Abdul Rahman Abdul Talib writes well in ' PAS' policy on liquor is progressive ' , but stumbles when reason comes in his way. Firstly, let's dispose of the factual error - Socrates didn't die of intoxication. It is well-known that he died because he was forced to consume hemlock (a poisonous herb).

As for his rebuttal, while I fully agree that alcoholism is something that needs to be controlled, there is an important distinction between alcoholism and drinking alcohol. Many drink alcohol, but don't become alcoholics. Furthermore, some drink due to health, cultural and religious reasons (e.g. red wine is good for the heart). So, his reasoning is off-tangent to say the least.

To compound it, what is the merit of arguing for a decision that takes away the right of a non-drinker (as all Muslims should be) from patronising shops which do sell alcohol? I do not drink alcohol-based beverages, but why should that stop me from patronising shops that, among others, sell such drinks? Is my faith so fragile?

The truth of the matter is that the decision insults Muslims. PAS is attempting to govern the lives of the Muslims in Terengganu without giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are mature adults with thinking faculties.

When the state attempts to impose religious obligations, it means it is invading the sacred relationship that a devotee has with his/her maker. If at all Muslims drink alcohol despite the clear injunction against such actions by the Quran, then let he/she suffer the consequences. That is how a religion should operate - through free will. Certainly not through the imposition of laws and by-laws.

PAS, believe it or not, is making a mockery of Islam. I am not a Muslim, but think Islam has its merits - just like every other religion. But to ensure it stays relevant, the authorities should provide more leeway for individual Muslims to dictate their own religious obligations.

As such, I repeat the issue is not about alcoholism at all... it is about free will and one's relationship with God.