I refer to the letter Apostasy - what's good for the goose also good for the gander?

I find it strange that Singaporean view Malaysians as 'Taliban-ising' ourselves. This is because the apostasy law has existed long before the Taliban. I know Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad doesn't speak for all Singaporeans but he needs to get his timeline correct. If what Dr Syed Alwi claims about the 'Singaporean perception' is correct, then, Singaporeans need to get their timeline correct too.

Syed Alwi also wrote at length for the reinterpretation of Islam. But he failed to provide any justification for it and keeps repeating the same '10th century' excuse. He quotes the Crusades example of Darul Harb vs Darul Islam. The trouble is that the Crusades happened at least 200 years after the apostasy law was enacted - it has no connection.

I'd like to remind Syed Alwi that just because others look different unto you, it does not make you wrong, For instance, the Americans clearly support capital punishment. They are criticised by the Europeans for it. However, in the end, scientific proof has shown that capital punishment is effective in curbing violent crime much to the embarrassment and dismay of the Europeans.

As for hypocrisy, I guarantee Syed Alwi that abolishing laws of apostasy will not deter hypocrisy nor will it curb them. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, will continue to flourish despite a repeal.

In addition, abolishing laws on apostasy will only render Islam a mere belief-system. It contradicts the true nature of Islam, which is a complete way of live encompassing every aspect of a human's social and individual domain.

I am still waiting for one definite justification from all as to why Islam needs to change its policy on apostasy? Just one. The mere utterance of a need 'to adhere to modern time's calls and trends' is not an adequate justification seeing that even modern time's prevalent system is not without its imperfections.

That's why one sees major differences when adopting the secular agenda even among secular countries. For instance, capital punishment is strongly sanctioned by America while the European secular states oppose it. In the issue of abortion, the fact remains that secularists have to rely on the US Supreme Court ruling (Roe vs Wade) as no state legislative body would pass a bill to support abortion because of its unpopularity. The Europeans, on the other hand, largely allow abortion. And many other things.

As a result, I am now hard pressed to find a single viable justification for Islam to change itself to fit the modern world's demands.

Whatever the challenges of the modern world, it is adequately handled by Islam's 'ijtihad process. And this is not the first time Islam has to adapt itself to 'current changes'. Islam is a total way of life. The apostasy law is not about 'group dynamics' or a herd mentality. It's about maintaining the sanctity of Islam as a comprehensive system of life.

To allow one to jump in and out of Islam as he or she pleases would entail severe legal and systemic complications within the framework of a comprehensive system of life.

There is no need to repeal the apostasy law as Islam is very clear on the issue of coercing others into adopting Islam. Just as Islam is tough on apostasy, so too is Islam tough on coercion (into Islam). Islamic governments are strictly prohibited in the coercion of others so much so that they are forced to adopt equality in their governmental policies.

This is to avoid an economic and social condition whereby adopting Islam would serve as a convenient tool towards government aid and assistance. Such aid is viewed by Islam as a form of coercion.

It's the secular liberalists who now have to answer for their perceived 'coercion of Islam' and for it to change itself into a secular mould under the pretext of 'adapting to modern times'.