The letter Islamic discourse: SIS need not be apologetic by Dr Syed Alwi Ahamd refers.

The Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) cannot not help but conclude that Dr Syed Alwi is confused over Islam as a social identity by virtue of accident of birth versus that of Islam as a faith based on sound knowledge which requires its believers to submit, with a free conscience to certain theological doctrines, rituals of worship and a moral code, private and public.

Interpretation of Islam that concerns theological doctrines, rituals of worship, morality and the law has to be within the parameters of a consensus that has been built over 1,400 years of scholarship grounded in the two sources of Islamic knowledge - divine revelation (Quran) and prophetic guidance (Sunnah).

It is inconceivable that the body of Muslim scholars who are knowledgeable, sincere and pious would connive to hatch anything remote from the inspirations of the Quran and the Sunnah. On the contrary they would only consolidate for the sake of goodness and benevolence.

The great jurist Ash-Shafii whose school of thought on Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is embraced by the majority of Malaysian Muslims said, 'The rule of Allah (shariah) based on Quran and Sunnah never escaped the mass of the people of knowledge (ulama) at anytime, as ignorance of it is inconceivable'.

Islamic discourse demands respect for specialisation of knowledge. Of course, the layperson has the right, and is even welcome to participate in general discourse such as the role of Islam in development policies, social justice, women's issues, religious affairs and political pluralism. But the finer points of Islamic theology and jurisprudence demand specialisation and scholarship.

Whether such specialisation is acquired in the Middle East or the West, or the expert - a male or female - has never been the issue. The true and genuine scholar gains the respect of the community.

Malaysia is much admired for its religious harmony. Let us not ignore the Constitution and the compromises struck by our founding fathers at its writing. While Malaysians are free to practice any religion they may profess, the Constitution is explicit about the place of Islam as the religion of the federation and the role of the Malay Rulers as the heads and guardians of Islam.

It is from these constitutional provisions that the offices and authority of the 'mufti', the state religious departments, the Shariah courts and the various institutions tasked with the administration of Islamic affairs derive their legitimacy.

Tunku Abdul Rahman et al made concessions to religious pluralism by accepting the limited jurisdiction of the Shariah, even if it is only applicable to Muslims. Hudud is only a small yet immutable part of the Shariah, and the Constitution does not empower the Shariah courts to apply it. We acknowledge that it is a highly controversial subject given our social context.

For the overwhelming majority of mainstream Muslims, our priorities are the more practical and pressing issues related to Islam such as education, social harmony, justice, good governance, transparency and a decent public life. Syed Alwi's denigration of hudud is really quite irrelevant and the religious ramifications of his stance is for another deliberation.

The religious practice of mainstream Muslims is compatible with core democratic values such as representational politics, freedom of conscience and expression, preservation of the common good and accountability. We are equally concerned over serious violations of fundamental liberties such as detentions without trial, arbitrary arrests and torture as these are inimical to the concept of justice in Islam.

But this is never to be confused with post-modernism's values derived from absolute relativism, 'moral libertinism' and the excesses of materialistic consumption and hedonistic entertainment.

The fact that the two Malay Muslim parties have Islam prominently on their political agenda indicates the general sentiment of Muslims in this country with regards to the role of Islam in the public domain. If this role of Islam - which finds its way in government policies - is the outcome of a legitimate democratic process, would Syed Alwi acquiesce to it?

Having witnessed the follies of ideological secularism of past decades, today's discourse of democracy and secularism is much more open to genuine religious and political pluralism. The notion of complete separation of religion from the state (specifically Islam) is a farcical democracy at best.

The writer is founding member of Muslim Professionals Forum.