Bakri Musa’s arguments rooting for an Islamic State are not rooted in reality at all. No Non Muslims’ experience in any Islamic state in the world would validate his arguments!

An Islamic state by definition is one where political and governmental control is entirely under Muslims, where laws are syariah and Islamic values embraced in every facet of social economic and cultural life.

Bakri’s argument – that if Muslims were not allowed to partake in capitalistic banking involving the charging of interests, it would “leave the entire capitalistic market, in particular finance, to non-Muslims” (a bonanza) – is nonsense because in a pure Islamic state, capitalistic banking based on interest will not be allowed in the first place, let alone permitted to Kafirs/infidels to profit. Even in a hybrid system of neither secular or Islamic state as in Malaysia, the banking industry charging interest is 90% owned by corporate interests owned by Muslims!

As for his marketing proposal to offer Muslim “complimentary teh tarik and roti canai every time they make their deposit”, providing them a “space in the lobby for them to pray” and recouping “the costs of the prayer space as well as the complimentary tea and roti” by “charging up-front administrative and other fees”, it does not sound like professional Islamic banking – more like amateurish Muslim Ah Long’s operations with the exception of being licensed to collect deposits besides lending!

Just like his other simplistic argument of other “minor” advantages to an Islamic state – “like having the entire gambling and hospitality industry (they serve alcohol!) in non-Muslim hands” – what kind of Islamic state is Bakri proposing that allows “entire gambling and hospitality industry” to exist within and run by non muslims for profit?

Then comes the other argument that “there cannot be differentiation between Bumiputras and non-Bumiputras, that should warm the hearts of non-Bumiputras…. if the earlier mentioned economic considerations are not already appealing enough”.

He however concedes that “the only differentiating criteria in an Islamic state would be your faith: believers versus non-believers. Concepts of race, culture, ethnicity, or nationality are alien in Islam”.

This implicitly assumes that the differentiation between faithful and Kafir/infidel is far more consoling to non muslim/nmon bumis – which is doubtful!

His arguments that “an Islamic state would follow the dictates of the Quran, meaning, meaning there would be no place for corruption or the Internal Security Act. Hooray for that!” – that non-Muslims would be appreciated and earn goodwill of majority muslims if they spend their cash not in bribing corrupt Malay leaders but donating that money to building mosques and madrasahs – may not get their contracts or datukship but they would have earned the even more valuable community’s goodwill – ignore entirely the flip side of the coin – and that is, in a pure Islamic state: –

· the sovereign is Allah, and earthly rulers are merely His agents, bound to enforce His laws on all;

· in such a state, infidelity (as in being infidel) is logically a facet of treason, because the infidel by being a non believer repudiates the authority of the true king and are viewed as paying homage to false gods and goddesses. And hence all Tolerance towards Infidels is Tantamount to Sin! If any infidel is suffered to exist in an Islamic state, he is deemed a necessary aberration for a transitional period only as all resources of the State, and forces under the political authorities, will be utilised to convert or redeem infidels by imposition of political, economic and social disabilities on them to hasten the day of their spiritual enlightenment to join the roll of true believers.

· the growth of an infidel population in number or wealth would, therefore, defeat the very object of an Islamic State!

In the premises, everything that Bakri argued – that non muslims will be left to monopolise and profit from the capitalistic banking and other haram activities of gambling and hospitality industry is hogwash and nonsense unless his use and understanding of the term “Islamic state” is of a kind different from that which the world understands it to be.

His argument that if ardent advocates of Chinese schools were really smart, they would promote Islamic Studies in their schools to attract Muslims students – is terribly simplistic ignoring the fundamental fact that the objective of Chinese educationist is to preserve and transmit traditional Confucian values via Chinese education – and not Islamic values : and therefore to adhere to original objectives would repel muslim enrollment and to deviate otherwise would defeat the very raison de etre of Chinese education.

Instead of Bakri’s scenario that in an Islamic state, Malays/Muslims would be flocking to the madrasahs and the Islamic Studies faculties of local universities thereby reducing competition for medical and other professional schools left to Non Malays/non Muslims, the more likely scenario is that Non Malay/Muslim would be required to enroll in madrasahs and the Islamic Studies faculties of local universities, and if there were any medical and other professional schools left, they will have a strong Islamic course content .

Bakri admitted, “as a Muslim I wholeheartedly support the concept of an Islamic state”. He accused UMNO and PAS as being clueless of what is an Islamic state but does anyone here have a clue as to what exactly is Bakri’s Islamic state?

Bakri said that “Chinese leaders (in the Barisan coalition as well as the opposition) view with deep consternation Malay leaders’ obsession with an Islamic state. Instead of needlessly worrying about an undefined concept, these Chinese leaders should understand that to every crisis is an opportunity. The current obsession in Malaysia over the Islamic state is not a crisis, rather a unique, and I dare say, a potentially highly rewarding opportunity”.

What frightens me most is how an educated and accomplished surgeon based in Silicon Valley – who otherwise is a defender of civil society and bold critic of the faults of the administration – can, in matters where faith is involved, come out with such opportunistic hard sell arguments that are neither rooted in logic nor reality as otherwise expected of an intellectual like him.

I don’t sense that Bakri has argued that non malays/non muslims should embrace Islam as a religion because of extraneous economic benefits or other trade offs. He has merely argued that non malays/non muslims should not view with consternation but instead should support majority muslims’ aspirations to establish an Islamic state for all because within such a state there are opportunities aplenty for non malays/non muslims to corner the market to make money (from haram activities whether gambling, entertainment and giving interest bearing loans) and even to promote and spread Chinese education (by infusing Islamic teachings to attract muslim enrollment).

What is objectionable in what he postulated is:

(1) the arguments are totally unrealistic since a true Islamic state will not tolerate infidels to carry on haram activities within its boundaries much less allow them to prosper, and therefore to use such a trade off argument to canvass for non Malay/non Muslims’ support of an Islamic state is basically deceitful as it entices them with a bait by way of a trade off that can never be actualised or reaped within the realities of an Islamic state as is conventionally known;

(2) the arguments proceed on the implicit premise that non Malays/non muslims are basically prosaic, practical, not to inclined to matters spiritual or principled, and inclined to support anything, including the establishment of an Islamic state if there are extraneous economic trade offs to make money or chauvistic trade offs to spread Chinese education for Chinese education sake even though it is used as a medium of transmitting Islamic values – a view that is hardly complimentary of non beleivers/infidels!

Izrafeil, if your sense that he is merely playing Devil’s Advocate is correct, my apologies then, and I stand corrected. But is he really playing Devil’s Advocate? Does one play devil Advocate on a serious issue dividing Malaysians by prefacing the arguments with the declaration, “as a Muslim I wholeheartedly support the concept of an Islamic state”?

Even if Bakri were to satirize along lines that non muslims should not be worked up over proposals of ISM – because there are, from practical angle, opportunities of trade off and from conceptual angle, Islam Hadhari variety (so called neo feudalistic variety) as well as the PAS version, are in his opinion, “nebulous” and lacking clarity of concept – his concession, in principle, to an Islamic state (of which he has not jettisoned) is contrary to the aspirations of 40% of the non muslim population aspiring the application of secular principles. The other thing to remember is that it is only his opinion that PAS or UMNO knows not what they are doing in terms of shaping clearly the ISM. Whatever shape that it takes (as shaped by either of them) will be neither to the interests of the nation nor non muslims. Besides what is Bakri’s concept of an Islamic state? Has he made it clear for anyone to understand before he satirizes others’ versions???

Yeah, but why is the United Nations or Amnesty International pratising gender discrimination in not availing Chinese men threatened with ‘potong’ (circumcision) the equal right to apply for asylum in a country of their choice under the U.N. Convention for Refugees? Or is forced circumcision also a form of men’s genital mutilation) somewhat not violation of human rights unlike FGM or female genital mutilation? Is there a rational differentia?