In 'Minority have rights too', Disappointed contended that by imposing syariah laws, the rights of the minority in the state would be denied. This is a very serious allegation, but none of his arguments could support this allegation.

The unfortunate happenings that occurred in the rural tribal community in Pakistan, which he mentioned, does not bear any relation with the implementation of the syariah. Also, it has nothing to do with PAS and the rights of the minority. It is a deliberate attempt to smear PAS' reputation. It is not dissimilar to associating the brutality of Holocaust committed by Nazi with all who are against Zionism. Both couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact is, the syariah laws gazetted by the Terengganu government is in line with the teachings of Islam. So far, there is no proof to say otherwise. Islam is a great religion, and so must be with its laws. Thus, it is the right of Muslims in Terengganu, which is the majority, to practice their religion by implementing syariah laws.

Also, there is no provision in the enactment which could be construed as denying the rights of the non-Muslims. It is purely an internal Muslims affair and the Quran clearly mentions that implementing syariah laws is obligatory, not optional, to Muslims. Whereas, non-Muslims can opt to either be tried under syariah or common laws.

Clearly, the Islamic system is more tolerant as compared to the existing secular system. Under the existing secular system, Muslims are denied their rights to implement syariah in its complete form, whereas, under Islamic system non-Muslims are given the right not to be tried under any syariah enactment.

This simply means, under the existing secular system, the rights of the majority have duly been denied. We should not forget that our Federal Constitution clearly states that every citizen has the right to practice his/her religion. I don't see any reason why the rights to implement the syariah be exempted from this very provision of our Constitution.

Then comes the issue on whether a modern society like us should accept "cruel punishments" such as amputation and stoning to death. Again, 'cruelty' is a very subjective matter. I started to train my kids to fast during Ramadhan since they were six. To some of my non-Muslims friends, I have been cruel to my kids since they are still very young to endure fasting. Then, should young Muslims kids be prevented to observe fasting simply because certain segments in the society deem it as cruel.

If we follow the standard set by the animal right activists, Muslims would also be denied their rights to slaughter animals during the hajj festival. Don't Muslims have the right to decide on what is cruel and what is not?

Syariah punishments are very much tangled with our faith as Muslims. We believe that if we are punished under syariah law in this world, the prescribed punishment for the sin would be waived in the Hereafter. We also believe, by all accounts, the prescribed punishment in the Hereafter would be much more severe as compared to the most 'cruel' punishment in the syariah enactment.

So, for those who don't believe in the prescribed punishment in the Hereafter would naturally think that the syariah enactment is 'cruel', but it is only fair that Muslims should be allowed to have their own perspectives with regards to this subjective matter.