In this reading, after reading through the 5 main forms of
modern regime in the world, what sparked my interest was how the writer defined
the Islamic regime. Personally, the one regime, which falls into my views and
ideology, is the Western Polyarchies, because I am an ardent believer of
democracy. However in this blog I would like to comment on the Islamic regime.
Firstly, I don’t get the concept of creating a regime on the basis of religion. Even though the writer says that Islam is “simply not a religion, but a complete way of life,” suggesting that it defines economic, military and political behavior for the followers of this religion, the aspect of fundamentalism and extreme pluralism puts this regime in bad light in the eyes of the world. Islamic regimes’ being labeled as fundamentalist has been a long on going practice since decades, however this is merely a misinterpretation by not just the west, but also almost the rest of the world. The author has challenged the biased repressed view against this form of regime, as he gives an example of Malaysia being a democracy with an Islamic ideology. If you look at it through this way, I agree that a lot of Islamic states have fallen prey to fundamentalism, but side by side there are various Islamic states that are supporters of democracy. Labeling an Islamic regime as fundamentalist or pluralistic shows sheer discrimination against the religion as a whole. Islamic states should be divided into the other four regimes rather than being labeled as a regime of its own. Islamic regime is mere discrimination.
1 comment:
Also one thing to be noted is that we never hear of any "Christian regime" even Christians are in majority and Ex-President George Bush even named their coercive war as Crusade. No one has ever said this as fundamentalism. Just because of Saudi Arabia and Iran, it clearly seems as a discrimination and injustice with the rest of the Muslim countries.
Post a Comment