The ruling on use of the word “Allah” redux

Amidst all the conflicting reports, here’s what the judge actually ruled, pending the decision by the Court of Appeal.

The Court also made six declarations:

1. The Government’s decision not to allow the Herald-The Catholic Weekly- to use the word Allah is illegal and null and void.

2. Under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, the Herald has the constitutional right to use the word Allah.

3. Article 3(1) states that Islam is the official religion but the Government cannot prohibit the Herald from using the word Allah.

4. The Herald has the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression to use the word Allah under Article 10.

5. In the exercise of its rights to freedom of religion under Article 11, the Herald has the constitutional right to use the word Allah.

6. Under Article 11 and Article 12, the Herald has the constitutional right to use the word Allah for the instruction and education of the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion.

“Allah” allowed to be used in some states, not others in Malaysia

According to a Malaysian minister, non-Muslims are allowed to use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God in three states – Penang, Sabah and Sarawak, and the Federal Territories including Kuala Lumpur. The Malaysian minister claims that this is because these states do not have “Islamic-related enactments” which ban non-Muslims from using the word, unlike other states. What makes the other states different from the ones mentioned above?

Detailed report on court ruling on use of word “Allah”

This is the most detailed article on the use of the word “Allah” in Malaysia which has led to acts of violence on at least 10 churches this past week. I find the High Court Judge’s use of historical examples very interesting to denote what’s considered relevant in a Malaysian case.

1. The word “Allah” is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” and in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, “God” is translated as “Allah” and “Lord” is translated as “Tuhan”;

2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking countries have been using the word “Allah” in reference to the One God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater majority of other Christian denominations hold that “Allah” is the legitimate word for “God” in Bahasa Malaysia;

3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;

4. The word “God” has been translated as “Allah” in the “Istilah Agama Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia” first published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;

5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated “Deus” (the Latin word for God) as “Alla” as the Malay translation;

6. The Christian usage of the word “Allah” predates Islam being the name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;

7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word “Allah” has been used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru and the Alkitab;

8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he translated the word “God” as “Allah”;

9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in existence before 1957 which translation was carried out by the British and Foreign Bible Society where the word “Allah” was used;

10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word “Allah” was used;

11. There was also a publication entitled “An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine” published in 1895 where the word “Allah” was used.

12. Anther publication entitled “Hikajat Elkaniset” published in 1874 also contains the word “Allah”

13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for generations;

14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word “Allah” for generations and the word “Allah” is used in the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught Malaysia;

15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein the word “Allah appears;

16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is not for sale or distribution outside the Church;

17. The said publication is not made available to members of the public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;

18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant’s use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

19. In any event the word “Allah” has been used by Christians in all countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these countries;

20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a state matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such matters of Islam save in the federal territories

21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church uses the word “Allah” for worship and instruction and that the same is permitted in the Al-Kitab.

Violence against churches in Malaysia after ruling on use of “Allah”

Violence against churches broke out on Friday and Saturday in Malaysia after the Malaysian High Court ruled that the newspaper Catholic Herald can use the word “Allah” to refer to God. The Government condemns the acts of arson and has granted money to at least one church to get back on its feet, and has called the spate of violence a major setback to the national slogan of 1Malaysia.

God or Allah

Malaysian High Court has postponed a decision (due yesterday) on whether the government can ban Christian groups can use the word “Allah” for God to Wednesday.
Robert Crane of The American Muslim, thinks that Christians in Malaysia should be allowed to use the word “Allah” to denote God. He quotes Muhammad Asad who writes that:

‘Although, by their deification of Jesus they are guilty of the sin of shirk (“the ascribing of divinity to anyone or anything beside God”), the Christians do not consciously worship a plurality of deities inasmuch as theoretically their theology postulates belief in One God, Who is conceived as manifesting Himself in a trinity of aspects or “persons”, of whom Jesus is supposed to be one… ‘The mystical doctrine of the “trinity,” in the Christian view, does not conflict with the principle of God’s Oneness inasmuch as it is supposed to express a “three-fold aspect” of the One Deity’.

Hindu woman attempts to declare conversion unlawful

Banggarma Subramaniam, who is a Hindu, but recognised as a Muslim in Malaysia, is now seeking a court declaration that the conversion process to Islam that she underwent was unlawful as she was then a child of seven. She argued, rightfully, that she did not and could not have, at that time, understood the contents and meaning of the words in the Declaration to Convert into Islam certificate which she was asked to recite, utter and execute. To reverse her conversion is out of the question, for she would be labelled an apostate, a crime in Shariah court in Malaysia, which meant that she would have to be punished.
I do wonder how Malaysian religious authorities will try to counter this argument. The court’s reluctance to grant Banggarma her wish could be symptomatic of a larger concern. Perhaps they’re worried about opening the floodgates to similar wishes in future, some of which might be as tenable as Banggarma Subramaniam’s case.

Attempt by Hindu woman to reverse conversion in Malaysia

More details of the case of the 27 year-old Malaysian woman have been revealed. Banggarma Subramaniam, also known as Siti Hasnah Vangarama Abdullah is not only trying to prove that she’s not a Muslim, but that she’s never been Muslim, so as not to be charged with apostasy considered an an offense in the state. But since she’s classified as a Muslim, her case is tried a Shariah court, who has apparently chosen to disregard her verbal profession of faith to another religion. According to a conversion certificate in 1989, she supposedly converted when she was a child of seven, which is actually impossible because she had not reached the age of puberty yet at the time.
I do wonder what argument the Shariah court is going to present to counter this. Her lawyer states that under Penang Islamic laws, minors below 18 cannot be converted to Islam without the consent of their parents. Since she was an orphan, it seems that she’s virtually unprotected by a proper guardian or laws. In this way, non-Muslim orphans are therefore susceptible to similar treatment, if the system is left unchecked.
Evidently, she has not even been able to register her marriage to her Hindu husband, or even list him as the father of her two children, as the state doesn’t allow marriages between Muslims and non-Muslims.
I was struck by one line in the article.

“In interfaith disputes involving Islam, the Shariah courts typically get the last word, which has upset non-Muslims who fear they cannot get justice in such courts.”

What is the rationale behind this for people who professed to be non-Muslims?
I find the case fascinating because of the ways the Shariah court in Malaysia could impose its own particular view of religious identity, as the case unfolds.

Sharia in Patani

Malays in Thailand are speaking of introducing Sharia in Patani southern Thailand.

Multiple voices in Malaysia

A comprehensive, and bleak report on Islamic authority in Malaysia approaching a complete lack of diversity ie. dictatorial despotism, following the arrest of a progressive . The author focuses on education, which forms the heart of the matter with long-term implications.

When is someone teaching Islam and when is he not? Who has the authority to decide on that? What are the criteria that constitute teaching of Islam? On what basis are some certified to teach Islam, some are not, some are prosecuted while many more others can freely preach hatred, racial ill-will, and miso­gyny in the name of Islam?

As an aside, I’m tracking number of references to scholars of Islamic law. So far Khaled Abou El-Fadl seems to be rather popular.

Constitutional changes

Malaysia’s hybrid system is a unique one in the sense that although it claims to be a secular state, numerous elements in Islamic law has had an impact on the actual practice of law in the country, or at least in public opinion which led to actual implementation of Islamic law in certain states. Thus plans to amend the federal constitution has been called for to draw the line between federal law and sharia. One Malaysian MP has suggested that the line “Islam is the religion for the Federation including in terms of the law and syariah” be included to remove any ambiguity. If so then, any other law that is passed and that contradicts it must be void for as long as it is contradictory.

But the MP’s definition and vision of Islamic law is rather hazy and inclusive of many things not defined in any established body of laws. Even these would be open to debate and revision  The ban on the use of turban and the sale of condoms for example are subsumed under the administration of Islamic law, according to him. He also proposed that the use of the word “Islam” be regulated by the state, specifically when it came to associations which purport to be doing things in the name of Islam, such as Sisters of Islam which he claimed is not based on the Sharia. In this way, a state would have a monopoly on the usage of words like “Islam” and “Muslim.”

In other news, Mona Eltahawy highlights how the implementation of Sharia challenges the notion of One Malaysia.