I have to agree with Gopal's letter, Bumiputera-ism and Islam Hadhari , in which he articulated his opinion that Islam Hadhari needs to elaborate more on its intellectual depth and coherence. As it is now, some Muslim scholars are not very keen on the terminology of Islam Hadhari itself.

As for the questions posed on the Orang Asli, I can assure the writer that they do have a bumiputera status. The Thai and Portugese Malaysian communities also enjoy the bumiputera status albeit a restricted one, I'm told.

I am quite sure that this status is not granted based on religion. In Sabah and Sarawak, there are two terms used, Muslim bumiputeras and non-Muslim bumiputeras.

I feel that Gopal has mixed-up the notions of Muslims and bumiputera. The ummah refers to the Muslim community. In Malaysia, it is so ingrained within the Malay society that when an Ah Chong or an Arumugam converts to Islam, he is seen as 'masuk Melayu' not 'masuk Islam'.

They are now part of the ummah. As for the bumiputera status, one can earn it if one adopts the Malay lifestyle altogether. In the case of Indian Muslims, I've observed them in Penang and found them to be actively preserving their culture and heritage. That explains why the Indian Muslims are not given a bumiputera status.

And is there an opportunity for non-Muslim Malays to exist? I don't think so. Malays are unique in the sense that all Malays are Muslims. In the context of Malaysia, it is extremely difficult for them to even lean towards Shiite teachings, what more change their religion.

The question of non-Muslim Malays is therefore out of the question altogether.

And as for the Gopal's statement that Indians were '...the forerunners of Southeast Asian Islam', we must not forget that Islam came to this region also through the Chinese and Arab traders.