Caning Punishment for Animal Abuse Offenses: Islamic Legal Perspectives in Malaysia’s Dual Legal System

Caning Punishment for Animal Abuse Offenses: Islamic Legal Perspectives in Malaysia’s Dual Legal System

Muhamad Rezan Tambi¹, Ain Maryam Zolkipli²*, Nurul Izza Shamsul Kamal³, Sayidah Asma Basir⁴, Zahar Ali⁵, Adam Mohd Salehuddin⁶

¹President, Malaysia Animal Association

^2,3,4Academic Department, Faculty of Law, University Technology MARA

⁵ELMU Consulting Group, Enforcement, Leadership, Management University

⁶Principal, Malaysia Animal Academy

^*Corresponding author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.906000311

Received: 05 June 2025; Accepted: 09 June 2025; Published: 14 July 2025

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the potential implementation of caning as a punishment for animal abuse in Malaysia’s dual legal system, which incorporates both civil and Islamic law. The study employs doctrinal research methodology to examine Islamic sources, including the Quran and Hadith, alongside contemporary Islamic jurisprudence and Malaysian law. It focuses on understanding how Islamic principles regarding animal welfare and the concept of ta’zir (discretionary punishment) can be integrated into Malaysia’s legal framework. The research explores the relationship between Islamic teachings on animal compassion and modern animal welfare concerns, analyzing their application within Malaysia’s legal context. It examines the challenges of harmonizing Islamic and civil legal approaches to animal protection, considering potential conflicts and synergies between these legal traditions. The research has significant implications for policymakers, legal practitioners, and religious scholars working to develop culturally appropriate animal protection laws within Malaysia’s unique legal and social framework.

Keywords: Animal welfare in Islam, Caning punishment, Malaysia’s dual legal system, Ta’zir in animal abuse cases.

INTRODUCTION

Statistics show an alarming increase in animal abuse cases in Malaysia. According to Harian Metro reports, cases of animal abuse and neglect in Malaysia have shown a concerning rise each year. The Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) reported 510 complaints of animal abuse cases received in 2020, increasing to 1,249 complaints in 2021, 1,580 complaints in 2022, 2,622 complaints in 2023, and as of June 2024, the number of case complaints stands at 2,166 (Harian Metro, 2024). According to Farahanim Mohd Esa (2018), most cases involve domestic pets, with dogs and cats being the primary victims. Research by the Malaysian Department of Veterinary Services reveals that the lack of effective law enforcement is one of the main factors in the increase of animal abuse cases (Ain-Maryam Zolkipli, 2022).

Malaysia’s unique dual legal system presents its own challenges in addressing the issue of animal abuse. While civil law provides a basic framework for animal protection through the Animal Welfare Act 2015, Shariah law offers different moral and ethical perspectives in the context of animal protection. The integration of both systems in addressing animal abuse issues requires a holistic approach that takes into account both legal aspects (Mohamed Azam & Ahmad Badri, 2016).

The differences in approach between these two legal systems have resulted in gaps in enforcement and punishment. A comparative study by Ashraf Bin Md. Hashim (2001) shows that civil courts tend to impose fines and imprisonment, while the Shariah perspective emphasizes rehabilitation and education aspects. Harmonizing these two approaches could produce a more effective system in preventing and punishing cases of animal abuse.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Dual Legal System in Malaysia

The presence of Islamic law in Malaysia dates back to the 13th century, evolving through the era of the Malay states before and after Western colonialism. British colonial influence shaped Malaysia’s legal landscape, introducing an English law-based system, such as the Civil Law Act 1956. After independence, Malaysia’s Islamic law underwent reforms to align with societal needs, resulting in a more organized and codified Islamic legal system today. An amendment to the Federal Constitution in 1988 under Article 121(1A) clarified the jurisdiction of the Shariah Courts, limiting interference from Civil Courts (Nur Sarah Tajul Urus, 2016).

The jurisdiction of Shariah Court is provided in List II, Ninth Schedule of the Federal Constitution which provides that the court has jurisdiction in matters concerning among other Islamic law and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam, succession, testate and intestate, betrothal, marriage, divorce, dower, maintenance, adoption, legitimacy guardianship, gifts, partitions and non- charitable trusts; wakafs, Malay customs. Zakat, Fitrah and Baitulmal, mosques or creation and punishment of offences by persons professing the religion of Islam against precepts of that religion.

The law stipulates that State Shariah criminal laws cannot override Federal criminal laws, as decided by the Federal Court of Malaysia on 25 February 2021 in Iki Putra Bin Mubarrak v. Selangor State Government. The ruling on the offence of unnatural sex affirmed that state shariah laws cannot override federal laws in criminal matters, and heavier punishments are imposed under federal law.

Across Malaysia, legislative bodies have the power to enact laws on criminal offences that contradict Islamic teachings. The courts, including in the case of Sulaiman bin Takrib v. Terengganu State Government, ruled that “Islamic teachings” encompass broad concepts, not just the five pillars of Islam. Therefore, the power to legislate offences remains subject to constitutional limits, as reaffirmed in the Iki Putra case.

Further proposed and implemented reforms include amendments to laws such as the National Land Code and laws related to Islamic banking and takaful to ensure compliance with both Islamic principles and existing civil law (Nur Sarah Tajul Urus, 2016).

Animal Abuse in the Legal Context of Malaysia

In Malaysia, particularly Peninsular Malaysia, animal abuse is primarily governed by the Animal Welfare Act 2015. A study by Ain-Maryam (2022) examined the relationship between the enforcement of this Act and the rise in animal abuse cases in Malaysia. Although the Act came into effect in December 2015 to impose heavier penalties on animal abuse offenders, insufficient enforcement has led to an increase in such cases (Ain-Maryam Zolkipli, 2022).

Animal abuse refers to any act causing pain, suffering, or injury to an animal, whether intentionally or through neglect. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2015, abuse includes beating, injuring, improper confinement, and failing to provide adequate food or water. Offenders can be fined not less than RM20,000 and not more than RM100,000, or imprisoned for up to three years, or both (Section 29, Animal Welfare Act 2015).

Before this Act, Malaysia relied on the Animals Act 1953, which was outdated and inadequate in protecting animals. With the introduction of Act 772, penalties became more stringent. Under the previous Act 647, penalties included a fine of RM200 or six months’ imprisonment or both (Section 44(1), Animals Act 1953). Additionally, animal abuse is also covered under the Penal Code in Sections 428 and 429, where the punishment depends on the value of the animal, with imprisonment ranging from two to five years or an unspecified fine or both.

In 2023, the Johor Bahru High Court overturned a caning sentence against an 18-year-old, Braden Yap Hong Sheng, accused of abusing and burning a dog. Initially sentenced to seven light strokes and one year of good behavior bond by the Sessions Court, his caning was scheduled for 21 May. However, High Court Judge Abu Bakar Katar ruled to cancel the caning while upholding the good behavior bond, citing Section 293 of the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for either caning or a good behavior bond—but not both—for young male offenders. The case, which gained attention due to its cruelty, led to a guilty plea under the Animal Welfare Act 2015, with a possible penalty of up to RM100,000 or a maximum of three years’ imprisonment (Amir Yusof, 2023).

Animal Abuse from the Perspective of Islamic Criminal Law

Islam generally mandates compassion (ihsan) toward all creatures, including animals. As stated by Allah SWT in Surah al-An’am, verse 38:

وَمَا مِن دَآبَّةٍۢ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ وَلَا طَـٰٓئِرٍۢ يَطِيرُ بِجَنَاحَيْهِ إِلَّآ أُمَمٌ أَمْثَالُكُم ۚ مَّا فَرَّطْنَا فِى ٱلْكِتَـٰبِ مِن شَىْءٍۢ ۚ ثُمَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِمْ يُحْشَرُونَ

“And there is no creature on [or within] the earth or bird that flies with its wings except [they are] communities like you. We have not neglected in the Book a thing. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.”

A hadith narrated by Syaddad bin Aus R.A states that the Prophet Muhammad S.A.W said:

‏ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَتَبَ الإِحْسَانَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَىْءٍ

“Verily Allah has prescribed ihsan (excellence) in all things.”

Another hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Umar R.A reports that the Prophet S.A.W said “A woman was punished because of a cat which she had confined until it died of starvation. She neither fed it nor let it go to feed on insects of the earth. As a result, she went to Hell.” These hadiths clearly show that Islamic law prohibits killing or abusing animals without valid justification. This religious perspective regards such acts as violations of animal rights, providing a moral and ethical foundation for legal protection (Colgin Ali Akbar Darwish, 2024).

The Qur’an and Sunnah advocate for the humane treatment of all living beings (Long et al., 2023). Although Islamic teachings emphasize compassion toward animals, the practical implementation of these principles often encounters socio-legal barriers. These challenges are primarily due to outdated legal frameworks and varying interpretations of Islamic law. For instance, in Pakistan, existing legislation does not adequately address contemporary issues related to animal welfare (Tahir et al., 2024). Similarly, in Indonesia, while animal abuse is legally recognized as a criminal offence, enforcement remains inconsistent, revealing a disconnect between legal provisions and their practical application (Rosyid, 2022). These complexities highlight the need for legal reform that harmonizes Islamic principles with the socio-legal realities of modern Muslim societies.

According to Fiqh Jinayah, when an offence is identified in the Quran and hadith without a specified punishment, it is categorized as a ta’zir offence. Ta’zir is a form of discretionary punishment imposed by authorities (ulil amri) and classified as a jarimah (offence). The Quran and Sunnah explicitly prohibit animal abuse, and the law regulates this. Judges are entrusted to determine the type and level of punishment for offenders based on relevant criminal laws (Salman Farizi, 2023).

Caning Sentences in Malaysia

Caning has been part of Malaysia’s legal system since colonial times and remains a recognized form of punishment within the criminal justice system. Its effectiveness as a deterrent remains a topic of debate among legal practitioners and policymakers. Mahaseth & Qureshi presented statistical evidence showing low crime rates in Singapore, Brunei, and Malaysia, attributed to the deterrent effect of caning. They argue that caning serves various purposes: retribution, deterrence, and discipline, aligning with judicial sentencing objectives (Mahaseth & Qureshi, 2022).

In civil law, caning is provided for under Sections 302, 376, and 377 of the Penal Code for serious crimes such as rape, sexual offences, and drug trafficking. Civil caning is carried out using a special rattan cane and is supervised by medical officers to ensure no serious injury, as mandated by Regulations 131-136 of the Prison Regulations 2000.

In Shariah law, caning applies to offences such as adultery (zina), false accusation (qazaf), and alcohol consumption, as provided in the Syariah Criminal Offences Enactments in various states (Farid Sufian Shuaib, 2012). In Malaysia’s Syariah law implementation is carried out in a controlled and dignified manner aligned with SOP Sebatan di Luar Penjara Bagi Pesalah Syariah  under Practice Direction No 11 Year 2023, distinctly different from civil law caning according to Persatuan Peguam Muslim Malaysia (PPMM). (Aziz, 2024).

A recent case in Terengganu drew attention when a carpenter was caned six times at a mosque in the Terengganu capital on 27 December 2024 for a repeated Islamic crime of close proximity with a non-family member of the opposite sex (Aziz, 2024). The Terengganu Syariah High Court had on Nov 24 sentenced the offender to six strokes of the cane after he pleaded guilty to committing khalwat for the third time. He had been fined and received four strokes of the cane, in private, for two earlier khalwat offences in 2023 and 2024 (Hassan and Annuar, 2024).

As a form of punitive justice, caning is seen as an appropriate punishment for animal abuse. Its effectiveness is observed through lower recidivism among offenders who have undergone caning, as shown in a study by Nasimah Hussin (2011), based on crime statistics from 2005 to 2009. The data highlighted the significant number of victims affected by serious crimes, underscoring the need to address their rights and concerns within the punitive justice framework.

Further, it has been addressed by the Director of Wildlife Department in 2020, Datuk Abdul Kadir Abu Hashim (Zainudin, 2020) as well as the Chief of Police in 2019, Datuk Seri Abdul Hamid Bador that a stricter punishment for animal related offenders such as caning should be introduced in the written law (BERNAMA, 2019).

Caning for Animal Crimes in Other Countries

Caning has been implemented as a preventive mechanism for animal protection in Aceh, Indonesia, but it has received criticism at the national level, and its effectiveness in the context of animal protection laws remains debatable. One major challenge is the complexity of integrating various legal systems within Indonesia’s culturally and religiously diverse society (Muhammad Yusuf et al., 2023).

The Principle of Ta’zir

Ta’zir refers to punishments not explicitly stated in the Quran or Hadith, allowing judges to exercise discretion based on public interest and justice. The main objectives of ta’zir include upholding justice, maintaining social order, rehabilitating offenders, and protecting human rights within the Islamic legal framework (Ahmad Syarbaini, 2023). Al-Lozi, A. A. (2013), in his study, outlined the aims of ta’zir punishment in Shariah, including deterrence and preventing reoffending. He cited scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah, who emphasized the importance of legitimate punishment in crime prevention.

Caning falls under the category of ta’zir, where the government has the authority to enact and enforce punishments for offences not covered by hudud or qisas. This approach provides flexibility in the legal system to address various offences in line with contemporary contexts and societal needs (Hanifah & Nasimah, 2021). As a form of ta’zir punishment, caning reflects a complex aspect of Islamic law, combining traditional practice with contemporary legal interpretation. Judges are given wide discretion to determine appropriate punishments based on the seriousness of the offence. This approach enables the Islamic judiciary to respond to modern societal needs while maintaining core Islamic justice principles (Hisamudin & Naqibulla, 2023).

The Principle of Ta’zir in Malaysia’s General Law

Most Muslims in Malaysia support the implementation of caning, viewing it as an effective crime deterrent and a means to uphold Islamic values. This support reflects public awareness of the importance of balancing justice and rehabilitation in the legal system (Hanifah & Nasimah, 2021). A research paper by Mohamed Azam & Ahmad Badri (2016) discussed the application of ta’zir principles in Malaysia’s legal system while considering maqasid syariah. Within Malaysia’s judicial discretion framework, ongoing debates address the role of judges, particularly regarding discretionary powers in cases without specific legislation. The integration of Islamic principles, particularly ta’zir, is proposed as a guiding principle for judges, enabling decisions aligned with legal and ethical standards. The concept of maqasid al-shariah, or the higher objectives of Islamic law, is highlighted as a framework to guide judicial decisions (Mohamed Azam & Ahmad Badri, 2016).

In Malaysia, judges have broad discretionary powers in determining punishments, including caning, under both civil and Shariah legal systems. This discretion allows them to tailor sentences based on the severity of the offence, the offender’s background, and other mitigating factors (Kloos & Berenschot, 2016).The absence of clear sentencing guidelines often results in inconsistency in court decisions (Muzammil Quraishi, 2020). For specific offences such as adultery and alcohol consumption under Shariah law, caning is provided for, but its implementation depends on the judge’s discretion and public response. For example, in the case of Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno, the original caning sentence for alcohol consumption was replaced with community service due to public pressure and official considerations (Kloos & Berenschot, 2016). This reflects how external factors such as public pressure and social perception can influence judicial sentencing.

The Islamisation movement in Malaysia has led to increased use of caning, reflecting greater public acceptance of physical punishment within the Shariah legal system (Muzammil Quraishi, 2020). Although civil law also provides for caning in serious offences such as rape and armed robbery, its implementation differs from the Shariah system. When imposing caning sentences, judges often balance punitive and rehabilitative goals. This is particularly evident in juvenile cases, where the impact of the punishment on the offender’s rehabilitation is considered (Daleleer Kaur, 2022). In this context, the concept of proportionality—matching the punishment to the severity of the offence—becomes a key factor in ensuring the effectiveness of caning as a deterrent and rehabilitative measure.

The procedure for canning for Shariah Court is provided under sections 125 and 126 of the Syariah Criminal Offences. (Selangor) Enactment 1995. The court has the power to impose canning using a stroke or stick not more than 1.22 meters in length and not more than 1.25 centimeters in width. The maximum number of canning is six which is in line with the Islamic principle that canning should not be more than ten canning as this will exceed the number of canning provided under hudud offences based on Hadith by  (Ismail, 1993) This is in accordance with a hadith narrated by Abi Burdah al-Ansari R.Anha, where the Prophet PBUH said:

لَا يُجْلَدُ فَوْقَ عَشَرَةِ أَسْوَاطٍ إِلَّا فِي حَدِّ مِنْ حُدُودِ اَللَّهِ

“No more than ten lashes are to be given except when inflicting one of the Hudud (prescribed punishments) of Allah.” Sahih al-Bukhari (6456) ( (Pejabat Mufti Wilayah Persekutuan, n.d.)

METHODOLOGY

This study employs a doctrinal research approach, which, according to Nasir Majeed et al. (2023), is suitable for analyzing law from theoretical and conceptual perspectives. It involves systematic analysis of both primary and secondary sources related to animal abuse within the context of Islamic law and Malaysia’s dual legal system. Primary sources include the Quran and Hadith, with particular focus on verses and traditions addressing animal welfare and human responsibilities toward God’s creations (Sira Abdul Rahman, 2017). The study also examines existing Malaysian legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2015 and relevant provisions in Shariah law. Comparative analysis with other Islamic jurisdictions, especially those with similar legal systems, offers insights into the implementation of punishments such as whipping in Malaysia (Mahaseth & Qureshi, 2022). This doctrinal method allows for the integration of textual and contextual analysis, helping identify legal gaps and propose Shariah-based, practical solutions within the modern legal framework.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Research Findings

This study presents several key findings that address the questions and objectives regarding the application of whipping (caning) as punishment for animal abuse under Malaysia’s dual legal system.

Islamic Legal Perspective on Whipping for Animal Abuse

Islam mandates compassion towards animals and forbids cruelty. Based on Quranic verses and Hadiths (e.g., Al-An’am 6:38; Sahih Muslim; Sahih Bukhari), animal abuse contradicts Islamic teachings. Though no specific punishment is prescribed, the Islamic concept of ta’zir allows authorities to determine appropriate penalties, including whipping. This aligns with the objectives of maqasid syariah, particularly in preserving life and social harmony. Some Islamic countries like Indonesia have considered whipping for moral or welfare-related crimes, though its effectiveness remains debated.

Judicial Discretion in Malaysia

Judges in both civil and Shariah courts have broad discretion. In Shariah law, whipping is often imposed for offenses like adultery or alcohol consumption. However, the lack of sentencing guidelines leads to inconsistent rulings. For example, public pressure influenced the reduction of a whipping sentence in the Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno case to community service. Similarly, the reversal of punishment in Braden Yap Hong Sheng’s animal abuse case illustrates social factors’ impact on justice.

Challenges and Implications

Three major challenges are identified:

• Jurisdictional Conflict: Animal abuse is governed by the Animal Welfare Act 2015 (civil law), making it difficult to integrate Shariah principles. Further, it does not fall under the Shariah Court jurisdiction as listed in List II, 9^th Schedule of the Federal Constitution.
• Human Rights Concerns: Whipping is often criticized as cruel, demanding strong justification rooted in Islamic justice principles.
• Enforcement Issues: Rising animal abuse cases suggest enforcement weaknesses, indicating that implementation strategies must be carefully designed.

Nevertheless, if implemented with clear procedures aligned with both Islamic principles and human rights standards, whipping could serve as an effective deterrent.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Animal abuse is increasingly gaining attention in Malaysia, highlighting the need for legal reform to enhance protection. Given Malaysia’s dual legal system, harmonizing civil and Shariah approaches is essential.

• Amend the Animal Welfare Act 2015: Incorporate Islamic elements, such as ta’zir-based punishments into the Animal Welfare Act. Utilizing the discretionary power of judges in sentencing caning punishment and making it compulsory for caning or whipping to be part of the sentence to encourage deterrence. This would strengthen prevention and education, avoiding reversals like in the Braden Yap and Kartika Sari cases. It positions penalties as not just punitive, but also rehabilitative and educational.
• Foster Civil-Shariah Court Collaboration: Enable Shariah perspectives in civil cases involving Muslim offenders through special legal provisions. This ensures Islamic justice principles are considered, promoting legal harmony.
• Enhance Education and Awareness: Promote Islamic teachings on animal welfare via religious institutions, schools, and media. Increasing awareness of animals as respected beings in Islam may reduce abuse without over-reliance on punishment.

CONCLUSION

Implementing whipping for animal abuse in Malaysia could be a preventive mechanism. However, it requires further legal, practical, and social research to ensure alignment with Islamic justice and Malaysia’s legal framework. Integrating legislative reform, inter-court collaboration, and public education is key to comprehensive and effective animal protection.

Conflict Of Interest

The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest related to this article.

Copyright And Licensing

All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), permitting unrestricted use, sharing, and reproduction of the work with proper attribution.

REFERENCES

1. Abas, A., & Hussin, N. (2017). Community Service Order as Alternative Punishment in Syariah Court: An Analysis. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 25, 241-250.
2. Ain-Maryam Zolkipli, ‘The Influence of Animal Welfare Act 2015 Enforcement on The Rise of Animal Cruelty Cases in Malaysia’ (2022) 7(12) Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), e001955. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v7i12.1955.
3. Animal Act 1953 (Act 647).
4. Animal Welfare Act 2015 (Act 772).
5. Al-Lozi, A. A. ‘Special deterrence in the “Ta’zir” crimes (misdemeanors and infractions), and its impact on the offender rehabilitation between Shariah and law in Egypt, Jordan and Bahrain’ (2013) 15(1), Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, p 29-33. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JLPG/article/download/6883/6992.
6. Al-Qur’an, Al-An’am 6:38.
7. Amir Yusof, ‘Teenager who set dog on fire in Johor eludes public caning after High Court overturns sentence’, 21 May 2023, Channel News Asia. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/teenager-who-set-dog-fire-johor-eludes-public-caning-after-high-court-overturns-sentence-3504091.
8. Ashraf Bin Md. Hashim, ‘Tahap Pembuktian di dalam Kes-Kes Jenayah: Kajian Perbandingan Antara Undang-Undang Islam dan Sivil’ (2001) 9(2) Journal Syariah, p 13-32.
9. Aziz, I. H. (2024, December 27). Sebatan syariah ditohmah sebagai kejam, apa kata PPMM. Berita Harian. https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/nasional/2024/12/1341841/sebatan-syariah-ditohmah-sebagai-kejam-apa-kata-ppmm
10. (2019, September 4). PDRM cadang hukuman sebat mandatori terhadap penjenayah hidupan liar. Utusan Borneo Online. https://www.utusanborneo.com.my/2019/09/04/pdrm-cadang-hukuman-sebat-mandatori-terhadap-penjenayah-hidupan-liar
11. Colgin Ali Akbar Darwish. ‘Crimes against Animals’ (2024) 3(7) Journal of Ecohumanism (Transnational Press London), https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v3i7.4387.
12. Daleleer Kaur Randawar, Muhammad Izwan Ikhsan, & Faridah Monil, ‘Sentencing Child Offenders in Malaysia: When Practice Meets its Purpose’ (2022) 12(7), International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, p 1226-1236.
13. Faisal Yahya, Husni Mubarrak, Harjoni, Muhammad Rasyid Ridha, & Amir Muhammed Kafei Kjoor, ‘Merebut Tafsiran Otoritatif Keagamaan; Perdebatan dan Controversy Prosesi Hukuman Ta’zir Cambuk di Lapas Aceh’ (2024) 16(1), Jurisprudensi, p 180-194.
14. Farahanim Mohd Esa, ‘Menangani Kes Penderaan Haiwan di Malaysia’, BERNAMA, 27 Ogos 2018, https://www.bernama.com/bm/news.php?id=1636346.
15. Farid Sufian Shuaib, ‘The Islamic Legal System in Malaysia’ (2012) 21(1) Washington International Law Journal – Special Issue: Islamic Law and Islamic Legal Professionals in Southeast Asia, p 85.
16. Hadis Riwayat Al-Bukhari (2365).
17. Hadis Riwayat Muslim (1955).
18. Hanifah Haydar Ali Tajuddin & Nasimah Hussin, Islamic Law in Malaysia: The Challenges of Implementation, Springer, Singapore, 2021, p 29 – 42.
19. Harian Metro, ‘Kes penderaan, pengabaian haiwan meningkat setiap tahun’, Harian Metro, Julai 2024, https://www.hmetro.com.my/mutakhir/2024/07/1116205/kes-penderaan-pengabaian-haiwan-meningkat-setiap-tahun.
20. Hassan, H. and Annuar, A. (2024, December 28). Public caning of carpenter in Terengganu over Syariah offence splits conservative Muslims, rights groups. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/public-caning-of-carpenter-in-terengganu-over-syariah-offence-splits-conservative-muslims-rights
21. Hisamudin Rahimzai & Naqibulla Mushfiq, ‘Ta’zir Punishment and Delegated Authority in Accordance with Islamic Jurisprudence and Afghanistan’s Enacted Laws’ (2023) 3(5), Integrated Journal for Research in Arts and Humanities, p 1-14.
22. Husni Mubarrak, Faisal Yahya & Iskandar Iskandar, ‘Contestation on Religious Interpretation in Contemporary Aceh Sharīa: Public Caning in Prison as the Case of Study’ (2023) 22(2), Jurnal Ilmiah Syari’ah, p 213-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.31958/juris.v22i2.10258.
23. Iki Putra Bin Mubarrak V. Kerajaan Negeri Selangor [2021] 2 MLJ 323.
24. Kanun Keseksaan (Akta 574).
25. Kloos, K., & Berenschot, W., Citizenship and Democratization in Southeast Asia, Brill, 2016.
26. Mahaseth, H., & Qureshi, S. ‘The Legality of Caning in Singapore’ (2022) 13, UUM Journal of Legal Studies, https://doi.org/10.32890/uumjls2022.13.2.3.
27. Long, A. S., Razick, A. S., & Saujan, I. (2023). Islamic Law on Animal Rights and Welfare in the Sri Lankan Context: An Islamic Analysis on the Animal Welfare Bill of 2006. Samarah : Journal Hukum Keluarga Dan Hukum Islam, 7(2), 1194. https://doi.org/10.22373/sjhk.v7i2.16020
28. Mohamed Azam Mohamed Adil & Ahmad Badri Abdullah, ‘The Application of Shariah Principles of Ta’zir In Malaysian Common Law: A Maqasid-based Proposal’ (2016) 7(1) Islam and Civilisational Renewal, p 47–64.
29. Muhammad Yusuf, Muhammad Habibi MZ & Dedy Sumardi, ‘Initiative of Caning Punishment for Perpetrators of Wildlife Killing in Aceh Province, Indonesia’ (2023) 25(1), Kanun Journal Ilmu Hukum, p 205-224.
30. Muzammil Quraishi, Case Study 2: The Detention of Sharī’ah Offenders in Pusat Pemulihan Akidah (Islamic Rehabilitation Centres) in Malaysia – in Towards a Malaysian Criminology: Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2020, p 117-140.
31. U. (A) 325/2000 Peraturan-Peraturan Penjara 2000, Akta Penjara 1995 (Akta 537).
32. Rosyid, M. (2022). Animal Abuse in the Perspective of Positive Legal and Islamic Criminal Law. Walisongo Law Review, 4(2), 161–192. https://doi.org/10.21580/walrev.2022.4.2.13093
33. Sulaiman bin Takrib v Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu [2009] 6 MLJ 354.
34. Tahir, M. R., Azam, A., Azeem, H. M., & Jabbar, B. A. (2024). Safeguarding Animal Welfare: Understanding Laws and Animal Rights in Islam. القمر 135–152. https://doi.org/10.53762/alqamar.07.02.e07
35. Zainudin, F. (2020, August 19). Perhilitan cadang sebat pemburu haram selain denda RM1 juta. Free Malaysia Today. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/2020/08/19/perhilitan-cadang-sebat-pemburu-haram-selain-denda-rm1-juta