It was reported in the The Star and The Sun (Oct 18) that the "Islamic state issue" had caused such a furore in the Dewan Rakyat that led one member of parliament from Barisan Nasional, Datuk Bung Moktar Radin (BN-Kinabatangan) to utter the four-letter expletive twice and accuse another DAP Chow Kon Yeow to have shown an obscene sign.

Obscene or not, I would like to think that such unparliamentary language and behaviour evinced conviction - and passion about which Malaysians and their elected representatives felt on the issue of the 'Islamic state', assuming they knew what they arguing and fighting over in the first place.

Ironically, what then is an Islamic state in the Malaysian context?

More than ever there is now a need to sharpen the clarity of the concept as it is used by PAS, and then the Prime Minister, so that people will not shout and argue at cross purposes, causing a brouhaha that disrupted the decorum of the august chamber of Dewan Rakyat.

As neither PAS nor the Prime Minister has explained the concept it behooves experts in this field (like your columnist Dr Farish A Noor or PAS' ulamas) to explain it but until then let me give my two cents worth on what it could mean - and how the issue is perceived - to some of us ordinary (non-Muslim) laymen.

To be sure, the fact that Malaysia has secular institutions and laws does not necessarily mean it is a secular state and cannot be an Islamic state.

A secular state, as the case of the US or India, is one unconnected to and neutral towards religion, which is not allowed to enter into the function of the state especially into administration of laws and public education funded by taxpayer funds. In the extreme case of Muslim majority Turkey, since Mustafa Kemal Attaturk came to power in 1920s, strict secularism was imposed that sought to expunge all religiosity from public life.

This is not the case here. Islam, in the original constitutional document of independence, was declared to be the 'official religion in the state', but subsequently amended to religion of the Federation, there being a difference between "in" and "of" with the latter suggestive of a constitutional platform for an Islamic state.

Since 1980s, the government has worked to "infuse Islamic values" into government administration of the country and funding Islamic religious establishments. It established the International Islamic University, the Islamic banking system, Islamic research centres and institutes and museums.

All forms of preaching of other faiths directed at Muslims, which might result in their conversion to another religion, are generally prohibited.

This strong weightage given to Islam by the government is that which supports its claim to the country being the Islamic state notwithstanding it has some secular laws and institutions.

Where it differs from PAS' version is that, in accommodation of the multiracialism and multicultural pluralism of the Malaysian society, secular institutions (such as parliamentary system of government) and English common laws inherited from the British colonial rule, are continued, Islamic law as applied to Muslims being confined to family (marriage divorce guardianship adoption), property succession and inheritance matters.

PAS' vision of an Islamic state is, however, more 'purist' to those who advocate it, and extreme, to detractors who fear it.

Islam in its vision is a din, a complete way or code of life regulating every aspect of life and society, and hence Syariah/Islamic law being guidance of the Almighty, will form the basis of all laws of the land.

PAS seeks to create a new society with a political system anchored in religious creed, with Islam as a comprehensive system of values encompassing all spheres and every aspect of social cultural economic and political life.

Necessarily, many aspects of modernity as represented by secular West would be excluded from this all embracing system that dictates public behaviour and legislate private behaviour. In PAS purist cultural lexicon there is no room for any secular law or institution.

To any detractor who raises the objection that such system is totalitarian or undemocratic, it must be recollected that democracy based on sovereignty of the people and their laws is not a point of reference at all.

An Islamic state in PAS' terms is based on sovereignty of God (not people) and His laws revealed through religious scholars and ulamas, expert in these fields. Strictly, it is not interested in democracy for its own sake nor capitalism nor socialism. The focus is on Islam. Nothing else.

In contrast, the Prime Minister's version of the Islamic state is one that whilst infusing Islamic values, does not at the same time wish to sacrifice or neglect the pragmatic and utilitarian economic and development needs of the country's political and economic agenda. Bottom line is that living standards must be raised and if that implies keeping abreast with globalisation and modernity, and balancing Islamic against secular institutions, then so be it.

For one to appreciate this version of an Islamic state unique to Malaysian circumstances, the Islamic principles must be viewed universal, capacious, tolerant and flexible enough to co-exist in harmonious interaction not only alongside other religious faiths, but other ideologies.

Bottom-line is that whilst the spiritual values of the peoples are fostered, their living standards must be improved (by secular economic development); the rights and different values and ways of life of communities that are not Muslims, respected and allowed to continue; inter-faith and inter cultural dialogue and interaction encouraged so that any one particular community can see and understand the perspectives of the other communities in order to live in harmony.

Whilst it is understandable for PAS to challenge the PM's version of an Islamic state, it is a little difficult to understand what is the DAP's beef when it has always pitched its political banner on pluralism and democracy that the PM's version is more compatible with than the narrower and more rigid brand of PAS. The DAP challenges the PM's version of the Islamic state (as if the PAS' version is correct) and yet forsakes the PAS' version by leaving the Barisan Alternatif recently.

What is the message DAP wants to send? That, whichever version, Malaysia cannot be an Islamic state?

Then again why is Pas' 'purist' version the only valid version for application in this country - whose circumstances are different from those of Middle Eastern societies?

Why is it that an Islamic state suited for or compatible with the peculiar circumstances and diversity of this country not possible?

Experts, please help here to shed light on the current debate.

At the end of the day concepts like 'Islamic state' are open-ended concepts, and it can exist and be defined such depending on the range of Islamic features along a continuum, between two extreme models (say) the Talibans at one religiously 'pure' end and Mustafa Kemal Attaturk's at the other secularly extreme end.

The fact that this country still has secular institutions or laws does not make it less an Islamic State (unless you follow PAS' definition) if other Islamic institutions and values predominantly prevail significantly along that continuum. If not, why do other countries (including Muslim countries) view Malaysia as a modern if not model Islamic nation?