In response to Nik Noraini's letter Distinguish between 'syariah' and 'fiqh' , I would like to point out that Syariah and Fiqh are two concepts in Islam that are highly related and one cannot exist without the other.

By referring to the book Ushul Fiqh by Prof Muhammd Abu Zahrah, one will understand that the core of Fiqh is to explain the Syariah with regards to acts and practices of human beings. In other words, Fiqh expresses the Syariah so as to enable human beings to understand the Syariah.

The book explains in detail how a law is derived from the Quran and Sunnah.

Contrary to Nik's simplistic view that it is merely a "human juristic interpretation", the truth is anything but that. In fact, laws are derived and not interpreted, by jurists from the Al Quran and As Sunnah. The entire discipline is called Ushul Fiqh. It is mainly explaining the methodology of deriving rulings and laws from the Al Quran and As Sunnah. It also lays the foundation on how to derive laws that are closest to the meaning of the Quran and Sunnah in cases where there is no explicit mention by the Quran and Sunnah. This while taking into account current realities.

Therefore, for Fiqh to be reflecting medieval cultural practices and customs (as claimed by Nik in her letter) is a sign of deep ignorance of Fiqh itself. Those who study Ushul Fiqh will never arrive at this conclusion. The entire methodology was developed and refined to do just the opposite. It also baffles me when Nik fails to mention Ushul Fiqh when she mentions Fiqh and tries to relate it with human juristic interpretation and reflections of medieval cultural practices and customs.

Nik then quotes Hammudah Abd Al Ati: 'The sources of law (from the Quran and authentic practice of the Prophet (s.a.w)) are held by all parties as binding, but the interpretation or the application of the principles is another matter which is largely determined by the jurist's personal discretion. (re: The Family Structure in Islam , 1977)

Assuming it is not quoted out of context, , I have to say that such claim is errornous and contradictory to the practices of jurists of all time. For instance, Al Imam Asy Syafiee in his book Ar Risalah outlines Al Ijma and Al Qiyas as an additional source of jurisprudence to the Al Quran and As Sunnah. Both sources are all-binding and the methodology is far from being a mere "human juristic interpretation".

Abdul Halim Al Muhammady explains in his book Sumber Undang-Undang Islam dan Pandangan Orientalis that Al Ijma and Al Qiyas are accepted by almost all scholars as the third and fourth "all binding" source of Islamic jurisprudence. Anyone who studies these methodologies will know that it is anything but mere "human juristic interpretation".

Therefore, Hammudah is committing a serious error by dismissing other than the Quran and Sunnah as mere personal jurist discretion.

Nik went on to question what she terms as "classical interpretation of Islamic law" with regards to several issues in Fiqh namely pronouncement of the 'talaq' outside the court and re-emphasis on the issue of a wife's obedience when applying for divorce. She also commits herself to interpreting several verses from the Quran i.e. 04:34, 02:24 and 4:128. My question is, what methodology does Nik use to arrive at this.

I am also intrigued by Nik's interpretation of the Quran as quoted below: "It may be argued that this view of the marriage contract is actually not in harmony with the Quranic injunctions, since the injunction in Surah an-Nisa' 4:34 grants both spouses equal rights as to the appointment of arbiters in the event of a breach between them ..." Again, my question would what methodology did Nik apply to arrive at this conclusion?

So-called women groups in Malaysia have been trying to vilify the Islamic Syariah system religiously, while at the same time consistently fail to provide any empirical evidence. Most of their objections are furnished without any evidence and are nothing more than a smokescreen to confuse the general public.

They mostly succeed because the Malaysian media gives them unrivaled coverage in spite of this severe lack of credibility. If the Malaysian media is just and balanced with regards to this issue, what is stopping them from getting information from more credible and impartial sources ie, Islamic faculties at our various universities, professors at the Islamic International University, Islamic NGO's etc.

To come back to Nik, she also tries to highlight the infallibility of jurists when making their 'ijtihad'. My question to Nik is that the person who questions the fallibility of the jurists is also infallible. Therefore, can Nik guarantee that those questioning the various jurists' actions will be able to produce a better set of laws in place of that of the jurists?

As for the Nik quoting the prime minister that the Syariah courts discriminate against women, it is also imperative for the PM to provide evidence to support his claim. Empirical studies have shown there is no evidence to support this claim.