Islamic state vs democracy ?
bad boy
witra wrote in message <375466e5...@nntp.jaring.my>...
>
>An Islamic state and democracy is not mutually exclusive. However,
>there are many ways to implement an Islamic state, some more
>democratic than others. The Taliban's version scares off many people.
>However, the fundamental difficulty with implementing an Islamic state
>in a multi-religious country is how do you get the other religions to
>accept it voluntarily. PAS has yet to work this out. I have some
>doubts as to whether this is even possible.
>
There are many examples of true Islamic state but unfortunately,
NONE is democratic. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, ..........All these
countries are ruled by fanatical interpretations of the Koran.
They have turned the clock back and forced the people to
live in medieval societies.
Some of their excesses are
1. Women are like property, to be owned. They have no rights,
to education, to jobs, to participate in sports, swimming,
games, dancing and other social activities.
2. Girls cannot wear nice clothing, show their pretty faces,
display their beautiful hair, follow the latest fashion ........
3. The people are not ruled by the laws passed by their elected
representatives.
4. Owning a TV set is against Islam. (Not to mention PCs,
handphones, cars, .....)
The followers of PAS may choose to live in such a society,
but other Malaysian will find it a little difficult to bear.
To most Malaysian, such society is not progress, is not
democracy, and is even worse than a dictatorship.
The Islamic state under PAS will have social conditions
very much worse than it is now. Voters would rather stay
with BN.
If Wan Azizah is true to her promise of a better society
for the people, then she has to declare now that her party
is against this Islamic state business. Failing to do so,
sad to say, her party will be still born.
witra
>....
>very little such as sodomy case, alcohol etc... some other regulations shall
>be decided same as what we are doing now... please study more about islam if
>you would like to make comments about the religion...
Why don't you enlighten us. We're too lazy to get off our butt and go
to the library. :)
Hang Kedah
bad boy <b...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:7j37cd$9r8$1...@nobel2.pacific.net.sg...
> The followers of PAS may choose to live in such a society,
> but other Malaysian will find it a little difficult to bear.
> To most Malaysian, such society is not progress, is not
> democracy, and is even worse than a dictatorship.
>
> The Islamic state under PAS will have social conditions
> very much worse than it is now. Voters would rather stay
> with BN.
>
..who says so.. the Samaritans ????
Only BN and its cronies believe and want all Malaysians to believe in such
nonsense. Your thinking is the one who is backward. You are out of touch
with reality.
Please follow the proceedings of PAS muktamar at http://www.parti-pas.org to
learn more of the truth. Keep your mind open and your heart warmed, I am
sure you will see the 'light' or rather the 'moon'.
Another thing, progress as you called it or 'development' as some one would
called it or 'civilisation' as others would called it does not necessarily
mean being free do all the things you said (e.g. Girls cannot wear nice
clothing, show their pretty faces, display their beautiful hair, follow the
latest fashion ..bla bal bla..). Remember that 'girls' in the early period
of times wear very minimum clothing and thus exposing more of their
'beauties' then you would today. Would you called them more 'civilised' ????
As to the other things you mentioned, I supposed you have led your
imaginations run wild. Who says PAS is going to ban all those things in one
fell 'swoop'. Those things can be done if done correctly and in the proper
manner. No time to explain here though...
However, cheers and wassalam.
Jimmy
But nothing could happen in Malaysia ,
if so May 12+1 will happen again in this multi nation country.
Talking about religion in politic is a stupid QUESTION's and ANSWER's.
Religion
is for u to believe in and to bring u closer to GOD.
So u religious gal n guy don't talk about religion at former
meeting.
Beliving in something is good but don't jump to conclusion.
Danforth
its role in society. It's just a good ole redneck religion, minus the beer.
Nakamura Kazumasa
Danforth wrote in message <3755a...@news.tm.net.my>...
> I'm begining to like islam more with each passing day's clarification
of
>its role in society. It's just a good ole redneck religion, minus the
beer.
beer? really that good huh???
>
>>Some of their excesses are
>>1. Women are like property, to be owned. They have no rights,
>> to education, to jobs, to participate in sports, swimming,
>> games, dancing and other social activities.
you're wrong here... please study more...
>>2. Girls cannot wear nice clothing, show their pretty faces,
they can... check them again please...
>> display their beautiful hair, follow the latest fashion ........
>>3. The people are not ruled by the laws passed by their elected
>> representatives.
very little such as sodomy case, alcohol etc... some other regulations shall
be decided same as what we are doing now... please study more about islam if
you would like to make comments about the religion...
thank you..
>
Nakamura Kazumasa
witra wrote in message <3755b703...@nntp.jaring.my>...
shall
>>be decided same as what we are doing now... please study more about islam
if
>>you would like to make comments about the religion...
>
>to the library. :)
>
>
don't....
there are many website which enable you to study without getting off your
"butt".. if you really eager to know more....
thanks
bad boy
Hang Kedah wrote in message <7j3md7$aca$1...@news5.jaring.my>...
>
>> - deleted -
>> The followers of PAS may choose to live in such a society,
>> but other Malaysian will find it a little difficult to bear.
>> To most Malaysian, such society is not progress, is not
>> democracy, and is even worse than a dictatorship.
>>
>> The Islamic state under PAS will have social conditions
>> very much worse than it is now. Voters would rather stay
>> with BN.
>>
>..who says so.. the Samaritans ????
Would Malaysian vote for a party that turn back the clock?
Would sensible people vote for a party that deny you
them 'rule by their elected representatives.'?
Would non Malaysian want to be ruled by fanatical
interpretations of the Koran ?
All sensible Malaysians, Muslim and non Muslim, will say
NO to PAS.
----------------------
>Please follow the proceedings of PAS muktamar at http://www.parti-pas.org
to
>learn more of the truth.
The "truth" to PAS, but it's bigotry and lies to sensible people.
----------------------------------
>you have led your imaginations run wild. Who says PAS is
>going to ban all those things in one fell 'swoop'. Those things
> can be done if done correctly ...........
Is PAS going to ban 'all those things' one at a time????
To the voters, banning even one right, removing one freedom
now enjoy by them, is one too many. The voters demand more
rights, and more freedom, not less.
PAS is not in tune with the time, not in tune with the feelings
of Malaysian, not in tune with a modern society.
Of course, PAS can try to con the voters, try to give non-Muslim
false promises. They may do so to kampong folks, but better
educated voters can judge for themselves who will give them
a better tomorrow.
Voters wants a democratic society, a just and fair government,
a better government. BN can satisfy these needs if they try,
Wan Azizah can give the voters a better government and a
better society, if she dare try. Voters will not give PAS and DAP
the mandate, knowing their inclination for "Islamic fundamentalism"
and "Malaysian Malaysia".
Cheers, for a better future for all !
chaos and disorder
let's see
u want heaven or hell?
*****************************************************
beleivin' all the lies that they're telling ya,
buying all tha products that they're selling ya,
they say jump and ya say how high?,
ya brain dead? ya got a f***ing bullet in ya head!
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
It is only the PRACTICE by those REDNECKS with TURBANS which turned the Holy
Islam Faith into OPPRESSIVE and UNDEMOCRATIC.
The Islamic rule could have been ENLIGHTENED, that is, it could have use the
ENLIGHTENMENT APPROACH. If one reads the Holy Al Q'uran, one will see that
there exists a VERY PROMISING STAGE whereby ENLIGHTENMENT enshine from within
Islam and through Islam, the world begins to cleanse itself and embrace true
holiness.
Sadly, that vision has yet to materialized.
In article <3755a...@news.tm.net.my>, "Danforth" <jo...@netnews.com> wrote:
> I'm begining to like islam more with each passing day's clarification of
> its role in society. It's just a good ole redneck religion, minus the beer.
> >Some of their excesses are
> >1. Women are like property, to be owned. They have no rights,
> > to education, to jobs, to participate in sports, swimming,
> > games, dancing and other social activities.
> >2. Girls cannot wear nice clothing, show their pretty faces,
> > display their beautiful hair, follow the latest fashion ........
> >3. The people are not ruled by the laws passed by their elected
> > representatives.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
<b...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> witra wrote in message <375466e5...@nntp.jaring.my>...
> >An Islamic state and democracy is not mutually exclusive. However,
> >there are many ways to implement an Islamic state, some more
> >democratic than others. The Taliban's version scares off many
> >people.
> >However, the fundamental difficulty with implementing an Islamic
> >state in a multi-religious country is how do you get the other religions
> >to accept it voluntarily. PAS has yet to work this out. I have some
> >doubts as to whether this is even possible.
> There are many examples of true Islamic state but unfortunately,
> NONE is democratic. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, ..........All these
> countries are ruled by fanatical interpretations of the Koran.
> They have turned the clock back and forced the people to
> live in medieval societies.
> Some of their excesses are
> 1. Women are like property, to be owned. They have no rights,
> to education, to jobs, to participate in sports, swimming,
> games, dancing and other social activities.
> 2. Girls cannot wear nice clothing, show their pretty faces,
> display their beautiful hair, follow the latest fashion ........
> 3. The people are not ruled by the laws passed by their elected
> representatives.
> 4. Owning a TV set is against Islam. (Not to mention PCs,
> handphones, cars, .....)
> The followers of PAS may choose to live in such a society,
> but other Malaysian will find it a little difficult to bear.
> To most Malaysian, such society is not progress, is not
> democracy, and is even worse than a dictatorship.
> The Islamic state under PAS will have social conditions
> very much worse than it is now. Voters would rather stay
> with BN.
> If Wan Azizah is true to her promise of a better society
> for the people, then she has to declare now that her party
> is against this Islamic state business. Failing to do so,
> sad to say, her party will be still born.
All what we are seeing today regarding the UNDEMOCRATIC and OPPRESSIVE
ISLAMIC STATES is the result of the practice of FALSE ISLAM.
TRUE ISLAM will never let unjusts and stupidities be carried out, in the name
of Islam and the Almighty Allah.
Study the Holy Al Q'uran, when you have some spare time. Read through the
passages where it clearly stated that OPPRESSION and UNJUSTS are STRICTLY
PROHIBITED.
The REDNECKS with TURBANS, no matter if they are in Malaysia or in
Afghanistan, are _NOT_ true Muslims.
They _will_ have to answer for the CRIME they commit in the name of the Holy
Islamic Faith and Almighty Allah when they die. They _will_ come face to face
with the ULTIMATE TRUTH, for the Almighty Allah _IS_ the Ultimate Truth.
Come that day, all those TURBAN REDNECKS who carry out all sorts of criminal
activities in the name of the Almighty Allah will have to answer for their
own action.
If the TURBAN REDNECKS think that they can escape from this judgement, they
are wrong. Those who proclaim themselves as Muslims _MUST_ adhere to the
Muslim way of life.
None of them can escape this.
The more crime the committed, the more they have to answer for.
OPPRESSION, STUPIDITY and INJUSTICE are NEVER the way of TRUE ISLAM.
So, in this life we may not be experiencing the ENLIGHTENMENT from TRUE
ISLAM, but not be despair, for the ULTIMATE TRUTH, the Almight Allah, will be
the FINAL JUDGE for everything.
Alan Foo
I cannot at all comprehend how PAS can ever rule the country with its
Islamic state ideals.
My view is that , no matter what religion it is ....never never never
mix religion with politics. Look around the world today where religion
divides ...Ireland christians fight christians, Sri Lanka
Tamils fights buddhists , lebanon e.g beirut destroyed by religious
factions .....
Take a look at all states that enforces religion on their people...most
are in one kind of trouble or the
other. Too many to elaborate...e.g Alfagistan, Iran .
One country Indonesia , although a Muslim country does not impose
Islamic rule ...they are still
relatively okay....
So for ALL Malaysians be it Muslims, Christians, or others...never never
mix politics with religion
as sure as sun will set tomorrow the country WILL suffer. Reject any
party that mixes religion
with politics...
bad boy
May be you are mistaken.
In Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere where Islamic fundamentalist
rule, they have highly qualified religious scholars to interpret
the Holy Al Q'uran. Can you challenge them on their reading
of the Q'uran?
They are millions of Muslim who are undemocratic and
oppressive in these Islamic states. Are you saying that they
follow the Holy Al Q'uran wrongly. In fact, I did not read or hear
a single criticism for their undemocratic and oppressive acts
from 'real' Muslim.
The fact is the Q'uran do teach these oppressive acts. An Islamic
state is undemocratic and it is worse than rule by a dictator.
In these day and time, Malaysian, being multi racial and of
varied religions, will never accept an 'Islamic state' way of life.
Cheers. May the 'Force' be with you.
hard...@freemail.c3.hu wrote in message <7j76o2$uhn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>.................(deleted).......
>> NONE is democratic. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, ..........All these
>> countries are ruled by fanatical interpretations of the Koran.
>> They have turned the clock back and forced the people to
>> live in medieval societies.
>
>> Some of their excesses are
>> 1. Women are like property, to be owned. They have no rights,
>> to education, to jobs, to participate in sports, swimming,
>> games, dancing and other social activities.
>> 2. Girls cannot wear nice clothing, show their pretty faces,
>> display their beautiful hair, follow the latest fashion ........
>> 3. The people are not ruled by the laws passed by their elected
>> representatives.
>> 4. Owning a TV set is against Islam. (Not to mention PCs,
>> handphones, cars, .....)
>
>> The followers of PAS may choose to live in such a society,
>> but other Malaysian will find it a little difficult to bear.
>All what we are seeing today regarding the UNDEMOCRATIC and OPPRESSIVE
>ISLAMIC STATES is the result of the practice of FALSE ISLAM.
>
>Study the Holy Al Q'uran, when you have some spare time. Read through the
>passages where it clearly stated that OPPRESSION and UNJUSTS are STRICTLY
>PROHIBITED.
>
>The REDNECKS with TURBANS, no matter if they are in Malaysia or in
>Afghanistan, are _NOT_ true Muslims.
>
>
>Bob
Hang Kedah
- what do you mean by democracy ???
- who defines democracy (is it GOD or is it Abraham Lincoln or someone
else...)
- must 'Islamic State' follows this 'humanly defined' democracy ???
- what do you mean by civilisation and who defines them.
- etc. etc.
We are only viewing this world from our human perspective not GOD. Hence,
comparing an Islamic State to a democracy state is like comparing a 'car
crash' and a 'Picasso' - courtesy of Mr. Bean the Movie.
bad boy <b...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:7jcd6p$ik9$2...@newton.pacific.net.sg...
chaos and disorder
lemme get something straight.
after reading hardwork's writing.
it made bad boy look really
stupid and unknowledgeable
no offence lah.
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
While I agree with you that trying to define the true meaning of "Democracy"
is akin to dancing on the slippery slope, I have to say that nobody on this
Earth can claimed to speak for GOD.
GOD himself (or herself, or whatever-self) can and will speakth, when the
"speaking" is needed.
Unfortunately, too many "Turban Rednecks" are telling their followers they
are the "annoited" representative of the Almighty Allah, hence every action
they take, they did it in the name of the Almighty Allah.
It's an unfortunate development for a noble religion such as the Holy Islamic
faith.
I will never officially call myself a Christian, a Buddhist, or a Muslim,
because I've seen too many of the hypocracies in them, and there are too many
of those so called "Christians", "Buddhists" or "Muslims" are blasphemizing
GOD, for they carried out SINFUL ACTS in GOD's name.
Anyone interested in understanding GOD should spent some time reading HOLY
TEXTS like the Bible and Al Q'uran. It takes much time for simple minded
people like me to understand the MEANING embedded in the wisdom writings from
the ancient elders, and I am still learning, forever learning and seeking the
TRUTH.
It's pointless in arguing whether or not "democracy" as we know is "GOD
approved", because we just should NOT speak for GOD if we don't know
him/her/whatever well enough.
That's all I have to say, for now.
In article <7jd1ov$7l6$1...@news6.jaring.my>, "Hang Kedah" <mu...@pc.jaring.my>
wrote:
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
<b...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> Bob,
> May be you are mistaken.
> In Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere where Islamic fundamentalist
> rule, they have highly qualified religious scholars to interpret
> the Holy Al Q'uran. Can you challenge them on their reading
> of the Q'uran?
> They are millions of Muslim who are undemocratic and
> oppressive in these Islamic states. Are you saying that they
> follow the Holy Al Q'uran wrongly. In fact, I did not read or hear
> a single criticism for their undemocratic and oppressive acts
> from 'real' Muslim.
> The fact is the Q'uran do teach these oppressive acts. An Islamic
> state is undemocratic and it is worse than rule by a dictator.
> In these day and time, Malaysian, being multi racial and of
> varied religions, will never accept an 'Islamic state' way of life.
> Cheers. May the 'Force' be with you.
Dear Bad Boy,
Thank you for writing me back.
As I've told Hang Kedah, the concept of "Democracy" as we know it today is
slippery. "Democracy" itself should have been a dynamic process, and anyone
trying to define a truly dynamic process like "Democracy", especially if they
want to carve it in stone, much like the Ten Commandments, are misleaded,
because democracy for one era may not be suitable for democracy for another
era. Democracy that is being practiced in United States may not be as useful
if applied to the People Republic of China, for instance.
You asked a question that if I would like to challenge those "scholars" in
term of the Holy Al Q'uran, and my answer to you is any "CHALLENGE" in term
of the Holy Al Q'uran is POINTLESS, because NOBODY, none of us, can speak for
GOD, and all our understanding of GOD arises from our OWN PERSONAL
UNDERSTANDING.
It is utterly USELESS to challege others on their behaviors, if we don't even
understand how we behave ourselves.
Therefore, the behavior of those Turban Rednecks may be despictable, their
blasphamies towards the Almight Allah may be misleading, nevertheless, if
they think what they are doing is "CORRECT", then they should be allowed to
carry on whatever they are doing.
After all, we all will die one day, and on that day of JUDGEMENT, we all will
have to stand before the Almighty, and TRUTH WILL PREVAIL.
Whatever "TRUTH" we think we know on this earth may NOT be applicable on that
judgement day. So, whatever those Turban Rednecks are telling their followers
today, on the day of THEIR judgement, they will know if their belief, and
their action of invoking the holy name of GOD to shore up their despictable
behaviors is correct or not.
This life we live on this earth is but ephermeral, our souls may be
"recycled", as preached by the Buddhist (and Hindu) faith, or our souls may
be like ROM, once used it stays the way it is forever, with no hope of being
recycled.
Alas, until the day we die, we won't know which version it is, but as we are
still living, we might as well accept that each of us here on this earth has
a mission to fulfill, even those Turban Rednecks have their own missions too.
Who knows? Maybe those Turban Rednecks are right, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe GOD
doesn't like democracy. Who knows?
I won't speak for GOD for I don't know GOD well enough to become a
spokeperson for the Almighty. I will only say the word *I* speak.
As to the question of whether or not the Islamic countries are democratic or
ruthlessly dictatorial, I will stick to my claim that TRUE ISLAM prohibits
oppression and unjust. Those who profess to be "Muslims" who are involved in
any form of oppressive operations should stop and reconsider their "claim" to
be "Muslims", or the least they should do is to RE-READ the Holy Al Q'uran to
get a better understanding of the Holy Religion of Islam.
We should not judge the Holy Religion of Islam simply based on the action of
the Turban Rednecks, as we should not judge the Holy Religion of Christianity
simply based on the action of Bill Clinton, the cigar man who bombed
Yugoslavia.
Sincerely,
Bob
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
> > Bob,
> >
> > May be you are mistaken.
> >
> > In Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere where Islamic fundamentalist
> > rule, they have highly qualified religious scholars to interpret
> > the Holy Al Q'uran. Can you challenge them on their reading
> > of the Q'uran?
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
> Bob,
> May be you are mistaken.
> In Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere where Islamic fundamentalist
> rule, they have highly qualified religious scholars to interpret
> the Holy Al Q'uran. Can you challenge them on their reading
> of the Q'uran?
> They are millions of Muslim who are undemocratic and
Dear Bad Boy,
Sincerely,
Bob
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
bad boy
Nice to have a reply that is well written in the defence of Islam.
First, let me state my position on Islam as a religion and God.
I have deep respect for Islam as a religion and, I believe, its
God is the same entity as in Christianity and Judaism. Being
a mere mortal, I lead a god fearing life and try to follow his
teaching. In my all previous postings, I have not passed
judgement on Islam as a religion. (as you implied tt I did,
in the last para of your posting).
Our debate is not on Islam or God, but on the type of
government we want for Malaysia.
Do we want a democratic form of government, or
do we want an Islamic state, as proposed by PAS?
A Harvard professor in political science told us that there
are more than a dozens form of democracy. A democracy
is a country ruled by the people, governed by their elected
representatives. Malaysia is a democracy. (Its actual
practices may not be really democratic lately). Many
Malaysians are disillusioned with the present leadership
style. They demand changes.
PAS says that they are for an Islamic state for Malaysia.
They are vague in defining What kind of Islamic state. With
no clear definition, we can see many examples of Islamic
state ie Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq .......
These Islamic states are not ruled by the people, but
ruled by the Islamic clergy. Their claim to power is
their expertise in the interpretation of the Quaran. You
have said that their is the false reading of the holy book.
My observations is that their fanatical interpretations
are accepted by hundreds of millions living in those
Islamic states.
Your reading of the Quaran may be right, but it is not
accepted by these Islamic states. PAS obviously had
in mind to follow the lead of these Islamic states. My
concern is that non Muslim in Malaysia will suffer in
such an Islamic state.
The choices for the people in the coming elections
is really simple. Would the voters prefer an Islamic
state or a democracy. Would they accept a way
of life that is far far worse than the present. I have
my doubts.
Only a small minority will want a Islamic state that allow
less freedom, less rights, less everything. PAS will
only win in the Kelantan, and Trengganu heart land.
cheers
piper
wrote:
[snip]
>Your reading of the Quaran may be right, but it is not
>accepted by these Islamic states. PAS obviously had
>in mind to follow the lead of these Islamic states. My
>concern is that non Muslim in Malaysia will suffer in
>such an Islamic state.
[snip]
A propos, some Iranian Jews from the Mashhad region were recently
arrested, evidently for the "crime" of teaching Hebrew. (I'd love to
give an URL, but it's a pain in the neck to search for news stories
from a few weeks ago. I've spent the last couple of hours trying to do
so, and I give up.)
Michael
To reply by email, please eliminate "NOSPAM" from my address. Personal messages only! If you send a commercial solicitation, I will boycott the product.
Faruq Nelson
<b...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> We can see many examples of Islamic
> state ie Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq .......
On what basis do you declare that these are all Islamic states?
Iraq is ruled by a secular military dictator.
Afganistan is no state at all, just a bunch of semi-nomadic tribes bashing
one another over the heads as they try to recover from the devastating
Soviet invasion of their country.
In Bangladesh and Pakistan-- as in Malaysia-- you find parliamentary
governments that are in principle democratic, together with systems of
Islamic personal law that mesh rather awkwardly with the national
constitutions.
Only in the case of Iran is there a significant constitutional role for
"Islamic clergy," and even there you find popular elections. In fact,
although Iran is hardly a model democracy, it still enjoys more democracy
than just about every other Middle Eastern country.
You have every right to oppose PAS for its "Islamic state" sloganeering,
but at least get your facts straight first.
--
Faruq abd ul-Rafi (R. A. Nelson)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Philosophy
fa...@uiuc.edu
chaos and disorder
>PAS says that they are for an Islamic state for Malaysia.
>They are vague in defining What kind of Islamic state. With
>state ie Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq .......
u ni belit-belit lah. first kata PAS have no clear definition.
then kata PAS obviously had in mind to follow the lead
of these Islamic states.
kalau dah takde point duduk diam ajelah. ish ish.
>Your reading of the Quaran may be right, but it is not
>accepted by these Islamic states. PAS obviously had
>in mind to follow the lead of these Islamic states. My
>concern is that non Muslim in Malaysia will suffer in
>such an Islamic state.
*****************************************************
chaos and disorder
religion can only be associated with life. no politics please.
politics is life. so we end up logically knowing that religion should
mix with life, politic is life. religion should be mixed with
politics. watever. heh heh heh.
Islam ni agama yang meliputi segalanya termasuk politik.
dan pemimpin yang tidak menjalankan perlembagaan Islam
adalah pemimpin yang kufur syariah. hey aku ni kalau ikut
rekod lagi bodoh pada mahathir tapi okay gak siol pasal
aku paham bende nih mahathir tak.
>Well written..agreed.
*****************************************************
Mat Saleh
In Sweden, a tithe for the Lutheran church is deducted from
everybody's salary unless they opt out.
In England Christianity is the state religion and the
monarch is not only head of state but also head of the
church. Their equivalent of the Mullahs, Christian
Bishops, sit in the upper house of their legislature as of
right.
Blasphemy is still punishable by law.
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
kru...@my-deja.com
>
> > The followers of PAS may choose to live in such a society,
> > but other Malaysian will find it a little difficult to bear.
> > democracy, and is even worse than a dictatorship.
> >
> > The Islamic state under PAS will have social conditions
> > very much worse than it is now. Voters would rather stay
> > with BN.
> >
>
..who says so.. the Samaritans ????
>
> Only BN and its cronies believe and want all Malaysians to believe in such
> nonsense. Your thinking is the one who is backward. You are out of touch
> with reality.
>
Hehehe only BN and majority of Malaysian believe in freedom of
choice. You are the backward one or
kru...@my-deja.com
Anwar Ibrahim kalau cakap pasal ugama nombor satu, tapi
di belakang main belakang drebar.
Dan orang bodoh macam kau ni pula tak boleh ada ugama
sebab Islam bukan untuk orang bodoh macam kau. Jadi kaulah
kafir dan kufur syariah sebenornya.
In article <375b589e...@news.jaring.my>,
--
Only time will tell...
kru...@my-deja.com
> *****************************************************
> beleivin' all the lies that they're telling ya,
> buying all tha products that they're selling ya,
> they say jump and ya say how high?,
> ya brain dead? ya got a f***ing bullet in ya head!
>
>
Rocker Islam ke ni? Jangan hipokrit brother.
Hehehe. Pegilah laluuu. Tak de PAS
nak menangnya. Hilang deposit macam kat Sabah gua caya!!
--
Only time will tell...
The seeker
>In actuality, Islam isn't automatically UNdemocratic.
>
>It is only the PRACTICE by those REDNECKS with TURBANS which turned the Holy
>Islam Faith into OPPRESSIVE and UNDEMOCRATIC.
>
>The Islamic rule could have been ENLIGHTENED, that is, it could have use the
>ENLIGHTENMENT APPROACH. If one reads the Holy Al Q'uran, one will see that
>there exists a VERY PROMISING STAGE whereby ENLIGHTENMENT enshine from within
>Islam and through Islam, the world begins to cleanse itself and embrace true
>holiness.
>
>Sadly, that vision has yet to materialized.
>
>
>Bob
>hard...@freemail.c3.hu
>
>
Islam and Democracy
Can Muslims Be Democrats?
Islam and Democracy. By John L. Esposito and John O. Voll. Oxford
University Press. 232 pages. $45 cloth, $17.95 paper.
Reviewed by Joshua Muravchik
John L. Esposito and John O. Voll are director and deputy director of
Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
Scholars and Christians, they take as their mission giving their
fellow non-Muslims a more sympathetic understanding of Islam and the
Islamic world.
In their current work they examine the relationship between Islam and
democracy-in particular, between the global trend of democratization
and the rise of what is often called Islamic fundamentalism or
Islamism or political Islam. While they will not go so far as to say
that Islamism is always a boon to democracy, they labor to refute the
common Western view that political Islam and democracy are
antithetical. "Identifying governments as regimes committed either to
implementing religious law or Westernization," they say, "provides no
prediction as to whether or not the regime will be authoritarian
or democratic." The point is that "the historic situation of the
present cannot be understood in monolithic terms but must be seen as a
complex, multifaceted reality in which both complementarities and
contradictions [between Islamism and democracy] can be seen."
Although the relationship is thus portrayed as ambiguous, Esposito and
Voll find much to say on the positive side. They claim that democracy
and Islamic resurgence "have become complementary forces
in many countries." Where Islamic movements seem violent or
power-hungry, the fault generally lies elsewhere: "Islamic opposition
has been most frequently articulated in democratic terms and in the
context of cooperation within existing political systems. However,
such opposition can become revolutionary in tone if . . . declared to
be revolutionary by existing regimes."
If we in the West fail to perceive the democratic quality of the
Islamist movements, the fault, Esposito and Voll suggest, lies in the
ethnocentricity of our perceptions. "Advocates of the styles of
democracy found in Western Europe and the United States . . . believe
themselves to be the true heirs to the only legitimate democratic
tradition," but in truth there are "many possibilities for defining
democracy that are closer to long-standing conceptualizations within
the Islamic world." When it comes to spelling out these possibilities,
however, Esposito and Voll are short on specifics. "In the standard
conceptualization of the Western model, there is emphasis on elections
and majority rule," they say. They offer three alternatives: something
they call "consensual democracy"; Ross Perot's suggestion for
"national electronic referenda"; and the ancient Athenian practice of
selecting officials by lot.
This is hardly serious. Esposito and Voll do not even deign to define
"consensual democracy," or to explain how decisions are to be made
when no consensus exists. Perot's suggestion was just a gust of
hot air. And as for Athenian democracy, its essence was the collective
deliberation of the gathered citizenry, scarcely replicable today. The
selection of officials by lot merely constitutes government by chance,
not government by the people.
Indeed there is something unserious about this whole work, beginning
with its failure to take frank account of the current dearth of
democracy in the Islamic world. According to the authoritative annual
survey of freedom conducted by Freedom House, there were 191
independent countries in 1996, of which 76 were "free," 62 "partly
free," and 53 "not free." Of the 43 predominantly Muslim countries,
however, only 1 (Mali) was free, 13 partly free, and 29 not free. To
put it in other terms, more than half of the world's non-Muslim
countries, but only 2 percent of the Muslim ones, were free.
Of course many of the predominantly Muslim countries are poor, and
democracy correlates closely with economic development. But poverty
alone cannot account for the weakness of democracy in the Islamic
world. To illustrate this, we can compare the Islamic countries with
Africa. (The fact that these two categories overlap makes the contrast
all the more telling.) Although Africa is a good deal poorer than the
Islamic world, it is more democratic. True, democracy is much weaker
in Africa than in the West; still there are nine countries in Africa
rated "free" compared to just one in the Islamic world, while 34
percent percent of the countries of Africa have some formal features
of democracy, more than twice the percentage in the Islamic world.
To top this off, only eighteen countries in the world received the
worst possible score on Freedom House's numerical scale of freedom. Of
these eighteen, eleven are Islamic countries. Clearly something
is going on here.
Esposito and Voll seem vaguely aware of such statistics, but they try
to brush them aside with such observations as: "The threat of
authoritarianism comes less from religious doctrine than politics and
power, history and political culture." But political culture is
precisely the point, and the question this begs is: what are the roots
of the political culture? The Islamic world boasts a variety of
regimes, but what most of them share is a tendency toward tyranny.
This is not to say that it must ever be thus. One of the better points
that Esposito and Voll make is that the Christian world, which is
today mostly democratic, was not always so. The growth of democracy
was nourished by certain Christian beliefs that antedated democracy.
The Islamic world, too, can evolve. Esposito and Voll take pains to
demonstrate the presence within Islam of "broad concepts of
potential positive significance for democratization-such as consensus
and consultation-and also many concepts and traditions that could
provide the foundation for concepts of 'constitutional opposition' and
limits on arbitrary government power."
But "potential positive significance" and concepts that provide a
"foundation" for other concepts are a long way from the finished
product. Much progress needs to be made before Islam makes its peace
with democracy. That progress, however, will find no help from the
likes of Esposito and Voll, with their relentless apologies for the
most retrograde elements in the Islamic world and their insistent
obfuscation of the basic principles of democracy as nothing more than
a Western "style."
Esposito and Voll acknowledge that the Islamist movements that have
come to power-in Iran and Sudan-are guilty of human rights violations
and antidemocratic practices. Yet they balance against this the
alleged democratic convictions of Islamists elsewhere, who are
fighting to overthrow monarchs or secular dictators. They ignore the
obvious truth that the litmus test of democratic bona fides comes only
once a movement achieves power: it is easy (and useful) to proclaim
democracy when in opposition.
In power or out, many Islamists make no bones of their disdain for
democracy. Oddly, Esposito and Voll write that "people who formally
and publicly oppose democracy . . . usually represent a marginal
sect or group on the extreme . . . such as the Branch Davidians . . .
or some of the ultra-orthodox Jewish groups in Israel." They mention
no Muslims in this context, implying that Islamists do not oppose
democracy, except perhaps for some who "reject the term 'democracy' as
a foreign term . . . because there are other more appropriate,
indigenous conceptualizations for describing the rights of
popular participation and freedom." It is to such reasoning,
apparently, that they attribute Ayatollah Khomeini's 1979 directive,
which they acknowledge, that the new Iranian regime not be called the
"Democratic Islamic Republic." But Khomeini matched deed to word, and
in the "Islamic Republic" of Iran, his word was law.
Esposito and Voll themselves show us that even in opposition, the
democratic convictions of Algeria's Islamists are weak to nonexistent.
One of its two preeminent leaders, Ali Belhadj, they report,
"categorically rejected democracy as an un- Islamic concept." The
other, Abbasi Madani, endorsed democracy in these ambivalent terms:
"Yes, the way [to power] is the elections. . . . There is no other
way at the present moment. All other ways have been obstructed by
Allah. Therefore the way to power is elections which are decided [by]
the popular will of the people." Who believes that if these
two and their comrades succeed in wresting power they will proceed to
offer free elections and refrain from the systematic coercion and
brutality that are hallmarks of the Iranian and Sudanese regimes?
There are surely many devout Muslims who are democrats, and there are
even some democrats who call themselves Islamists. Laith Kubba, an
Iraqi exile who directs the International Forum for Islamic Dialogue
in London, counts himself one of "the increasing numbers of Islamists
who adhere to a modern interpretation of Islam [and who] form a
loose-knit group with little chance of making an impact in the short
term." In the long term, he says, "the way to a better future lies
through the recognition of pluralism, the adoption of open political
systems, and the establishment of democratic governments
throughout the Islamic world." His words make a refreshing contrast to
Esposito and Voll's blather about the "global contestation over the
significance and nature of democracy in the multicultural
context."
Contrary to Esposito and Voll, there is no Western "style" of
democracy, but dozens of "styles," Western and non-Western, that all
bear certain basic traits in common that are both easy to name in
theory and easy to detect in practice. Despite all the smoke blown by
dictators and by scholars such as these, there is not much mystery
about the nature of democracy. It has four essential features: free
elections, freedom of expression, rule of law, and general citizenship
(i.e., apartheid is not democracy). That it was born in the West is
true. But it has since migrated around the globe.
Whether democracy will take root as well in the soil that has until
now proved the most resistant-the world of Islam-remains to be seen.
Its prospects are more likely to be enhanced by honest reckonings
with Islam's present democratic shortcomings than by apologetic
exercises in cultural relativism or by pretending that the meaning of
democracy is obscure or infinitely elastic.
Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute and the author, most recently, of The Imperative of American
Leadership: A Challenge to Neo-Isolationism.
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
> Kau memang ikut rekod bodoh. Tapi gaknya hipokrit macam
> Anwar Ibrahim kalau cakap pasal ugama nombor satu, tapi
> di belakang main belakang drebar.
> Dan orang bodoh macam kau ni pula tak boleh ada ugama
> sebab Islam bukan untuk orang bodoh macam kau. Jadi kaulah
> kafir dan kufur syariah sebenornya.
Oh my dear "NON-Bodoh" Krude99,
Please pardon me for I am _REALLY_ dumb.
I am sooo dumb I must have skipped over the part in the Holy Al Q'uran that
stated what you have said --- that Islam is only for the "NON-Bodoh", and
that the "Bodohs" are automatically classified as "Kafir" and "kufur
syariah".
Please enlighten me, dear Krude99, please tell me where to find those very
exciting (and _extremely_ enlightened) verses.
Many thanks in advance.
> > *****************************************************
> > beleivin' all the lies that they're telling ya,
> > buying all tha products that they're selling ya,
> > they say jump and ya say how high?,
> > ya brain dead? ya got a f***ing bullet in ya head!
> >
> >
>
> --
> Only time will tell...
>
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
kru...@my-deja.com
hard...@freemail.c3.hu wrote:
> In article <7jkr67$9d6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, kru...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Kau memang ikut rekod bodoh. Tapi gaknya hipokrit macam
> > Anwar Ibrahim kalau cakap pasal ugama nombor satu, tapi
> > di belakang main belakang drebar.
>
> > Dan orang bodoh macam kau ni pula tak boleh ada ugama
> > sebab Islam bukan untuk orang bodoh macam kau. Jadi kaulah
> > kafir dan kufur syariah sebenornya.
>
> Oh my dear "NON-Bodoh" Krude99,
>
> Please pardon me for I am _REALLY_ dumb.
>
> I am sooo dumb I must have skipped over the part in the Holy Al Q'uran that
> stated what you have said --- that Islam is only for the "NON-Bodoh", and
> that the "Bodohs" are automatically classified as "Kafir" and "kufur
> syariah".
>
> Please enlighten me, dear Krude99, please tell me where to find those very
> exciting (and _extremely_ enlightened) verses.
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Bob
> hard...@freemail.c3.hu
>
Hmmm you do sound sincere in wanting to learn despite
your crudeness.
Tiada ugama bagi mereka yang tidak berakal. This is
a well known hadis.
Perbezaan antara mereka yang tidak berilmu dengan
mereka yang berilmu adalah perbezaan antara mereka
yang hidup dan mereka yang mati.
And the Quran itself has stressed on thinking.
Sesiapa yang mengkafirkan seorang Muslim sedangkan
yang dituduh itu bukan maka tuduhan itu kembali kepada
yang menuduh.
Even small boys are taught and forbidden to accuse
another of being kafir. As this will lead to fights.
So most are taught not to be
self-righteous.
Righteouness only belongs to bad and evil people.
Isn't this reasonable and commonsense? Any religion should
make a person a good person.
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
--
Only time will tell...
bad boy
religion. In Malaysia, Islam is the state religion. As
long as the country is ruled by the people representatives,
there is nothing objectionable in having a state religion.
It's different when a country become an Islamic state,
like Afghanistan, with all its Islamic fundamentalist practices
including government by the Islamic clergy, and not by
the people.
Nobody pick on Islam, but non Muslim Malaysians
object strongly to Malaysia becoming an Islamic state.
People in PAS are making use of religion to gain
votes, mixing religion with politics. It is a dangerous
thing to do.
We are picking on unscrupulous politicians who
falsely represent Islam to the people. True Muslims should
also reject them.
Mat Saleh wrote in message <9288629...@www.remarq.com>...
chaos and disorder
>Kau memang ikut rekod bodoh. Tapi gaknya hipokrit macam
>Anwar Ibrahim kalau cakap pasal ugama nombor satu, tapi
>di belakang main belakang drebar.
>Dan orang bodoh macam kau ni pula tak boleh ada ugama
>sebab Islam bukan untuk orang bodoh macam kau. Jadi kaulah
>kafir dan kufur syariah sebenornya.
aku kutuk dato' seri dr mahathir sikit dia dah gelabah semacam.
fuuuh backing siot. anwar ibrahim takde kene-mengene lah apa
tiba-tiba ada nama dia kat sini nih. this guy is obsessed wit anwar
ibrahim lah.
mengapa saya kafir? mengapa saya kufur syariah?
aku tuduh mahathir kufur syariah pasal aku terbaca dalam buku
agama aku pasal kufur syariah and mahathir terang-terang
kufur syariah. ok faham?
chaos and disorder
>Tiada ugama bagi mereka yang tidak berakal. This is
>a well known hadis.
bodoh is tidak berakal ke?
>Sesiapa yang mengkafirkan seorang Muslim sedangkan
>yang dituduh itu bukan maka tuduhan itu kembali kepada
>yang menuduh.
'sedangkan yang dituduh itu bukan'
kalau yang dituduh terang-terang melakukan kesalahan
kufur syariah siap keco-keco kat media massa lagi ok
lah. betullah kan?
so u kafir lah tuduh gua kafir padahal gua bukan. sekarang
camna mat.
dahlah mamat lu ni cemas sikitlah. orang kutuk mahathir
sikit dia mula gelabah pastu dia kutuk anwar ibrahim
tak pasal-pasal. heh heh heh. berbuallah lu mamat.
piper
wrote:
>Fren, what you are saying is equivalent to the Sikh
>community in England objecting to Christianity as the State
>religion.
They might object to being governed under Christian religious laws.
>The UK also has its mad mullahs e.g. Ian Paisley.
He's an extremist from NORTHERN IRELAND. Are you really trying to
start a civil war in Malaysia by emulating a Protestant extremist from
a war-torn zone?
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
<b...@pacific.net.sg> wrote:
> Bob,
> Nice to have a reply that is well written in the defence of Islam.
> First, let me state my position on Islam as a religion and God.
> I have deep respect for Islam as a religion and, I believe, its
> God is the same entity as in Christianity and Judaism. Being
> a mere mortal, I lead a god fearing life and try to follow his
> teaching. In my all previous postings, I have not passed
> judgement on Islam as a religion. (as you implied tt I did,
> in the last para of your posting).
> Our debate is not on Islam or God, but on the type of
> government we want for Malaysia.
> Do we want a democratic form of government, or
> do we want an Islamic state, as proposed by PAS?
> A Harvard professor in political science told us that there
> are more than a dozens form of democracy. A democracy
> is a country ruled by the people, governed by their elected
> representatives. Malaysia is a democracy. (Its actual
> practices may not be really democratic lately). Many
> Malaysians are disillusioned with the present leadership
> style. They demand changes.
Dear Bad Boy,
Thank you for your eloquent reply.
I am not as fortunate as you in that I am not a graduate of Harvard. My alma
mater is Stanford, on the other side of the continental America.
But back to the topic....
I am interested in learning from you regarding the 12 types of democracies.
As far as I know, there are 7 (or 8) different forms of democracies, and if
you can kindly elaborate, I'd be very grateful.
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Bob
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
PS. I do agree with some of the other points in your message, for others that
I do not find agreeable, I do however acknowledge that the different
viewpoints between you and me stem from the different way we look at things.
I think eventually if we both try hard enough, we all will agree that we are
all here for the betterment of Malaysia, no matter from which angle we see
things unfold.
> PAS says that they are for an Islamic state for Malaysia.
> They are vague in defining What kind of Islamic state. With
> no clear definition, we can see many examples of Islamic
> state ie Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq .......
> These Islamic states are not ruled by the people, but
> ruled by the Islamic clergy. Their claim to power is
> their expertise in the interpretation of the Quaran. You
> have said that their is the false reading of the holy book.
> My observations is that their fanatical interpretations
> are accepted by hundreds of millions living in those
> Islamic states.
> Your reading of the Quaran may be right, but it is not
> accepted by these Islamic states. PAS obviously had
> in mind to follow the lead of these Islamic states. My
> concern is that non Muslim in Malaysia will suffer in
> such an Islamic state.
> The choices for the people in the coming elections
> is really simple. Would the voters prefer an Islamic
> state or a democracy. Would they accept a way
> of life that is far far worse than the present. I have
> my doubts.
> Only a small minority will want a Islamic state that allow
> less freedom, less rights, less everything. PAS will
> only win in the Kelantan, and Trengganu heart land.
> cheers
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
Thank you for your quoting of the article "Islam and Democracy".
There is one point that troubles me a lot, and that is, and I quote:
"Islamic opposition has been most frequently articulated in
democratic terms and in the context of cooperation within
existing political systems. However, such opposition can
become revolutionary in tone if . . . declared to be
revolutionary by existing regimes."
In other words, the so-called "Islamic political movements" all adopt the
"You accept my legitimacy or I will revote against you" stance.
This, my dear friend, does not conform to the principle of democracy.
And that is why I said the ENLIGHTENMENT STAGE that is VERY PROMISING if one
adopted TRUE FORM OF ISLAM, has yet to materialize.
Until the Turban Rednecks go back to study the Holy Al Q'uran, they shouldn't
espouse their "Islamic thoughts" to others because they are not only lying to
others, by spreading their FALSEHOOD, they have also committed sins of
blasphemy against the Almighty Allah.
Most sincerely,
Bob
hard...@freemail.c3.hu
In article <375e1963...@news.idt.net>, grace...@Xhotmail.com (The
seeker) wrote: