If one looks at Malaysia with an open and forensic mind and how it functioned and was implemented since the advent of the British colonial rule , one cannot but conclude that Malaysia from that time to this day with some exceptions was and remains a Christian Theocracy.
A theocracy today is defined in much the same way as the term terrorism is defined. It is narrow and applicable only to certain social (and religious) classes in a highly selective and politicized way..
Everything including laws and property under British rule was ascribed to the King or Queen of England and its control subject to the whims and fancies of the British Monarchs and their ecclesiastical laws which found interpretation and disguise in their temporal laws. How you might ask then does English law constitute a theocracy?
Put simply, the King is head of parliament and all of government in whose name all laws are made or unmade as the case may be.
The King is necessarily the head of the Church of England and even though the Archbishop of Canterbury has power over ecclesiastical matters, these laws of the Church of England are passed by Britain's parliament by ascent into law in the King's name.
The Church of England has the power to decide who the monarch of the day or their entitlements to the throne are. Who they can marry (except a Catholic which automatically disentitled them to the throne or any position by succession).
The Church of England is the head of that theocracy in the UK which by the UK's powers over their domains extended to all Britain's colonies. France and Spain were no different except in their brutality over non Catholics. Garroting non believers even after they converted and pledged their loyalty to the Pope and the King of Spain.
Malaysia's and all colonial constitutions were subject to British beliefs in their God and their religious principles. An example is the doctrine of the separation of "church and state". Malays as Muslims had and have no church even in literal and figurative terms.
Just because western nations are more permissive socially and tend to ignore their Christian principles, that of itself does not mean they live outside a theocracy and in a secular state. They tend to gloss over their repression of non Christian religions including the various Christian sects (Branch Dravidian "cult" and the Church of Scientology (banned as a cult in Germany-I digress a bit here because the list of "secular" breaches is very long).
The way the west excises a religion is by reducing its status to 'cult' from relgion.
Muslims gave us divorce law, alimony, the laws of trade and commerce were purpoined from Islamic law in the Golden age of Islam. They also gave us the sharia which also includes rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance, commerce, torts, war, international relations, and government.
Too often Sharia is mentioned in the pejorative to scare people into believing it like Hudud consists of amputations and stoning. In fact Stoning is not mentioned in Islamic law at all. It is derived from the Book of Deuteronomy(Jewish Christian oldd testament).
Although to a large extent I do not agree with everything Anwar advances in government and politics, prior to and since his ascendancy to prime ministership, I do not believe in his right mind he would consider these exaggerated Taleban punishments as a just and progressive inclusion into Islamic law he has committed to gradually introducing into Malaysia.
After all he and his wife proclaimed their desire to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. The middle ground liberals and NGO's all backed him into government and must now live with him and his policies as their choice.
No one else is to blame if they don't like Anwar and his commitments into turning Malaysia into an Islamic state.
It just goes to show how the Patricia Yeohs, Ambigas, Marina Mahathir's, Hannah Yeoh's and Teresa Koks, the Sivarasah Rasiah's and others like them are and have been all along for aa ride to self destruction. In the end the Malays will rightfully trump them all. Uppity urban Malays included
Financial Institutions at the time of 3rd Caliph Uthman Bin Aff'an
o Applying the general financial policy of Islam
o Creating a balance between collection of dues and the welfare of the people
o Taking from the Muslims what they owed to the treasury of the Muslims
o Giving the Muslims what they are entitled to from the treasury of the Muslims
o Taking what the ahl al-dhimmah(non muslims) owe to the treasury of the Muslims in a proper manner, and giving them what they are entitled to, and not wronging them
o Selecting tax collectors for their honesty and sincerity
o Avoiding financial corruption, which would lead to prosperity for the entire ummah
There can be no doubt that the third caliph - 'Uthman Bin Affan was determined to apply the financial policies of Islam.
These are the fundamentals.
The rest are mere technology that speed up the wealth creation that needs to be regulated.
If one looks at Malaysia with an open and forensic mind and how it functioned and was implemented since the advent of the British colonial rule , one cannot but conclude that Malaysia from that time to this day with some exceptions was and remains a Christian Theocracy.
A theocracy today is defined in much the same way as the term terrorism is defined. It is narrow and applicable only to certain social (and religious) classes in a highly selective and politicized way..
Everything including laws and property under British rule was ascribed to the King or Queen of England and its control subject to the whims and fancies of the British Monarchs and their ecclesiastical laws which found interpretation and disguise in their temporal laws. How you might ask then does English law constitute a theocracy?
Put simply, the King is head of parliament and all of government in whose name all laws are made or unmade as the case may be.
The King is necessarily the head of the Church of England and even though the Archbishop of Canterbury has power over ecclesiastical matters, these laws of the Church of England are passed by Britain's parliament by ascent into law in the King's name.
The Church of England has the power to decide who the monarch of the day or their entitlements to the throne are. Who they can marry (except a Catholic which automatically disentitled them to the throne or any position by succession).
The Church of England is the head of that theocracy in the UK which by the UK's powers over their domains extended to all Britain's colonies. France and Spain were no different except in their brutality over non Catholics. Garroting non believers even after they converted and pledged their loyalty to the Pope and the King of Spain.
Malaysia's and all colonial constitutions were subject to British beliefs in their God and their religious principles. An example is the doctrine of the separation of "church and state". Malays as Muslims had and have no church even in literal and figurative terms.
Just because western nations are more permissive socially and tend to ignore their Christian principles, that of itself does not mean they live outside a theocracy and in a secular state. They tend to gloss over their repression of non Christian religions including the various Christian sects (Branch Dravidian "cult" and the Church of Scientology (banned as a cult in Germany-I digress a bit here because the list of "secular" breaches is very long).
The way the west excises a religion is by reducing its status to 'cult' from relgion.
Muslims gave us divorce law, alimony, the laws of trade and commerce were purpoined from Islamic law in the Golden age of Islam. They also gave us the sharia which also includes rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance, commerce, torts, war, international relations, and government.
Too often Sharia is mentioned in the pejorative to scare people into believing it like Hudud consists of amputations and stoning. In fact Stoning is not mentioned in Islamic law at all. It is derived from the Book of Deuteronomy(Jewish Christian oldd testament).
Although to a large extent I do not agree with everything Anwar advances in government and politics, prior to and since his ascendancy to prime ministership, I do not believe in his right mind he would consider these exaggerated Taleban punishments as a just and progressive inclusion into Islamic law he has committed to gradually introducing into Malaysia.
After all he and his wife proclaimed their desire to turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. The middle ground liberals and NGO's all backed him into government and must now live with him and his policies as their choice.
No one else is to blame if they don't like Anwar and his commitments into turning Malaysia into an Islamic state.
It just goes to show how the Patricia Yeohs, Ambigas, Marina Mahathir's, Hannah Yeoh's and Teresa Koks, the Sivarasah Rasiah's and others like them are and have been all along for aa ride to self destruction. In the end the Malays will rightfully trump them all. Uppity urban Malays included
Financial Institutions at the time of 3rd Caliph Uthman Bin Aff'an
o Applying the general financial policy of Islam
o Creating a balance between collection of dues and the welfare of the people
o Taking from the Muslims what they owed to the treasury of the Muslims
o Giving the Muslims what they are entitled to from the treasury of the Muslims
o Taking what the ahl al-dhimmah(non muslims) owe to the treasury of the Muslims in a proper manner, and giving them what they are entitled to, and not wronging them
o Selecting tax collectors for their honesty and sincerity
o Avoiding financial corruption, which would lead to prosperity for the entire ummah
There can be no doubt that the third caliph - 'Uthman Bin Affan was determined to apply the financial policies of Islam.
These are the fundamentals.
The rest are mere technology that speed up the wealth creation that needs to be regulated.