I have found your columnist Azly Rahman's articles to be generally quite interesting and thought-provoking. However, I became a little concerned after reading his impassioned arguments in favour of imposing a stiff penalty on The Sarawak Tribune for publishing the cartoons that were offensive to Muslims.
Now, after reading his piece on the Non Sequitur and the absurd media, I feel that he is seeing far too much into a bit of simple, wry wit. It is difficult to understand his argument that by publishing the 'Non Sequitur' cartoon, the New Straits Times was 'hoping to colonise the mind of the Muslims'.
Azly also said: 'What happened with the 'Non Sequitur' drama is a testament of the nature of postmodern "state-inspired Islamism" that also characterised the statement made Malaysian Muslim feminists who are becoming more articulate, albeit non sequitur itself, in arguing for deconstructionism in the authenticity of what Islam is trying to offer'.
While he sounds very erudite with his convoluted reasoning, the average layperson can only gather from this statement that he is not too happy that there is an emerging group of Malaysian Muslim feminists who are articulate their understanding of Islam. Why it is a problem or undesirable, it is not apparent.
And finally I would love to agree with him that 'At the level of abstraction, 'Prophet Muhammad' is a concept of peace and social justice that permeates Islam and shapes the consciousness of the Muslims'. But I wish that at the level of reality - in the here and now - the reactions of the Muslims who feel offended by the cartoons would indeed symbolise this abstraction.