Preventing the disparagement of Islam is a very different kettle of fish from preventing writers with "no in-depth knowledge on Islam" to write or speak on it.

While prevention of disparagement is reasonable, using one isolated instance of "perceived" disparagement as a pretext to blanket silence all those with no "in-depth" knowledge from discoursing Islam is to up the ante for theocratic dictatorship as seen in Banning public views on Islam a sign of theocratic dictatorship: SIS (April 19).

Who has "in-depth" knowledge? What is the measure of "in-depth" knowledge — knowledge of Arabic, degree in Islam from Al-Azhar University, Cairo? Who judges who has the "in-depth" knowledge — the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia or Jakim? Who judges and determines whether such a judge of others has "in-depth" knowledge?

In this context, where does a doctor with a medical degree from the University of Malaya in Singapore who is much looked up to by others in the Muslim world as its spokesman stand in terms of in-depth knowledge?

These are indeed difficult questions that have first to be determined, and settled before Jakim's call for a ban on writers with no "in-depth knowledge" from expressing their views on Islam can be meaningfully enforced.

Concerning PUM's taking six writers to task, even PAS spiritual leader and Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat himself (a devout man of impeccable Islamic credentials) demurred in that, to him, it was all right to criticise the ulama (Muslim scholar) so long as no insults were traded, let alone the much lesser act of discoursing, speaking or writing on Islam without "in-depth" knowledge.

Now, that is a very wise man. He understands the wisdom of listening to the honest criticism or comments of even an ignoramus in religious matters.

This is because it is only through allowing the ignoramus to discourse, that the light of Islamic knowledge can be disseminated from him the more knowledgeable to the other, the "not so knowledgeable", with the former, by the way, also benefitting from a clearer and more vivid impression of the truth as a result of this collision of views (through discourse) resulting in an exchange of error for truth!

At the same time being knowledgeable is not the same as being infallible. No one is infallible. This has to be recognised. For even the fool has his story to tell, and in between many errors, even the ignoramus can be occasionally right and that is where even the knowledgeable guru can learn from him — as long as such ignoramus is not silenced and banned from speaking by reason only of his lack of "in-depth" knowledge.

So it can be seen from the above that when discourse is allowed, it is a beneficial win-win situation for both the knowledgeable and the ignorant.

Generally, when a person seeks to curb discourse, it could mean that he is not too sure of his own grasp of knowledge in a particular field and hence afraid that discourse may shake his own belief system. Or, he intends to assert or preserve authority based on an implied claim to infallibility compared to others. Or both.

It may be further asked how does the call (to ban non-experts from commenting on Islam) stand in relation to the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Federal Constitution?

Is this freedom only accorded to those with "in-depth" knowledge on religion? Has the less knowledgeable no freedom to comment — no freedom to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed right to fair comment — on religion even when, by imposition of an Islamic state be it PAS' or Umno's version, religion affects him (whether Muslim or non-Muslim) privately and publicly that he has in any event no choice not to be so affected?

Here, we have Mahathir organising and presiding the Organisation of Islamic Conference in Kuala Lumpur on terrorism, visiting Morocco, Bahrain and Libya, and in international forums, bringing our country to the forefront as a model Islamic nation with a moderate, enlightened and progressive face of and approach to Islam — is not the entire government or the PM's objective being flatly contradicted and thwarted by the call to ban people without "in-depth" knowledge of religion to comment on that which affects them?

Is not such a call retrogressive, the first step towards a Taliban regime? It must be reiterated that even opposition leader Nik Aziz never went so far as to make such a call, and implicitly tolerated if not encouraged discourse!

How is Sisters in Islam to engage in feminine ijtihad (ruling) to improve the position of Muslim women and keep their aspirations up for equality if its key spokesperson, Zainah Anwar, was not permitted to publish her views on grounds that she lacks "in-depth" knowledge on religion?

If this is the case, what is the point of Parliament's amending Article 8 of the Federal Constitution to include equality of gender as a constitutionally protected right?

I ask all Malaysians whether liberal, moderate, conservative or extreme who care for the future direction of this country to take a stand on this issue.

I rest my case.