Fathima Idris is free to describe my article as she pleases. I want to assure her that I will not send a mob to harass, heckle, hinder or hamper, or even threaten to harm her for expressing her opinion. She has the right to be heard and to be protected from the herd mentality she condones.

The thrust of my article or 'emotional diatribe' as she has decided to call it, was a point-by-point rebuttal of Mohd Azmi's justification and the inferred support of the mob that disrupted the legally-held forum. I had asserted that the protestors had a right to demonstrate but were wrong in trampling on the rights of the participants of the forum. May I reiterate, and we must make this very clear, there must be no place for mob rule in Malaysia.

They say attack is the best form of defence, so began Fathima Idris. Who was it that first worked up the mob to attack the constitutional rights of the participants of that forum? Who was it that fanned the emotions of the crowd to even threaten to storm the forum site? They also say, dear Fathima Idris, that the best form of attack is to keep on throwing doubt and suspicion on those you disagree with and eventually some of it may stick and look like the truth. From her previous correspondence on the subject, and like Mohd Azmi, Fathima Idris has proven to be very adept at this.

All she has done so far is repeatedly cast aspersions on the intentions of Article 11. Earlier, she had 'smelt a rat' (but acted like a mouse when she had the perfect opportunity to expose Article 11's supposed masquerade at their forum). Then she claimed to have seen a Trojan horse and now she has hallucinations of arrogant and condescending preachers.

Why did Fathima Idris shy away from choosing the intelligent and civil way of discourse, debate and dialogue at the forum? Was she afraid of an intellectual engagement, especially with the three invited Muslim speakers?

Referring to my article she says: 'His insistence in calling the demonstrators a mob surely belies his prejudices when, on all accounts, none of the photographs in the media attest to this being the case.' The eyewitnesses' (participants') accounts, recorded in the current issue of Aliran Monthly speak of a mob. I had in my article quoted Shad Saleem Faruqi, a respected constitutional law professor who said he had witnessed first-hand the triumph of mob rule over the rule of law. ( The Star , May 18).

All the English newspapers in town (yes, all) called the demonstrators a mob. The editorial of The Sun (May 16), by inference, described them as an organised mob which unlawfully imposed their will on others. The editorial of the New Straits Times called them a mob which used intimidatory tactics. The Star described their action as mob behaviour which must not be tolerated in any civilised society. Prejudiced?

Well, equally prejudiced then were the police who told the organisers that the forum had to be cut short or cancelled because they felt that they might not be able to control the crowd, which they claimed was threatening to storm the hotel. They strongly implied that the safety of the participants was at stake. If it was not a mob would the police have 'advised' that the forum come to an abrupt end?

On her questioning of Article 11's real motive in holding their road show, I would leave this issue to Article 11 to respond. However, I wish to add that like any civil group, Article 11 has the right to organise, conscientise, and even send a petition (if that is their real intention of having road show) to the government. And Fatima Idris and her like-minded friends have the right to do the same.

And of course, there is Pak Lah's response to the incident in Penang: 'What they talked about was not in contravention of any laws because at the end of the day the government will decide on the matter.' ( The Star , May 17). Why not leave the public to judge for themselves the sincerity of Article 11's intentions. Unless of course Fathima Idris and her ilk thinks that we are stupid and are incapable of discerning and deciphering the truth.

Fathima Idris also says: 'But of course Martin Jalleh and his ilk think we are stupid and are evidently not even aware what the forum was about'.

First of all I do not at all think of anyone as being stupid. Secondly, I had referred to Mohd Azmi's clever jibe at Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz, who had described the protest as wrong and stupid: 'It is not stupid to protest but it's stupid to comment without listening to what people have to say'. I then pointed out by way of a question that his logic was an inference that it would be 'stupid' to protest without first listening to what the speakers at the forum had to say.

Since she appears to rely very much on photographic evidence, Fathima Idris should take a look at some of the pictures of the posters held by the protestors that Sunday: 'IFC, a Zionist scheme'; 'IFC insults Islam'; 'Fight Liberal Islam'; 'Oppose the IFC'; 'Don't mock Allah's laws'. But the forum was definitely not on the Interfaith Commission (IFC).

Fathima Idris accuses Article 11 of stage managing this whole thing to register its own view. The same can be said of Fathima Idris. Fathima Idris and her ilk consider it their duty to dominate, dictate and decide on what non-Muslims (and other Muslims) can and cannot discuss and do. They impose their views on us. They might even intimidate us with a mob. They insult our intelligence. Can anyone be more 'arrogant', 'condescending' and 'patronising' than this?

Alas, as is always, the greatest casualty in religion is God himself - as he watches from above the puny minds trying to play God.