The menacing tone of Ariff Yusofs Do not toy with Islam

brought back boyhood memories of the sort of schoolyard bully that you had better listen to because he can call on an unseen but vast gang of "seething, angry" numbers in reserve.

It might seem redundant to add anything to Sharaad Kuttan's apt response , so I'll limit my comments to a single fascinating paragraph from Ariffs letter.

"We are not engaging in 'coffee-shop talk' here, but a serious discourse on jihad . For a non-Muslim to talk down on Muslims in this fashion, Tai must bare his credentials and his agenda!"

What exactly does Mr Ariff Yusof mean by "serious discourse"? Whatever it is, it appears that it is something that only Muslims (and even then only specially qualified Muslims) can engage in.

Non-Muslims (and the non-expert) even in matters which affect them all, can either:

a) Engage in 'coffee shop talk' (some of us think this is not a bad thing at all, but it's certainly not "serious discourse" in Ariffs sense of the term); or

b) Talk down to Muslims after declaring their credentials and their agenda.

It is implied that when non-Muslims discuss Islam there must be an "agenda", by which Ariff must mean a hidden (read, hostile) agenda, since the declared purpose, or agenda, of Tai's very unhidden letter of March 14 in malaysiakini was to defend Dr Farish A Noor. Since (a) is offered as the contrast to 'serious discourse', would (b) qualify?

Not likely, since Ariff has already ruled that any talk of this sort will be "talking down to Muslims." We may be forgiven for concluding that non-Muslims are by definition excluded from 'serious discourse'. The fact that Tai was paraphrasing Farish's views on Islam rather than claiming to speak with any "lofty" (Ariff's word) scholarly authority of his own is beside the point, though it does show how thin Ariff's skin is.

Neither Mr Tai nor Dr Farish were claiming to speak authoritatively on an Islamic concept. Both were offering their own views in good faith as Malaysian citizens (Mr Tai, furthermore, was defending a fellow citizen rather than making any claims about Islam). Notice that we cannot say the same thing about Ariff Yusof. He represents the views of the Muslim scholars associations of Kedah and Malaysia (PUK and PUM respectively) and the feelings, he tells us, of a large number of very angry people.

You cannot have it both ways. It is a key part of the project of the promoters of the 'Islamisation' process in Malaysia that public discourse be Islamised: i.e. that some of its key terms enter the public realm through legal and financial practice and education. Once in the public realm these terms become the legitimate concern of all citizens. I am not aware of any move to promote the alternative: to have two classes of citizens, those who may and those who may not engage in the 'serious discourse' of the public realm.

There can be no democracy, or even justice in a modern state without a public sphere. Precisely as citizens, people have the right to discuss matters and concepts which affect them all without petty demands, fortified by vague threats of violence, for 'balance', 'credentials' and confessions of 'agenda'.

You cannot simultaneously demand a public status for Islam, including compliance with its laws, and fence off its discourse as a private affair, off-limits to all (even to Muslims such as Farish Noor) but PAS, the PUM and those who rear up to their full height by virtue of claims to represent seething masses of very angry people. If you can call for a citizen to be jailed for something he said, you can bear to have what he said be discussed by other citizens.