KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 9 — Putrajaya’s refusal to prosecute Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali’s alleged call to burn Malay-language bibles was inexcusable as such threats cannot be construed as defending Islam, moderate leader Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah has said.
Saifuddin, who heads the Global Movement of Moderates (GMM), disagreed with Putrajaya’s citing of the police’s conclusion that Ibrahim was merely “defending the sanctity of Islam” when explaining its decision to not charge the latter.
Saifuddin explained that Islam teaches its believers to “respect” other religions and goes as far as forbidding the destruction of places of worship of other faiths even during wartime.
“So, no matter what, you cannot say that ‘burn the Bible’ is in the name of defending Islam. You can give all kinds of reasons, but you cannot say on the ground of defending Islam.
“It is against the teachings of Islam. And when Ibrahim said ‘burn the Bible’, you can’t justify it as defending Islam,” the former higher education deputy minister told Malay Mail Online yesterday.
When asked for examples on when one may be said to be defending Islam, Saifuddin said that an individual would have the right to defend themselves such as when facing a “cruel leader” or when a war is declared against them or Islam.
“But, in no circumstances can you, in defending Islam, (be) allowed to curse or say bad things against another religion,” he added.
In a written parliamentary reply to DAP’s Bagan MP Lim Guan Eng, minister Nancy Shukri also said that a police probe had found that Ibrahim’s statement was directed at individuals who had purportedly distributed bibles containing the word “Allah” to students, including the Malays, at Penang’s Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Jelutong.
While preferring engagement and dialogue, Saifuddin observed that the public may perceive selective enforcement when they see that the authorities have not charged Ibrahim over his January 2013 remarks.
“It becomes an issue because, in the context of Sedition Act, he is not charged, while others are charged; hence raising the question on selective persecution,” he said.
Many had cited the alleged inaction on Ibrahim’s case when claiming that the Najib administration was employing the sedition law to silence dissent from opposition politicians and activists.
But Saifuddin stressed that no one should be continued to be charged under the Sedition Act 1948, calling the government to “quickly” repeal it as promised, adding that all charges under the colonial-era legislation should be dropped.
If there are “genuine cases” among those who are currently facing sedition charges in court, such as those having “intention” to cause “harm”, Saifuddin said they could be charged under other laws such as the Penal Code.
Critics of the broadly-worded Sedition Act have pointed out its low threshold for the court to find an accused guilty, with no requirement to prove intention to incite violence, while others have said that Malaysia’s existing laws are sufficient to deal with inflammatory remarks.
Saifuddin agreed that if there was sufficient evidence, Ibrahim should be charged under the Penal Code instead of the Sedition Act, just like the others who are now stuck in sedition trials.
Following reports of Ibrahim’s alleged threat to burn Malay-language bibles containing the word “Allah” last January, police subsequently investigated him under Section 298 of the Penal Code.
Section 298 is the offence of uttering words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person, and comes with a punishment of up to one year’s jail term or a fine or both.
In just nine months this year, Putrajaya has charged 12 persons with sedition — the highest annual number since 2009.
