Posted in Hudud

Secularism and how does M’sia compare with the Turkish model?

Secularism refers to:

  • The separation of the religious orders from the state
  • Neutrality of the state in religious matters
  • Equal treatment by the state of different religions, and
  • Religion being a matter of the private sphere which is strictly separated from the public sphere

The above parameters were described by Michael Heng, a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) East Asian Institute.

Heng writes that the American Constitution is the product of the first concerted and conscious effort to incorporate secularism into the basic legal document governing the political life of a state (Kevin Tan, 2009, ‘Secularism and the Constitution: Striking the Right Balance’ ).

“Inspired by its success, other states soon followed. In Asia, the American Constitution was the main source of inspiration for the state constitutions of the newly independent nation-states after the Second World War. India was the most prominent example, with the Nehru-Gandhi consensus seen as a political achievement.

‘Elsewhere in Asia, there were a range of variations in handling the separation of state and religion. Turkey and China adopted a narrow interpretation of secularism: the state assumed the power to regulate religious matters, though this position has softened over the years,” he continues.

A discussion on secularism in Turkey is provided by Professor Recep Senturk, a research fellow at the Center for Islamic Studies in Istanbul.

In a paper titled ‘State and Religion in Turkey: Which Secularism?‘, Prof. Senturk writes that ideologically speaking, secularization in Turkey meant transition from Islamic fiqh to Western social sciences.

He adds that Turkey had witnessed three military coups in 1960, 1971, and 1980 and that each coup d’etat produced a new constitution.

However since the November of 2008 when Prof. Senturk presented his paper, the Turkish constitution has been amended yet again. In a referendum held on the 30th anniversary of the bloody 1980 military takeover, the Turks voted to modify their constitution to reverse the restrictive Kemalist strictures.

One common practice in secular states is that prayers are not allowed to be made compulsory in schools. During the early decades of the Turkish republic, Islamic religious education was not provided at all in school.

The ideology of Kemalism – named after Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Father of Modern Turkey who was installed as the republic’s first president in 1923 after the formal abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate a year earlier – renders the practice of secularism even stricter.

Following is a checklist of some of the features of secularism in Turkey before Recep Erdogan’s Islamist government modified the Turkish constitution:

  • The caliphate was abolished
  • Shariah was abolished
  • Ulama were outlawed and their honoured position in society replaced by secular academicians and intellectuals

Turkey was once the only Muslim country without ulama

In bullet points (below), some passages excerpted from Prof. Senturk’s paper on what kind of secularism in Turkey:

<QUOTE>

  • Turkish secularism is confusing to outside observers, in particular to the Europeans, and poses a problem in its integration into the European Union.
  • The only parallel that can be found in the world to Turkish secularism is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Chinese-style secularism where the state controls religion. The present (2008) political tensions in Turkey should be analyzed in the light of this phenomenon.
  • The persistent lack of clarity on the meaning of secularism is reflected in the successive Turkish constitutions. The Republic of Turkey was declared in 1923 on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire (1299-1923) following its defeat in the First World War against European powers. The first Turkish Constitution, which was accepted in 1924, stated that the religion of the state is Islam.” This article was removed from the Constitution in 1934. Laicism entered the Turkish Constitution for the first time in 1937, a year prior to the death of Ataturk (1881-1938). It has been kept in the later constitutions of 1961 and 1982.
  • The silence of the Turkish Constitution on the meaning of laicism has been the source of great tension and controversy among politicians, lawyers, journalists, intellectuals and the general public. The still pressing question is how to understand laicism: Is it freedom of religion and separation of the state and religion? Is it total state control over religion? Is it atheism and de-establishment of religion? The liberals argue that secularism is separation of religion and state and the guarantee of freedom of religion. Yet for the advocates of authoritarianism, secularism is the state control over religion.
  • Presently, Turkey has a social consensus on adopting secularism by all strands in the political spectrum, but each political group has a different a sometimes opposing concept of secularism.

The revolutionary policies which aimed at secularizing Turkish culture, political structure and soceity focused in particular on the following areas:

State structure: The Ottoman Sultan was also the Caliph who was the leader of all Muslims. The Caliphate was abolished and the last Caliph was exiled to Europe. The sovereignty was no longer with the Sultan-Caliph but it was said to be transferred to the people of Turkey as represented by the Grand National Assembly. Yet, Turkey was ruled by a single-party regime from 1923 until 1950. The sovereignty of the people was not allowed; instead, the ruling elite acted “for people but despite people.”

Law: Islamic law (shariah) was abolished and secular codes from Western countries were adopted.

Education: Education was standardized using a secularist perspective and put under the monopoly of the state by the Unification of Education Law. According to this law, only the secular state could give education, including religious education. This caused great concern within the non-Muslim minorities, whose schools came under the control of the Ministry of Education. Islamic religious education was not given at all during the early decades of the Republic.

Religious groups: Sufi brotherhoods were banned and the Sufi lodges were outlawed as bastions of reactionaries. Sufism was seen as an obstacle before modernization because it did not promote rationalism and scientific progress. It was criticized for promoting laziness and inertia.

Pious foundations (awqaf): Pious foundations in the Ottoman Empire had funded seminaries, mosques, hospitals and Sufi lodges among other religious and charitable institutions. They were forned by civil society outside the control of the state. A special ministry, Ministry of Foundations, had managed them. They were all closed down and their property was nationalized under the newly founded Directorate of Foundations.

Holiday: The holiday was shifted from Friday (an Islamic holiday) to Saturday (traditionally the Jewish day for holiday) and Sunday (a Christian holiday) following the Western countries.

Calendar: The Gregorian calendar was adopted instead of the Islamic calendar, the Hijra calendar.

Script: The Latin script was adopted instead of the Arabic script.

Dress code: Traditional Islamic and Turkish attire, were outlawed and they were replaced by Western dress; in particular the hat was made obligatory to wear. This was known as the Hat Revolution.

Clergy: The ulama order, which means religious scholars and clergy were outlawed as their knowledge was seen as obsolete and contradictory with modern science. This period could he compared to the period of anti-clericalism in France. The modern secular academicians and intellectuals were expected to take the place of the ulama. The clergy (imam and mufti) were turned into civil servants. Turkey became the only Muslim country without the ulama.

Civil society: Civil society groups. in particular religious ones, were outlawed and religion was made a part of state bureaucracy. The Presidency of Religions Affair, was established to offer religious services, control mosques and publish religious books. Traditionally, the mosques and the clergy had been funded by charitable civil Groups, in particular pious foundations.

At that time, secularization was not seen as an option but as a necessity. The goal of these reforms was to make the Turkish state, society and culture a Western one. This was seen as the only way to save the nation from the backwardness and darkness of the Middle Ages. The purpose was to shiftl Turkey from the domain of Islamic civilization to the domain of Western civilization — a goal that has yet to be achieved completely.

The existing regulations and practices of secularism in Turkey have been criticized by both secularist and religious segments in Turkish society. The criticism of each side is based on different arguments which derive from a particular interpretation of secularism. This goes back to the lack of clarity and consensus as to what is meant by secularism.

Some secularist critics and members of minority religious groups argue that the Turkish state’s support for and regulation of Sunni religious institutions — including mandatory religious education for children deemed by the state to be Muslims — amount to de facto violations of secularism.

Non-Muslim children are exempted from the compulsory religious education. Yet the Alevi* children are also required to attend these lessons. Some of the Alevis are not happy that their children learn the Sunni interpretation of Islam.

<UNQUOTE>

*Alevi: a religious group combining Shia with Sufi elements

Read also:

Catholic woman vows to vote PAS

Author:

I have no Faceook or Twitter.

25 thoughts on “Secularism and how does M’sia compare with the Turkish model?

  1. Turkish model does not achieved 100% secular…

    Malaysia; going the other way round, much more to Islamic than secular.

    after merdeka Malaysia tried to suit the need of multi-racial population hence the near-secular model applied. during TDM time he imported the so called Islamist hero DSAI [:)] to apply Islamic value into government. (this also to counter PAS allegation that BN was too secular) the result of that, we saw Islamic banking, UIA etc.

    Until now, DSN government still going to implement Islamic value that can benefit and can fit to multi-cultural country. Malaysia case is unique, as the government implement Islamic value with care not to jeorpadize racial integrity.

    Malaysia definitely going to become Islamic but in moderate way. That is our way since Tunku time until present time.

    1. Dear Helen, I believe your definitions that you quote does not pinpoint the basic reasons why European choose secularism over Catholic Monarchy. The fear and hatred of Catholicsm with its inquisition, the cruelty of the European Monarchies, “Let them eat cake” with their sense of entitlement was the main reasons how the separation of Church and State came about.

      The purpose of Christianity from Constantine of Rome was to control the population through a state opiate. Kings and Queens were treated with utmost respect as they are the voices of God. This was achieved through the stamp of approval of priests or Pope. Thus loyalty to the King and Queen from the peasantry was unquestionable or they can be tried for treason of face Inquisition Court by the priests.

      Without understanding the cruelty of Christianity on European society you will not understand why they want to separate Religion and Government. Thus the US as a breakaway British colony has no use of the British Queen/King if they want to govern themselves. Having a monarchy means having a priest class to rubber stamp them.

      Democracy by itself means rule by the majority of citizens. Thus there is no scope for an individual to claim he is the son of God like the japanese emperor or Chinese heavenly kingdom. All the purpose of religions through history is to quel questions from the pleb on the right of certain individuals to get wealth and power.

      Thus for Kemal Ataturk, the fall of the Caliphate provide a setting to get rid of Rule by Religion. Just like the Eunuchs in the Chinese courts, the priests and ulamas in any ancient society held power. That Kemal Attaturk actively prohibited Arab cultures like the veil and no driving for women is just common sense.

      These are the basic reasons why European and Turkey choose to separate religion and government.

      Secularism is a natural progression from rule by religion. Notice that Saudi Arabia a religious society is ruled by a King. A democracy is not possible in S.Arabia because then the ulama has no power. There is no religion without a King!

      Notice the important point here. Secularism and democracy go together. A democracy by voters power cannot by definition by dependent on priesthoods or ulamas because they have only 1 vote themselves…hehe.

      Is Malaysia a secular state? Of course as explain above. We are a democracy and not rule by a King but by Parliament.

      The secular terminology may be discomfiting to some but there you have it. Unless you bring back mythology and need approval from Ulamas to crown the PM, then we are definitely secular.

      For the Malays they feel uncomfortable for some arab influenced malays try to gain power and influence for themselves through religion eg Nik Aziz. But without understanding the above Nik Aziz cannot move the Malays forward. The whole system of religion and monarchy is just not there in Malaysia because we are not arabs and does not understand the linkage. Which is a good thing. Thus from the Malays, the world is given Malay Islamic Banking, Malay halal cop..hehe.

      And this is the future of religion in Malaysia. The concept of justice, peace, fairness in banking not greedy interest based, freedom of choice for women are what the Malays are world famous for.

      The scientific big bang dicredit creationism which have crushed Christianity in the west and this the Government must use to crush the rising mythology of Chrisitianity in the empty souls of the non Malays.

  2. Dear IDA,

    I believe that there is no 100% secular or 100% Islamic state. With due respect, I think that Malaysia is more secular than Islamic.

    1. Our country allow activities that prohibit Islamic values such as conventional banking (interest-based) and the production or consumption of alcohol/pork/gambling.

    2. Hudud criminal law is not implemented.

    3. Highest law of the land is the constitution, not the Quran. Constitution can be amended by human but Quran can’t.

    4. There is no provision that says that the head of government, i.e. the Prime Minister must be a Muslim. The Constitution provides that the PM must have the majority confidence of the Parliament and as such, it is possible to have a non-Muslim PM.

    5. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Che Omar Che Soh wherein the Lord President Salleh Abbas said that the law of the country at that time is secular.

    6. The Muslim population in our country is not overwhelming in relation to other races. The Muslim comprises 60% (estimate) and Non-Muslim 40% unlike other countries like Pakistan, Iran, Arab, Indonesia etc whereby the Muslim population may reach >80%.

    Finally, as what Nik Aziz has said “Kalau Malaysia adalah negara Islam, habis tu negara Islam zaman pentadbiran Nabi apa kita nak panggil?”

      1. Secular,

        I agree with you that this country could have a non-Muslim PM and that will become reality when Muslims no longer follow the teaching of al-Quran.

        1. Marhaeman,

          The issue of whether the Quran is being followed or not is totally irrelevant when it comes to determine whether a person can hold the office of Prime Minister or otherwise. What is needed is for the person to command the majority confidence of the Parliament and he/she can be of any religion.

  3. Our constitution gives legality for state spending for Islam but not for other religion. However, the state do contribute to building of places of worship of other religion.

    Can a secular state do that?

    1. Re: “the state do contribute to building of places of worship of other religion”

      Which ones, other than election carrots?

      1. Note by blog admin:

        Comment held in moderation.

        This commenter using the fake e-mail addresses – AhLiangko at yahoo.com, Ahliankoko at yahoo, Daimacai at yahoo, damacaicai at yahoo – has been spamming my blog with profanities and vulgarities ever since I wrote up on the bullying of Simon Thong by the Taman Kaya residents.

        To date, this person has left at least a hundred comments here in transliterated Cantonese and English – all cursing, swearing and slandering me and Cikgu Simon as well as directing slurs at a few other commenters. (Search under keyword ‘Liangko’ in this blog to see dozens of samples of his nasty handiwork.)

        Such verbal harassment is reflective of DAPster cyber thuggery.

        If they (the DApsters) are not averse to behaving like samseng online, imagine what Cikgu Simon is having to go through offline in their midst.

        Cikgu Simon has apologized to me for this bully now coming to my blog, explaining that Liangko is “chasing [him Simon Thong] all over the place” and because he [Simon] won’t let his [the bully’s] vulgarities appear on his [Simon’s] blog.

        Helen

        Ref. Senior citizen bullied but The Star badmouths victim instead

        null

      2. Note by blog admin:

        Comment held in moderation.

        This commenter using the fake e-mail addresses – AhLiangko at yahoo.com, Ahliankoko at yahoo, Daimacai at yahoo, damacaicai at yahoo – has been spamming my blog with profanities and vulgarities ever since I wrote up on the bullying of Simon Thong by the Taman Kaya residents.

        To date, this person has left at least a hundred comments here in transliterated Cantonese and English – all cursing, swearing and slandering me and Cikgu Simon as well as directing slurs at a few other commenters. (Search under keyword ‘Liangko’ in this blog to see dozens of samples of his nasty handiwork.)

        Such verbal harassment is reflective of DAPster cyber thuggery.

        If they (the DApsters) are not averse to behaving like samseng online, imagine what Cikgu Simon is having to go through offline in their midst.

        Cikgu Simon has apologized to me for this bully now coming to my blog, explaining that Liangko is “chasing [him Simon Thong] all over the place” and because he [Simon] won’t let his [the bully’s] vulgarities appear on his [Simon’s] blog.

        Helen

        Ref. Senior citizen bullied but The Star badmouths victim instead

        null

    2. Are you trying to suggest that just because our Constitution provides legality for public spending on Islam, hence our country is an Islamic state? Can this single factor negates the secular characteristics of our Constitution?

      1. If this country is not Islamic enuf, ONLY Pas and Umno could make it enuf. Not Dap and definitely not the others!

        So, on my part, i would like to see both teams, to join forces, to work side by side, so that they could remove the secular part and replace it with the ones which is 100% non-secular.

        1. Marhaeman,

          As much as I respect your desire to see both UMNO and PAS in joining forces to make Malaysia more Islamic, don’t you think that imposing Islamic laws and values on the non-Muslims is a breach of freedom of religion? As pointed out earlier, the Muslim population in our country is not an overwhelming majority like in some Middle Eastern countries.

          What about the livelihood of the non-Muslims? Just like what Chua Soi Lek pointed out, 1.2 mil Malaysians will lose their jobs and sources of income. Industries like alcohol, gambling, night clubs, karaoke, massage parlour etc will be made illegal. I believe that the figure quoted by Soi Lek should be higher. Riba or interest is also considered haram in Islam and as such, the interest based conventional banking system will also be adversely affected. Millions of jobs in the banking and insurance sectors are at stake, including the Muslims. Are you willing to sacrifice or adversely affect the livelihood of millions of people just to see our country becoming more Islamic? You can do that if the Muslim population here is more than 95% but definitely not when in reality, it is only 60%.

          1. Secular, you say “You can do that if the Muslim population here is more than 95% but definitely not when in reality, it is only 60%”.

            Marhaeman speaks with religious zealousness as usual but you with calculated rationality is even more scary. I think the ratio is not the problem but when even if the 95% Muslims can accept the social fabric on how the nation is built to ensure that the 5% is able to sustain humanity to form the basis of the argument.

            It is difficult to rationalize religion or one’s belief, therefore throwing putrid arguments solely based on a religion does not help nor clear the air for what Malaysian need to decide for themselves amongst them irrespective of the religion factor but more so on a humanity factor.

          2. Secular,

            MIN,
            Secular,

            As a voter I have decided on who should get my vote. In a two party system, what a voter needs to do is just choose either Democrat or Republican. So easy when variables are small.

            Before a decision is reached, there are many issues to be studied and considered. Secularism is one of them. If the current form of secularism/theocracy – which is varied because it is judged differently by different faction – is more than enough, it is logical for me to keep it as it is.

            If Dapsters truly believed that secularism/theocracy is severely lacking out there, and if they think the one confided to them by Pas is more suitable, the choice is solely theirs.

            As for me, be it either secular or theocracy; Democrat or Republican, there is no confusion because I know exactly what I want and how much I want.

            On the contrary, it is Dapsters who seem to get confused because they always believe in this: “tamak tak selalu rugi”. If you give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile, that someone must be the Dapsters.

            Overtly, what we have been through is not in the theocratic form, they say. And they would only be satisfied if it is 100% secular. Covertly, the fight is for something else! And according to Helen, there is a wave of craving for hybrid mix of thingy – Evangelis Talibanian Combo.

            Dapsters are confusing itself when there are more than two variables to choose from. Apart from that, it would certainly be in a collision course with the Talibanian.

            When the mood is right, it is not impossible to reach to a win-win situation with Taliban, on condition that the demand is appropriate. But when theological course is at stake…what Dapster might get is this one:

            “U want some, come get some”

            The question is, are they going to knock the covert mission off?

          1. Whether our country should remain secular or otherwise, the people should have the right to decide. Perhaps we can undertake a referendum and ask all the eligible voters. I can say that the motion to implement Hudud or Islamic state will be defeated for sure simply because all non-Muslims will vote against it. Moreover, not every Muslim will support the motion especially those from urban areas.

            I don’t see any problem of Malaysia becoming an Islamic state as long as the rights of the non-Muslims remain status quo and unaffected by Islamic laws/values. But in reality, this is impossible as the rights and freedom of non-Muslims will be affected either directly or indirectly.

            Just like what Soi Lek quoted from one anonymous SMS, he said that 1.2 million non-Muslim jobs are at stake should Hudud is implemented. Raja Petra has agreed with Soi Lek and stated that the main concern for the man on the street is about livelihood and rice bowl. No point arguing this Hudud/Secular/Islamic state issues from the legal, constitutional, religious or political points of view. Ordinary man is not so learned to appreciate these arguments.

            The main question for a non-Muslim in the event Hudud is enforced or Malaysia becoming an Islamic state is this, “Can I still feed my family and enjoy what I used to enjoy?”

  4. Kak Helen,

    Nampaknya kalau Msia jadi negara sekular ala Turki, bukan saja agama rasmi sedia ada akan ‘dikawal’ malah lain-lain agama juga akan menerima nasib yang sama?

  5. Note by blog admin:

    Comment held in moderation.

    This commenter using the fake e-mail addresses – AhLiangko at yahoo.com, Ahliankoko at yahoo, Daimacai at yahoo, damacaicai at yahoo – has been spamming my blog with profanities and vulgarities ever since I wrote up on the bullying of Simon Thong by the Taman Kaya residents.

    To date, this person has left at least a hundred comments here in transliterated Cantonese and English – all cursing, swearing and slandering me and Cikgu Simon as well as directing slurs at a few other commenters. (Search under keyword ‘Liangko’ in this blog to see dozens of samples of his nasty handiwork.)

    Such verbal harassment is reflective of DAPster cyber thuggery.

    If they (the DApsters) are not averse to behaving like samseng online, imagine what Cikgu Simon is having to go through offline in their midst.

    Cikgu Simon has apologized to me for this bully now coming to my blog, explaining that Liangko is “chasing [him Simon Thong] all over the place” and because he [Simon] won’t let his [the bully’s] vulgarities appear on his [Simon’s] blog.

    Helen

    Ref. Senior citizen bullied but The Star badmouths victim instead

    null

  6. Note by blog admin:

    Comment held in moderation.

    This commenter using the fake e-mail addresses – AhLiangko at yahoo.com, Ahliankoko at yahoo, Daimacai at yahoo, damacaicai at yahoo – has been spamming my blog with profanities and vulgarities ever since I wrote up on the bullying of Simon Thong by the Taman Kaya residents.

    To date, this person has left at least a hundred comments here in transliterated Cantonese and English – all cursing, swearing and slandering me and Cikgu Simon as well as directing slurs at a few other commenters. (Search under keyword ‘Liangko’ in this blog to see dozens of samples of his nasty handiwork.)

    Such verbal harassment is reflective of DAPster cyber thuggery.

    If they (the DApsters) are not averse to behaving like samseng online, imagine what Cikgu Simon is having to go through offline in their midst.

    Cikgu Simon has apologized to me for this bully now coming to my blog, explaining that Liangko is “chasing [him Simon Thong] all over the place” and because he [Simon] won’t let his [the bully’s] vulgarities appear on his [Simon’s] blog.

    Helen

    Ref. Senior citizen bullied but The Star badmouths victim instead

    null

  7. Note by blog admin:

    Comment held in moderation.

    This commenter using the fake e-mail addresses – AhLiangko at yahoo.com, Ahliankoko at yahoo, Daimacai at yahoo, damacaicai at yahoo – has been spamming my blog with profanities and vulgarities ever since I wrote up on the bullying of Simon Thong by the Taman Kaya residents.

    To date, this person has left at least a hundred comments here in transliterated Cantonese and English – all cursing, swearing and slandering me and Cikgu Simon as well as directing slurs at a few other commenters. (Search under keyword ‘Liangko’ in this blog to see dozens of samples of his nasty handiwork.)

    Such verbal harassment is reflective of DAPster cyber thuggery.

    If they (the DApsters) are not averse to behaving like samseng online, imagine what Cikgu Simon is having to go through offline in their midst.

    Cikgu Simon has apologized to me for this bully now coming to my blog, explaining that Liangko is “chasing [him Simon Thong] all over the place” and because he [Simon] won’t let his [the bully’s] vulgarities appear on his [Simon’s] blog.

    Helen

    Ref. Senior citizen bullied but The Star badmouths victim instead

    null

  8. Note by blog admin:

    Comment held in moderation.

    This commenter using the fake e-mail addresses – AhLiangko at yahoo.com, Ahliankoko at yahoo, Daimacai at yahoo, damacaicai at yahoo – has been spamming my blog with profanities and vulgarities ever since I wrote up on the bullying of Simon Thong by the Taman Kaya residents.

    To date, this person has left at least a hundred comments here in transliterated Cantonese and English – all cursing, swearing and slandering me and Cikgu Simon as well as directing slurs at a few other commenters. (Search under keyword ‘Liangko’ in this blog to see dozens of samples of his nasty handiwork.)

    Such verbal harassment is reflective of DAPster cyber thuggery.

    If they (the DApsters) are not averse to behaving like samseng online, imagine what Cikgu Simon is having to go through offline in their midst.

    Cikgu Simon has apologized to me for this bully now coming to my blog, explaining that Liangko is “chasing [him Simon Thong] all over the place” and because he [Simon] won’t let his [the bully’s] vulgarities appear on his [Simon’s] blog.

    Helen

    Ref. Senior citizen bullied but The Star badmouths victim instead

    null

  9. HI

    i thought Malaysia was secular state with Islam as official religion

    That means we are secular with certain exception. Malaysian is unlikely to become a Islamic state due to its citizen and its history.

    Dear Marhaeman

    not necessary that a non muslim can only be PM if the muslim stop following Quran.

    a non muslim PM might need have a group of Muslim Ulama to advice him on the Islamic issue because he might not have the depth knowledge in the matter

    Guess i agree with I.D.A. on Malaysia future but Malaysia will remain as secular due to the preexisting understanding between all race / religion

  10. SK,

    Malaysia lies in between secular and islamic state. Hence the confusion.

    Constitution never says that it is a secular state. It says Islam is the state religion but other religions can be freely practised.

    Another interesting fact is that propagation of other religions to Muslims is prohibited.

    I do not mind Malaysia practises harsher treatment to criminals. In saudi arabia, rapists will be hang in full view of public. I believe that is good.

    Islamic law is not just about Hudud. Freeing masses from poverty and eradicating “inhuma n” banking practise also manifastation of islamic principle.

    as an example, the new ruling on “build and Sell” concept in housing industry is an example of Islamic teaching to avoid public to pay for “greed of developers”.

  11. persoalannya apa itu islamic dan apa itu sekular, apa ertinya kalau sesebuah negara mengaplikasi salah satu perkara itu?

    pokok pangkalnya kemerdekaan memberi peluang untuk rakyat mentadbir mengikut acuan sendiri, maka melayu yang majoriti mahukan cara tersendiri, dengan adanya kaum lain yang mahu kekal sebagai rakyat negara ini, maka dengan sendirinya kemungkinan untuk cara tersendiri mungkin diganggu gugat atau dicabar, maka lahirlah kontrak sosial,

    melayu yang islam pastilah mahukan apa saja acara dan prosidur dalam pemerintahan itu bersifat ‘halal’ atau mesra islam, jadilah apa yang kita lihat hari ini, ia tiada kena mengena dengan istilah negara islamik, istilah ini cuma istilah politik supaya nampak cool bila menyebutnya, dan membuat rakyat ternganga dan teruja dengan istilah istilah yang di hamburkan, maka keluarlah bijak pandai berbondong bondong mengulas dan mencipta pulak pelbagai teknik dan prosidur apa yang dikatakan sebagai islamik dan sekular, padahal tak ada pun tak apa, ini juga salah satu pembuangan masa yang cool dan nampak bertamadun.

    Yang perkara utama iaitu akidah jarang disentuh oleh politikus, kerana perkara ini kena berguru, dan perkara inilah yang paling atas bagi seorang muslim.

Comments are closed.