In response to the letter entitled Islamic law is above the constitution , I would like to point out several facts to the writer.

Firstly, as much as the writer may wish, Malaysia is not an Islamic state. Until the Federal Constitution is amended to say otherwise, it applies to all citizens of this nation, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Secondly, I would also like to understand the writer's definition of 'Islamic law'. As we all know, Syariah is a result of human interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith. To elevate Syariah, and indeed the Hadith, to the same level of the Quran can only be regarded as blasphemous.

Yet interpretation ('ijtihad') of the Quran and other texts has been virtually forbidden for over 500 years. Syariah is not the word of God. It is the product of humans and as with any man-made laws, it must be subject to review.

In view that the Syariah was devised by men and has not been allowed to progress for centuries, I find it very mischievous of the writer to suggest that it makes one less of a Muslim to disagree with some of the archaic requirements and mediaeval punishments meted out by Syariah.

The only difference between Syariah and civil law is that Syariah was inspired by a mixture of understanding from the Quran and the Hadith while civil law developed purely out of human rationality. Another striking difference is that civil law has been allowed to develop while the growth and development of Syariah has been stunted.

Accordingly, for the writer to intimate that Syariah is superior to civil law purely because Syariah was inspired by a mixture of God's teachings and man-made stories is nothing short of a fallacy.