Pluralism?

[shuntmaster]

Now Malaysia has developed something which many muslim countries need to see.

Have you heard of the bumiputera policy in Malaysia? Discrimination against non-Muslims is built in Malaysian constitution.

 

[Silverblaze]

Have you heard of the bumiputera policy in Malaysia? Discrimination against non-Muslims is built in Malaysian constitution.

If you read my comment again, I said see.

Compared to Pakistan, Malaysia is better. There people are not being killed as in many places.

Malaysia is a start and not a goal.

 

[Kompromat]

When 3 three brothers are unconscious and the 4th is seeking a doctor. One can call the latter stable.

Difference between bad & worse?

 

[shuntmaster]

If you read my comment again, I said see.

Compared to Pakistan, Malaysia is better. There people are not being killed as in many places.

Malaysia is a start and not a goal.

The demographics of Malaysia is also much different from rest of the Muslim countries. Islam is followed by 60% of Malaysians. If Singapore was still part of Malaysian federation, this number would have been less than 50%. It is not an Islamic country, but country with Muslim majority. There is a very overt and covert by the government to push the Islamic agenda.

 

[Silverblaze]

The demographics of Malaysia is also much different from rest of the Muslim countries. Islam is followed by 60% of Malaysians. If Singapore was still part of Malaysian federation, this number would have been less than 50%. It is not an Islamic country, but country with Muslim majority. There is a very overt and covert by the government to push the Islamic agenda.

Wherever muslims are in majority, problems have surfaced within them and beyond because of global and local incompetence.

The point is that unlike Pakistan and Egypt, Malaysians have managed things which could have gone out of control. The state religion is Islam and the state is very much stable.

The point is that Pakistan is not Turkey even though some would admire its power now, but Pakistanis do not want secularism, so Malaysian pluralism ( to some extent) is a better option.

 

[muse]

@muse

I read what you posted, he does carry some thought provoking points. However IMHO another pillar of "pluralism" is "social cohesion". Now i must say and do correct me if i am wrong that Pakistan is the only country in the Muslim world at least for its size that has a "True multicultural social make up". Now multiculturalism is a dual blade sword, on one hand it gives you a "fresh start" to form a coherent society that gets on with each other in respect to mutual differences or it can prove to be a pile of TNT.


Iran is different to us as they have a strong sense of national identity, they don't have 5 mainstream languages with a national and an official language as we do. For us to become a pluralistic state, we have more work to do than established national identities ie Persians,Arabs,Turks,Turkaman,Azaris and so on. We Pakistanis not only have to create a "National identity" but also have to work for religious cohesion in order to achieve pluralism and that does mean including the Christians,the Sikhs,the Hindus,the Zoroastrians,the Qadiyanis and so on.

How is that going to be achieved when our real primer palace in Raiwind not only promotes a singular thought school of islam the deoband who don't tolerate other Muslims let alone non muslims and the added aspect of politically sheltered terrorist outfits like Lashkar e jhangvi?

Excellent - now if you read Zahoor Khan again, you will understand WHY we have not be able to construct a national identity with which we are at peace with - look it :

A rigid framework shapes our history and religion, credible counter voices are silenced and the state’s machinery seems to lack a unanimous and objective stand. All this prevents a critical ideological discourse from developing, which, in turn, hinders the evolution of a collective identity.

Again, this lack of pluralism (A rigid Framework shapes our history and religion, credible counter voices are silenced) is at the heart of why we suffer - we simply refuse to acknowledge the reality that we are multicultural multi-ethnic and multi-sect and multi-confessional (Eissa bar deen e khud, Musa bar deen e khud) Instead we insist on rigidity - Now whose narrative is this rigidity in the first place? Again, read Zahoor,

Motivated by the goal of achieving an Islamic state or Khilafat and turning Pakistan into one has become the leading slogan of those religious parties that resisted the country’s creation

. You know who they are, we all do (Jamaat e Islami)

You ask how is it to be achieved? But before we deal with this question, lets again look to Zahoor, lets review what he has to say to these lunes and their VISION of society:

Extremist radicals need to present a viable political system to replace the existing one, as militancy alone would never result in the ideological restructuring they desire. Till now, intellectual sterility in this regard is a serious crack in their armour. Critical discourse could help resolve such a conflict, provided history is seen objectively and questioning with a dispassionate zeal of prevalent orthodoxies is allowed.

His advise to radicals is that you have failed and will continue to lose UNless, you deal truthfully with the orthodoxy you perpetuate --Just in case you think the Iranian has arrived at this stage without struggle, please read Soroush - BTW, his editors offered to me, in their desperation as they feared for his life, if I would arrange to have him in Pakistan.

Now as to how we achieve this -- in my third or fourth post on this thread, I said I hoped that Democracy in Iran will follow the internalization of a value set that is a foundation of Democracy in society - this applies for all societies such as ours - Do you realize why radicalism continues to play havoc with us in Pakistan?? It's because we refuse to stand up to it, even when we know that , we cannot muster the courage -- But Why is this the case?? Because we are alienated from the Islam of meaning, the Islam of ethics - Muslim and ethical cannot be separated, so how do we explain us? our behavior? either we do not have the courage to be Muslim or we are alienated from Islam of meaning - Always afraid, never confident that we are actually Muslims, we cannot be poor, illiterate, brutish, brutal, misogynistic and purveyors of Zulm and BE Muslim - societal change begins with attitudes of a minority that is compelled to courage on the basis of it's ethics.

In the end it's What kind of society - it really means what kind of Muslim, conscious or a purveyor of Zulm ?

 

[Serpentine]

Does he have the power to change anything?

Yes he has.For instance look at Iran's policies in both Khatami era and Ahmadinejad's.In nuclear program for example, Khatami listened to western countries and almost halted the nuclear program to gain their trust, but not only they didn't pay him well, also called Iran axis of evil.He was ready to actually negotiate to west and even start diplomatic relations with U.S, but with that nutjob in office, G.W Bush, it all failed and all of these developments led to election of a more hardline president, Ahmadinejad.

Also regarding democracy, the freedom of speech, cultural and political freedoms also dramatically increased comparing to his former president.So it does change many things, I hope you don't refer to western sources for getting information regarding this topic, because most of them don't tell all the truth.

As far as I know, he doesn't have the power to control foreign policy. Decisions regarding foreign policy are taken by Khomeni so I don't think the Syrian problem will ever be solved.

Show me one single country that its major foreign policy issues changes with each election.
Take U.S as example, do you see any major changes in its foreign policy in Bush and Obama era? Of course not, because it's not only president who can decide for foreign policy, otherwise presidents can ruin or change the course of foreign policy of their countries in a 4 year tenure, that doesn't make any sense.There are some principles that don't change,at least for some years, not only for Iran, but every single country.

Besides, in Iran, president has major impact on foreign policy and especially diplomatic powers. I explained it above, compare Ahmadinejad and Khatami's foreign policies in their terms.

 

[T-123456]

Yes he has.For instance look at Iran's policies in both Khatami era and Ahmadinejad's.In nuclear program for example, Khatami listened to western countries and almost halted the nuclear program to gain their trust, but not only they didn't pay him well, also called Iran axis of evil.He was ready to actually negotiate to west and even start diplomatic relations with U.S, but with that nutjob in office, G.W Bush, it all failed and all of these developments led to election of a more hardline president, Ahmadinejad.

Also regarding democracy, the freedom of speech, cultural and political freedoms also dramatically increased comparing to his former president.So it does change many things, I hope you don't refer to western sources for getting information regarding this topic, because most of them don't right the truth.



Show me one single country that its major foreign policy issues changes with each election.
Take U.S as example, do you see any major changes in its foreign policy in Bush and Obama era? Of course not, because it's not only president who can decide for foreign policy, otherwise presidents can ruin or change the course of foreign policy of their countries in a 4 year tenure, that doesn't make any sense.There are some principles that don't change,at least for some years, not only for Iran, but every single country.

Besides, in Iran, president has major impact on foreign policy and especially diplomatic powers. I explained it above, compare Ahmadinejad and Khatami's foreign policies in their terms.

Well Obama should be willing to listen,lets hope it gets better then.

 

[Developereo]

Have you heard of the bumiputera policy in Malaysia? Discrimination against non-Muslims is built in Malaysian constitution.

The situation in Malaysia is complicated because of their history.

The British created an elite class of foreigners (mostly Chinese) to serve as an intermediate ruling class over the native Malays. As a result, that ruling class amassed enormous wealth and influence at the expense of the natives. Since independence, the Malays have been trying to redress the historical injustice.

 

[Etiene]

“We should talk to the people,” he said. “We should hear what they say. We should kindly hear what they say. We should lessen the chances of total rule by the government.”

He is saying that he is for lessening total rule of the government. But the statement can be interpreted as listening and talking to the people is what will lead to this which is nonsense and a cheap way to seem revolutionary. If he is for another way of lessening it he doesnt specify it and the last sentence on its own could damage his position and would be odd , so I think my interpretation is correct.

Overall though Rowhanis statements seems very critical to an authoritarian society which is interesting.
@Yzd Khalifa
I think Era meant free elections as seen in modern states.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

I think Era meant free elections as seen in modern states.

They were free and square.

 

[Etiene]

They were free and square.

This is new to me. Can you give me more info?

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

This is new to me. Can you give me more info?

Municipal elections were held ~10 years ago all over the country.

 

[Etiene]

Elections ,as I described it, in Saudi Arabia would be sensational which is why I am sceptical and curious. You say it was ~10 years ago, are they still on the same mandate? If not why havent there been new elections?

 

[shuntmaster]

The situation in Malaysia is complicated because of their history.

The British created an elite class of foreigners (mostly Chinese) to serve as an intermediate ruling class over the native Malays. As a result, that ruling class amassed enormous wealth and influence at the expense of the natives. Since independence, the Malays have been trying to redress the historical injustice.

The british brought chinese and indians to malaya, because the malays were considered too lazy and untrustworthy.. the chinese and indians were used to work in the mines and plantations. The malays were the royals, there are still 7 sultans in malaysia ruling various provinces and one of them becomes the head of state of malaysia in rotation every 5yrs. The malays own most of the land and are mostly into farming. The chinese have no land and they have no choice than to become enterprising. They have prospered over generations through sheer hard work and their business acumen. Now the malay muslims want to grab this wealth from the chinese..