Is "Islam attacked under the guise of freedom of speech or is freedom of speech attacked under the guise of Islam? The War over Jihad published in Asiaweek (Oct 12, 2001), he decried the militant interpretation given to jihad and explained that jihad should in fact be loosely translated as to struggle or to expend effort for a particular cause. The term originally referred to a personal existential struggle against one's own moral failings, like pride, fear, anxiety and prejudice. The Prophet Muhammad was reported to have described this internal battle as the Jihad Akbar (Greater Jihad)."

One notes that the line of interpretation by Farish is consistent with what the King, the constitutional head of Islam said in his royal address at the official opening of the fourth session of the 10th parliament  and it was not martyrdom (as interpreted by some extremist religious groups) linked to force violence and bloodshed! (Bernama, Mar 11)

So when accusing Farish for disparaging the religion, why did the PAS president not look at the wider context of other writings of the writer such as the one published in Asiaweek?

It is hard to understand just how a person like Farish who has taught at the Centre for Civilisational Dialogue, University of Malaya and the Institute for Islamic Studies, Frie University of Berlin and written extensively on Islam could have done so with an object to disparage rather than out of love for and interest in the religion.

In lamenting that the authorities took no action in response to PUM's complaint to the Council of Rulers, might not it have occurred to the PAS president that the rulers were not sympathetic to PAS' inflexible interpretation?

For it was PAS that called for jihad in response to the American campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

In further lamenting that "all government agencies such as Bukit Aman (police headquarters), Jakim (Malaysian Islamic Development Department) and Ikim (Malaysian Islamic Understanding Institute) have been silent as if the matter was not important and was not a potential threaten public peace" the opposition leader had in fact vested upon himself the mantle of religious authority to be the final arbiter of what constitutes disparagement or otherwise relating to Islam — over all others including the mentioned authorities.

This is again a manifestation of how PAS would claim exclusive monopoly on all Islamic discourse not tolerating other viewpoints.

The PAS leader further posed the question: "Does this (silence on the part of the authorities) not invite the anger of the Muslims? Does this not threaten the stability of the country? We can imagine if Muslims express their anger they would soon be labeled as fanatics, militants, terrorists and so on. (But) who can the Muslims turn to? Are they merely to keep silent like the government ulama (religious scholars)?"

It may be then asked: Who then is really inciting anger against the government authorities or ulama in jeopardy of public order?