According to its proponents, Islam Hadhari is a rational interpretation of Islam that would help to make Malaysia a modern state. Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has also repeatedly said that Malaysia belongs to all ethnic and religious groups.

But in my opinion, 'Islam Hadhari' lacks intellectual depth and coherence. The continuing existence of 'bumiputera-ism' is a case in point. How does 'bumiputera-ism' fit into Islam Hadhari?

Specifically, are Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia who are not Muslims classified as bumiputera? What about Malays who have chosen to embrace other non-Islamic faiths?

As we all know from a simple knowledge of history, the Orang Asli have lived longer in Peninsular Malaysia and have been here even before the arrival of ethnic Malays from tribal areas surrounding Palembang and Sungai Musi in Sumatera.

If the fundamental criterion for being a bumiputera is religion, then there is no reason why Indian Muslims should not be classified as bumiputera. In fact, historically, it was the Indian Muslims or Islamised Indians who first brought Islam to the Sultanate of Malacca.

Indian Muslims can rightly be termed 'the forerunners of Southeast Asian Islam'.

Defenders of 'bumiputra-ism' may simply or arbitrarily assert that to be a bumiputera, one must be both a Malay and a Muslim. If that is the case, then why should Islamised Kadazans or Ibans be designated as bumiputera as Kadazans and Ibrans are not Malays.

What then is the objective and meaningful definition of a 'bumiputera'?

Moreover, to divide Muslims into bumiputera and non-bumiputera according to race is anti-Islamic because Islam condemns ethnic chauvinism and discrimination within the 'ummah' or the universal community of Muslims.

In any case, the whole word of 'bumiputera' is pre-Islamic Hindu/Sanskrit, not Muslim/Malay.

It is truly bizarre, isn't it?