I refer to the letter by AB Sulaiman entitled Tribal, Islamic Laws quite similar .

While I partly agree with Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib's letter , I can't help but notice Sulaiman's failure to see the bigger picture in his analysis of the differences between Islamic, tribal and civil laws. Since tribal law is not of much concern to us, let me concentrate on Islamic and civil laws.

In his letter, Sulaiman argued at least three points. Firstly, Islamic and tribal laws and edicts are issued by a central command (ie, God Almighty) and disseminated by the Prophet Mohammad for Islam, and the tribal chief for tribal laws, while civil laws are created not by a central authority (like God) but by a body representing the collective interest of the individuals in the form of a House of Parliament or its equivalent where laws are legislated.

Actually, in Islam, the sole Legislator is Allah and Allah alone while humans carry the authority to carry out the legislation. These laws are, of course, interpreted and issued by humans who are given the intelligence by God to decipher God's messages. In a democracy like ours, which have civil laws, the legislator is the so-called 'body representing the people's interest (and corporate interests, plural form are intentionally used here)'.

Sulaiman fails to see that the role of legislating has shifted from a central command (God Almighty) to a central body (members of Parliament). Same function, different body! The rational question that rational people should ask themselves is: 'Would a collection of limited beings be able to come up with a set of legislation that can cater for all the interests of all the people, better than a set of legislation created by the Creator of the limited beings who is All-Knowing and this knowing that such a Creator exists?'

Secondly, it was argued that there is the rigid understanding for adherents (for Islam) and the community (for the tribe) to follow these commands with no questions asked while civil law is different in that these laws are flexible and move with the times. In actuality, both Islamic and civil laws have their rigidity and flexibility.

In Islam, there are matters which are fixed as Allah has made it absolutely clear in the Quran or the Sunnah and there is no other way of rational interpretation of the evidences. These include that Allah is the only Legislator, Islam is the Truth and there is no compromise to it, water and fuel are public property that cannot be privatised, adultery is prohibited, same-sex marriage is illegal, non-Muslims should never be forced to embrace Islam and that every citizen of the state can question the credibility of the ruler on whether he is carrying the law of Islam justly or unjustly.

There are matters which can be reviewed from time to time like: Should we always depend on oil and gas as our main fuel, should the traffic offence penalty fine be increased or abolished, or should a man be lashed or jailed, or both, for groping a woman on a commuter train?

Therefore in Islam, there are certain principles and morality which cannot be compromised and are fixed throughout time while there are certain aspects that Allah has allowed us to debate and find the best up-to-date solution. Furthermore, there are no evidence to suggest that Muslims and non-Muslims alike cannot challenge the rulings of the ruler. Just bring the evidences from the Islamic source of jurisprudence and let the ruler tremble answering our questions!

Civil laws, meanwhile, stipulate that the freedom of expression, freedom of property (even intellectual) ownership, and separation of religion from the state are among the principles that can never be negotiated. These are rigid and can never be questioned even by those people who would never believe in those principles. This is always the case even though some ruling elite may bend some of these certain fixed rules to further their own interests while not being seen to damage the people's or individual's interest. The rest are open season to all, leading to a multitude of discrepancies and differences according to time and place.

A murderer is subject to a death penalty in the US but only a life sentence in EU countries which I think no one can agree is fair. Caricatures of the Prophet are prohibited because it is insulting to Muslims but the 'Da Vinci Code' is allowed because it is fictional even though it is insulting to Catholics! A burglar in England was not punished while the landlady who injured him while he was breaking into her house was sentenced to pay compensation in a civil law court, the decision made on the basis of the human rights of the burglar!

In these instances, the question that everyone should ask is: 'Should Muslims and non- Muslims alike be forced to adopt a flexible, evolving sets of laws with no credibility in their consistency? Or should they be offered the alternative of stable and fixed Islamic laws which allow certain provisions of flexibility due to the technical merits of the matter?'

Thirdly, it was argued that there exists the threat of punishment of Hell if adherents refused to obey so-called religious dictates and it was agreed that there can be punishments waiting for lawbreakers of civil laws. Although Sulaiman 'softened' on this argument, which I tend to partly agree with, let me add a further point:

Islamic law demands citizens to obey the laws and punishment awaits lawbreakers in the forms of either 'hudud' or 'takzir'. If the law had been carried out unjustly, there is always Allah on Judgement Day to complain to, including for the non-Muslims too, to make things right. The threat of Hell is always there if you escape the law on earth, unless your repentance is accepted.

The threat of Hell is also directed to the ruler should he deviate from the law and be unjust to his subjects. Civil law, while providing certain penalties and punishment for wrongdoers, does not guarantee the ultimate 'Correction' should the correction on earth be flawed, regardless of how many retrials are made in the courts.

On Point No 4 in Sulaiman's letter in defence of civil law, I think the disability of civil law to guarantee consistency as pointed out in my second argument would place doubt on its ability to fully protect subjects of the state. After all, from the land of the free, America, to the land of autocracy, Malaysia, everyone knows that money and power talk. Having seen and gone through the similarities between civil law and the Islamic law and the advantages of both laws as argued by both their proponents, no wonder the Muslims are turning to the Lord.