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: Do you agree that Islam has been made the pawn in Malaysia's political battlefield between rivals Umno and Pas? How much damage has been done?

Syed Ali: That could be the case in terms of the Islamic state now. Yes, I do agree that at times, Islam is being used as a handmaiden by politics and that's not right at all. Islam is not the handmaiden of politics.

There are civil laws in this country that already conform to the Islamic law. Theft, for instance, has a punishment. It may not be the exact same thing as the syariah but it's already there.

We're saying this because we believe that Islam is perfect, having described and defined all the laws. The civil laws are here to augment and supplement what is missing in the other religions.

If I answered saying that yes Islam is being made a political pawn, then certain people in Article 11 (group) and the Bar Council are the ones doing it. If you want to do politics, learn from Islam about politics.

Have Malays taken Islam for granted and left it to the religious institutions to manage?

This is not the way it was in the past. In my own case, my parents taught me Islam. Of course, we had the guru mengaji to teach how to read the Quran but when it comes to Islam, my father taught me and he did a very good job.

Most of my friends were also taught by their father. Therefore its not a burden for parents to do it. The parent has to know how to teach or what to teach. But of late, unfortunately, it has become like (what you suggested).

I have often said in my musings that the Malays have almost become like the Catholics who have the father-confessor who is the conduit between the profane and the sacred. You go and confess everything to him and he will judge as if God has given him and only him the authority to tell his flock how to absolve their sins. And that's what we're doing now.

It's not about reliance on the institution. The Muslims are always reliant on the institution but it's the individual I'm talking about, the individual who goes around saying haram, halal, fatwa this, fatwa that.

Would you consider the Perak Mufti an ulama, such an individual?

An ulama is defined as being one who brings resolve, peace and clarity in any society, not conflict and confusion. Ulama are erudite scholars. If there is confusion, agitation and conflict, then it is the fault of the person who claims to be an ulama.

We have great respect for the office of the mufti but that does not mean that just because he is making (certain) statements that the mufti's office is completely shattered. No. We still have confidence in the mufti's office. It may be what he says that we don't have confidence in.

First of all, how many applications do you have to make to change from Islam to something else? Secondly, let's assume the 100,000 is true, how many of them are from another religion who became Muslims either for economic or political reasons and have now gone back to their original religion, in other words, murtad ?

That is also unclear. So it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to be going around like a loose canon spouting off figures like this. But again, you have to ask him this because he may have a different intent altogether.

He may, in his own wisdom and manner, be very upset and nervous at the condition of the Muslims in the country, particularly the Malays. And to shock them into reality, he's using these horrifying figures.

How is the concept of Kongsi Raya haram?

Well, I'm also asking that question. How is this idea haram? I don't understand. If the Mufti of Perak is making statements like this, then we have to find out first what does he mean by that. I don't think that's quite clear. I don't think he has mentioned it, neither has it been reported in the press what he means by this haram aspect of kongsi raya .

The Muslims are not sharing in any aspect of religion when it comes to that. If the Muslim knows Islam properly, then he is not going to be sharing in the religious aspect of their celebration. As far as I understand that is what kongsi raya is.

I don't think anybody has defined what kongsi raya is. You see, the name itself 'kongsi' just means 'to share', to share in your celebration. There's nothing wrong with that. After all, don't we all share in celebrating Merdeka? There's no religious element there.

When a Muslim visit a Hindu or a Christian, they're not going there with religious intent neither is the person receiving you with religious intent. I don't think the Hindu or the Christian or the Buddhist is actually trying to do dakwah (prosetylise) to you when you come.

What about individual rights as championed by the Article 11 coalition?

I think these people are confused. When they say you have a right to choose, do they realise what choice means in Islam? In Islam, when we talk about choice we're talking about a choice for the better, not for the worse. I know these people, I know what they're thinking.

They're thinking just like the apologists in the west, the ones who sit in the western world and apologise for what they perceive to be the shortcomings in Islam. Actually, its their own shortcoming, it's not Islam. Islam is already complete, it's already perfect.

It's a responsibility handed down by God. I don't understand how some Muslims and the non-Muslims don't seem to understand this. There is no such thing as a right. It's a choice and always a choice for the better (ikhtiar). In other words, it is made without any interference.

Could you explain why Islam should be left to the law, as is the case in Malaysia?

We're becoming like the Jews, the Talmudic Jews, the ones who have reduced everything to the law. The present Jewish state now cannot say it is following the Abrahamic tradition. This is all the fault of reducing religion to law, haram, halal, haram, halal. This is the problem.

You see, the danger in this modern world today is that the Muslim in trying to extract and extricate himself from confusion thinks he should rely solely on the law. It is not all about the law. Remember, it is ilm , or science, which gave birth to the law in the first place.

How did we arrive at the point where we rely solely on the law? In the days of the Prophet, do you think people were arguing over the simple issue of halal? It didn't happen in those days, so why is it happening now? Why is it a big problem? Halal slaughter, huge problem.

Even the Muslim himself cannot properly define what halal is. From something as easy as saying everything that is allowed by God is halal, everything that is forbidden is haram, it now has all kinds of categories for this and that.

This is due to some of the fuqaha (jurists) who have done this. They have confused the people because they themselves are confused about the whole conceptual philosophy of Islam and reduced everything to the law. As a result, now we have to refer to the law. The law is there as a tool. It's supposed to be the vehicle with which to smooth the administration.

What about the censorship on discussion of religious issues?

Dialogue is a science, therefore the ones who are doing it have to know what they are talking about and how to do it. It can't be done by just anybody. It's a dialogue with the Muslims, not interfaith dialogue.

It's better said like that because we're not here to discuss theological matters. What we're emphasising really is the difference. What are the similarities, we can only know that through the difference. When we find the similarities, then we can know how to best go about it.

These people are not scholars. It is resulting in chaos and confusion. If you are a reasonable and clever person, you will assume that (PM) is saying only the one who is a scholar and an authority on the subject is allowed to talk, all others please be silent because you are not helping... you're creating more confusion, more unrest and more conflict.

The Kelantan government is offering cash incentives to preachers who marry/convert Orang Aslis to overcome the lacklustre performance in the registration of new converts. Is this proper?

No, it's not proper at all. Is that really sincere? You're supposed to be delivering knowledge to these people, not money. And how certain are we of the preacher's capacity to actually convert the person sincerely because Islam is not the religion of force.

You cannot try to use compulsion to convert somebody. You can't do that at all. It's only by reason and preaching, not by giving cash. This is a ridiculous thing Kelantan is thinking of doing. Why must they try to bring the Orang Asli in by paying money to the preachers. Is there something wrong with the Orang Asli that they need to be converted using cash incentives?

Part 1 Q&A: Identity crisis among the Malays

Part 2 Q&A: The ignorant have no right to discuss Islam