I refer to Abdul Rahman Talib's letter 'PAS intolerance due to its strong stand on vice', particularly to his statement that "It is not PAS that Disappointed disagrees with but Islam itself".

Now, as I have declared previously about PAS and its members, isn't that statement just predictable and typical of them? If one disagrees with their political stance or policies, then one must be against Islam itself.

Abdul Rahman, it is because of people like you and others with your mindset that PAS is intolerant and dangerous. It is not so much that you won't accept other viewpoints and concerns (and I don't really expect any PAS members to agree with my opinions), but that you denounce any difference of opinions, beliefs or political opposition as being anti-Islam.

Your intentions, policies and motives may not, must not, be questioned. Why? Because you would project that you are equal to Islam itself. Just how you would behave should your party assume political power is just too frightening a thought, not only for non-Muslims but for Muslims as well.

Your members have condemned other parties, particularly Umno as unclean or unworthy or assuming privileged positions. Talking about the last, what about your government in Terengganu?

Didn't it pass legislation exempting state assembly members from certain conditions regarding multiple marriages that ordinary Muslims have to fulfil? Aren't these assembly members the people's representatives? Why the sudden leap to privileged positions the moment they assume power? Aren't you hypocrites?

In reality, you are using religion for your own political advantage, to influence Muslim voters into believing that your party is holier and purer than every other political party, and therefore deserving their votes.

What may be vice to you, like imbibing alcohol, may in fact be normal to others, and even be part of religious ceremonies. You talk as if "drunk driving, adultery, break-up of family institutions, rape, etc" are vices that only happen in a secular state, and not in an Islamic state.

Take Islamic Pakistan, for example. It even has the penalty of revenge-rape that sentences a teenage girl in a family to be sexually brutalised in 'compensation' for a rape allegedly committed by her family member.

In one case, a village elder who passed judgement stood up to remove his trousers so that he could join in to "satisfy justice". Is that an example of a strong stand against vice that you aver Islamic states practics? Perhaps that naughty girl was wearing lipstick and perfume?

I believe that, in the secular world, such an event would be called a criminal atrocity of disgusting lust, perpetuated by a criminally opportunistic beast. And before you yell blasphemy, it has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, but the fact is this did happen in Pakistan, a country governed by syariah law.

What about Nigeria then? A Muslim woman had a child after she was divorced by her husband (family break-ups really shouldn't happen, should they?). The syariah court condemned her to death by stoning for adultery, even though the child was fathered by her ex-husband.

Perhaps another example of your understanding of taking a strong stand on vice? It was due only to the most intense worldwide political pressure (mainly from secular nations) that her life was spared. Did you protest, or did you cheer the sentencing?

Don't forget Afghanistan under the Taliban. Let us leave aside the frequent public hangings and chopping off of hands and legs, because once the mullahs passed the guilty verdict, the victims were finished.

People could not argue against such "holy men" or they would be accused of being anti-Islam. Such a legal set-up certainly would not require a Malaysian-type ISA or any legislation to curb civil liberties. Could this have influenced PAS' claim that it will remove such laws if it forms the government?

What about the Taliban forcing non-Muslims to wear symbols on their clothes to indicate that they were infidels? Maybe to the Taliban, it was a vice not to be a Muslim! That would certainly explain their intolerance.

One could go on with examples of such intolerance and atrocities in Sudan, Bangladesh, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

Basically, Abdul Rahman, don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. Vices are not exclusive to secular countries. Vice, lust and criminality have to do with the individual, not his/her religion or lack of religion.

Unfortunately, when an individual uses religion as a political tool, he immediately enjoys a disproportionate influence among the believers. Such an individual will usually exploit this to the fullest extent to unfairly dismiss opposition.

I am afraid I cannot trust you and PAS to be fair to either the non-Muslims or even the Muslims.

Oh, please don't feel left out on a limb if I point these facts out to you, because you have plenty of company among Christian, Hindu, Jewish and other religious fundamentalists who employ religion as a political vehicle.

Remember who assassinated Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, Yitzhak Rabin, Anwar Sadat, Indira Gandhi and Solomon Bandaranaike? Just your average own citizen with religious intolerance.