I refer to the letter The issue is whether there's free will by John Base. I admire the writer's honesty in admitting that he is not knowledgeable about Islamic history.

Now, I did not accuse Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad of being an 'expert' . I only requested Syed Alwi to back up the claim he made which was to have studied Islam in detail. In addition, you will never find in Syed Alwi's letter any claim of being an expert, because he never did and that is why I never accused him of being an expert.

I quote you:

'Like some writers before him, Mahdar wanted Dr Syed Alwi to provide proof of subjects that what the 21th century have which didn't exist or applicable in 10th century, but failed to provide a single one to back his own.'

Firstly, I do not understand what you mean by this. The argument has always been that the interpretations of the 10th century are by large still applicable here and now in the 21st century and never the other way around as suggested by your quote. I think that is the reason why you are puzzled. Even if you did understand it to be that Syed Alwi was asked to proof which 10th century interpretation is not applicable today, I do not recall any time that I wanted Alwi to proof this.

Now, on the argument of Syed Alwi merely promoting 'free will' and not glorifying apostasy. If you would read more about Islam, its creed, tenets and relevant basic belief system, then you can understand better how the promotion of 'free will' amongst Muslims is equivalent to allowing apostasy.

I quote you:

'Mahdar just did what he said Dr Syed Alwi shouldn't do, i.e. imposing his own beliefs on his children or people under his charge.'

Here you have to understand certain simple concepts. It is very simple when you decide to live here or just visit, you have to agree and submit yourself to the rules of the country. For instance, the drug laws. If you carry marijuana over a certain amount, you can be hanged to death.

If you happen to be a Rastafarian visiting this country, you cannot say that I have the right to 'free will' and so marijuana being a spiritual substance in the Rastafarian belief, it is okay for me to carry it in this country. I hope you understand that simple analogy to demonstrate that you can apply certain rules according to your beliefs when you have power.

In this case, Malaysia has the right to apply capital punishment for drug traffickers as it has power and sovereignty over its own country. To impose something on my own children is totally different from imposing something on my neighbours. Of course, if you come from some Western perspective, this is not true as the state has more rights and authority on children than their own parents.

Now let us go through you questions:

'Was there already interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah before the works of the scholars in 10 and 12th centuries?'

Answer: Yes.

'Why did they do it if there were already existing interpretations?'

Answer: This is because the Quran is the word of God that carries many meanings and teaching in just a single verse, whilst the Sunnah/Hadith characters are known as 'Kalam al Jawami' meaning that a sentence is so meaningful and can be interpolated deeply. Therefore, what they did was going deeper and deeper into the elucidation.

'Did anyone resist and say their effort was useless because existing interpretations were sufficient to cover everything the 10th century Muslims needed?'

Answer: At that time, their interpretations were not only was done in view of the time they were living in, but their thoughts were far and for the long-term. That is the reason most of their interpretations are still applicable today. There were differences of opinion but they were valid ones. This is because they had the ability and capacity to do 'ijtihad'. This was covered extensively in my last letter .

Now, last but not least, your plea:

'.... please give your sincere answer and don't shoo me away with this convenient and effective (in Malaysia only) statement: non-believers, keep away from Islam.'

I do not like to claim sincerity or in Arabic 'ikhlas', because in Islam 'ikhlas' is everything you do is for the sake of God. It is a very difficult thing to practice and to claim that I am 'ikhlas' is quite arrogant and uncouth of me. Nevertheless, I try my best to be sincere.

My apologies on behalf of those who asked you to keep away from Islam. On the other hand, I would like to invite you to Islam. I invite you to learn Islam objectively and sincerely and not just the issues that comes up in the media. However, at the same time if you mean those who ask you to stay away from meddling in the internal affairs of Islam, then as a fair person, I think you would understand the logic behind it. This is again basic courtesy.

One does not meddle in the affairs of other people. Even at a higher level, a country can't meddle in the affairs of other sovereign countries, unless you are America! So is it with Islam. Muslims are a unit. Their affairs are their own. The issue of apostasy is an internal matter. If there is disagreement between Muslims, then leave it between us. That is the reason I don't see you as being relevant to this issue.

May God guide us always closer to the Truth.