http://www.harakahdaily.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13643&Itemid=28

Demi ketuanan Melayu, sanggupkah Adun Umno Perak sertai PAS?
Mat Zain Mat Isa
Tue | Apr 01, 08 | 12:01:58 pm MYT

….

Soalnya, apakah mereka sanggup berbuat begitu demi ketuanan Melayu? Rasanya?payah la sikit kot.?Maka mahu tidak mahu buat masa ini semua pihak, terutama golongan yang terlalu mendewakan soal ketuanan Melayu di Perak perlu menerima hakikat yang ada. ?

Penyelesaian lebih baik mungkin akan datang dalam masa empat atau lima tahun akan datang. Cukuplah beri undi kepada calon-calon Umno. Jika benar-benar mahu jumlah Adun Melayu di pihak pemerintah di Perak bertambah, pastikan semua calon PAS menang. ?

Umno pula jangan menjadi batu penghalang kepada agenda PAS meramaikan Adun Melayu, jika ia benar-benar mahu ketuanan Melayu di Perak dipulihkan. – lanh

Has PAS abandoned its ideology of setting up an Islamic State in Malaysia?

According to the Chinese version of Malaysiakini, which provides free full-text news reports,

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/80685
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????

What Hadi Awang says is rather revealing. Firstly, he says that the PRIORITY is to push for principles agreed by all three parties. (i.e. While PAS’ own agenda is not the priority now, it has not been abandoned). Secondly, he declines to comment on whether PAS has abandoned its agenda of Islamic state when asked. However, his roundabout answer is pretty revealing: ‘What matters is not the label. What matters is what we aim at and what we do.’

I take it this way: ‘What matters is not whether the label “Islamic State” is still explicit in our public discourse. What matters is that …is still what we aim at and what we…’

Given that Anwar claims that PR’s policies will be based on consensus and that Islamic state is no longer an issue, PR might want to consider making a formal declaration to the effect that PR will not pursue the agendas of Islamic state and Islamisation. This is a perfectly reasonable request that will reassure those who take the secular character of our nation and our Merdeka social contract seriously. PR should have no difficulty making such a formal declaration given that Anwar has claimed that PAS’s Islamic state is no longer an issue.

Yes, what matters now is that PR should make that formal declaration.

No one should abandon any programme to set up a secular state in Malaysia, because there is no such programme as Malaysia is a secular state according to the constitution. DAP is certainly not engaged in a process of transforming Malaysia into a secular state, given that Malaysia is a secular state according to the constitution. What DAP has (had) been doing is (was) to prevent the erosion of the secular character of our nation, as agreed upon in our Merdeka social contract. The erosion began when UMNO and PAS got into a race to out-Islam each other in their respective agendas of Islamisation and Islamic state.

According to Dr. Ng Kam Weng in ‘Pluralist Democracy and Islamic State’:
‘It is therefore appropriate to clarify the relationship between religious and political institutions envisaged by the Federal Constitution. Of direct relevance is the clause which states that “Islam is the religion of the Federation, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.” The additional Constitutional provisions that empower the government to render assistance to Islam, especially pertaining to education, require lawmakers to be sensitive to the concerns of Islam. But the status of Islam was clarified by our first Prime Minister when he explained that the clause referred to the ceremonial role of Islam at official functions.

To put the matter in historical perspective, we need to recall that the original architects of the Federal Constitution assured the Sabahans and Sarawakians during negotiations for the formation of Malaysia that the clause “does not imply that Malaysia is not a secular state.” Put positively, Malaysia is therefore a secular state. By a secular state is meant a state that adopts religious neutrality in a pluralistic society. Notice that neutrality is far from hostility towards religion. Indeed, a secular state should maintain a benevolent neutrality that respects the integrity and equality of diverse religions of the nation.’
http://www.kairos-malaysia.org/index.cfm?menuid=6

The secular character of our nation is enshrined in the constitution, as agreed upon in our Merdeka social contract. What happened before 1957 was irrelevant – unless one thinks that we should go back to the time when Sultans ruled or have a Kapitan appointed in KL or etc.

I have no idea whether the special rights of the Malay are part of the original constitution in 1957.

The secular state of the Merdeka contract should be defended because of its suitability for a muti-ethnic and multi-religious nation. We can of course talk about a new deal or a new social contract. But Islamic state a-la PAS cannot be part of it if we want a Malaysian Malaysia.

That’s not the end of story if what you mean by ‘the end’ is ‘the end of expression of the minority view (as far as this blog is concerned) among DAP supporters on the issue of DAP’s co-operation with PAS’.

Dr. Ng’s arguments should not be dismissed simply because he is a Christian.

Anyway, thanks for providing the link. I came across that article recently. I think it is good to let the commentators read both sides of the stories and come to their own conclusion.

Judge one’s arguments on its own merit, not on the basis of whether he is a Christian or Muslim.

Is the kind of inequality mentioned in Dr. Ng’s article a problem only for Christians but not for other non-Muslims? Which of Dr. Ng’s points applies only to Christians but not non-Muslims who are also non-Christians?

A Muslim who holds a fundamentalistic interpretation of Islam will surely disagree with Dr. Ng’s pluralist democracy. But what matters is not whether the pluralist democracy agreed upon in our Merdeka social contract is acceptable to such a Muslim. What matters is whether the pluralist democary agreed upon in our Merdeka social contract is appropriate for a multi-religious nation.

I have talked to Indonesian Islamic scholars who do not share PAS’s interpretation of Islam. They embrace secular pluralist democracy and strongly reject Islamic theocracy. So a rejection of Islamic theocary does not imply a rejection of Islam.

According to your principle, an article from IKIM should also be dismissed.

By the way, Dr. Ng’s article is not an academic paper. It is merely a useful resource for our discussion here.

The inequality mentioned is entirely imagined?

I think Lim Kit Siang would disagree. In a speech in 2003, Lim said that…
‘ Speech
– DAP Kulai political seminar
by Lim Kit Siang
——————————————————————————–

(Kulai, Sunday): DAP opposes and rejects the PAS Islamic State blueprint made public by the PAS President Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang on 13th November 2003, and the reasons include:

It violates the 46-year “social contract” of the major communities entrenched in the 1957 Merdeka Constitution, the 1963 Malaysia Agreement and the 1970 Rukunegara that firstly, Malaysia is a democratic, secular and multi-religious nation with Islam as the official religion but not an Islamic state; and secondly, the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of Malaysia as provided in Article 4 and not the syariah law as intended by the PAS Islamic State blueprint;
It violates the 1999 Barisan Alternative common manifesto “Towards a Just Malaysia”, to restore justice, freedom, democracy and good governance with clear commitment by all subscribing parties to uphold the fundamental principles of the Malaysian Constitution, binding PAS not to pursue the establishment of an Islamic State while in the Barisan Alternative;
Incompatibility with democracy in placing the PAS Islamic State concept beyond criticism by equating it with Allah’s injunction;
Incompatibility with human rights – the English text of the blueprint specifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which is totally omitted in the Bahasa Malaysia master text. There is also no elaboration of the qualification in the English text that support for the UDHR is subject to the proviso that it must not contravene the Syariah, by spelling out the human rights in the UDHR which are offensive and unacceptable.
It ratchets up the UMNO-PAS competition to out-Islam each other and to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state to new and unprecedented height and intensity.
Although Hadi had welcomed public views and debate of the PAS Islamic State blueprint, the PAS leadership has not been able to respond to the many issues which had been raised about its Islamic State blueprint in the past 10 days, in particular on pertinent and legitimate questions about the compatibility of the PAS Islamic State blueprint with the “social contract” reached by the major communities on the attainment of national independence, democracy, human rights, women rights, pluralism, social tolerance and modernism…’

http://dapmalaysia.org/all-archive/English/2003/nov03/lks/lks2758.htm

The concerns Lim expresses in this article are very similar to Dr. Ng’s, though Lim clearly does not have a Christian agenda. Thus, the kind of inequality Dr. Ng mentions has bearing on all non-Muslims, not just Christians. I don’t think the problems they worried about were ‘imagined and entirely without basis’.

Muslims disagree about how to interpret Quran and Hadith correctly. So things are not as simple as ‘what the Quran and Hadith say’.

A progressive Muslim will say that the fundamentalist has misinterpreted the Quran and Hadith. The fundamentalist will say the same.

erratum: the progressive Muslim will say to the fundamentalist, ‘You’ve misinterpreted the Quran and Hadith’. The fundamentalist will say the same to the progressive.

There is no such thing as absolute tolerance. Neither should we try to achieve one. If I accept pluralist democracy, I cannot accept Christian theonomy or Islamic theocracy. If I accept the rule of law, I cannot accept anarchism. But some systems are more tolerant than others. So we should opt for pluralist democracy, not because it is the absolutely tolerant system, but because it is more tolerant than any form of theocracy.

Accepting pluralist democracy is in line with the spirit of tolerance. It calls for tolerance towards non-Muslims on the part of Muslims, towards theists on the part of atheists, towards non-Christians on the part of Christians, towards non-Hindus on the part of Hindus etc…Such tolereance is what we need in a multi-religious nation.

Separation of religion and state does not require that political leaders have no religious beliefs.

Given that I’m merely a layman in politics or even political philosophy, let me quote from Dr. Ng Kam Weng again. In his ‘Pluralistic Democracy or Islamic State’, he explains that the notion of secular state is not inherently anti-religious:

‘The act to remove religious institutions from state sovereignty should not be seen as an act to undermine religion. On the contrary, the act alleviates the status of religion since its institutions become independent public institutions capable of censuring state authorities if it should arrogate for itself the final authority in human affairs. If anything, state authorities are morally held accountable to a higher transcendent authority.

Second, the separation between state and religious institutions is necessary to avoid possible conflicts in the event that some politicians exploit religious sentiments and incite disgruntled citizens to resort to violence. A quick look at Nigeria and the Indian sub-continent should serve as a salutary reminder against the temptation to mix religion and politics. Maintaining the precarious harmony between the various racial communities in Malaysia is already a most difficult task for any government. Confusing the boundaries between religious and political institutions will make matters worse given the conflictive nature of politics.

Some Muslims who are sympathetic towards a progressive and tolerant form of Islam may nonetheless feel obliged to back away from talk of a secular state because of the misconception that to support for a secular state is to betray one’s religion. Indeed, now and then, some Muslim activists accuse those who argue against the establishment of the Islamic state of insulting Islam. In the process, emotional rhetoric ends up forestalling efforts to develop an objective and rational approach towards resolving differences. The status of Malaysia as a secular state in our Constitution cannot be gainsaid. But we should move away from forcing the issue of having to choose either the secular state or the Islamic state. Instead, we should focus instead on the task of building a strong pluralistic democracy in order to avoid unnecessary emotional reactions.

The goal of strengthening pluralist democracy is a positive agenda. Acceptance of plurality is a vital prerequisite for building overlapping consensus among citizens with different ideologies and religious beliefs. In this respect, the goal of a pluralist democracy is to provide manageable platforms for the resolution of differences among citizens. That being the case, there should be a separation between religious and state institutions to ensure that national consensus is one that emerges from grass root interaction rather than one that is imposed from above.

Fundamental to pluralist democracy is the recognition of equal rights of persons regardless of their religious affiliation and their unrestricted participation in civil society. This is based on three democratic principles. First, the libertarian principle or principle of toleration. The state simply recognizes the inalienable right of citizens to practise – or even not to practise – religion. It is therefore inappropriate for state institutions to interfere with this religious freedom.

Second, the equalitarian principle requires impartiality of the state in not favouring a particular religion to the extent that it discriminates against other religions. This principle also demands that public offices should not be restricted exclusively to citizens professing a certain religious affiliation. This principle accepts that there can be different degrees of establishment of religion. Still, it deems the establishment of religion as, in general, an obstacle towards the maturing of democracy.

Third, the neutrality principle says that the state should not favour citizens simply because they are religious. The state must maintain impartiality between the religious and the non-religious, or between citizens of different religions. A pluralist democracy promotes a citizenry that is capable of transcending partisan politics and of exercising rounded judgment and careful weighing of ambiguous alternatives.

Hopefully, the above discussion will help dispel the common and unfair stereotyping of pluralist democracy – or even the secular state – as one that is inherently against religion. More importantly, the call for a pluralist democracy springs from a recognition of the fundamental concrete realities of Malaysian society. Furthermore, only a pluralist democracy is able to mobilize the resources from all citizens to ensure that our nation is able to cope with the unrelenting onslaught of globalization.’

http://www.kairos-malaysia.org/index.cfm?menuid=6

‘Most Muslims cannot accept a secular state’

Would you please support this claim.

I cannot affirm or deny this proposition without any statistics. However, the most populous Muslim nation in the world – Indonesia – is a secular state. Of course, this does not disprove or prove the proposition.

Perhaps what you wanted to say is that ‘most Malaysian Muslim cannot accept a secular state’.

But you’ll need to substantiate that as well.

What I said was ‘IF it is true that some religions have the natural tendency…to curtail the rights of other religious believers’ in response to Alistaire’s claim about evangelical Christians: ‘naturally they have interest in restraining the influence of a religion not being their own’.