THEOLOGY VERSUS SECULARISM

Malaysia Today
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/14435/ 84/
Oct 31 2008
Malaysia

It appears like the Turkish Prime Minister is in trouble with Turkey's
court. They have accused him of being anti-secular, which is a crime
in Turkey. They say the Prime Minister want to abolish or remove
the anti-tudung law, which means Turkey's citizens will no longer be
forced NOT to wear the tudung. If you remember, recently, a Turkish
lady Member of Parliament was evicted from parliament for insisting
that she wear her tudung in the building. University student too must
remove their tudung before they enter the university gate.

Turkey is on the other extreme of Afghanistan where the "religious
police" would throw acid on faces of women who do not wear the tudung.

Malaysia of 2008 is a far cry from Malaysia of 1958, the first
Anniversary of Merdeka. Then, skirts and bare-backs were the order
of the day and the tudung was a rare thing at best, the more "decent"
Malay women would wear a selendang wit the front hair revealed. Today,
women who wear bare-back clothes are arrested.

What happened over those 50 years? Have Malays become more religious
and more conscious of their Islamic duties? Over the last month,
three women have been charged for corruption and fraud. All are
pretty senior Malay government officers. And all wear the tudung. So,
the wearing of the tudung can't be equated with being more religious
or being a better Muslim. If not, they would not accept bribes or
cheat. Wearing the tudung is merely a symbol. It is a symbol that
you are very Islamic. But this does not mean you really are.

Malays, today, talk about restoring the Caliphate and implementing
Islamic laws. In short, rejecting a Secular State in favour of a
Theology State - meaning an Islamic State of course. But do these some
people know what an Islamic State is? And do these people also know how
the many experiments of Islamic States have gone horribly wrong and the
new "Islamic" government was worse than the old government it replaced?

In a nutshell a Secular State or Theology State is just a name. Names
are not crucial. What is would be the function rather than form. Form
must follow functions, and not the other way round.

Let us examine some of the failed experiments. Some predominantly
Muslim countries have flirted with the idea of changing their
government and have discovered that the newly installed Muslim leaders
were no better, or worse, that the "kafir" leaders. Millions have
died because of this, Muslims killed at the hand of Muslims.

Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Armenia, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria,
Morocco, Sudan, Pakistan, Serbia, Gratis, Syria, Bosnia - just think
of any country where either Muslims, Christians or Jews make up
the majority population and I will show you a tragedy. No, theology
is not the answer. We can't solve problems by replacing a Secular
State with a Theology State. History has shown us that, in fact,
more damage is caused. The system is not the solution. It is those
behind the system that matter.

A year after the end of the Second World War the Algerians wanted the
French Colonialists out of their country. The eight-year war led to
the loss of more than a million lives. Both sides wee equally guilty
of the barbaric killings where old folks, babies and women were not
spared. Finally, in 1962, the French decided to go home. But until
today the killings continue; except now it is not Muslims killing
Christians but Islamists killing Secularists - and vice versa.

The Turks too wanted the kafir out, so millions of Armenians were
massacred. The Kurds were the willing servants to rape and murder
the Armenians. This was ethic cleansing of the kind perpetuated by
the Germans during World War 2; though maybe only a quarter in number
died compared to the Jews.

Later the Kurds were themselves exterminated by the Iraqis and
Turks. And the same went for the Afghans where they first killed
each other to establish an Islamic State and then the Islamic State
killed off as many as the previous "kafir" state did. In Iran, too,
more died in the new Islamic State than in the Shah's "kafir" state.

An Islamic State is no guarantee that you would get a good
government. Neither would a Secular State. So it is best that the
rhetoric and setting up an Islamic State be discarded and instead we
focus on the issue of the setting up of a just state of whatever kind.

We have seen too many deaths over the last 60 years, people killed in
the name of Islam. Tens of millions have been killed. Two million in
Afghanistan. One million in Iran. One million in Iraq. One million
in Turkey. More than one million in Algeria. Many more millions in
other Muslim countries. The list goes on.

The Iranians say: those Iranians who died fighting Iraqis are going
to heaven as the Iraqis are "kafir". The Iraqis say: those Iraqis
who died fighting Iranians are going to heaven as the Iranians are
"kafir". So, both Iranians and Iraqis are "kafir". Or is it both
Iranians and Iraqis who kill each other are going to heaven since
both kill and die in the name of Islam?

With all this killing and the tens of millions of deaths over the
last 60 years, all the so-called "Islamic States" are nothing short
of failed states whereas "God-less" states like Sweden are heaven
on earth.

Maybe you need to choose an Islamic State to go to heaven. But thus far
all the Islamic States have proven to be hell. Maybe this is because
they talk more about life after death rather than about life itself.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress