(UPDATE 1 MAY 2007: To be fair to MZuhdi, I think it is best if we wait until he finishes his writing before commenting. I am therefore disabling comments here but I am collecting his writings on a new page – click on CRITIQUE above)
I have just found the blog mzuhdi.blogspot.com. I was searching because he wrote two sober commentaries (so far) about some articles on Malaysia Think Tank London’s website.
It is refreshing to see someone commenting in a civilised way. There are people out there who just simply cannot write but still want to, subsequently ending up making a fool out of themselves. This is not one of those people.
Of course, he is wrong… But at least he tried 
Although I like his attempt, especially in his second entry, I still do not see what is it that he refers to as “Islamic system”. This is the most obvious problem with many Islamists. The label “Islam” is very important to them and anything without that label will be seen as un-Islamic.
For example, if you say that Islam advocates personal responsibility, small state, rule of law and property rights, they would almost immediately agree. But when you say classical liberals advocate personal responsibility, small state, rule of law and property rights, they would almost immediately say “Classical liberalism? Surely that is not Islamic”.
Another problem that I have is, who gives anybody the right to claim that his / her opinion is “pandangan ISLAM terhadap” a particular issue? There are so many people out there claiming to present “Islamic” opinions. There are people out there who put on a small goatee, a long jubah and a thick serban in order to portray an image of trustworthiness, but is actually among the most corrupt people. I wrote about this here and here. I wonder how many people are actually tidying up their own houses first?
At the end of the day, free market frees people. Anything otherwise is a breach of what God granted to His creation. It is not just simply about economics. It is about morality.
Filed under: Freedom & Liberty
cmon. why cant we talk about the scot elections?
or even about the young miliband vs towering brown with the backing of the blairites.
or even about cameron who is right (that is what he said) about dykes?
or probably sarko vs sergo in france..? left vs right which i long to see bcos i hv never seen it closely before in my lifetime. not this close, at least. in the classic europe within europe
Can’t. Or, won’t, rather….
Am being ‘over-cautious’ with campaign material (or anything that can be perceived as being part of my campaiging), to avoid screwing up records of my elections expenses. Don’t want to be disqualified on technical grounds….
Admittedly I am being extremely over-cautious. But better safe than sorry.
Since when tukar nama ke DJ pulak? You should be thinking more of the historic agreement between Sinn Fein and DUP!
BTW, when you say “cameron who is right (that is what he said) about dykes”, were you referring to this? http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/04/cameron-thinking-unthinkable.html
haha.
the agreement certainly allow us to breathe for a while. a rare occasion where both extremes come into term when other moderate parties from both sides collapsed in the election.
some locals even said it is like hamas and israel of Europe version, though obviously the real version is nowhere near here.
still, it is the blair’s legacy for the agreement to be materialised.
hehe another point why new labour is still relevant. erm mister can i recall any tories effort in solving the issue?
sorry, it was even worse under thatcher and her successor =)
I too hope the agreement will last. Blair has done a good thing and he has succeeded. Credit should be given when it is due.
I am sorry I cannot help with what Conservatives have done in Northern Ireland. I am not familiar with the politics of that area. If you follow it, I am sure you know more than me. But you can also visit http://www.conservatives.com and search for “northern ireland”.
I know it, right from the beginning.
U will highlight that keyword. and yeah, u did it !
its not fun here. it is too rough. still dirty. and will not make a good topic.
hmm, lets look. here we go, why would tory make cuts to NHS?
i couldnt understnd it. after all the big budget and investment; with the effort from the new labour, to reduce the waiting time for the patient, setting up targets etc…?
I know what cameron said about the target, but hey, we all know setting targets will allow the service to improve.
even the kiddies in management know that setting up target allow u to be more focus.
surely u couldnt have the perfect solution. and u couldnt satisfy everyone, could u? but things are better compared to major’s era.
hehe. sorry for disturbing u sir. but i enjoy good and healthy discussion. but local politics here definitely is a bad topic. so lets move to england/uk politics.
Assalamualaikum Wan.
I really hope that you respon to both “sober commentaries” academically. ( I wonder why you respon in negative manner. It can be interpreted as intelectual disagreement etc.)
At least as a courtesy to his attempt to create a civilised intelectual discourse. Please do not treat fellow muslim as if he/she do not know anything or stupid that they do not see your points.
Please do not relates to any personal issues. You yourself do not agree with the strategy of character assasination or personafication of the wide and global issues of Malaysian politics.
I would like to hear what do you think about the muslims who prefer to use the Libralism methodology to promotes positive universal values despite Islam as Ad Deen has proven to make them reality. I can see that MZuhdi is trying to relay this message, not the prejudice about the name such as Libralism etc. per se.
You might say that Islamist do not read the Westeners original books. How about the “muslim Liberalist”, have they read or learn their Islam from the original text and authentic teachers, before concluding on muslims and Islam itself?
Encik Amin,
I replied in the negative because I disagreed with what he said. Simple.
I can’t remember calling anybody stupid. I said I enjoy reading his critique, despite it being wrong. But if you think he is stupid, please do not put your words into my mouth.
It puts me off when someone writes something and claims to be presenting THE view of Islam. Who gave anybody the right to say “my view is THE Islamic view”? Since when did we have a Pope?
But, most important of all, I cannot see what it is that he wants to present as an ‘Islamic’ approach. There is nothing in the article that presents itself as a proper policy proposal.
Yes, we all want to do what is Islamic. I am being more concrete. I am saying that Islam demands us to establish rule of law. Islam demands us to establish property rights. Islam demands us to respect Allah’s gift to mankind – the ability to think and choose. Can anybody say that these are not Islamic principles?
Show me what you mean by ‘Islamic’ values, and prove to me that Islam does NOT promote rule of law, individual responsibility, property rights, and choice, then we will have something to debate. Otherwise, you agree with me but you just want me to use your terminology in framing my ideas.
You can call these principles whatever you want. Socialism? Communism? Liberalism? Libertarianism? I call them Islam.
If these values coincide with what Liberals believe, I cannot be any happier!
Of course, I will be most happy to continue reading MZuhdi’s writings. I like the way he writes. I am eagerly waiting for the rest of his critique. Seriously, I have been waiting for a while!
And I am also eagerly waiting to see what will be done about corruption and the abuse of religion for personal political gains – ie: whether he is talk and no action, or if he is serious in practicing what he preaches. Many people are just talk…talk….talk….