OCTOBER 20 — Discipline is a means of correction, not humiliation. There is, accordingly, a strongly held view that since caning is humiliation, it is not discipline.

In the view of Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid, a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universiti Malaya, caning is not discipline; it is an act of violence disguised as education.

It is one view. There are other views – like the view of Mohammad Hashim Kamali, a prominent contemporary Islamic scholar, who has addressed the topic of caning children by emphasising its prohibition when it causes injury, advocating for it only as a last resort and in a moderate, non-punitive way.

Hashim Kamali, as he is affectionately called, was formerly Founding CEO of the Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia and is currently an Adjunct Fellow at the IAIS. 

He holds a 1st Class Honours degree in Law and Political Science from Kabul University, Afghanistan, an LLM and Ph.D in Islamic and Middle Eastern Law from the University of London.

He served as Professor of Islamic Law and Jurisprudence at the International Islamic University Malaysia (1985-2004), then Dean of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC) from 2004-2006. 

He was assistant professor at McGill University’s Institute of Islamic Studies; Visiting Professor at Capital University, Ohio; and then also the the Institute of Advanced Study Berlin (Wissenschaftskolleg, Berlin)

Hashim Kamali supports the idea that discipline should be aimed at correcting behaviour, not inflicting pain. 

This approach involves light strokes to safer parts of the body, like the feet, and never exceeding a limit of 10 strokes, while also stressing the importance of parental involvement and agreement before administering any punishment.

More than 10 years ago in 2013, he wrote:

“Leading Muslim scholars have in principle permitted light physical punishment as part of the discipline of the child, but have stressed that it should only be for a beneficial purpose, and that the parents should also be involved in any decision to apply it.

“When both parent and teacher agree that physical punishment is the only option they are left with, they may proceed to take that step. They are reminded, however, that the approach so taken should be disciplinary rather than punitive. 

“Before making such a decision, teachers and parents should reflect on the purpose of punishment first. If they resort, for example, to caning, let them also make it as their last resort.”

Hashim Kamali cited the views of three prominent Islamic scholars of the past. The first is Ibn Sahnun al-Tanukhi (d. 854 CE). In Adab al-Mu‘allimin (The Etiquette of Teachers), Ibn Sahnun took the view that caning must be resorted to only with the permission of parents and should, in any case, be moderate. 

Except for specific instances of mischief, light strokes should apply in all cases and only to safer parts of the body, such as the feet, and should in no case exceed ten strokes.

Parental involvement in child discipline is meant to help the child understand that the purpose is not to inflict pain for its own sake, but to curb recurrence of deviant behaviour.

A later scholar, Abu’l Hasan al-Qabisi (d. 1012 CE), who authored a book on pupil-teacher relations, wrote that the best approach to discipline is to communicate with the child with kindness and concern, in an effort to identify the causes of the issue and try to appeal to the child’s understanding.

Abu’l Hassan said that the child, despite his immaturity, is a human being endowed with the gift of reason and the ability to know the causes of things. One should not allow anger and emotion to enter into a decision to punish a child.

A contemporary scholar of Abu’l Hassan, the eminent Ibn Sina (d. 1037) advocated persuasive approaches to child discipline which he felt should include not only reprimand but also encouragement and praise, whenever appropriate.

According to Ibn Sina, when all else fails, recourse may be had to physical punishment, which must be preceded by a stern warning. 

The scholar even took the view that when the need arises to punish a child, let the teacher make the first punishment sufficiently painful to act as a deterrent and generate fear enough to prevent repetition.(See “Child Education and Discipline” ICR Journal (2013) 147)

The child is entitled to good education as well as an enabling environment in which to learn ethical conduct. Disciplining a child – if need be by caning – is part and parcel of educating them.

Then there is the recent view of Kerala High Court Judge PV Kunhikrishnan who, having granted bail to a teacher accused of caning a student, made the following remarks:

“Let the teachers carry a cane while they are in educational institutions, if they intend to do so. It need not be used always, but the mere presence of a cane with teachers will create a psychological effect in the student community by discouraging them from doing any social evils.”

The learned judge considered teachers as the “unsung heroes of our society”.

“They shape the minds, hearts, and souls of our future generation. No steps should be taken to diminish the morale of the teachers’ community because they are the backbone of our future generation,” he added.

So, to the question: “To cane or not to cane”, there is no single view.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.