I refer to the various letters concerning the Kongsi Raya issue. It is amusing that several writers have called not for the issue to be discussed and its merits debated, but for the ulama to be silenced.

One writer urged the government to take serious note of this 'dangerous trend' emerging in the minds of these ulama and correct or restrict these ulama from making crass statements. Another said that the prime minister and other top leaders should have 'condemned' the muftis' statement and yet another writer claimed that the agenda is 'self-centred and out of touch' .

One writer then demanded that the muftis champion separation of tax collections , claiming that if the muftis did not do so, then they were just picking on the most convenient hobby horse.

It is amazing that we need to resort to personal attacks, slippery slope arguments and demands for censorship in debating an issue. The strength of an argument depends on its weakest points. If we need to resort to the above, it is necessary for the rest of us to question whether the writers had stronger, more factual and logical points to make. If they did, why did they not use it, rather than relying on emotional attacks?

The muftis, as leaders of the Islamic creed, provided their opinion with regards to their expertise on Islam. They were appointed for Islamic scholarship. However, they do not have the authority to legislate their opinion. Thus, the recommendation was submitted to the government. In its role, the government needs to take the muftis' arguments and other matters such as national unity to reach a decision.

It is obvious that the government has decided to forego the muftis' recommendations, in preference of other considerations. However, we need to acknowledge that this is part of the process.

A senior civil servant makes recommendation and the elected members decide. That we may or may not agree with the recommendation does not excuse us from providing rational arguments.

Demanding that the mufti be silenced, censored and censured does not augur well for the process of democracy in the country.