It is with great interest that I read the flurry of responses to my letter entitled Have zero tolerance for apostasy .

Most of the respondents accuse me of being 'hypocritical', 'arrogant' and other accusations which are clearly a classical case of 'argumentum ad hominem'. Some even went to the extent of documenting a clash of 'liberal vs radical Islam' which is not the issue I addressed in my letter.

I am even more shocked that a learned scholar such as Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad in his letter could hold such a 'liberalised' form of Islam which is tantamount to mocking the Prophet's (P) declared initiative: 'Man badhla ha deenahu faqthuluhu' (Whoever changes his religion, kill him).

Hence, I stand firm in my conviction that 'liberal Islam' is a concoction of Western liberalism and cannot be defined as Islam.

Kindly allow me to quote Dr M Hamidullah who in his book Introduction to Islam writes the following::

'The Islamic law expressly recognises for non-Muslims the liberty to preserve their beliefs; and if it forbids categorically all recourse to compulsion for converting others to Islam, it maintains a rigorous discipline among its own adherents.

'The basis of the Islamic 'nationality' is religious and not ethnic, linguistic or regional. Hence, apostasy has naturally been considered political treason. It is true that this crime is punished by penalties, but the necessity scarcely arose as history has proved.'

From the above, it is clear that the Qur'anic line 'La ikraha fi d-din ('There is no compulsion in religion' -Sura' 2:256) is generally understood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith, and not with regard to its own (former) adherents, i.e. apostates and the regulation of apostasy.

Let us examine the 'ayaat': 'La ikhra ha fideen' (There is no compulsion in religion). Now, what do we mean by 'compulsion'? If a Muslim were to eat pork, commit adultery and murder people, does this mean that it would be 'compulsion' if Islamic laws were imposed upon this person?

Is it 'compulsion' then to prevent Muslims from committing adultery or eating pork? The only thing that is 'contentious' here is how the 'liberal Islam' folk have interpreted to suit their own whim and fancies.

On the claim that some apostates were 'not open to choices because they were not exposed to other religions', I for one can clearly say that this is nonsense. I myself have been brought up in a semi-liberal Muslim environment, was exposed to the Christian Bible about 10 years back, and yet I still remain a staunch Muslim and I am proud to call myself one.

It is certainly no excuse for an apostate to not have learnt Islam properly and to rely solely on what they have been spoon-fed at school or by their parents.

I must also address fears that I am espousing a 'Taliban', 'Sudan' or 'Saudi Arabian-style' ideology. Although I do hold that the Taliban did - in spite of their ultra-orthodox interpretations - attempt to practise Islam, I do not hold the Taliban to be Islamic.

Neither do I, in any shape or form, condone the style of Islam as practiced in Saudi Arabia or Sudan. As far as where I stand, I am simply a Muslim upholding the creed of the Ahl Sunnah Wal Jamaah and I will continue to struggle against all forms of distortion with regard to Islam whether it is by the 'liberal Muslims', apostates or others.

Amusing it is for some to tell me to '... return to the 7th century' for I am currently in my second-year of completing my degree in Computing and Information Technology (specialising in software engineering) and hence will always remain in this present age and time determined as ever to see Muslims return to proper Islamic values and practices.

As of late, there are a group of so-called Muslims, sympathetic to the West, who attempt to synthesise Western ideas and philosophy with Islam and then pass it off as how Islam should be practiced.

In addition to this, they also espouse other ideologies of various heterodox sects which existed during Islam's Golden Age, such as the Jabbariyyah, Qadariyyah and several others which are too long to list here.

I find that these people are making a mockery of what Islam is and are putting forth their erroneous interpretations and rulings which are in total contrast to mainstream orthodox Islam.

One fine example would be the issue of apostasy where they say that the religion of Muslims should be a 'free-for-all' affair. However, we can read in Kitab al-Umm how Imam Ash-Shafi'i (R) discussed the issue of apostasy in three long chapters, defining apostasy, the circumstances leading to apostasy and, most importantly, its punishment and how it is to be executed.

Another example would be the issue of non-Muslims marrying Muslims. One can read the Qur'an as well as the corresponding chapters from al-Bukhari and Muslim on this issue to confirm that non-Muslim men are forbidden from marrying Muslim women unless if they convert to Islam.

Instead, these 'liberal Islam' exponents come up with their own various reasoning and interpretations for this issue which they either outsource from the Western feminist movement or from God-knows-where!

These are two examples that I have isolated. There are several more but I think my point is clear on how the members of the heterodox 'liberal Islam' movement think.

It is a shame that the malaise of 'liberal Islam' is infecting the best minds in the ummah. This is a malaise we should blame on the Barisan Nasional government for its overemphasis on Fard `al-Kifayah instead of balancing it with Fard 'al-Ayn.

The verse (Qur'an, 2:256) I cited in my letter has been misused by liberal Islam adherents and apostates alike. This verse only refers to the freedom given to non-Muslims to practice their respective faiths or religious beliefs.

In short, a Buddhist is given the freedom to practice his/her religion, likewise a Christian, and so forth. A Muslim must never compel an adherent of another faith to convert to Islam as it is against the spirit of Qur'an 2:256.

Now the issue we are discussing here is the case of apostates and apostasy. The issue is not as 'contentious' as some wish to make it out to be, as the majority of scholars have agreed that apostasy is a capital crime and is considered treason against Islam and the ummah.

No amount of quoting from man-made laws such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which, by the way, Malaysia is not a signatory of) will change this obvious fact.

In the end, I would like to quote from Article XIII of the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights which states:

'XIII: Right to freedom of religion.

'Every person has the right to freedom of conscience and worship in accordance with his religious beliefs.'

But, I must add, not the freedom to apostatise from Islam. And only God knows best.