One of the more important outcomes to the Inter-Faith Commission conference (IFC) and the Jan 20 Jawi (Federal Territory Religious Department) raid is the rise of civil society voices. Another significant point which is worth noting is the restraint of the use of accusations of blasphemy, unbelief or of insulting Islam by civil society groups including the ulama (religious scholars) associations.

Most activists, writers and human rights defenders clearly remember when these unfortunate accusations used to inundate engagements and kill the public discourse. The discourse by civil society actors, to my mind has spiraled with new actors and arguments have become more sophisticated or least more argumentative.

Sim Kwang Yang, a fellow columnist is right, we have malaysiakini to thank, for fair reporting of views and exchanges.

Reform may sometimes be seen and taken to mean opposition, but reform is also a multiplicity of ideas which complicates the debate. It is this multiplicity and complication which interest me.

It would be interesting to have a grasp of the different levels of discussion in the context of free speech and expression and the idiosyncracies that would attach to a discourse on Islam, its fiqh (laws arrived through interpretation) and interpretation methodologies in the context of reformation.

Being Muslim per se is not enough. Most Muslims like any other ordinary person may not have the skills in debating jurisprudence. Jurisprudence as a science in law is a branch of knowledge. It can be learned by any person of whatever creed. To put it simply, "authority" in debating is not limited to who the person is, male, female, ulama, writer or activist. Authority has to do very much with expertise and skills as well.