Note that the Star online report of Husam’s clarification does not prove that he has not made the statement, insofar as one thinks that the NST online report does not prove that he has made it.

Here is a case where we have a claim and counter-claim by two different newspapers. Without further evidence, we do not know whether or not Husam has made the statement.

I’m not anti-Islam. I reject PAS’s agenda because it is not appropriate for the multi-religious and multi-cultural Malaysia. I’ve talked to progressive Islamic scholars from Indonesia, and have very high regard for them. Part of the problem is PAS’ fundamentalistic interpretation of Islam.

By the way, I’m a philosopher of science and have no academic degree in Islam or anti-Islam.

Godfather, one cannot get any research degree in any respectable university by just ‘academic regurgitations’. Also, regurgitating the claim that someone’s else is allegedly doing ‘academic regurgitations’ without making any substantial points about the subject under discussion does not further any discussion.

When a discussant D has provided arguments X, Y, Z for a certain proposition P, one who disagrees with P may take great pleasure in saying all sorts of bad things about D. But at the end of the day, one still has to face up to the fact that nothing useful has been said about P and X, Y, Z. People enjoy and engage in ad hominem arguments because they either have no substantial ones or do not take them seriously.

Sadly, many people think that they can argue their case in a serious and rational discussion with the rhetoric and strategies they use in squabbling with their family members.