This has reference to your news feature 'We reject taking up arms': Nik Aziz (March 8). If PAS rejects taking up arms why did it make the public call for jihad to fight the Americans in Afghanistan?

Making a further call for the constitution to be based on the Quran and Hadith, Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat rationalised, "If the Malays can accept Islam, why can't others?"

This is as good an argument as a Chinese Buddhist saying that if he can accept Buddhist principles why can't the other ethnic and religious groups?

In this plural society there are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics and atheists. None of these sections of people ask the rest to accept what they believe. Every one has the right to his or her worldview whilst respecting the others in their religious beliefs and practices. That is the reason why the constitution should be secular. It should be neutral.

The constitution defines rights and obligations. If the definition of rights and obligations is based on one belief system it will prejudice the rest of the people under other belief systems because they will be subject to the same governance of the constitution and the implementations of all policies, rules and regulations impinging intimately on every aspect of their lives.

Referring to different belief systems, Nik Aziz said that "there is not much difference, after all the roads are still the same, the parking fees are still the same, only the laws are different".

But that's the whole point isn't it if there is not much difference and all roads point the same way, why then change the basic law and insist that all roads follow the ' Hudud Code of PAS' road'? "We are not implementing the hudud laws yet" simply means that PAS is biding its time and will do so when ensconced in power.

Nik's comment not only fails to address non-Muslims' concerns but has not explained why if all roads are divergent but leading to the same destination, there is a need to change the constitution to that based on the Quran and Hadith? If all divergent roads lead to common destination, there is much more reason for the constitution to be secular so that it is a fair and neutral referee to all who seek, and all are accorded the right to seek different paths to the same destination!

According to Nik Aziz, "there is no concept of race. God created many races as a means to identify people. Like you built a car, you need to name it Proton, and so on to differentiate 10 different cars. Malays, Indians, Chinese, we are all the same". But God has also created people of different religious beliefs (different roads to the same destination).

So this being the case, why can't a non-Muslim have a place in PAS' political order? As God has created as many people of different races as of different religions, as much as there ought to exist no discrimination on race, so too it should not exist on religious grounds.

With all respect to Tok Guru, if entertainment is "walking on the beach, spending time with your family, even reading a book" and to Nik Aziz does not extend to "Mak Yong, dancing and night clubs", who is the one limiting the definition of entertainment?.

Also, please spare us the sermon that "If there is no PAS, the situation may be worse for Umno" as if PAS' challenge is doing Umno a big favour!