Download Allah - NUS - Faculty of Law - National University of Singapore

WorkingPaper2014/008
What’s In a Name? Malaysia’s ‘Allah’ Controversy and The Judicial Intertwining of Islam with Ethnic Identity JaclynNEO
[email protected]
[June 2014]
ThispapercanbedownloadedwithoutchargeattheNationalUniversityofSingapore,FacultyofLaw
WorkingPaperSeriesindex:http://law.nus.edu.sg/wps/
©Copyrightisheldbytheauthororauthorsofeachworkingpaper.Nopartofthispapermaybe
republished,reprinted,orreproducedinanyformatwithoutthepermissionofthepaper’sauthoror
authors.
Note:Theviewsexpressedineachpaperarethoseoftheauthororauthorsofthepaper.Theydonot
necessarilyrepresentorreflecttheviewsoftheNationalUniversityofSingapore.
Citationsofthiselectronicpublicationshouldbemadeinthefollowingmanner:Author,“Title,”NUSLaw
WorkingPaperSeries,“PaperNumber”,Month&Yearofpublication,http://law.nus.edu.sg/wps.For
instance,Chan,Bala,“ALegalHistoryofAsia,”NUSLawWorkingPaper2014/001,January2014,
www.law.nus.edu.sg/wps/001.html
1
What’s In a Name? Malaysia’s ‘Allah’ Controversy and the Judicial Intertwining of Islam with Ethnic Identity JaclynNEO
ABSTRACT:
ThisarticleexaminesarecentCourtofAppealjudgmentupholdingthe
government’sprohibitionofaCatholicpublicationfromusingtheword‘Allah’
againstthebackdropofMalaysia’spublicdiscourseonIslamanditsrolein
Malaysianstateandsociety.Iarguethatonecansituateandcomprehendthe
judgmentasappealingtoandrealizingaconceptionofIslamasethnicidentity,
whichdepartsfromtheconceptionofIslamasauniversalistreligion.Ishow
howthisconceptionhasbeengraduallyconstructedinMalaysia’spublic
discourse,byidentifyinga(untilnow)marginallineofjudicialprecedentsthat
foreshadowedtheCourtofAppeal’sjudgment.Lastly,Ihighlightthewaysin
whichthejudgmentaffectsminorityrightsandprospectsforintegrationin
Malaysia,evenasitraisescriticalquestionsaboutMalaysia’sproclaimedstatus
asamoderateandmodernIslamicsociety.
Keywords:ConstitutionalLaw,Religion,Islam,Ethnicity,ConstitutionalInterpretation,Judicial
Review
2
EverybodyintheworldknowsAllahistheMuslimGodandbelongstoMuslims.I
cannotunderstandwhytheChristianswanttoclaimAllahastheirGod.1
Untilrecently,MalaysianChristianshaveusedtheword‘Allah’intheirMalay
languagebibles,publications,sermons,prayers,andhymnswithoutmuch
fanfareorcomplications.Thispracticehasalonghistoricallineage;datingback
tobeforethecreationoftheMalaysiannation‐state.MunshiAbdullah,regarded
asthefatherofmodernMalayliterature,usedtheterm‘Allah’torefertoGodin
his1852Malaytranslationofthebible(al‐Kitab).2Christiansinpre‐
independenceStraitsSettlements(today’sPenang,Melaka,andSingapore)
commonlyspokeandprayedintheMalaylanguage,whichwasthenthelingua
franca.
Thislong‐establishedpracticecameundersiegeinrecenttimes.OnJanuary2,
2014,theSelangor3IslamicReligiousCouncilforcefullyraidedthepremisesof
theBibleSocietyofMalaysia.EventhoughtheReligiousCouncil,whichisa
departmentundertheSelangorstategovernment,hadnojurisdictionovernon‐
Muslims,andthereforenolegalbasisfortheiractions,theyinsistedonentering
thepremisesoftheBibleSocietyofMalaysia.Thetargetoftheirincursion?Some
300biblesintheMalaylanguageandinanativelanguage(Iban).Themischiefof
thesebibles?Theyusetheword‘Allah’todenoteGod.4Foracountrythattouted
itselfasapeacefulmultiracial‐multireligiousstate,whichJohnKerryrecently
1QuotedinBaradanKuppusamy,CanChristiansSay'Allah'?InMalaysia,MuslimsSayNo,TIME,
Jan8,2010,availableathttp://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952497,00.html.
2V.Anbalagan,HistoryandconstitutionalguaranteeallowChristianstouse‘Allah’,saylawexperts,
MALAYSIANINSIDER,Jan29,2014,availableat
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/history‐and‐constitutional‐guarantee‐
allow‐christians‐to‐use‐allah‐say‐law.ThebiblestartedtobetranslatedintotheMalaylanguage
asearlyas1612bytheDutch.THOMASHARTWELLHORNE,B.D.,ANINTRODUCTIONTOTHECRITICAL
STUDYANDKNOWLEDGEOFTHEHOLYSCRIPTURES:VOLUMEII,50(1836).
3AconstituentstateoftheFederationofMalaysia.
4LeeChoonFai&EllyFazaniza,JaisRaidsBibleSocietyofMalaysia,THESUNDAILY,Jan2,2014,
availableathttp://www.thesundaily.my/news/920355.
3
calledamultifaithmodelfortheworld,5theincidentwasdisappointingtomany
observers.Theraiddefiesthevisionofareligiouslytolerantcountryanda
religiousmajoritysaidtopracticeamoderateandmodernversionofIslam.
ThelegalgenesisofthiscurrentreligiouscrisislieswiththeMinistryofHome
Affair’sorderthattheCatholicHerald,aweeklyCatholicnewsletter,mustnot
usetheword‘Allah’intheirMalaylanguagepublication.Thisisaserious
restrictiononthereligiousfreedomofMalaysianChristians.Notonlyhasthe
word‘Allah’beenusedintheMalaylanguagebiblesincethe19thcentury,itis
alsousedinhymnsandprayersconductedintheMalaylanguage.TheCatholic
Churchchallengedtheministerialorder.Itargued,interalia,thattheorder
violatedtheCatholicChurch’sconstitutionalrighttoprofessandpracticeits
religion,includingtherighttomanageitsownreligiousaffairs,andtoinstruct
andeducateitscongregationintheChristianreligion.Freespeechviolations
werealsoraised.TheHighCourtdecidedinfavoroftheChurchin2010,6butits
decisionwasoverturnedonappealin2013.
Thecasehasbecomeafocalpointofreligiouscontestationinthecountry.
Muslim‐Christianrelationshavedeterioratedasprotests,churchattacks,and
inflammatorypublicstatementsfollowedbothjudgments.Malay‐Muslim
nationalistsopposedtheCatholicChurch’sassertedrighttousetheword‘Allah’,
andcondemnedtheHighCourtdecisionforfailingtogivesufficientregardtothe
superiorstatusofIslamasthereligionoftheFederationandsanctionsthe
allegedChristians’agendatoillegitimatelyappropriatetheirexclusiveclaimto
God.Ontheotherhand,Christians,humanrightslawyers,andmodernistMalay‐
MuslimscriticizedtheCourtofAppealdecisionformisreadingtheconstitution
5Kerrylaudsmulti‐faithMalaysiaforworld,MALAYMAILONLINE,Oct11,2013,availableat
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/kerry‐lauds‐multi‐faith‐malaysia‐as‐
model‐for‐world.
6TitularRomanCatholicArchbishopofKualaLumpurvMenteriDalamNegeri&Anor[2010]2
MLJ78(hereafter“‘Allah’case,HighCourt”).
4
anditsdraftinghistory,andfailingtoprotectthereligiousfreedomofreligious
minoritiesinMalaysia.7
Thisarticlesituatesthe‘Allah’caseandtheconsequenteventswithinMalaysia’s
legal,social,andpoliticallandscape.PartIIexaminesthetwojudgments,
focusingonthetwocourts’competinginterpretationsofthereligiousfreedom
clauseintheconstitution,theconceptualizationofpublicorderconsiderations,
andtheimplicationsoftheconfessionalclausedeclaringIslamthereligionofthe
Federationwhileguaranteeingthatotherreligionsmaybepracticedinpeace
andharmony(article3oftheFederalConstitution).InPartIII,Iarguethatthe
casehastobeunderstoodaspartofalineofcasejurisprudenceintertwining
MalayethnicitywithIslam.PartIVexaminesthehistoricalandcontemporary
constitutionalconditionsinMalaysia.Here,Icontendthatthejudicialthinking
underlyingthecasesrespondtoafundamentalistethno‐nationalistideologythat
hasgainedpublicityanddominanceinMalaysianpoliticsandsociety.Underthis,
Islamisconstructedasanintegralpartofethnicidentityandisusedtocontrol
theboundariesbetweenoneethnicgroupandothers.Thus,Iarguethatthe
‘Allah’casesareparticularlyfascinatingbecausetheydemonstratethepriorityof
ethnicexclusivityovertruereligiousclaimsassupportersofthisethno‐
nationalistideologyabandonIslam’suniversalistclaims,beingamonotheistic
religion,infavorofarestrictiveconceptionofIslamaspartofanexclusiveethnic
identity.PartVconcludesbyreflectingonthewaysinwhichthejudgmentaffects
minorityrightsandprospectsforintegrationinMalaysia,evenasitraisescritical
7TheMalaysianBardevotedasubstantialportionofitsOct‐Dec2013newsletterPraxisto
critiquingthe‘Allah’case.Seee.g.AndrewJamesHarding,Language,ReligionandtheLaw:ABrief
CommentontheCourtofAppeal’sJudgmentintheCaseoftheTitularRomanCatholicArchbishipof
KualaLumpur,PRAXIS,Oct‐Dec2013,at12,availableat
http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=43
90&Itemid=332;andPhilipKoh,PleaForARethinkOverTheAllahCase,LOYARBUROK,Feb21,
2014,http://www.loyarburok.com/2014/02/21/plea‐rethink‐allah‐case.SeealsoTommy
Thomas,The“Allah”DecisionisWronginConstitutionalLaw,LOYARBUROK,Oct25,2013,available
athttp://www.loyarburok.com/2013/10/25/allah‐decision‐wrong‐constitutional‐
law/#sthash.vHpxByFH.dpuf;andWeiMengLim‐Kabaa,TheCourtofAppeal’sflawedapproachto
the“KalimahAllah”case,LOYARBUROK,Jan15,2014,availableat
www.loyarburok.com/2014/01/15/courtofappeal‐kalimahallah/#sthash.Xs6BJO0x.dpuf.
5
questionsaboutMalaysia’sproclaimedstatusasamoderateandmodernIslamic
society.
I.
THE‘ALLAH’CASE:ATALEOFTWOJUDGMENTS
A.CompetingIdeologies:AFrameworkforAnalysis
TherearetwocompetingideologiesembeddedinMalaysia’sconstitutional
system:oneproclaimstheethnicnationbasedontheideologyof‘onerace,one
language,andonereligion,andtheotheraspiresinapluralisticandmultiethnic
nationcapableofaccommodating‘manyraces,manylanguages,andmany
religions.’Theformeremphasizesethnicidentityasthecentralorganizing
principleofgovernmentandsociety.Itseesethnicityastheprimarymodeof
engaginginlawandpoliticssuchthatdefendingthisethnicprinciplebecomes
crucialtoupholdingandmaintaininganentrenchedwayoflegal,political,and
sociallife.Thiscontrastswithacompetinglogicofnationhoodasbasedon
pluralityandequality.Accordingtothisideologyofpluralnationalism,society
andgovernmentarepremisedonethnic,linguistic,andreligiousequality.Thus,
whiletheethnic‐basednationresultsinexclusivistclaims,theequality‐based
nationaimstobeinclusive.
Thestrugglebetweenethno‐nationalismandplural‐nationalismfordominance
hasbeenadefininginfluenceinMalaysianlaw,politics,andsociety.This
frameworkofcompetingideologieshasusefulinterpretivefunctions.Thetwo
judgmentsdiscussedabovebroadlyrespondtotherespectivelogicofthese
competingideologies.WhiletheHighCourt’sreasoningconformstotheplural‐
nationalistideawherereligiousminoritiesaretobetreatedequally,theCourtof
Appeal’sjudgmentrespondstotheethno‐nationalistideologywherethe
interestsofthedominantreligiousgroupisprioritizedoverothergroups’.
6
B.Socio‐PoliticalBackgroundtotheCase
Thecase,nowpopularlyreferredtoasthe‘KalimahAllah’caseorsimplythe
‘Allahcase’,cameatatimeofincreasinglyfrayedrelationsbetweentheMalay‐
MuslimmajorityandvariousminoritiesinMalaysia.‘Malay’(asopposedto
‘Malaysian’)referstoanethnicgroupwithoriginsintheMalaysianpeninsular.
Malaysformabout63%ofMalaysia’spopulation.Theremainderconsistmostly
ofethnicallyChineseandIndian.8Whilethereissomecorrelationbetweenthese
twoethnicgroupsandspecificreligions,thisislesspronouncedthanforthe
dominantMalayethnicgroupthatisstronglytiedtoIslam.Themostpopular
religionsamongtheChineseareBuddhism/TaoismandChristianity(ofboth
CatholicandProtestantdenominations).AmongIndians,ormoreappropriately
personsofSouthAsianorigin,Hinduismistheassumedpractice,althoughthere
is,infact,adiversityofreligiousbeliefsamongthisgroup.
Thecasewasprecededbyseriesofstateactions,perceivedasdiscriminatory,of
theracial‐religiousminorities.ThisincludedthetearingdownofoldHindu
templesbystateandfederalgovernments,9whosebureaucraciesaredominated
bypersonsofMalayorigins,andtendedtobeMuslims.Anothercontroversy
arosewhentheSelangorIslamicReligiousDepartmentraidedacharitydinner
heldatachurch.Thedepartment’sofficials,accompaniedbylawenforcement
officers,claimedthattheywereinvestigatingintothemulti‐religiouseventfor
allegedlyattemptingtoconvertMuslimstoChristianity.Supportersoftheraid
8SeeDepartmentofStatistics,EthnicComposition,PopulationDistributionandBasicDemographic
CharacteristicReport2010;availableat
http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=1215.
9Thestategovernmentsarguethatthetemples,manybuiltbeforeMalaysiawonits
independencein1957,areillegalstructuresbecausetheylackproperregistrationandare
situatedongovernmentlands.ZariBukhari,TempledemolitionsstokeMalaysiantensions,ASIA
TIMESONLINE,Jul11,2006,availableat
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HG11Ae01.html;TrinnaLeong,Putrajaya
defendstempledemolition,saysconsultedHindupriest,THEMALAYSIANINSIDER,Nov11,2013,
availableathttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya‐defends‐temple‐
demolition‐says‐consulted‐hindu‐priest.
7
laudedthemoveasnecessarytodefendIslam,10whilethechurchdeniedany
attemptedproselytization.
C.FactualBackgroundtotheCase
Theapplicant,theTitularRomanCatholicArchbishopofKualaLumpur,had
publishedtheHerald–TheCatholicWeeklyforsome15years.In2009,it
receivedaministerialorder,attachingtwoconditionstoitspublicationpermit.
ThefirstconditionstatesthattheCatholicHeraldisprohibitedfromusingthe
word‘Allah’andthesecondthatthepublicationistoberestrictedtocirculation
withinchurchesandtoChristiansonly.Theapplicantdidnotchallengethe
ministerialordertorestrictcirculationonlytoChristians.Despitethis,the
governmentinsistedonadditionallybanningtheuseoftheword‘Allah’because
therewasnoguaranteethatthepublicationwouldnot“fallintothehandsof
Muslims”,especiallysinceitisavailableonline.Accordingtothegovernment,
andthisisthecentralbasisoftheircase,allowingtheCatholicstousetheword
‘Allah’wouldcauseconfusionandmisunderstandingamongMuslims.
Theministerialorderistiedtoalargerstatutoryschemethatcontrolsand
restrictsthepropagationofnon‐IslamicdoctrineorbeliefamongMuslims.The
constitutionalbasisforsuchstatutes,whichhavebeenenactedintenoutof
Malaysia’s13states,isarticle11(4)oftheFederalConstitution.Thisdeclares
thatthestates“maycontrolorrestrictthepropagationofanyreligiousdoctrine
orbeliefamongpersonsprofessingthereligionofIslam.”UnderMalaysia’s
federalistarrangement,Islamwasamatterthatfellwithinthestate’spowers.
Sections9ofthevariousstateenactmentsprovideforanoffencerelatingtothe
useofcertainwordsandexpressionscommonlyassociatedwithIslam,and
10OrganizersexplainedthatthedinnerwasacharityeventwhereMalay‐Muslimparticipants
wererecipientsofwelfaresupportanddefendedthedinnerasoneinsupportofpan‐Malaysian
unity.Malaysiaconfrontsitsethnicandreligiousdivisions,AL‐JAZEERA,Aug25,2011,availableat
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201108251926‐0014465.
8
whichincludestheword‘Allah’.11Thus,thegovernmentarguedthatthe
ministerialordermerelygiveseffecttotherestrictionsasfoundinthese
statutoryenactments.TheHighCourtdecidedinfavoroftheapplicants,whereas
theCourtofAppealdecidedinfavorofthegovernment.
Thetwocourtsdivergedstarklyintheirtreatmentofthreelegalissues.Thefirst
iswhethertheuseoftheword‘Allah’fellwithintheprotectedscopeofreligious
freedomundertheconstitution.Thesecondiswhethertherestrictioncouldbe
justifiedunderpublicordergrounds.Thethirdissueconcernsthemeaningand
implicationofarticle3(1),whichdeclaresIslamtobethereligionofthe
Federation,butalsoguaranteesthatotherreligionscanbepracticedinpeace
andharmony.
D.HighCourt:InDefenseofReligiousFreedom
1. Article11(1):ConstitutionallyProtectedReligiousPractice
AccordingtotheHighCourt,prohibitingtheuseoftheword‘Allah’violatesthe
FederalConstitution’sguaranteeofreligiousfreedomunderarticles11(1)and
11(3).Article11(1)guaranteesthat,
[e]verypersonhastherighttoprofessandpractisehisreligionand,
subjecttoClause(4),topropagateit.”Clause(4)authorizeslawsthat
“controlorrestrictthepropagationofanyreligiousdoctrineorbelief
amongpersonsprofessingthereligionofIslam.”Inaddition,article11(3)
grantsandprotectstherightofeveryreligiousgroupto,interalia,
“manageitsownreligiousaffairs.
11Seee.g.theNon‐IslamicReligions(ControlofPropagationAmongstMuslims)Enactment1988
(SelangorEnactmentNo1/1988).
9
TheHighCourtdeterminedthattheuseoftheword‘Allah’wasprotectedunder
theconstitution.Itacceptedwhatitcalls“uncontrovertedhistoricalevidence”
thattheuseoftheword‘Allah’hasbeenpartofthepracticeofChristianityin
Arabic‐speakingcountriesandinMalaysiaandIndonesia.12SincetheMalay
languagehasbeenthelinguafrancaofmanyCatholicbelieverslivinginMelaka
andPenang,aswellastheirdescendantsinPeninsularMalaysia,formany
centuries,theyhavepracticedacultureofspeakingandprayingintheMalay
language.EarliesttranslationsoftheBibletoMalayalsousedtheword‘Allah’to
denoteGod.Adoptingtheessentialpracticetest,13theHighCourtconcludedthat
theuseofthewordisanessentialpartofCatholicworshipandinstructioninthe
faithamongitsMalay‐speakingcommunity,andthusisintegraltothepractice
andpropagationoftheirfaith.14
Inaddition,althougharticle11(4)allowsthegovernmenttorestrictpropagation
amongMuslims,itdoesnotextendtoauthorizingthegovernmenttorestrictthe
righttoprofessandpracticeone’sreligion.Thestateenactmentsmusttherefore
bereadrestrictivelyinlightofarticles11(1)and11(4).Aslongasareligious
group,andinthiscasetheCatholicHerald,isnotusingtheword‘Allah’to
propagateChristianitytoMuslims,thereisnoconstitutionalbasisforrestricting
useoftheword.
12See‘Allah’case,HighCourt,¶¶21,and35.
13ThistestwasadoptedbytheCourtofAppealinMeorAtiqulrahmanbinIshak&OrsvFatimah
bteSihi&Ors[2006]4MLJ605.Notably,theFederalCourtrejectedthistestandoptedinstead
foramorecontextualizedbalancingtest.
14‘Allah’case,HighCourt,¶¶30and35.Thecourtalsodeterminedthattheministerialorder
constitutedanunreasonablerestrictiononthefreedomofspeechandexpressionunderarticle
10(1)(c)oftheFederalConstitutionandisanunreasonableadministrativeactwhichimpinges
onarticle8(1)’sguaranteeofequalprotectionbeforethelaw.
10
2. ThreattoPublicOrder:NoMaterialEvidence
TheHighCourtalsoreviewedandrejectedthegovernment’sjustificationthat
allowingtheCatholicHeraldtousetheword‘Allah’wouldcauseconfusionand
threatenpublicorderandnationalsecurity.Underarticle11(5),the
constitutionallyprotectedrighttoreligiousfreedomissubjecttogenerallaws
relatingtopublicorder,publichealthormorality.Inotherwords,religious
freedomcouldberestrictedifareligiouspracticeviolatespublicorder.However,
theHighCourtheldthattherewasnomaterialevidencethiswasthecase.
Instead,therewasahistoricallywell‐establishedpracticefortheuseof‘Allah’
amongsttheMalay‐speakingcommunityoftheCatholicfaithinthegeographic
regionthatnowmakesupMalaysia,presumablywithoutanypublicdisorderor
securityconcerns.Inaddition,theCourttookjudicialnoticethatMuslimsand
ChristiancommunitiesinotherMuslimcountries,includingthoseintheMiddle
East,usetheword‘Allah’withoutanyconfusion.Furthermore,theCourtnoted
thereisaneedtocautiouslycircumscribethe“avoidanceofconfusion’asavalid
groundforrestrictingreligiousfreedomlest“amereconfusionofcertain
personswithinareligiousgroupcanstriptheconstitutionalrightofanother
religiousgrouptopracticeandpropagatetheirreligionunderarticle11(1)and
torendersuchguaranteedrightasillusory.”15
3. Article3(1):OtherReligionsMayBePracticedinPeaceandHarmony
Lastly,theHighCourtbuttresseditsjudgmentwithreferencetoarticle3(1)of
theFederalConstitution,whichguaranteesthatallreligionsmaybepracticedin
“peaceandharmony”.Thearticledeclares:
“IslamisthereligionoftheFederation;butotherreligionsmaybepractised
inpeaceandharmonyinanypartoftheFederation.”
15‘Allah’case,HighCourt,¶65.
11
WhilethereferencetoIslamasthereligionoftheFederationhasbeenusedon
numerousoccasionstoexpandthestate’scontroloverIslamandtorestrictthe
rightofMuslimstoconvertoutofIslam,16theHighCourtrejectedthe
governmentcounsels’attempttousethisprovisiontorestrictthereligious
freedomofnon‐Muslims.Itheldthattherighttopracticeinpeaceandharmony
supportsitsconclusionthattheuseoftheword‘Allah’ispartofthe
constitutionalprotectionofreligiousfreedom.Thisinterpretationconceivesof
article3(1)asarights‐protectiveprovisionfornon‐Muslims.
E.TheCourtofAppeal:PublicOrderOverReligiousFreedom
WhiletheHighCourtgaverobustprotectiontotheCatholicHerald’sreligious
freedom,theCourtofAppealjudgmentleanedinfavorofpublicorder
considerations.ItdisagreedwiththeHighCourtonallthreeissuesimplicating
religiousfreedom.WhileallthreeCourtofAppealjudgesissuedindividual
groundsofdecision,theratiowasbroadlycontainedinanofficialmedia
statementthattheCourtissued.17
1. Article11(1):NotEssentialPractice
Firstly,theCourtofAppealunanimouslyfoundthattherewasnoinfringementof
theCatholicChurch’sconstitutionalrightsbecausetheuseoftheword‘Allah’is
notanintegralpartofthefaithandpracticeofChristianity.Constitutional
protectionofreligiousfreedomextendsonlytopracticesandritualsthatare
essentialandintegraltothereligion,18anditisthecourtthatassessesthe
16Seee.g.KamariahbteAlidanlain‐lainlwnKerajaanNegeriKelantan,Malaysiadansatulagi
[2002]3MLJ657,DaudbinMamat&OrsvMajlisAgamaIslam&anor[2001]2MLJ390.
17SummaryofDecision,reproducedatLOYARBUROK:http://www.loyarburok.com/wp‐
content/uploads/2013/10/Allah‐W‐01‐1‐2010_SUMMARY.pdf(hereafter“SummaryofCA
Decision”).
18See¶10ofJusticeMohdZawari’sjudgment,inLOYARBUROK:http://www.loyarburok.com/wp‐
content/uploads/2013/10/Allah‐W‐01‐1‐2010_YA_DATO_MOHD_ZAWAWI_BIN_SALLEH.pdf
(hereafter“JusticeMohdZawari’sJudgment”).
12
sufficiencyofevidencetodeterminetheexistenceofareligiouspractice,aswell
asitsessentialnesstothereligion.Thisrejectsthesubjectiveapproach,orwhat
itcallsthe“assertiontest”,whichprotectstherightofreligiousgroupstoassert
andjudgeforthemselvesthepracticesthatarepartofthereligion.Insupportof
thisconclusion,JusticeMohamedApandireasonedthattheword‘Allah’doesnot
appearintheHebrewscripturesorintheGreekNewTestament,andthatto
insistotherwiseis“torefusetoacknowledgetheessentialdifferencesbetween
religions”,which“willbeanaffronttotheuniquenessofworldreligions.”19
Therewastherefore“noreasonwhytherespondentissoadamanttousethe
name‘Allah’intheirweeklypublication.”20
2. ThreattoPublicOrder:Post‐JudgmentIncidents
Secondly,theCourtofAppealagreedwiththeMinister’sdeterminationthatthe
prohibitionoftheuseoftheword‘Allah’bytheCatholicHeraldposedapublic
orderandsecurityissue.Thecourtagreedwiththegovernmentthatsuchusage
“willinevitablycauseconfusionwithinthecommunity.”21Allthreejudges
acceptedthattheusageoftheword‘Allah’hasthe“potentialtodisrupttheeven
tempoofthelifeoftheMalaysiancommunity”.22JusticeAbdulAzizadoptedthe
government’sviewthatMuslimsinMalaysiaare“verysensitiveonreligious
issues”andthattheword‘Allah’refersto‘oneness’andcannotbepartofthe
conceptofTrinityofFather,Son,andtheHolyGhostoftheChristianfaith.23
19JusticeMohamedApandi’sjudgment.¶51‐2,atLOYARBUROK:http://www.loyarburok.com/wp‐
content/uploads/2013/10/Allah‐W‐01‐1‐
2010_YA_DATO_SRI_HAJI_MOHAMED_APANDI_BIN_HAJI_ALI.pdf(hereafter“JusticeMohamed
Apandi’sJudgment”).
20SummaryofCADecision,¶5.
21Id.,at¶5.
22JusticeMohamedApandi’sJudgment,at¶42.
23See¶36ofthejudgmentofJusticeAbdulAziz,reproducedatLOYARBUROK:
http://www.loyarburok.com/wp‐content/uploads/2013/10/Allah‐W‐01‐1‐
2010_YA_DATO_ABDUL_AZIZ_BIN_ABDUL_RAHIM.pdf(hereafter“JusticeAbdulAziz’sJudgment”).
13
InvokingtheLatinmaximssaluspopulisupremalaxandsalusrepublicaesuprema
lax,theCourttookanevenmorestatistpositionthanthegovernmenthad
initiallytaken,holdingthat“thewelfareofanindividualorgroupmustyieldto
thatofthecommunity.”24
3. Article3(1):OtherReligionsMayBePracticedinPeaceandHarmonySubject
toIslamicSupremacy
Thirdly,theCourtofAppealdepartedfromtheHighCourt’sminorityrights‐
protectivereadingofarticle3(1),holdinginsteadthatthereferencetopeaceand
harmonyshouldbereadtosubject“thewelfareofanindividualorgroup…to
thatofthecommunity.”25Whilethecourt’smediasummaryisopaque,the
individualjudgmentsaremoreillustrativeinexplainingwhatthismeans.Justice
MohamedApandi,forinstance,assertsinhisjudgmentthatarticle3(1)isaimed
atprotectingthe“sanctityofIslamasthereligionofthecountryandalsoto
insulate[it]againstanythreatfacedoranypossibleandprobablethreattothe
religionofIslam.”Headded,thatinhisopinion,“themostpossibleandprobable
threattoIslam,inthecontextof[Malaysia],isthepropagationofotherreligion
tothefollowersofIslam.”26Thisreadingturnsarticle3(1)onitshead;the
injunctiontopracticeinpeaceandharmonyisnowdirectedatthenon‐Muslims,
ratherthanatthegovernmentandtheMuslimstoensurethatreligious
minoritiesmaypracticetheirreligioninpeaceandharmony.Accordingtothis
readingarticle3(1),itisthenon‐Muslimswhohavetheresponsibilityof
ensuringthatthepracticeoftheirreligiondoesnotaffectthepeaceandharmony
ofthecountry.
24SummaryofCADecision,at¶6.
25Id.
26JusticeMohamedApandi’sJudgment,at¶33.
14
II.
LEGALANTECEDENTS:TRACINGTHEJURISPRUDENTIALTHREAD
TheHighCourt’srights‐protectiveapproachappealstoliberal‐constitutionalists
sinceitgivesdueregardtotherightsofreligiousminoritiesanddoesnotaccept
asconclusivethegovernment’sclaimedjustificationonpublicorderornational
securitygrounds.TheCourtofAppealdecision,onthehand,isperplexingfrom
theperspectiveofconstitutionalhistoryandprinciples.Iarguehoweverthatit
canbeunderstoodinthecontextofalineofjudicialreasoningwhichendorsed
twoproblematiclegalpositionspositedbytheethno‐nationalistideology:first,
thejudicialintertwiningofMalayethnicitywithreligion,andsecondly,the
allegedsuperiorityofIslamoverotherreligions.
A.IslamasanIndispensableMarkerofEthnicIdentity
JudicialintertwiningofIslamwithMalayethnicitycanbeidentifiedinthe2000
HighCourtofSerembancaseofMeorAtiqulrahmanbinIshakvs.Fatimahbte
Sihi.27Here,thecourtreferencedprovisionsintheconstitutionrelatingtothe
preservationofMalayreservations,28designatingMalayastheofficiallanguage29,
andrecognizingthe“specialpositionofMalays”andtheirindigenousstatusas
bumiputerasasgivingspecialstatustoMalays30tojustifyinterpretingarticle3(1)
asgivingIslamaspecialstatusintheconstitution.ThisconflatesMalayethnicity
withIslam,thusintertwiningethno‐nationalismwithIslam.Nonetheless,
nowhereisthismorepronouncedthaninthe2004HighCourtjudgmentinLina
JoyvMajlisAgamaIslamWilayah31whereitheldthatMalayethnicityandIslam
weresimplyinseparable.OnecouldnotbeaMalayandnotMuslim.
27MeorAtiqulrahmanbinIshakvs.FatimahbteSihi[2000]5MLJ375(HighCourt,Seremban)
(hereafter“Meor,HC”).
28Art89,FederalConstitution.
29Art152,FederalConstitution.
30MeorHighCourt,at384F‐G.
31LinaJoyv.MajlisAgamaIslamWilayah[2004]2MLJ119.
15
LinaJoywasahighlypublicizedcaseofawomanofMalaydescentwhowas
raisedaMuslimbutlaterconvertedtoCatholicism.Sheappliedforherchangeof
religiontoberecognizedinherofficialrecordsinordertomarryanon‐Muslim.
TheNationalRegistrationDepartmentrefusedherapplicationonthebasisthat
shehadtoobtainacertificateofconversionfromtheSyariahcourts,whichhad
jurisdictionoverthematter.ThiswasnotpracticablesincetheSyariahcourts
areempoweredtodetainherforreligiousrehabilitationinsteadofgrantingher
thecertification.32Shethereforefiledanapplicationforjudicialreviewagainst
thegovernment,claimingaviolationofherreligiousfreedom.
TheHighCourtrejectedherapplication,andtheCourtofAppealandtheFederal
Courtaffirmed,albeitondifferentgrounds.33TheHighCourtreasoninghowever
ismostrelevantandhasinfluencedsubsequentcasesrestrictingreligious
freedomofMuslims.TheCourtheldthatsincetheplaintiff“isaMalay”,by
definition,“shecannotrenounceherIslamicreligion”butmustremaininthe
Islamicfaith“untilherdyingdays”.Thisjudicialreasoningreliesonan
interpretationclauseintheFederalConstitution,whichdefinesaMalayperson
asone“whoprofessesthereligionofIslam,habituallyspeakstheMalaylanguage,
conformstoMalaycustom”.However,acompetingandprobablyamore
judiciallyaccepteddefinition(atleastuntilLinaJoy)wasthatapersonwho
convertsoutofIslamisnolongerregardedasaMalaypersonforpurposesofthe
constitutionalprovisions.ThedefinitionofaMalaypersonwasincludedinthe
constitutiontofacilitatethepreferentialallocationofresourcestoMalaysas
bumiputeraor‘sonsofthesoil’.34TheHighCourt’sreadinginLinaJoyturnedthis
32TheAdministrationofIslamicLaw(FederalTerritories)Act1993,otherrelatedState
Enactmentsandallotherstateorfederallegislationforbadeorimposedrestrictionson
conversionoutofIslam.Joyalsosoughttoinvalidatetheseinherapplication.
33SeeLinaJoyvMajlisAgamaIslamWilayahPersekutuan&Ors6MLJ193(CourtofAppeal,
2005);LinaJoyv.MajlisAgamaIslamWilayahPersekutuan4MLJ585(FederalCourt,2007).
34Underarticle153oftheFederalConstitution,MalaysandnativesofSabahandSarawakare
consideredindigenoustoMalaysia.
16
definitionalclauseintoarights‐restrictiveclause.Accordingtothis(re‐
)interpretation,theclauseconstitutionallyentrenchesIslamaspartofagroup’s
ethnicidentity,thusmakingreligionimmutable,ratherthanaconsequenceof
individualchoice.
B.Superordination?IslamastheReligionoftheFederation
ThejudicialendorsementofIslamashavingasuperordinatestatuswasasserted
inthecaseofMeorAtiqulrahmanreferredtoabove.Threeschoolboysappliedfor
judicialreviewchallengingtheirexpulsionfromapublicschoolforwearing
serbans(atypeofIslamicheadgear).Theschoolclaimedthattheyhadbreached
schooluniformregulations,whichpermitted(interalia)thetudung(headscarf)
andsongkok(aheadgearcommonlywornbyMalay‐MuslimsinMalaysia).The
HighCourtheldintheapplicants’favoronthebasisthattheschoolandthe
MinistryofEducation(whichhadsettheclothingpolicy)hadviolatedtheir
religiousfreedom.Thecrucialpartofthecasehowever,whileobiter,wasthe
HighCourt’sexpositiononthemeaningandimplicationofarticle3(1)ofthe
FederalConstitution.
Initsjudgment,whichwaswrittenintheMalaylanguage,theHighCourtread
article3(1)asestablishingtheprimacyofIslaminthefollowingterms:
Inmyopinion,Article3oftheFederalConstitutionmeansthatIslamisthe
dominantreligionamidstotherreligionswhicharepractisedinthecountry
likeChristianity,Buddhism,Hinduandothers.Islamisnotofthesamestatus
astheotherreligions;itdoesnotsitsidebysidenorstandsidebyside.
Rather,Islamsitsatthetop,itwalksfirst,andisplacedonamantlewithits
voiceloudandclear.…Otherwise,Islamwillnotbethereligionofthe
Federationbutjustoneofthemanyreligionsembracedinthecountryand
17
everybodywouldbeequallyfreetopracticeanyreligionhe/sheembraces,
withnonebetterthantheother.35
Thisisnotmerelyasymbolicprimacy,butonethatimposesstateobligations.
TheHighCourtthusassertedthatitsreadingofarticle3(1)requiresthe
governmenttomaintain,encourage,andspreadIslamicfaithandpractices.36
FortheHighCourt,itisanecessaryandrequiredconsequencethattherightsof
otherreligiousgroupswouldhavetobesubordinatedtoIslamandtherightsof
itsadherents.Itexplainsthataconsequenceofitsreadingofarticle3(1)isalso
forthegovernmenttoensurethatreligiousplacesofworshipforotherreligions
“donotsurpassorcomparewithNational/StateMosquesintermsoflocation
andprominence,sizeandarchitecture”.37Italsomeansthatthegovernmenthas
toensurethat“therebetoomanysuchreligiousplaceslocatedeverywhere
withoutcontrol.”38Thus:
Otherreligionsmustbearrangedanddirectedtoensurethattheyare
practicedpeacefullyanddonotthreatenthedominantpositionofIslam,not
justpresentlybutmoreimportantlyinthefutureandbeyond.39
TheHighCourt’sdecisionwasoverturnedonappeal.BoththeCourtofAppeal
andtheFederalCourtheldintheschoolandgovernment’sfavor,butwithout
35Author’stranslationwiththeassistanceof[anonymised].MeorHC,at382B‐D.TheHighCourt
decision,writteninBahasaMalaysia,wasnotfullyreportedinEnglish;itsskeletalEnglish
headnotedoesnotsufficientlydetailtheextensivetreatmentanddiscussionofarticle3,
includingprecedentsanddraftinghistory.
36MeorHC,at386A‐D.
37Id.
38Id.Foramoreextensivetreatmentofthiscase,seeThioLi‐ann&JaclynLing‐ChienNeo,
ReligiousDressinSchools:TheSerbanControversyinMalaysia,55INT’L&COMP.LAWQ671(Jul
2006).
39Id.
18
directlyrejectingtheHighCourt’sinterpretationofarticle3(1).40Problematic
judicialdoctrineshouldbeexpresslyandaffirmativelyoverruled,especially
sincetheHighCourt’sreadingofarticle3(1)contradictsanearlierhighercourt
decisioninCheOmarbinCheSohvPP.41There,theSupremeCourt(then
Malaysia’shighestcourt)affirmedthattheoriginalintentandtherebytheproper
interpretationofarticle3(1)isthatitmerelyauthorizestheuseofIslamicrites
andritualsinofficialevents.Itisnotmeanttoprovideanynormativecontentto
constitutionallaw.However,boththeCourtofAppealandtheFederalCourtin
Meoronlyaddressedthequestionobliquely.IntheCourtofAppeal,JusticeGopal
SriRamobservedthatthecourts“havetointerprettheconstitutionsensiblyand
inthecontextofamulti‐racialsociety.”42TheFederalCourtreasoned,that
colonialismwasasubstantiveinterventionthattransformedtheMalaystates
fromanytheocraticmonarchiesintoa“multiracial,multi‐cultural,multi‐lingual,
andmultireligious”state.43TheCourtfurtherlaudedMalaysia’ssuccessin
ensuring“unity,peace,andprosperity”despitesuchadifficultsocialcontext.44
Thus,theFederalCourtheldthattheMinistryofEducation’sschooluniform
regulationswerejustifiableonthebasisthatcreatingacommoneducational
systemthatpermitsdiversitywithoutpromotingextremismandpolarization
wasasufficientlyimportantstateinterest.
Thetwohighercourts’decisionmaybecriticizedfornotgivingprotectiontothe
religiousfreedomoftheschoolboys,andfavoringinsteadstateinterests.
However,thefactthattheschoolregulationsdidnotentirelyprohibitthe
wearingofallreligiousheadgearsbutpermittedsomeindicatesthestate’s
accommodativestancetowardsreligiousdress.Thegovernment’srefusalto
40FatimahbintiSitivMeorAtiqularahman[2005]2MLJ25,(CourtofAppeal).
41CheOmarbinCheSohvPP(1988)2MLJ55.
42V.Anbalagan,Serbanissue:Courtallowsappeal,23Nov2004,NEWSTRAITSTIMES,NOV23,2004,
1.
43MeorAtiqulrahmanbinIshakvFatimahbteSihi&Ors[2006]4MLJ605,(FederalCourt),at¶45.
44Id.
19
extendthistotheserbanhowevermaybeduetotheperceptionthattheserban
isassociatedwithamoreconservativevisionofIslam.Thus,inendorsingthe
restrictionsasnecessaryintheinterestofensuringinter‐racialandinter‐
religiouspeace,theFederalCourtimplicitlyaffirmedtheneedtoprioritizea
pluralistnationoveraradicalvisionofanethno‐nationalistone.However,the
highercourts’failuretorebuttheHighCourt’sreadingofarticle3(1)hasledto
themistakenassumptionthattheHighCourt’sethno‐nationalistinterpretation
standsasacceptablejudicialdoctrine.Thisinterpretationcontinuestoinfluence
latercasesandtheCourtofAppeal’sreadingofarticle3(1)inthe‘Allah’case
reflectsthisjudicialdoctrine,despiteitsquestionablebasisinlegalhistoryand
legalprecedent.
C.PeaceandHarmony:SubordinatingMinorityIntereststoIslam’s
TheCourtofAppeal’sreadingofarticle3(1)inthe‘Allah’casecanthusbe
understoodasrespondingtothesamelogicofethno‐nationalismthatundergird
thecasesdiscussed.Itsreadingof“peaceandharmony”asservingtoprotectthe
sanctityofIslamasthereligionofthecountryandtoinsulateitagainstany
threat45turnstheprovisionfromonethatishistoricallyunderstoodasan
assurancetoreligiousminoritiesoftheirfreedomtopractice,toonethat
imposesanobligationonthem.Inholdingthatarticle3(1)servestoprotectthe
“sanctityofIslamasthereligionofthecountry”andto“insulate”itfromany
threats,realorpossible,theCourtofAppealhasmadethereligiousmajoritythe
beneficiariesofthisprovision.Textually,italsomakeslittlesense.Thearticle
reads:“IslamisthereligionoftheFederation,butotherreligionsmaybe
practicedinpeaceandharmonyinanypartoftheFederation.”Thefirstpartof
thisprovisionpresumablybenefitsthereligiousmajoritysinceitrecognizes
theirreligionastheofficialreligion.Therewouldhavebeennoreasontousethe
word‘but’torefertootherreligionspracticinginpeaceandharmonyiftherest
oftheprovisionwasmeanttoalsobenefitthereligiousmajority.Itwouldand
45JusticeMohamedApandi’sJudgment,¶33;JusticeAbdulAziz’sJudgment,¶48.
20
couldsimplyhaveread:IslamisthereligionoftheFederation,andother
religionsmaybepracticedinpeaceandharmony.Theuseoftheword‘but’
showsinsteadthatthelatterismeanttoqualifytheprecedingpart.
III.
RIVALNATIONS:THEMALAY‐MUSLIMNATIONVERSUSTHEMULTIETHNICNATION
A. InternalCriticism:PaternalismandQuestionableTheological/
EtymologicalClaims
ThewayMuslimsaretreatedhereisjustcondescending.It’sridiculoustothink
thatifotherreligionsusethewordAllah,usMuslimswouldstartconvertingto
otherreligions.46
WhiletheCourtofAppeal’sdecisionreceivedmuchsupportfromethno‐
nationalistsinMalaysia,itreceivedcondemnationbothwithinandoutside
Malaysia,notonlyfromliberalhumanrightssupportersandChristiangroups,
butalsofromIslamicscholarsandcommentators.MalaysianMuslimactivist,Dr
AhmadFaroukMusa,stronglycriticizeditspaternalisticundertones.Thiswas
echoedoverseasbyAmericanIslamicscholarRezaAslan,whocalledabsurdthe
“notionthatMalaysianMuslimsneedtobeprotectedbythecourtbecauseyou
can’tthinkforyourself,youcan’tmakedecisionsonyourown.”47
Inaddition,commentatorsquestioneditstheologicalandetymologicalclaims.
WarningthatMalaysiawasbecomingalaughingstockoftheinternational
46TrinnaLeong,MoreIslamicscholarscriticizePutrajayaoverAllahruling,THEMALAYSIANINSIDER,
Oct23,2013,availableathttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/more‐islamic‐
scholars‐criticise‐putrajaya‐over‐allah‐ruling.
47ElizabethZachariah,Award‐winningAmericanMuslimscholaronAllahruling:“Wearelaughing
atyou””,THEMALAYSIANINSIDER,Oct22,2013,availableat
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/award‐winning‐american‐muslim‐
scholar‐on‐the‐allah‐decision‐we‐are‐laughing.
21
community,RezaAslanpointsoutthatthewordismerelyanArabicword
referringtothegenericconceptofGod:
Al‐Ilahmeans‘TheGod’.AllahisnotthenameofGod.Frankly,anyonewho
thinksthatAllahisthenameofGod,isnotjustincorrect,butisgoingagainst
theQuranitself.ItisalmostablasphemousthoughttothinkthatAllahhasa
name.48
Inaddition,theUnitedArabEmirates’EnglishlanguagepublicationTheNational
criticizedthe“wrong”ruling,stating:
Theword‘Allah’isneverexclusivetoIslam–indeed,bothChristiansand
Jewsusedtheword“Allah”torefertoGodevenbeforethecomingofIslam.…
TheMalaysiandecisionoverlooksnotmerelythetheology,butalsothe
etymologyoftheword.Theword‘Allah’isderivedfromtheArabic‘al‐ilah’,
thegod.It’s[sic.]founditswayacrosstheworldandenteredMalayfrom
Arabic.49
EvenPakistan’sDailyTimes(admittedlymoreliberalinoutlook)asked:“Who
hasgivenMuslimsthelibertytocopyrightthenameofAllah?”50Indeed,Islamic
scholarandformerPerlisMuftiDrAsriZainulAbidinarguedthatbanningnon‐
48Id.
49Word‘Allah’isnotexclusivetoIslam,THENATIONAL(EMIRATES),Oct14,2013,availableat
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/editorial/word‐allah‐is‐not‐exclusive‐to‐
islam#ixzz2s3MR4H5J.
50TheHajjSermon,DAILYTIMES(PAKISTAN),Oct16,2013,availableat
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\10\16\story_16‐10‐2013_pg3_1;see
alsoMohammadAhmad,WieldingtheReligiousSwordinMalaysia,DAILYTIMES(PAKISTAN),
October21,2013,availableathttp://archives.dailytimes.com.pk/editorial/21‐Oct‐2013/view‐
wielding‐the‐religious‐sword‐in‐malaysia‐mohammad‐ahmad.Ironically,inPakistan,
AhmadiyyashavebeenprohibitedfromusingwhatthestateperceivestobeexclusivelyIslamic
epithets.SeeSection298BofthePakistaniPenalCode,andthePakistanSupremeCourt’s
decisioninZaheeruddinvTheState(1993)26SCMR1718.
22
MuslimsfromcallingGod‘Allah’istantamountto‘syirik’,theunforgivablesinof
practicingidolatryorpolytheism.51
A.EmbeddedConflict:Ethno‐NationalismversusPlural‐Nationalism
Ifthesestaunchobjectionsarecorrect,howthendidtheCourtofAppealgetitso
wrong?ThekeyliesinMohamedApandiJCA’saffirmationofDrShadSaleem
Faruqi’sargumentsconcerningtheinseparabilityofMalayethnicitywiththe
Islamicreligion:
“…Malaysseeaninseparableconnectionbetweentheirraceandtheir
religion.AnyattempttoweakenaMalay’sreligiousfaithmaybeperceivedas
anindirectattempttoerodeMalaypower.ConversionoutofIslamwould
automaticallymeandesertingtheMalaycommunityduetothelegalfactthat
thedefinitionofa‘Malay’inArticle160(2)oftheFederalConstitution
containsfouringredients[and][p]rofessingthereligionofIslamisoneof
them.”52
Thisreasoning,astheprevioussectiondemonstrates,haslegalantecedents,and
conformstotheethno‐nationalistideologywhichhasinfluencedareadingof
historyasfavoringtheethnic‐basednationratherthanapluralnationbasedon
equalityofraces,religions,andlanguage.
Thecontestationarisingformthe‘Allah’caseispartofabroaderphenomenonin
Malaysianlawandpolitics,whichistheperennialattempttotrytoaccommodate
competingideologiesofethno‐preferentialismandplural‐equalityinthe
51BooSu‐Lyn,Quranencouragesnon‐Muslimstouse‘Allah’,saysex‐PerlisMufti,MALAYMAIL
ONLINE,Oct18,2013,availableathttp://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/quran‐
encourages‐non‐muslims‐to‐use‐allah‐says‐ex‐perlis‐mufti#sthash.G6lq7s04.dpuf.
52MohdApandi’sJudgment,at¶35(citingwithapprovalSHADSALEEMFARUQI,DOCUMENTOFDESTINYTHE
CONSTITUTIONOFTHEFEDERATIONOFMALAYSIA,138‐9(2008)).
23
constructionofaviableMalaysianpolity.Thesecompetingideologiesare
accommodatedintheFederalConstitutionwhichincludedprovisionsthat
specificallyfavortheMalay‐Muslimmajorityintermsofreligion,language,as
wellaseconomicandeducationalopportunities(e.g.articles3,152,and153),
whilealsoguaranteeingequalcitizenshipandequalprotectionforall(e.g.
articles3and8).53
Thisconflictinglogicofethnicpreferentialismversusequalityisalsoreflectedin
Malaysia’ssomewhatcontradictorypositiononIslamencapsulatedinarticle
3(1).TheoriginalintentthatMalaysiawouldremainforallintentsandpurposes
asecularstate,howeverwasundergirdedbyabroadfirstgenerationconsensus
manifestfromthecanonicaldocumentsontheconstitution’sdraftinghistory.
TheseshowedthattheUnitedMalayNationalOrganization(UMNO),whichthen
claimedtolegitimatelyrepresenttheMalay‐Muslimposition,assuredtheBritish
colonialgovernmentanditsnon‐Malay/Muslimpartnersthat,despitearticle
3(1),therewas“nointentionofcreatingaMuslimtheocracyandthatMalaya
wouldbeasecularstate.”54Theinclusionofarticle3(1)“willinnowayaffectthe
presentpositionoftheFederationasasecularState,andeverypersonwillhave
therighttoprofessandpracticehisownreligionandtherighttopropagatehis
religion.”55Butovertimethisfirstgenerationconsensusclearlyunraveled.That
article3wasinsertedintothetextoftheconstitution,butwithoutaclear
statementonthebackgroundconsensus,testifiestotheenduranceoftextsand
correspondinglythefragilityofunwrittenagreements.
53Oncitizenship,seePartIIIoftheFederalConstitution.
54JOSEPHM.FERNANDO,THEMAKINGOFTHEMALAYANCONSTITUTION,162‐163(2002);seealso
NormanParmer,ConstitutionalChangeinMalaya’sPluralSociety,26(10)FAREASTERNSURVEY,149
(1957).
55Paragraph57oftheWhitePaper(1957).
24
B.ConstructingtheBoundariesbetweenMalayandnon‐Malay
ThepoliticalconstructionofIslamasanimmutableandinseparablepartof
MalayethnicidentityshouldbeunderstoodaspartoftheMalaynationalistclaim
forpoliticaldominance.AsGordonMeansobserved,“[t]otheMalays,thespecial
positionofIslam,recognizedunderBritishrule,symbolizedthatthecountrywas
[still]legitimatelytheirs.”56IntertwiningIslamwithMalaynessobligesanethno‐
nationalistgovernmentanditssupporterstoprotectIslamfrombeing
supersededbyotherreligions.Thisconnectstoapopularpoliticalrhetoricthat
tendstoportraythemajorityMalaycommunityasvictims–firstpolitical,then
aseconomic,andnowasreligiousvictims.
SincetheMalayanUnionfiasco,underwhichthesultanssignedtheMacMichael
TreatiestograntsovereigntytotheBritish,UMNOassumedthemantleof
defenderoftheMalaycommunity.57Thishasbeenchallengedbytheincreasing
politicalsuccessoftheoppositionIslamicgroup,PartiIslamicSe‐Malaysiaor
PAS,58andtheproliferationofethno‐religiouscivilsocietyorganizationssuchas
theAngkatanBeliaIslamMalaysia(MalaysianIslamicYouthMovementor
ABIM)59andlaterPertubuhanPribumiPerkasaMalaysia(MalaysianBodyforthe
StrengtheningofthePribumi,orsimplyPerkasa).Suchorganizationshavenot
onlyweakenedUMNO’smonopolyontheMalay‐Islamicrhetoricbutalsofurther
accentuatedtheexisting,conflictingsubcultures,60particularlyinheightening
thereligiousdivisionsbetweenMalay/Muslims,ontheonehand,andnon‐
56GordonP.Means,PublicPolicyTowardReligioninMalaysia,51(3)PACIFICAFFAIRS384,386
(1978).JaclynLing‐ChienNeo,MalayNationalism,IslamicSupremacyandtheConstitutional
BargainintheMulti‐ethnicCompositionofMalaysia,13INT’LJ.OFMIN&GRPRTS95(2006).
57SeeALBERTLAU,THEMALAYANUNIONCONTROVERSY1942–1948,125(1991).
58SeeHUSSINMUTALIB,FROMREVIVALISMTOISLAMICSTATE,1‐16(1993).
59Id.at27.
60AzeemFazwanAhmadFarouk,TheLimitsofCivilSocietyinDemocratisingtheState:The
MalaysianCase,29(1)KAJIANMALAYSIA,91,(2011).
25
Malay/Muslims.Perkasa,forinstance,unabashedlyadvocatesMalaysupremacist
ideology.61
TheintensityinwhichIslamisbeingusedasbasisfordemarcatingMalaysfrom
non‐Malaysmaybeattributedtoreligiousrevivalasaresultofinternaland
externalsocio‐politicalchanges.62However,arelatedcausecouldbethe
disintegrationofcultureandlanguageasuniqueidentifiersforMalayethnicity.
Successfulandsustainedinter‐culturalinteractionshaveledtosomelinguistic
andculturalsyncretism,aswellascross‐culturalassimilationsuchthattheidea
ofa“Malaycustom”isnowincreasinglynebulous.Thisisexacerbatedbythe
onslaughtofWesternmoderntrappings.PersonsofMalayorigins,especiallythe
youngergeneration,areaslikelytodonjeansandeatatMcDonald’s,astheir
non‐MalayMalaysiancounterparts.Withthedissolutionofpreviously
establisheddifferences,religionbecomesthemainandpossiblyonlyconsistently
strongidentifierthatethnic‐nationalistscanrelyupontomaintainthe
distinctionbetweenUsandThem.63
InthecontextofMalaysia’shighlyethnicizedpoliticalclimate,maintainingsuch
adistinctionhasbecomecrucialtokeepingthepoliticalstatusquo.Theruling
coalition,BarisanNasional,isanallianceprimarilycomposedofthreeethno‐
nationalistparties–UMNO,theMalayanChineseAssociation(MCA),andthe
MalayanIndianCongress(MIC).BarisanNasionalhasformedthefederal
61FormerPrimeMinisterMahathir,suggeststhatgroupssuchasPerkasathatare“championing
MalayissueshavemushroomedoflatebecausethereisafeelingamongtheMalaysthatUmnoby
itselfisincapableofprotectingthem.”Mahathir:Umnonotdoingenough,THESTAR,Jan29,2010,
availableat
http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file=%2f2010%2f1%2f29%2fnation%2f5570462&sec
=nation;seealsoFREDERIKHOLST,ETHNICIZATIONANDIDENTITYCONSTRUCTIONINMALAYSIA189‐190
(2012).
62SeegenerallyMUTALIB,supranote58.
63IslamicrevivalismservedtoreplacetheMalay/non‐MalaydichotomywiththeMuslim/non‐
Muslimdistinctionastheprimarymarkerofidentityanddifferentiation,seeGrahamBrown,
LegiblePluralism:ThePoliticsofEthnicandReligiousIdentificationinMalaysia,9ETHNOPOLITICS
31,32(Mar2010).
26
governmentandthemajorityofstategovernmentssinceindependence.The
abilityofthesepartiestocontinuetocommandelectoralsupportisinextricably
tiedtothecontinuanceofthedividedethno‐nationalistideology.Sincethe2008
GeneralElections,theChineseandIndiancommunitieshaveincreasinly
abandonedsupportforMCAandMICinfavorofpoliticalpartieswithamore
pluralisticandinclusiveplatform.64Thus,UMNO’sroleinmaintainingBarisan
Nasional’sholdonpoliticalpowerhasbecomeevenmorecrucial.Manyseethis
asdependentonitsabilitynotonlytomonopolizethespaceasdefenderofMalay
interests,butalsoperverselyinpreservingadistinctiveMalayidentity.
C.NationalLanguageorEthnicLanguage?
Inanyvillage,therewouldbeBidayuh,Iban,Melanauandothertribes,which
allspeakintheirnativelanguages,butwhentheygotochurch,thelanguageof
communicationisMalay.65
Onecrucialaspectthatthe‘Allah’judgmentdidnotdirectlyconsideristhe
implicationonwhatitmeansforMalaytobethenationallanguage.The
designationofMalayasthenationallanguagewassurelytoestablishitasthe
mainlanguageofcommunicationforallMalaysians.Childreninpublicschools
arerequiredlearntheMalaylanguage.Thisisusefulinthecontextofaplural
societywithmanylinguisticgroups.InEastMalaysia,forinstance,wherethere
aremanyculturalandlinguisticgroups,theuseoftheMalaylanguagein
churcheshasbeenacrucialunifyingplatform.ButifMalayisthelinguafrancain
Malaysia,itdefieslogicthatthegovernmentcanreservetheuseofcertainMalay
wordstoonlyoneethnic‐religiousgroup.WhywouldonlysomeMalaysiansbe
abletousetheword‘Allah’todenotetheirgod,andnototherMalaysiansand
64Seee.g.PoliticalTsunami,TheDailyBeast(UnitedStates),(March9,2008),
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/03/09/political‐tsunami.html.
65JenniferGomez,SabahandSarawakfolkstickto‘Allah’inChristianprayers,THEMALAYSIAN
INSIDER,Feb2,2014,availableathttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/sabah‐
and‐sarawak‐folk‐stick‐to‐allah‐in‐christian‐prayers.
27
theirgod?Itisnotonlydiscriminatory;itgoesagainsttheveryideaofanational
language.
IV.
CONCLUDINGREFLECTIONS:MINORITIESANDRELIGIOUSPEACE
Whyinsist?Theyhaveanoption.Theydon'treallyhavetouse‘Allah’to
worship.…Thisisunnecessaryprovocation.66
ChristiansinMalaysiahavenochoicebuttousetheMalay‐languageBibles.To
saytheycannotusethesebibles,itmeanssayingyouarenotallowedtoworship
inthelanguagethatyouwant.67
Thesecontrastingreactionstothejudgmentsdemonstrateadistinctdistrust
betweentheMalay‐Muslimcommunityandtherestofthepopulation.ForMalay‐
Muslimnationalists,thatChristiansrefusetousealternativeMalaywords,such
as‘Tuhan’,torefertoGodisseenasunreasonableandtherebyaclearintention
toassaultIslam.68EvenaformerChiefJustice,TunAbdulHamidMohamad,
publiclysaidthattheChristiansinsistenceonusing‘Allah’wasastrategyto
confuseandconvinceMuslimsinSabahandSarawaktoconverttoChristianity.69
66ThisstatementwasmadebyarepresentativeofPembela,aMalay‐Muslimrightsgroup.
Pembelatranslatesas“defender”,referringtothegroups’assumedplatformasthedefendersof
IslaminMalaysia.Allah’ringsoutinMalaysianchurchesdespiteban,HERALDMALAYSIAONLINE,Jan
28,2014,availableathttp://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/Allah‐rings‐out‐in‐Malaysian‐
churches‐despite‐ban‐18458‐0‐1.html.
67QuotefromRev.HermenShastri,generalsecretaryoftheCouncilofChurchesofMalaysia.No
let‐upinuseof‘Allah’,ASIAONEMALAYSIA,Jan27,2014,availableat
http://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/no‐let‐use‐allah.
68Itwasreportedthatabout200Muslimsoutsidethecourtintheadministrativecapital
Putrajaya,greetedthedecisionwithshoutsof"AllahuAkbar"(GodisGreatest).Siva
Sithraputhran,Malaysiancourtrulesuseof'Allah'exclusivetoMuslims,REUTERS,Oct14,2013,
availableathttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/14/us‐malaysia‐court‐allah‐
idUSBRE99D01J20131014..
69TheformerchiefjusticewasspeakingataforumonHumanRightsinIslamicTraditioninKuala
Lumpur.V.Anbalagan,AllahrowabidtoconvertMuslimsinSabahandSarawak,saysex‐chief
judge,THEMALAYSIANINSIDER,Jan24,2014,availableat
28
MalaysianChristiansontheotherhandsawthisasanincursionintotheir
religiousfreedomandasafurtherindicationoftheirsecond‐classstatusasnon‐
Malay/non‐MuslimcitizensofMalaysia.
Furthermore,theCourtofAppeal’sdecisionraisesacrucialconcernthattheuse
oforthreatofviolencecouldinfluencejudicialdecisions.Inacceptingthe
government’sevidencethattheprohibitionwasnecessarytomaintainpublic
orderandsecurity,thecourtacceptedthe“streetprotestandinflammatory
discussionsandaccusationsonthesubject,inthemediaandintheblogs”aswell
as“attacksonchurchesandmosques”asfactorsthatcouldinfluencejudicial
reasoning.Notably,theseactsandthreatsofviolencetookplaceaftertheHigh
Courtdecision.Thiscouldbeseenasimplicitjudicialendorsementof
unreasonableandincendiaryreligiousmajorities.Inorderforreligiousfreedom
tomeansomething,itcannotbesoeasilyandquicklysubjecttotheinterestsof
thestate,orworsetothevagariesofthemajority.
The‘Allah’caseandtheensuingdebatedemonstratethelegal,social,and
politicalimplicationsintertwiningethnicnationalismwithreligiousidentity.It
hasverylittletodowithIslamasareligion.Asleadingsocialpsychologist
GordonAllportarguedin1950,“pietymay[…]beaconvenientmaskfor
prejudiceswhichintrinsicallyhavenothingtodowithreligion.”70Itishistorical,
socio‐culturalorphysicalfactorsthatmotivatethehostilitiesagainstother
religiousgroups.71The“innerforce”ofsuchpietyisnotreligiousconviction,but
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/allah‐row‐a‐bid‐to‐convert‐muslims‐in‐
sabah‐and‐sarawak‐says‐ex‐chief‐judge.
70GordonAllport,TheIndividualandHisReligion,36and42(1950).
71ThiswasalsoobservedbySpecialRapporteurontheEliminationofAllFormsofIntolerance
andDiscriminationBasedonReligionorBelief,ElizabethOdioBenito,inher1986study.
ElizabethOdioBenito,EliminationofAllFormsofIntoleranceandDiscriminationbasedon
ReligionorBelief,StudyoftheCurrentDimensionsoftheProblemsofIntoleranceandof
DiscriminationonGroundsofReligionorBelief,UNDoc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1987/26,Aug.31,1986,
¶163.
29
“tribalinstinct”.TheCourtofAppeal’sdecisioninthe‘Allah’caseregrettablyelevates
thistribalinstinctintolegaldoctrine.
30