For a long time, the debate on whether Malaysia is an Islamic state or a secular state has been raging on with no end in sight. There have been definition after definition by both lay and scholarly Muslims about what an Islamic state entails and these have been rebutted by the non-Muslims using the Federal Constitution as their basis.

My point is this in simple terms. In 1999, when the general election was held, the MCA, Gerakan and the PPP took the opportunity to blemish the DAP for working with PAS which has its eyes set on forming an Islamic state should it come to power. Spooked by this notion, the non-Muslims electorates, especially the Chinese, dumped the DAP for the MCA or Gerakan (and some, for the PPP).

Common sense, therefore, tells us that had this country been formed to be an Islamic state, wouldn't the non-Malays have dumped the Alliance in 1957 and voted for the Labour Party instead? Our former prime minster Dr Mahathir Mohamed proclaimed Malaysia as an Islamic state in September 2001. Shouldn't have this proclamation been done on Aug 31, 1957?

If Malaysia is an Islamic state, what about Sabah? When they agreed to become part of the federation, it was stated in the 20-point Agreement that Islam was not to be a state religion:

Point 1: Religion - 'While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia, there should be no state religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo.'

If they are secular, then Malaysia cannot be an Islamic state because you cannot have some states which are and some which are not. An Islamic state comprises of all states that constitute a nation.