I would like to discuss several of the points raised in the letter Appreciate Syariah before condemning .

Firstly, let us be clear that the Federal Constitution does make specific provisions for Shariah law but limits its influence to the areas of Islamic personal law which amounts to family and inheritance law (Schedule 9, 4.(e)(ii)).

Next, I refute the claim that it was misleading of me to say that 'ijtihad' (interpretation) has been virtually forbidden for the last five centuries. If this is not the case, why has there not been any change in the trend of practising 'taqleed' (blind adherence) to the four Sunni 'madhab' (schools of thought)?

I challenge the writer to provide us with modern examples of 'ijtihad' that contradict the established 'madhab' but have gained the consensus of the wider 'ummah' (Islamic community). To insist on 'ijtihad' is to insist on making Shariah relevant once more.

Finally, while the writer chose to take a more holistic approach to the subject of Shariah, the focus of controversy has been the criminal law aspect of Shariah as the enforcement (or possible enforcement) of these laws encroach upon the area of morality and are in conflict with rights enshrined within the Federal Constitution.

It is this aspect of Shariah and the human constructions surrounding Shariah that need to be critically analysed. To understand why, it is necessary to understand the various types of Shariah and its sources.

The four commonly accepted sources of Shariah are: the Quran, Hadith, Qiyas (analogical reasoning) and Ijma (consensus).

The Quran is accepted by Muslims as the word of God and is thus immutable. The remaining three sources used in the formulation of Shariah are clearly non-divine. The Hadith are stories of the life of the Prophet that were assembled 200 years after the Prophet's death.

Qiyas is the application of logical reasoning to legal precedents in order to arrive at conclusions for new situations and problems (e.g. deeming narcotics as 'haram'). Ijma is the consensus of the 'ummah' that is defined by the 'ulema' (clerics) who supposedly represent the interests of the 'ummah'.

Shariah law itself can be divided into three categories: Hudud, Qisas and Ta'zir. Hudud offences

are described in the Quran although not all of them have a punishment described in the Quran. As they are contained within the Quran, Hudud offences are understood as unchanging.

If any part of Shariah can be claim to be divine, it is Hudud law. However I will first discuss a different perspective on the punishments for Hudud offences below. The other components of Shariah are Qisas (retaliation by a victim or their family for murder/injury) which may involve 'diya' (money to be paid to a victim/victim's family) and Ta'zir which is applicable to what are usually considered minor crimes for which punishment is left to the Qadi's (Shariah judge) discretion.

Punishments for Qisas and Ta'zir offences are based on a combination of Quranic verses and non-divine sources and the understanding of these offences and their punishments thus differ from country to country.

Among the offences often classified as being Hudud are apostasy and alcohol consumption. Interestingly however, some Shariah systems only regard these offences as Ta'zir, for which the presiding Qadi can decide on a suitable punishment. Presumably, there is a difference of opinion as to whether a specific punishment for these offences is prescribed by the Quran?

According to some, Hudud is open to some interpretation. In 1990, Muhammad Shahrour, published a book entitled Al'Kitab W'al Quran ( The Book and the Quran ) in which he puts forth the idea that in the Quran, God prescribes maximum and minimum punishments for various offences.

Following this line of thinking, the maximum punishment for a thief may be the chopping off of his hand but lesser punishments are equally possible for this offence. Through this understanding, Hudud is subject to some degree of interpretation.

Given the above facts and viewpoints, Shariah is clearly a result of human understanding and interpretation not only from the Quran but also of non-divine sources including the Hadith, Qiyas and Ijma. With this in mind, there is no reason why certain aspects of Shariah should not be open to criticism and if need be, to change.

Despite what some may believe, what is collectively known as Shariah was not simply bestowed by God a la the Ten Commandments but rather a code inspired by centuries of interpreting a combination of God's teachings and non-divine sources.

This is an extremely important distinction and to claim otherwise can only be considered misleading.

Allow me to conclude with several questions of my own:

Who appoints the 'ulema'? How do the 'ulema' decide what is acceptable by the community they claim to represent? Given this tremendous responsibility and power, is the 'ulema' at all answerable to those they represent and if so, how is this done in practice?

The Qadi, too, are given great authority to interpret Shariah and define punishments for certain crimes. Who appoints the Qadi and in what way are they answerable to those they preside over, if at all?

'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' Who watches the watchmen?