Many have spoken to me about last week’s decision by the Court of Appeal upholding the home minister’s prohibition on Christians using the word ‘Allah’ in printed materials.
I’ve studied the decision. Here I lay out my observations and offer some concluding thoughts.
What the judgments say
(The Court of Appeal released one summary and three individual Judgments. I also read the Dec 31, 2009 High Court judgment. In what follows, ‘Judgments’ refers to one or more of the four judgments released by the Court of Appeal.)
1. Government - Islam has priority
Article 3(1) of the federal constitution reads: “Islam is the religion of the federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the federation.”
Article 3 is in Part I of the constitution, whilst Articles assuring the rights of liberty, no-enslavement, equality, free movement, speech, assembly, association, etc. are in Part II.
According to the judgments, it follows from the preceding statement that rights in Part II have to be curbed to protect rights in Part I. (Note: the constitution has 15 Parts.)
According to the judgments, since Islam is mentioned before ‘other religions’ in Article 3(1), all non-Muslims in Malaysia must (1) agree with the government and the Court of Appeal that ‘Allah’ describes only the Official Malaysian Muslim God, and (2) use another Name in place of ‘Allah’. It matters for nothing that “Islam” and “other religions” are in the same sentence, all that matters is that “Islam” appears before “other religions.”
2. Historical and global usage is irrelevant
Based on the preceding argument, the judgments say it is not necessary to consider that (1) the Name ‘Allah’ pre-dates Islam, (2) the Name is of Arabic (not Malay) origin, (3) the Name has been used for over four centuries by Malay-speaking Christians in Malaysia, (4) many Muslims in Malaysia do not object to Christians addressing God as ‘Allah’, and (5) that Muslims in no other country object to non-Muslims referring to God as ‘Allah’.
3. Judges’ private opinions trump global scholarship
The judgments treat opinions gleaned personally from the internet by one of the judges as worthy of more consideration than the opinions of eminent Christian leaders and scholars. The judgments ignore the global presence of Christianity and the special significance of the Rome-centred Catholic Church led by the Pope.
(The publisher of The Herald - Catholic Weekly is Murphy Pakiam. He speaks for the Catholic Church. The leaders of other Malaysian churches concur with Archbishop Murphy about the usage of ‘Allah’ for God.)
4. Ipse dixit
The judgments say the home minister is responsible for peace and security in the nation. He is privy to information not available to judges. Therefore, he need not demonstrate to the courts why he declares something a matter of national security and on that basis curtails the freedoms of anyone in the federation.
The judgments effectively say “if the home minister believes it,” (in Latin, ipse dixit) that’s good enough for the courts.
5. 10-point agreement
The judgments ignore the agreement between the government of Malaysia and the leaders of Malaysian churches expressed in what has come to be known as the 10-point agreement (April 2011). The agreement allows the use of ‘Allah’ in Bibles. The judgments don’t mention the 10-point agreement.
6. Ignoring a basic interpretive principle
A well-established principle is: “The greater contains the less” (in Latin, omne majus continent in se minus). The judgments nowhere show an appreciation of this principle.
The fact is, the government permits the import - and printing - of Malay Bibles in which the Name Allah is used.
The judgments can now be held up to assert: when any non-Muslim wishes to discuss a Bible text or prayers or conversations in which the original includes ‘Allah’, ‘Allah’ must not be printed.
The dudgments do not recognise that it is irrational to allow the Name to be printed in the core scriptures of a religion, and to prohibit the Name from being printed in a publication whose express purpose is to teach the faith to its readers.
7. Desperate comparisons
The judgments attempt to test whether calling God ‘Allah’ in Malay is essential to Christianity. They compare a name, The Name, with women’s headdresses (purdah), men’s headgear (serban), dancing with skulls and knives (tandava dance), sacrifice of cows by Muslims.
The judgments reject historical usage of The Name over centuries, worldwide, and choose instead to compare the Name of the Supreme God with items of clothing, bones and animals.
8. Racial considerations
The judgments (and several state Islamic authorities) consider those who have been tutored in Islam in Malaysia to be more easily confused and more likely to disturb the peace and harmony of the nation than persons in other countries.
9. Misused citations
The judgments cite passages from two eminent law professors (Harding and Faruqi) which relate to proselytism (“attempting to convert from one religion to another”), then draw conclusions about a Christian publication distributed in churches only, to Christians only.
Harding and Faruqi wrote about communication between faiths for the purpose of adding converts, NOT communication within the same faith to those who are already converts.
10. Backfiring apologetics
As stated earlier, the judgments, based on ipse dixit, say the home minister’s decision is beyond judicial review.
Yet, to refute the claim that the home minister didn’t explain the prohibition to the publisher, the judgments include a list of letters written since 1998 to the publisher.
One letter (April 24, 2007) is included in full as ‘proof’ that the home minister did explain his decision. However the letter essentially says the prohibition is necessary because of (1) the administrative difficulties created by the differences in the lists of words restricted by various enactments across the country, (2) the minister ‘believes’ (ipse dixit) that if he doesn’t apply the prohibition, there will be disquiet (3) hence, he is denying The Herald - Catholic Weekly its liberty to print the Name ‘Allah’.
Instead of buttressing the contention of the home minister and the Court of Appeal, the letter buttresses the publisher’s contention that the minister acted ipse dixit.
My conclusion
General
In my opinion, the judgments consider facts which are irrelevant, and do not consider facts which are relevant. The judgments indicate an excess of faith in the home minister. The judgments suggest the Court of Appeal has abdicated its responsibility to be a check and balance on the Executive (government of the day).
Particular
The judgments note the administrative mess created by the differences in the various state enactments, but say nothing to direct the government to fix the mess, for instance by aligning usage in Malaysia with usage in the rest of the world, e.g. usage in Egypt, the land of Al-Azhar University, where many Malaysians are sent to acquire Islamic credentials.
Malays are different
The judgments do not deny the global acceptance amongst Muslims of the use of the Name ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims, yet insist that “Malays are different, so non-Muslims in Malaysia must yield.”
Race-based
A key plank in the decision is: Malays are different; Malays are easily confused; little things can cause Malays to run amok. (Note: (one judgment says even Christians may be confused if they call God ‘Allah’.)
Root cause
What underlies the (minority) race-based view? An answer was provided by Malaysia’s longest serving prime minister. The doctor wrote this in his once-banned book which is now the core of the faith of Umno-Perkasa-BN:
“Amok is a Malay word. It is a word now universally understood. There is no other single word that can quite describe amok. And the reason is obvious - for amok describes yet another facet of the Malay character. Amok represents the external physical expression of the conflict within the Malay which his perpetual observance of the rules and regulations of his life causes in him. It is a spilling over, an overflowing of his inner bitterness. It is a rupture of the bonds which bind him. It is a final and complete escape from reason and training.”
Mahathir bin Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma (Kuala Lumpur: Federal Publications, 1970), 117.
What to make of The Malay Dilemma? I cannot improve on Barry Wain’s assessment, so I will just quote him:
“The book surmised that the early Malays, inhabiting a lush land with plenty of food, did not suffer starvation and even the weak in mind and body were able to survive and procreate. The hot, humid climate was not conducive to either vigorous work or mental activity, so they were content to spend most of their time resting or talking to each other.
“In-breeding, and the absence of inter-racial marriages in rural areas, together with certain social practices, sapped their enterprise and had a disastrous effect on the Malay community over the long term. The Chinese, by contrast, from a homeland littered with disasters and with a custom of “cross-breeding”, were the fit survivors of a natural weeding out process.”
Barry Wain, Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times (Palgrave: New York, 209), 29-30.
Global impact
The Court of Appeal judgments shows us the extent to which the virulent Mahathir theory of “Malays, because they have undiluted weak genes have weak brains and are prone to confusion” has diseased Malaysia. The judgments are broadcasting this across the globe, and the world is responding with... what have you observed?
