In reference to the complaint by a few Muslim groups on individuals who have allegedly "insulted" and "abused" Islam to the Rulers' conference, I am still waiting for a scholarly rebuttal of Dr Farish A Noor's arguments in an interview featured in The Edge (Dec 3, 2001) from the ulama (clergy) who have grievances about that interview.

Instead of a well-developed argument to counter Farish's points, they have just accused him and other like-minded "liberals" of having the audacity to discuss Islam in public debates organised by third parties without the ulama s presence.

The attack is unfair as the so-called "unfit" liberals have sacrificed time and energy to defend Islam's image at international forums to often hostile audiences. I wonder why nobody ever invites the ulama . It might just give these liberals a much deserved break.

It is also condescending of the ulama to think that Muslims are easily confused by the unfit liberals. Are we living in the 21st century?

The ulama also insinuate that only they can discuss Islam and its interpretation is their monopoly. Does this now mean that Muslims should cease reading and reflecting on the Quran on their own?

Must we restrict ourselves to Malaysian ulama only? If so, can they please establish their credibility by stating their religious as well as secular qualifications? It is about time we question the qualifications of ulama in this country as well.

In a malaysiakini article, an ulama said that "although there are individuals who have knowledge of Islam, it does not mean that everyone can speak for Islam as many are narrow-minded in their interpretation" and "there have been a lot of writings recently from individuals claiming to be progressive and open to Islam but in reality, what they say is far from the truth".

His statement does not enlighten us how the liberals allegedly "insulted" and "abused" Islam. Ambiguity is often used in communications strategy to mask the truth and confuse the audience. However in this case, it only proves that perhaps the liberals were right about the ulama s single-mindedness in preserving their monopoly of the religion.

Instead, the nature of their complaint and the nebulous statements only insult and abuse the religion and Malaysians of all faiths.

The genuine and truly learned ulama too are not spared of the smear by these particular groups who condone Nik Aziz's promise of heaven to PAS party supporters when even an ill-taught Muslim knows that heaven and hell is the sole prerogative of Allah and Allah alone.

It is now time to act against Nik Aziz and all pseudo- ulama who condone PAS' promise of heaven since the promise of heaven directly challenges Allah's authority on his creations. Why have these ulama groups not taken Nik Aziz to task to prove their integrity as Muslims?