I do appreciate Fathima Idris addressing my perceptions on morality and law. Particularly because she did not dismiss them as 'berfikir secara barat' or thinking the Western way. Nor did she deflect them to the 'ulama' for his or their comprehensive and authoritative judgments. She has instead addressed them as they should, by conceptual and intellectual discourse.

Particularly, Fathima has done so not by doubting and discarding my analysis and description of morality and law, not directly anyway, but within context of the Islamic worldview and inevitably from the angles of religion (which I had anticipated in my article ). In the event she might have missed the features of morality and law and what makes them different one from the other, we run the risk of debating apples not with other apples but with durians in which case this discourse will find no common ground for agreement.

I am obliged to reiterate the meaning and features of morality with that of law once more. It is the sense of what is a good deed of a person, a deed acted upon by the person entirely voluntarily. This act is furthermore done without expectation of reward if performed or punishment if not performed. What is considered a good deed changes from one society to another and at one time to another.

Law in turn is sense of what is good for society, codified and created by legislation. Once legislated, all members of society must observe the law. Doing it or adhering to it is mandatory. So a person is liable for penalty and punishment if the law is broken. The law changes from one society to another and at one time or another. I now take liberty to list Fathima's understanding of morality which is also Islamic law, or religion:

i) It is the sense of what is good for the individual and society.

ii) Its origin and authority are the primary Words of God (ie, the Quran) and the words and deeds of Prophet Muhammad (the Hadith).

iii) The meaning of 'good' and 'bad' are prescribed by God and the Hadith.

iv) Likewise the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong' are prescribed by God and the Hadith.

v) The meanings of good and bad, right and wrong are fixed, and are constant right from the time of Adam all the way to the present day and on till the end of time, viz., on Judgment Day.

vi) Reward is given ('pahala' in Malay) if the good is performed and observed.

vii) Punishment ('dosa') is accorded if the bad is performed.

Some of the items under good morality (the 'do good' part) above are mandatory as in the 'must do' category and I list them below. Loyal and subservient adherents will earn a 'pahala' or positive merit points whenever they perform or observe them, and incur a 'dosa' whenever they miss any of them. They are:

i) To bear witness to the Oneness of God and that Muhammad is His final messenger in a meaningful committed way.

ii) To observe the daily prayers regularly.

iii) To pay religious tax or zakat.

iv) To fast during the month of Ramadan.

v) To make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once on a person's lifetime.

Now, you do not have to be a genius to realise that these elements of Islamic good morality are identical in concept with the principles and tenets of the religion of Islam. This is the reason why I have stated above that Fathima equates morality with religious law. The following are the 'bad morality' elements if Islam They comprise the 'must avoid at all costs' ones, viz., adherents will have to avoid them at all times, failure of which they will incur a 'dosa'. Both 'pahala' and 'dosa' will be the factors that will determine a person going to Heaven or Hell in the Hereafter. They are:

i) All kinds of intoxicants, especially wines, spirits, and drugs.

ii) The meat and products of swine (e.g. pork, bacon, ham).

iii) All forms of gambling and 'vain' sports.

iv) All sexual relations out of wedlock and all manner of walking, talking, looking and dressing, in public that may instigate temptation, arouse desire, stir suspicion, or indicate immodesty and indecency.

The two lovers Ooi Kean Thong and Siow Ai Wei obviously fell into item (iv) above. They could be charged with indecent behaviour under this provision. All women are also at risk for their manner of walking, talking, looking and dressing of going on with daily life and may be subjected to accusations and charges for indecency. (Why only women? This is a question which can trigger another round of debate.)

I presume Fathima would not find too much fault with the lists and analysis above, nor with my impression of what they can mean and stand for. I hope not anyway. I do welcome her reactions.

But the thing that has always been intriguing is that Fathima would always insist for the Islamic view be the right and only worldview that matters; that the Islamic version of good morality is the only morality that matters, and the Islamic bad morality is the only bad things that need to be avoided. She might not say this, but other like her have constantly stated that other worldviews, other forms of good or bad morality are of human construct and suppressive and oppressive, fickle and corrupt.

Perhaps this sense of exclusiveness should be toned down somewhat. Another thing that is of concern is that Fathima would insist for the whole world starting from Malaysia to subscribe to this contention on the premise that she is right and everyone else is wrong. More, that she wishes for all non-Muslims to subscribe and adhere to them as well. She wished for her Muslim worldview to be accepted as the universal worldview. The reality of the matter is that the universal worldview is the more akin to the declaration of human rights, and not Islam.

I'd end my rebuttal to Fathima's critique by raising the question of the eternal validity of God's morality and law: that it goes for all times to all peoples in the past present and future. I would therefore seek Fathima's wisdom in three cases I shall mention forthwith, all taken from the primary sources of Islamic authority, namely the Quran and Hadith. The first comes from Surah 8.41, and I quote 'And know that out of all the booty that ye may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah and the Messenger'.

The second is from Surah 26.224 on the question of poets: 'And the poets, it is those straying in Evil who follow them'. The third is Hadith 2116 Sunan Abu Dawud recording that Prophet Muhammad married Aishah when she was six, and consummating this marriage when she was nine. Based on these cases, I can raise any number of questions but to limit them to three, one for each case:

i) That whenever I go to war, (and win it) I am to take all of the spoils of the war, viz., all of the possessions and belongings of the party I went to war against. This booty of war I then have to distribute 20 percent to God and Muhammad. How does this religious tenet apply to modern warfare?

ii) As God hates poets, and so must I stay away from them?

iii) Would it be mandatory for a father with a six-year-old daughter to marry her off in the event a suitor asks for her?

I would appreciate it if Fathima could kindly explain where and how these precedent cases of 'right' and 'wrong' and 'good' and 'bad,' and having 'meanings that do not change from case to case or from time to time retain their validity for our time and condition' can be applied in our modern civilisation.