I refer to the somewhat peculiar letter by Holocaust Rememberer .

In wishing to set aside his seemingly paralysing fear of being subjugated to my religious laws, I wish to reassert that this is exactly the problem that has plagued this country of ours. Obviously, the writer thinks that a Muslim is allowed to patronise pubs and discos.

What then is the definition of 'moderacy' in Islam? This has been an issue where the Muslims themselves have been locked in bitter argument. In order to settle an argument regarding Islam, first and foremost, the litigating parties must be Muslims and ones who believes in the principles of Islam and the 'iman'.

The writer said that moderate Muslims, such as those detained in the Jawi raid , formed a 'shield' to protect non-Muslims from extremist Muslims in this country.

I would like to think that such guardians or 'shields' to be those of good morals, those who can lead people to virtuosity. And virtuousness cannot be found in places such as those raided by Jawi. Of course, I am willing to be proven wrong.

Just for the sake of argument, can one imagine the ridiculousness of Muslim drunkards being the vanguard of non-Muslims in Malaysia? Or for that matter scantily-clad Muslim women? Or even Muslim gigolos who frequent these haunts?

Do not impress upon Muslims that moderacy is defined as having a Muslim name, praying five times a day and also the right to drink liquor and frequent nightclubs. The domain of discussion for this is closed to non-Muslims whose religions and customs are not questioned by Muslims.

I feel that this - the questioning of Islamic laws by non-Muslims - is a direct result of Islam-bashing by Muslims themselves. Non-Muslims, seeing this trend, feel that it is okay to jump on the bandwagon to further clobber the already battered image of Islam today.

Well, I must say, it is not okay.