I had suggested PAS DAP Conciliation initiative. A member suggested consensus is a better word so let's look at the definitions of these 2 words
Conciliation: the state of manifesting goodwill and cooperation after being reconciled; "there was a brief period of conciliation but the fighting soon resumed"
Consensus: Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together.
Consensus: Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together.
OK perhaps Citizens for PAS DAP Consensus would be better? That would be giving a message to both PAS and DAP that we citizens want them to come to a clear consensus over this Hudud and Islamic State issues so that when it is time to vote, we citizens know exactly what we are voting for.
If you have other suggestions, we would be happy to hear about it.
There was an article by Zeffri Yusof over at Malaysian Insider Do not PAS go, do not collect hudud where he had some suggestions for PAS some of which we may want to incorporate? Do give us your views:
1. Explain clearly to its own coalition first and get their buy in with regards to its Islamic state plans (including and especially how non-Muslims or “dhimmis” fare) and hudud law — before repeating it to the larger public. We would all be interested to know what PAS would do if it gets to practise hudud. Judging from past action, some are betting that its first priority is policing women’s attire as opposed to something more substantial. It behooves PAS to clarify.
2. Be realistic about its Islamic state ambitions. Instead of the whole country — which would require two-thirds majority and the consent of the King to amend the constitution — perhaps just being selective in favour of its strong states as “syariah experiment zones”, leaving the rest of the country secular. Well, if BN can divide and rule along racial lines, perhaps PR along ideological lines. At least people can see how commercially (e.g. tourism), scientifically (e.g. innovation) and socially (e.g. integration) the hudud states would fare.
3. Resist from falling back on the “if only the critics would understand the principles of hudud” line; or that criticising hudud is somehow “sensitive”. Here’s the thing: the fact that people are questioning hudud should tell its advocates that people care enough to want to understand. PAS’s job is not merely to defend its position, but win people over. It is the duty of hudud proponents to explain and enlighten through persuasive argument. In fact, they should do what other disciplines do when they need to communicate a position — publish a position paper, debate in an open forum, etc.
4. When going public with hudud, refrain from using “argument from authority” or “appeal to authority” when claiming why hudud is “just and fair” because not only is that approach dogmatic, it does not wash with non-Muslims and non-believers. A rational, empirical approach would be appreciated — for example, a comparison between how secular and syariah law might address the same issues differently, or citing historical and current examples of successfully implemented hudud (hopefully not Saudi Arabia or Iran).
5. And last but not least, that PAS does not assume that all Malaysian Muslims are for PAS’s brand of hudud. I say PAS’s hudud because taking all of Islam’s schisms and fiqh schools and mazhabs into consideration, no way can PAS claim it holds the one and only legitimate view.
2. Be realistic about its Islamic state ambitions. Instead of the whole country — which would require two-thirds majority and the consent of the King to amend the constitution — perhaps just being selective in favour of its strong states as “syariah experiment zones”, leaving the rest of the country secular. Well, if BN can divide and rule along racial lines, perhaps PR along ideological lines. At least people can see how commercially (e.g. tourism), scientifically (e.g. innovation) and socially (e.g. integration) the hudud states would fare.
3. Resist from falling back on the “if only the critics would understand the principles of hudud” line; or that criticising hudud is somehow “sensitive”. Here’s the thing: the fact that people are questioning hudud should tell its advocates that people care enough to want to understand. PAS’s job is not merely to defend its position, but win people over. It is the duty of hudud proponents to explain and enlighten through persuasive argument. In fact, they should do what other disciplines do when they need to communicate a position — publish a position paper, debate in an open forum, etc.
4. When going public with hudud, refrain from using “argument from authority” or “appeal to authority” when claiming why hudud is “just and fair” because not only is that approach dogmatic, it does not wash with non-Muslims and non-believers. A rational, empirical approach would be appreciated — for example, a comparison between how secular and syariah law might address the same issues differently, or citing historical and current examples of successfully implemented hudud (hopefully not Saudi Arabia or Iran).
5. And last but not least, that PAS does not assume that all Malaysian Muslims are for PAS’s brand of hudud. I say PAS’s hudud because taking all of Islam’s schisms and fiqh schools and mazhabs into consideration, no way can PAS claim it holds the one and only legitimate view.
