* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Allah - NUS - Faculty of Law - National University of Singapore
Survey
Document related concepts
Islam and violence wikipedia , lookup
Islam and Mormonism wikipedia , lookup
Schools of Islamic theology wikipedia , lookup
Islam and Sikhism wikipedia , lookup
War against Islam wikipedia , lookup
Islam and modernity wikipedia , lookup
Islamic schools and branches wikipedia , lookup
Islam and secularism wikipedia , lookup
Islam in Somalia wikipedia , lookup
Islam in Afghanistan wikipedia , lookup
Islam in Indonesia wikipedia , lookup
Islam in Bangladesh wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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