It is with profound disquiet that I read of the report lodged by The Muslim Scholars Association of Malaysia (MSAM) against The Edge and writer Dr Farish A Noor for allegedly insulting Islam.

Insult, as I understand the meaning, is when one says or does something that from an objective standpoint, is rude and offensive to someone, who is a natural person, capable of being injured in feelings.

Insult is therefore possible only if the subject of insult is a natural person - and not an abstract spiritual system of belief, incapable of feelings by itself.

As explained by MSAM president Abdul Ghani Samsudin, "Even in this interview (in The Edge ), Farish has repeated his stand by saying that Islam should be interpreted freely without referring to the ulama.,"

It is evident from this statement that it was the Ulama who felt insulted when it was commented that the interpretation of Islam could be done without reference to the Ulama.

First of all, to feel insulted does not mean that the other has actually insulted - from an objective viewpoint.

For example, an extraordinarily sensitive person may feel insulted by the most innocuous remark that would not have raised an eyebrow from any other ordinary and reasonable person.

Does that mean that an insult has been delivered by the mere fact that the other felt injury to his feelings when he is guilty of being extraordinarily and unreasonably sensitive?

But even if the Ulama were in fact insulted, how could insulting the Ulama be equated with insulting Islam - unless one holds the position that the Ulama is synonymous with Islam; that the Ulama has an exclusive monopoly over its discourse which would admit no other interpretation by anyone else; and that revealed guidance of the Almighty could only be delivered by and through the Ulama, who in spite of being humans are infallible in their delivery of it?

Such claims to exclusivity of wisdom and infallibility, if accepted, brings us perilously close to the bigotry and the theocracy of the Taliban.

That simply cannot be the moving spirit of a great religion like Islam, the greatness of which depends on its ability to survive debate and contrariety of opinion and interpretation rather than the stifling of it.

The move of lodging a report against intellectual discourse that happens to be deviant from Ulama's is therefore a self serving act to preserve - for the sake of power - authority and monopoly of discursive space on Islam by Ulamas and to stifle debate by intelligent Muslims by means of intimidation.

If entertained, we may as well now change the constitution and become a theocracy advocated by PAS rather than remain a parliamentary democracy, which by definition is supposed to promote rather than stifle debate.

We may as well don't waste time and immediately turn into a dictatorship led by the Ulama.

I say that the government should summon the will to act, and act fast, and just as in the case of detaining KMM members, to stem out usurpation of political power by any group that seeks to do it (not by democratic process) but through pretensions of infallibility to monopolize the discursive space of religion and to control and beguile the masses.