I share Helena Justina's concern and outrage that we may become the next Iran as expressed in the Moral police: Are we the next Iran?

Of the former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the writer said that for all his faults, he would not have hesitated to make a stand on something like this. To an extent, that may well be true. But what is the point if it is equally true that the former prime minister's policies were - to a large extent - responsible for the present state of affairs?

It was during his two decades of political stewardship that the Islamisation of society and politics was aggressively pursued and institutionalised.

Under his watch, more mosques and religious institutions were built while Islamic programmes on radio and television were increased. The more substantive programmes were the establishment of Islamic tertiary institutions (such as the International Islamic University) and think-tanks, the introduction of Islamic banking, insurance and securities, reforms of Islamic administration and laws and constitutional amendments to give more powers to Islamic legal authorities.

To cap it all, near the end of his political tenure, he declared this country as being already an Islamic state.

Whilst this Islamisation drive might have been based on political calculations to demonstrate who was truly the legitimate vanguard of the faith in the face of pressures from rival PAS, it also provided legitimacy to religious officers to assert social control over Malay/Muslim constituency.

The religious enforcement officers that rounded up 100 Muslim youths were appointed under the state Syariah law and were implementing the legal and wide discretionary powers vested in them to enforce Islamic 'decency and morality laws' on Muslims.

These include gambling, drinking, entertaining (singing) in an establishment where alcohol is served, participating in beauty pageants, cross-dressing, failing to attend Friday prayers or to fast during Ramadan and the committing of 'khalwat'.

If the behaviour of the religious officers were allegedly abusive, it was probably reflective of their mindset and their contempt for the behaviour of those whom they arrested.

Civil society and advocates of human rights may view the activities of this 'moral police' repugnant and contrary to the principle of separation of criminal law from morality as entrenched in secular constitutional systems.

They forget however that in Syariah, there is no separation of law from morality because Islamic laws also enforce morality.

What happens if a conflict is precipitated, say, by an infringement of human rights following too vigorous an enforcement of morality under Islamic laws?

First of all, enforcers and jurists of Islamic laws will perceive that there is no conflict because the enforcement of Islamic morality is not an infringement on human rights.

Secondly, although Article 75 of the Constitution stipulates that if any state law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law shall prevail.

However, in 1988, the Mahathir administration, in a move to vest more autonomy in the State Syariah Courts, promulgated a constitutional amendment [Article 121(1A)] to provide that the High Court shall have no jurisdiction in respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah Courts.

This jurisdictional distinction effectively removes the issue of conflict and inconsistency in the hypothetical example given above. And since 1988, civil courts, administering civil law, have veered away from making any judicial pronouncements that undermine the applicability of Syariah law.

Even in gray areas where a non-Muslim is involved, as in the case of Shamala Sathiyaseelan v Dr Jeyaganesh C Mogarajah. In that case, the non-Muslim (Shamala) could not seek redress from the civil courts against the encroachments of Islamic law onto her children.

How much less would be the case of Muslims directly affected by Islamic law?

Justina asked: 'Will the likes of Kalimullah Hassan ( News Straits Times group editor-in-chief), Zainuddin Maidin (information minister), Hishammuddin Hussein Onn (education minister), Khairy Jamalludin (Umno Youth deputy chief) and Anwar Ibrahim come out with forthright criticisms and comments" (on the behaviour of the Jawi officers).

This is a curious question at best in light of existing realities.

Does the writer seriously expect these implied 'voices of moderation' to commit political suicide by declaring that there are no Islamic morality laws currently in force and that the Jawi officers were not acting within their legal powers to enforce Islamic morality?

Does the writer expect them, in the name of the 'reformist agenda' of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to roll back over 20 years of Islamic institutionalisation by Mahathir?

The writer also says that Mahathir '... would not have hesitated to make a stand on something like this'. If so, we have yet to hear from him. If he does, he might - for the reasons stated above - also be shooting himself in the foot.

In the final analysis, the question of whether the country is fast becoming a police state (in the context discussed) is one exclusively for Muslims to ask and answer.

If the state of affairs has to be changed for the good of the country, Muslim voices have to be heard in that regard.

While non-Muslims may argue about human rights, the separation of law from morality, moral police snooping around and how the country is degenerating to George Orwell's Animal Farm, they must surely realise that the values implicated in their discourses are irrelevant to and out of the context with the Islamic angle.

All may say they have a stake in the country and being thereby affected by this state of affairs, all may feel that they are entitled to their piece.

Realistically however, it is the Muslim Malaysian who has the greater say and pivotal role on this issue as it concerns an issue of their faith and directly affects them more. Indeed, it is questionable whether non-Muslims have even the right to comment in the first place.