Most Muslims are tired of hearing the cliched views of so-called women groups and non Muslim individuals who question Syariah and Islamic practices, especially when these practices involve Muslims only, and their aspiration to live by their religion without trampling upon the rights of others.

Their double standards, one-track minds and narrow understanding, nay, their utter ignorance of Islam, are always laid bare whenever they put their two-cents worth in a few lines to attack those who do not subscribe to their 'moderate' Islam.

We don't question those who deal drugs and create problems in society when they are executed and hanged. But we question when someone is caned for consuming liquor, which directly contributes to family and social problems. Alcohol is the number one contributor to social problems in the West and even they are now seeking to control this habit.

It only shows the state of our colonised mentality, to quote Algerian scholar Malik Bennabi, when we always wait for the West to embark on a certain thing first, before we can treat it as ‘contemporary' and ‘acceptable'.

If the Western judicial system executes a convicted person using the electric chair, we don't question, but we say it is ‘modern'. Of course we will start to make noise when a Western-based human rights organisation condemns such a ‘modern' punishment. We always take the West as our benchmark, and by the West, I do not mean in the geographical sense only.

If Singapore, for example, canes illegal immigrants, the silence is deafening, especially among the groups here who are making all the noise questioning caning according to the Syariah, even if Syariah follows a strict etiquette unlike the caning that we know of in the conventional sense.

It does not become news when some poor Bangladeshis or Burmese get caned cruelly because they committed the crime of ignoring man-made demarcation and political nation-states just to feed their families back home. If Singapore seeks to ban pig farms, there is never a protest.

But if a Muslim-dominated government, for example the PAS state government in Kedah, wants to control pig farms because it is unhealthy and unhygienic to nearby residents, they jump start attacking Muslims and Islam.

If PAS implements separate queues in supermarkets like in Kelantan (I don't agree with PAS on this but just to give an example of how our moderate and modern friends practice double standards), they say it is wrong, sexist and whatnot..

Yet, Japan has had their own women-only public transport, yet no one questions it.

The UK and other countries in the West are under pressure from NGOs to control alcohol and its sales. But when the same move to control alcohol was attempted by the Selangor government through the PAS representative, they say Muslims are intolerant and Islamic laws are not fair.

This is the case even if the move is confined to Muslims and may inconvenience only a tiny section of non-Muslim who do not want to take the trouble to travel a bit further to get their fix in the wee hours of the morning.

The truth is that we Muslims are so used to this propaganda, but it would not make us leave our faith, because we cannot pick and choose once we are Muslims.

The caning is for Muslims only, yet those who question this form of punishment are those who have nothing to do with Islam and perhaps, we suspect, have something to do with the ban itself. We don't bother if non-Muslims want to drink or get drunk or even manufacture beer.

This model Muslim country called Malaysia has one of the largest Carlsberg breweries in the world, yet there was no mass opposition by Muslims against that, because it has nothing to do with Muslims.

But why is it a big issue when we want to practise our faith and live according to our Syariah while at the same time letting our non-Muslim friends continue getting a little tipsy or even pissed drunk?

This Muslim lady has agreed and admitted her sin as a Muslim for drinking beer. This is a question of faith. The lady never ever said she was against caning, because she is a person of faith.

But news reports twisted the facts as if she was against it and as if she was angry about it. She is only angry because they delayed the punishment. She wants to get on being a good Muslim mother, and not get on with life because she finds it hard to go through the appeal process, as some news wires claimed.

But, and yes, there is a but. The problem is whether she will be the only one to be caned. If Syariah is to be properly practised, then the first to be caned are the so-called elites and VIPs in our society!

A good number of them and their children have lifestyles which is far from Islam. Syariah, if implemented properly, is fair and does not differentiate between the wealthy and the poorest in society.

Unfortunately, most Muslim countries who claim to rule by Syariah are not Islamic. They claim to follow Islam and Islamic laws, but only selectively. Their leaders drink, invest in gambling and casinos, help other states to go to war against Muslims.

Muslims who have repented and felt remorse over their crimes, if given a chance, would definitely want to be tried under Syariah. If given a choice, majority Muslims will want to be tried under Syariah (if it is being properly implemented). The results will be so effective that even non-Muslims will want Syariah to be followed. Don't believe me? Hold a referendum.