Below are excerpts from a three-hour exclusive interview malaysiakini had with Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM) director-general Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas.

Malaysiakini: Are the fears of non-Muslims of creeping Islamisation unwarranted?

Syed Ali: When the Muslim is confused, the non-Muslim will also become confused and that confusion is manifest by fear because they don't know. The Muslim is not telling them what it is.. things like 'don't worry, you're not going to be victimised, this is our understanding of equal rights, there is no original sin, equal treatment, rights and respect for all.'

The problem is, you have a confused man (making announcements) representing Islam who is supposed to be the one telling the non-Muslims. Rather than bringing resolve, clarity and peace, he brings conflict, confusion and fear.

Is this confusion over Islamisation the result of an identity crisis?

It is. If we understand Islam and can explain it to the non-Muslims as to how, for instance, Muslims are supposed to think of tolerance. If you also think like me and treat me with dignity, respect and eminence despite our differences, then it's something positive. Therefore, the non-Muslim will look to the Muslim to try and find resolve problems.

But my questions here is, how are non-Muslims being affected by Islamic administrative law? These are non-Muslims who say there are some weaknesses. Look, there is a weakness but it's not in Islam and that is not something that the non-Muslims can (comment on). Now, if it's a problem of administration, it is for the Muslims to fix it. How can the non-Muslims talk on our behalf?

I'm referring to the criticisms of the interfaith groups. There may be some who know something about Islam but that doesn't mean that they know Islam. First of all, they don't know anything about the worldview and that is very crucial. This is what the Muslims live by.

Is that how you see it, that the non-Muslims are telling the Muslims what to do?

The thing is, if the conduct of the officers is unbecoming, that should not reflect on Islam. I'm saying that the non-Muslims feel that they have some shortcomings, like all these people who want to change Article 11, Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution.

The reason Islam is the official religion is because it's a complete religion. Whether you are a Muslim or a non-Muslim you cannot deny that because there is everything contained in Islam. The laws are clear. Everything is already described. This is not the case for the non-Muslims. They do not have a completeness in their religion. They don't have complete laws.

That is why we have civil law. The civil law complements and completes what is absent from the religion. That is why there is separation. If there is already that problem, why look at us and ask us to change? You should solve the problem in your religion first before you come and attack us.

What led to the injustices in the cases of S Shamala (child conversion) and M Moorthy (religious status)?

First of all, Moorthy made a mistake by not telling his family. By the same token, he could have his reasons why he didn't tell. He could have felt threatened. He could have been afraid that his family would not understand. You already see that his older brother is a Muslim and had apparently lost contact with the family. Maybe he was also afraid of that.

Of course, this (information) is from the media and from our discussions with the interfaith people who were unhappy with the (religious authorities') conduct. It had nothing to do with Islam. It's the conduct of the people, saying to them (family) that you have no right to anything because you're not Muslim. If (only) the person had been treated with some respect and compassion... she just lost her husband.

On the one hand, she gets treated like this by some Muslim authorities, on the other hand some of the Hindus also took advantage of the situation and tried to inflame matters instead of trying to solve it amicably and peacefully. I think they have failed in their responsibility, both of them.

I think the court case is, again, filed at the behest of the interested party.

The matter could've been better handled if you had gone there with some compassion first of all. Assure the poor widow that she will be taken care of and show her that you are going to take care of her. Be as compassionate as possible. She had just lost her husband and the girl, her father.

Don't you tell her (she is) a non-Muslim and (has) no right to anything, any inheritance. This girl is below age. Everyone is born Muslim. It is later on when you reach maturity, depending on the surrounding environment as well and also your fitrah (natural state), that you decide which one you're going to be. Doesn't mean that if a child has Hindu parents he will be a Hindu. The same (goes) for the Muslim and Christian. Doesn't mean the Muslim born to Muslim parents is going to end up being a Muslim as well.

The failure by Moorthy's widow to obtain legal recourse set off the Art 11 campaign. What's your comment?

Let's imagine there is no recourse in the civil court such as, as you say, in the Moorthy case. Then I would say again, the problem is in the civil court system. You fix that problem first before you even look at the Muslims for a legal recourse. Fix that first and then you can start arguing with the Muslims.

Unfortunately, you have these people today who assume the mantle of authority without actually having knowledge, the ones who misrepresent justice. As a result, justice is denied. If they think we're not getting this, it's not the fault of the constitution. It's how the letter of the constitution is being conducted.

If it's true that the religious authorities had refused to release documents proving Moorthy was a Muslim, is it the fault of the law or the people? Does it warrant changing the articles in the constitution just because of their behaviour? Of course not. The law is already there, already good, already protecting all.

(The interfaith people) assume that people do not have the freedom of worship. On the contrary, in this case Moorthy became a Muslim so let him have that freedom to worship as a Muslim. I'd like to know if he had become a Christian instead, would there have been this problem today? I doubt it. So, why is it that only when it comes to him becoming a Muslim there is a question of whether he has religious freedom or not.

Do you agree that non-Muslims have no right to discuss related issues?

Yes. They have no right unless they understand Islam and neither does the Muslim who does not understand Islam. The ignorant has no right to discuss. The non-Muslim who has no authority ( ilmu in this context), and similarly the ignorant Muslim, has no business to discuss if he has no knowledge because he will misrepresent it.

Is Islam under threat in Malaysia, and by whom?

No, Islam is not under threat anywhere. No matter what the Malays here do or the non-Muslims do, Islam will never be under threat because Islam is the truth. No matter what they do, they cannot change that.

Question is, are the Muslims under threat in Malaysia? Yes, not just in Asia but the world over. On the one hand, by the enemies of the Muslims - ignorance, confusion, evil-mindedness, arrogance, jealousy, greed and on the other, by some Muslims themselves who misrepresent Islam.

So is it a numbers game at the end of the day?

I don't think so. If I ask the Buddhist do they have problems in this country with the Muslims. No. If I ask the Hindus, also no. If I ask a Christian individual, also no. In this country, we have all the religions represented and most Malaysians are God-fearing people.

But in being tolerant in the sense of forgiveness and magnanimity, don't assume you can now strap on top of the Muslim and deprive him of his right. Many in the Bar council are equally responsible. Look at what they are doing today, those whose voices are most prominent now.

We already have religious freedom in the country and yet they are sounding as if there is none. There are certain members in the Bar Council who are extremely reasonable, very good and yet their voices are not heard.

Part 1 yesterday:

Ikim DG: Malays are Muslims first

Q&A: Identity crisis among the Malays