Abdul Hakim's response to Paul Warren's criticism on Nik Aziz provides a good opportunity to explore the etiquette of public discussion in a multi-racial country.

No other country could boast the existence of such a diversity of beliefs and faiths which stand in extreme contrast with one another as Malaysia.

My point is not to repeat our politicians' favourite "reminder" of how fortunate we are to be living in "peace and harmony" with each other (and therefore we should vote in a certain way), but to underline the fact that in such a "colourful" environment, when our views come into contact with others' there is bound to be "friction and heat" (read: tension and anger).

While our insecure, conservative and not-so-mature leaders choose to deal with this "potentially explosive" situation by avoidance, censorship and suppression (while imposing their own version of facts), I suggest that instead, we should confront and welcome this dynamic reality, and learn and practise how to deal with it maturely with the ultimate hope of building deeper and more genuine understanding of each other.

With this aim in mind, the following discussion will be blunt and direct, but genuinely, no offence is intended.

In my humble opinion, the exchange between these two readers could be aptly described by a Chinese idiom which literally means "chicken talking to duck" neither really understands, nor attempts to understand, the other.

I must admit that I share the views held by Paul Warren, and I also find the piece written by Disappointed one of the best satires written in recent months. They are both extremely entertaining and totally brought out how ridiculous and backward the views held by Nik Aziz were.

On the other hand, Abdul Hakim's piece struck me as extremely serious and uptight, and I could feel that he must be very angry when he wrote it. Although Fatimah was a bit more conciliatory, she was clearly upset by Warren's views.

Given that I am undoubtedly "on the side" of Warren and Disappointed, my intuitive reaction towards Abdul Hakim and Fatimah was sheer disbelief. I could not imagine how could such ridiculous views be shared and defended solemnly, even by invoking Islam by any educated, intelligent person?

And when I sat down and began to think of how to respond to and castigate Abdul Hakim and Fatimah, it suddenly struck me that maybe, just maybe, they both genuinely and whole-heartedly believed what they wrote as true and valid.

I therefore wish to put it to Warren and Disappointed: How would they feel if some views which they hold dear and holy are being ridiculed in the manner in which they have done to those so held by Abdul Hakim and Fatimah? My guess is, like my intuitive reaction, it never even occurred to them that it is conceivable that such "ridiculous and backward" views (according to their standards) could be sacred and inviolable to anybody.

In their minds, perhaps, only Nik Aziz actually believed in those views; but in actual fact, it seems, a considerable proportion of Muslims in this country share them and are ready to stand up and defend them, such as Abdul Hakim. I believe if they had stopped to think of the fact that Nik Aziz was not only expressing his own personal views, but was actually a conduit through which the aspirations and values held dear by many Muslims were expressed, they would have at least modified their tones not our of fear of reprisal or anything of that sort perhaps, but out of respect for truthfulness, and politeness, at least.

My point is, in a multi-racial country like ours, we need to accord seriousness to those views which are fundamentally opposite or repugnant to our own. To recognise and value diversity is to accept and constantly remind ourselves that given that we are so different, hearing "ridiculous and backward views" is bound to happen very frequently in our daily lives.

I am not advocating condescension or hypocrisy, the kind of superficial 'respect' of 'listen' but not 'hear'. Rather, I urge the liberal (in the true sense) citizens of Malaysia who have genuine respect for diversity and equality to endeavour to really understand how is it that certain "ridiculous and backward" views have come to be genuinely held by other fellow citizens. Active and involved 'first-person' ("what if I were him") understanding, rather than detached, no-questions-asked tolerance/deference, is what really deepens our bond with, and respect and love for each other.

On the other hand, a democracy like ours would also have to make allowance for "rudeness" and "insensitivities" and not take things too emotionally, if we wish to have freedom of speech. Abdul Hakim should therefore understand that there are bound to be some of us who did not think and plan our words as carefully as we should have before we speak.

Sometimes, we say things just because we thought it was 'fun' like Disappointed, perhaps and genuinely no insult was intended. Those who are "insulted" might still refuse to accept this possibility, but it is really not that difficult to realise that when we think from a certain angle, we are bound to overlook (unconsciously) some others not that we consciously or knowingly ignore or reject them.

For example, Abdul Hakim claims that Warren's piece was "very insulting to Muslims".

First, he thinks that this kind of critical comments is an insult. However, in a diverse, free democracy like ours, we cannot define 'insult' in terms of reaction of the person who heard it ('insulted'), but we should define it if we were to incorporate it as an 'offence' at all, in a free environment in terms of subjective intention of the person who said it. This is because it is all too easy for people who are criticised to elevate the criticism into 'insult'. Therefore, unless we are sure that Warren or Disappointed subjectively intended to insult, we should not invoke that allegation lightly.

Secondly, Abdul Hakim "ain't seen nothing yet". He should consult some writings by white supremacists in the West, or even anthropological writings by white explorers and travelers during the height of the colonial expansion period to see what is really 'insulting'.

Thirdly, he categorically stated that Warren's insult was felt by "Muslims", meaning all Muslims. It is often natural for people to speak in the name of groups in order to add force to their arguments. However, perhaps Abdul Hakim should consider this before he invokes the name of Muslim or Islam next time: maybe, just maybe, there are Muslims who consider that it is what Nik Aziz and PAS are doing that is actually embarrassing and insulting to Muslims.

Fourthly, despite what Abdul Hakim says, I believe Nik Aziz would not have intended to qualify his comments to Muslims only. Islam like most other religions aspire to be universal, and it is no secret that most Muslims believe that their beliefs and values are universally applicable.

Regardless of whether Nik Aziz had the intention to impose his views on non-Muslims, whenever he speaks in the name of a religion which aspires to be universal without making any explicit qualification, he is bound to directly or indirectly "trespass" into the province of non-Muslim lifestyles. Politicians who mobilise religion as a tool should not enjoy the freedom to cause offence and immunity from retaliation.

The point here is, Abdul Hakim might have looked at Warren's writing from too narrow an angle. In the process, he made many assumptions and failed to see things from other angles. In a diverse society, we should not jump too quickly into assuming that people hold malicious or hostile intent, and straightaway fire the bullet of 'insult'. Sometimes we are simply careless. If we are too careful, we might not be able to speak at all.

Free speech is a precious freedom which comes with onerous duties and requires "high-maintenance" (like our girlfriends and wives). Just like treating our girlfriends and wives, it is necessary for us to provide more than perfumes and lipsticks we must also learn to tolerate mistakes, carelessness and ridicule, be slow to point fingers, and be ready to forgive.