Is Malaysia an Islamic or a secular state?

November 16, 2012

If Malaysia is not a secular state and Dr. Malik Munip is unsure if it is an Islamic state, it must then be a confused state.–Din Merican

Is Malaysia an Islamic or a secular state?

By Dr. Malik Munip@

The debate on the nature of Malaysia’s identity—whether it is a secular or an Islamic state—is mired in confusion. The confusion firstly is of a semantic nature—a lack of clarity on what defines a secular or an Islamic state. The second confusion is about the extent of any entity’s authority—be it former Premiers, The Alliance Memorandum or the Reid Commission–in deciding the debate. This article will discuss the second confusion first.

Secular or Islamic State: Premier vs. Premier

Though Malaysian Prime Ministers are vested with a whole battery of executive authority, nonetheless, they do not have the power to determine the identity of a country merely by making an announcement either way. Indeed, if we think about it, even an individual’s identity cannot be determined by a pronouncement—a person doesn’t become a Muslim, a Christian, an apostate or any identity along the ‘faith- atheist’ spectrum simply due to a declaration. To have meaning and force, the declaration must correspond with the individual’s belief and practice. So if by itself a declaration cannot determine the religious identity of an individual, can it determine the identity of a state?

Nonetheless, many people attribute Malaysia identity as either Islamic or Secular, by citing the positions of previous Prime Ministers on the subject. Hence to shore up their claim, the proponents of a secular state will often draw on the statements of Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Hussien Onn.

In this regard an often cited statement (but not the only example) used to represent the position of the former Premiers would be from a February 1983 Star report where the Tunku said “The country has a multi-racial population with various beliefs. Malaysia must continue as a secular State with Islam as the official religion”.

Another issue also reported Tun Hussein support for the Bapa Kemerdekaan, “The nation can still be functional as a secular state with Islam as the official religion.”

Unsurprisingly those that argue that Malaysia is already an Islamic State wouldn’t cite the first and third Premiers. Instead they would quote Tun Mahathir’s following statement in September 2001 to support their position: “UMNO wishes to state clearly that Malaysia is an Islamic nation. This is based on the opinion of ulamaks who had clarified what constituted as Islamic country…. ” .

But with all due respects, there are limits in determining the nature of a country’s identity by simple reference to a Prime Ministerial declaration. After all, if Malaysia already possesses many of the features that define a secular state, then her secular nature doesn’t change just because a Prime Minister says otherwise. And vice versa—if Malaysia has many attributes of an Islamic state, or a feature that disqualifies her from being a secular state, then it won’t be a secular State regardless of how many previous and future Prime Ministers states to the contrary.

So although they are Prime Ministers, nonetheless, their statements, in and by themselves do not automatically determine the nature of Malaysia’s identity. At best their statements would be a description of Malaysia’s pre-existing identity. And like most descriptions, it would be valid only in so far it is accurate.

The Alliance Memoranda vs. The Reid Commission

Of course, in articulating their positions, participants in the debate don’t limit themselves to Prime Ministerial declarations—references to legal authorities and legal documents will also be part of the argumentative arsenal. In this regard none comes with higher prestige than the Federal Constitution and its drafters, the Reid Commission.  So with respect to whether Malaysia is an Islamic or a secular state, let’s sink our teeth into what the Federal Constitution and the Reid Commission have to say on the matter.

In the Federal Constitution, both terms, Islamic State or Secular State does not appear. Nonetheless, Article 3 of the Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This provision has often been cited to support the claim that Malaysia is an Islamic State or at least not a secular one.

Yet, many who claim to have read the Reid Report find this argument unconvincing; they maintain that the Commission stated that any provision in the proposed Constitution providing for Islam as the state religion will not invalidate the position of the Federation as a secular state.

Strictly speaking, this portrayal of the Reid Commission’s position is incorrect. In respect to Islam being made a state religion, the Commission did not commit itself to that position. As historian Joseph Fernando wrote in his book ‘The Making of the Malayan Constitution’: “In respect of religion, the Commission decided not to make any provision relating to an official religion for the Federation although the Alliance had proposed that Islam should be made the official religion”.

In fact it was the Alliance and not the Reid Commission that wanted a declaration for Islam to be made the State Religion. And similarly, it was the Alliance that made the claim that such a declaration would not negate the position of the federation as a secular state. What the Reid Commission did was to acknowledge (see paragraph 169 of its report) that the Alliance wanted to insert such a provision; they themselves were reluctant to commit to it (with the exception of one member, Justice Hamid).

Be that as it may, even if was the Alliance and not the Reid Commission that made the claim that having a state religion would not negate Malaya’s status as a secular state, nonetheless, shouldn’t such a claim prove beyond doubt,  that Malaysia is a secular State? After all, the Alliance played a crucial role in the constitution-making process—before, during and after the Reid Commission’s drafting. Additionally, they were the primary characters involved in securing Independence; hence, if the Founding Fathers claim that the country is a secular State, then it must be binding right? Not quite.

Firstly, none of them were recognized authorities on the inter-related issue of secular states and secularism, or its relationship to religion and Islamic States.

It should be noted that the issue of an Islamic State has theological dimensions, yet none of them were theologians. And on the issue of a secular State, the problem was that they never defined properly what a secular state is; they just claimed that having Islam as the religion of the Federation doesn’t annul its status as a secular state. Within the context of such statements, their conception of a secular state seems to be a conception by negation—conceiving it by what it is not, rather than what it is. Such a conception is not convincing.

In short, since the Alliance were not experts on the issue of Secular States, secularism or its relationship to Islam and not exact in conveying what they meant, does it make sense for us to elevate their claim (that having a state religion doesn’t negate Malaya as a Secular State) as being the final authority on the matter?

Indeed according to the Joseph Fernando, there is evidence that in private, even the Reid Commission were not convince by the Alliance claim—to them, it was a contradiction. And for those who have some exposure to the literature on secular states and secularism, this shouldn’t be surprising. Why? Because the Alliance’s position just doesn’t correspond with the accepted understanding of what constitutes a secular state. And that is the point: if a statement or description doesn’t match up with the reality then regardless of the social standing of the entity making the statement, it cannot be authoritative.

So in determining whether Malaysia is a secular state or otherwise, instead of citing what former Premiers or the Reid Commission or the Alliance Memoranda says on the matter, it would be more pertinent to ask: What defines a secular state? And does the statement of the Alliance Memoranda and those that echo it, tally with such a definition?

What is a Secular State? The Acid Test

The literature on the subject of secular states and secularism is vast; as such there exist various interpretations. Nonetheless, there is a general consensus that the foundation of a secular state is the principle that state and religion must be separate. Consequently, a secular state will have, among others, the following characteristics:  the state must be neutral towards religion; the state cannot give religion a privilege position in the public arena; the state’s coercive powers and resources cannot be utilised in the service of any religion; the State should not privilege a religion or its adherents over another; the state should not privilege religion over irreligion; the state should not permit religion to be a requirement of public office; and the state should not  interfere with the affairs of religion and vice- versa.

Now by having Article 3 of the Federal Constitution, obviously Malaysia is not neutral towards religion. It gives Islam a privileged status over other religions. Nonetheless, if Article 3 was the only Islamic feature in the Constitution, perhaps the claim by the Alliance that having a State Religion doesn’t imply a non-secular state can still be defended. But let’s have a peek at other Articles of the Federal Constitution.

Through Article 11(4), missionary work amongst Muslims can be controlled and restricted. Yet there are no laws restricting missionary work to adherents of other faiths. Then there’s Article 12(2). This article has far reaching consequences; it empowers the Federation and the states to establish or maintain Islamic institutions or provide assistance in that process. It also sanctions them to do same with regards to providing instruction in the religion of Islam. In pursuant of those purposes, it also authorises the use of public funds.

Both the above Articles violate the principles of a secular state on multiple scores. And these two Articles are not the only one; there exist other Articles that do the same. For instance, Malays are entitled to wear the cloak of Article 153, but professing Islam is a requirement of being Malay under the Federal Constitution.  But let’s cast our view beyond the Federal Constitution to the State Constitutions whereby the Islamic features are even more pronounced.

Many State Constitutions require the State Secretary to be a person who professes Islam.  In those States the default legal requirement for the position of the Menteri Besar is also a person who professes Islam. And the state religion of most of the States that make up the Federation is Islam. In these States, not only is neutrality towards Islam not practice, but unlike the federal position of Prime Minister, religion is made a requirement of the public offices of the Menteri Besar and State Secretary. And beyond the formal structure of the constitution, there are other characteristics that these states have which are at odds with the essence of a secular state. With a name like Terengganu Darul Iman for example, is it realistic to expect otherwise? And does Kelantan under Nik Aziz seem like a secular state to you? But it is not the scope of this article to elaborate.


So to recapitulate the question: Is Malaysia a secular state? Well, by the characteristics that define a secular state then Malaysia by definition is not a secular state; it violates the principle attributes of a secular state on multiple fronts. Breaches to the tenants of a secular state are not the exception; it is almost the rule. In Malaysia, religion is not separated from the state but entrenched, empowered, enforced, expressed and elevated.

Hence, does this mean Malaysia is an Islamic State? My answer is: I don’t know; I have no idea what a universally accepted Islamic state in the contemporary world looks like. But it does mean Malaysia disqualifies from being a secular state.

Dr Malik Munip taught history at University of Malaya for two decades, and was also a former Member of Parliament for Muar.

87 thoughts on “Is Malaysia an Islamic or a secular state?

  1. Malaysia is a confused state.UMNO is a nationalist party fighting for the supremacy of the Malay like Nation of Islam and KKK in US.PAS is an Islamic Party but in reality Islam doesnt need the party to uphold and spread the message of Islam.

  2. Dr. Malik Munip is quite convincing in giving constitutional examples to show that Malaysia is strictly not a secular state. But he humbly declines from calling it an Islamic state. Previously in this blog we had a professor from UiTM proposing Malaysia as having a hybrid system – hybrid state or probably more correctly as Dato’ Din said a confused state? We are really in a state of confusion.

  3. Confucius said “If you are confused,do not make me confused”.That explains the current state of affairs in Bolehland,where the govt’s mouthpiece-Bernama spews propaganda news so that the rakyats are distracted from other important issues affecting the long-term interest of our country.

  4. Once again the question that never seems to end. Is Malaysia a secular or an Islamic state? The answer is neither. It is a circular state. It is a state going in circles, chasing after its own tail.

  5. Tean-Rean, Wat Siam’s altar boy where are you? Hang dok siap siap noh. Tak lama lagi hang nak kena sunat. Pak Din jadi Tok Mudin.

  6. We have had this discussion many times before.i Why is it so fundamentally important that we get this right – Malaysia a secular or an Islamic state? Clearly, the issue has left the confines of the class room and has dominated the blogosphere for a while now. And so let;s cut to the chase. The real issue is one of religious freedom and religious freedom of the Malays. The religious freedom of the non-Malays is guaranteed under Article 11(1) of the country’s Federal Constitution of 1957 and so that is a non-issue.

  7. All the verbosity and what Dr. Malik Munip really arguing is that the Alliance or Tunku made an academic mistake and so the country is not secular. He is a history professor and not a constitutional law expert. Even in the very well crafted US constitution, if there are conflicts, the default then is the INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS – SECULAR…

    Its intellectual nonsense Dr. Malik Munip…

  8. There you see, Hussin, here you go again. Your comments are neither for nor against. Chinese calls this “no back bone”. Smoking and spinning around just like the author whose main purposes is to say that Malaysia is a Muslim state. One way to analyse it is it get published in the main stream media for all. There other way is, the government of the day agrees, that is why it is published in nst.

    It is actually not so confusing after all. Those read between lines can sense the purposes of this article. Many won’t even care if the state is Muslim or otherwise if they are justly treated and the rule of laws prevail, the resources of the country managed well and the people prospers.

    Malaysia is now runs by a party of money sucking vampires, Malaysians elected into office for the past 55 years. Malaysians like you who now trying to justifying these money sucking vampires’ actions. So spare me your comments.

    Well, I can chose not to read your comments but no I chose to come after you for every justification you try to confuse the readers, especially me.

  9. So you have a confused state administered by a confused party made up of confused members led by a confused Prime Minister who is as confused as you and I. Well, you can’t be more confused than that. Period.

  10. Secularism was a product of history. It was a product of Europe. The authority and power of the Church in the society was total. As R.W. Southern put it: The structure of the Church during the Middle Ages is “the most elaborate and throughly integrated system of religious thought and belief the world has ever known”. Then came the Reformation.

    The word secular comes from the Latin word “saeculum’. It is to denote a process of transferring of control of territories, properties and services from the magisterium and ecclesiatical authority of the Roman Catholic Church to the state i.e. the people.

    Applying the abovesaid characteristics I would say we are a secular state rather an Islamic state. On Islam as being the official religion, it has been the religious choice of the rulers (Sultans) which also became the religious affiliation of most of their subjects. Thus, it explains the nationalization of Islamic religion under the constitution.

  11. Actually either we are secular or Islamic states is none of the concerned of Ah Chong ,the pasar borong trader,Maniam,the rubber tapper or Pak Abu the farmer.
    They are more concern about making some money to feed their children,to play mahjong or to drink tuak for maniam.

  12. Mr. Bloghost, this discussion is going nowhere no matter what is said of freedom of expression. More expose’ on corruption instead please.

  13. ‘..nationalization of religion..’

    I don’t know about you, but this term is somewhat akin to ‘nationalization’ of business. The ‘business’ of Government is to rule justly and benevolently it’s subjects. The ‘business’ of religion is to give a framework of how believers operate as a community, interact and behave morally towards their fellow man. If the Government intrudes into the business of religion, it not only becomes theocratic and unjust to those who do not subscribe to their ‘world-view’, but also despotic and narrow in agenda.

    Secularism may be a term derived from medieval Latin, but it was by no means a doctrine invented in Europe. The Persian Kings of antiquity, Chandragupta Maurya with other dynastic kingdoms of India and the early Han/Tang emperors – were in general, free from insisting on a ‘national’ religion. They led by example, not by intolerance, coercion, exclusitivity nor insistence.

    So is Malaysia a secular state? It ought to be as 40+ percent of it’s population are kafirs.

  14. If Malaysia is not a secular state, you folks please explain to me the amendment made to Article 121 i.e. 1A.

    If Malaysia is a secular state. please explain how the religion of Islam came to be mentioned in more times than anyone cares to count throughout the country’s sacred document we know as the Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957.

    With Article 121 (1A), it has less of a claim to be a secular state. If they start dragging non-Malays and non-Muslims to face claims filed with the syariah court then there can be no doubt that Malaysia is an Islamic state. Until then you can split hairs all you want.

  15. And i agree with Bean – that this ‘confusion’ is related to the the current “Malay Dilemma” of growing up and coming to maturity as a ‘race’. Identity, self respect, clarity of purpose and surety become commodities traded and bartered for – just like any ‘utility’. Those thus afflicted, may either remain as juveniles or transcend their present boundaries. It is not for the ‘Nons’, like me to predict, but i wish you well.

    The universal existential questions of: Who am I? Where do I come from? Why am i here? and Where am i to go?; beguiles.

  16. Some say the US Constitution was well crafted and “…if there are conflicts, the default then is the INTENT OF THE FOUNDERS – SECULAR”. But someone in this blog in a different thread said the US Constitution had a Judea-Christian origin and so this claim needs to be re-looked at.

    As I have commented in a different thread in this blog, that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution was only adopted on Dec 15, 1791 which was about 15 years after the US Declaration of Independence and even that it was only applicable to the US Federal government with many States still having established churches till early 19th century. Only in late 20th century did the US Supreme Court begin to interpret and conclude that “…government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion”. So, let’s ponder the number of long years that passed before the US Constitution finally “mature” to the current stage that many now quote as the best example to be considered.

    Malaysia is now merely 55 years old. Its Constitution needs time to evolve in tandem with its citizens as they progressively evolve with time. At the moment our Constitution is neither strictly secular nor Islamic (theological).

  17. If faith is personal where comes the official. If God allows his created being to choose their faith. Why man suggests otherwise? You mean man is greater than God? Well, it sure look that way.

  18. If they claim the country to be a religious and not a secular state, does it give an impression of upholding a high moral? Then what impression does it give recently with 3 enforcement officers commit rape?

  19. Tend to agree with Mr Bean, that the confusion of ” thoughts” has entailed it to become the ‘ Circular ‘ state making all of us to run around in a never-ending circle, round and round ad infinitum unable to catch its own tail !

    How come religiously-minded people are unable to come to terms with this Notion of our Constitution being of a ” Secular ” nature, a Secular State, because it all came about through human experience – chiefly out of evolution ( or is it revolution ) that occured centuries back in France & England, which saw the ‘change’ from Absolutism of the Monarch to ” Constitutional Monarchy’ that had put in place the concept of Seperation of Powers in the 3 structures of government ?

    The point is, this Secular mode has become very, very Scientific, dealing with worldly matters. In the sense that the Secular mode is able to Reconcile ALL variables in a Pluralistic Society viz, differences of ethnicity, cultural practices & religious beliefs…

    I beg to differ, its not a Theocratic state (Islamic state or what have you). My two-sense worth, all the Good & Scientific doctrines in any Secular state, they are all WITHIN the precpets or Tennets of Islam, not Repugnant, not Contradictory, not Incompatible, they are Complimentary….

    Remember, some scholars have opined that the Religion of Islam is All-Encompassing, save that they both must be kept Seperate…. ( or, did i manage to get my own self out of confusion ?)

  20. WTF religion of the US has to do with the bolehland debate of being Islamic or Secular?

    independent USofA is over 200 years old so you want to wallow in religious shit discussion for another 201 years before accepting the secularity of our country?

    you won’t be able to change the religion of the 40% nons therefore, as already said above, Malaysia is a secular state. unless you people are planning a genocide!

    good wine matures but cheap wine becomes vinegar – so much for the theory of evolution of the malaysian constitution in tandem with the retrogressive evolution of 60% of its populace – by Prof Hussin

    This article is from NST, the paper that nobody buys so what do you expect?

  21. “WTF religion of the US has to do with the bolehland debate of being Islamic or Secular?

    independent USofA is over 200 years old so you want to wallow in religious shit discussion for another 201 years before accepting the secularity of our country?” — Reeper


    This Hussin goes into a U.S. bashing mode thinking that it would make him look good – just as the Old Goat did. The Old Goat as Prime Ministier would not miss an opportunity lining his speeches with anti-American sentiment each time he takes to the international stage like a proud peacock prancing and showing off his feathers. Nobody is dumb enough to want to say or imply that the U.S. Constitution is superior and “perfectly crafted” using his words. But here’s the deal. Americans respect their country’s Constitution. Malaysians do not. And here’s why. UMNO has mutiliated the country’s Constitution more than 700 times since it was passed by the country’s legislature in 1957 – a space of some fifty over years. The original document is barely recognizable today. American democracy is more than 200 years old. Please count the number of amendments. The first ten amendments are from the Bill of Rights.

    Hussin talks about a constitution evolving over time and therefore he reasons more time need to be given in Malaysia’s case. I’m sorry but Hussin, my friend, you’re misguided and have not understood it. Evolution does not equal mutiliation. A country’s constitution is a sacred document. embodying general principles which should stand the test of time. UMNO would amend the Constitution because it could which is an exercise in raw power. It would because it could. Everywhere else you will need a mandate from the people by way of referendum – and not a simple two thirds majority of the country’s national legislature.

    A country bumpkin who goes by the name Azri questions Malaysia’s Constitution. He reasons if Malaysia’s Constitution is secular how is it that the word ‘secular’ is not found anywhere in the entire document? To that my response is in the U.S. religion is separated from the state because of the First Amendment. Do you see the word ‘secular’ mentioned anywhere?

  22. “As I have commented in a different thread in this blog, that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution was only adopted on Dec 15, 1791 which was about 15 years after the US Declaration of Independence and even that it was only applicable to the US Federal government … ” Hussin

    I have no quarrel with history.

    But here’s what you ought to be thinking. The U.S. Constitution limits the power of the federal government. The Malaysian Federal Constitution limits the rights of its citizens. For example, Article 11(1) says every person (incorrectly quoted by Mairam Mokhtar as being “every citizen’) has the right to profess and practice his or her religion subject only to Clause (4).

  23. ” Hang dok siap siap noh. Tak lama lagi hang nak kena sunat.”
    Rev. Mongkut Bean,

    Islam or screwler? From the actions of the government we know that nothing is Islamic at all. What is obvious for everyone to see is that this is a screwler state. The ruling elites screwing the poor and the uneducated. The best term is we are a ” screwler state”. Do you agree Brother Din.

    Mongkut, hang jangan takut aku kena sunat. Mengikut perlembagaan Malaysia, masuk orang Islam tak kena sunat bukan?. Orang yang dah sunat masuk orang bukan Islam pun ramai juga. Cuba hang balik mai jengok dekat massage centre? Ada orang Islam di masuk. Dan orang Islam masuk orang bukan Islam pun lagi ramai.
    Maybe, screw driver state. Bean knows that screw driver is an intoxicating drink in his watering hole. We are all drunk and disoriented. Hang tak contact aku pun. Apa pasal.–Din Merican

  24. Why are you folks still splitting hairs about the country being an Islamic state and secular state? The real issue is the religious freedom of the Malays which has been denied them, which has no basis in the Federal Malaysian Constitution 1957. While non-Malays have the right to profess and practice the religion of their choice those who convert to Islam have lost that choice.

    Stop the endless pursuit of an issue that would make sense only in a classroom and should be confined to the classroom. What is the point in wanting to classify Malaysia as an Islamic state unless it is an indirect attempt to determine the outer jurisdictional limits of syariah law? Already the amendment made to Article 121 in 1988 which like all controversial amendments stealthily passed through Parlimament passed sleeping lawmakers appears to oust the jurisdictional civil law.

  25. ooops …. the jurisdiction of civil law over what are essentially a civil matter like whether a non-Malay on his deathbed was aware of what was happening to him when his thumb print was taken

  26. “Cuba hang balik mai jengok dekat massage centre? Ada orang Islam di masuk. Dan orang Islam masuk orang bukan Islam pun lagi ramai” — rean rean

    Masuk pi masuk mai? Habiih? Dah masuk, mesti keluaq. Buat apa dok rendam lama lama – nanti reput.

  27. “Mongkut, hang jangan takut aku kena sunat. Mengikut perlembagaan Malaysia, masuk orang Islam tak kena sunat bukan?” — tean

    In that case Tok Mudin will be out of a job. Non-Malays owe it to the Malays to create jobs for them. Bukan aku cakap. Najib cakap.

  28. Change is the only constant in the universe. Humanity has no choice but to reject ALL dogma’s (in whatever form) that stifle the evolution of the species. All religion is man made and man manipulated for political purposes.

    Politics is the only human endeavour that exists solely to control another person’s mind and no one can run away from it in this age and time.

    Each of us owes it to our next generations to speak up for the truth. Any claims of a revealed scripture must be backed up with empirical evidence and the onus of proving it is on the claimant not society as a whole. That is the standard of measure we must set for ourself. Failure to do so (providing empirical proof) will have to mean that such claims will have to be relegated to the realm of private use space not for public policy and certainly not to be used for running a nation state.

    This is what the wisdom of our founding Constitution was based on. The question of whether we are a Secular nation or Islamic nation then becomes moot. Islam as the official religion of the Federation just means that for uniformity and brevity in official proceedings we will use the protocols and prayers as recited in Arabic. Period. Nothing more and nothing less.

    That being the case now, if I believe that Johnny Walker Black Label is the next Messiah I must provide empirical evidence to my claim if I want you to accept it.

    Failing that I can only imbibe the pleasures of a dry scotch in the company of like minded people, and the right for me to get drunk on my Messiah is solely mine. I don’t have the right to make anyone else go through all the mind numbing experiences the morning after.

    Karl Mark was spot on when he said ” Religion is an opiate for the masses”. It makes a 21st century educated person believe that 7th century communal desert politics are relevant to us in this age and time.

  29. “you won’t be able to change the religion of the 40% nons therefore, as already said above, Malaysia is a secular state. unless you people are planning a genocide!” – Reeperbahn

    What if the non-Muslims only make up 30% or 20%? Would it then be more acceptable for Malaysia to be an Islamic state?

    If that was indeed the case, would the Malaysian Muslims themselves believe that an Islamic Malaysian state would be a far better and fairer country for all races to live in?

    Please bear in mind that the question itself, as Bean said, “is an indirect attempt to determine the outer jurisdictional limits of syariah law”.

  30. “Islam as the official religion of the Federation just means that for uniformity and brevity in official proceedings we will use the protocols and prayers as recited in Arabic. Period. Nothing more and nothing less.” — Capt Sudhir

    As a student of Malaysian Constitutional Law, that has always been my view. “Official religion” under Article 3 meaning all state ceremonies, adat istiadat follow Malay and Muslim values and tradition. No samsu, toddy or whisky and soda at state dinners and Parliamentary sessions are declared open with prayers to the Almighty read: Allah – not to Guru Nanak, Buddha, or Jesus Christ Superstar.

    But right wingers within UMNO having gained a foothold provided by Article 3 and together with Malay right wingers in Pakatan led by Anwar Ibrahim (we know what PAS is all about) will continue to use Article 3 to drive home the Islamic character of this nation, to enslave if you will a growing number of some of the 12 million Malays deemed Muslims by law.

    And the world goes round and the grass grows greener and greener ….

  31. If Malaysia is an Islamic State it’s Head of State or of Government should be a Caliph, Imam or Ayatollah. Is the current Head of State/Government of Malaysia any of these?
    If not then Malaysia is a Secular State governed by a non Islamic Constitution and based on common law not Islamic law.

  32. No constants except ‘change’ in the universe? How about Planck’s Constants, which ‘rule’ the universe as we know it. Read it up.
    Without which, we can consider Mad Mullah Raghead Constants – in which the Caliphate is all that exists and shariah is all there is. Even though the first 3 caliphs were murdered for ‘change’.

  33. well put capt sudhir,
    the sad truth is that the majority of malaysian politicians are aware of the fact but why why change it when it provides the perfect camouflage to scrounge the stupid rakyat.
    just leave the religion at home and everything will be fine.

  34. Even the judges in the highest court in Malaysia are not learned enough and brave enough to declare Malaysia an Islamic state. This has been demonstrated whenever an issue on jurisdiction between civil and syariah court comes up for review, even the highest court threw it back for decision to a High Court judge

  35. Orang Malaya,

    We know that as the infamous ‘kecut telok syndrome’. Paula Broadwell wouldn’t be interested in our federal justices since she prefers brass balls to their rubber balls. Our federal justices have balls made of rubber and rubber balls do what rubber balls do. They come bouncing back at you.

  36. There are more important issues and challenges to be dealt with. But these are too complex for small and lazy minds in officialdom to handle. So we bring religion into politics, where no one is an expert (with no apologies to the ulamaks, especially that Perak Harussani) so that confusion can be created to divert our attention away, for example ,from corruption (aa is right), abuses of power, erosion of moral values and ethics and the state of our economy (in particular our mounting debt due to less than prudent public spending).–Din Merican

  37. I think you are right, Dato. It is a diversion, a smokescreen. They throw a few bones with a little meat on them for unsuspecting folks to chew on and keep them happy and distracted from the real issues.

  38. “It makes a 21st century educated person believe that 7th Century communal desert politics are relevant to us in this age and time”. [Capt Sudhir 17/11 @ 9.58pm]

    Fuyoh… what a voice of sanity supplied by Capt Sudhir.

    In this book ‘Oriental Despotism’ written by Karl Wittfogel, he wrote that Islam served no other purpose than of “supplying the Marxist contender with an epithet of abuse!”.

    Historian Hans Prutz in history of the Crusades (Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzzuge) argued how the West had acquired the use of its rational faculties from Islam.

    Historian Gustav le Bon in his book La Civilization des Arabes showed that the European universities had been living off the intellectual efforts of Muslims for over 500 years.

    All the above are voices of sanity too.

  39. Can’t agree more. Its why when you look at what is happening in PAS right now, its incredibly remarkable they are prioritising the practical, you see what Malays truly are as a people.. It goes to show UMNO don’t deserve to rule the Malays, they take them for granted – because Mahathir himself take them for granted, likely deep inside self-loathing..

  40. The subject is “Is Malaysia an Islamic or a secular state?” and it has to pivot around the Malaysian Constitutions. However vehemently and whatever we want to say about the subject, no legislator of any political parties in this generation or even perhaps in the next two generations will dare to attempt at removal of the many references to Islam currently existing in our Constitutions for fear of losing votes in the following elections until and unless the Malaysians, given time, evolve to accept the changes. In the meantime Malaysia is neither a strictly secular nor an Islamic state.

  41. I think you are right, Dato. It is a diversion, a smokescreen.
    Rev. Mongkut,

    I am glad that finally Din and Rev. Mongkut realised that this issue of Islamic state or “screwler state” is just a diversion from the real situation in the country. Even our kerbau in the kampung is getting tired of listening to TV1, TV2 and TV3 bashing the oppositions on this issue.

    Mongkut, do you know that our kerbau start asking me ” kalau lembu tak angkat ekor sendiri, siapa nak angkat ekor dia”. And this is precisely the problem with our people in the mainstream media. They think our kerbau are as stupid as 50 years ago.

  42. @ C.L. Familiaris November 18, 2012 at 12:35 am
    Planck’s constant as a mathematically expressed constant helps us understand all the changes that takes place in the universe and doesn’t negate those changes. The latest measured Accuracy of the constant is at an uncertainty of 89 parts per billion (meaning humans still have a lot more to learn before we truly can master the universe) i.e change is the only constant.

    However is more likely to remain a constant source of irritant for adherents of The Way of the Desert.

    @ hasan November 18, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Karl Wittfogel a disenfranchised communist of the hydraulic hypotheses is he relevant to any 21st century advances in humanity?

    Hans Prutz patriotic German very entrenched with idea of racial superiority relevant to the 21st century?

    Gustave Le Bon- French social psychologist, sociologist, and amateur physicist. He was the author of several works in which he expounded theories of national traits, racial superiority, herd behaviour and crowd psychology.

    Well let’s not forget that little German with the funny moustache “Whose Struggle” was inspired by works of Gustave Le Bon.

    Hang on a minute there is some contribution from the Desert Dogma to these 19th and 20th century guys especially in the struggle area… whoa what do you know “jihad” means struggle.

    Well I don’t blame the Little German for banking on the most treasured contribution of the 7th century Arab in trying to make a better world… Seriously En Hassan If that is the kind of intellectual efforts of the Muslims we cherish and want ….well then we deserve what we wish for.

    The 7th century Malay of South East Asia was more advanced and cosmopolitan in his views and practices than his contemporary in the Arabian Desert and we want to copy the Arabs? Go Figure.

  43. University = Unity + Diversity.
    The Theocrats relish the idea of Unimono. That means Intellectual death.
    I’ll stick to the 3-dimensional aspect of the Holy Trinity; while the ragheads will keep to their Monadic interpretation of One which is a straight line, dot or jot. Can or not?

  44. Before you dun have enough food on the table, why bother what will happen tomorrow. Whether secular or Islamic state, it matter not to the masses but only affect the elites. Religion can never solve our mundane needs, it only helps to give you spiritual contentment once have acquired adequate food to fill your stomach. All these intellectual discourse mean nothing except to confuse the people of this Confuse state (or satay in stead?)

  45. Ahh.. Capt Sudhir, but you see the Mad Mullahs have the gravitational constant all figured out with absolute surety.. They don’t usually believe that black-holes exist, or if they do (besides being vulgar), must enable them to ‘secularize’ time and travel back to their desert fathers, in the 7-8th centuries CE. This is called sacralization of time-machines using dark matter and energy. What it is no One can say..

    Some of them haven’t reached there yet (mainly because ‘faith’ is a fragile thing), so they end up quoting from a time closer to their own. Mostly from Fascist-Racist historians, their kin. How the Nazis perverted the German church to do their bidding, serves as a ‘concrete’ model and methodology for their most munificent discourses. So while most go around looking for revival of the Third Reich, some Malaysians are already ‘doggedly’ pursuing the Fourth. It comes from the BTN list of recommended literature and research priorities.

    For those who don’t catch the drift: UMNO is somehow behaving very much like the: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterparte. Luckily our DAP, is not like their precursor, also acronymed DAP (German Workers Party).

  46. Capt Sudhir 18/11 @ 12.48pm

    When I look towards Madinah, I am not looking to go back to some mediaeval history; I am looking forward to capturing that sense of equality, freedom and justice of which Madinah provided such a perfect example under Prophet Muhammad

    In his famous work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Lord John Maynard Keynes said… “There remains an allied, but distinct, matter, where for centuries, indeed for several milleniums enlightened opinions held for certain and obvious doctrine which the Classical School has repudiated as childish, but which deserves rehabiitation and honour.”

  47. “Mongkut, do you know that our kerbau start asking me ” kalau lembu tak angkat ekor sendiri, siapa nak angkat ekor dia.” – tean

    Aku dah dua puloh tahun tak makan sup ekoq lembu. Nanti aku balek hang belanja. Mana boleh dapat ekoq lembu di Aloq Setaq?? Hang dah buat appointment dengan Tok Mudin belum?

  48. @ C.L. Familiaris November 18, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    Touché – will raise a cup for you.

    @ Hasan November 18, 2012 at 7:01 pm

    I can understand your cravings for social equanimity. But you know what, we already had a good Constitution to work on (until Herr Mahathir came along to screw it up right and royally). So the thing is En Hasan we have it here in the present to show the world, we are capable of it. We do not need to long for an idea that we think is only possible under a set rule of 7th century Arabia.

    It is in our hands to determine the present and future of this country. And it has to be via a secular nation. No theocracy in the world will ever be able to provide that egalitarian concept, purely because while the ideals are definitely worth living upto, the practicality of running a nation state is a ruthless affair. The segregation of Power is vital for Good Governance. Putting in place a Theocracy with A Caliph from the Queresh line who is Al-Insan al-Kamil is impossible.

    (How many years did the Medina Declaration last until the Prophet himself had to break it? In breaking it didn’t he earn the infamy that goes with it? Until today people do not understand what he understood and why it needed to be done. Oh yes i know it was not his fault the standard argument and all that. I am not faulting him, I am saying it was impossible for him not to do it. Why? Because he was Judge, Jury and Executioner as stated in the Declaration, the Final Arbitrator.)

    For the Keynes quote, if you want to keep away from usury use conventional banking, at least you know what you are in for compared to the other alternative.
    🙂 Salam Bhai.

  49. leave religion as it is because you can’t ask a plumber to cure the insomnia of your wife, you better to take her to the doctor.
    religion can’t teach us economics, politics or reveal the Max Plancks Constant (E= h.f) let alone letting us think about these problems.
    ”I am looking forward to capturing that sense of equality, freedom and justice……..” hasan.
    yes, thats what we are looking forward too, whoever gives it to us, we’d be grateful.
    how about you giving us some living examples of sucessful islamic politic and economy? Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan..ete..etc examples of sucessful Islamic States to name a few???
    who works in Saudi Arabia..the saudis or the filipinos, indons, indians. chinese and europeans in that order of important positions?
    you should know why whats applicable in the 7th century is not applicable today.

    since Dato’ put no weekend entertainment on the menu I take the liberty of another piece of the orient which we love. ‘Bauchtanz’ as it is known here is one good way of keeping fit and at the same time maintain the femine figure.

    I didn’t know that malaysian kerbaus are so lazy to take their tails along.
    in that case here is a recipe.

    just imagine calculating Plancks constant without the numbers!

  50. Mr Bean, I just saw the video clip on Hasnah. Yes thts ok. We can turn to Moses, Jesus, Abraham, all the Chosen One of Gods and Muhammad. ( pbu them all). She needs to fulfill her purpose, her journey,whatever that may be. We have no such knowledge .

    I just have to ask, what exactly was HER sin?

  51. wasnt she the victim of abuse? so wats her sin?

    wat I see and hear about hasnah the way she speaks , is that she has fallen in love with the way they wooed her, she felt abandoned and these people showed her the love she SO craved for. That is her turning point . She needed love and they showed her and didnt force her but gave her the Bible. So the whole approach of how they comforted her had an enormous impact on her and she sees her father ( and his religion) as abandoning her. She should turn to Jesus or Moses for they are also the Chosen of God ( in the Islamic tradition and command of the Koran). And so God still is watching over her whehter via Jesus or Moses ( pbu them all).

    Good luck to her in her journey of finding herself as we all are.

  52. “how about you giving us some living examples..” [reeperbahn 18/11 @10.25pm]

    Here we go. The Holocaust – mass murder of 6 million Jews was a product of Islam. The Apartheid is South Africa was a product of Islam. The Crusades were launched by the Muslims.

  53. ”Here we go. The Holocaust – mass murder of 6 million Jews was a product of Islam. The Apartheid is South Africa was a product of Islam. The Crusades were launched by the Muslims.” – hasan

    those are successful islamic politic/economies ? don’t forever dwell in the past, come back to the present. every religion, race or country at one time or other had a glorious period but what is possible in the present world is of importance to us.

  54. religion can’t teach us economics, politics or reveal the Max Plancks Constant (E= h.f) let alone letting us think about these problems. – repeerbahn

    Religion teaches us to be ignorant idiots. Religion is the cause of extreme human misery since time immemorial.

    The invention of Religion was biggest catastrophe in human history and we are now paying a very heavy price. Orgasmic ecstacy with the 72 Virgins cannot remove that misery.

  55. Hey Frank, no point in doing a Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris here. We who believe are deaf, blind and impervious to coercion, much less conversion.

    You’ve got to understand ‘religion’ from another perspective. It fulfills the human need for transcendence – although many don’t realize it, hardwired as we are. It’s located somewhere in our temporal lobes.

    Look up ‘Gobleki Tepe’ a neolithic religious site. That’s where primordial ‘utility’ in religion lies. It drove civilization with all the bestiality yet beauty, and probably gave birth to agriculture. So too art, architecture, education, inventions, innovation, architecture and (gasp!) science. Without which, you and i, as hunter-gatherers, would still be chewing on sinew and roots – leaving us without the ability of having this civilized conversation at all.

  56. btw God never called it “religion”, organised or not. . God called it unconditional love. We humans coined the term. We humans separated ourselves to feel we are better than the other and we then started warring over religion, to prove we are better (ironic I know).Its abit like the Talibans,who say, ‘we are peaceful, so we kill you’.

    We know innately we are made in God’s nature and likeness but we dont quite understand that command. We are infants when it comes to deciphering and mastering this gift of life . So we grouped and tried to dominate ( to feel that innate superiority). So far off the mark are we, as with everything in life.

  57. If one is an Agnostic, one will not need “religion”, b’coz he says the essential nature of things are unknown or unknowlable….hence ” Agnoticsm” relates to the intellectual attitude which asserts the relativity and therefore the uncertainty of knowledge – no ‘ religion’ is required.
    ” Religion ” is a vast thing encapsultaing the entire Universe. but because Kathy, you say ‘something’ is innate in Man, which is his ” proclivity ” to his own primordial nature, therefore he has ” Faith” of Something deep in his nature vis-a-vis his ” Creator “.
    The ” Gnostics ” on the other hand claim that ” God ” is knowable.
    Thus the Gnostic Meister Eckhart, a contemporary of Rumi, was able to say this with full faith :

    ” The Universe is a vast game of hide-and-seek, a Cosmic treasure hunt, where the Hidden Treasure is “God ” – so Kathy, yes you a right, i must say of this innate proclivity of man, that gives him ” faith” – although ” religion” means something else….

    CLF, you must be familiar with Meister Eckhart ?

  58. “… understand ‘religion’ from another perspective. It fulfills the human need for transcendence”- C.L. Familiaris

    Of course it does fulfill the human need … as Karl Marx said, ” it is the opium of the people”. And they don’t get enough of it.

    If Karl Marx is alive today, he would have said, “religion is the heroin of the people”.

    Even the drug addicts go into transcendence. If you don’t believe, ask them. they will tell you they see heaven right in front of their eyes, and God/Allah talks to them in their transcendence mode, and they could even speak in tongues if they want to.

  59. Yes, transcendence is good. Sometimes helped by neuro-pharmacology, but attainable by many through faith that bridges knowing and belief. Fundamentalism is rightly a bane of religions, not neo-atheism – that seems to be overly pre-occupied with God. You have a problem with Theodicy, my friend. There are no easy answers. All of us are agnostic to a point.

    Karl Marx was a failed theologian, but he used the Christian notion of communalism and Parousia, but extended them ad infinitum into Communism and Nihilism. No Utopia and certainly no transcendence there, i assure you.

    • All said and done, Religion is bad for humanity. History is a witness to this indisputable fact. And it will continue to be bad for humanity.

  60. Yes, Abnizar i’ve read some translations of Meister Eckhart’s works.
    He was a quintessential Christian mystic and spiritual teacher. He was not Gnostic. His theology was much admired by the Sufis and Buddhist mystics, including the Dalai Lama. He was accused of heresy by the then Pope, but died before a verdict could be pronounced.

    Another in his mold was St John of the Cross, who’s Dark Night of the Soul is presented beautifully here by Loreena McKennitt:

  61. Dear Kathy,

    You’ve given a perspective of religion that I have never seen you gave before and as a fellow Malaysian I’m proud of you. You’re clearly a visionary and way ahead of your fellow Muslims in Malaysia. You are a breath of fresh air.

    On the issue of Sin (with a capital S), God created us in His image but we know from Genesis how Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s commands (Sin was then seen as just that in the Old Testament i.e. disobeying God’s commands) and committed the first and original Sin. We lost our innocence and we became sinners.

    When Hasnah spoke about she being a Sinner (spelt with a capital S) that’s what she’s referring to. We lost our immortality and have been condemned to a life of pain and suffering and finally death. God so love Man that he gave his only Son Jesus who came to redeem our sins through his sacrifiice, his own death on the Cross, and as a result we have eternal life.

  62. Thank you Mr Bean. We are all connected in Essence, therefore we have tht unconditional Love for each toher if we dig deep enough. God Bless, always.

  63. “..therefore we have the unconditional Love for each other ..”- Kathy

    I have yet to find a religion that gives UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, let alone from human beings. Always remember, God PUNISHES, and that is NOT unconditional love.

    If there is, Adolph Hitler should be in Heaven right now having a discussion with God about what to do with HIS Chosen People who are massacring Palestinians right now.

    There is no such thing as unconditional love built in the human chromosomes. It goes against the law of nature of “survival of the fittest”.

    • The context of Love or Hate when viewed from an emotional perspective becomes entangled in a quagmire of the rest of human survival (promordial) instincts (Lust, Anger, Greed, Arrogance (pride), infatuation, and Jealousy). Therein lies the limitations.

      To use the term transcendence then means the ability of the individual to keep these primordial instincts under control and look at Love and Hate as a forces of Nature. In this realm Love and Hate are the interchanging of energy and matter. Without which the universe will not function.

      Love is the force that keeps everything together and Hate is the force that breaks up everything. Matter breaks up to give energy and energy consolidates to form matter. (the Yin and Yang, Shiva and Shakthi). Transcendence then makes sense of unconditional love and hate.

      So beware when we Love too much because we can also Hate as much. (they are two sides of the same coin).

  64. hiya Frank, even if to start with it is the survival of the fittest, we evolve over time to ensure we have polices and good decisions so that everyone can have close to equal opportunities, thereafter we evolve further( or more accurately a Higher consciousness) towards unconditional love. Without the survival of the fittest first ( the most basic human nature) we cannot know unconditional love ( the Highest God like nature). it is a spiritual evolution from darkness into enlightenment. it is not static at all. So without Bad we cannot know Good.

    • – Love and Hate are the interchanging of energy and matter. Capt Sudhir

      For the benefit of other readers, in layman’s language, it means Love and Hate have all to do with your sex-hormones. Without your sex hormones, you can’t experience Love and Hate.

  65. we evolve over time to ensure we have polices and good decisions so that everyone can have close to equal opportunities – Kathy

    That means UMNO Malays who are running the country have NOT evolve enough over time because many non-UMNO Malays and especially NON Malays STILL DON’T HAVE equal opportunities. So how?

  66. Such wise words Capt Sudhir, indeed it is interchangeable. that is why we need to destroy our Ego so tht our Love ( Higher consciousness) can over come and perpetuate over darkness ( hate). Only God in his Mercy will help us do this with our constant state of surrenderto Him.

  67. @ Frank November 24, 2012 at 4:59 pm
    That is true only insofar as we are limiting ourselves to procreational urges. Going beyond that is a journey for the individual to explore and learn. (Many do not go beyond this stage). And yes for the novice who dares to explore, the first experience of transcendence is orgasmic. 🙂

    @ Kathy November 24, 2012 at 5:45 pm
    At this level of consciousness, the acronym GOD (generate, organise and disperse) is the ALL Encompassing Consciousness which is neutral, genderless and formless. There is no bad or good just cause and effect, the natural law of the universe. Neither creating nor destroying. For THAT which is immortal there is no beginning or destruction, only experiences. To be ONE with the consciousness or to be apart from the CONSCIOUSNESS is the choice we can make by managing our EGO.
    (‘Tis why organised religion is so FUBAR they get the concept all mired in Physical Aspects )

    Surrender then means not to a Deity but to the Ultimate Consciousness within.

    “To Be or Not To Be, That is the Question…..” – Hamlet Prince of Denmark. (WS)

  68. Capt Sudhir, a very interesting perspective, and being a novice, i feel curious to learn more…( it can be very lengthy though ). Briefly, the interplay between the two forces of love & hate, your term is ” trancendence ” to keep them under control – transcendence can also mean another negative thing, like people who hallucinate under ‘ drugs ‘. Though of course there is also the ‘ positive’ side, like God’s Attribute of Transcendence (or Manifestations) in the material universe.
    In my own humble quest, i have been more inclined tp take it as ” Effacement ” of one over the other, so that the positive subsumes the negative, Effacement, no ?

    What you talk of Love & Hate as ‘ the interchanging of energy and matter in an ‘alternating state ‘ because ” matter breaks up to give energy. and energy consolidates to form matter ” – that is a universal law of Physics, no doubt. You further exemplify by stating that there is no good, no bad. merely an aherence of natural law of cause and effect….neither creating nor destroying….only Experiences that we may become part of the ( Higher ) Consciousness : yourself & Kathy saying it via Invocations in the mode of ” constant Surrender ” , that we MAY ‘ Triumph ” over Human Ego, the base qualities of Man that keeps him apart from the higher Consciousness….? ( in Scriptural language : the battle of the Nafs (ego) by that relating to the ” inner jihad ” ) –
    My own conclusion is EFFACEMENT…..

  69. The most obvious which i had to say but ommitted is :

    The whole process of the Effacement involves the TRANSMUTATION from one state to another (ie: Subsumed )

  70. @ Abnizar November 25, 2012 at 10:36 am /11.10 am

    I believe you are not talking about the Medical Term “Effacement” 🙂 but more of Self Effacement. Yes that is a necessary process in the journey. You become the Observer.

    Agreed that chemical substances are known to effect cursory Transcendence. Ketamines, opiates and methamphetamines are all known to induce Transcendence – (There are lots of literature on the web that delve on this subject.)

    It is also a known factor that the human body is a huge chemical complex and is capable of producing the necessary chemicals to induce natural Transcendence.
    Biological Transmutation is also a necessary part to induce Transcendence. We are controlling the Baser Instincts by activating natural chemo-receptors through various processes. Oxygen plays a huge part in this. That is why breathing techniques are practised. Along with that activating the natural glands via esoteric exercises are all part of the methodology.

    One constant in all of these (inducing natural bio-chemical reactions in the body), is the focus on OUR SELF. (Bio-centric). Awakening the Self is like a journey to the unknown, we explore and retreat. The process continues and steadily the Self realisation process opens up a vast repository of knowledge.

    There will be hallucinatory stages we all go through in this process, depending on our cultural paradigms (hearing the voice of “GOD”, seeing images, expressions of extreme fear, love, hate at different phases). Bear in mind these are the limitations placed on ourselves due to cause and effect. A mark of achievement is after we pass through those stages, a lightness in body and mind overcomes us. (We are liberated from the burden of the material senses). We are now are in the realm of energy with myriads of quantum possibilities. Each of us will master a bit in one lifetime.

    Self Effacement of the Physical Body can be at a place and time of our choice. The Destination is Known so….. Enjoy the Journey. 🙂

  71. Capt Sudhir @9.53pm you have hit it on the nail. Absolutely at the Highest Consciousness we are experiencing. There is no good or bad. TO be apart or to be at one with the Consciousness is the ultimate. Many have ntot broken the barrier of physicality yet. But you are mastering I have no doubt.

  72. Frank, M’sia is taking the time it needs to evolve. In that process, it is painful for some who are more advanced such as yourself. But this pain is necessary for others who are in deep slumber.

  73. Excellent explaination by yourself Capt Sudhir, i feel enthralled….thank you for your trouble to expound on that. ..
    There’s is this slight thing on my part, i was not on the Medical or ‘organic’ aspect of self-Effacement, but on the non-organic – on the Energy-level. That is, effacement of negative energy to be transmutted to positive energy : albeit, gradually to transmute from human bigotry, all the base qualities, transcending to higher reality ( humane qualities from kindness to love etc ).
    Hence, if you remember, things like self-healing is a possible pursuit by ‘ turning’ negative energy in human-self to one of positive-energy, and many would term it as a ‘miracle’ etc…. is’nt that something exciting, but the ” art ” of achieving it……well….that’s something else ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.