Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

JUNE 3 — On the prohibition against the use of the word “Allah”, a question has been raised: why now? Up until quite recently “Allah” was used commonly and by everyone in Malaysia without objection.

Well, to start with let’s look at the law. Since 1988 in 10 states in Peninsular Malaysia, it has been passed into law an enactment to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among Muslims. The exceptions for Peninsular Malaysia are Penang and the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya.

The enactment makes provisions for a number of offences. This includes the use of any of the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment. The word “Allah” is one of the listed words which currently number 25 altogether, the schedule being amendable by each state Ruler in Council. Other words include “Firman Allah”, “Ulama”, “Illahi”, “Salat”, “Wahyu” and “Qiblat” — to name a few.

On the use of the prohibited words, an offence is committed if a person uses any of the listed words —

(a) in any published writing; or

(b) in any public speech or statement; or

(c) in any speech or statement addressed to any gathering of persons; or

in any speech or statement which is published or broadcast and which at the time of its making he knew or ought reasonably to have known would be published or broadcast,

to express or describe any fact, belief, idea or matter pertaining to any non-Islamic religion. [See section 9(1) of the State of Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988. The provision obtaining in other states is similar.]

It is noteworthy that the provision is so broadly worded that it covers the use of the prohibited words even by Muslims to describe matters pertaining to non-Islamic religions.

Now, let’s bear in mind that the enactment, which is state law, is constitutionally sanctioned. Under the authority of Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, state law may restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine among Muslims.

So, while Article 11(1) grants to every person the right to profess and practice his religion, the right to propagate is made subject to Article 11(4). Thus it would be constitutional for a law, state or federal, to be enacted to restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religions among Muslims.

Article 11(4) is a pre-Merdeka provision and has been commented upon by noted constitutional scholars. Professor Andrew Harding views it as having been inserted because of public order considerations. According to him, the restriction therein contained has more to do with the preservation of public order than with religious priority. [Law, Government and the Constitution of Malaysia (1996), p 201]

Another scholar, Professor Shad Faruqi, acknowledges the concern among many non-Muslims that Article 11(4) “amounts to unequal treatment under the law because Muslims are allowed to propagate their religion to non-Muslims.” He however respectfully submits that it is part of the pre-Merdeka “social contract”. He writes:

“Its aim is to insulate Muslims against a clearly unequal and disadvantageous situation. During the colonial era, many non-indigenous religions were vigorously promoted by the merchants, the military and the missionaries of the colonial countries. Even today, the proselytising activities of many Western-dominated religious movements that are internationally organised and funded have aroused resentment in many Asian and African societies. Some aspects of their activities, like seeking deathbed conversions, generous grant of funds to potential converts and vigorous proselytising activities among minors have distinct implications for social harmony …. A pre-Merdeka compromise between the Malays and the non-Malays was, therefore, sought and obtained that any preaching to Muslims will be conducted only by authorised Syariah authorities. Missionary work amongst Muslims — whether by non-Muslims or Muslims — may be regulated by state law under the authority of Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution.”

[Document of Destiny: The Constitution of the Federation of Malaysia (2008), p 139]

Be that as it may, what needs to be emphasised is that freedom of religion — like all freedoms — cannot be absolute. It is subject to direct and indirect restraints. Article 11(4) and the state enactments mentioned above are some of such restraints.

To this may be added Article 11(5) which makes the exercise of freedom of religion subject to public order, public health and morality. So that, any legislative or administrative regulation of the freedom of religion is justiciable.

So it appears that there is a valid legal objection to the use of the word “Allah” for God. The fact that the objection is raised only now does not make an apparently unlawful act lawful. Ignorance of the law excuses nobody.

Mohamad Hafiz Hassan, researches on the laws — civil and syariah.