By virtue of having a secular Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land, all other religions under it would be equally protected.

This is just one of the many views expressed by panellists in a dialogue organised by DAP last night entitled 'Malaysia, After Lina Joy - A Dialogue' on the state of the country in years to come.

Here are some excerpts from the speeches presented by some of the panellists:

Dr Azmin Sharom, Associate Professor Universiti Malaya

The issue of apostasy is not dealt with specifically in the constitution. The power to punish apostate comes from Schedule 9 of the constitution where jurisdiction in the Syariah Court and in this is one of the powers of the Syariah Court to punish offenders against the precepts of Islam. But what are these precepts and this is not explained in the constitution.

Is apostasy something that is wrong? Yes it is a sin. It's stated clearly that it's great sin. But the Koran does not say what the earthly punishment is as the punishment only comes in the hereafter. The issue is still open for discussion. What is the punishment for apostate is created by Islamic scholars so it's a man made issue.

The court has not dealt with the fundamental issue on the precepts of Islam and can we go against the constitution. In this case, it's very clear that if you prevent her (Lina Joy) from leaving her religion, it's clearly against Article 11. The argument that it is an administrative issue is flawed.

Another issue as to jurisdiction in the Syariah Court of the civil courts is clearly listed in Schedule 9. What is not in the list are constitutional freedoms. Constitutional freedom is clearly in the hands of civil courts. And for civil courts to say no, this is a syariah matter it is in effect saying that 'we're not going to live up to our responsibility to deal with this matter'.

I think Muslim communities need to look inwards if there's a big problem with apostasy. If there are young born Muslims wanting to leave the religion, we have to find out why. And we have to deal with that in a way that does not punish them.

Religion aims to bring peace and comfort to people, is it possible that these people cannot find peace and comfort and if so, why? I think that is a more compassionate approach to the issue.

This country is moving away from a secular government system that we were founded on towards an Islamic state. I believe in a secular system. I believe a secular state is the only system that can protect all religion and we'll be protected always.

S Ambiga, Malaysian Bar president

The constitution is the supreme law of the federation. It doesn't undermine any religion. The Bar Council sees this from a very legalistic point of view. It's not to say we're pro-this or anti-that, we're looking at the constitutional approach taken by the courts all these years.

When people say there's nothing wrong going with non-Muslims going to the Syariah Court, justice will be done or there's no fear going there, you will hear the the Bar Council saying no, you cannot subject a non-Muslim to the Syariah courts. That has nothing to do with whether justice won't be done or there are no good people there, that was never the issue.

This is because the Syariah Court has no jurisdiction over a non-Muslim and to me that's very clear. How would any one of you be subjected to an ecclesiastical court, a court that practices only the religious form of the laws. The Bar Council too will say that's not right.

There are many reasons why the constitution has provided for that. We're arguing the basic concept in the constitution that doesn't give a religious court jurisdiction over someone who doesn't profess that religion and this applies to all religions.

There is a difference between a Muslim going to a civil court and a non-Muslim going to a Syariah Court because the civil court is non-religious, it applies secular law. Any religious courts can only have jurisdiction over someone who professes and agrees to be bound by its religious laws. It would be very wrong to subject a Muslim to ecclesiastical court or under Christian law but the civil court is secular and that's why we can all go to the civil court. The argument that it is unfair to subject Muslim to civil courts is a flawed argument.

I think it (apostasy) is a legal issue and I believe it has been hijacked by the politicians. It is not difficult to dialogue but if it becomes political, that's where it becomes a problem. It would be wonderful if the politicians can stay out of it and let us sort this out ourselves.

Leonard Teoh, legal advisor to Malaysia's Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS)

I believe it's not so much theology that syariah law says apostates should be punished. It is Malay nationalism and the powers that be that is being authoritative here that want to punish the apostates.

We always say that we live in a tolerant society. Tolerance is not good enough. It's a bad word. We must instead live in harmony.

We've reached a stage where the population is getting emotional. We must be calm and collected. The problem is that our prime minister has sat too long on an issue until it has now reached a dangerous stage.

A person who asks to convert out of Islam can have their case postponed to three months and then adjournment it up to 12 months for the purposes of counselling and the court may or may not allow the person to leave Islam.

My personal view is, as a compromise, we should have a formula that the Syariah Court is only to ensure that the person's decision is not caused by undue influence. The Syariah Court can make sure that the person applying to leave Islam is not done by force or coercion.

I'm so sad for her (Lina Joy). We may be moving forward materially but we've moved backwards into the dark ages.