In the midst of all the debate going about Islam and Muslims and their relationship with non-Muslims, a defence attorney's statement in the trial of Laskar Jihad militia leader Jafar Umar Thalib in Jakarta drove a chill through my veins. The defendant's attorneys argued that Ukolli's, (a police witness) testimony was unreliable because he is a Christian and was not inside the mosque at the time.

The police witness was no doubt outside the mosque, but I did not realise that sound could not travel beyond the walls of any building, least of all mosques which in Indonesia are equipped with megaphones which broadcast the goings-on to the immediate vicinity of the mosque. But that was not the problem.

The problem was, why was it that the policeman's testimony becomes unreliable because he is a Christian? To describe him as a non-Muslim would suffice, to eliminate the possibility of discrimination against Christians alone.

In Kelantan and Terengganu where hudud laws are being enforced, would this be a permissible defence? Indeed I have been told that among Muslims, especially fundamentalists, it is incumbent on them to trust a fellow Muslim over people of other faiths. Those who are not of the Abrahamic religions are supposed to be completely disregarded and without credibility as well.

Maybe someone could enlighten us on this matter.