‘Allah’ Row in Malaysia: Why Christians Have Greater Rights to Use ‘Allah’

Article By M. A. Khan
Publish On Friday, 15th January 2010

In Malaysia, Muslims are waging a raging, and potentially dangerous, campaign to own exclusive copyright to use the word 'Allah'.

The controversy has been brewing since 2007, when Muslim fanatics protested against the use of ‘Allah’ to denote ‘God’ in Christian literature and publications. The Malaysian government, to appease the fanatics, banned the Catholic Herald, a Malaysian Catholic weekly, for using the word ‘Allah’. Dr. Mahathir Muhammad, the longest-serving Malaysian ex-premier, under whom Malaysia underwent progressive Islamization, supported the ban. To him, the word ‘Allah’ belongs to Muslims alone.

It’s worthy noting that Christians in Malaysia have been using the word ‘Allah’ in Malay-language Bibles since the 1800s.

The Catholic Herald initiated a legal battle not only against the ban on its publication, but also on its age-old right to use the term ‘Allah’.

Authorities in Malaysia confiscated 15,000 copies of the Bible from Christians in late 2009 for containing the word ‘Allah’.

And, as of latest, Malaysian High Court overturned the ban on Catholic Herald on December 31, 2009. It also ruled that it was the constitutional right for the Herald to use the word “Allah”.

The ruling that literally allows non-Muslims to use ‘Allah’ enraged Muslims and the ruling party activists.Dr. Mahathir, leading a backlash against the court ruling, wrote: “The solution to the controversy will not be achieved by making an appeal to the court. Such a sensitive issue cannot be solved through law.”

He added that non-Muslims “may use it on banners or write something that might not reflect Islam”, thereby, potentially inflaming Muslims’ anger.

Such statements—some inflammatory, others mixed—by the ruling party politicians and ministers, including the current Prime Minister and Home Minister, unraveled days of protests setting the stage for a huge demonstration on Friday, January 8, 2010. Surprisingly, the Home Ministry, on the one hand, overruled the High Court ruling on Wednesday, January 6, while also approved Friday’s mass demonstration on the ruling.

And, at the end of the demonstration, as generally occurs all over the Muslim world, fanatic Muslim mobs burned down three churches. On Saturday another church was attacked, while two more on Sunday, bringing the total number of churches to six. It’s probably just the beginning unless the Christians relent on their demand.

Similar to Muslims’ claim of exclusivity to use ‘Allah’, ever since I left Islam and started writing critically of Islam, I have been told, too often, by angry Muslims to give up my Islamic name.

The question is: What exactly constitutes an Islamic name?

Being born and raised as a Muslim, my first name is of Persian, middle name of Arabic and last name of Mongolian/Turkic origin. Which of these languages was an invention of Islam—that is, invented by Allah, Muhammad or a Muslim? The answer, irrefutably, is “none”.

None of the languages we humans speak today were invented by Islam. Instead, they have Pagan roots. We, the ex-Muslim and humanists, who believe in complete equality of all humans with their diversity in ethnicity, language and culture, have a greater right to inheritance to secular human innovations, such as any modern-day language, than do Muslims.

It is not for us ex-Muslims to give up our names, given by our parents; instead, Muslims, who believe in exclusivity, should invent a new language or naming system and use them than shamelessly demanding copyright on something, to whose creation and evolution, they, their prophet, Muhammad, or their God, Allah, have made little or no contribution.The same goes to Muslims’ claim of exclusivity to the right of using the term ‘Allah’.

The term ‘Allah’ was not created by the Islamic God, or Muhammad or any Muslim. The Pagans of Arabia had been using ‘Allah’ to denote ‘God’ for hundreds, probably for thousands, of years before Islam’s birth.

Muhammad’s father’s name was Abdullah (Abd-Allah), meaning ‘slave of Allah’, while his greatest opponent in Medina—repeated labeled as “hypocrite” by Islamic Allah in the Quran, although he was a great humanist—was also named Abdullah (Abdullah ibn Obayi). This proves beyond doubt that it is from pre-Islamic Pagan usage did Muhammad incorporate the term ‘Allah’ into Islam.
What is important to realize is that it is Christians, now being barred from using the term ‘Allah’ in Malaysia, who have greater rights to its use than do Muslims. It is because Christians, who had penetrated into Arabia centuries before Islam, had adopted the term ‘Allah’. In other words, Christians of the Middle East have been using ‘Allah’ to denote ‘God’ since centuries before the coming of Islam. Middle Eastern Christians continue to use ‘Allah’ as well as Arabic names today.

Given that Christians adopted the term ‘Allah’ before Islam’s birth, they onviously hold greater legal rights to its use than do Muslims, definitely much greater than Malaysian Muslims, who were forced into Islam very late (16th century onward). If anything, it is Muslims, who must relinquish the use of ‘Allah’, or Arabic name. Instead, they have or are, absolutely shamelessly and illegitimately, putting an ‘Islamic seal’ of copyright on them.

And here lies Islam’s debilitating impact on human beings, who turn Muslims. When a people do not create a thing, but demand copyright over it—that too, with violence—it kills their urge to creativity. Such people can never be creative and contributory to society. And this fact is so glaringly in display in the Muslim world by its backwardness in every sphere of human development and progress.

Here also lies the fact as to why the Islamic world is turning to humanity’s worst nightmare. Muhammad usurped innovations of others into his creed, and, at the same time, violently coerced those people into Islam, or exterminated them.

It affects humanity in two ways: first, forcing the otherwise creative people (non-Muslims) into Islam through coercion turns uncreative, while exterminating them straightaway reduces the world’s creative pool of brains. Humanity, and its progress and development, thus, become stunted, a victim.

We have seen, in the post-colonial Islamic world, as a continuation of Muhammad’s legacy, the pool of creative non-Muslim peoples are being reduced through coercive conversion or migration, thus, turning Islamic world into a barren desert in terms of creativity and contribution to civilization.

And Muhammad’s violent legacy is also turning the world’s Muslims into an increasing violent lot.

When we see violence by Muslims over their illegitimate claim to use ‘Allah’ to the exclusion of others occur in a country like Malaysia, the ‘alleged’ beacon of Islamic moderation, modernity and progressiveness, writing is clearly on the wall as to where humanity is heading to.

We are heading into an Age of Barbarism. Much of the Islamic world is already there with worsening trends, while the rest is heading there through rapid Islamization.

To Read more Please Click Here!

God and Allah in Malaysia

Asia Sentinel
Sunday, 3rd January 2010

Ajustice's ruling goes against the government

The decision by Malaysian High Court Justice Lau Bee Lan giving the Catholic Herald newspaper the right to use the word Allah to represent God in its Malay-language edition has been met with jubilation among the country's 850,000-odd Catholics and outrage on the part of Muslims. As many as 10,000 protesters had signed onto a Facebook group page objecting to the Dec. 31 judgment.

A flock of United Malay National Organization (UMNO) politicians have got into the act as well, including former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamd and his son Mukhriz as well as former Selangor Chief Minister Mohamad Khir Toyo and others. Moderates including Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim are being called traitors to Islam for agreeing withg the decision, which is all but certain to be appealed to a higher court by the government as soon as possible and, if past practice is any gauge, a stay of execution will probably be granted.

The decision by Justice Lau, however, focuses attention on another matter entirely, and that is the growing independence of Malaysia's lower courts to issue decisions contrary to the government after nearly three decades. Her decision against the government followed another major one in May 2008 when High Court Judge Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim ruled that Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, who headed the opposition in the state, was wrongly removed as the chief minister of the northern state of Perak. Najib Tun Razak, then the deputy prime minister, engineered the defection of three lawmakers from the national opposition coalition Pakatan Rakyat, bringing the government to a halt in a 28-28 tie.

In that case, Judge Abdul Aziz ruled that Perak Sultan Raja Azlan Shah did not have the power to order Nizar to vacate his position as chief minister and instead to install Zambry Abdul Kadir, a longtime Umno stalwart, in his place. An appellate court almost immediately stayed the decision. It is still being fought out in court.

In another notable case, High Court Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad in November of 2008 freed Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the editor of the internet publication Malaysia Today after the editor was ordered jailed on a series of charges, mainly in connection with a series of scathing editorials and articles that sought to link Najib to the 2006 execution murder of Mongolian translator Altantuya Shaariibuu, then 28, the jilted lover of Najib's best friend, Abdul Razak Baginda. Two of Najib's bodyguards have been convicted of the murder.

In general, according to a think-tank source in Kuala Lumpur, "Judges in High Court have been giving very independent judgments that have been overturned by the Court of Appeal. So let's wait and see whether this will happen again."

The judges, according to another source, were appointed during the six years when Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was prime minister. Badawi in 2003 succeeded Mahathir Mohamad, who had ruled as premier for 22 years and whose reign was notable for his emasculation of the country's judiciary. Lau Bee Lan was one of Badawi's appointees, in December of 2004, as was Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim.

Although Badawi was roundly criticized for appointing Zaki Azmi, a former UMNO lawyer, as chief justice, Zaki has evolved into an effective jurist, a Kuala Lumpur source said, making strides to clean up a backlog of cases and engineering the appointment of independent judges.

"It was one of the few things [Badawi] did do right," said a Malay businessman in Kuala Lumpur. "For once - after two decades - even the Bar Council is becoming optimistic about the judiciary. But there's still a lot of rot left over from Mahathir to clean up. It's a daunting task."

Mahathir's subjugation of the judiciary began in 1988 amid an intraparty revolt against Mahathir's leadership of the United Malays National Organisation, when a Malaysian high court ruled that UMNO was illegal. With the case going to the Supreme Court, now known as the Federal Court which had issued other adverse rulings against the government, Mahathir in effect fired Salleh Abbas, the Lord President, along with three other Supreme Court justices. From that time forward, there were few if any decisions that went against the government.

That ultimately blew up in late 2007 with an enormous scandal with the publication of a videotape that purported to show VK Lingam, an influential lawyer friend of Mahathir's, in conversation with Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, then the country's third-ranking judge who was in charge of most senior judges. The conversation seemed to indicate that Mahathir was closely involved in the appointment of malleable judges favorable to the then-prime minister's closest cronies, particularly gaming tycoon Vincent Tan. Syed Hamid, the Shah Alam High Court judge who ordered Raja Petra freed, was appointed to his position during the reign of one notorious Supreme Court head, Eusoff Chin, who himself was accused of a host of judicial irregularities. The Attorney General in December said Lingam was probably only bragging and declined to prosecute him.

The current case began in January of 2008 when the Malaysian cabinet reinstituted the cancellation of the Roman Catholic newspaper's publishing license for using the word "Allah" interchangeably with "God" in its Malay language section. The Herald, which prints in English, Bahasa Malaysia, Tamil and Chinese, was first notified that it would no longer be allowed to use the word "Allah" on October 18 and November 1, 2007. But after informing the publication of the decision, a representative from the Internal Security Ministry later delivered a letter with the permit to print without restrictions, the publication's editor, Father Lawrence Andrew, told the media at the time.

The permit was withdrawn, however, a week later, when the ministry approved the paper's publication permit only on condition that the word "Allah" be prohibited and that the paper only be circulated to Christians. The church responded that the Malay-language edition of the paper is mostly read by tribes who converted to Catholicism or other Christian faiths, the preponderance of them in the East Malaysia states of Sabah and Sarawak, and that no other word would suffice to describe the deity.

Numerous religious scholars have pointed out that since Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same god, calling the deity "God" in English means exactly the same thing as calling him "Allah" or "Yahweh" in other languages.

The issue has become intensely political, however, with Malaysia's increasingly assertive fundamentalist Muslims concerned that the Christians are proselytizing Malays in an effort to lure them away from Islam.

In her decision, Justice Lau, however, said the federal constitution allows the church to use "Allah" in the Herald as an exercise of its right to practice religions other than Islam. The constitution, she ruled in an oral opinion, gives the church "the right to use the word 'Allah' in the Herald in the exercise of his right to freedom of speech and expression."

Critics have charged that Justice Lau is a Christian, which influenced her decision. One website stated that she takes at least 15 days per year to teach Bible studies throughout the country. Others have pointed out that if the case had been passed to a Muslim judge, the chance for influence was as great if not greater.

Mupok Aku

Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban