I refer to the written by Latif entitled Former chief judge mistaken on apostasy . I feel that Latif is deeply mistaken in saying that apostasy is an offence under 'takzir' and further tries to claim that it is the opinion of Ibnu Taimiyyah.

Firstly, never in any of Ibnu Taimiyyah's writings has he ever claimed apostasy as being an offence under takzir. In fact, according to Ibnu Rajab Al Hanbali (Jami' alUlum wal Hikam, syarah hadis no. 14, tahqeeq Syu'aib alArnauth), the death penalty for apostasy is 'ijma' (consensus) by all scholars.

According to Ibnu Tamiyyah, certain leeway is given to certain apostates, as a matter of procedure, to undergo counseling and tutorship before punishment is set upon them. But, if you refer to all of Ibnu Taimiyyah's writings, it is said the death penalty is the penalty for apostasy.

I am not aware of Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut's opinion but Mahmud's Shaltut reasoning as quoted by Latif which goes: ' carries no temporal punishment since the Quran speaks of punishment for it only in the Hereafter' sounds weird.

Such an argument reflects total ignorance of Islamic jurisprudence not befitting a 'Sheikhul Azhar'. I am sure any Sheikhul Azhar would know that punishment for apostasy is stated clearly in As Sunnah and Al Ijma. It is as clear as a bright, blue day.

Anyway, if you refer to the book Fiqh As Sunnah written by another Sheikhul Azhar (one that is not appointed by the corrupted government of Egypt) the death penalty for apostasy is mentioned very clearly.

Scholars like S Mahmassani represent the so-call 'new era' scholars. But what has been observed thus far is that their take on the subject is either skewed or doesn't take into account all of the evidence or arguments with regards to the subject.

For instance, their own interpretations are never supported by any hadith or 'nas' from the Quran and Sunnah. At best, their interpretation is speculative. It is hard to adopt speculative interpretation when up against 'ijma' and clear precedence as set by previous scholars of the last 1,400 years.

It is also strange that Latif only refers to 'certain' imminent jurist without referring to other more imminent jurists. What is wrong with referring to Ibn Hazm or Ibnu Rajb Al Hanbali or Ibn Qudamah alMaqdisi? Is it because their opinions are not to his liking? Are these scholars less imminent than the ones Latif has referred to?

In any case, one should not view the death penalty for apostasy as infringing upon human rights. Bear in mind the fact that Islam has never coerce anyone to convert to Islam. Therefore, the penalty for apostasy is a punishment that a convert has willingly accepted at the time of his conversion. It is not a penalty imposed, rather it is penalty accepted willingly by all converts as part of the teachings of Islam.

As for AB Sulaiman's Tribal, Islamic laws quite similar , allow me to say the reason I raised the role of ulama in Islam is proof that Islam is different from a tribal culture. In an Arab tribe, the word of the tribe leader is law. In Islam, the law has been enacted by God through the Revelations to the Prophet Mohammad.

Since there are no more revelations, the ulama acts as interpreter for the Revelations (Al Quran and Al Sunnah). This is to ensure that Islam is able to handle problems and issues at any time in history including now.

Laws in a tribe don't change as long as the leader is alive or if the leader wishes for it. In Islam, interpretation is based upon methodologies derived from the Revelations themselves. The methodologies are studied and mastered by the ulama. The ulama then use this methodology to formulate laws to handle both new issues and problems that have existed throughout time. How is this similar to tribal culture?.

In hindsight, tribal culture exists in western countries too. In reality, laws are passed by legislators that win their office through elections. The money politicians use to win elections comes from rich corporations. Big corporations also own the media which in turn shapes the opinion of the public. In other words, laws are engineered by those who can finance the elections and re-elections of politicians. The role of tribal leader in a western society is played by those who have money.

In conclusion, my point on the role of ulama in Islam is evidence that Islamic law can never be the same as tribal laws.