/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Debunking Multiculturalism



syilla
08-22-2006, 05:06 AM
This is a very good article on multiculturalism. At first I thought…why is this guy giving examples from the non-muslims history :rollseyes: :mmokay: …then after further reading…I realise that he is comparing to Islam. :ooh:

The ending is nicely touched…so you all should read it. Bare in mind that I have taken my lunch time just to type this article ….SO YOU BETTER READ IT :rant: TILL THE END OF THE ARTICLE. IT MAYBE LONG…BUT ITS WORTH IT. I GUARANTEE THAT. :happy:

Please post your opinion. What do you think? :sunny:

_____________________________________

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 come 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 secularization. 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 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 interpretation 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 a 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 tenet 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 funds 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 of “Malaysian identity”.

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

Current manifestation 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 socalled “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-emphsising 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 world view that is supposed to be the prism through which we understand wo 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 world views 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.

Learning the ignorant and confused Muslim 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.

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

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

We must realise that 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.

Written by Md Asham Ahmad, Fellow,
Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science,
Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia.

Taken from The Star Pg38 Tuesday 22nd August 2006.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
north_malaysian
08-22-2006, 08:34 AM
I think... syilla is waiting for my opinion.....:giggling: :giggling: :giggling:
Reply

syilla
08-22-2006, 08:59 AM
^^^yeah...i'm waitin...

do u want any reps or not?

j/k :rant:
Reply

north_malaysian
08-22-2006, 09:35 AM
Can u type it in points?:giggling:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
KAding
08-22-2006, 10:19 AM
Good article. I would agree with you. Islamic doctrine does not accept the equality of different religions within a state. Any country with a Muslim majority is expected to be ruled Islamically, which by definition means non-Islamic doctrines are inferior and non-Islamic cultures should be subordinate to Islam.

Mind you, as a strategy for social stability I can hardly blame them. Multiculturalism is a somewhat dangerous dream. History has abundantly shown that multicultural societies are much more prone to civil strife and even war, especially if they are inhabited by mutually exclusive and competing political doctrines. Obviously it becomes even worse if one or more of these competing doctrines don't accept as the author says a "liberal separation of religion from social order".
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 02:18 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Multiculturalism is a somewhat dangerous dream. History has abundantly shown that multicultural societies are much more prone to civil strife and even war, especially if they are inhabited by mutually exclusive and competing political doctrines. Obviously it becomes even worse if one or more of these competing doctrines don't accept as the author says a "liberal separation of religion from social order".
Can u give examples of countries that promote multiculturalism and got problems with it?:?
Reply

Dahir
08-23-2006, 03:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Can u give examples of countries that promote multiculturalism and got problems with it?:?
I'm for Multicultural societies, but its odd how:

The US is the most culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse nation on Earth, but has the highest gun violence statistics in the world...+o(

And out of its 50 diverse states, California and New York have the most diversity and both have the leading gun violence statistics.

And hate crime is just as rife.

Meanwhile, in TOTALLY Homogeneous Japan, the opposite occurs.


....I wonder why...:? :giggling:


KAder has a very good point, although I wish it weren't true.
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 03:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
I'm for Multicultural societies, but its odd how:

The US is the most culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse nation on Earth, but has the highest gun violence statistics in the world...+o(

And out of its 50 diverse states, California and New York have the most diversity and both have the leading gun violence statistics.

And hate crime is just as rife.

Meanwhile, in TOTALLY Homogeneous Japan, the opposite occurs.


....I wonder why...:? :giggling:


KAder has a very good point, although I wish it weren't true.
- There's no shops selling guns, rifles, bullets in Malaysia.
- 99% of Malaysians never touch a gun (the real one, not toys)
- If you possess live ammos, you can get LIFE SENTENCE or HANG TO DEATH.

I think, it might be the same in Japan...
Reply

Keltoi
08-23-2006, 03:56 AM
Japan also has the tradition of dishonor. The dishonor and shame involved with committing a crime has its impact on that too.
Reply

Dahir
08-23-2006, 04:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Japan also has the tradition of dishonor. The dishonor and shame involved with committing a crime has its impact on that too.
Yes, but that's the exclusive privilege that homogenous societies have, and that's what you told of; TRADITION!! But in heterogenous societies, there is no such thing as a SHARED tradition or culture or taboo.
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 04:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
Yes, but that's the exclusive privilege that homogenous societies have, and that's what you told of; TRADITION!! But in heterogenous societies, there is no such thing as a SHARED tradition or culture or taboo.
Homogenous countries:
Japan, korea, taiwan, mongolia - hmm where else huh?:rollseyes
Reply

Dahir
08-23-2006, 05:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Homogenous countries:
Japan, korea, taiwan, mongolia - hmm where else huh?:rollseyes
I find it particularly odd how all the homogenous societies are in far East Asia - unfriendly culture or lack of tolerance...:?

EVERY other region on Earth has at least 2 different major cultures, not particularly races, but cultures in its shores.

Most countries are like Malaysia; 70% this, 20% that, 10% there.

Japan is 99.999999999999% Japanese, and .000000000001% Korean. :D
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 05:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
I find it particularly odd how all the homogenous societies are in far East Asia - unfriendly culture or lack of tolerance...:?

EVERY other region on Earth has at least 2 different major cultures, not particularly races, but cultures in its shores.

Most countries are like Malaysia; 70% this, 20% that, 10% there.

Japan is 99.999999999999% Japanese, and .000000000001% Korean. :D
Actually Japan has lots of foreigners than South Korea.... Wait...we got North Korea...hmmmm.....Albania seems homogenous too...

Malaysia - only 48% are Malays.... but since all Muslims are considered Malays ... it'll be 60%.
Reply

Dahir
08-23-2006, 05:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Actually Japan has lots of foreigners than South Korea.... Wait...we got North Korea...hmmmm.....Albania seems homogenous too...

Malaysia - only 48% are Malays.... but since all Muslims are considered Malays ... it'll be 60%.
Japan has many foreign TOURISTS, but nothing more. Statistics show that Japan is 99% Japanese and 1% Korean, it has been since its early days as a nation; that's several thousand years back.

Malaysia, from what you've said; seems like a nightmare nation, no offense. I mean, race plays such a huge part in society, my goodness; you can't be a national until you're Muslim; its a theocratic society where almost half of the nation are not even Muslim.
Reply

Woodrow
08-23-2006, 05:52 AM
In the European countries we have Switzerland. I do not know the exact percentage, but virtualy every person is Nordic Alpine and there is just one culture.

In the Western Hemisphere I can not think of a single homogeneous culture.
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 06:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
Japan has many foreign TOURISTS, but nothing more. Statistics show that Japan is 99% Japanese and 1% Korean, it has been since its early days as a nation; that's several thousand years back.

Malaysia, from what you've said; seems like a nightmare nation, no offense. I mean, race plays such a huge part in society, my goodness; you can't be a national until you're Muslim; its a theocratic society where almost half of the nation are not even Muslim.
Actually 40% of Malaysian nationals are non-Muslim.... ethnically 48% are Malays ... but in order to make 'Malays' as majority....all Malaysian citizens who are Muslims are considered as Malays. So we can put the % higher ... as high as 60.4%.

Malaysian and Malay are two different things.

Benefits of being a "Malay"
- you'll got lots of subsidiary from government.
- easier to get place in public universities
- discount when buying lands, houses or shares.
- ONLY Malays are allowed to live in Malay reserved lands.
- traditionally, only Malays can be Prime Minister.
- traditionally, 90% of civil servants are Malays. Which means if you're a Malay, you'll have higher chance if you apply for government occupations.
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 06:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
In the European countries we have Switzerland. I do not know the exact percentage, but virtualy every person is Nordic Alpine and there is just one culture.

In the Western Hemisphere I can not think of a single homogeneous culture.
Haiti?
Reply

Dahir
08-23-2006, 06:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Haiti?
I see...95% Black AND Mulatto!!! 5% White!!

Which means that Mullato makes about 20-30% of Haiti!! Ha!Ha!

Which means it is Multicultural. It is so poor because the power-holders, White, suppress the Black/Mulatto majority...hmmm, could be true.

Like India, there's a skin-based caste system, power through suppression, suppression through chaos.

Think about that!
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 06:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
I see...95% Black AND Mulatto!!! 5% White!!

Which means that Mullato makes about 20-30% of Haiti!! Ha!Ha!

Which means it is Multicultural. It is so poor because the power-holders, White, suppress the Black/Mulatto majority...hmmm, could be true.

Like India, there's a skin-based caste system, power through suppression, suppression through chaos.

Think about that!
I've read somewhere that the ONLY "Whites" in Haiti are Arabs and Jews.
Reply

Dahir
08-23-2006, 07:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I've read somewhere that the ONLY "Whites" in Haiti are Arabs and Jews.
ARABS...in Haiti? No. The Whites there are solely French.
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 07:12 AM
According to Joshua Project website (I dont know if you can accept figures from Christian missionary website)

JAPAN

Population: 128,219,010

Minority Ethnic Groups:

* Korean: 693,051 (0.54%)
* Chinese: 270,689 (0.21%)
* Eurasian: 129,068 (0.10%)
* Bengali: 71,312 (0.06%)
* Punjabi: 71,312 (0.06%)
* British: 70,309 (0.06%)
* Judeo-Japanese: 63,274 (0.05%)
* Filipino: 61,268 (0.05%)
* Persian: 51,224 (0.04%)
* American: 25,818 (0.02%)
* Ainu: 15,071 (0.01%)
* Malay: 10,045 (0.008%)
* Thai: 10,045 (0.008%)
* French: 6,432 (0.005%)

Minorities: 1.221% of population. Yeah... JAPAN is Homogenous!!
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 07:17 AM
HAITI

Population: 8,649,903

Minorities:

* Latinos: 30,129 (0.35%)
* Arab: 3,537 (0.04%)
* American: 728 (0.008%)
* French: 626 (0.007%)
* Chinese: 307 (0.004%)
* Jew: 205 (0.002%)

Total: 0.411% of population. SMALLER than JAPAN's Minorities.
Reply

Dahir
08-23-2006, 07:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
HAITI

Population: 8,649,903

Minorities:

* Latinos: 30,129 (0.35%)
* Arab: 3,537 (0.04%)
* American: 728 (0.008%)
* French: 626 (0.007%)
* Chinese: 307 (0.004%)
* Jew: 205 (0.002%)

Total: 0.411% of population. SMALLER than JAPAN's Minorities.
:hiding:

205 Jews and 307 Chinese! I wonder if they go door to door looking for such menial numbers. :D :rollseyes
Reply

north_malaysian
08-23-2006, 07:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dahir
:hiding:

205 Jews and 307 Chinese! I wonder if they go door to door looking for such menial numbers. :D :rollseyes
I think they LOVE doing that!!!:giggling:
Reply

Dahir
08-23-2006, 07:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
I think they LOVE doing that!!!:giggling:
A neo-Nazi state being formed in my backwaters...+o(
Reply

KAding
08-23-2006, 10:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by north_malaysian
Can u give examples of countries that promote multiculturalism and got problems with it?:?
****, I was afraid someone would ask that question ;).

Well, consider this. How many inter-state wars are in progress right now? Virtually none. How many civil wars are in progress right now? Dozens. What is the source of these civil wars or tensions? Some are mainly political in nature, sure, like in Columbia or Nepal. But most have a cultural and ethnic dimension. Just think of Southern Thailand, the civil war in Iraq, the Kurdish question in Turkey, the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, the genocide in Rwanda, the unrest in Nigeria, the civil war in the Ivory Coast. Thousands die in India each year in all kinds of Muslim-Hinda communal violence. And to be quite honest, Muslim-non-Muslim relations in Europe aren't all that good either at the moment!

In general putting different ethnic, religious or cultural groups together in one state, especially if that state is poor and has no strong institutions, the chance of conflict simply seems considerably greater than in more homogenous countries. Multicultural countries in general are harder to manage, heck, just look at my home country Belgium, in my opinion it is a politically slightly dysfunctional country, due to the frequent French-Dutch tensions and (non-violent) struggles.

Now, obviously not all of these states actively promoted multiculturalism, so the policy of multiculturalism cannot generally be blamed for these conflicts, since most of these countries were already multicultural to begin with. What I oppose is a multicultural policy for largely homogenous countries, thus promoting that new immigrants keep their old culture and do not assimilate into the existing culture. IMHO that is bound to lead to segregated communities and eventual tensions. There must be something bigger all citizens of a nation must strive for, a bit like the myth of "the American dream" in the United States, which all immigrants are expected to believe in. We must not be so naive to think we can let in tens of millions of new immigrants and simply expect there to be no tensions or problems. Maybe it will work out, but the chances of things going wrong are simply considerably higher.

IMHO :D
Reply

Mr. Baldy
08-23-2006, 12:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Good article. I would agree with you. Islamic doctrine does not accept the equality of different religions within a state. Any country with a Muslim majority is expected to be ruled Islamically, which by definition means non-Islamic doctrines are inferior and non-Islamic cultures should be subordinate to Islam.

Mind you, as a strategy for social stability I can hardly blame them. Multiculturalism is a somewhat dangerous dream. History has abundantly shown that multicultural societies are much more prone to civil strife and even war, especially if they are inhabited by mutually exclusive and competing political doctrines. Obviously it becomes even worse if one or more of these competing doctrines don't accept as the author says a "liberal separation of religion from social order".
your completley wrong. you are giving examples of countries now. for example pakistan. islamic doctirine does except that other religions are equal. infact one of the first things i was taught was tolerance of other religions. now, in an islamic state, a state ruled by shariah law, people from other faiths are within there rights to practice their faith.

but, having said that, non-islamic doctrines are inferior, seeing as most of them are man-made or as in the case of christianity and judaism, have been changed by man to suit his needs. but islam is from allah, and hasnt been changed from the day it was revealed, people have only ceased to apply it proplerly. but as an atheist, i will expect you to not understand this paragraph in its entirety.

now i havent read the article, but it seems that "liberal separation of religion from social order" is just another way of putting secularism. i asure you, it is impossible to seperate islam from every day life, because islam is not just a religion, that would make it weak and i would also be an atheist, rather, islam is a system to rule and govern by. it has its own political system, judicial system, welfare system (which the west usurped), et cetra.
Reply

Keltoi
08-23-2006, 01:31 PM
I think the main issue with multi-cultural states is the fairness of the political process. If 80% of the population is Yakyak, and 20% are Pakpak, but the Pakpak control the government, that is a nation waiting for civil wars. Unless you have a fascist dictator willing to murder and suppress by any means necessary. An imperfect but fair political process, as exists in the U.S. and many other areas of the world, makes it easier for different cultures to live together. However, this is showing signs of strain. The dominant culture expects immigrants and people of other cultures to adjust and adapt to the dominant culture, rather than the dominant culture adjusting and adapting to theirs.
Reply

KAding
08-23-2006, 03:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mr. Baldy
your completley wrong. you are giving examples of countries now. for example pakistan. islamic doctirine does except that other religions are equal. infact one of the first things i was taught was tolerance of other religions. now, in an islamic state, a state ruled by shariah law, people from other faiths are within there rights to practice their faith.
I agree, but the issue isn't whether they are tolerated. I do not dispute that the whole concept of dhimmitude was tolerant for its time, although I would like to note that it is generally just Muslims who think it would be swell to be dhimmi, non-Muslims are usually not so enthusiastic! Besides, I am not even part of the 'people of the book', so I am not even allowed to become a dhimmi.

But the real issue is whether Islam accepts other ideologies as equal on a political level. Since an Islamic state is supposed to be just that, Islamic, there is little room for non-Islamic politics. Thats why I agree with Md Asham Ahmad, Fellow at the Centre for Syariah, Law and Political Science who wrote the original article, that Islam does not accept the idea that religion and 'social order' should be seperated. The state in Islam must be openly Islamic and not neutral towards all religions. Not all religions are considered equal.

but, having said that, non-islamic doctrines are inferior, seeing as most of them are man-made or as in the case of christianity and judaism, have been changed by man to suit his needs.
Well, that kinda proves my point then. Not only do you think your ideology is superior, which is normal, I also think my ideology is superior, but you want to make it the basis of the state. You don't want the state to say "we consider all religions equal", you want it to accept that "Islam is the best". No country that says that can have be truely multicultural, because the state itself is not neutral.

but islam is from allah, and hasnt been changed from the day it was revealed, people have only ceased to apply it proplerly. but as an atheist, i will expect you to not understand this paragraph in its entirety.

now i havent read the article, but it seems that "liberal separation of religion from social order" is just another way of putting secularism. i asure you, it is impossible to seperate islam from every day life, because islam is not just a religion, that would make it weak and i would also be an atheist, rather, islam is a system to rule and govern by. it has its own political system, judicial system, welfare system (which the west usurped), et cetra.
Yeah, in that way I think Islam is different from many other religions. Btw, if the state is secular it does not mean the country should also be secular. Look at the US, virtually all the politicians are openly Christian, but the state institutions (theoretically) don't recognize Christianity as any more valid than, say, Scientology.
Reply

Woodrow
01-05-2007, 04:46 AM
Looking back over this thread, I am begining to suspect that no nation ever remains multi-cultural at some point the diverse inhabitants establish a new unique culture. I believe that is what is happening in America. After nearly 300 years of being a very diverse, multi-cultural country something called American culture is emerging and we are going through growing pains as it developes. Looking back at our past. There has always been discrimination and the wishes of the minorities were overlooked. But, today the combined forces of the minorities out number the established "majority" and finaly an American culture is forming and the remaining hold outs of the old majority are putting up a struggle to retain the status quo.
Reply

syilla
01-05-2007, 05:18 AM
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 world views 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.

Learning the ignorant and confused Muslim 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.

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

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

We must realise that 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.
erm....did anyone even read the conclusion of the article :hiding:
Reply

sudais1
01-05-2007, 05:37 AM
absolutely boring i nearly slept come on syilla, thought this would be interesting




jk great article:D :D
Reply

KAding
01-05-2007, 12:50 PM
I read it, including the conclusion! :)
Reply

sameer
01-05-2007, 06:12 PM
It is possible to be multicultural in an islamic country or state.
Its not possbile to be multi-religious as you would have it but in a large country where everyone comes from different far off villages there would be a difference in culture. The base would still be islamic shariah but other than that each village may have its own particular practices that doesnt conflict with the shariah.

eg. one village may have sweet things to eat at a wedding feast accompanied with decorations and a vast feast where everyone is invited....... while another village may just have the actual ceremony and a small feast with a few people only - and this would have developed over centuries as a village tradition.

another example would be that one village could be traditionally farmers while the village on the other side of the river would be hunters. Each village would have its traditions and thoughts and preferences thus creating a unique culture of their own within the bounds of the shariah.

BTW i didnt read the article as yet.
Reply

skhalid
01-05-2007, 06:20 PM
:exhausted I have to say...after reading all that!!!
I got what it was on about...but can't really decide if I agree with what it said[MAD][/MAD]
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 141
    Last Post: 06-15-2012, 07:04 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-09-2011, 08:49 AM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 12:54 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-26-2009, 11:13 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-04-2006, 10:17 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!