I refer to the letter Let the learned interpret Islamic law by Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib. I have been chastised by him for apparently equating tribal practice with the Islamic practice of referring to the 'ulama' or scholars.

Apparently, too, my view of the adherence to scholars in Islam 'is a form of giving total loyalty to leaders in the tribal context.' Surely there exists some confusion here for I truly do not remember having said any such thing. I do not remember equating the tribal laws, Islamic laws, and civil laws, with the ulama.

I acknowledge having propounded the arguments that tribal and Islamic laws share a common concept and template. Let me recall what they are to avoid a possible second round of misunderstanding at the risk of boring interested readers.

Islamic and tribal laws and edicts are issued:

1. By a central command (ie, God Almighty) and disseminated by Prophet Mohammad for Islam, and the emir for tribal laws.

I then contended that the concept and template for civil law is different. Civil laws are:

1. Created not by a central authority (like God) but by a body representing the collective interest of the individual. I referred to this as a House of Parliament or its equivalent where laws are formulated and legislated.

I might add (4) that civil law protects an individual from another individual and an individual from the central authority.

I'd be delighted if Abdul Rahman can re-examine these contentions and agree or disagree with me. He is free of course to correct me if, to him, these contentions are no more than a mere fairy tales. But let's maintain rationality, let's discuss apples with apples.