I would like to address some points raised by Khairull Anuar Jamlus in his letter, 'Not planning to adopt a Western liberal lifestyle'.

Khairull makes reference to the UK case of popular BBC talk show host Robert Kilroy-Silk, and cites this as an example of Muslim-bashing in the West. Kilroy-Silk is currently suspended by the BBC for branding Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors" in a Sunday newspaper column. He later claimed to regret some of his statements.

The Commission for Racial Equality (a UK government body) and the Muslim Council of Britain had come out strongly in condemnation of his remarks, but their criticism was that it was discriminatory on the basis of race, not religion. It is a stretch of logic to equate Islam solely with Arabs considering that many Arabs are Jewish and Christian, and the largest group of Muslims globally is found in Indonesia, not the Middle East.

As for his argument that the West is biased against Muslims, consider for a moment the case of Sheikh Abu Hamza, a controversial Islamic preacher at Finsbury Park in North London who has repeatedly called for violence against British citizens and praised Osama bin Laden since the Sept 11 attacks.

When a call was made last year to strip him of his British citizenship, a leading union boss (non-Muslim) came to his defence as a matter of principle and vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. Yemen has repeatedly requested for his extradition, citing his alleged involvement in the kidnapping of foreigners and terrorist attacks.

The fact that such a controversial figure can still accord himself of legal help against his impending deportation, which was also made possible only because of very recent changes to British immigration law, attest to the high regards that the British hold for justice, human rights and rule of law in their country.

Contrast this with a country like Saudi Arabia, which has no well-defined penal code, prescribe arbitrary public punishments such as floggings, amputations, and beheading, impose dress codes and work-related discrimination on women as well as proscribe any other form of religious worship other than the Wahhabi school of Islam. Ironically, even the Shia Muslim population there is heavily restricted and prosecuted by the religious authorities.

It is rather strange that when no less than the prime minister of a country makes a speech at the Organisation of Islamic Conference that includes labelling Jews as world rulers who manipulate people to fight their wars by proxy, the Arab media and a few Muslim leaders were full of praise for him, claiming that he was brave enough to be forthright with the truth.

But when someone far less prominent (like Kilroy-Silk) makes some equally controversial statements in a newspaper, they are all up in arms over it. Surely they must realize that what goes around will eventually come around.

If Jews control the world and get people to die on their behalf, then Arabs are also women oppressors and suicide bombers, and so on for all the other ignorant and hateful racial and religious stereotypes who are flagrantly propounded in the popular public global consciousness these days.

As for the issue of alcohol-related problems and the high rates of crime and rape in Western countries raised by Khairull Anuar, this is no more a consequence of human rights or democracy than terrorism is a consequence of Islam. Many complicated factors, such as an increased pace of life, growing wealth gaps and excessive emphasis on materialism may contribute to these problems in both Western democracies and developing countries alike.

The hypocrisy of some Western leaders in wielding the 'human rights' or 'democracy' banner to serve their vested interests in no way denigrates the importance or benefits of human rights and democracy in the rule of a country, any more than a terrorist quoting the Quran to justify his madness denigrates the importance of Islam to a billion people worldwide.

It is a pity that Malaysians like Khairull only choose to selectively focus on the negative features of the country that he currently resides in. His worldview is framed as an antagonistic polarity (Islam versus West) that ironically is strongly reminiscent of the worldview of the current US President George W Bush (you are either for us or against us).

Perhaps it may be useful to heed a simple psychological observation that what we perceive in a foreign culture is just as indicative of our own personalities as it is of the cultures that we observe. Khairull might benefit from pondering for a moment on the fact that the UK and some European countries are one of the few places where Sunni and Shia Muslims can co-exist without significant conflict, or have more legal rights than a Christian would have in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

As for the issue of crime, alcoholism and crony capitalism becoming more predominant in Malaysia, this can all be addressed by appropriate amendments to our secular legal code accompanied with strict enforcement of the law.

There is no clear example amongst current world governments to indicate that such problems are only solvable successfully through the introduction of a syariah-based constitution ala-PAS. On the other hand, the current growing reformist movement in the Iranian government clearly indicates that even Muslims themselves may not necessarily be satisfied with an Islamic-style government.

In his letter, Mister Tambourine was spot on when he claimed that Malaysian Muslims would be denied of many democratic rights, in particular the right to religious freedom, under PAS rule. The hudud enactment passed by the Kelantan state assembly in 1993 makes a provision for the death sentence to be imposed on an apostate.

How can there be any freedom of religious choice when effectively every Muslim in the country has to accept a specific version of Islam (Sunni Shafiee) or suffer the penalty of death? This is a very serious question that neither PAS nor its supporters are capable of answering.