I refer to Mazeni Alwi's recent column ' The other side of zealotry ' wherein he makes extensive reference to my purported views.

Mazeni finds it "odd" that speakers "known for their controversial and provocative views" such as Riffat Hassan, Ebrahim Moosa, Amina Wadud and I were invited to a conference on Islam and HIV/AIDS. What is inherently wrong with being "provocative" and "controversial"? Is this not the path of Prophet Muhammad? Is there a single Prophet that ever walked this earth who was not "provocative and controversial?"

It depends, entirely on who hurls the accusation; to women who live on the edges of society, to people who are stigmatised due to their HIV-positive status, those who advocate spousal abuse may well be controversial.

A telling example of how some people and some issues get selectively "controversialised" was seen at the conference itself when one conference speaker of Mazeni's ilk suggested if more of "them [women] stayed at home" then we would have less HIV/AIDS. No controversy! No provocation!

How sad the ignorance of hunger and poverty; of the tragedy of the choice faced by millions of women in the Two-Third world between death for mothers and their kids by starvation on the one hand and death some years down the line through HIV/AIDS or sexually transmitted disease.

We, depending on our views, choose to controversialise others - and they are related to power. Affirming patriarchal rubbish does not make one controversial, challenging it does.

There is nothing odd about my presence at the conference; I founded the first organisation in the Muslim world dedicated specifically to supporting Muslims who are HIV-positive and I currently serve as its director. What, Mazeni, is so odd about a qualified 'alim (from a traditional madrassah in Pakistan) who holds a doctorate in Islamic studies and has written three major works on Islam and who currently heads - on a full time basis - an organisation serving Muslims who are HIV-positive attending a conference on Islam and HIV/AIDS?

But then contrary to the impression that he tries to convey in his column, he knows nothing about me or my work. Every single of his numerous statements referring to me or my work was shamelessly lifted from a review of my book, ' Quran, Liberation and Pluralism' (Oneworld, Oxford, 1997) written by Abdul Hakim Murad. But then if he could not be generous and honest enough to acknowledge his debt to Murad, a conservative fellow traveller, how silly of me, an adversary, to expect honesty and generosity.

Repeating Murad's allegation, he accuses me of "demanding" the abolition of gender-related dimensions of Quranic legislation which conflict with modern liberal values. I do not know what Mazeni knows about Islam - but Islam has always adapted to changing social mores.

Let's just look at the current dominant Muslim portrayal of sex within a male-female marriage as the approved one in Islam. This is "new" orthodox position - it is, in fact, a modernist invention.

It is an example of precisely how unorthodox "orthodoxy" is and how it re-invents itself to adjust to the times. Much as we like to lament modernity and the so-called "politically correct" crowd, the reality is that Muslims, like other communities, have always lived within history and our understanding of Islam has always been shaped by our contexts.

Contrary to the position of the current orthodoxy, the Quran speaks approvingly of two kinds of relationship for sexual fulfilment - that of marriage between a male and female (24.33) and that of slave ownership. While the Quran is clearly opposed to sexual intercourse with a non-spouse of the opposite gender for free persons, it does condone ownership over another person - slavery - as the basis of legitimate sexual relationship, i.e., a male freeperson may have sexual intercourse with his female slaves.

"And those who protect their private parts except from their wives and from those whom their right hands possess - such indeed are not blameworthy; but those who seek to go beyond this; it is they who are the transgressors" (Q. 70:29-31). (And since on cannot clap with one hand - and I am not talking about masturbation - one can assume that sex for the owned slave women is also permissible with her owner.)

Of course, the Quran encourages the liberation of slaves but all of these texts belong to a category regarded as optional or advisory. The permissibility of a) slavery and b) slaves as a means of sexual gratification is, however, a legal one rooted in the verses regarded as categorical and with legal effect. This condonation is usually passed over in somewhat embarrassed silence by most contemporary commentators or placed in its "proper historical context".

The point that I want to make is that we are able to respond to new understandings of what it means to be human and to respond humanely to impulses around us without dismissing these as mere Western induced promiscuity or anti-Islamic. We do however need to ask what impulses we are responding to: are they just about social control by men over women.

Lifting from Murad, he accuses me and my "determined protest" of changing Nelson Mandela's mind on his promises made to Muslims to introduce Muslim Personal Law in a post-apartheid South Africa. It would have been lovely - and somewhat dangerous - for me to have had that kind of influence, but I hate lies, even if they will enhance perceptions of my influence.

First Mandela, does not easily betray his promises. Second, he never made any such promises. Finally there has been a long process to introduce MPL in South Africa and they are finally bearing fruit. Muslims have been an intrinsic part of the liberation struggle and they deserve to have their piece of a post-apartheid cake. We have fought hard for a non-racial and a non-sexist society and we are working to ensure that the kind of MPL implemented does not contribute to injustice against women.

If the Mazenis of the world, insist that there is only one kind of MPL, well you only have to look at the Taliban, the Saudis and the Iranis. (But then none of these may qualify as "truly Islamic" to the fundamentalist who insist on equating their understanding of the truth with Truth itself another kind of syirk )

Mazeni gloats about the fact that the organisation that I co-founded in the 80s no longer exists. The Call of Islam was founded to mobilise Muslims against apartheid and its role in this regard is undisputed. I am proud to have led the Muslim challenge to apartheid. I carry scars on arms - the remnants of being dragged off "Whites Only" beaches because I refused to get off; I was first detained by the security police when I was 14 - a proudly controversial and provocative young Muslim - when the traditional leaders where preaching obedience to apartheid.

And yes, the Call to Islam no longer exists because apartheid no longer exists. And yes, I moved on to other trenches - HIV/AIDS is destroying our continent and so, three years ago I founded Positive Muslims to work with those who are HIV-positive and to spread awareness about Islamic responses to it. And, Insya Allah , when HIV no longer exists then Positive Muslims will also be no longer.