They say attack is the best form of defence and Martin Jalleh's emotional diatribe in his article Wanted: Protection from mob rule defending of Article 11's masquerade falls into this category.

His insistence in calling the demonstrators "a mob" surely belies his prejudices when, on all accounts, none of the photographs in the media attest to this being the case. It was only after the demonstration in Penang that people started seeing the true complexion of Article 11's roadshow. Prior to this, different people seem to have different understandings of their forum.

Article 11 has been trying to obfuscate the issue and this is clearly borne out in Haris Ibrahim's interview with the New Sunday Times on May 21.

Article 11's aim in having this roadshow is to collect signatures for its petition which will then be presented to the government. The roadshow is not about having a dialogue. Now, if it is a genuine dialogue and discussion, should not the communique on this be one agreed upon by all concerned?

Clearly Article 11 is stage managing this whole thing to register its own view on the pretext of it being for the "silent majority (that) has been silent for too long". So much for democracy and transparency.

Martin Jalleh protests that "the forum was not about opposing the syariah" but is not Article 11 saying that amendment to the Constitution was "ill conceived" and that review powers be given to the civil courts over Shariah Court decisions?

But of course Martin Jalleh and his ilk think we are stupid and are "evidently not even aware what the forum was about". Or as Ivy Josiah patronisingly put it: "Now, we need to increase the debate on how to reaffirm the supremacy of the constitution among Muslims".

Muslims are not opposed to genuine dialogue and discussions on equal terms with the sincere. Not with arrogant and condescending preachers.