Friday, May 25, 2007

Islam: The West's Suspicion

I have just read an article by Mark Alexander, posted in Malaysia Today titled "The West’s commitment to freedom of religion will be its undoing"

Sad to say, I understand the writer's concern pertaining to this matter. He is trying to say that the whole world's religion has freedom in its practise excluding Islam.

Islam is a good religion. The problem is, many Muslims try to put themselves in an uncompromising position with the adoption of certain Medieval Arab cultures or selectively opt for "hardened" approach towards issues.

They MAKE Islam intolerant. They MAKE Islam a religion that does not support freedom. Why was the word MAKE used?

I sincerely believe Islam does tolerate choice of faith. It was written in Quran, albeit 'indirectly'. By making Islam a "one way street" (you can go forward, but not backwards), the West is concerned that their countries will be taken over by a deviated intolerant version of Islam. A "one way street" affair equals to a disproportionate scale.

Currently, freedom of religion meant the West can accept all forms of faith including Islam but certain Muslims will again make this a "one way street road". You can / must accept all that I practise, but I will not accept anything from you (the West).

Would anyone use a disproportionate scale?

The world is moving towards globalisation. Secular laws are made to be fair to all cultures, religions and races alike, a natural process of integrating the nations on earth.

Religious laws may be good for its religious practitioners but may not be fair to people of other religions.


In the past, around 15th to 16th century, the West experienced a period similar to modern-day Islam. The West, being majority if not, all, Christians imposed similar religious laws on their society.

Priests played a part in determining if certain sciences are acceptable. Galileo Galilei theory that the world is circulating around the Sun was dismissed by priests who conducted no scientific research for their own part. Citizens had to believe the priests because it was said their words are "the words passed on by the Almighty God". How absurd !

Isn't this similar to the perception of majority Muslims of the current mufti or ulamas position?

Without proper scientifically logic reasons, some nationalistic warriors are declared as heretic. For instance, there is Joan of Arc who was burnt at the stake due to the conviction. Would certain deviant muftis announce his enemy "heretic"? Human is easily overruled by emotions.

Priests determine what should and should not be banned according to what they think is right. It does not have to go through a proper democratic process for decision.

Inquisitions were ordered for those who are considered as pagans. For those not in the know, Inquisition is "the mass killing" of heretics. Doesn't that sound equivalent to certain Muslims that supports the executions and stoning of murtads?

The Saint who brought Christianity to South East Asia, Francis Xavier ordered an Inquisition in India against the pagans he regarded as enemies of God. Bishops ordered Inquisitions in Spain against Spanish Muslims too.

Whatever utterances by the priests and bishops said were law. Inquisition by past law standards is actually legal.


Mankind certainly never learns from past mistakes.

Those are the best examples that highlighted religious law may not be kind and fair to people who do not practise the "main" faith.

The West threw away the religious laws later after the Enlightenment because it was not beneficial to the society and mankind at large. In place, secular laws. Turkey's Kamal Attaturk and its supporters chose secular

Instead, many Muslims these days, want laws of their countries to be enacted according to Islam.

It would be unfair if I mention Muslims alone. Even majority Hindus of India want their country to be declared as a Hindu state, with it the "faith" laws. Notwithstanding, there is already a divisive caste system embedded within its government ruling influenced by the Hindu faith. Wouldn't that be unfair to the Muslims in India? It is not hard to answer this question.

It is a norm that scripts in all religious books to be ambiguous in meaning, at times, flowery. With ambiguity, variants of interpretation will be derived. Is it brilliant to implement a law based on ambiguous understanding? Conflicts may arise resulting in more division to the creation of tolerant global society mindset.

Can Islamic Law religious law be fair to other religions? How can there be a guarantee if there is not even freedom of changing religions under the law?

Religion should be a matter of personal understanding, a personal communication with God for its followers to get to Heaven. Choosing Heaven is an option and personal willpower. Implementing religious laws is an attempt to "force" someone to get to Heaven. Highly contradictory approach. People cannot be "forced" to go to Heaven.

Why aren't we learning from the history that religious laws will not be suitable for the world?

NOTE: This is an Anti-Intolerance article. This is NOT an Anti-Islam article. Islam is a liberal religion. If a person chooses liberty, liberty will come unto him. If you choose hostility, be rest assured to expect the same from others.

No comments: