I would like to address some points raised by Mohamed Hanipa Maidin in his defence of PAS. First off, I agree (and I believe most Malaysians would as well) that PAS should be given ample and equal opportunity to present their message and manifesto to the Malaysian public without undue distortion or manipulation by the media. That would certainly be a requirement of a vibrant and progressive democracy which arguably our country has yet to attain.

However, the context of freedom of political expression that PAS (and other parties) are entitled to also encompasses the freedom for the rakyat to agree or disagree accordingly. Thus, while calling for the dissolution of PAS might be undemocratic, criticism of their policies is certainly very much within the confines of democratic discourse.

Mohamed Hanipa states that apostasy is a very serious crime from the Islamic point of view. He might be interested to know that approximately 500 years ago in Europe, the Catholic Church was of the similar opinion as well regarding apostates and heretics, of which the result is the now infamous Spanish Inquisition.

Consider the situation of PAS gaining power in the country and asserting its right to impose the death sentence on Muslim apostates. Assume now that a group of Christians then demand the same right to impose the same sentence on Christian apostates (as is the case of the Christian Reconstructionist movement in the US that aspires to nation-wide implementation of biblical laws), or a group of Hindus demand the right to enforce the caste system or sutti (widow burning) in their communities. Would PAS accede to their requests? If no, why the double standards then? If yes, wouldn't that be discriminative towards other Christians and Hindus who do not share similar beliefs?

In our constitutional monarchy, laws such as the ISA can be repealed if a significant percentage of the parliament is motivated to do so. The same applies to equally controversial legal statutes such as those guaranteeing bumiputera special rights. Whether such a situation will ever arise given the current political dynamics of our country is another matter entirely; however the fact remains that in a functional democracy, the will of the majority is always taken into account in creating, amending or repealing of laws.

Returning to the case of PAS being in power, assume hypothetically that the overwhelming majority of the parliament decides to repeal the death sentence on Muslim apostates. Would the ulama council within PAS allow that to happen? If no, wouldn't that be counter to one of the underlying principles of democracy just illustrated?

On the same theme, Mohamed Hanipa intimates that in applying the death sentence for apostasy, PAS is merely staying faithful to the tenets of Islam thus implying only one possible legalistic interpretation of Islam. This of course is patently untrue, within Sunni Islam there are four schools ( mazhab ) of jurisprudence ( fiqh ): Shafie (Malaysia), Hanafi (India, West Africa, Egypt), Maliki (North Africa and West Africa), and Hanbali (Saudi Arabia). While these schools share many commonalities, they also differ on the particular Hadiths they accept as authentically given by the Prophet and the weight they give to analogy or reason (qiyas) in deciding difficulties.

While it is true that some Islamic scholars from the different schools (both modern and historical) concur on the mandatory death sentence on apostasy, this opinion is by no means unanimous throughout the Muslim world.

For example, a well-known former sheikh of al-Azhar university, Mahmud Shaltut, as well as the current one, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, do not consider apostasy as a capital crime and they believe that the death penalty should only be applicable to cases of treason ( hirabah ), where apostasy is accompanied by outright war and rebellion against the legitimate Islamic state. Prominent historical jurists such as Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi ( Hanafi ), Abul Walid al-Baji ( Maliki ) and Ibn Taymiyyah ( Hanbali ) have also held similar opinions.

The zealousness of PAS and its supporters in usurping the mantle of Islamic champion in Malaysia also raises the critical question of whether they are willing to allow an open discourse in fiqh and other aspects of an Islamic state in achieving a consensus ( ijma ) within the Muslim ummah.

In particular, the freedom to make legal decisions through an independent interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah ( ijtihad ) as opposed to imitating the rulings of classical jurists ( taqlid ) will be an important issue in the implementation of PAS's vision of Islam. Many commentators of Islamic history consider ijtihad to be the forerunner to the development of the scientific method during the golden age of Islamic civilisation, and the 'closing of the gates of ijtihad ' during the 11th century was argued to have eventually led to a decline of philosophy and the sciences, as well as the stagnation of Muslim societies as a whole.

The most prominent Islamic republic in the world today, Iran, is currently facing political crisis with the Council of Guardians disqualifying thousands of reformist candidates from the coming elections. The fact that the demand for reforms is coming from Muslims themselves, and not the 'decadent' West, should be a clear warning sign to those who naively believe that an Islamic state can provide an instant panacea to all that ails Muslim societies today.

That PAS is necessary as a strong opposition to check the current government cannot be denied. One could probably argue as well that many PAS leaders demonstrate a higher level of moral and ethical integrity than their counterparts in Umno. In fact, it is quite probable that the supposed endemic corruption riddling the Malaysian political structure would be largely eliminated with PAS in power.

However, I would contend that a political party exists not only to guarantee integrity in the standards of governance, but also to provide a supportive environment for the development of new ideas within society that is vital for the future progress of Malaysia in the rapidly evolving global economic system. With their narrowly focused viewpoint of Islam that refuses to acknowledge alternative interpretations, it is highly dubious as to whether PAS can provide such an environment for the future generation of Malaysians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

One would be wise in this situation to heed the well-known adage: 'Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them'.