The broil that is time and again played out by two of the opposition's prominent political stalwarts on the issue of Islamic law and jurisprudence continues to reinforce the belief that an opposition takeover of Putrajaya may not be feasible after all.

My previous letter provided for an objective analysis on why race-based politics will be a permanent staple of our statehood for a long time to come, along with an added dimension in the form of an Islamic state.

Many Malaysians are content to place the blame on Dr Mahathir Mohamad's long and high- handed rule for the blatant racism and pervasive Islamism that we evidently grapple with. Be that as it may, what does the opposition have in store to remedy all of the good doctor's ‘evils’ that we are left to suffer with?

One should be enlightened enough to put the past in its place and chart a better future, especially if one were to solicit support to form the next government. Let us be clear on one thing. Is Anwar Ibrahim truly committed to resolve such issue for good, or is he simply playing to the gallery and hoping to avoid this political hot potato for as long as it takes to achieve his ulterior political ambitions?

Given what a colorful orator he has always been, it will be good to put to use his talents to ‘explain himself’—make his stand clear—on where and how he stands vis-a-vis an Islamic state and Sharia rule. The deafening silence from Muslim opposition leaders on the ‘injustices’ and foul-play in the handling of cases involving spouse conversions, alleged infant/minor conversions, and even forced conversions does not help Pakatan Rakyat achieve all that they clamour for.

It may seem trivial to single out Anwar Ibrahim to be heckled on this issue but it is none other than himself that aspires to ‘take over Putrajaya’ and as such becomes liable to answer the pertinent questions that will inevitably inundate him. To put it simply, what ‘reformasi’ do you intend to carry out apart from creating a more clean, transparent, efficient, and just administration, given that such ends do not requisite the creation of an Islamic state?

Can PAS and/or PKR explain what exactly entails the true essence of an Islamic state and specify what are the articulations and framework that will have to be promulgated in order to accredit a true and proper Islamic state? To date, even the renowned scholars of the Al-Azhar University (Cairo, Egypt) continue to debate and interpret ad nauseum the significance of a model Islamic state as far as all the holy texts are concerned.

Nonetheless, one should not be blindly prejudiced to the concept of an Islamic state so long as justice, fairness, and righteousness are upheld. Should PAS and/or PKR or the whole pact of the opposition choose to pursue such a statehood, they will need to carve out a blueprint that spells out clearly the changes to the status quo and more importantly the ramifications on non-Muslims.

Specifically, make your stand crystal clear on the model of the Islamic state you intend to establish and set in stone, in black and white all the elements that will constitute your intended version of an Islamic statehood. In other words, package and market your product and let the electorate decide its value as we are to effect any change only by democratic means.

Kemalist Turkey serves as an ideal illustration of how secularism within an Islamic populace can only be upheld by force, the military. The relative peace, progress, and prosperity of the Turkish republic since the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate can be credited in part to the active enforcement of ultra-secular principles and policies at will. The recently concluded referendum further provides for an insightful analysis on how political Islam comes into play in the consolidation of political power for the sole and undying quest to establish Islamic statehood.

The ‘reformation’ of the Turkish judiciary, regarded as the only remaining civilian guardian of secularism, is but one small step on the long and arduous journey in securing this end. This is history repeating itself. Can Muslims honestly blame nonbelievers for not having any faith in the Islamic statehood? Can PAS and/or PKR or Anwar Ibrahim himself care to cite some contemporary names of an Islamic nation which has genuinely attained all the supposed noble ideals that are given rise by the very virtue of the establishment of the Daulah Islamiya?

As I have also stated in my previous letter, some may believe that it is only incumbent for any Muslim to pursue Islamic statehood as part and parcel of the faith but no reliable examples seem to accompany all endeavors and efforts to materialize this entity. The concept of an Islamic statehood remains an abstract highly susceptible to political manipulation and maneuvering as played out by all governments that claim to be ‘Islamic states’.

To paraphrase, one must not disregard the formidable forces of political Islam that seek to assume fundamental prerogatives of the state whilst maintaining monopoly of the propagation of the faith and not to mention, sole proprietary interpretation of all holy texts that will not be subject to question or debate.

With all due respect, it is quite pointless to preach of Islam being a religion of peace, tolerance, and justice. All religions preach likewise in spirit and belief. One religion in particular teaches its followers that they will be judge by their fruits and not so much by the expressions of their faith.

In other words, you will be judge by what you practice and produce, and not what you profess or proclaim. Another extolls the universality of doing and sowing good and hence reaping in kind, while one more is centered on self-control and inner peace in order to pursue earthly harmony.

The point is, all religions are in essence the same—they extoll good and forbid evil—in all forms. It is simply our fallen nature to dwell on details to seek out differences. More so with politicians whonever tire of abusing religion for ill gains—oblivious to the fact that even the atheist can adjudicate between virtues and vices—in the context of justice and fairness.

To put it simply, do we wish to keep extolling the greatness of the religion we happen to profess but do nothing to exemplify it? Nevertheless, it will not hurt to pursue a system that upholds fairness, justice, and righteousness within a secular system whilst being guided by Islamic principles that are indisputably upright and good, as are any principles that form the core doctrines of practically all religions.

In short, if all that is Islamic is good, then can we agree that all that is good is necessarily Islamic? Herein lies the fault lines that will always surely be abused for political posturing and Malaysia has never had a short supply of such examples. Perhaps if we were all to be true to our respective religions, we would not need to convince others how great it is and much less compel others to embrace it. A beautiful verse in the Qur'an serves to illustrate this opinion: ‘God will never change the fate of a people unless and until they purpose it in their hearts to desire and to effect change’.

Therefore my fellow Malaysians, is it too much to ask that we strive to be better human beings based on whatever beliefs we practice rather than pontificate on them?