Critical Thoughts

This is a very tired, old reaction to anything involving any proposal to revive the Shariah. You will see non-Muslims going up in arms against this idea, even though it is merely at a proposal stage and yet to be properly formulated on how the framework would be or how it will affect both Muslims and non-Muslims. I think these days that is the same case with anything that involves the word “Islam” in it. Nevertheless, it is not my purpose in this post to talk about the Shariah or an Islamic State in Malaysia. That, we can leave for another time. What I want to answer is the insinuation is that “Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism” (or for that matter, any other religion apart from Islam) have a clear and concise idea of what constitutes “statehood” or even has a proper legal framework.

The answer is no such thing exists, there never were any “Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism Laws” concerning Statehood and material welfare. These religions never do have any concept of Statehood or any legal system for that matter which can form the basis of a State legal system. The reason is because these religions were never intended to govern a community on their own or give concern to their material needs, instead merely focusing on the spiritual aspect or philosophical ideologies related to their theological belief system. If they do today, it arose out of the context in separating religion from state (and hence the term “secular” coming into being). Islam, in that respect, is unique, because it focuses on both the spiritual and material needs of man and the community.

Now, have I answered your “question”, Daniel YKL?