Fidus Achates may have a valid point to make in his letter Syariah-centric, sceptics missing point, but perhaps he is looking at the woods from one side of the picture, there is always another side.

It may be a utopian dream that his Islamic state serves to establish "a society which places equity and justice above all". However, it does not take into account the views of those opposed to the idea of an Islamic state coming not from the fear of the laws itself, but from a total rejection of bringing religion into our governance and instead opting for the present Federal Constitution.

The arguments are not as simple as issues of amputation and guarantees of fair treatment of non-Muslims. These are, as Fidus says, the trees.

The key issue is that the concept of an Islamic state is, by its inherent nature, divisive in a nation built on multiculturalism. It puts power into a select group, and as history has shown no matter how wonderful the ideals, power corrupts.

We are as sceptical of the future of an Islamic state as we are about the implementation of syariah laws across the administration. To us, it's just another political tool.

There should be no reason why a "society which places equity and justice above all" cannot be achieved with our present model. This idea is not exclusive to Islamic states alone. Thus the argument that only an Islamic state can ensure a better future is seriously flawed.

Yes, we have to fight corruption and abuse of power. We just have a different opinion as to how this should be done. Can it be that we simply do not see any benefits from syariah and hudud over our present laws? Is there ever any guarantee that Islamic laws are immune to abuse, such as the present ones are? I wouldn't believe anyone who would said so.

If advocates of an Islamic state are so concerned about the destiny of our country, then they should selflessly drop their Islamic agenda and work with others on a common platform to fight for a better future.