In his letter Let the learned interpret Islamic law , Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib makes what appears to be a rational and persuasive point when he argues that like qualified judges who interpret the common law in civil courts only the ulama must be given that exclusive right to interpret Islamic law.

This, at first blush, makes ample sense, except that on closer inspection such an argument is not entirely free from criticism.

A major problem here is the difficulty in working out who an ulama is. Whereas the qualifications necessary to be a judge in the civil courts are transparent and crystal clear, who qualifies to be an ulama in the syariah system is unclear. If one takes the simple issue of whether a PAS ulama would be acceptable in a BN state and vice versa, the point is made.

The problem is inherent in the syariah system which is devoid of hierarchy and structure, which per se is neither good nor bad, save that virtually anyone who grabs some qualification from, say, some Pakistani religious establishment can call himself an ulama and be elevated to judgeship if he gets the right patron.

Moreover, the Malay Rulers who, under the Federal Constitution, are heads of Islam in their respective states (and the King in other states and federal territories) are not always nor necessarily trained in Islamic law and matters, and even though advised, no doubt, by a barrage of Islamic experts, are ultimately responsible for Islamic laws and matters (including, it is suggested, the interpretation of Islamic law).

This places Malaysia in a unique position when one tries as Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib does to make neat comparisons with the far more transparent, structured and well-heeled civil law system whether in a domestic or international context.