When Amir Kamal complained that under PAS blueprint, "Muslims ... are to be denied our democratic rights to be tried under civil laws", the thrust of it is that the pre-existing right of Muslims under civil law will be taken away.

In rebuttal, PAS information chief for PJ Utara, Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib argued that "Muslims are already subjected to Islamic law in matters related to family law and inheritance" and that "Muslims are not allowed to opt for Family and Inheritance Law stipulated in the civil laws of our land."

In my opinion, the information chief's rebuttal has conveniently sidelined some considerations. Under article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, Muslims are subject to syariah only in family law, inheritance and other religious matters more particularly set out in the state list.

Although family and inheritance laws are normally regarded a subset of civil laws, Muslims are by the Federal Constitution still subject to most other areas of civil and secular laws such as commercial contracts and other civil wrongs and rights based on English Common Law.

So it would not be correct for Abdul Talib to assert that merely because Muslims are already subject to syariah for a limited subset of civil laws such as family and inheritance, PAS is not really taking away the pre-existing constitutional right of Muslims like Amir Kamal if it intends to extend syariah to all other areas of civil laws as well.

So why does the constitution subject Muslims to a dichotomy of both secular common law and syariah law in limited areas of family and inheritance?

My best guess is this: the framers of our constitution recognised in 1957 that the multiracial and multicultural character of the Malaysian society constituted of a substantial portion of non-Muslims. As such, it was not intended that Malaya would be an Islamic state though Islam (as distinct from Islamic law) remained the official religion of the Federation as a concession to the Islamic identity of the majority race.

This was made clear even by PAS legal advisor and assemblyman for Jerteh, Tun Salleh Abas. In 1998, while he was Lord President of the Supreme Court over the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor, Salleh Abas ruled that Malaysia is a secular, not an Islamic state. Salleh Abas reiterated this position in a malaysiakini interview.

Since the Constitution does not contemplate an Islamic state, syariah for Muslims is applicable only as a personal law for limited areas like family and inheritance matters and not extended to public law.

This means that with respect to Muslims, the Constitution contemplates a clear demarcation between personal law and public law, between the public realm and private sphere, generally between personal religion and state laws.

Whatever compromise to balance the Islamic identity of Malays with the other races when the Constitution was framed as a social contract in 1957, its practical wisdom in making these demarcations has been proven over half a century of the nation's progress since birth by the following examples:

The country has progressed because of free cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims in all fields, which otherwise could not take place if it were an Islamic state and all laws were syariah.

While Islam was not compromised, and in fact as an official religion was actively promoted by the state, the retention of many civil secular laws for commerce and trade has enabled us to prosper.

All our land, contract, companies and banking laws and our notions of corporate transparency and governance for KLSE and public investment are derived from secular and English Common laws and not syariah. If not for these, would we have benefitted from our commercial infrastructure and systematic land tenure system and would we be confident in confronting globalisation?

PAS' main argument is that for Muslims, Islam should be embraced 100 percent in all aspects of life and without demarcation. From this perspective, there is no difference between religion, culture, custom and habits: they are all unified under Islam as it is understood and interpreted by many countries of the Middle East.

First of all I don't view the many countries of the Middle East - where there is no separation religion, culture, custom and habits- as having a shining formula of prosperity or success. The proof is that their internecine squabbling have made them vulnerable to exploitation by Western powers, as the prime minister has repeatedly said.

Secondly, this extreme conservatism is hardly characteristic of traditional Malay culture. For example, it is part of the Malay culture to have the wayang kulit, music and dance. In the past, and even the villages, Malay women were not self-conscious in donning the sarong - rolled up to above their chest when pumping water from public places. Today, women are exhorted to be fully clothed even in public swimming pools, and in PAS controlled states, to be separated in supermarket queues from the men.

If this mixing up of religion, culture and adat (custom and habits) - the merging between private space and public sphere - were not PAS' particular brand of Islam, what else is? In advancing its raison d'etre, PAS directly and blatantly challenged the premise of the Federal Constitution and repudiating the social contract between Muslims and non-Muslims forged by our founding fathers in 1957.

For this reason it is hardly surprising that under PAS' blueprint, syariah will supersede the Federal Constitution as the supreme law - it is very ironical that PAS would take advantage of the same constitution and partake in democratic elections with the objective of sidelining it the moment it comes into power.

Under such conditions, it cannot be said that PAS is not, by these duplicitous means, depriving citizens of their pre-existing constitutional rights in the past 50 years.