I refer to Fathima Idris' letter entitled Warfare, poets, and contraception .

When Fathima reverted to the familiar Muslim stance to refer all matters on understanding religion to the 'ulama' I was not altogether surprised. Independence of thought and an open and flexible mind is still out of her mental radar screen. My compliments to her for appearing to be of rational and independent mind have been misplaced.

This dependence on the ulama's counselling for religious understanding is a notion without foundation. Any believer must surely have the necessary and basic rational understanding of his religion on his own right. He should have the courage of his conviction to accept it, observe and perform all of its tenets, explain it to others, and have the absolute confidence to defend it against any criticism; even to propagate it if and when necessary, but at all times on his volition and with rational, clean and clear facts and arguments.

Without any clear conviction and rationality, his belief is based on blind faith and on a rigid and closed inflexible mind. Religion with rationality is fine, but without it and only blind faith, it is unfortunate. So, the ulama have no role to play at all in a person's adherence to faith and belief.

Fathima may claim, like many others before her, that individual conviction and rationality has its limits, and that one needs something more than just the human intellect to reach the spiritual world; thus the need for the ulama's counsel.

Or, perhaps that understanding spiritual truth goes beyond the human intellect. So much so only the ulama are privy to Islamic secrets and their finer points. But should this be the case, there exists a huge glaring contradiction here. As fellow humans how can the ulama - despite them being very knowledgeable on Islam - ever go 'beyond the human intellect'?

Who are they anyway? I have not come across any satisfactory definition of an ulama, apart from those who are good practising Muslims, speak the Arabic language, have access to the 'kitab' or Islamic (and Arabic) religious literature, and can disseminate and teach the Islamic religion. These are 'ordinary' descriptions, so the tendency to elevate them whoever they are to mystical levels has to be questioned.

Or are they institutions like Jakim, Jawi, and the string of ubiquitous others similar to these two? Perhaps Fathima can shed light on this poser. I reiterate that the ulama are ordinary mortals. If they are institutions then they are 'ordinary' bureaucracies. As humans, their intellect is therefore no better or worse than mine (and I have the courage of my conviction to say this). I would nonetheless leave Fathima alone for adopting this philosophy of ulama dependence, but only to the extent that she is entitled to her views. But please do not insist for it to be shared by others, including me.

She cautioned those who 'worship the intellect' not to be too clever, for this could lead to 'missing the point entirely' and that the logical mind sows 'the seed of delusion'. Her definition of 'worshiping the intellect' may sound catchy but I am not sure whether this can hold water, despite the risk of being labelled 'too clever' by saying so. Intellectualisation is seeking alternatives, seeking truths, and does not involve anyone literally worshiping the intellect. Nor does it lead to delusion, for truth indicates a situation free from delusions. She is closer to the mark had she said 'intellectuals worship truth.'

I now revert to the three questions . These questions were formulated against the backdrop of two fundamental Islamic claims. Firstly, that all Islamic authorities and laws are constant and unchanged from the time of Adam to the present day and on to the future, to end only on the Day of Judgment.

Secondly, that they are all written in the Quran and collated in the Hadiths of Muhammad. Muslims are exhorted to emulate or approximate the teachings of the Quran and the Hadiths from the beginning of mankind to the Last Day. On the first two questions, I was quite frankly seeking explanation as to why in the Quran (the unchanged Word of God), such mundane and very human issues like war spoils and hatred for poets are addressed. On the third, I was indirectly asking as to whether or not Muslims should follow the example of Mohammad by marrying nine-year-old girls. I was hoping for some kind of reply.

These searching questions are instead deflected by Fathima by way of throwing a smokescreen of confusion around them. She merely stated initially that they were 'simplistic interpretations' and with 'obvious distortions'. I do not remember making any kind of interpretation, unless in highlighting the claimed constancy of religious laws and the final authority of the Quran and Hadiths. In the event, do please favour me by indicating where my 'interpretation' and 'distortions' are.

Secondly, it is she who had distorted my questions like bringing additional concepts and issues like (i) 'Islamic war' which I did not ask for; (ii) that God hates only those poets who express their souls in some negative ways; and (iii) the modern parents' dilemma whether or not their 10-year-old daughters should have access to contraceptives or not. A smokescreen is not an answer to a question. Instead, it prompts me to ask, has she got anything to hide?

Perhaps this is what she meant when she says that we ordinary humans must not intellectualised to seek alternatives, to seek universal truth. For in so doing we might uncover some truths not entirely palatable to some of us.