In view of the High Court ruling on 31 Dec 09 which reversed the Home Ministry’s ban on The Herald and permitted the latter its Constitutional right to use the terminology “Allah” in its weekly publication, MCA is taken aback by certain ethnic and religious-based NGOs whose demonstration in Penang and Kuala Lumpur and police reports lodged over the “Allah” ruling is grave cause for alarm as to whether worshippers of other faiths may profess their religion freely in accordance with Article 11, peacefully and harmoniously (Article 3), and to educate their children in their own religion (Article 12(2)) of the Federal Constitution.
The police reports lodged also suggest questioning and asserting pressure on the independence of the judiciary should one disagree with any judgement made.
MCA therefore welcomes the call by our Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib bin Tun Razak for all quarters to remain calm while expressing his discouragements against demonstrations, petitions and memoranda on the matter.
No confusion when spiritual conviction is strong
The argument that one section of society will end up being confused when another portion of society uses “Allah”, therefore The Herald must be prohibited from using the said terminology even if results in preventing educating the publication’s Bumiputera readers consisting of orang asli’s in the Peninsula, native Sabah and Sarawakians is erroneous. Deploying “confusion” as grounds for insistence on the ban by detractors is a poor attempt to throw a red herring i.e. deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real issue of law and constitutional rights of Malaysians to freedom of religion and to profess their faith peacefully and harmoniously.
Any individual imbued with an iron will on his faith yet is open-minded to respecting, reading and learning clinically the creeds and practices of other religions in the world will remain true to his original religious conviction without any consideration of renunciation.
Can’t copyright “Allah”
No group should claim exclusive ownership of “Allah” as it is not a patented copyright by any ethnic group. “Allah” is used by different believers throughout the world. For time immemorial, Sikhs refer to their God as “Allah.” Renowned 19th century Malay Muslim scholar and linguist, Munshi Abdullah who translated “God” as “Allah” into the Malay language remained a pious Muslim and was never confused.
The debate of which Malaysians may hold an exclusive claim to the term “Allah” should not be viewed as a matter of how the concept “Allah” or “God” means in that individual’s own religion even though that individual views other religions’ interpretation of “Allah” as different from his/her own. How an individual defines “God” should not be used as justification to declare others’ usage of “Allah” as inappropriate and thus deprive and deny the rights of followers of a separate religion to continue using “Allah” to practise his/her faith be it in publications, scriptures, in church/gurdwara services and oral references during personal prayers. To do so contravenes the Federal Constitution and serves to create confusion, and this is where the confusion really lays – the confusion as to the application of law and rights as enshrined therein, and not a confusion of faiths.
If “Allah” is to remain exclusive to one section of society, are other segments of society to be deprived of the right to pledge allegiance to the royalty and sing state anthems which contain the word “Allah”?
Historical fact that “Allah” predates Islam
It is an historical fact that “Allah” predates Islam. It was later commonly used and still remains in use by Arabic speakers of the Abrahamic faiths including Muslims, Christians and Jews.
MCA further refutes and views as flawed any interpretation that Arab Christians refer to God as “Tuhan” and not “Allah” as claimed by a prominent Malaysian who has retired from public office. Arab Christians in Arab countries like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, as well as in the Middle East e.g. Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, etc refer to the Almighty as “Allah.” Similarly, Indonesian Christians refer to the Almighty as “Allah.” Since all Arab, Middle Eastern and Indonesian Christians are able to refer to God as “Allah” freely, harmoniously without threat of punitive action, should not we in Malaysia follow suit in accordance with Article 3 of the Federal Constitution which allows “other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in the Federation?” Such exemplary practices would live up to the 1Malaysia concept of mutual respect and understanding besides forging closer ties amongst all Malaysians.
Does it make sense to take punitive action against the hundreds and thousands of Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christians and Sikhs and who for centuries have referred to God as “Allah” in their personal prayers?
The High Court ruling is a matter of law in upholding the rights of Malaysians as provided by our Federal Constitution, and hence should be maintained as that – law. Conditions for the renewal of The Herald’s permit clearly state that the word “Terhad” must be affixed at the top of the masthead and the publication must only be sold within church grounds. These conditions are already being met.
The court’s decision should not be stirred into a religious debate nor politicized as a racial/religious issue. MCA lauds the High Court for its bold and rational judgement. Our party calls upon all groups to respect the way of life of Bumiputera Christians and Sikh Malaysians, and not remove their Constitutional rights.
Gan Ping Sieu
MCA Spokesperson
MCA Central Committee Member &
MCA Political Education Bureau Chairman
The Micah Mandate is a Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Whilst most of your article makes sense in the light of the issues presented, there’s just one discrepancy I have to question. It concerns your last statement that the High Court’s ruling shouldn’t be turned into a religious/political/racial debate. The fact is, way before the High Court’s initial ruling on the 31st December 2009 stating that the prohibition was unconstitutional, the whole thing started off from a culturally exclusivist standpoint anyhow – the basis of the prohibition was one of cultural insensitivity and control by sectarian elements in one culture as to how other cultures should represent themselves. To try and forcibly control what language can be spoken and by whom is automatically going into a politicocultural domain, violating both personal and collective rights to freedom of linguistic expression. The issue started off from this vantage point so when you say that it shouldn’t be turning this way, it’s almost as though you have forgotten the very premise upon which this issue first raised it’s head!!! More to the point, it is the desire of all who ascribe to cultural and linguistic liberty that proper dialogue on issues of cultural freedom be the primary way in which things get resolved. The problem is when the decision of the High Court is not respected and/or adhered to that should be of most serious concern. By “not respected and/or adhered to”, I am saying that culturally intolerant displays of aggression in view of the court’s ruling would characterise this lack of respect or adherence and therefore should be completely eradicated within the societal fabric at large.
This whole issue is a question of factuality and liberty within language as your article majoritatively alludes to. Factually speaking, many languages use variations of this name to represent God, so no one has a right to monopolize language. I bet you even the Q’ran does not say anything about language exclusivity – just a random guess but I’ll propose that it doesn’t on the grounds that common sense tells me, all it is – is linguistic translation. If we want to be really specific, this term is not originally a Bahasa Melayu name anyhow as it is an Arabic name having intermingled with the Melayu language as so many foreign words actually have done historically anyhow. This makes the Melayu language a fascinating cultural blend. Although this issue is a different matter to the one about cultural integrity, cultural integrity as an inherent value condemns language exclusivity – that is, exclusivist claims by a section of society on who is and who isn’t allowed to use a particular language. The fact that this issue concerning a translation of the name of the Lord should spill over into an argument about who is allowed to and who isn’t relative to publishing and distributing information in Bahasa Melayu is absolutely ridiculous!!! This only goes against the universal sanctity reserved for the Creator in the first place!!! Nobody has the right to claim exclusivity over a name referring to the Creator of the universe. There are many many languages in the whole wide world, and it is a fact that a vast proportion of these actually recognize the existence of the one and only Creator (as opposed to many gods). And yet none of these people who speak these tongues ever claim exclusive use of either the Creator’s name in their language or the language itself for that matter. If given the opportunity, they would most likely willingly share both of these. A translation of a name from one language to another is simply a translation and translation can be exercised freely or should be able to be for that matter.
What really incenses my desire to see this prohibition mentality done away with once and for all is the piece of info that fits into this picture somewhere which keeps on saying that there exists a regulation which forbids bookstores from stocking materials published in Bahasa Melayu that either promote the values of Christian culture or support it in some way shape or form. I am not too sure how far this extends but I have also been made aware that it extends to CD’s as well!!! This kind of regulation is absolutely ridiculous as it impinges on fundamental cultural freedoms. The arguments that I have heard which form part (again exactly how much I cannot verify) of the basis for this stupid ploy is that whoever brought this regulation into force said that these materials should only be available in English!!!!! That is totally unfair and wrong and what’s more is it does not have harmony with Christian values or cultural sensibilities. Why restrict Christian culture publications to one language?? After all English is no more Christianity’s native language than is Bahasa Melayu! Actually the indigenous Christian language is a variation of Aramaic – and perhaps native language recognition can also be extended to those dialects in Christian communities which have held strongly to the original traditions and values as evident Biblically. No bureaucratic body has the right to tell a particular cultural group how to practice its culture nor do they even have the right to tell the supporters of this cultural group what and/or what not to do as regards such matters.