I refer to Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib's ' Secular regimes are even more intolerant '.

While evading most of my examples of extreme cruelty and intolerance in a number of Islamic countries, Abdul Rahman attempted to excuse away the Pakistani example of obscene criminality. Whether it was tribal law or not, this unforgivable brutality occurred in a country that subscribed to syariah law.

His claim that the Pakistani frontier is beyond the reach of the Islamic government there is either a truly pathetic excuse or the Islamic government there has been terribly negligent! Either way, this demonstrates my point that adoption of Islamic governance in itself is no guarantee of justice. Those in power should themselves be just and clean too, but what such example may we pick up from the Islamic countries?

Yes, there is the great PAS of Malaysia which Abdul Rahman assures us of its many wonderful attributes. I am suddenly reminded of a Chinese saying that "the florist will [prior to the sale] always assure you that his/her flowers are the most fragrant". You pay for the flowers, but find that assured fragrance is missing (in fact has never been there) when it's delivered.

With a government voted into power that you find too late not to be what has been promised, the problem of voting it out may be enormously more problematic just throwing away a bunch of blooms. Don't forget, PAS is Islam itself, and attempting to vote it out from government may be anti-Islamic for non-Muslims and an apostate act for Muslims.

He provided some example of why secular governments are even more intolerant (or more against vice?). His selection included the white supremacist government of the former Afrikaner regime, Israel which though not white supremacist in character is certainly racist under the Likud Party and its religious political allies, colonialists, and two communist countries as if these were representative of democratic secular governments.

Oh, please do note Abdul Rahman didn't include among the nasty communist regimes the People's Republic of China perhaps he has been thinking of the Chinese Malaysian votes? Needless to say, he avoided mention of the many repressive Islamic regimes, as well as the shining examples of several secular democratic countries around the world.

The Suharto government may be corrupt (not unlike a number of other Islamic countries) but under its governance Christian churches were not attacked and razed the way it had been since he left. Perhaps a case of post-Suharto era intolerance against vice in action?

As for Turkey, actually the Islamic Justice and Development Party currently forms the current government, but has opted for what is termed as "secular Islam" by some political observers. Bet Abdul Rahman and his PAS members wouldn't like this example. Here is an example of an Islamic Party winning an election and forming the government in a secular state. Can we ever imagine a secular party winning an election in an Islamic state, assuming that it would be allowed to exist in the first place?

And much as I dislike the Bush administration for its right-wing policies, and in a number of cases his hijacking of the democratic process in that country, I believe the US has been a democratic country where its citizens enjoy rights that very few Muslims (other than the ruling elites) do in their own Islamic states. I congratulate the Americans for continuing to separate the state from the church.

I hope Malaysians will not be seduced by the sweet words of PAS. Just look around the world and compare the degree of tolerance (or intolerance). Observe the countries that separate the church from the state, and those where religious leaders govern by edicts that must not be questioned. One can even say that the degree of tolerance is inversely proportional to the degree of fundamentalist religious practices.

As for Charles Moreira's question, it's no fight at all. With PAS, one can't take this and do that. But with the current government or any secular alternatives, one can not only take tea, coffee, beer, wine, play pool, but one (if a woman) can wear lipstick and perfume, and sing and dance, and best of all, one can be assured of continuing voting rights in the next election.