Is it because the world recognises Malaysia as an Islamic state that the country was asked to host the Organisation of Islamic Conference's (OIC) 10th Summit, as claimed by certain quarters?

Or would they have us believe that the incoming chairmanship of the organisation automatically makes Malaysia an Islamic state?

As a matter of note, among the 57-member grouping are a number with Muslim-minority populations - Cameroon, (20%), Uganda (16%), Togo (15%), Guyana (9%), and Gabon (1%.).

Two years ago, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad famously announced that Malaysia is a Negara Islam [1] - and in the run-up to the OIC summit in Putrajaya reiterated: "Malaysia has not only been recognised as an Islamic country but also as a model of a successful Islamic state" ( The Star , Oct 2, 2003).

But PAS has claimed that Umno's version is not quite the real McCoy.

Differing versions

Mustafa Ali, the vice-president of PAS, when asked by Tim Sebastian in BBC's Hardtalk whether it was his party's objective to introduce an Islamic state if elected to power, had replied no. His party would abide by the Federal Constitution, he said.

On the same day this interview was aired, PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang announced the gazetting of the Syariah Criminal Enactment (Hudud and Qisas) [2] in Terengganu.

While Mustafa had made an attempt to deny PAS' not-so-secret political agenda, the state government led by Hadi went ahead in enacting the framework for an Islamic state. This singular act conclusively contradicts and nullifies his party vice-president's statement in the BBC interview.

Had has since then said that there is no contradiction in Mustafa's statement with the introduction of this Syariah Criminal Enactment, already in place in Kelantan, the other PAS-controlled state.

According to Hadi, the vice-president was only giving a general overview of an Islamic state and had not dwelt on its details. However, as PAS would have its supporters believe, the Federal Constitution and an Islamic state would be similar in matters of detail. The labels may differ, but their substance would be the same.

Nonetheless, there is undeniably a division of concept and understanding to the meaning of the Islamic state between the government (and the federal bureaucrats) and PAS, leading to a bizarre situation. There will be two separate law enforcement bodies, one of them under a religious aegis in Terengganu as the state government would not seek the help of the police in its implementation of Hudud law [3]. In other words, as the labels differ, so do their details after all.

Details, details

Just what are the details that would define and describe the Islamic state that PAS is struggling so hard to establish, and which Umno claims to already have done?

In this case Hadi is of no help. Although he says Umno's Islamic state is different from his party's version, PAS has yet to issue its blueprint. They have nevertheless promised to do so by the first day of Ramadan. We await with bated breath.

What has already been gleaned from Mustafa Ali in the BBC interview was something to the effect that an Islamic state is one that follows the Federal Constitution, but is coated with "good values" that Islam stands for.

Mustafa did not elaborate, which is quite sad. Had he done so, we could have had an idea of the details of his "federally-constituted" PAS Islamic state. As far as we know, there have been proposals (allegedly from the government camp) to amend the details of the Federal Constitution to comply with the details of an Islamic state, but as for the possible developments, we shall have to wait to find out.

And pronouncements so far from the PAS camp?

"There are many books on Islamic states the people can refer to so as to get a clear picture of the real concept of an Islamic state," Hadi has said in response to such queries.

A deflection is an evasion, not an answer. Nonetheless, he volunteered the Institute of Islamic Understanding of Malaysia (IKIM) to come out with an authoritative definition of an Islamic state.

It is a pity Hadi did not mention any or some of the books he has in mind, for many would love to read this definitive definition and description of an Islamic state that he and his party are so keen to implement in this country (even allowing for their two individual manifestos for different segments of the Malaysian electorate).

It is also curious that he instigates IKIM to provide the definition, suggesting there might just be none in existence at present.

The concept of Al-Din

The crux of the matter is that many people have tried to make a solid definition of an Islamic state especially within the context of the modern civilisation but without much success.

The basic principle bandied about is that in Islam there is this concept of Al-Din (also Addin ), under which is a direct relationship between man and Allah, and state and Allah.

Under this idealistic ambit, everybody subscribes to Syariah Law, the 'Law of God,' where all live in peace and harmony.

Under Al-Din too there is only one state, with one viceregent ( khulifah ), one religion and one government. In the art of government, there is no separation between the state and religion. These are the ideals of an Islamic state.

But there are far too many variables inherent in any present-day polity. To begin with, mankind has evolved from many different cultural, social and religious backgrounds. The present human civilization is the sum total of the whole series of human experience, beginning from our hunter-gatherer forefathers to the present day.

Diverse issues - human rights, role of women, science, technology, genetic engineering, the k-economy, space exploration - all would hinder a workable definition of the idealistic Islamic state. Each of these items, and others like nationalism, for another, would pose a huge barrier to the formation of a single religion-based government for this planet of ours.

Staunch religious ideologues would try to imagine how to set about organising six billion-plus people under one state, one ruler, one religion, one government, without massive numbers of individuals gutting each other's throats in anarchy, Syariah Law notwithstanding.

The impossibility of ruling under one viceregent and advised by a Shura (or council) under one Syariah Law is so patently obvious.

Today's world is far too complex to be governed by a system mooted in the seventh century. The issues facing a modern nation are altogether different from those faced by societies during the formative stages of the Islamic state known as the Rashidun period (the 30 years or so after the demise of Prophet Mohammad), followed by the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates in the seventh to 13th centuries.

This system had been mooted, established and has had its shining moment. Since then, it has been overtaken by the march of time. New forms of government have taken its place.

Impervious to change

Of course both Hadi and Mustafa might think that the mess faced by the world today has been due to the corruption and terrible immorality caused and brought about by the so-called "western" civilisation.

To this we can say that no one has claimed that the world we live in is perfect. We live in a world with imperfect knowledge, imperfect morality, and imperfect everything else. Bringing back Al-Din would not bring back perfection either.

But we move along exploring the Great Unknown, balancing the good and the bad, the true and false, as we march on to the future. As a human civilisation, we take one day at a time, and proceed facing the future learning from the past, yes, but not governed by and tied to it. Yet our PAS leaders would look to Syariah - a code of law set in stone a millennium ago, brooking no challenges and accepting no changes.

At this juncture we have to add that Islam has always stated that it is meant for the past, present, and future. The principles it expounds are applicable for all ages, but its details would have to change to meet with prevailing conditions. However, as the fundamentalist Islamic leaders would consider the Syariah perfect, so would they proclaim it immutable. To champions of the Islamic state, the details must not change.

Medieval outlook

We need just to look at the level of knowledge mankind has amassed. It doubles in volume every eight to ten years. Intellectual, material, social life of today is literally centuries ahead from the idealistic Al-Din .

Today we have the mega-cities, the global television and communication networks, advances in medical care, travel and material comforts that our seventh century forefathers could not have dreamt of.

They changed the world, they changed mankind, and they changed the values and norms of humanity.

Contrast this modernity with some specific examples of Hudud Law - adultery for which the adulterer must be stoned; fornication, for which the guilty persons must receive 100 lashes. Apostasy is punishable by death.

Drinking intoxicating liquor is punishable by 80 lashes. Theft is punishable by cutting off the right hand. Highway robbery leads to the loss of hands and feet; and for robbery with murder, it's death, either by sword or crucifixion.

These extreme forms of civil law and punishment belong to the medieval period. Now we all live in the 21st century where legal values and norms have changed. Their punishments are more sophisticated and less draconian.

Hudud might have been applicable in the Arabian peninsula once upon a time [4]. Supporters of Hudud law are in the situation where they have to uphold the sanctity of a religious law, one that can never be changed.

Muslim leaders should conceptualise more on this contentious issue, failing which their literalist view and judgment would render their minds closed.

In the meantime, we are beset with this kind of dogmatism in our daily life; my heart goes out to the people whose leaders harbour such archaic minds.

AB SULAIMAN is an observer of human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. In his free time, he loves to read, travel and play golf (although his game could be better).

Footnotes:

1) At the Gerakan National Delegates Conference on Sept 29, 2001.

2) The Syariah laws were passed by the Terengganu state assembly in July last year.

3) The police is the nation's enforcer of law and public order, but it is operates under the jurisdiction of the Federal government.

4) According to modern Muslim philosopher Roger Garaudy, Hudud is covered under usul-al-fiqh. Garaudy has further opined that Hudud should be separated from religious laws under the Syariah.