Talk:Islamic Party of Malaysia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Agreed 3 Is Malaysia an "Islamic" state or a "Muslim" state? 4 Name change? 5 Alcohol Beverages 5.1 Reply 6 Gross misrepresentations 7 photo status 8 Dead link 9 Acronym

[edit] NPOV

WhiBold textle I'm no big fan on PAS, the entire article sounds like an anti-PAS agitprop. PAS' POV is not represented while secularist and UMNO POV is over-represented. For example, this sentence, "PAS positions itself as an Islamist party that upholds Muslim supremacy and non-Muslim inferiority..." without substantiation. While I don't believe both PAS or UMNO are fighting for Muslim non-Muslim equality, this is clearly NPOV.

        Reply:
        I do not see how the entire article can sound like
        an "anti-PAS agitprop" as "upholding Muslim supremacy
        and non-Muslim inferiority" is Kaafirphobia, a
        form of apartheid is quite true. This is what PAS
        advocates and the article is quite truthful. What is
        wrong in calling a spade, a spade?  I have ammended
        the article to state clearly that PAS is Kaafirphobic.

Another example is, "PAS has publicly stated its intention to instate what it claims to be sharia law, including the full range of criminal hudud law and its punishments, but has so far been stymied in a court battle since UMNO maintains that this would violate the Constitution as it is not sharia as Malaysia is already an Islamic State." - The constitutional dispute is that the Hudud enactment violates the constitution in the manner that is governs a federal matter and it violates Article 8 on equality because religious inequality or discrimination is only allowed in personal, not criminal, law.

        Reply:
        The problem is the above comment is itself a POV that
        is biased to favour PAS. It is a well-known fact that
        Malaysia is an Islamic State and even the Sheik-ul-Azhar
        is in agreement that PAS' syariah is hardly Islamic and
        it is the personal interpretations of PAS.  Why should
        BN-led Malaysian government allow implementing of 7th
        century Arab customs that could tarnish the good name
        of Islam to be implemented in the name of Islam? We
        have to understand BN is trying to reduce Kaafirphobia,
        so that Islamophobia will also reduce. This is why we
        need Islam Hadhari or progressive Islam.

Another example is "In the 2004 Malaysian general election, PAS was given a bloody nose and its pride was dented as it only won seven parliamentary seats and losing its other parliamentary seats." - it doesn't disclose that PAS popularity votes increased marginally by .8%

"The party leader, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, lost his parliamentary seat due to Muslim anger that he carry out his election promises uplifting their standard of living, which became worse after PAS captured the Trengganu State from Barisan Nasional in 1999" - this isn't substantiated by exit polls or the equilevent showing why voters voted for Abdul Hadi's opponent. "PAS also lost control of the state of Terengganu, which it had wrested control of in 1999. PAS retained control of the state of Kelantan with a very slim majority of 24 out of 45 seats." - PAS also lost by a slim majority in Terengganu. The whole article seem so biased against PAS, I figure only a rewrite would suffice. -- Rajan R

---

I changed the word "Islamic" to "Islamist" because PAS is not really an Islamic party but an Islamist party advocating Islamism. UMNO, the core component party of the Barisan Nasional has already insisted the Barisan Nasional and its ancestor, the Alliance was an Islamic party since 1957 and therefore Malaysia was already an Islamic State but not an Islamist State. UMNO further re-branded itself giving its moderate Islam a fancy name, "Islam Hadhari" that was supported by both the U.S. President George W. Bush and the Sheikh-ul-Azhar Mohamed Tantawi. The Sheikh-ul-Azhar congradulated BN and said that Malaysia was already an Islamic State and PAS interpretations of the Quran and Hadith were deviation from Islam.

Also, the laws PAS wishes to implement are hardly sharia but I prefer it to be refered to as PAS personal interpretation and person opinions of what it thinks is sharia.

---

Whoa. This article is totally biased against PAS and grossly violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I'll try to edit this article soon. __earth 10:03, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

I agree! I agree! Hadi Awang doesn't know what he's leading his supporters into. Heaven forbid him from ever becoming Prime Minister.

[edit] Is Malaysia an "Islamic" state or a "Muslim" state?

Somebody's missing the point here. An "Islamic" state is, inter alia, one where the government in power is composed of Muslims, and (more importantly) in which Koranic Sharia law is implemented.

On the other hand, a "Muslim" state is more generic, and may or may not refer to a country which practises Islamic law. But the main criterion for any state to be called "Muslim" is that the majority of its population professes Islam. The issue of whether or not Islam is the law of the land does not arise. An Islamic state is a Muslim state, but a Muslim state may not necessarily be an Islamic state.

When you say Malaysia does not practise Islamic law that is already POV as Malaysia does have Syariah courts, so does Secular Turkey, Secular Singapore and Secular Syria, yet their Syariah is interpreted differently from radical Islamists who claim that all those who differ with their views on Islamic theology are not real Muslims. So, to satisfy Wikipedia rules for content being NPOV, it is good to recognize both BN and PAS views as Islamic abit different interpretations. -- Sam@mysite.com.my 16:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I cite Turkey as an example of a secular Muslim state. 99.8% of its citizens are Muslims, yet its government and politics are steadfastly secular with two capital "S"s. Egypt is also strongly temporal, though to a lesser degree compared to Turkey, and despite the very large number of Islamist entities active within its borders.

But Turkey is an Islamic State based on its membership in the 57-member OIC, a pan-Islamic grouping of 57 states. Our own former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir also justified Malaysia was an Islamic State based on Malaysia's membership in the OIC. -- Sam@mysite.com.my 16:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

On the reverse side of the coin, Sudan, with its Criminal Act of 1991 invoking hadd punishment on Koranic crimes such as theft and adultery, is a prime example of an Islamic state which implements Sharia law in its national legislation.

Yes, Sudan does amputate hands for theft and stone adulterers yet this is just one interpretation of Syariah, the Islamic law. There are many interpretations, ranging from Liberal, moving up to Conservative, and to the extreme end, the Radicals. Islam is not homogeneous anymore than Buddhism is homogeneous. -- Sam@mysite.com.my 16:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

So where does Malaysia stand? My opinion is that the Malaysian scenario represents a balance between the two extremities. There is no doubt that our Constitution is secular for the most part (despite what Dr. Mahathir and our present government leaders want us, the so-called "uneducated public", to believe). The Tunku himself acknowledged the secular nature of the nation's governing framework. Furthermore, the Constitution is the supreme law in Malaysia, not the laws of the Koran and Sunna. Any law...inconsistent with this Constitution shall...be void. (Refer Article 4 [1] of the Federal Constitution)

Now, that is PAS POV that Malaysia is not an Islamic State but BN disputes this and so we must be fair and use a NPOV, so both BN and PAS will be considered Islamic parties. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia must never take sides otherwise it will lose all its credibility! -- Sam@mysite.com.my 16:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

But the Constitution does give some special provisions on Islam, such as it being the religion of the Federation (Art. 3[1]). Malaysia also has two concurrent judicial systems, one of which is the Sharia courts, available only to Muslims and largely limited to personal laws and domestic cases.

In addition, the government adopts a neutral stance towards the Islamic practice of wearing the hijab, unlike secular Turkey and France (Muslim pop. 5%, the highest concentration in Europe), which ban them outright in public schools. (Among Malaysians, the attitude towards the hijab ranges from neutral to positive, but never negative.)

So I say that Malaysia is NOT exactly an "Islamic" state, but a Muslim state with a largely-secular constitution which, despite itself, has many provisions guarding the sanctity of Islam.

This is the closest definition I can think of regarding Malaysia's status.

Uh...I don't think this is related to Pas. If you'd like to discuss this instead of Pas, I opened a message board not too long ago for this kind of thing. In the mean time, please don't clutter the talk page. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 13:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I do think it is relevant, because PAS keeps on harping about how Malaysia is or is not an Islamic state. I'm just aiming to set the record straight here. This polemic has been going on for too long.

Well, yes, but it's not directly relevant to the article. This page is for discussing the article, not PAS. Johnleemk | Talk 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, okay Johnny...I do see your point there. I put that comment in because the article said something about Malaysia being an Islamic state, which is not exactly the case. But yes, I do acknowledge that it might be a little "off target". My biggie.

[edit] Name change?

Why was the name changed with no discussion? I could see this being moved to "Parti Islam SeMalaysia", but just plain "PAS" isn't correct in my opinion. Jpatokal 04:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen anything other than PAS used, and half the time (even in newspapers and assorted media outlets) they don't even mention what the acronym stands for. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see "United Malays National Organization" spelled out too often either, but that doesn't make "UMNO" their real name. The PAS website has "Parti Islam SeMalaysia" in big letters up top and once more in the copyright message. Jpatokal 01:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Other opinions? Jpatokal 06:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

According to the Elections Commission's website, the name Parti Islam Se Malaysia or Islamic Party of Malaysia is used. I think this would be consistent with best practices if this article is moved to "Parti Islam Se Malaysia". Having said so, perhaps there is a need to standardise the name of Malaysian political party entries in Wikipedia. Should the English name be used for the English Wikipedia or the Malay? My opinion is that the former be used. The Malay name can be used in the Malay Wikipedia and in the article itself. -- Bob K 09:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm very much for changing the article name to Islamic Party of Malaysia per Bob K. Anybody disagree? --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 06:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

UMNO is often spelled out. My Form Three history book spells out UMNO. It does not spell out PAS (which actually surprisingly got a positive mention in the book). The only time I have ever seen PAS spelled out in full is on Wikipedia and in The Malay Dilemma Revisited (by Bakri Musa). It seems the party's real name is Parti Aslam SaMalaysia, which would explain why it's PAS and not PIS. I've changed this accordingly and cited Bakri's book for it. PAS (or Pas) is what is commonly used in Malaysian literature, so I would oppose a move back to the English translation, which I only ever see used by a small number of members of the opposition independent media. (You know, the same kind of people who insist on calling PKR the People's Justice Party.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider Bakri's tangentially related book more authoritative than the party's own website? I've reverted until you explain yourself. Jpatokal 08:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it explains why PAS is PAS and not PIS. Bakri's book relies heavily on outdated Malay, though, so presumably the party updated its full name but not the acronym. This is a tangentially related issue, but I really think we ought to explain why Parti Islam SeMalaysia becomes PAS as an acronym. Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it originally stood for Parti Agama Islam Se-Malaysia. Nonetheless, a side note would be more appropriate than "renaming" the organisation without discussion. On the renaming issue, isn't the convention in the English language Wikipedia that if an official English name exist, that the English should be used. The more commonly used Malay name can be added in the main article. Bob K 14:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The policy is to use the most common name. In English (and Malay) media all over the country (and possibly the world), PAS is referred to as PAS or Pas. The only exceptions are, as I said, some members of the independent media. (I have seen Malaysia Today use the English translations before.) But the common name used by pretty much everyone else is PAS/Pas. There is precedent for such a case — NASA is at NASA, not National Aeronautic and Space Administration. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Its original name was in Jawi and the in writing the word Islam (alif - sin - lam - ya - mim) the letter 'alif' is used [see also Arabic letters]. Normally 'alif' is transposed as the letter A in Bahasa Malaysia. So there you go. It is PAS not PIS due to a different system of spelling.

[edit] Alcohol Beverages

  "The move by PAS to extend the already implemented sharia laws, 
   such as by banning the sale of alcoholic beverages to non-Muslims." 

Actually this is not true, PAS doesn't ban any sale of alcohol beverages to non-muslims, they just asked them not to sale those beverages openly and permits them only to sell the alcoholic beverages to non-muslim costumers only. That previous claim is actually came from the opposition party.[1] [2] [3]PDF

The truth is PAS just banning gambling. All the gambling permises were closed when PAS took over Kelantan and Terengganu. Gambling is always become a current issue by PAS.

It has to be understood that PAS did acquire consent from leaders of other religions before banning gambling in Terengganu.

[edit] Reply

So in that case, why hasn't anyone edited this claim?

Michael 09:55 Apr 04, 2006 (UTC)

i think it is because the article is grossly biased and rewriting is needed instead of simple alterations.

[edit] Gross misrepresentations

There are gross misrepresentations and under-representation of what the party struggles for. I will be contributing something very soon. Might even rewrite the whole article if the "flow" is not there. Menj 09:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photo status

I doubt the photo is free. I'm changing the photo's status to fair use instead. __earth ^(Talk) 09:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Menj and I have been discussing this on his talk, and according to him it's from the PAS website, which means there's a 99.99999% probability that this isn't free. Johnleemk | Talk 11:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/asia/story/0,4386,242008,00.html
  • In PAS (political party) on Mon Jul 17 14:20:20 2006, 404 Not found
  • In PAS (political party) on Thu Jul 27 00:26:39 2006, 404 Not found

---

maru (talk) contribs 04:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym

Why is it called the PAS and not the PIS? what does the A stand for? Adam 11:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I see, thankyou. This should be explained early in the article. Adam 13:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading a feature article in an edition of PAS' newspaper, Harakah, that the original intended name of the organisation was Persatuan Alim Ulama' Se-Malaya (hence the acronym PAS) but it was asked to change the proposed name due to its intention to act as a political party. Perhaps if someone could look that up (I no longer have a copy of that edition), that might clear things a bit. -- Bob K 04:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)