Has the Barisan Nasional government trapped itself when Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad declared Malaysia an Islamic state on Sept 29 last year and must now commit to honouring the hudud (Islamic penal code) implementation as suggested in the interview with Salleh Abas?

It depends on how one defines an Islamic state of which there is no agreement even among 'Islamic' nations.

If maintaining a secular constitution (as Salleh conceded that the Malaysian constitution still was) were inconsistent with Malaysia's status as an Islamic nation, why do Organisation of Islamic Conference members still pay that much respect to Mahathir to organise and preside in their international meetings?

Why did many Muslims all over the world (as commented by Dr Farish A Noor) consider him a Muslim leader and feel sad over the news of his resignation? Why is Mahathir accorded the respect when his views on hudud are that it is archaic and unjust?

Salleh also trapped himself in conceding that our constitution was secular. As a jurist, why does he support Islamisation of laws that contravene the constitution? Is sanctity of the constitution not important?

Salleh said it was the democratic right of the majority of the people who were Muslims in Terengganu to legislate a law they thought best suit their religious belief and value system, and that it was undemocratic of those outside to oppose them.

This argument of democratic right pulls wool over the nature of federal-state relations.

In a federal-state system, he must surely realise that when criminal laws are a matter of federal jurisdiction, states cannot go another way on their own independently in open disrespect of federal laws and constitution.

Otherwise there cannot be a federation of states, if there is no commonality of certain basic laws and norms governing all, to which states have agreed by constitution to subscribe, and the states may as well secede from the federation.

For Islamisation of laws, PAS has to first dominate parliament by two-third majority to change the constitution. Until then the constitution that was agreed by all communities in 1957, and all states within federation should be abided.

It is contentious for the ex-Lord President to assume all Muslims will want Islamic laws like hudud to govern their lives. Maybe some, but not the majority or all. Has a survey or referendum been conducted for him to say so?

Salleh added: "What makes me even more sad is that even the non-Muslims are questioning (the credibility) of hudud laws. Why? The laws are not applicable to them. This is our religion. We have our beliefs as they have."

The non-applicability part is merely his view. No other PAS leaders have come out unequivocally to state it.

Besides, what is the practicality of having one stream of criminal law for Muslims and another for non-Muslims?

When Muslim and non-Muslim thieves were caught together, are only the hands of the Muslim thieves to be chopped off and their non-Muslim partners sent to jail?

When a married Muslim woman commits adultery ( zina ) with a married non-Muslim male partner, is the woman to be stoned to death, and the man let off scot-free?

Already we have too many things to divide the different communities, there is no need to accentuate more by having two streams of criminal law.

Even if hudud were meant to apply to only Muslims, it is unfair to say that non-Muslims have no right to discourse or oppose PAS' move.

Everyone, including non-Muslims, has a stake in the nation and its character as a modern nation and not one that regresses to the antiquated laws and customs in force thousands of years ago that were influenced by Arabic traditions foreign to local ones.

It is the religious acculturation of life that affects all and not just Islamisation of a few criminal laws. For instance, when PAS-led state governments segregate supermarket queue and swimming pools on gender lines, ban all advertising billboards portraying women or ban alcohol in pubs or gambling casinos, how can non-Muslims be said to be not affected?

The argument that alcohol and gambling are universally considered as vices and should be banned is beside the point. Non-Muslims have a right to preserve their "vices" and to be free from a paternalistic government that tells them what to do as a father would discipline his children on morality.

For God to evaluate the merits of how a person lives his life so as to determine whether in death he deserves heaven or hell, that person should have freedom of choice whether to follow the path of virtue or vice. If he were supervised and forced by the state not to indulge in vice, how meritorious is his character?

This is my point against a paternalistic state that seeks to legislate and enforce private morality. It makes it difficult for God to measure the heart and judge the true merits of a man. No man is worth merit if the reason why he does not indulge in vice is not because he loves virtue but that the state punishes, stops or prevents him.

Salleh must respect that non-Muslims are entitled from the human rights perspective not to have their morality legislated upon by the government and this tenet of belief should not be overridden merely because the majority community around are believed by him to agree otherwise.

Based on my personal experience with Muslim friends, many of them have no sympathy at all for PAS' agenda but they do not publicly voice out objections only because of fear of being branded "unIslamic". They too have a stake in a modern Malaysia and are counting on non-Muslims to articulate publicly their opposition to hudud and other moves by PAS.

By the way, I totally disagree with RC's statement in No easy answer for hudud that "while human rights of all Malaysians must be protected and advanced, non-Muslims should exercise the right to free speech wisely so as not to hurt Muslims' feeling, just as non-Muslims themselves certainly do not wish Muslims to openly and rudely take sides on intra-communal discourses on the theologies, doctrines, customs and beliefs of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Confucianism or Taoism".

If we love truth, we can discuss issues in a mature manner and agree to disagree but after all points of view have been canvassed.

Why should non-Muslims keep quiet if they see imminent threat to their rights? Don't their feelings count too?

Who says that Muslims cannot discuss theologies, doctrines, customs and beliefs of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Confucianism or Taoism? Has any non-Muslim said that their feelings will be hurt by a rational and mature discussion?

This 'hurting of feelings' excuse is too often used to suppress freedom of speech and ideas, protect false arguments, defend bigotry, trample on others' rights, and set back the nation on which all who have a stake have a legitimate right to comment on its course and destiny.