I write in the light of Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party's (PAS hereafter) urging at their 55th general assembly that the National Fatwa Council investigate Sisters in Islam (SIS hereafter) for its advocacy of ‘liberal Islam' and ‘putting the faith of the Muslims in danger,' and that it ban the organisation ‘if its activities are found to be contrary to the Islamic teachings and principles' in addition to the ‘rehabilitation' of SIS members.

I invite PAS to outline step-by-step why and how the political party came to the resolution that SIS a ‘dangerous' organisation in the Malaysian context. What constitutes ‘liberal Islam?' Who determines what is Islam? Whose interpretation is employed in PAS's resolution?

This outline will allow citizens to understand how such a resolution came to be drafted, tabled, discussed and passed and also shed light on the alleged advocacy of SIS that is ‘contrary to Islam.'

In addition, it will allow citizens to question who has the privilege of determining the interpretation of a faith. While I support PAS's right to exercise freedom of expression, silencing others' engagement of religious discourse is unacceptable.

PAS's motion - ‘We are aware that their (SIS) approach can easily be accepted by the Muslims and this is dangerous as it can twist their ‘aqidah', especially the young and those who went through the secular education' - is problematic on many levels and impertinent to any thinking person who values their faith and constitutional rights.

Are educated citizens to assume Muslims with so-called ‘secular education' (requires PAS' definition) are religiously handicapped, hence vulnerable to manipulation? Is there a barometer for PAS's understanding of ‘aqidah' and ‘taqwa' (piety)?

By what measure does PAS determine that one requires ‘rehabilitation'? As a Muslim with a ‘secular education', I recall that one of the most desirable virtues in Islam is of personal piety that defies mortal judgment (‘...Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of Allah is the one with the most piety' - Qur'an 49:13).

I see the call to investigate SIS and the suggestion to ban the organisation if it is declared ‘haram' as an authoritarian move to shrink critical public spaces for religious debates and a brazen silencing of critical voices in civil society.

I urge PAS and SIS to convene for a sit-down to discuss this matter and come to an understanding that benefits the struggle for rights and protects the rights of citizens to freedom of expression.

I applaud PAS members Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud and Dr Lo'Lo Mohamad Ghazali for speaking out against their party's resolution on SIS. Their suggestion to engage SIS in a critical dialogue rather than investigate or ban the organization should be heeded.

Groups that are struggling for rights, be it Muslim, Hindu, Chinese or indigenous people should be not be intimidated or persecuted for sharing their viewpoints, least of all in a nation that projects itself as a ‘modern' and ‘democratic' country that promotes and protects the rights of all citizens regardless of their ethnic group or religious affiliation.