Islamic State

Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak may have made a mistake when he said two days ago (Tuesday July 17, 2006) that Malaysia is an Islamic state. He must have meant an Islamic country. "Islam is the official religion and we are an Islamic state," he told reporters after officiating at the International Conference on the Role of Islamic States in a Globalised World" on behalf of Prime Minister Abdullah badawi at a hotel in Kuala Lumpur. No leader previously has so explicitly stated that Malaysia is an Islamic state until now.

If it is a mistake Najib should clear the air. it is true that Islam is the official religion but the founding fathers of this country has never intended it to be an Islamic State like Sudan, Libya etc. It is true we are not 100 per cent a secular nation but that does not mean we are an Islamic state. An Islamic country yes, becuase the majority of the people are Muslims and there are institutions of power which are steeped in Islamic practise and traditions. Islam being the official religion of Malaysia and 60 percent of the citizens being Muslims DOES NOT make it an Islamic state. Malaysia was founded on a secular Constitution. A contemporary Islamic state is a state where Allah/God is the Head of the state. The Quran & Syariah is the law of the land.

Many Muslim country too have recerntly stressed that they are an Islamic state and that secularism has no place in their society. Some Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia consider secularism to be a great sin. But is there any concept of an Islamic state in the Qur'an? Or in the Hadith literature? Does an Islamic state fit into any classical model? No. The Qur'an presents a concept of society, not of any state. When the Qur'an was being revealed, Arabia had no state whatsoever. Arabia was basically a tribal society governed by tribal leaders through a ribal council. There was no taxation system, no police force or army. It was a civil society governed by tribal customs and traditions. Consensus was a must.

Even if one tribal leader dissented, the decision could not be applied.The Prophet was concerned with social malaise rather than with any political problem. In the Arabian peninsula at the time, tribal bonds were breaking down and a new commercial society was being born in Mecca which was the centre of high finance and commerce. There was urban-desert malaise on the one hand and problems of breaking down of tribal structure within Meccan society and polarisation between the rich and poor on the other. The Qur'an was greatly concerned with establishing a just society. It exhorted the rich to be sensitive to others' suffering. The Qur'an laid stress on justice and benevolence in all socio-economic matters.

During the time of the Holy Prophet all problems were referred to him and his authority was supreme. He had also drawn up a covenant between people of different faiths in Madina including the Jews, Christians and the pagans. The Prophet had given full freedom to all to practice their respective religions. Madina was a pluralist society and there was no attempt whatsoever to impose Islam on anyone unwilling. It was `secular' in as much as plurality of religion was recognised.

After the death of the Holy Prophet muslims different on the question of statehood. Thoughout history the political theories underwent repeated changes in the Muslim world. Rulers would claim that they were enforcing the Islamic Shari'ah to claim the Muslim support. But even the Shari'ah was never implemented in its real spirit. Most of these rulers were tyrants rather than God-fearing.

The Qur'anic concept of a just and benevolent society was an ideal concept which could not be realised in practice except for a brief period. Muslim countries claiming to be Islamic states are far from these ideals.

No Entry

Can you beat it - UTK fails to keep record of movement of arms and bullets among its personnel! If not for the Altantuya murder court case this would have gone unnoticed. Bet you tomorrow or soon there will some ministers or top gun saying they are going to tighten loopholes in the system. This passing of new laws, legislations and procedures will go on till enternity but nothing is going to change if there is no political will. In some latin american countries their special action force (like our UTK) are hired by private individuals to kill civilians or political enemies. Can this happen here or is it already happening!

Where did the bomb come from

Where actually did the C4 used on the victim originate from? Are we absolutely sure it is from UTK armoury? Where is the proof? It must be established in court that explosives (C4) or whatever bomb used on the victim came from UTK armoury and not from other armoury like the army etc. did not the forensics collect evidence from the crime scene? Can it not establish from the remnants what type of explosive was used and where it came from? Can we hang a person without being absolutely sure that he/she actually committed the crime?