In The Name Of God

“Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me’.

Sadly, while true and even empowering in many cases, recent events in Malaysia will tell you the above adage is most certainly not applicable when it comes to one word in particular –– “Allah”.

Now no one has been physically harmed by the use of the word.

But the boiling over of emotions and political rhetoric following the High Court decision allowing use of the word for non-Muslims (we covered the case here) and the government’s decision to appeal that decision have hurt the feelings/sensitivities of so many Malaysians.

And while on the surface, it would appear the arguments centre on the use of the word, underneath it all, what’s truly being fought for on one side are the rights and freedoms of non-Muslims to practise their faiths the way they have for centuries; and the promises made to Sabah and Sarawak during the forming of Malaysia back in 1963. 

You can read more on the Malaysia Agreement 1963 here.

On the other side of the great “Allah”-word divide is the preservation and superiority of Islam as the main religion of the country (in case you’re not aware, Sarawak itself has no official religion).

At the crux of their argument against the court’s decision lies the message: This word is for Muslims only.

But is it? Those for the exclusively-for-Muslim argument, like the sultan of Johor, state “Allah” is a specific name of God to be worshipped by Muslims and which “doesn’t come from any root word”.

However, many others point out the word has its roots in Arabic and long been adopted into Bahasa Malaysia (even by Malay-speaking Christians) and indigenous East Malaysian languages. It’s even used by the Sikh communities for centuries, well before the 1986 Dr Mahathir Mohamad-led gomen ban on the word.

The fact of the matter is that “Allah” –– which means ‘God’ in Arabic –– resonates profoundly with Muslim Malaysians as well as East Malaysian Christians.

In the written judgement in the High Court case, judge Nor Bee Ariffin, in allowing the word to be used by non-Muslims for religious and educational purposes, explained the 1986 ban went against government policy at the time.

Apparently, a signed memo from then-deputy PM Abdul Ghafar Baba noted Christians could use the “Allah” and three other words –– “Kaabah”, “Baitullah”, and “Solat” –– in Bahasa Malaysia Christian publications with the condition the front covers bore the stamp “For Christian Religion”.

Glorious PM4/then home minister Mahathir Mohamad endorsed that letter. Judge Nor Bee interpreted that this meant Ghafar’s memo was as good as a cabinet policy.

But here’s the problem. Ghafar’s letter, with Maddey’s John Hancock was around May 1986. Inexplicably, the home ministry (led by Maddey, don’t forget!) issued the headache-inducing ban in Dec 1986 anyway. If this causes you any doubt about where Dr M stood on the matter, his statement in 2014 leaves no doubt he is on the “for Muslims only” camp.

The judge said former glorious leader Najib Razak failed in his Bossly duties (our words) when his 2011 10-point solution failed to resolve the issue by making seem that it accepted that conditional use of the word, yet not retracting that damn 86′ gomen ban!

Read the 10-point solution here in full (you really should!)

Unfortunately for us, Nor Bee’s explanation will not do much to assuage the war on ownership over the five-letter word, no matter how eloquently worded. 

Political will and a great spirit of understanding could, of course, do this, but with election rumours heating up and every side vying for Malay and/or East Malaysian voters, we aren’t harbouring much hope.

And until then (if ever), this matter will continue to play out in the courts of our minds and hearts.