I refer to the recent comments by Dr Khaled Abou El Fadl and Dr Musa Mohd Nordin directed at Sisters In Islam. While I support the need for more female Muslim scholars trained in Islamic jurisprudence, I still believe that a reform of Islamic jurisprudence is firstly absolutely necessary.

How can a modern, cosmopolitan and multi-religious society condone the stoning to death of married adulterers? The punishment does not fit the crime. Our value system cannot accept such acts.

How can Malaysian society accept the Hudud penal code? How can we deny the right to a free choice in religion to those Muslims who want to leave the religion? There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Islamic jurisprudence as we know it today is based on the ijtihad of medieval Middle Eastern scholars.

But today, we in Malaysia acknowledge the need for human rights, democracy and rule of law. We certainly do not subscribe to 10th century Middle Eastern values. And therefore, we must accept a diversity of interpretations.

I disagree with our two learned gentlemen that lay people cannot comment on Islamic jurisprudence. The point is that we cannot allow Islamic discourse to be monopolised by only Middle Eastern trained scholars.

Islam affects everyone of us in a very direct and personal manner. Medicine is a science whereas Islam is a belief system predicated on faith. The comparison between the two of them is naive. Does one have to be 'Arab-ised' first before one can understand Islamic syariah? I do not think so.

I believe that the Islam practiced in Malaysia is far more diluted than that of the Middle East. And rightly so in view of Malaysian socio-political and economic factors. Even if we have 1,000 female Muslim scholars, how does that address our revulsion towards some of the Hudud punishments?

We simply cannot stone adulterers to death no matter what the facts are. It is not in our value system. SIS need not be apologetic towards Arab Muslim scholars who have zero understanding of contemporary Asean societies.

We in Asean must find our own path and we cannot depend on the ideas of Middle Eastern trained scholars. The reform of Islamic jurisprudence is vital given our Asean socio-political conditions.

No thanks to those who haven't the faintest idea of what our society is like. I say keep up the good work SIS!

And in reply to Freedom Fighter , I would like to ask where in the constitution does it say that Malays cannot convert to another religion besides Islam? Where does it say so?

Moreover, I seriously wonder whether matters pertaining to faith and religion can be legislated at all. Do we want nominal, non-practicing Muslims who have no heart and interest whatsoever in Islam but are nevertheless Muslims only because they are forced to remain Muslim by law?

Isn't hypocrisy a more terrible thing than a few cases of apostasy? And that's the easy part. I have asked before - what about the case of the Muslim scientist ?

No amount of legislation can answer these questions. And that's because the issue never was about legislating faith for the Malays. Rather, it's about the freedom of one's conscience in matters involving religion.

State sanctioned Islam is quite an insult to Islam itself. It is as though Islam cannot be upheld without legislation and state intervention. If that is the case, then one wonders about the future of Islam in Malaysia.