///It is hard, to say the least, to believe that a party can be supportive of democracy if it starts by calling for the banning of NGOs even before it comes to power…///- Dr Farish Noor.

Since the word “democracy” started 2000 years ago in Greece, it has since meant different things to different people. Even Hitler claimed his Nazi party democratic : do did communist parties whether in China, Vietnam or Cuba.

PAS’s version of ‘democracy’ is from Islamic perspectives – and not the same as Farish’s. Farish’s version of it – tolerating NGO’s like Sisters-in-Islam, freedom of expression or to dissent, diversity etc – is associated with Western liberal values, such as free markets, individual rights and secularism.

Whilst it is not surprising at all that PAS will not accept SIS, what is surprising is that PAS shows its hand so early in the game before it arrives at the gate of its objective via PR.

The fault of Hadi’s faction – is that it is not sabar (patient).

From examples elsewhere (Algeria, Iran etc) it is not uncommon for fundamental Islamic groups to work with secular parties and liberal democratic parties in opposition front and alliances to win via ballot boxes or fight in the streets to oust corrupt, dictatorial/military regimes. After ousting the common enemy from power, these groups then grabbed power to establish their version of Islamic State.

So why show your hand so early in the game (even before the next GE) and frighten your non suspecting liberal and secular allies in PR coalition and their supporters? Problem is they don’t see film “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”.

Taqiyya derived from Sharia allows pragmatism/dissimulation in exceptional circumstances of self preservation to make alliances with non believers, to even pretend to subscribe for something one does not agree just so to attain one’s long term objectives.

This is not unique to Islamic jurisprudence – western common law jurisprudence shares this based on concept of “Necessity”.

We recall Justice NH Chan discoursing on this Doctrine of Necessity when he mentioned the case of Dudley and Stephens under thread subject “Even when you do the right thing, it is still wrong” in earlier part of this blog.

In that case 3 men in English yacht, Mignoneue castaway in a storm 1,600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope had no food, water and could not have survived if they had not killed the weakest – cabin boy – and fed on his body and blood.

Rescued later they were charged for homicide and were later given reprieve from gallows based on Doctrine of Necessity as defence – “Homicide is also justifiable from the great universal principle of self-preservation, which prompts every man to save his own life preferably to that of another, where one of them must inevitably perish.” In words of Mr Justice Stephen (on the Laws of England (1st edn, 1841).

So too Taqiyya (for self preservation extended from a person to the ideal of Islamic state) – the Islamic equivalent of Necessity in Western jurisprudence.

All I said was that “Taqiyya derived from Sharia allows pragmatism/dissimulation in exceptional circumstances of self preservation (comparing it with even western concept of “Necessity”) to make alliances with non believers, to even pretend to subscribe for something one does not agree just so to attain one’s long term objectives. It is a necessary notion to reconcile/justify (from Islamic morality perspectives) the otherwise undesirable act of a party dedicated to the establishment of an Theorcatic Islamic State to act in cooperation with political parties of non believers upholding opposite secular values and opposing establishment of Theocratic State. It is like an internal “defence mechanism” sanctioned by Sharia to resolve conflicts of values amongst believers working with non believers.

Where did I say anywhere “Taqiyya” is per se dangerous and bad to be branded “anti-Islamist” as Godfather would twist it for others to believe???

Secondly, what has ‘Taqiyya being a 15th century concept…’ got to do with anything when I just said in another blog thread that the concept of Sedition Act practised today is derived from Elizabethen Era????

The basic strategy to give concessions to temporary inconsistencies for the attainment of larger ultimate agenda is not 15th century and even peculiarly Sharia- it is practised and embraced as a political strategy by political groups determined to effect change and come to power at all costs, such political groups being not confined to preserve of Islamic fundamentalist groups but all otehr groups whether communists, secular or revolutionary……

Thirdly, to warn against ideology of PAS’ theocratic agenda is to warn against a particular sect called Fundamentalist Political Islam influenced by the Wahhibi sect of 19th century of which the Iranian Revolution led by cleric Khomeini started in Iran, influencing some places within Middle East including Afghanistan talibans. It is different brand of Islam from that which is practised elsewhere (say) in mainstream Indonesia and Malaysia.

So how could a warning against a political ideology based on Islamic Theocracy as that espoused by PAS (practised say by the Afghanistan’s Talibans, Iranians or Saudis) and not necessarily practised in other countries of Islamic majorities (Indonesia & Turkey) be twisted to be Islam or Islamic faith in general?

From these, it will be clear that Godpapa is neither a thinking/ logical person nor a person inclined to a reasoned discourse – but a mere rabble rouser of hate speech, trying to discredit postings of certain posters that he is determined to discredit for the sake of discrediting by whatever intellectually dishonest and twisting means (eg brandinmg a person “anti-Islamist) that may persuade those who don’t examine his postings critically.

On the other question of, what has ‘Taqiyya being a 15th century concept…’ got to do with anything – how does that advance an argument when I just said in another blog thread that the concept of Sedition Act practised today is derived from Elizabethen Era????

Even the western democratic traditions we know today of separation of power etc started in 17th and 18th centuries philosophers like baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill (on Freedom of Speech) etc Are they irrelevant today? Stupid argument, that put forth by Godpapa.

The basic strategy to give concessions to temporary inconsistencies for the attainment of larger ultimate agenda is not 15th century and even peculiarly Sharia- it is practised and embraced as a political strategy by political groups determined to effect change and come to power at all costs, such political groups being not confined to preserve of Islamic fundamentalist groups but all other contemporary groups whether communists, secular or revolutionary……

I am only addressing ideology of PAS’ theocratic agenda based on a particular sect called Fundamentalist Political Islam influenced by the Wahhibi sect of 19th century of which the Iranian Revolution led by cleric Khomeini started in Iran, influencing some places within Middle East including Afghanistan talibans. It is different brand of Islam from that which is practised elsewhere (say) in mainstream Indonesia and Malaysia. Why should a warning against a political ideology based on Islamic Theocracy as that espoused by PAS (practiced by the Iranians, Saudis and, say, Afghanistan’s Talibans destroying by dynamite the largest and tallest Buddha statues) – and not necessarily practised in other countries of Islamic majorities (Indonesia & Turkey) – be twisted by Godpapa to be warning against Islam or Islamic faith in general?

///You don’t need to highlight an archaic Islamic practice in this era to reject Islamic theocracy/// – Godpapa.

Yes, but an archaic Islamic practice (whether 15th century Taqiyya or 19th century Wahhabism upon which modern day fundamental political Islamist ideology share common precepts) is highlighted if only to rebut your contention that what is archaic in past centuries is no longer applicable or could not be revived, and therefore should not be raised as a factor for consideration. See the illogic of our response.

///What the QC Wannabe has done in his endless pontifications is just to reveal what he truly is – an anti-Islamist and scare-mongering bigot.///

However I have in posting Today at 15: 22.58 (1 hour ago) explained why “Taqiyya” is useful for furthering a certain theocratic agenda in terms of reconciling to supporters/believers why certain compromises with non believers are necessary in terms of cooperation to push for final agenda. And it has also been clarified that there a key difference between spreading the danger of Taqiyya (in terms of advancing a certain agenda not agreed to by other coalition partners) and spreading the idea/notion/belief that Taqiyya is danger (per se).

It has also been amply explained that warning against a particular POLITICAL IDEOLOGY of theocracy justified on interpretation of faith prevalent in some countries of muslim majorities (eg Iran, Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan) but not embraced in other countries of muslim majorities (eg Indonesia, malaysia, Turkey) is standalone extraneous and unconnected with the Islamic faith (in general) of which there are different competing interpretations.

So what is the basis of accusation of “anti-Islamist and scare-mongering bigot”? No reason? You feel it so?

If I accuse you of being a PAS cybertrooper here – without reasons – then I am a bigot but if you accuse me as “anti-Islamist and scare-mongering bigot”, when there is no basis and not even a cogent rebuttal to the explanations given by me, then it is you who has proven yourself a the biggest bias bigot, taking strong positions without any let alone proper/reasoned basis of thought and accusation.

I think that is so clear.

Take one example of what the Godpapa had said – “You don’t need to highlight an archaic Islamic practice in this era to reject Islamic theocracy”.

Yes, although one could reject Islamic theocracy (in present times)without having to highlight an archaic Islamic practice of past era, however it was Godfather himself who first raised the contention that one should not raise archaic practice (whether 15th century Taqiyya or 19th century Wahhabism) to argue present circumstances, thereby making that practice (whether archaic or relevant now) an issue.

From simple example one can see how he raises an issue, when you address the issue with explanation that he could not offer a reply, he turns around and ironically berate/ridicule you for responding to an issue that he himself first raised, forgetting and sweeping under the carpet that he raised the issue.

The explanation clearly shows the temper of mind of this man : illogical, unfair and impervious to reasons.

, was revived in 1970s especially after Iranian Revolution (“Explanation”).

(2) So though one could reject Islamic theocracy without highlighing I don’t have The Explanation above is to rebut his contention that what is archaic in past centuries is no longer applicable or could not be revived, and therefore should not be raised as a factor for consideration. See the illogic of our response

// I was just egging the QC Wannabe and the Cambridge Kid on. They are smart and good people, but they still lack in humility and tolerance. Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values// – Godfather.

“egging” means “to encourage or incite to action”. It means, even when big issues are at stake, he is arguing for the sake of arguing – which is trivialising discussion here. Focus is not on merits/demerits of message – but trying to inculcate “humility and tolerance”.

And then the patronising remark “Hopefully as they get older, they will attain these values” as if “older” necessarily implies widom (humility & tolerance) when some more rigid, dogmatic, intolerant and even senile. It also makes the implicit – questionable – assumption that he is older.

Is this not an irony when the Arrogant who says “Alright boys, I gotta go as my hourly rate is definitely higher than that of the QC Wannabe” preach Humility?

His idea of (humility & tolerance) is to be humble and tolerate his misrepresentations, mis-statements, ridicules and insults, crooked and fallacious arguments, assumptions without basis thrown at any one on any issue as and when he feels at liberty to do so – without correction and check.

Humility and Tolerance means giving him a free rein like Mafia Godfather to engage in all these undesirable practices in an open forum of participators within the “family” of opposition supporters – without dissent.

His choice of nick/handle (Godfather) is calculated.

Ever seen the film “The Godfather” an American 1972 crime thriller based on the 1969 novel of the same name by Mario Puzo, directed by Francis Ford Coppola starring Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan etc?

There was a scene (don’t know whether Godfather II or III) in which Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), tells brother Fredo to never take sides against the family again after Fredo tries to stick up for Moe Green when Michael is talking to him. (Never mind whether Fredo doing the right thing or not) or Corleone family doing wrong thing – “Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the Family again. Ever.”

Must be our Godpap’s favourite lines. Very telling! :)

///These anti-Islamists will come at you not with just one retort, they will come after you with continuous foot-long postings condemning PAS, condemning you, and in the process reveal their true colours – their air of superiority over others, their condescending attitude towards other faiths, their overriding desire to see PR split up. Regular readers to this blog can attest to this./// – Godfather.

The above is a classic specimen of rabble-rousing.

In case you say that English is not your first language I need to explain: to rabble rouse is to arouse collective emotions by leveling incitive and instigative accusations against selected targets convenient for such a purpose, never mind that the accusations are neither supported by facts, cogent arguments nor reasons.

The interest of the rabble rouser is not quest of the truth or facts on any issue – he gives two hoots on that except where it serves his agenda – but merely to leverage on and exploit the collective sentiments of readers in this blog (frustrated with excesses of the BN over the years and placing hopes on Pakatan Rakyat to end them) and making their bile of the audience rise to the brains.

There can therefore be no meaningful exchange between the rabble rouser (a small time blog demagogue wannabe) constantly inciting passions (maybe as a means to vent his own frustrations) and those others who discuss with a view to ascertain the balanced truth.

However why should we be let off a rabble rouser?

He is engaged in a combination of conscious and unconscious ways in the very same demagoguery, twisting, misrepresenting others’ positions, making false accusations as the very same racists, extremists and bigots on the other side of the political fence that he vehemently condemns here. Not only are such methods hypocritical but they are also dangerous.

Think about it.