If, as what Muslim Scholars Association of Malaysia (PUM) president Abdul Ghani Shamsudin stated, that Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad's declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic state had created a conducive environment for the implementation of the Islamic criminal law (hudud and qisas), what would then be the difference between Umno and PAS in terms of intention? I would think none.

I understand that from an Islamic legal perspective, there is no king but Allah, and no earthly ruler has sovereign authority to legislate syariah law because all laws belong to Him (as promulgated and interpreted by ulama). Fiqh in contrast are those laws promulgated by Islamic jurists and ulama in accordance with tenets of syariah to meet man's everchanging needs and situation as they unfold in their manifold forms.

Hudud (relating to offences against property, honour, dignity and thought and against faith) and qisas (relating to offences affecting life or soul or bodily injuries of men) are both branches of Islamic criminal law derived from syariah.

As criminal law is the ultimate of all laws in the sense that it metes out punishment and curtails liberty, the adoption of hudud and qisas will pave the way for the eventual Islamisation of all other laws of lesser consequences in terms of punishment within syariah and fiqh.

This implies that our 1957 Constitution and its provisions on constitutional monarchy, and sovereignty of Parliament of elected representatives to make laws will become absolutely irrelevant.

This being the case, on what basis do Umno and its leader Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad claim legitimacy? Popular vote based on electoral majority or Malay nationalism as ideology? These too are not relevant in the context of Islamisation of all laws that change the basis of the whole society and its institutions.

So why should the Prime Minister proclaim an Islamic state of a kind that eases the Islamisation of all laws in order to serve PAS' ultimate objective, and in the process, shoot himself in the foot by undermining the very 1957 constitution from which he and Umno derive all power and legitimacy to lead?

The very improbability of such an event or motive contradicts PUM and other Islamic associations' assertion above outlined.

To them, who are learned in this field, I would with respect postulate two other Islamic principles for consideration.

The first is that all religions including Islam uphold the principle of reciprocity. This requires a person to treat others as he or she would like to be treated by them.

Does PUM accord non-Muslim their individual right and collective rights to self determination including not to be subject to Islamic laws including criminal laws? Or are hudud and qisas applicable only to persons professing the Islamic faith? Otherwise, would PUM's members on principle of reciprocity like to be governed by a basic law structured on Christianity or Buddhism?

It is understandable that certain sections of Muslim community may aspire for greater Islamic identity structured on Islamic laws.

However "ummah" may not mean only Muslim community but also embodies a moral conception of how the Muslim community evolves and defines an identity in relation to other communities and the natural world. Ummah then becomes a social and interactive structure of engagement based on peace, harmony and mutual accommodation and understanding in relation to "the Other".

Is such a model of ummah in a society as pluralistic as Malaysia, compatible with PUM's support for promulgation of hudud and qisas? I am of the opinion not, and will stand corrected if shown otherwise by rational discourse.