In his letter Secularism: Tunku was mistaken , MZH was wrong to assert that 'Secularism itself is founded on the flawed premise of the separation of the belief system from public governance'.

The strength of secularism is underlined by the fact that it provides room for multiple belief systems to co-exist peacefully. The basic tenets of civil law were not drawn from a vacuum. On the contrary, they were drawn from moral values that emanated from religious beliefs such as 'Thou shall not kill' and 'Thou shall not steal'. These values are universal to all major religions, Islam included.

Tunku was not mistaken. In fact, he hit the nail on the spot when he asserted Malaysia's political and constitutional secular nature. Neither can any one question Tunku's Islamic credentials. After all, he became the chairman of the OIC (after he was pushed aside as prime minister by the young turks within Umno) at the invitation of the Arab nations. Not to mention his setting up of various Islamic charities and foundations in Malaysia.

It is rather arrogant for someone who wasn't present during the negotiations for Malaya's independence and the Reid Commission's drafting of the constitution to assert that our nation's founding father did not know what he was speaking about.

While one can accept the MZH's theoretical assertion that 'Islam, in its essence, safeguards the rights of people of different belief systems', yet this has not been the practise of the local Islamic religious authorities towards both non-Muslims and Muslims over recent years.

This is well-documented by the independent press particularly over recent years. The actions of Jawi resemble those of Hitler's Gestapo and SS troops during WWII. And by the way, Jawi is not a parliamentary constituted body nor was it voted for in a referendum. So, I would like to ask what 'mandate' MZH is referring to.

The secular state is the distillation of thousands of years of failed systems of government particularly the theocratic state. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power of the state to corrupt religious institutions must be the most important lesson from the era of theocratic states.

It is unfortunate that the likes of MZH and Abu Mubarak are trying to force a revision of the social contract upon which our nation was built without the true agreement of the people. These revisionists are more concerned with form over substance. In this respect they are no different from the young turks who agitated for the removal of Tunku as PM.

Little do they understand the peril to which they are exposing the nation to. Umran Kadir should be applauded for exposing how Islam has been hijacked for expedience by political groups in Malaysia.

A secular nation can be more Islamic than a self-proclaimed 'Islamic nation' if it can demonstrate justice and mercy to the disadvantaged (be they immigrants, women, children, old folk, the poor, the physically and mentally challenged, minorities), govern itself in an ethical manner that exposes and punishes corruption and is accountable to its constituents.

After all, isn't that what we all want in the final analysis?