1

WorkingPaper2014/008

What’s In a Name? Malaysia’s ‘Allah’ Controversy and The Judicial Intertwining of Islam with Ethnic Identity  

JaclynNEO

jaclyn.neo@nus.edu.sg

[June 2014]

ThispapercanbedownloadedwithoutchargeattheNationalUniversityofSingapore,FacultyofLawWorkingPaperSeriesindex:http://law.nus.edu.sg/wps/©Copyrightisheldbytheauthororauthorsofeachworkingpaper.Nopartofthispapermayberepublished,reprinted,orreproducedinanyformatwithoutthepermissionofthepaper’sauthororauthors.Note:Theviewsexpressedineachpaperarethoseoftheauthororauthorsofthepaper.TheydonotnecessarilyrepresentorreflecttheviewsoftheNationalUniversityofSingapore.Citationsofthiselectronicpublicationshouldbemadeinthefollowingmanner:Author,“Title,”NUSLawWorkingPaperSeries,“PaperNumber”,Month&Yearofpublication,http://law.nus.edu.sg/wps.Forinstance,Chan,Bala,“ALegalHistoryofAsia,”NUSLawWorkingPaper2014/001,January2014,www.law.nus.edu.sg/wps/001.html

2

 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,JudicialReview

3

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,availableathttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/history‐and‐constitutional‐guarantee‐allow‐christians‐to‐use‐allah‐say‐law.ThebiblestartedtobetranslatedintotheMalaylanguageasearlyas1612bytheDutch.THOMASHARTWELLHORNE,B.D.,ANINTRODUCTIONTOTHECRITICALSTUDYANDKNOWLEDGEOFTHEHOLYSCRIPTURES:VOLUMEII,50(1836).

3AconstituentstateoftheFederationofMalaysia.

4LeeChoonFai&EllyFazaniza,JaisRaidsBibleSocietyofMalaysia,THESUNDAILY,Jan2,2014,availableathttp://www.thesundaily.my/news/920355.

4

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,availableathttp://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/kerry‐lauds‐multi‐faith‐malaysia‐as‐model‐for‐world.

6TitularRomanCatholicArchbishopofKualaLumpurvMenteriDalamNegeri&Anor[2010]2MLJ78(hereafter“‘Allah’case,HighCourt”).

5

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‐Dec2013newsletterPraxistocritiquingthe‘Allah’case.Seee.g.AndrewJamesHarding,Language,ReligionandtheLaw:ABriefCommentontheCourtofAppeal’sJudgmentintheCaseoftheTitularRomanCatholicArchbishipofKualaLumpur,PRAXIS,Oct‐Dec2013,at12,availableathttp://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=4390&Itemid=332;andPhilipKoh,PleaForARethinkOverTheAllahCase,LOYARBUROK,Feb21,2014,http://www.loyarburok.com/2014/02/21/plea‐rethink‐allah‐case.SeealsoTommyThomas,The“Allah”DecisionisWronginConstitutionalLaw,LOYARBUROK,Oct25,2013,availableathttp://www.loyarburok.com/2013/10/25/allah‐decision‐wrong‐constitutional‐law/#sthash.vHpxByFH.dpuf;andWeiMengLim‐Kabaa,TheCourtofAppeal’sflawedapproachtothe“KalimahAllah”case,LOYARBUROK,Jan15,2014,availableatwww.loyarburok.com/2014/01/15/courtofappeal‐kalimahallah/#sthash.Xs6BJO0x.dpuf.

6

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’.

7

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,PopulationDistributionandBasicDemographicCharacteristicReport2010;availableathttp://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&id=1215.

9Thestategovernmentsarguethatthetemples,manybuiltbeforeMalaysiawonitsindependencein1957,areillegalstructuresbecausetheylackproperregistrationandaresituatedongovernmentlands.ZariBukhari,TempledemolitionsstokeMalaysiantensions,ASIATIMESONLINE,Jul11,2006,availableathttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HG11Ae01.html;TrinnaLeong,Putrajayadefendstempledemolition,saysconsultedHindupriest,THEMALAYSIANINSIDER,Nov11,2013,availableathttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/putrajaya‐defends‐temple‐demolition‐says‐consulted‐hindu‐priest.

8

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‐Muslimparticipantswererecipientsofwelfaresupportanddefendedthedinnerasoneinsupportofpan‐Malaysianunity.Malaysiaconfrontsitsethnicandreligiousdivisions,AL‐JAZEERA,Aug25,2011,availableathttp://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201108251926‐0014465.

9

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).

10

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&OrsvFatimahbteSihi&Ors[2006]4MLJ605.Notably,theFederalCourtrejectedthistestandoptedinsteadforamorecontextualizedbalancingtest.

14‘Allah’case,HighCourt,¶¶30and35.Thecourtalsodeterminedthattheministerialorderconstitutedanunreasonablerestrictiononthefreedomofspeechandexpressionunderarticle10(1)(c)oftheFederalConstitutionandisanunreasonableadministrativeactwhichimpingesonarticle8(1)’sguaranteeofequalprotectionbeforethelaw.

11

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.

12

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“SummaryofCADecision”).

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”).

13

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“JusticeMohamedApandi’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”).

14

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.

15

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.

16

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,otherrelatedStateEnactmentsandallotherstateorfederallegislationforbadeorimposedrestrictionsonconversionoutofIslam.Joyalsosoughttoinvalidatetheseinherapplication.

33SeeLinaJoyvMajlisAgamaIslamWilayahPersekutuan&Ors6MLJ193(CourtofAppeal,2005);LinaJoyv.MajlisAgamaIslamWilayahPersekutuan4MLJ585(FederalCourt,2007).

34Underarticle153oftheFederalConstitution,MalaysandnativesofSabahandSarawakareconsideredindigenoustoMalaysia.

17

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

18

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.TheHighCourtdecision,writteninBahasaMalaysia,wasnotfullyreportedinEnglish;itsskeletalEnglishheadnotedoesnotsufficientlydetailtheextensivetreatmentanddiscussionofarticle3,includingprecedentsanddraftinghistory.

36MeorHC,at386A‐D.

37Id.

38Id.Foramoreextensivetreatmentofthiscase,seeThioLi‐ann&JaclynLing‐ChienNeo,ReligiousDressinSchools:TheSerbanControversyinMalaysia,55INT’L&COMP.LAWQ671(Jul2006).

39Id.

19

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.

20

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.

21

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:“Wearelaughingatyou””,THEMALAYSIANINSIDER,Oct22,2013,availableathttp://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/award‐winning‐american‐muslim‐scholar‐on‐the‐allah‐decision‐we‐are‐laughing.

22

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,availableathttp://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/editorial/word‐allah‐is‐not‐exclusive‐to‐islam#ixzz2s3MR4H5J.

50TheHajjSermon,DAILYTIMES(PAKISTAN),Oct16,2013,availableathttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\10\16\story_16‐10‐2013_pg3_1;seealsoMohammadAhmad,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,AhmadiyyashavebeenprohibitedfromusingwhatthestateperceivestobeexclusivelyIslamicepithets.SeeSection298BofthePakistaniPenalCode,andthePakistanSupremeCourt’sdecisioninZaheeruddinvTheState(1993)26SCMR1718.

23

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,DOCUMENTOFDESTINYTHECONSTITUTIONOFTHEFEDERATIONOFMALAYSIA,138‐9(2008)).

24

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);seealsoNormanParmer,ConstitutionalChangeinMalaya’sPluralSociety,26(10)FAREASTERNSURVEY,149(1957).

55Paragraph57oftheWhitePaper(1957).

25

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,IslamicSupremacyandtheConstitutionalBargainintheMulti‐ethnicCompositionofMalaysia,13INT’LJ.OFMIN&GRPRTS95(2006).

57SeeALBERTLAU,THEMALAYANUNIONCONTROVERSY1942–1948,125(1991).

58SeeHUSSINMUTALIB,FROMREVIVALISMTOISLAMICSTATE,1‐16(1993).

59Id.at27.

60AzeemFazwanAhmadFarouk,TheLimitsofCivilSocietyinDemocratisingtheState:TheMalaysianCase,29(1)KAJIANMALAYSIA,91,(2011).

26

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“championingMalayissueshavemushroomedoflatebecausethereisafeelingamongtheMalaysthatUmnobyitselfisincapableofprotectingthem.”Mahathir:Umnonotdoingenough,THESTAR,Jan29,2010,availableathttp://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,9ETHNOPOLITICS31,32(Mar2010).

27

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.

28

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’assumedplatformasthedefendersofIslaminMalaysia.Allah’ringsoutinMalaysianchurchesdespiteban,HERALDMALAYSIAONLINE,Jan28,2014,availableathttp://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/Allah‐rings‐out‐in‐Malaysian‐churches‐despite‐ban‐18458‐0‐1.html.

67QuotefromRev.HermenShastri,generalsecretaryoftheCouncilofChurchesofMalaysia.Nolet‐upinuseof‘Allah’,ASIAONEMALAYSIA,Jan27,2014,availableathttp://news.asiaone.com/news/malaysia/no‐let‐use‐allah.

68Itwasreportedthatabout200MuslimsoutsidethecourtintheadministrativecapitalPutrajaya,greetedthedecisionwithshoutsof"AllahuAkbar"(GodisGreatest).SivaSithraputhran,Malaysiancourtrulesuseof'Allah'exclusivetoMuslims,REUTERS,Oct14,2013,availableathttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/14/us‐malaysia‐court‐allah‐idUSBRE99D01J20131014..

69TheformerchiefjusticewasspeakingataforumonHumanRightsinIslamicTraditioninKualaLumpur.V.Anbalagan,AllahrowabidtoconvertMuslimsinSabahandSarawak,saysex‐chiefjudge,THEMALAYSIANINSIDER,Jan24,2014,availableat

29

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).

71ThiswasalsoobservedbySpecialRapporteurontheEliminationofAllFormsofIntoleranceandDiscriminationBasedonReligionorBelief,ElizabethOdioBenito,inher1986study.ElizabethOdioBenito,EliminationofAllFormsofIntoleranceandDiscriminationbasedonReligionorBelief,StudyoftheCurrentDimensionsoftheProblemsofIntoleranceandofDiscriminationonGroundsofReligionorBelief,UNDoc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1987/26,Aug.31,1986,¶163.

30

“tribalinstinct”.TheCourtofAppeal’sdecisioninthe‘Allah’caseregrettablyelevates

thistribalinstinctintolegaldoctrine.