The real problem faced by PUM (Muslim Scholars Association of Malaysia) is that the only form of scholarly discourse known to it is to file complaints against the writers to the Conference of Rulers and other religious departments, appeal to the government to amend the Legal Profession Act to stop the Bar Council from issuing statements, resort to intimidation and coercion by invoking powers of these authorities to silence those whose remarks and views on Islam are offensive to PUM.

The attempted use of force than reason undermines one's own scholarly credentials. It gives the impression that when one is scared of discourse, has not enough broad knowledge to handle the thrust and parry of debate, not confident of winning, the best way to win is to throw at the opponent a blow, and threaten everyone else the same treatment if they open their mouth. Might this not be viewed as the philosophy of a hoodlum than an intellectual?

In psychological mumbo-jumbo, aggression is the best form of defence mechanism against feelings of anger combined with inferiority.

In defence of PUM, Perak mufti Dr Harussani Zakaria had asked Malaysians not to politicise the ulama issue as the ulama institution was not on trial but a group of writers is ( The Star , Feb 27).

However, former Penang state mufti Sheikh Azmi Ahmad hit the nail on the head when he lamented that when young Muslim intellectuals like the writers gave their views on religion "the ulamas did not reply or help the writers out of their confused state"; that "it is sad that no ulama  ( The Star , March 2).

Examining these views, one cannot but help think that ulama have by their actions somehow put their own credentials as scholars on trial.

Ulama are supposed to be learned and wise with integrated knowledge of religion as it bears on other fields. If these were the case, how is it that they could not argue, discourse and debate with the errant writers to correct their confusion?

Throughout the ages, scholars and intellectuals have always pursued the truth and spread the light by reasoning and discourse; and not by cudgel, gauntlet, threats, intimidation and blows.