place has made me revise my thinking about Malaysia being a moderate Muslim country.
The article says that she could have gotten three years in prison as well:

Malaysia’s Muslims, who make up 60 percent of the country’s 27 million people, are prohibited from drinking alcohol under the Shariah laws they are subject to. The offense is punishable by up to three years in prison and caning but most offenders have been let off with a fine in the past.
Malaysia’s non-Muslims, the ethnic Chinese and Indians, are allowed to consume alcohol and are not subjected to Shariah laws but only civil laws.

I don’t know what made me think Malaysia was a moderate country. Perhaps I was falling into the trap of believing what I wanted to believe.
When I researched the matter, it didn’t take long to find other examples of people being caned for drinking, as these two men were in 2005:

Brothers Mohamed Nizam Ibrahim, 32, and Mohamed Nasha, 30, were sentenced to receive the maximum six strokes of the cane and fined RM5,000 (S$2,000) each by the Syariah High Court here.
They were caught drinking stout at a restaurant in Jalan Bukit Ubi here on Aug 19 last year.
Under the state of Pahang’s laws, they could have been jailed for up to three years.
The imposition of the caning penalty caught everyone by surprise in court on Tuesday, including the brothers, who had pleaded guilty to the charges, believing that they were going to be let off with a fine.
Judge Abdul Rahman Yunus said the sentence he meted out should serve as a reminder to all Muslims not to commit the offence.
‘The excuse given by both offenders, that they are in the lower income group and, therefore, should not be severely punished, is unacceptable,’ he said.
‘It is quite obvious that the alcoholic beverage they drank is more expensive than other drinks such as syrup.’
The brothers – factory workers – were detained in an operation by the Pahang Islamic Religious Department to discourage Muslims from drinking alcohol.
A team of department officials, accompanied by policemen, arrested the brothers at the Yi Huat Restaurant in Jalan Bukit Ubi at 11.32pm.

Nice. So they have activists involved in law enforcement sting operations over there too. Bastards.
(I often wish there were some way to keep activists out of government, but I don’t want to get distracted with my utopian thinking or I’ll start ranting about how groups like MADD and animal activists are blurring the line between activism and law enforcement.)
The problem is that ordinary people just want to be left alone, and because they want to be left alone, they want to believe that they will be left alone. Wanting to be left alone thus lends itself to sloppy thinking, and denial. Even now, I think a lot of Americans — including Americans who travel to Malaysia — would just shrug their shoulders and be glad the law doesn’t apply to them.
But they would be wrong. As the sidebar notes, “LAWS APPLY TO FOREIGN MUSLIMS AS WELL“

ALL Muslims, including foreigners, are subject to the Islamic criminal laws of Malaysia when they are in the country, lawyers said yesterday.
In the wake of the ground-breaking case where two Muslims were ordered to be caned for drinking alcohol, the lawyers said foreigners were expected to respect the laws of Malaysia when in Malaysia.
‘Once you enter the country, you are in the jurisdiction of the court and the laws,’ said the Malaysian Syariah Lawyers’ Association president Muhamad Burok.
Syariah lawyers are those accredited to appear in the Syariah courts.
Islamic laws are under the jurisdiction of individual states. Each state has its own Syariah enactment but they generally include the basic Islamic offences such as not fasting during Ramadan.
Mr Muhammad said foreigners have been charged in the Syariah courts.

So that would mean that American Muslims could be arrested and imprisoned or caned for drinking in Malaysia.
How, pray tell, do they define who is a Muslim?
No doubt groups like the Pahang Islamic Religious Department would agitate for the broadest possible definition — perhaps even including innocent American children who are alleged to have been converted to Islam by adoptive parents. And so might MADD (or one of its international equivalents like GAPA, which promotes prohibitionistic policies in Malaysia).
As things stand now, MADD has already stepped up to the plate and condemned an American president merely for drinking beer.
Which is an outrage, if you take the time to think about it.
Unfortunately, not that many conservatives defended him. But I guess I should be glad that there isn’t an alliance between Shariah activists and MADD or else they might have tried to sic Islamist activists on Barack Obama under the crackpot “once a Muslim, always a Muslim” theory. (Funny how hardline Islamists and their most hardline enemies often agree on the most hardline theories as being the only true Islam. Almost reminds me of the unspoken alliance between gays and their enemies, but that’s another subject.)
Anyway, now that I’m drifting off into paranoia land, I might as well see it through. Let’s turn this silly business into a law school exam question. Suppose you were a confused but very open-minded teenager and you enjoyed exploring and dabbling in different religions, just because they were there. You tried Christianity, Buddhism, Bahai, Hinduism, and finally you stumbled onto Islam, and discovered a local madrassa — like the one in my old neighborhood. You liked the free Arabic lessons, and one thing led to another, so you thought you’d give the religion a try. Next thing, you sat down in their auditorium and recited the Shahada in front of witnesses. No big deal; just dabbling, right? Americans under the First Amendment have a constitutional right to dabble in whatever religions they want. So eventually you grow up and forget all about it. On a trip to Malaysia years later, in an amazing coincidence you stumble onto an old “friend” from the madrassa, and when he asks you whether you’re still going to prayers five times a day you sort of tell him what he wants to hear in the hope that he’ll just shut up and, you know, leave you alone. You forget all about that, but then later that evening, he sees you hanging out at the Yi Huat Restaurant, drinking a Guiness. He goes straight to the religious police, who come back and arrest you for drinking while Muslim. “But I’m not a Muslim!” you claim. “You have it all wrong!”
Would that be a defense? Or would it be preferable for you as an American be charged with drinking? Or apostasy? (The latter is not a loophole, but a crime.)
I don’t know the answers, but it probably wouldn’t be the greatest time to ask your old friend where the Malaysian gay bars are.