Allah Judgment: ipse dixit, we won’t fix it

Many have spoken to me about last week’s decision by the Court of Appeal upholding the Home Minister’s prohibition on Christians using the word “Allah” in printed materials.

I’ve studied the decision. Here I lay out my observations and offer some concluding thoughts.

What the Judgments Say

(The Court of Appeal released 1 Summary and 3 individual Judgments. I also read the 31st December 2009 High Court Judgment. In what follows, “Judgments,” refers to one or more of the 4 Judgments released by the Court of Appeal.)

1. Government-Islam has priority. Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution reads: “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Article 3 is in Part I of the Constitution, whilst Articles assuring the rights of liberty, no-enslavement, equality, free movement, speech, assembly, association, etc. are in Part II.

According to the Judgments, it follows from the preceding statement that rights in Part II have to be curbed to protect rights in Part I. (Note: the Constitution has 15 Parts.)

According to the Judgments, since Islam is mentioned before ‘other religions’ in Article 3(1), all non-Muslims in Malaysia must (1) agree with the government and the Court of Appeal that “Allah” describes only the Official Malaysian Muslim God, and (2) use another Name in place of “Allah.” It matters for nothing that “Islam” and “other religions” are in the same sentence, all that matters is that “Islam” appears before “other religions.”

2. Historical and global usage is irrelevant. Based on the preceding argument, the Judgments say it is not necessary to consider that (1) the Name “Allah” pre-dates Islam, (2) the Name is of Arabic (not Malay) origin, (3) the Name has been used for over 4 centuries by Malay-speaking Christians in Malaysia, (4) many Muslims in Malaysia do not object to Christians addressing God as “Allah,” and (5) that Muslims in no other country object to non-Muslims referring to God as “Allah.”

3. Judges’ Private opinions trump global scholarship. The Judgments treat opinions gleaned personally from the internet by one of the Judges as worthy of more consideration than the opinions of eminent Christian leaders and scholars. The Judgments ignore the global presence of Christianity and the special significance of the Rome-centred Catholic Church led by the Pope.