It is impossible for an article, especially one on a controversial issue, to suit the appetite of all readers. From the content of what SB M Jun wrote , it was easy to understand why he is unhappy about my article .

I am not going to deny that my article is only part of the complete picture, but it is not my intention to deliberately side-step the so-called 'litany of feeble-minded commentaries' as pointed out by SB M Jun. In fact, I have written on the 'azan' controversy in my column, to refute those who tried to instigate unhealthy religious sentiments by twisting the real issue.

While asking for Islam to be left alone, the writer emotionally criticised other religions at the same time. Some of his criticisms are not unfounded, but the approach and motive are certainly wrong.

He agrees to have an interfaith dialogue, but immediately denies that any meaningful dialogue may be conducted under the auspices of the Interfaith Commission. Why?

The reason seems to be 'the prevalence and perverseness of a permissive mind-set and a culture of abdication amongst the ranks of priesthood and institutions of certain faiths which we find difficult to reconcile with'.

And again, the author launches attacks on other faiths on issues involving morality as a personal choice. I am in no position to comment on these accusations which are regarded as difficult to reconcile with (the Islamic teachings).

But I think on these issues alone, interfaith dialogues could serve to clear up some misunderstandings, if any, and to find the common values or fields to promote interfaith cooperation.

Or, at least, provide an opportunity for all faiths to learn how to interact, to respect each other and to learn from each other.