Recently many persons have called on the National Fatwa Council (MFK) to issue a statement regarding the ISA. Why has MFK not responded? Isn't it their duty to respond to such calls? By not commenting on this issue and many other issues pertinent to Malaysians, they are becoming ineffective in their role as a religious guidance body.

In traditional Islam, the authority of the state would reside with the ruler (khalifa) but power would reside with the people. However the ulama (religious scholar) acts as the guardian of this power and would exercise this power to protect the people of the his state or protectorate.

Thus, ulamas as the custodians of power and the main legislative body, would have the right to interpret the law (Fiqh) using Divine guidance from the Quran and Sunnah as the principle point of reference. In other words, ulamas would derive the rule from divine sources and the state, representing the authority, would enforce such laws.

Therefore, we see that in traditional Islamic society, there has been a dichotomy illustrated by a delicate balance between the state on the one hand and the ulamas on the other. This delicate balance ensured that Islamic governance in the past tells a story of justice throughout its reign. Thus today, the argument that the state, as the ultimate governing body and the centre of legitimacy, i.e. the supreme political power, is in actuality, not valid in the Islamic framework.

Also, note that although the 'Islamic state' is highly organised and institutionalised, the ulama as a body of scholars who legislated and interpreted the law, was not institutionalised. Thus, traditional Islam has always encouraged pluralism, i.e. a divergence of opinions existing in society, and they co-existed without many problems.

However, in recent times, with colonisation, and more recently, secularisation, this delicate balance has been disrupted. Secularisation, as seen in the West, as a separation of 'church and state', is not valid in the Islamic context, because of different experiences of the East and West. As we see, in Islamic societies of the past, there has never been an equivalent of the institution like that of the 'church' of the west.

This invalid and often artificial separation in modern 'Islamic' societies have resulted in many social problems and has encouraged the rise of many dictatorial regimes throughout the Muslim world, with this part of the world not being an exception. This is due to the suppression of the ulamas as a legislative body and the seat of Islamic power and knowledge.

Thus, I would argue that, to restore justice and order to the East, this artificial separation need to be expunged and the ulamas and religious scholars be restored to their rightful position in civil society. To do this, the ulamas have to take the first step and begin engaging in 'worldly' affairs in order to ensure a better 'after-world' for their followers.

Again, in the past, this dichotomy and delicate balance and even 'tension' between the Caliph or rulers and the gatekeepers of power and knowledge, the ulamas, has resulted in the many respected and great scholars of the past having to undergo prison sentence and even torture.

Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafie' and Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, all founders of great schools of Islamic law, underwent prison or torture or both, upholding this principle. Indeed, this is necessary for a just society, as in the past it was the scholars who form the first layer of defence for the community from any oppressive regimes.

Therefore, the role of the ulamas is a role of courage, patience and perseverance. They should not be anxious about having to speak the truth, for they (for those who deserve it) are the upholders of truth and justice.

If MFK remains silent of this issue and many of the other issues of importance to 'their' citizens, then this would seriously undermine them as a body of ulamas. And this in turn, would result in them being just another institutionalised body of the 'state', only existing to further legitimise and promote the actions of the state, whatever they may be, right or wrong.