I refer to Dr M Bakri Musa's column entitled 'Free market as an Islamic tradition' (Nov 26) and Cheah CK's response in 'US should practise what it preaches' (Dec 3) and also Muslim Student's 'Islam discourages free trade' (Dec 4).

The recent discussion on whether Islam encourages free market amuses me. Debating whether free trade is Islamic is akin to debating whether Malaysia is an Islamic state, i.e., it is an exercise in futility.

For starters, none of the writers offered any definition of free market. For the record, the 1995 edition of Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English defines free market as a situation where prices are not controlled or limited in any way and free-market economy as a system of trade in which prices are allowed to rise and fall without being restricted by the government.

This definition seems to be the one adopted by Bakri in his 'Afghan carpet seller' example. As for Cheah and Muslim Student, I am not sure where have they got the idea that practising zakat at the measly rate of 2.5 percent has got anything to do with the free market.

Bakri has got it right when he claims that international trade should be encouraged. Cheah is also right in claiming that "free market as advocated by US right-wingers is not the panacea to mankind".

However, I advise Cheah to read Bakri's article again as nowhere there did Bakri state that the Islamic free-market system is entirely similar to one promoted by the United States.

I agree with Cheah in that the US is being one-sided when it comes to international trade. However, his arguments must not be directed to Bakri who certainly did not, via his article, encourage trade in "tobacco, gambling, alcohol, and entertainment that glorify violence and degrade women".

In fact, Cheah and Bakri should join forces to promote the true concept of the free market.The way I understand it (please feel free to correct me), Islam encourages cross-border trading in a multitude of goods as long as the goods or services are permitted (i.e. no alcohol) and the transaction does not contain elements of usury.

I also understand that the seller is free to set his price, and if the buyer does not like the price, he can walk away and take his patronage elsewhere.

I certainly do not see how trading in this manner results in "making money out of other people's misery", as claimed by Muslim Student.