‘For defamation, one’s reputation must have been lowered.’
Vijay47: Mera dhoste (my friend) Zakir Naik, reading your latest venture into the realm of crime and punishment, to wit, as they say, your heroic warning of cease and desist to Klang parliamentarian Charles Santiago, you could say I was bowled for a sixer, even though I don’t play cricket.
No doubt, the Privy Council will light many a midnight lamp, reading in awe your newest contribution to the judicial world.
To put things in proper and easier-understood perspective for the benefit of lesser mortals, please permit me to produce, hereinbelow, as they also say, the essence of your case:
Twelve apparently good men were arrested and taken into custody, a feat which can safely be attributed to the police though it is believed that certain members of Umno share similar skills. Enter Charles Santiago.
Charles says that the arrests could have been in retaliation to the criticisms against one Zakir, to wit, you.
Now comes the tricky legal part which should also stump – to use another cricket term – Attorney-General Tommy Thomas and former Federal Court judge Gopal Sri Ram; in any case, I can never tell my mens rea (intention) from my a mensa et thoro (legal separation).
Next point, my friend, “criticisms against said Zakir” would generally imply that such unkind words were stated by persons other than you, unless of course you are given to walking about uttering uncomplimentary lines about yourself.
So where did Charles of the first part say anything fictitious so as to cause your pristine reputation of the second part to fall into public scandal and odium? Long story short, when did Charles comment on you?
And to digress a bit, in view of your concern for your sacred reputation, why are you not instituting similar action upon Shri Narendra Modi, now at No 7, Lok Kalyan Marg, New Delhi, who has made all manner of allegations and commenced all fashion of charges against you?
Tell me, Zakir Naik, is your lawyer by any chance moonlighting as a university professor? Just asking.
Anonymous 770241447347646: Criticism of Zakir may have led to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) arrests. The word is “may have”. It does not mean Charles was directly accusing Zakir Naik of the arrests.
Is the English taught in India different from the English taught here? Do they represent different meanings when they are said?
The public should sue Zakir Naik for calling Chinese and Indian Malaysians “guests”. They should also sue him for questioning the loyalty of the Indian Malaysians by saying that they are more inclined to Modi than our own leadership.
It is time to take this wanted fugitive to the cleaners. He has made enough statements that have hurt the feelings of Malaysians, and yet we do not go to the extent of taking him to court and suing him, while he finds the slightest excuse to take our elected representatives to court.
Malaysians have been compassionated enough to first allow him to stay, but he wants even our elected representatives not to raise issues that concern the future of this nation.
Hang Babeuf: If only Zakir Naik was as careful about the dignity and sensitivities of others, as he now here demands others to be sensitive about his feelings.
He wounds others directly and with focused intent. Then he complains about some passing surface wounds he has incurred in a crossfire between other parties. A bit rich, really!
Anonymous #13571680: For defamation, one’s reputation must have been lowered.
As for this man, he had none as he had been banned entry in a number of countries. Furthermore, he ran away from India to escape criminal charges. So, what reputation are you talking about?
I don’t think Charles has a case to answer.
David Dass: Someone needs to go back to law school. Speculating on the motives for the prosecution of those charged with trying to revive the LTTE cannot be deemed to be defamatory of Zakir Naik.
He does not decide on, nor influence the prosecution of any individual. Charles did not allege or infer or imply that he did.
Anonymous_b3cdcd05: It is not only Charles but there are a whole lot of people who suspect the criticism of Zakir may have led to the LTTE arrests, simply because of its ridiculousness.
Indeed, reputation-wise Zakir is infamous as a wanted fugitive in India on alleged charges of money laundering, inciting hate and inspiring terrorism.
Here in Malaysia, the vile fugitive has earned the wrath of sections of non-Malays for denigrating their religion and questioning their citizenry and they want him deported to his home country
In fact, on this account, he has been barred by the police from public speeches. In what way is this fugitive different from Jho Low who is on the run from the Malaysian authorities?
Thus, the claim that Charles’s speech has “injured Zakir’s reputation and caused him to suffer humiliation and ridicule” is baseless and untenable.
JD Lovrenciear: Why must foreigners be allowed to intimidate and insult our elected MPs and citizens?
Think, Malaysians – try going to another country and intimidating their MPs. See what happens to you. But here, we let aliens walk all over our face. Why?
David: Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, now is your best opportunity to bundle this Indian fugitive out of the country. Enough of pandering with race/religion to appease the majority Malays by protecting Zakir Naik in your desire to win over their support.
Zakir Naik is getting bolder and now attacking a member of your ruling coalition, while not forgetting that he brazenly told loyal taxpaying Malaysians of Chinese and Indian descent to go back to China and India respectively.
Mahathir, please be reminded that only 30 percent of Malays supported you on May 9 last year, so do your mathematics wisely. Malaysians who supported you only wanted a clean, corrupt-free government, peaceful and a prosperous country to live in.
Gerard Lourdesamy: It is time that all those who are being sued by Zakir Naik for defamation consider filing an action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against him.
Also, seek security for costs against Zakir Naik because he has limited assets within the jurisdiction and most of his assets abroad have been frozen by several foreign governments.
In addition, he is a flight risk because Zakir Naik claimed in an interview that many Muslim countries have offered him citizenship.