Separation of Religion and State

The trouble about the religious fringe elements in the world today is that they cannot accept the notion of separation of religion and state, one of the fundamental principle of liberal democracy. History will tell that this principle grew out of religious intolerance of the Inquisition and Reformation years. People suddenly realised the fundamental problem of a full or semi-theocracy which is subjecting a certain religious belief on the masses in a blatant practice of bigotry. In the Inquisition torture was encouraged to make 'witches' confess Before the 1562 Edict of Saint-Germain in the rights of worship for Protestants was effectively non-existent . Monarchies of Europe also practiced such discriminatory rules the were clearly sickening in today's standards.

Fast forward a few centuries we still have examples of such states. Iran is one such state. Here the largest religious minority, the Bahá'ís have been systematically prosecuted.

"According to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of the United States, since 1979 more than 200 Bahá'ís have been killed and 15 have disappeared and are presumed dead. The Government continued to imprison and detain Bahá'ís based on their religious beliefs.

The Government appears to adhere to a practice of keeping a small number of Bahá'ís in arbitrary detention, some at risk of execution, at any given time. There were four Bahá'ís reported to be in prison for practicing their faith at the end of the period covered by this report, two facing life sentences and two facing sentences of 15 years. In addition the Government appears to engage in harassment of the Bahá'í community by arresting Bahá'ís arbitrarily, charging them, and then releasing them, often without dropping the charges against them. Those with charges still pending against them fear arrest at any time.

Two Bahá'ís, Sirus Zabihi-Moghaddam and Hadayat Kashefi-Najafabadi, were tried in 1998 and later sentenced to death by a revolutionary court in Mashad for practicing their faith. In 2000 the sentences were reduced to 7 and 5 years respectively. Kashefi-Najafabadi was released in October 2001, after serving 4 years of his sentence. Zabihi-Moghaddam, who originally was arrested in November 1997, was released in June 2002.

The Government continued to imprison and detain Bahá'ís based on their religious beliefs. Manuchehr Khulusi was arrested in June 1999 while visiting fellow Bahá'ís in the town of Birjand, and was imprisoned until his release in May 2000. During his imprisonment, Khulusi was interrogated, beaten, held in solitary confinement, and denied access to his lawyer. The charges brought against him remain unknown, but they were believed to be related to his faith. The Islamic Revolutionary Court in Mashhad held a 2-day trial in September 1999 and sentenced Khulusi to death in February 2000. Despite Khulusi’s release, it is unclear if the conviction and death sentence against him still stand.

The property rights of Bahá'ís generally are disregarded. Since 1979 large numbers of private and business properties belonging to Bahá'ís have been confiscated. During the period covered by this report, 14 Bahá'í homes were seized and handed over to an agency of Supreme Leader Khamenei. Authorities reportedly confiscated Bahá'í properties in Kata and forced several families to leave their homes and farmlands. Authorities also imprisoned some farmers, and did not permit others to harvest their crops. In 2000 authorities in Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz reportedly also confiscated eight buildings belonging to Bahá'ís. In one instance, a woman from Isfahan who legally traveled abroad found that her home had been confiscated when she returned home. During the period covered by the report, the Government also seized private homes in which Bahá'í youth classes were held despite the owners having proper ownership documents. In 1999 three Bahá'í homes in Yazd and one in Arbakan were confiscated because their owners were Bahá'ís. The Government’s seizure of Bahá'í personal property, as well as its denial of Bahá'í access to education and employment, are eroding the economic base of the Bahá'í community.

In 1998 after a nationwide raid of more than 500 Bahá'í homes and offices, as well as numerous arrests, the authorities closed the Bahá'í Institute of Higher Learning. Also known as the "Open University," the Institute was established by the Bahá'í community shortly after the revolution to offer higher educational opportunities to Bahá'í students who had been denied access to the country’s high schools and universities. The Institute remains closed.

It has become somewhat easier for Bahá'ís to obtain passports in order to travel abroad. In addition some Iranian embassies abroad do not require applicants to state a religious affiliation. In such cases, it is easier for Bahá'ís to renew passports. Nevertheless, in February 2001, the Government denied visas to foreigners in the Bahá'í delegation to the Asia-Pacific Regional Preparatory Conference for the World Conference on Racism, held in Tehran. The delegation was composed of American, Japanese, South Korean, and Indian nationals.

More recently, in the later months of 2005, an intensive anti-Bahá'í campaign was conducted by Iranian newspapers and radio stations. The state-run and influential Kayhanternal newspaper, whose managing editor is appointed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, ran nearly three dozen articles defaming the Bahá'í Faith The articles, which make use of fake historical documents, engage in a distortion of history to falsely describe Bahá'í moral principles in a manner that would be offensive to Muslims, thus inducing feelings of suspicion, distrust and hatred to members of the Bahá'í community in Iran.

Furthermore, a confidential letter sent on October 29, 2005 by the Chairman of the Command Headquarters of the Armed Forced in Iran states that the Supereme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei has instructed the Command Headquarters to indentify people who adhere to the Bahá'í Faith and to moniter their activiters and gather any and all information about the members of the Bahá'í Faith. The letter was brought to the attention of the international community by Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief, in a March 20, 2006 press release [5].

In the press release the Special Rapporteur states that she "is highly concerned by information she has received concerning the treatment of members of the Bahá'í community in Iran." She further states that "The Special Rapporteur is concerned that this latest development indicates that the situation with regard to religious minorities in Iran is, in fact, deteriorating." [6]. "

Above is an article from Wikipedia about presecution of Baha'is in Iran. A perfect example of the failure of theocracy.

We Malaysians are lucky to have a modus vivendi that our state is secular, at least for non-Muslims. In certain ways Muslims also enjoy some secularism. There is no law that dictates a dress code for Muslim women (with the exception of Kelantan)

What we are afraid of is the fringe elements in Malaysian society that want to Islamise the country either to 'reinforce' religious 'believes' or furthering hypocritic political goals.

Let us hope such people never achieve their goal or I am afraid dark times will arise for all of us.

To read the view of one such radical, read this.

*********************************************************************************

Debunking multiculturalism

IKim Views: By MD ASLAM AHMAD,
Fellow,Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science, Insitute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia

HAVING a multicultural society does not mean that every Malaysian must subscribe to an ideology referred to as multiculturalism.

With reference to Malaysia, having a multicultural society is a fact, but to subscribe to multiculturalism is to interpret that fact in a certain way.

Multiculturalism is an alien ideology which came into being out of a particular historical, religious, and cultural setting.

In order to understand multiculturalism one has to keep in mind the long history of religious intolerance in Europe, followed by the Reformation movement, the rise of liberalism, and secularisation. It is a history that is full of horrible tales of persecution and intolerance in the name of religion (read Christianity).

Religious pluralism is the outcome of an attempt to provide a basis in Christian theology for tolerance of non-Christian religions; as such, it is an element in a kind of religious modernism or liberalism.

Liberalism in religion and in politics is historically and theoretically related to one another. Liberalism as a political ideology that emerged in the same period and locale alongside liberal Protestantism. Both took place in the aftermath of the Reformation.

Among the political and religious liberals the attitudes toward moral, social, and political issues are often the same. They emphasise the importance of tolerance, individual rights and freedoms to safeguard a pluralism of life styles.

At the foundation of political liberalism is tolerance of different opinions about religion. Then came religious pluralism which seeks to provide a theological basis for this tolerance.

Being an outgrowth of liberal Protestantism, religious pluralism rejects orthodox interpretations of Christian scripture and dogma to make salvation attainable via routes other than Christianity.

It is sceptical towards rational arguments in favour of the superiority of Christian beliefs. It appeals to the modem moral principles of tolerance and rejection of prejudice.

Because of its emphasis on the elements common to personal religious faith, ritual and theological doctrine are considered to be of secondary importance or a personal matter.

The liberal separation of religion from social order is founded on the assumption that this separation is consistent with the tenets of all religions and sects, whereas it is in direct conflict with the very nature of the worldview of Islam.

In the first place, Islam has never been structured upon some kind of church-state relation like that of medieval Christianity. Secondly, Islam is not a culture that evolves and develops in the way Christianity does.

Multiculturalism, as understood and propagated by its proponents in this country is not based on diversity, but rather it strives to debunk Islam as a socio-political order.

The ideological components of Malaysian multiculturalism can be summarised as a cultural relativism which finds the prominence of Islam in this country intolerable.

It rests on the attitude that religion should not be allowed to “interfere” in our social and political life. Hence, it is important that every Malaysian, especially the Muslims, be made to accept “the fact” that Malaysia is a “secular country”.

The Malaysian multiculturalism’s hostility towards Islam and its repudiation of an identifiable Malaysian culture based upon Islam is augmented by a radically new definition of community, one that deviates from the traditional, religious emphasis on family, neighbourhood, house of worship and school, towards an emphasis on race, gender, occupation and sexual preference.

Can multiculturalism be a viable principle for our national unity?

Ideological multiculturalists are radical-left inhabitants of a political dreamland. These ideological divisions within our society threaten to render the nation into hostile factions.

The multiculturalists assert that Malaysia is an idea rather than a nation possessing a distinctive but encompassing identity. Hence, after almost 50 years of independence we still hear people talking about the search for a “Malaysian identity”.

It means Malaysia, as far as they are concerned, has no identity, and if we are to have one, Islam should not be part of that identity.

Current manifestations of multiculturalism extend far beyond the kind of pluralism that seeks a richer common culture to multicultural particularism which denies that a common culture is possible or desirable.

In an attempt to validate the multiculturalists’ emphasis on particularism and its concomitant subversion of cultural commonality, knowledge and facts in their discourse are consistently subordinated to the so-called “critical thinking approach.”

The dismal truth is that critical thinking in practice means subjective questioning and unsubstantiated, unreasoned, personal opinion.

Contrary to the assertions of proponents of multiculturalism that limitless pluralism enriches our understanding, the de-emphasising of specific factual knowledge in their discourse resulted in what it inevitably must have – a plague of ignorance.

Multiculturalism’s subordination of facts and knowledge to unguided “critical thinking” demonstrates its intellectual bankruptcy, since any critical opinion worthy of consideration must evolve out of knowledge and be grounded in objective facts.

Malaysia is not a no man’s land, and everybody knows that, and the fact that Islam is the religion of the Federation is also common knowledge.

Further contemplation would be enough for one to realise another fact: namely, that Islamic ethical and socio-political order is ultimately the expression of certain ideas about life and existence as a whole.

To Muslims, those ideas are the integrating principles that place all systems of meaning and standards of life and values in coherent order.

To those who live on the assumption that Malaysia is a secular country, it is the secular worldview that is supposed to be the prism through which we understand who we are and how to go about living our lives.

Of course they can believe in whatever they want to believe. But we would like to ask a very simple question: Who says the secular worldview is our common worldview?

That is surely not acceptable to Muslims, who are aware that secularism is antithetical not only to Islam but to all religious worldviews.

Leaving the ignorant and confused Muslims aside, there is no way to make conscious Muslims accept a secular interpretation of life and existence as espoused by Western culture and civilisation.

The followers of other religions should recognise the fact that their religions have many things in common with Islam, particularly when it comes to ethics and morality.

It is through Malaysia, as an Islamic state, that other religions would thrive, and that we have better chance of fostering national unity based on a common religious worldview.

A secular Malaysia would be an enemy not only to Islam but a common enemy to all religions.

We must realise the fact that secularisation can be considered a natural phenomenon only in the case of the West, considering what they have experienced in their history.

To apply their solution to our problem is to admit that we are now experiencing the same problem they used to have; which is historically baseless and logically absurd.

*******************************************************************************************

Click on this link or go to John's blog to read a rebuttal of the article above.




Selamat Hari Merdeka!

Bye.