One of the claims the ISD and PAP made about me was that I wanted to set up a violent, ISIS inspired caliphate and overthrow the “democratic” government. I cannot help but be amused at the PAP referring to its rule as “democratic”. Although I acknowledge that even North Korea refers to itself as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. And so did a lot of other communist states.
Is this Caliphate you are proposing not just a reproduction of the violence of Catholic (or national-secular) universalism? How does it not reproduce the same violence that is Western conceptions of identity (of an ontological fixation, of an innate essence) and the systems of hierarchy? How can it account for the particular experiences and material needs of the irreligious and non-spiritual among us? Especially considering that for thousands of years, the conception of territory and borders were non-existent in the syncretic histories of South-East Asian communities and spaces.
The system would have been premised on personal identification. Let's say you are a Muslim and believed in living in a united socio-legal polity and you identify it as the "caliphate" discussed, then regardless of where you are, you can subscribe to and be held to the standard of the Islamic polity.
But let's say you are an atheist and you lived where there a lot of Muslims who subscribed to the caliphate. You identify with another system.
There are three possibilities:
1. Be part of another political system whose worldview and laws you believe in (regardless of where you are)
2. Be part of the caliphate and adhere to its laws and worldview
3. Be part of a local non-Muslim community that has its own laws and systems. In this case, they will be a need for common public laws (laws that affect others and other communities) while practicing communal laws that do not violate the public laws.
Another scenario is of a Muslim who does not agree with the "caliphate". Then they should be able to live according to the laws they believe in.
I believe that political identification is returning to being personal. It does not matter where we are, the legitimate political-legal system are the ones we believe in.
In the above scenarios, my argument is for the different nations (whether a Caliphate or any of the other systems), to develop a federation of nation to organise and ensure effective governance.
Is this Caliphate you are proposing not just a reproduction of the violence of Catholic (or national-secular) universalism? How does it not reproduce the same violence that is Western conceptions of identity (of an ontological fixation, of an innate essence) and the systems of hierarchy? How can it account for the particular experiences and material needs of the irreligious and non-spiritual among us? Especially considering that for thousands of years, the conception of territory and borders were non-existent in the syncretic histories of South-East Asian communities and spaces.
The system would have been premised on personal identification. Let's say you are a Muslim and believed in living in a united socio-legal polity and you identify it as the "caliphate" discussed, then regardless of where you are, you can subscribe to and be held to the standard of the Islamic polity.
But let's say you are an atheist and you lived where there a lot of Muslims who subscribed to the caliphate. You identify with another system.
There are three possibilities:
1. Be part of another political system whose worldview and laws you believe in (regardless of where you are)
2. Be part of the caliphate and adhere to its laws and worldview
3. Be part of a local non-Muslim community that has its own laws and systems. In this case, they will be a need for common public laws (laws that affect others and other communities) while practicing communal laws that do not violate the public laws.
Another scenario is of a Muslim who does not agree with the "caliphate". Then they should be able to live according to the laws they believe in.
I believe that political identification is returning to being personal. It does not matter where we are, the legitimate political-legal system are the ones we believe in.
In the above scenarios, my argument is for the different nations (whether a Caliphate or any of the other systems), to develop a federation of nation to organise and ensure effective governance.