Okay to burn Bibles to defend sanctity of Islam

comments     Yoursay     Published     Updated

‘Threatening to burn holy scriptures amounts to a threat of violence.’
 
 
Vijay47: The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC), the country's highest legal institution, has announced that a threat of physical violence does not constitute a seditious offence if made in the defence of the sanctity of Islam.
 
It must follow then, that the nature or degree of the assault or desecration offered does not matter, what is crucial is the intention which, as the Chambers has taken the pains to enlighten us, means defending Islam.
 
This no doubt will be of immense assurance to that growing fanatical fringe we have who are bent on taking us into hell and beyond. 
 
By extension, that this will instil untold terror and incalculable danger to the non-Muslim community does not quite matter since the defence must be that of "Islam" and not of "faith". 
 
We also note with some admiration that the Chambers has explored the call by Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali and in the interests of sparing the courts further stress and strain, has itself determined the intention he harboured when he urged his fellow Muslims to "burn the Bible!".
 
Ferdtan: So burning bibles is confirmed to be less seditious than the word “celaka”? Now we call upon the AG to drop all the other sedition cases affecting the opposition leaders, activists and university lecturers. Why the double standards? 
 
Did the AG like this Ibrahim’s case use the same yardstick to gauge that the statements  made by others be seen as “a whole and cannot be separated from the context.” One word to describe AG’s explanation: “ bollocks.” 
 
As usual PM Najib Razak is elegantly silent. “See no evil, hear no evil;” and thus take no responsibility. Maybe he needs to be elbow-nudged to wake him up from slumber that he has  a country to run. 
 
Wake up, Mr PM. Stop going overseas to preach on democracy. We have a crisis in Malaysia  on the ‘rule of law’. It has turned upside down to ‘rule by law.’
 
Yoong John Yen: So the context is true and important? Wasn't in the case that under the Sedition Act, neither the intention, purpose nor even the result not causing any detriment to the country is relevant for deeming someone seditious? 
 
If that is the case, why is 'intention' actually deemed relevant for anti-Malaysians like Ibrahim Ali but deemed irrelevant for every other Malaysian? 
 
Furthermore, how is burning any religious books which is deemed holy by any religion in the country considered "no intent to wound religious feelings"? 
 
If it was the Quran, whatever the reason may be, can it still be deemed not seditious? Perhaps the AGC can answer this directly without twisting and turning to avoid the question.
 
Kit P: Threatening to burn holy scriptures of a religion amounts to a threat of violence. 
 
Giving legal impunity to a person or groups of persons threatening violence or actually carrying out violent acts in the name of "defending the sanctity of a religion" is a slippery slope towards a failed nationhood.
 
Speaking Sense: Now the AG has the supernatural powers to read the minds and motives of Ibrahim Ali by remote control in Bolehland.
 
If I have to walk past a mosque on my way to worship in a church or a temple, is it alright to threaten to burn me in order to defend the sanctity of Islam? 
 
And can other religions do the same thing to defend the sanctity of their own religions? Where will such warped reasoning end?
 
Swipenter: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Islamic State (Isis) is killing, pillaging, rampaging and raping all over northern Iraq and parts of Syria all in the name of defending the sanctity of their religion. The world should just let them be seen in that context.
 
So were the war crimes committed by the Nazis in World War Two to defend the sanctity and purity of the Aryan race. Likewise, the white race supremacy ideology of Ku Klux Klan, the apartheid policies of old South Africa, the justification of Europeans to conquer and colonising others in order to bring the word of god and civilisation to the heathens so on and so forth. 
 
Now how thin do you want to stretch your argument?
 
Anon1: So if it's not seditious, or even that no criminal laws have been broken, is the AG  also saying that it's alright for any or all of these racist mobs to carry out such a threat, since that too will be defending the sanctity of Islam?
 
Since it's alright for insanity to prevail when sanctity is raised, will it be alright for everyone to take the law in their hands and make any statements they deem fit if it is to protect the sanctity of their private rights and beliefs?
 
Ratbatblue: One more piece in the puzzle has been placed in position. One more step although small, towards Islamisation of the country, just as I have always feared. 
 
Another piece of mischief caused by fringe lunatics, going unchecked by the authorities. 
 
In a country where name calling was deemed seditious, threatening to burn a holy book of another religion does not even merit a caution. See what I mean?
 
Anonymous #19098644: It is time to move a motion in parliament to impeach the AG for abusing the law, for negligence and breach of duty in his performance of his sworn duty.
 
The entire AG's office ought to be purged for bringing the legal system and the rule of law into contempt.

AG, do you think the rakyat are fools?


The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now.
 
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.



Malaysiakini
news and views that matter


Sign In