Another Chinese Malaysian's "Rule of God vs rule of fallible human proxies", (Oct 1) believes a corrupt government can be changed with the help of God without the need to resort to a theocracy which is not representative of the other half of the population.

I have to agree and disagree. I agree that a corrupt government can be replaced with the help of God without resorting to theocracy, but how do you replace a corrupt system?

An Islamic state is a theocracy in that it is ruled by the divine law, it is not a theocracy because the state itself is not Divine. Therefore, although, the Law of God is divine and infallible, the Islamic state is non-divine, rooted in the world, and thus is susceptible to failings like any other state. Thus, traditional scholars have recommended many checks and balances to be incorporated into an Islamic state, when there is one.

An Islamic state is inevitable, but what kind, is the question we have to ask. To say that there is only one kind of Islamic state is simply anti-history, as it has never existed except during the times of the Prophet.

However, an Islamic state is not imposed on anyone, no more than the 'English' state system is imposed on us now.

How tolerant an Islamic state is, is to be determined by its inhabitants. Perhaps we should discuss this rather than ranting over its possibility, because to ask a Muslim to abandon the notion of the Islamic state is like asking him/her to abandon part of his/her faith, and that is not likely to happen.