God or Allah – ruling issued in M’sia

Apparently, the Malaysian High Court did rule on Thursday (contrary to another report) that local Roman Catholics can resume referring to God as Allah in Malay-language publication. The Wall Street Journal claims that the decision partially halted the steady Islamization of the majority-Muslim nation in recent years.
A lot has been made recent of how Malaysia is fast losing its status as one of the last bastions of moderate Islam, and every single political issue recently involving Islam has been scrutinized to see which way it will go.
However, the editor of the Malaysian Roman Catholic Church’s Herald newspaper described the decision as a “landmark case for our nation,” and said it upholds constitutional guarantees for freedom of speech and religion. The article ends with PM Najib Tun Razak’s promise that the government would resist efforts by Islamist hardliners to turn Malaysia becoming a more faith-based nation. But shouldn’t the media actually address the case at hand by analysing the argument put forward by supporters of the ban (if only to pick it apart) that the use of the word “Allah” could lead possibly to confusion, rather than simply questioning whether Malaysia is becoming more Islamist or not based on every single issue.

The use of the word “Allah” to denote God

Islamic party PAS in Malaysia now supports the church’s use of the word “Allah” to denote God, which is a constitutional right. The case hinges more rights at this point from the perspective of those who disagree with the ban, while those in the other camp highlights the possibility for confusion, but there’s also a case to be made for social harmony which has rarely been put forward rather surprisingly.

Excellent article in Jakarta Post on Aceh

Jakarta Post today has a very interesting article, which is worth a read, debating human rights and shari’a by Jennie S. Bev, a refreshing change from the sharia-western law dichotomy in the media. The emphasis on separation of law and custom is also something that is not usually highlighted elsewhere.

Thus, adopting draconian inhumane measures for wrongdoings in various communities, such as stoning to death, giving away female family members as a restitution of murder, lashing, and mutilating limbs must not be transplanted to Indonesia simply because they have been labeled “sharia” by a few past clerics who resided in various Arab countries.

The writer provides three arguments why the caning laws should not be implemented in Aceh.

1. The first argument comes from the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, in which all human beings have the right to a dignified life.
2. Indonesia’s national laws, which include ratifications of international human rights conventions, overide the special autonomy region’s bylaws.
3. The third argument comes from questioning the definition of “sharia” laws themselves: which ones are Islamic and which ones are customary. This article tries to reach an understanding of the third argument.

While the Indonesian constitution and national laws are often cited by various influential parties in the debate, I wonder how often the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is referred to.