NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Muslims are probably perplexed as to why non-Muslims view any discussion and discourse on Islam, or anything at all related to Islam, with suspicion and distrust. The hostility demonstrated by non-Muslims is probably unsettling for most Muslims who interpret it as an attack on Islam.
This has always been the stance of religionists: either you are with me or else you are my enemy. There is no middle ground. It must always be one extreme or the other. And this is not just the problem with Muslims. Jews and Christians too take this very uncompromising stand. It appears like the Abrahamic faiths are founded on militancy and aggression.
And can you blame people for thinking this way when the Abrahamic faiths have been propagated at the point of the sword and based on the principle of convert or die? You may say that this was in the past. But do you expect the past to be so easily forgotten and forgiven when the wounds might have already healed but the scars still remain? And is what is happening in many parts of the Middle East and other Muslim countries reflective of the past or an indication that we are still living in the past?
Religionists, whether they are Jews, Christians or Muslims, speak with arrogance and in a very condescending attitude. Humility and humbleness appear to be virtues that religionists do not possess. It is always I know better than you and I speak on behalf of God. Where is that so-called religion of peace and love and forgiveness that they talk so much about? What people see is mere rhetoric and insincerity. How can they be trusted when they are unable to demonstrate good faith?
Religionists, in particular Islamists, espouse the virtues of an Islamic State and try to convince their audience on how much better life would be under an Islamic State as opposed to a Secular State.
The opposite of a Secular State is a Theocracy. But when we refer to an Islamic State as a Theocracy it is met with resistance. Islamists insist that an Islamic State is not a Theocracy. If it is not a Theocracy then what is it? Can we call it a Democracy? Yes, that is what they would like us to call it, a Democracy.
But that is just it. A Theocracy is not a Democracy. Which Islamic State since the time of the Prophet Muhammad until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 was founded on free and fair elections? It has always been founded on the basis of totalitarian governments. Free and fair elections can never work in a Theocracy because free and fair elections are about the wishes of the majority while Theocracies are about the will of God. The wishes of the majority do not count. The will of God overrides the wishes of the majority.
I have always argued that if Prophet Muhammad had to stand for elections he would have been defeated and ousted as the leader of his community. Let us not forget that the Muslim community, then, was in the minority and they were surrounded by Jews, Christians and Pagans who constantly plotted against the Muslims.
There has never been a single example of a successful Theocracy, whether Islamic State, Christian State, or whatever, since time immemorial. All have been totalitarian regimes where the wishes of the majority are not supreme. Human rights are not respected. In fact, the concept of human rights does not even exist. Even the so-called ‘Golden Age of Islam’ was founded on a totalitarian system where the rights of the people did not matter.
How can right-thinking Malaysians agree to turn back the clock and take a journey back into the past to live in the Middle Ages? And when we argue this point it is interpreted as that we are Islam-haters or defiant of Allah’s command -- the characteristics of Satan and the reason why God has condemned Satan to an eternity in hell.
Islamists fail to realise that the problem is not the laws itself but the application of the laws. Under the present judicial system and form of government, where dissent and opposition is not tolerated, even good laws can become bad. The word ‘justice’ is non-existent in Malaysia. How can Malaysians trust any amendments to the present system when the present system itself has failed and no reprieve appears over the horizon?
Malaysia needs to move forward. And the way forward has to be based on more democracy, tolerance, and respect for civil liberties. No Islamic State over 1,500 years has proven to possess these qualities. Quality of life improved not when these countries embraced an Islamic State but when they removed the shroud of totalitarian regimes and abolished the Caliphate.
Few citizens of the world would want to consider a Theological State -- whether it is a Hindu State, Buddhist State, Jewish State, Christian State, or Islamic State. The experiment with Theocracies has ended and all ended in failure and disaster. It is time to move forward and the way forward is by majority rule.
Nevertheless, if the majority opts for a Theocracy then so be it. That is how democracies work. But for the minority to impose their values on the majority is not on. So expect the majority to resist. And opposition by the majority against the minority should not be interpreted as a war against God. It is merely the majority upholding their democratic right of freedom of choice, a right, in the first place, given to us by God Himself
No comments:
Post a Comment