I could reasonably foresee that I may not be the only person agitated by Zahid Abbas' letter on quitting Islam with conditions since its content conspicuously draws an inference of despotism by anyone who reads it.

Zahid defended Islam by stating that it allows freedom of faith. However, the obvious self-defeating contradiction he indulged himself in was stating that whoever quits Islam is subject to several conditions.

We all may understand that sometimes conditions imposed on someone quitting a particular organisation or agreement is for the benefit of the parties concerned. However, such conditions imposed should neither be unreasonable, not terribly punitive in nature or at variance with the spirit of liberty.

Zahid's conditions clearly show unreasonableness and is as though Islam wants to maintain monopoly over religious truth and avoid competition. Laying such conditions is both illogical and a contradiction to freedom of religion.

Let us refer to Zahid's conditions and briefly scrutinise them. Zahid states that if a person to quit Islam, he must:

1) Not do so on the grounds that there is something lacking in Islam.

Isn't it obvious that those who quit a particular group to join another group do so because there must be something wanting in their former group and something more beneficial provided by the latter?

When a person decides to change his faith from Islam to another religion, it is definitely for the fact that there must be something lacking which has not satisfied the quitter.

2) Not to say anything negative about Islam as a faith or a way of life.

When a person had discovered the joy and peace or 'benefits' of his new found faith, I am sure he cannot keep it to himself but will share it with others. How is he going to tell others about his good news if he is being restrained by being unable to compare his old faith with aspects of his new faith?

3) Continue to respect Muhammad as the most perfect human/deva, alongside the Hindu gods and Jesus.

This condition is like saying: 'If you believe in someone who is more perfect than Muhammad, you must still say Muhammad is perfect.' It is like saying: 'There are two rules. First I am always right. Second, if in doubt, refer to the first rule." Does it make any sense?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I guess the only faith that allows a quitter to continue to respect Muhammad as the most perfect human alongside Jesus and other selected Hindu gods is the Bahai faith.

4) Recognises the Quran as perfect and flawless.

This would bring the same contradiction as discussed above. It would be most unwise for a person to quit Islam and yet recognise that it has the perfect and flawless scripture. If he recognises that the Quran is flawless, then he knows that all absolute truths flow from it. He would be a fool not to obey it.

There are major theological disagreements between the Quran and the Bible. Either one of them is right or both of them are wrong. They cannot both be right.

5) Does not condemn any of the Sahabah (companions) of the prophets.

The Sahabah would be irrelevant to the quitter. And why should someone who has quit Islam be restricted from giving his honest opinion about the Sahabah in particular?

To demand strict application of Zahid's conditions would not be coherent to the true commitment and real aspirations of a person who renounces Islam. If he still holds on to the said five conditions, he is not truly a person who has totally renounced Islam. He would be a fool who chose something worse having known another still good and perfect.

Therefore, imposing such unreasonable conditions upon a person who quits Islam is no true freedom at all because it is actually asking the impossible from a true believer of a new faith.

But at least, we can commend Zahid Abbas for one thing - that unlike other more conservative ones, Zahid does not advocate death and confiscation of all properties of a person guilty of apostasy.