Ahok's lawyers said earlier that they believed the witnesses should have held tabayyun before reporting Ahok to police, according to Islamic teachings. 

The first prosecution witness from Muhammadiyah’s youth wing, Pedri Kasman, said he refused to let Ahok clarify himself because it was not important.

"It's unnecessary because I felt offended [by Ahok's statement]," he said during the trial.

Pedri said he was also reluctant to let Ahok clarify himself because he did not have access to meeting the governor, which was later rejected by Ahok who said anyone could meet him at City Hall. 

Another witness Irena Handono said the country was based on the law, undergoing tabayyun was not needed before reporting Ahok to police. 

"Please be informed that tabayyun refers to Islamic law. Where do you find it? In the Quran. The Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia [NKRI] was established upon Pancasila [state ideology] and the 1945 Constitution. If Indonesia uses Islamic law, we would've expelled the suspect," she said.

(Read also: I am very sad about my blasphemy accusation: Ahok)

Wilyudin Abdul Rasyad, another witness, said tabayyun was unnecessary for a non-Muslim. 

"If you hear that a verse of Allah has been insulted by infidels, you can't even sit with them," he said. (dan)

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia