There seems to be an unfounded eagerness to view PAS and its 'Islamic agenda' negatively as some type of malevolent party with a hidden agenda.

Views like these are certainly not helped by the biased and misleading columns of political scientist Farish Noor, who in his latest column claimed he had been misunderstood. But for anyone who reads what he has written, there can be no misunderstanding, to quote;

"my critiques of the Islamists in Malaysia were meant to shock them out of their stupor and to get them to think seriously about issues like human rights, democracy, pluralism and the rule of law"

Regarding human rights, democracy, pluralism and the rule of law, it was not PAS that authorised the police raid o­n malaysiakini, and the assault o­n Anwar Ibrahim. It was not PAS that threatened to bathe their keris in the blood of Chinese, or that grossly subverted the judicial and electoral systems.

In this respect, would it not be wiser and more realistic to be lecturing the 'secularists' of Umno rather than the 'Islamists' of PAS?

Clearly, his perception and judgement have been clouded by his personal agenda as he seems to have a penchant for directly or indirectly blaming all problems o­n PAS, and by his example encouraging others to do so. PAS has kept to the rule of law even when it has been deliberately goaded by the Umno-led BN government.

His justification for this is that he claims to be "furthering the cause of progressive Islam" - but what is "progressive" Islam? Progressive Islam, as represented by the writings of Farish Noor, is Islam that has been changed to suit the whims, fashion and dictates of those who feel threatened by it.

It is not true Islam or Islam in its totality. It is merely a 'watered down' Islam lacking in political or social clout and cohesion. This is something well-known and understood by the vast majority of Malaysian Muslims - a significant portion of whom are well versed in Islam.

Even those misguided souls within Umno understand this. So it is no wonder that his message fails to hit home because his views are considered objectionable, thus explaining the lack of appreciation, as he has bemoaned, in his latest column.