I refer to the letter by Coklat 2004 with regards to as to the rights of non-Muslims to question Islamic law.

Let me first establish some context before I move on. Firstly, Malaysia is a multi-racial, multi-religious country, operating under a secular political framework.

Because of its diverse nature, every citizen (and by extension every religion) has a stake in Malaysia and everything Malaysian.

Secondly, in democratic countries, every individual has the right to voice his or her dissatisfaction if his liberties are being affected.

In the issue about apostasy for example, the fundamental right to freedom of religion under the Malaysian federal constitution is being threatened. Hence, the liberties of individual Malaysians are being affected regardless of whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim.

Many hardline Islamists, particularly from PAS, discuss Islamic laws in a vacuum that disregards non-Muslims. This can be seen in various documents released by them. For example, look at PAS' Islamic state document's frequently asked questions (FAQ).

The first portion of the FAQ guarantees the rights of non-Muslims and ensures they will not be punished under hudud. However, if you read the document further, you'll find that there are cases where non-Muslims can be tried under Islamic law.

One PAS member I asked about this said that this is okay if the crime is committed against a Muslim. He said that I have nothing to worry about, as I would not be committing a crime.

The issue is not whether I will be prosecuted or not, but whether Islamic law can apply to non-Muslims. Many Islamic groups don't have the answers to these questions. Hence, it is the right of every Muslim and non-Muslim Malaysian to continuously ask questions that will effect

their liberty.

Both Muslims and non-Muslims are stakeholders in this country. There are various issues that are contentious in Islamic law that affect both Muslims and non-Muslims.

For example, in Syariah courts, the testimony of a non-Muslim is deemed as being less credible than that of a Muslim.

As taxpaying Malaysian citizens, non-Muslims have the right to demand that Syariah courts do everything they can to accord equal rights to all citizens under the eyes of the law.

Even if the hardliners argue that the issue will not arise because non-Muslims have civil courts, the rights of a Muslim standing trial who only has non-Muslim witnesses on his side will be severely affected.

In a country where non-Muslims make up 40 percent of the population, this could be a huge issue. On average, four in every 10 witnesses submitted to Syariah courts might be non-Muslims.

Non-Muslims have a civic duty - as Malaysians - to raise alarm bells now to ensure that everybody gets a fair go under the eyes of the law.

The next issue that needs to be addressed is the fact that there are various interpretations of Islamic law. On one hand, you have a more hardline and conservative stance, taken by PAS. On the other hand, you have a more progressive stance taken by the likes of those supporting Islam Hadhari.

For example, in the Sure Heboh case , there were two different interpretations of the same issue.

The hardline stance said that any form of entertainment that can be detrimental to Muslims should be banned. Therefore, we should ban ADSL modems, videos and televisions simply because they have the 'potential' of being detrimental to Muslims?

Should we also ban the screening of the Olympics as the telecasts are in a different time zone and could be 'detrimental' to Muslims?

Supporters of Islam Hadhari on the other hand, chastised the view of the Perak mufti as his own, and encouraged the event as a fun-loving family affair.

Non-Muslims have the right to address issues that pertain to Islamic law because it affects their lifestyle and the life of their fellow Malaysians.

This is not something new. Many Christians took to the streets of France to fight against the ban of the hijab and turbans in France. Are you saying it's okay to engage with Islamic law if it follows the interpretation of the likes of Coklat 2004, but not if it conflicts with hardline interpretations?

Coklat 2004 also mentioned: 'There are some fundamental rules and regulations in Islam which should not be discussed even by Muslim without deep Islamic knowledge, let alone by the non- Muslims'.

How does Coklat 2004 define 'deep Islamic knowledge'? Are these the individuals who wear turbans and robes and walk around with beards? Or must they have a degree from the al-Azhar University in Egypt?

Prophet Muhammed didn't spread the message of Islam by being elitist. Followers were encouraged to spread the message and ask questions when necessary.

The spread of elitist ulama is rising in this country. These ulama are willing to engage with you only as long as you agree with their hardline views. Any other view is viewed as blasphemous.

The idea of many hardliners is to shoot down opposition early, using the same democratic structures that allow them to preach their teachings.

Many Malaysians are taught from a young age to accept without question what these ulama say, because 'they know better'. The ulama capitalising on this situation have taken the opportunities to silence views of both Muslims and non-Muslims using the 'we know better' stigma that affects many Malaysians.

Islamic hardliners are right when they say that non-Muslims have no right to question their faith. However, that right is abrogated the moment the liberties of non-Muslims are affected.

An ulama can choose to pray five times a day and there will be nothing a non-Muslim can do about it. However, when a Muslim friend is forced against his will to listen to hardline interpretations of events such as 'Sure Heboh', it becomes the business of non-Muslims to defend the right of the Muslim friend to make up his own mind.

Malaysia is owned by all Malaysians. Fighting against injustice towards a fellow Malaysian - as with the case of the four apostates - is a fundamental right of all citizens.

Till the day that all men are treated as equals, I will talk about any law - Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Sikh and even Common law - as it directly effects the lives of our Malaysian brothers and sisters.

This is the exact reason why many non-Muslims believe that the ISA is draconian, just as it is to

force an individual to remain in a religion he or she doesn't want to.

I do not subscribe to Islam or any other forms of organised religion. I have absolutely no interest in ensuring that one religion wins a bigger market share of followers than another.

I do however subscribe to the notion that I am 110 percent Malaysian. And protect the rights of all Malaysians first, I definitely will.