COMMENT No matter how Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri wriggles herself about, trying to explain the attorney-general’s decision not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali over the threat to burn the Bible, Nancy’s official answer to Parliament in writing simply shows her lack of credibility as a cabinet minister.

What is worse is that her answer is, in fact, unconstitutional and lacking in substance.

At worse, it is nothing but a ‘Talk Down Your Throat’ or just another whitewashing of the long list of ‘sins’ committed by the Barisan Nasional government.

After a series of Vote BN campaigns during the lead up to general election 2013, which included the 'One Malaysia' slogan, the 10-point agreement with the Malaysian church and the infamous agreement with Hindraf, Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s credibility is again dragged down by the justification attempted by his cabinet minister.

In Nancy's ( right ) response to why Ibrahim Ali was not prosecuted for threatening to burn the Malay language Bible for containing the word Allah, the de facto law minister said that “the Attorney-General’s Chambers reached the decision after studying the speech made by Ibrahim, which was based on the spirit of Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.”

Article 11(4) states: “State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”

The Alkitab or the Iban Bible is used by the Malay-speaking community, which comprises Orang Asal and Orang Asli, as well as young Malaysians growing up with Bahasa Malaysia as their only medium of communication. How can Nancy, the AG or even the federal government say that the threat to burn the Alkitab is in line with the Federal Constitution?

Unconstitutional

What Nancy has said in defence of Ibrahim Ali is in fact unconstitutional. As a cabinet minister, whose pledge is to uphold the constitution, she has failed to read Article 11(4) within the context of the preceding articles.

In the preceding lines, Article 11 (1) of the constitution, for example, guarantees that “every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.” And, under (3) (a) “(3) Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.”

In short, despite Islam being the official religion of Malaysia, its proponents cannot interfere in the affairs of another religion, unless there are attempts of proselytisation to the local Muslims.

Even if that happens, they are isolated cases, which should be dealt with accordingly, instead of applying a blanket ban on the Alkitab. And what was worse was to seize it from the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia, where Muslims hardly visit, in the early part of this year.

The Federal Constitution guarantees equal rights to practice one’s religious affairs, in the way he or she deems right. This is what it says: “Every person has the (equal) right to profess and practise his religion.”

The social contract agreed upon by our forefathers is that no one is above the other where it comes to religious freedom, so long as propagation to the local Muslims is not involved. Nancy should read the constitution again to understand what it says.

If the East Malaysian Christians have been using the name ‘Allah’ for centuries, even before they joined Malaysia, and we, in Peninsular Malaysia, choose to use the same name to refer to God, there is no reason why any religious group should protest.

After all, the name of ‘Allah’ is upheld with the highest “ pujian ” (praise), and Prophet Muhammad himself had said to the infidels, “Your Allah and our Allah is the same.”

As an East Malaysian, Nancy should understand the sensitivities of the social, racial and religious fabrics of our society, instead of making comments that could further hurt the feelings of other communities.

I quote from Malaysiakini : “She (Nancy) also hoped the public would calm down and refrain from making statements that can jeopardise harmony and hurt the feelings of others.” Nancy’s own explanation in Parliament has, in fact, riled many of us.

No difference

If Nancy wants the people to calm down, then someone who has made such a boisterous statement as burning the Bible with the word ‘Allah’ in it should not be seen as being protected by the authorities.

I cannot see any logical reason, why Ibrahim Ali is any different to the crackpot Terry Jones in Missouri who wanted to burn the Quran. If Jones had been living in Malaysia, he would have been charged with sedition, criminal defamation, and face endless persecution the way student activist Safwan Anang ( right ) has suffered.

Of course, both crackpots did not carry out the boisterous act, but even such a statement is enough to inflame the public.

The authorities should be grateful that the Christian community is a peace-loving people, and that they would not choose to do any harm, except to allow God’s justice to take its course.

We uphold that God will defend His own name, and anyone who uses His name in vain will face His wrath. As Christians, we do not have to defend the name of God.

Blaming it on the outcome of the police investigation is no answer to the question why Ibrahim Ali is not being prosecuted, whereas someone like Adam Adli, who removed a flag with Najib’s portrait, was and is still being hounded, till today.

Public anger towards the explanation given by Nancy, stating the federal government’s official stand, is obvious from just the number of ‘Likes’ on the Malaysiakini article to date, ‘Nancy: ‘Burn Bible’ speech based on constitution’. This simply shows that people’s feelings are further hurt by the justification she gave in Parliament.

As someone commented, it appears that such an explanation is nothing but condoning acts of extremism in this country.

I quote: “But as to her (Nancy’s) reasoning, it begs the question if she is of sound mind or has any human values at all to suggest it is alright to threaten the burning of bibles as a method of defending Islam.”

The only sensible thing I have heard is from Anwar Ibrahim himself, who said that burning the Bible, even if it is a threat, is not the way of Islam.

In Parliament, the opposition leader has stated his stand clearly: “It is just, I should say, the Umno position or the minister’s position. It (burning the Bible) has never been condoned or tolerated (in Islam).

“In fact, my understanding of Islam is we must respect all religious beliefs and of course, religious texts,” Anwar said .

This is Pakatan’s position, compared with Nancy’s official explanation given on behalf of the BN government. Najib, as the prime minister, should ask his own colleagues within BN whether such a decision not to charge Ibrahim Ali is justifiable by any means.

Even former deputy higher education minister Saifuddin Abdullah ( left ) has slammed the government’s excuse for letting Ibrahim Ali off the hook. “The government,” Saifuddin said, “should not come up with this kind of argument, that is, on the way to defend Islam, because it may lead to a misconception of Islam.”

There is no room for political bullies even within the context of Islam. Prophet Muhammad is said to teach his people to live in peace with other ‘infidel’ communities.

In short, Nancy should realise by now that religious bigotry is what brings disrepute to the good name of Islam, and on this count, Ibrahim has proven to be more than a bigot.

In trying to protect Islam, when it is clearly not under threat, Ibrahim has come out with one of the most extreme statements that this country has heard. If the late Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj were still alive, he would have thrown Ibrahim Ali ‘out of Umno’ the way he did to former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, but now, even Prime Minister Najib appears to condone such an act.

I wonder what Perkasa’s patron, Dr Mahathir himself, has to say about it about his own president who could make such extreme statement, and yet not being charged with sedition under Najib’s administration.

An outrage, indeed!

The Christian Federation of Malaysia’s statement summarises very well the ‘outrage’ of the Christian community in Malaysia towards the ‘No Further Action’ decision by the Attorney-General’s Chambers, saying that a “threat to burn the Bible is not a crime as it was in defence of Islam.”

Its chairperson, Eu Hong Seng, said the move would give a “carte blanche or free rein” to Muslim extremists to continue issuing such threats, either to Christians or followers of any other religion.

The excuse that he was defending Islam is simply nonsensical. It can only happen in Malaysia, but Malaysians are not that stupid to buy such excuses.

STEPHEN NG is an ordinary citizen with an avid interest in following political developments in the country since 2008.