Letters to Malaysiakini, on Kartika Sari Dewi's sentencing to six strokes of the rotan seems to have transgressed into a call for the abolishment of Syariah law from both non-Muslims and the so called 'moderate' Muslim.

Several writers have put forward ideas that are misleading on Islam and Syariah law, and requires clarification.

First, Syariah law is a fundamental part of a Muslim's aqidah (faith). Syariah law is relevant at all times.

Thus, there is no truth in the arguments that the law is not suitable for the 21st century and is deemed as backward, which are made based on mere assumptions.

In truth, Syariah law has not been given a chance to prove itself in this modern age as it is viewed with much suspicion and prejudice.

Take the present scenario, despite both the judge and the offender herself agreeing to give the law a chance, too many people are coming up with endless theories.

Syariah law for Muslims has always been a taboo topic for non-Muslims, no thanks to some Muslims who deemed themselves 'moderate' and give inappropriate accounts of Islam.

The most moderate Muslim would be the Prophet Muhammad SAW himself, who was the messenger who delivered Syariah Law through the Quran and Hadith.

Apart from the two, sources are also extended to Ijma (consensus of opinion of scholars), Qiyas (laws derived through analogical deduction), Istihsan (the juristic preference from different interpretations) and Masalaha (moral consideration) as long as these four do not contradict the Quran and Hadith.

Anyone who is sincere in delving into the implementation aspect of Syariah is welcome to do so, but let's do it through these proper channels.

They have been debated by many scholars through many disciplines of study systematically. To simply claim that Syariah law infantilises Muslims, and will only shame people, is baseless.

What is more difficult to fathom for some is that Muslims believe that punishment received on earth will nullify the sins in the hereafter, the reason why Kartika and her family insisted on the punishment.

That consuming alcohol is forbidden is clear in the Quran, while the punishment for consuming it, has been laid out in Hadith and the other sources.

It is therefore a detrimental error to try to refute Syariah law on alcohol, based on Rubaiyat Omar Khayyam. First, the Rubaiyat is a book of poems and does not qualify as one of the sources of Syariah law, especially if it contradicts with the legitimate sources.

Islamic scholars offered a different side of Omar Khayyam and his works. Not only was he depicted as a devout Muslim, he was regarded as the sufi poet who used wine as a metaphor for the intoxicating love of God.

Drunkeness was seen as the state of the devotee, totally inebriated with the Divine, indifferent to his own worldly self.

It is also believed that similarly, imagery of the lover and the beloved, sensuality, and effacement within a relationship, is a reference to the believer and God, an area bordering on Sufism, which many of us are not familiar with.

More recently, Linda Sue Grimes from the Ball State University stated that Paramahansa Yogananda, through his spiritual interpretation of Omar Khayyam's great work, shows how the Sufi mystic was intoxicated with the love of God, not literal wine, as he put down his devotional songs to the Divine.

Grimes concluded that the fame of The Rubaiyat rests primarily on misunderstanding. Instead of being the wild ravings of an atheistic wine bibber as is often believed of Omar Khayyam, The Rubaiyat (meaning ‘quatrains') is the work of a Sufi mystic, and ‘wine' is a metaphor for divine love."

The above reasons are enough to disprove the myth that alcoholism and homosexuality are permissible in Islam. We have been tolerating other cultures and religions. Syariah law for Muslims makes no difference. If it is allowed to take its natural course, we will probably see a change in the trend of crime rates.

Another issue arose is the selective prosecution of layman in drinking beer. Aren't we having the same problem in civil law? How many murderers have been acquitted on a technical glitche? Or is due to the interference of unseen hands?

The impression that Islam does not care about bigger crimes such as bribery and rape is due to the fact that these two offences are not under the jurisdiction of Syariah law in any state in Malaysia, unlike marriages, adultery and drinking liquor.

Muslims committing these offences are instead placed under the civil law, out of the reach of the Syariah prosecution team or Syariah judge. Trust me, like all of you, I would love to see those bribers, who are equated with thieves in Islam, get their hands amputated for good.