“Most of us retain enough of the theological attitude to think that we are little gods.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.I want to talk about something that I believe is very important: "To create a group & movement (voice), that will push for a secular state & separation of religion and state." This group could be a combination of NGOs, Political Parties, Civil Society groups & independent citizens. Moderate, liberal & progressive Muslims are most welcome & needed. Don't worry, we will back you up & given time, patience & persistence, the movement will grow.
Looking at what has transpired in the last few years, this body could be a strong voice that pushes for this just & fair cause to become a reality. With the ultimate goal being the protection of human rights (all the ethnic groups in Malaysia), justice, liberty & freedom. For balance, social, competitive, economic, etc. development & growth.
As I have mentioned before, I am no expert in any 1 religion, though I did study Comparative Religion in detail during my college years. I have taken excerpts from a few articles on the net. I highly recommend that you read the full articles. Let me get those from Wikipedia out of the way first.
from Wikipedia:
An Islamic party is a party that works for promoting Islam while an Islamic political party is a political party that promotes Islam as a political movement by offering nominees for election in a democracy - of which there are several in the Islamic world.
from Wikipedia:
Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[1] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.
Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".
A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.
Some democratic political parties and other organizations advocate reconstruction of governments as theocracies. See the article on the Islamic party.from Wikipedia:
Islamic Republic is the name given to several states in the Muslim world including the Islamic Republics of Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Mauritania. Pakistan adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. Mauritania on 28 November 1958. Iran adopted it after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that overthrew the Pahlavi monarchy. Afghanistan after the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban. Despite the similar name the countries differ greatly in their governments and laws.
The term "Islamic republic" has come to mean several different things, some contradictory to others. Theoretically, to many religious leaders, it is a state under a particular theocratic form of government advocated by some Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East and Africa. It is seen as a compromise between a purely Islamic Caliphate, and secular nationalism and republicanism. In their conception of the Islamic republic, the penal code of the state is required to be compatible with some laws of Sharia, and not a monarchy as many Middle Eastern states are presently. In other cases, it is merely a symbol of cultural identity, as was the case when Pakistan adopted the title under the constitution of 1956. In fact many argue that an Islamic Republic strikes a middle path between a completely secular and a theocratic (and/or Orthodox Islamic) system of government.
Iran's Islamic republic is in contrast to the semi-secular state of the Republic of Pakistan (proclaimed as an Islamic Republic in 1956) where Islamic laws are technically considered to override laws of the state, though in reality their relative hierarchy is ambiguous.
Pakistan was the first country to adopt Islamic prefix to define its republican status under the otherwise secular constitution of 1956. Interestingly enough, despite this definition, the country did not have state religion till 1973, when a new constitution, more democratic but less secular, was adopted. Pakistan only uses the "Islamic" name on its passports and visas. All government documents are prepared under the name of the Government of Pakistan, however, Islamic republic is specifically mentioned in the Constitution of 1973.
Today, the creation of an Islamic State is the rallying cry for many Muslims, including those described as Islamists, all over the world.from Wikipedia:
A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. Practically, a state without a state religion is called a secular state.
from Wikipedia:
Most Islamists consider the Western concept of separation of Church and State to be rebellion against God's law, but some moderate and liberal Muslims in India, Indonesia, Turkey and the Arab world are demanding such a separation. In Europe and North America, a number of Muslim organisations have the demand for secular democracy in their mission statements. There is a contemporary debate in Islam whether obedience to Islamic law is ultimately compatible with the Western secular pattern, which separates religion from civic life. However, some majority Muslim nations are secular, such as Turkey, Senegal, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Azerbaijan.
The Medieval Muslim scholar Averroes holds the view that reason and revelation do not conflict, but rather independently lead to the same truth. However, only reason provides demonstrative proofs. Averroes wrote commentaries on most Aristotelian works and defended him against allegations of self-contradiction and unbelief. Averroes himself did not consider religious institutions as separate from the state.
from Wikipedia:
The term ‘almaniyyai> acquired a bad connotation in the Muslim world after the establishment of an un-religious political system in Turkey (1924), which was described as laique (secular), and ever since it has been associated with irreligion. Nowadays it is equated with atheism in the mind of Islamists, using it to compel their political adversaries.[6]
Thus Secularism in the Middle East is both a word of disbelief and Western intervention. However the truth is that the acceptance of the enlightened notion of separation of religion and state and the debate over “reason” (in Islam) has been ongoing for centuries.
Secularism in Turkey was both dramatic and far reaching as it filled the vacuum of the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. With the country getting down Mustafa Kemal Atatürk led a political and cultural revolution to restore his country. “Official Turkish modernity took shape basically through a negation of the Islamic Ottoman system and the adoption of a west-oriented mode of modernization, but a la turca.”> id="cite_ref-13" class="reference">[14]
In 1924 Atatürk’s Revolution brought Islamic authority under the full and absolute control of the secular state. The institutionalization of secularism involved bringing all religious activity under the direct control of the secular state.
• The abolition of the Caliphate.
• Religious lodges and Sufi orders were banned.
• A secular civil code was adopted to replace the previous codes based on Islamic law (shari’a) outlawing all forms of polygamy, annulled religious marriages, granted equal rights to men and women, in matters of inheritance, marriage and divorce.
• The religious court system and institutions of religious education were abolished.
• The use of religion for political purposes was banned.
• The article that defined the Turkish state as Islamic was removed from the constitution, and the alphabet was changed from Arabic to Roman ones.
• A portion of religious activity was moved to the Turkish language including the Adhan (call to prayer) which lasted till 1950. [15].
Throughout the twentieth century the secular Turkish nationalism was continually challenged by Islamists, ikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_people" title="Kurdish people">Kurdish people and Marxist movements. And, although most Turkish citizens still are in favor of secularism, political Islamists and neo fundamentalists are gaining ground since the mid eighties, such as the Refah Party. These groups oppose laws that limit religious teachings and forbid the external display of religious symbols, including the headscarf in public spheres.[16]
Despite Military coups in the last thirty years(1960, 1971,1980), the existence of a Turkish secular democracy (Turkey is one of the rare Islamic countries with free elections involving multiple parties and freedom of speech)is supported by discussion of Turkey joining the European Union. [17].
from Wikipedia:
Islamists strongly believe that in Islam religion and politics cannot be separated and think that the Quran and Hadith are the primary sources for a state. "Islam is a religion and a state" (Islam din wa dawla). So, In order to discredit those who oppose their struggle to establish a true Islamic state they attributed the term secularism to jahiliyya (paganism), Kufr (unbelief), Irtidad (apostasy) and atheism. [36]“Those who participated in secular politics were raising the flag of revolt against Allah and his messenger.
The Saudi ulama, for instance, denounce secularism as strictly prohibited in Islamic tradition. The Saudi Arabian Directorate of Ifta', Preaching and Guidance, has issued a directive decreeing that whoever believes that there is a guidance (huda) more perfect than that of the Prophet, or that someone else's rule is better than his is a kafir.
It lists a number of specific tenets which would be regarded as a serious departure from the precepts of Islam, punishable according to Islamic law for example:
• The belief that human made laws and constitutions are superior to the Shari'a.
• The opinion that Islam is limited to one's relation with God, and has nothing to do with the daily affairs of life.
• To disapprove of the application of the hudud (legal punishments decreed by God) that they are incompatible in the modern age.
• And whoever allows what God has prohibited is a kafir.
For this very reason secularism would undermine Islam's basic principles. In the words of Tariq al-Bishri, "secularism and Islam cannot agree except by means of talfiq [combining the doctrines of more than one school, i.e., falsification], or by each turning away from its true meaning."
Consequently, Secularists have been vilified, threatened, beaten and even murdered by militant Islamists. For example the case of Faraj Foda who was accused by Islamists of being an apostate from Islam, and agent of Western powers and culture which resulted in his assassination. "The killing of Faraj Foda was in fact the implementation of the punishment against an apostate, which the State has failed to implement."
from Wikipedia:
There are a number of intellectuals who are debating whether the polar opposites of secularism or religious rule are indeed the right blend for successful government and believe that a common ground can be found.
So, Unlike authors such as Bernard Lewis who have argued that Arab-Muslim is incompatible with democracy because concepts associated with democracy like the separation of religion from state, representative government and freedom are unknown within Islam and the Arab political tradition.(kedourie1994; Lewis1993)[48],others like Dr. Muhammad Imara (a prolific writer on Islamic matters)suggest that Secularism may not be incompatible with Islam"We do not reject secularism because it has been imported from the West. We need only examine our circumstances in light of our Islamic religion and its nature, to find out whether secularism would mean progress for us in the same way it did for Europe, or whether it would prove to be inappropriate and harmful[49]
Many of the key figures in Islamic modernisation are practicing Islam and seek to rationalise Islamic law and values with the modern world which places them in the doubly difficult position of being between Nationalist Dictators, Monarchs or on the other hand Islamists who reject any discourse as heresy.
Main points of discussion:
• There is nothing un-Islamic about separating religion from state affairs.[50]
• The Sharia was a flexible system which could adapt and use reason.[51]
• Only Muhammad could rule by divine right and even he consulted with others whilst making decisions thus providing a precedent for democratic process and change.[52]
• The concept of a divine empowered caliph or religious leader is as much of an innovation as secularism and a notion imported from Catholicism.[53]
• That the pinnacle or Middle Eastern and Islamic civilisation was based on Islam being the religion of progress, intellect and scientific endeavour. [54]
from Wikipedia:
Progressive Muslims have produced a considerable body of liberal thoughts within Islam[1][2] (in Arabic: الإسلام الاجتهادي or "interpretation-based Islam", and الإسلام التقدمي or "progressive Islam"; but some consider progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements [3]). These movements share a philosophy that depends largely on ijtihad.[4] Liberal Muslims do not necessarily subscribe to the traditional Muslim interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith. They generally claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Ummah and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture.[5] The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."[6]
from Islam in the West:
'Islamophobia' Idiocy, Amir Taheri (Iranian atheist), July 3, 2007 - "Britain and a few other Western democracies are the only places on earth where Muslims of all persuasions can practice their faith in full freedom. A thick directory of Muslim institutions in Britain lists more than 300 different sects - most of them banned and persecuted in every Muslim country on earth. A Shiite Muslim can't build a mosque in Cairo; his Sunni brother can't have a mosque of his own in Tehran. Editions of the Koran printed in Egypt or Saudi Arabia are seized as contraband in Iran; Egypt and most other Muslim nations in turn ban the import of Korans printed in Iran. The works of a majority of Muslim writers and philosophers are banned in most Muslim countries. In Britain, all mosques are allowed; no Muslim author or philosopher is banned."
Since the 1950s, Islam has been growing in the West, mainly by immigration. Most immigrants come to the West precisely because they support its freedoms and want to escape failed states ruled by clerics and Islamic dictators. We have a duty to let these freedom-loving Muslims in. There is an upside to doing so:
- Western Muslims are the most liberal, tolerant, pro-democracy Muslims in the world. All the dissidents are here - the religious dissidents, the political dissidents, the feminist dissidents, and the gay dissidents. All the dissident works - such as criticism of Islam and Islamism - are published in the West.
- There is an argument that if there is ever to be an Islamic Reformation, it will come from the western Muslims, who are free to speak and question, rather than from the Muslims living in unfree states.
But there is a substantial minority (10-20 percent) of immigrants who threaten our western freedoms. What to do about these aggressors is one of the questions of our time.
Islamic fundamentalism is under siege in its home countries, and will eventually lose out to democracy and freedom. The idea that Islamic fundamentalist immigrants could come to the West and eventually threaten our freedoms I find a bit far-fetched. Let in freedom-lovers, exclude freedom-haters. Deport freedom-haters.
In a free society, we tolerate citizens who hate tolerance and want to end it. We have free speech for people who want to end free speech. But what if there is a growing number of such people who want to end freedom? My response would be that we should still have free speech, but a free society has every right to try to survive. It must do everything possible to reduce the numbers of such people. Quotes from Australian leaders: "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you."
Importing Muslims means inevitably importing some jihadis. Even if you only let in freedom-loving, democracy-loving Muslims (as discussed above), their children may be jihadis. This seems to be the case with the London bombings. (attempt to blow up plane with liquids 2006, Uyghurs attempt to blow up Chinese airlines)
Tragically, it seems that the second London bombing attack was by refugees, on the country that took them in. They came to Britain as child refugees from war-torn Africa. And they repaid British generosity by trying to slaughter its people.
I have no answer for this. If the war against the jihad escalates, we may have to stop all Muslim immigration, including those fleeing persecution. I hope to god it never comes to this awful scenario.
There are millions of Muslims and lapsed Muslims in the west who believe in democracy and freedom, and are in the west precisely because they do not wish to live under Islamic law.At the same time, many Muslim leaders promoted by the media as "moderate" Muslims turn out to be anything but. Sometimes, hate-filled extremist jihadis, such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, are simply described as "moderate". More often, "moderates" turn out to be religious ultra-conservatives who have crackpot views on Israel and America, and who seem incapable of condemning Islamism. Certainly, nobody who believes in Islamic law, or subscribes in any way to Islamism, could possibly be described as a "moderate". Nobody who supports attacks on Israeli civilians could possibly be described as a "moderate". Any time I hear the left describe some Muslim, such as Tariq Ramadan, as a "moderate", I now assume they are lying.
Naser Khader: "My modest hopes are to create the determining factors needed to create a reformation and enlightenment for Islam. That may sound ambitious. But the people who are needed to create the conditions needed for that are us - the Moslems of the West. My ambitions are - apart from making integration less painful - to show that Islam and democracy can be made to be compatible. If the Moslems of the West can not reform Islam, nobody can."
Kamran Tahmasebi: "It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago. as a parent I feel a responsibility to fight, so that my children will not have to live under Islamist dogmas. They shall be able to live free in this country. Mr Tahmasebi adds that he believes the imams are one of the biggest problems Denmark is facing today. Indeed, there are indications that the main culprits for the integration problems are the imams, who tend to be much more extremist than many of the ordinary Muslims."
Just as the Irish in Britain were of little use against the IRA, and just as the "good Germans" were of little use in WW2, so western Muslims will be of little use in this war. They don't like the jihad, but will make no attempt to fight it, and have only criticism for those who do.
10 percent of western Muslims will help fight this war. 10 percent will fight for the enemy. 80 percent will sit on the fence, and then, when the war is over, will be perfectly happy with the allied victory.
The evil jihadi killer Mohammed Bouyeri - grew up in one of the world's freest and most tolerant societies, won after hundreds of years of struggle, yet rejected it and turned to medieval hatred and religious fascism. Unfortunately, instead of leaving and going to some tyrannical hellhole where he would be happy, he stuck around Holland and tried to attack it.
Briefly, criticising people's genes is wrong. You can't change your genes. You can't help being born white, black, Arab, or whatever.
But criticising people's memes is ok - indeed it is what free speech is all about. You can change your memes. Being born an Arab Muslim doesn't mean you can't adopt western values, be tolerant of gays, Jews and atheists, even abandon Islam altogether. how does one tell the difference between criticism of the supernatural meme of Judaism and simple anti-semitism? The trick, I think, is that criticism should be optimistic and positive. It should be done with respect for the people, and hope that they change to other memes. Instead of saying: "Followers of meme X are evil and we should fear them" it is far better to say that: "Followers of meme X should abandon it and adopt better memes". It should always be done with an open respect for freedom of religion - namely, the right of the person to ignore your criticism and carry on believing in their memes freely.
The optimistic, positive message to Arabs and Muslims is that they should abandon the culture of their ancestors, and adopt something better. I have abandoned the culture of my ancestors, and adopted something better. So have millions of other people, such as the Indian Ibn Warraq and the Iranians Ali Sina and Amir Taheri.
I'd rather end on an optimistic note. I don't think Islamic fundamentalism is going to triumph in the west. I think democracy is going to triumph in the Islamic world. I think Islamic fundamentalism is far more under threat than western ideas are. Which is not to say that Islamic fundamentalists won't cause a lot more death before they exit history. But exit they will, just as the entire, bloodthirsty Christian medieval world is gone. Just as the entire Soviet world is gone. Democracy is unstoppable!
from: Samuel Shahid had this to say, in regards to the Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State:
Recently a few books have been written about the rights of non-Muslims who are subjugated to the rule of the Islamic law. Most of these books presented the Islamic view in a favorable fashion, without unveiling the negative facet inherited in these laws.
In Conclusion; This study shows us that non-Muslims are not regarded as citizens by any Islamic state, even if they are original natives of the land. To say otherwise is to conceal the truth. Justice and equality require that any Christian Pakistani, Melanesian, Turk, or Arab be treated as any other citizen of his own country. He deserves to enjoy the same privileges of citizenship regardless of religious affiliation. To claim that Islam is the true religion and to accuse other religions of infidelity is a social, religious and legal offense against the People of the Book.
Christians believe that their religion is the true religion of God and Islam is not. Does that mean that Great Britain, which is headed by a Queen, the head of the Anglican Church, should treat its Muslim subjects as a second class? Moreover, why do Muslims in the West enjoy all freedoms allotted to all citizens of these lands, while Muslim countries do not allow native Christians the same freedom? Muslims in the West build mosques, schools, and educational centers and have access to the media without any restriction. They publicly advertise their activities and are allowed to distribute their Islamic materials freely, while native Christians of any Islamic country are not allowed to do so. Why are Christians in the West allowed to embrace any religion they wish without persecution while a person who chooses to convert to another religion in any Islamic country, is considered an apostate and must be killed if he persists in his apostasy? These questions and others are left for readers to ponder.
from: Farish A. Noor: Is Malaysia Going Down the Road of Pakistan? (18 July, 2007)
The recent announcement made by the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Tun Razak, to the effect that ‘we (Malaysia) are an Islamic state’ is mind-boggling to say the least. Speaking during a conference in Kuala Lumpur on the theme of ‘The Role of Islamic States in a Globalised World’, the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that Malaysia has ‘never been affiliated’ to a secular position that that Malaysia’s development ‘has been driven by our adherence to the fundamentals of Islam’. (Bernama, 17 July 2007)
There is ample historical data to show that the opposite was the case, and that the forefathers of the Malaysian nation – from Tunku Abdul Rahman to his own father Tun Razak and Hussein Onn – were keen to ensure that Malaysia remained a constitutional democracy where the state would play the role of honest broker and govern a Malaysian public that was multi-racial and multi-confessional.
The comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister would suggest a totalising discourse that fails to take into account the pluralism that is at the heart of the Malaysian nation and nation-building project.
It is therefore not surprising to think that this was yet another case of a Malay-Muslim politician playing to the Malay-Muslim gallery the way that so many other Malay politicians have done in the past. After all, the declaration of Malaysia as an Islamic state was made earlier by former Prime Minister Mahathir; and it was also Mahathir and his former Deputy Anwar Ibrahim who spearheaded the Islamisation programme in Malaysia in the 1980s, taking the country further from its secular constitutional roots and towards a more communitarian register on the basis of Malay-Muslim identity politics.
At this crucial stage in Malaysian history where the Constitution has all but been forgotten, it would be wise to reflect on the mistakes made by other Muslim leaders elsewhere who have brought their countries to the brink of ruin by playing the ‘Islam card’. One country that comes to mind is Pakistan, which today is black-listed as a den of terrorism and has been cast as a pariah state internationally. Yet Pakistan’s slippery slide towards violent sectarian religious politics was not started by conservative Mullahs or even the military dictator General Zia ul Haq, but the secular leader Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
As soon as he came to power in 1971 Zulfikar Ali Bhutto launched his own ‘people’s revolution’ in Pakistan. While preaching his ideology of ‘Islamic Socialism’ (which Muammar Ghadaffi of Libya also claimed as his idea) Bhutto announced the immediate nationalisation of ten major industries, including iron and steel, basic metals, heavy engineering, petrochemicals and motor vehicles. Bhutto also introduced new legislation that was meant to improve the working conditions of the country’s illiterate and backward workers and peasants. These reforms were inspired in part by the example set by Colonel Muammar Ghadaffi of Libya, and Bhutto’s close contacts with China. During his trips to China, Bhutto had been advised by Mao Tze-Tung and Chao En-Lai to set up a ‘people’s army’ that would support his nationalisation project. The sudden and unexpected nationalisation caused the country’s already weakened economy to collapse completely, sending the stock market downwards and causing the flight of capital from the country.
Fearful of losing the support of the population, Bhutto then began to play the Islamic card as well. He assured the Islamist leaders that his own brand of ‘Islamic Socialism’ had nothing no do with Communism per se and that it was not an atheistic ideology. In 1972 he made a deal with the Jami’at-ul Ulema-i Islam (JUI) under Maulana Mufti Mahmood. Bhutto promised to allow Maulana Mahmood and the JUI to expand their activities in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) as long as they would support his own PPP party in the National and Regional Assemblies. He also promised Islamist parties like the JUI and Maulana Maudoodi’s Jama’at-e Islami (JI) that he would introduce new laws and constitutional amendments that would make Pakistan an Islamic state.
Zulfikar attempted to streamline the process of Islamisation in Pakistan via political and constitutional means. Like Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan before him, he tried to use the state as a means to control and patronise the religious powers in the country. In 1972 Bhutto managed to get Pakistan to host the second OIC summit in Lahore, in an attempt to bolster his own Islamic credentials. By virtue of the 1973 Constitution, the State was officially the guarantor of marriage and the family, the protector of the mother and the child and the guardian of equality before the law by formally prohibiting all forms of sexual discrimination. Yet, the third Constitution of Pakistan had received the tacit assent of one of the most vociferous opponents of Ayub Khan: Maudoodi himself. Maudoodi’s support in the early 70's was understandable for the reasons that the Constitution had for the first time declared Islam as the religion of the State; had imposed the preservation of religious ethos (by prohibiting prostitution, drugs and obscenity) and had laid down the official definition of a proper Muslim (which would serve as the basis for the excommunication of the Ahmadis in 1974). Furthermore, Bhutto had systematically purged his ex-allies from the radical Left with the expressed support of none other than Maudoodi. In return for these efforts of 'purification ' (particularly on the campuses of the country), Maudoodi gave his tacit endorsement to the 1973 Constitution.
But despite all these moves and concessions made in favour of the religious lobbies (including prohibition of alcohol, gambling etc.), the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, appeared to be theocratic in theory but secular in practice. This was the conclusion that the Islamist camp eventually came to by the mid 70's. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's PPP government was caught in a trap of its own making. The feudal Bhutto attempted to present himself as a democrat and a populist, and he introduced many radical policy changes that were destined to have a long-lasting impact on the country itself. He pushed Pakistan into the nuclear race even when it was clear that the country could not sustain such a project either economically or politically. His desire to entrench himself on the terrain of Pakistani politics led to a sustained assault on the country’s civil service and judiciary, and culminated in the formation of his own private para-military force (the Federal Security Force FSF).
Bhutto's crypto-socialist policies also led to the demoralisation of the ruling elite, many of whom took the opportunity to immigrate to the West. In one vital area this was to have a potentially dangerous effect: The higher ranks of the armed forces were no longer the exclusive purview of the ruling elite but was finally left open to the newly emerging urbanised middle classes, who were much more conservative and religiously inclined. In 1976 he picked the comparatively junior General Zia ul Haq as Commander in Chief, in an attempt to pre-empt any coup attempts by more senior generals. This would later prove his undoing.
Today, after decades of Islamisation at the hands of Pakistan’s Mullahs that went unchecked by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and later Zia ul Haq, Pakistan has become an outcast state there religious politics has proven to be divisive and detrimental to the plight of women, non-Muslim minorities and minority sects among Muslims. All of this could have been avoided by sticking to the secular principles of the Pakistani constitution, but that same constitution has been torn to shreds by successive politicians – including Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif – who found it expedient to play the ‘Islamic card’ whenever it suited them, just to garner some cheap votes at the elections. The rest, as they say, is history and that history now weighs heavily of Pakistan and its people.
Is Malaysia heading down the path of Pakistan? Well, at the moment Malaysia has several ‘Islamic’ features that even Pakistan does not have, such as the morality police squads, Islamic detention centres and the like. Thus far from being a model moderate Muslim state that naïve outsiders like Kofi Annan seem to admire so, we seem well on the path of an increasingly divisive, sectarian religiously-based politics that has spun out of control.
related info:
- Lina, why the controversy ?: Historical and constitutional position of Islam judicially examined (Haris Ibrahim - June 6, 2007)
- Malaysia an Islamic state - Najib repudiating first three PMs on meaning of Merdeka social contract (LKS - July 17, 2007)
- Najib, bring forth your proof (Haris Ibrahim - July 17, 2007)
- Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia (Wikipedia)
- I oppose an Islamic State (RPK - March 14, 2008)
- Malaysia - (Creeping) Islamisation Undermining the Rights of Both Non-Muslims & the More Moderate (Balanced) Muslims
- Malaysia's "Moderate" Islam Means Racism and Oppression - Family Security Matters
- Who Needs An Islamic State (Caliphate)?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment