“We welcome the decision of the High Court because it affirms the constitutional rights guaranteed to religious communities under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution,” said Reverend Herman Shastri, who is the general-secretary for the Council of Churches.
Shastri, in a phone interview with The Malaysian Insider, affirmed that for many centuries Muslims and Christians had been living together in peace in Malaysia, and that the use of the word “Allah” has never been an issue of contention. With the decision, he hopes that Christians in the country may continue with their religious practices because the term itself is embedded in their daily worship as well as bible classes in the country.
“We hope that now that the matter has been solved, Muslims and Christians throughout the country can now focus on bringing peace and goodwill with one another, and contribute to the well-being of our nation.”
Non-governmental organisatios (NGOs) such as Penang-based Aliran who have long fought for liberal ideas of justice and equality lauded the court’s decision, but at the same time chose to inculcate a sense of ‘wary optimism’ as it looks at the decision made today.
“Aliran says InsyaAllah. The High Court has restored sanity to the issue by lifting the ban on the use of the word “Allah” among Christians, which to begin with was an insane ruling in the first place.
“Imagine, if in the past various communities had claimed exclusiveness to their words and prohibited the use of their words, we would be in a ridiculous situation,” said P Ramakrishnan, president of Aliran.
Ramakrisnan, in spite of the happy news, exercised caution in the ruling as he hoped that the matter would not be dragged on any further and be put to rest.
“Aliran hopes that this matter will be left to rest in pieces. It should not be a case of winning round 1 and losing round 2,” quipped the Aliran man alluding to the possibility that the decision of the court may not auger well with the Home Ministry.
Meanwhile, DAP Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua remained somewhat sceptical of the matter, although he initially expressed joy upon receiving the news.
“I am happy but two things need to be asked. I hope that the Home Ministry will not appeal the decision and not alter the freedom of religion to be practiced, and that the High Court judge who made the decision, I hope he would not be transferred to another court.”
Pua attested that the decision made showed a “strong community within the judges of the high court in exerting their influences.”
That being said, the PJ Utara MP feared that should the case be brought to the Court of Appeal, the Home Ministry would have a strong chance of winning as the “Appeal Court at many times functioned to serve the government of the day.”
The government had said that the ban was necessary to avoid confusing the majority Muslims in the country. Islam is the official religion in Malaysia.
But the church claimed the ban violates its constitutional rights to practice its religion freely.
According to Father Lawrence Andrew who edits Herald, the term “Allah” has been used by Christians in the region to refer to their God since four hundred years ago. He added that it is still actively used today.
Lawrence explained that “Allah” in the Christian context is used to refer to the trinitarian concept of “God the Father” which is different from the Muslim use of the verse to refer to the “one and only God”.
Herald’s editor claims the use of the word has not died out and is still being used in church worship among indigenous East Malaysians, who form a substantial number of the Christian faithful in the country.
The church first took the government to court last year after the home ministry threatened to revoke its annual publishing permit for Herald, Malaysia’s only Catholic paper.
It was forced to refresh its suit again this year after its 2008 permit expired without any decision from the court.
Banning Christians from using the word "Allah" unconsitution,court told.
The Catholic Church finally had its day in open court to defend its right to the use of the word “Allah”, arguing today banning its usage to refer to the Christian God was unconstitutional.
Months of legal arguments in the judges chambers and frequent disruptions by major Muslim groups had held back today’s proceedings from happening sooner.
Counsel for the Catholic Church, which publishes a weekly paper called Herald, argued that the Home Minister had gone against the Federal Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, when he introduced new conditions banning the use of the word “Allah” to mean any God other than the Muslim God.
Under section 12 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the Home Minister, who has full discretion in issuing a publishing licence and may place certain conditions to prevent abuse, had overstepped his power.
The team of five lawyers, led by Porres Royan, highlighted that the Federal Constitution protects the fundamental rights of religious minorities in Malaysia to carry out their worship freely.
In Article 3(1) of the Federal Constititution, Islam is acknowledged to be the official religion of the country, but at the same time, other religions can be practised in peace and harmony, said Porres.
The senior lawyer added that other parts of the Federal Constitution support the law equally, namely Article 11(3)(a) which states that every religion has the right to manage its own affairs, Article 10(1)(a) which guarantees freedom of speech and Article 8(1) which notes that every citizen is equal in the eyes of the law and entitled to equal protection under law.
Porres also noted that Christianity pre-dates Islam and made references to several early English-Malay versions of the Bible, including one by renowned Malay scholar Munsyi Abdullah who in 1852 filled in the word for God in the Christian sense as “Allah”.
Porres said several states had passed a law to “control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine among persons professing the religion of Islam” but had been misread to “criminalise” the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims.
“Even if section 9 is valid, the use of the word 'Allah' by one non-Muslim or by a person professing a non-Islamic religion to another cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to the propagation of a religious belief or doctrine among persons professing the religion of Islam,” he said.
“In the case of the Herald, Herald is a propagation of the Catholic Church meant for Christians and is not meant for persons professing the religion of Islam. In fact, the second condition imposed by the minister, that is endorsing the word 'Terhad' and that only distribution is in churches.
“It must mean there is no propagation among persons professing Islam,” the lawyer stressed.
The Home Minister's decision seems to turn guidelines for getting a publishing permit into a rule by which it may shut down and shut out bodies which publish dissenting views.
Influential Muslim groups, such as the state Islamic councils for the Federal Territory, Selangor and Penang among four others and the Chinese-Muslim association, which had been kicked out of the fight between the Herald and the Home Minister by the High Court previously, returned today in another bid to stop the suit.
They put in a fresh application to be made parties jointly with the lawyers for the home minister before High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan in her chambers this morning, which delayed the hearing from taking place in open court for almost two hours.According to the church's counsel, the judge said she would reserve judgment on the Muslim groups for later.
Hearing will resume with submissions from senior federal counsel for the Home Minister after the lunch break.
Senior federal counsel from the Attorney General's Chambers, Datuk Kamaludin Md Said, argued that the church has no right to sue the home minister after it had applied for and received a publishing permit when it knew fully there were conditions attached.
“Condition is part and parcel of the permit, which is in Form B. Permit without condition is not a permit,” Kamaludin said.
He added that the home minister also has the right to add on or change the conditions at any time and permit-holders are forced to accept those new terms and conditions wholesale.
Pointing to Section 13(a)(1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, he told the court it was an “ouster clause” which protects the home minister's decisions from being challenged in court.
“You cannot challenge the condition. You can only challenge if the minister refuse to grant permit,” the government lawyer said.
“If minister refuses to grant permit upon application or subsequently revokes or suspends permit, then there is issue, meaning it can be challenged,” Kamaludin said.
He also claimed that the Printing Presses and Publications Act was among several laws provided for by the Federal Constititution to control the amount of “freedom” stipulated under Article 10, when countering the church's argument that the minister had acted unconstitutionally.
On the same score, the court must reject the church's claim that the state propagation enactments were “unconstitutional”.
“You cannot come to court and happily say Section 9 of state enactments is unfortunate. There must be some reasons for why such laws were enacted,” Kamaludin said.
The anti-propagation law was meant to “avoid creating confusion and misunderstanding” among the majority Muslim Malaysians who have grown up knowing the term “Allah” to be exclusive to their community.
He noted that Muslims all over the world – regardless of their language background – used the term “Allah” as a “special name” to refer to “the one and only God” and described the church's argument as “perverse” because in Islam, unlike Christianity, there is no alternative name.
“The applicant's submission that 'Allah' is 'God' and 'Tuhan' is 'Lord' is perverse,” the senior federal counsel said.
Kamaludin dismissed the church's stress on the historical significance of Christians in the country and region using the word “Allah” long before Muslims did as “not relevant” and added that there was no proof today the word was still being used in its original context among Malaysian Christians.
But he may have gone too far when he tried to counter the widespread use of Arab Christians who also use the word “Allah” to refer to their God.
Kamaludin claimed that Arab Christians believed that God was one, unlike Malaysian Christians who subscribe to the “trinity” concept of “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost”.
Lawyers for the church appeared so stunned speechless by Kamaludin's claim, they could only shake their heads in disbelief.
Hearing will resume tomorrow morning with further submissions from Kamaludin's colleague, Mahamad Naser Disa.
