With reference to letters from LCH and Freddy T oh , I can see that their main concerns stand over PAS' Islamic state agenda. Both view the Islamic state as a theocratic state, and therefore detrimental.

A theocratic state is generally viewed as being intolerant, narrow, unprogressive - power is basically centred upon a group of elite that derives their authority direct from Almighty. These elite are infallible; their decisions and actions cannot be questioned and almost always becomes law.

Although LCH and Freddy fail to show PAS as a theocratic structure, nevertheless their bogeyman tactics may go down well with a lot of readers. Therefore, I respond not by defending PAS, but by clarifying what an Islamic state really is (or rather, really isn't) so to avoid any further confusion.

The main misconception of an Islamic state is the notion it is a theocratic state, akin to the ones ruling Europe in the Dark Ages. The simple argument to disapprove of this misconception is the fact that in Islam, there is no such thing as authority being derived from God. No verse in the Quran or passage in the Al Hadith attributes infallibility to an individual or group, or divine authority and divine inspiration in matters related to jurisprudence and law.

Infallibility is only attributed the Prophet (pbuh) and no one else. Since the Prophet (pbuh) has already passed away and he is the last prophet, there is therefore no other human being today that can claim infallibility. Therefore, the main ingredient for a theocratic state is non-existent in Islam and will be never exist, ever.

This also includes the scholars in Islam - they are not infallible. That is why whatever opinions regarding jurisprudence that they come up with will have to be substantiated with solid and well-founded arguments. That explains why great scholars like Imam Asy Syafiee wrote books of more then 1,000 titles in matters related to Islamic jurisprudence.

I use to recall my teacher saying that a well-learned and respected scholar can come up with an opinion in matters of Islamic jurisprudence, but if a young boy stands up and ask for proof, the scholar is compelled to provide the boy with the proof to his opinion. In short, infallibility does not exist anymore, after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh). Everyone is accountable for their opinions, even the scholars of Islam.

The other glaring evidence to dismiss the misconception, is the fact that the Quran advocates the concept of syura, known as the consultative process. Syura is to be applied to all levels and must include everyone that is pertinent to an issue or matter. In other words, collective decision is clearly mentioned in the Quran.

The concept of syura is well founded in all models of Islamic state (and yes, even the Islamic state has many models based on a set of principles) advocated by Islamic scholars throughout the history of Islam. How could the concept of syura be promulgated by the Quran if Islam advocates a theocratic model of a government?

Refer to contemporary scholars like Leopold Wiess (Islamic State and Governance) or Yusuf Qardhawi (Fiqh Ad Daulah) or Muhammad S El Awa (On The Political System Of An Islamic State) or Abul A la Al Maududi (Human Rights and Islam) or even age-old literature on the issue of Islamic governance like Ibnu Taimiyyah (Siyasah Asy Syariah), Al Mawardi (Al Ahkam As Sultaniyyah) or even to a lesser extent major fiqh literature like Al Umm, Al Muwatta, Al Ihya Ulumuddeen etc.

One will see that the concept of a theocratic state is never part of an theoretical model of an Islamic state. In fact, what is always repeated over and over again is the importance of check and balance, separation of powers, syura , rule of law, welfare to the people, equitable wealth distribution model are almost always the trait of an Islamic state mentioned throughout the history of Islam and up to now.

As for Freddy's inference of PAS as similar to the Iranian model, and arguing by solely quoting Farish A Noor, I feel Freddie is way out of base considering that PAS was formed in 1952 - long before the 1979 Iranian Revolution. How could PAS derive its model from an incident which were to occur in the future?

Furthermore, Iran is based on a revolution model, whereas PAS has always been committed to the democratic process of the country. Furthermore, PAS is very committed to federalism as stipulated in our country's constitution. This explains why after taking over Kelantan and Terengganu, the structure of the state was never amended - the form stipulated in the constitution is intact.

Freddy is also confused about the sources of Islamic jurisprudence. He asked where items like discouraging lipstick and stoning for adulteress cannot be found in the Quran - punishments yet implemented by PAS. What Freddy fail to know is that Islamic jurisprudence is derived from three main sources: Quran, Sunnah and Ijtihad. All of PAS' definition of vice is based upon the three sources of Islamic jurisprudence and not limited to the Quran alone. Therefore, Freddy has actually failed to prove that PAS' definition on vice is contradictory to Islam.

Freddy quoted the so-called banning of Deepavali shows organised by Terengganu's MIC. For Freddy's information, the event went on as usual without any hindrance from state authorities. What happened was that the same event was relocated from state-owned hotels due to their no liquor policy. It is really regrettable that MIC Terengganu flouted this rule, when they were well aware of the hotel policy when they first applied.

Furthermore, an Indian NGO leader by the name of Dr Ananda Khrishnan issued a statemen t to Harakah condemning MIC Terengganu for organising such an event is a sacrilege of the Holy Hindu religion. Hinduism would never support intoxication.

Freddy argued that no OIC nation made the top 25 cut of Transparency International's corruption perception index . What he failed to mention was the number of secular nations that don't make the cut. Furthermore, 98 per cent of OIC members are secular states themselves.

Looking at countries that do make the cut, you will see that their reasons for being low on corruption is not merely their due to their secular ideology but rather from a value system that is strongly entrenched in their society. Furthermore, these countries practices more freedom of expression, transparency, independence of judiciary and many more.

Why do Muslim nations not appear in Transparency International top 25? The answer is simple: Muslim nations are plagued by corrupt secular regimes that enjoy unlimited support from western countries.

As for negative economic ramification due to closing down of vice activities, I feel sad that Freddy is only concerned about a small loss as compared to the damage that vice activities has on society, the family, individuals and not to mention damage to religiosity of the citizens of a state.

Are we to assume that women must be allowed to 'whore' themselves for profits just so that we can avoid Freddy Toh's "economic breakdown"? PAS has always shown care and concern when banning vice. For instance in Kelantan and Terengganu gambling operators were allowed a transition period to shift to another form of business. In fact the government were willing to assist gambling operators in their efforts.

In the case of Kelantan, ever since the state government banned gambling in 1990, the state's economy actually expanded. That alone is testimony that a state can survive economically without vice.

I am sure many out there would have more questions about PAS. I invite anyone to contact me at [email protected] .