Malaysiakini columnist Phar Kim Beng refers to himself as a Muslim revert. A 'born-again Christian' is a person who was once a church-going Christian, then stopped, but then rediscovered Christ or returned to the church.

A Muslim revert, however, is not the Muslim equivalent of that. A Muslim revert according to their own construal, is a person who enters Islam, but has never been a Muslim before. The revert aspect is the attitude that he or she was always a Muslim but was previously not aware of it.

By implication all non-Muslims are also Muslims but simply have not realised the fact. Thus, non-Muslims are incomplete, while Muslims are in the privileged position of having become enlightened.

It may be the case that Phar Kim Beng does not mean revert in this manner and I'm sure no offence is meant, but the implications of revert so construed, as it is by others, may be offensive to non-Muslims.

I thoroughly defend the right to free expression, but I would, in the spirit of open discussion, like to express my objection to the attitude that gives rise to the concept of Muslim reverts (and similarly, to Christian, Buddhist etc reverts if such concepts exist).

My objection is of two kinds. Firstly, personally, I do not think that non-Muslims should be regarded as unaware of some supposedly underlying and innate knowledge, understanding or identity.

Secondly, I think that in the long term, it may have negative consequences. It is apparent that many Muslims, in Malaysia at least, feel justified in believing that they a) are able to speak for all Muslims and represent their views, b) are able to categorically say what Islam is and stands for and c) to subject 'deviant' Muslims to their beliefs, while rejecting the legitimacy of alternative views.

It is also the case that propagating unsanctioned understandings of Islam, such as that of the Shiites, is a Syariah offence and people have been arrested under ISA for this.

The idea of a revert implies that a non-Muslim is in fact an unrealised Muslim - but a Muslim none the less. Should alternative streams of Islam continue to be approached with intolerance, the logical conclusion would be that those who currently feel at liberty to tell all Muslims what is right for them, will feel at liberty to tell unrealised Muslims what is right for them too, and subject them to those beliefs.

Reports of non-Muslim girls in National Service being made to wear long-sleeved shirts while boys were not being made to do so is perhaps a forewarning of this.

But I think the core issue is one of representation. It is relatively easy to agree that non-Muslims should be not be subjected to Islamic law/morality etc.

My sincere concern is the readiness with which some people speak on behalf of all Muslims and impose their understanding of correct behaviour and morality on others. Using the example above, that Muslim girls should have the freedom to wear short-sleeves if they choose.

The reasons for the injunctions against expressing an unsanctioned understanding of Islam are evidently political. This is apparent in the recent justifications for the threat to use the ISA against Ayah Pin .

The authority's reported concerns were a) to retain Muslims within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts, and b) 'maintain' the 'unity' of Muslims and prevent division. These reasons are political - not spiritual.

It is my opinion that the right of anyone to represent the views of all others of the same faith or religion and speak on their behalf is illegitimate.

I sincerely understand that the feeling that one's own understanding of the truth is 'The Truth for all' is very strong. It can be difficult to imagine that others are not incorrect in their differing beliefs.

However real one's truth feels to one's self, I implore all to understand that others can have an equally fervent and sincere set of differing beliefs.

And for those who insist on using the term 'Muslim revert' publicly, please understand that this does cause offence to at least some non-Muslims.