I respect the views of MZH in his letter Secularism: Tunku was mistaken .

It is obvious that the writer deplores the idea of secularism as he had clearly pointed it out as against the belief of Muslims at the end of his letter. His view is agreeable to the ones who hold conservative intellectual trends in scriptural hermeneutics (interpretations) of Islam. Historically, these disciplines of understandings were opinionated by Muslim jurists and scholars of the medieval period. These ideas have been repeated until today and over time have become so sacred, that they have been accepted as divine in origin.

The concept of 'exclusivism' has been adopted and any creative interpretation (unaligned with the set discipline) in view of change or reform would be marginalised and resisted. It is explicable that one with conservative interpretation of Islam (like MZH) would decry the propensity towards secularism in this modern world. Reason being, conservative religionists naturally associate secularism with atheism. These rigid interpretations of both Islam and secularism are conceived as standing in opposition towards each other with antagonistic contradictions.

I m sure MZH would agree to the fact that the Quran stresses the importance of knowledge and also promotes action and reasoning. Thus, an intellectual synthesis between reason and faith is absolutely necessary. Logically, faith has to be in present values and should not mean blind imitation of past traditions. Blind faith could lead to blind submission for religious ideologies that lead to extreme exploitative practices. Thus, it is very important that one employs ones rational faculty to safeguard against such possibility.

It is important to note that the way Islam was interpreted and understood by past (medieval period) Muslim scholars conformed to their own socio-cultural situation at that time. But human socio-culture is never static. Its state of affairs constantly evolves and changes through time. If the intellectual trend in interpretation of the religion is confined to conservative traditions of the Muslim scholars of the past, it may create rigid hurdles to the ever-changing, demanding and complex human socio-culture of today and of the future. Thus rationally, the conservative interpretation of the religion should not be binding on subsequent generations, as it may not conform to changed socio-cultural situations.

Secularism generally argues for reasons, rationales, knowledge and action that are independent of religious beliefs. There is a need to adapt for a more liberal interpretation of secularism. In essence, secularism argues for pure science. It shouldn't be interpreted too rigidly as to equate it with atheism as many conservative religionists do. Secularism should be taken in a political sense rather than a philosophical sense, in which it will then create social and political space for all religious communities.

The human socio-culture of today demands more liberal disposition, tolerance and promotion of pluralism. This, in fact, is in line with the message of the Quran, with the provision that the interpretation and understanding of the Quran is approached in a holistic (meaningful and realistic) manner. In which one can find that Islam upholds pluralism, freedom of faith and embraces diversity in its truest form. It does not clash with the concept of secularism in a political sense and would assemble well in the complex human socio-culture of the modern world. In other words, Islam itself is liberal in the form of non-atheistic secularism.

It can be argued that the concept of secularism originally developed within a historical context of Islam. Islam. in its early stage. sparked the ideas of religious tolerance, understanding and appreciation of pluralism and diversity in the human socio-culture 1400 years ago. These ideas ignited positive social order, ethical culture, intellectual discipline and spiritual concepts in their community. It brought forth the torch of wisdom and rays of light and transformed a once backward community to one of the world's superpowers. Undeniably, they progressed to an empire with an advanced knowledge of science in their time. They had produced great names in mathematics, medicine, astronomy, chemistry, physics and anatomy etc. whose breakthrough ideas contributed immensely to the advancement of human civilisation and whose names are still admired until this day.

Tthese very same ideas paved the way for that that had brought Europe out of the Dark Ages. It would be a just call for conservative religionists to break ranks and promote diverse ideas and multi-disciplinary intellectual trends in the interpretation of the religion. And also de-monopolise knowledge in the sense of advocating a free flow of diverse ideas in understanding Islam. Decreeing others who interpret the religion in an unconventional manner 'deviationist' would reflect intolerance towards others of different viewpoints and hence tarnish the image and beauty of Islam itself.

In the letter by Abu Mubarak, No definite form for Islamic state , he'd made an allegorical statement, 'We can always change the cook if the food tastes bad, but the food must remain halal'. I opine that there's no point of changing the cook if they are to follow the same old recipe. Let's try out different ingredients, flavours and spices to come up with a new fusion recipe that will not only taste delicious but is also halal for all humanity. Let the nation be for all and religion for God.