I refer to Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad's Islam - there's no two ways about it .

As the title suggests, Dr Alwi narrow mindedness is clearly demonstrated. The type that is dead set on one view and nothing else is worth the thought - either re-interpret or nothing else. I am not to judge, but I assume that Dr Alwi is not aware of other ways to tackle modern issues besides the re-interpretation process.

Dr Alwi's claim to have studied Islam in detail is a statement that carries the burden of proof whilst at the same time is a very arrogant position to take. It is not the character of a person of knowledge to lay claim to have detail knowledge of the subject, especially Islamic tradition which is very wide and deep. I also believe that Dr Alwi is a master in Arabic language, which is essential in truly understanding the teaching of Islam.

Again who am I to judge, thus if Dr Alwi can actually furnish us his scholarship resume and who are the teachers or should I use the term 'scholars' he has studied under or given him the certificate to teach which is known within the Islamic knowledge tradition as Ijazah Al Tadris. Then we can rest assure we are listening to the thoughts and advice of an expert. Just as any doctor needs the authority and the licence to practice, so is the case with Dr Alwi for us to take his call to re-interpret Islam with any credibility.

In a modern world full of delusional complexity, we have to be assure that we have subject matter experts and not those who think they are subject matter experts. Reflecting on the advice of Imam Al Syafi'i whose school of thought are followed here in Malaysia - and if I am not mistaken Singapore as well - who said beware of a type of person who doesn't know and does not know that he does not know and thus thinks that he knows.

I sincerely hope this is not the case with Dr Alwi. Because we need Muslims like him who has studied Islam in detail and know very clearly the problem to enlighten our confused muftis and 'ulama' who probably have not study as detail as Dr Alwi the solution to modern-day Muslim.

I do not claim to have studied Islam in detail, far from it, nevertheless I do not recall anywhere, where I said the situation today is similar as the 12th century. Maybe Dr Alwi can point out for me. Dr Alwi seems to think there are many issues that arise in today's world that do not have any analogue in the 10th century. May be Dr Alwi can give us some examples.

I do believe that there are modern-day issues that do not exist in past centuries, but these few issues are dealt with through the process of Ijtihad, which is loosely translated as a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by interpretation of the legal sources, ie, the Quran and the Sunnah. If this is so, then there is no need to call for re-interpretation as this process existed since the time of the companion of the Prophet Muhammad peace and blessing be upon him.

I have come to realise that Dr Alwi uses a lot of his own thinking rather than honest research of the Quran and the Sunnah, this notion I derive from his argument in regards to modern technology. For instance, the question of whether we need to 'sertu' with soil (for the benefit of all readers, 'sertu' is the process of cleaning/washing a certain type of impurity with soil/earth) or using soap is sufficient. Reality bites us that there are some things in Islam that cannot be understood by our feeble human comprehension.

Such 'fiqh' (jurisprudence) matter like farting nullifies the 'wudhu' (ablution rites). Well, now that we realise in the present day that farting has nothing to do with the ablution parts (hands, face, arms, head, ear and feet), does that mean we re-interpret and only wash the area that farts? Similarly, in the case where we are suppose to just wipe on the top of the 'khuf' (leather socks) as a substitute of washing the feet. Now that we realise that we are more likely to dirty the bottom of the 'khuf' rather than the top, should we re-interpret that to modern understanding?

The article link provided by Alwi, Dr Muzammil Siddiqi's 'Interpreting Islamic Principles' is indeed an informative. Not only that it briefly explains the concept and guidelines of 'Ijtihad' but also touch upon other root causes of modern-day Muslim scholastic crisis such as education and political condition that are influencing the freedom of jurists in their 'ijtihad'.

However, I do not find it to 'urgently' call for re-interpretation of Islam. Therefore, I render the article irrelevant to support Alwi's claim. No doubt Dr Muzammil Siddiqi is learned and I have read many of his work, but that does not makes him infallible and the fact that he, Dr Muzammil Siddiqi comes to the same conclusion, or more appropriately, Alwi came to his conclusion does not support the case for re-interpretation of Islam.

I do not insist on just the 10th and 12th century's interpretation as accused by Alwi. But as you can find in the article by Dr Muzammil Siddiqi, he wrote, "Ijtihad worked very well in the past because jurists had good knowledge of the sources and developed a thorough and comprehensive methodology of interpretation. They were also well aware of their contemporary situations. Their educational system was not bifurcated between religious and secular studies. They also enjoyed some legislative authority, where the states implemented the laws they made. The state system was not as pervasive as today; they were often free to make their own decisions and judgments."

That is why the interpretation by the scholars of the past is much more credible than the scholars of our time. This does necessarily means that all the interpretations of past scholars are accepted. There are many interpretations of past scholars that was rejected at that time. Just because there are many contemporary scholars who does not agree with the Lina Joy case decision based on their interpretations does not mean that those interpretations are right. There are also many contemporary scholars who accepts homosexuality as being natural, does that mean they are right?

I am surprise that Alwi cannot find answers to issues of Muslim living as minorities and feel that this is a new phenomenon that need new interpretation. There have been Muslims living as minorities even in the time of the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him. The Muslims who went to Abyssinia was living as minority in a Christian land. Muslims have always been a minority in China ever since the time of the first generation. They did not re-interpret anything, because everything they need to know to live as Muslim minority was there for them to learn. So all Alwi need to do is learn how they live as minority then... no need for new interpretation.

I find it strange that Alwi finds Malaysian to be conservatives and 'Taliban-like'. I don't know what 'Taliban-like' supposed to mean. Is Taliban conservative or extremists, fundamentalists? I thought they were terrorists. All these terms are not definitive and I don't use such terms. But I don't think Malaysia are practicing Islam like the Taliban.

There is not one country in the world that celebrate the Hari Raya, Deepavali, Chinese New Year, Christmas and other celebrations like Malaysia. Not even a liberal country like Singapore has 'Kongsi Raya' (joint celebration). We have the best casino in Southeast Asia and not only for non-Muslims to enjoy, but even foreign Muslims like Dr Alwi are allowed to enjoy. Is this similar to Taliban strict Islamic practice? Far from it.

Dr Alwi's statement, "I say 'no' to Mahdar Tahir. I say that I have studied Islam in detail, enough to know that many of our problems today have no analogue in the 10th to 12th century." I am glad that you have studied your religion in detail. But to say that many of our problems today have no analogue in the 10th to 12th century sounds a little hard to believe. The fact that there are hundreds of books of jurisprudence and syariah written in 'Arabic' between 10th to 12th century and to think that you have not just read all of them but also understood the teaching and its elucidation is just a little hard to believe.

I do not know where Alwi got the idea that apostasy is equivalent to treason. As far as the little knowledge I have, if any at all, apostasy is 'Al riddah' in Arabic and treason is 'Al bugha'. Arabic being a very precise language, I am sure it does not carry the same meaning, unless we need to re-interpret Islam using English since that is the language of the modern science.

What does apostasy rule have anything to do the Crusade? Beats me, maybe Alwi can enlighten us, but with proof not just conjecture. If Dr Alwi believes there is no compulsion in religion even for Muslims and gives his children the freedom to believe and embrace any religion they wish, that is fine, but you can't force it upon many Muslims who does not share the same believe.

And only God knows best.