THERE have been many viewpoints and contentions on the usage – or rather the prohibition – of the word “Allah” since the government’s decision to withdraw its appeal against the High Court judge’s ruling in the Jill Ireland case.

Coincidentally, this year is the 10th anniversary of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Menteri Dalam Negeri & Ors v Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur (2013) where three appellate judges expressed shared views about the usage of the word “Allah”, particularly in the Malay version of the Herald – a Catholic weekly – having the potential of disrupting the “even tempo” of the Malaysian community.

According to the view, such publication would have an adverse effect upon the sanctity as envisaged under Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution and the right for other religions to be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

The right of the state assembly to enact laws, to ensure the protection and sanctity of Islam, under article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution is constitutional. Such constitutional right of the states in the Federation, especially where there are rulers who are heads of the religion of Islam, fortifies the position of Islam in the federation that it should be immune to any threat or attempt to weaken Islam’s position as the religion of the federation.

Furthermore, any act or attempt of propagation on the Islamic population by other religions is an unlawful act.

The Court of Appeal added that the word “Allah” did not appear even once as the name of God or even of a man in the Hebrew Scriptures. “Allah” did not appear even once in the Old or New Testaments.

In the Bible world, God has always been known as “Yahweh” or by the contraction, “Yah”. That being the historical fact, it could be concluded that the word or name “Allah” was not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity, in particular that of the Roman Catholic Church.

According to the Court of Appeal, since “Allah” was never an integral part of the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, it was reasonable to conclude that the intended usage would cause unnecessary confusion within the Islamic community.

In the view of the appellate judges, freedom of religion extends only to practices and rituals that are essential and integral part of the religion. What could be called the “assertion’s test”, in which a petitioner could simply assert that a particular practice was religious practice, was rejected.

A practice or set of beliefs must not only exist but be essential to that religion. The usage of the word “Allah” in the Malay version of the Herald to refer to God, not being an essential or integral part of the religion of Christianity, did not attract the constitutional guarantee of article 11(1) of the Constitution.

The judges heard many arguments, and referred to Indian Supreme Court decisions – in the same way the Indian decisions were referred to on the basic structure doctrine. In the case of State of West Bengal v Ashutosh Lahiri (1995), for example, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the sacrifices of a cow by Muslim on Eid al-Adha was not an “essential” part of Islam since a camel or a goat could be substituted for the cow.

Judge of Court of Appeal Zawawi Salleh said:

“Judging from the many viewpoints and contentions …, we can conclude that the Christians themselves have not reached a consensus as to how to use the word ‘Allah’, whether in their many translations and versions of the Bible or in their general usage of it and this simply demonstrates how contentious and controversial such a usage.”

If the word “Allah” were to be employed in the Malay versions of the Herald to refer to God, there would be a risk of misrepresentation of God within Christianity itself, since the Christian conception of God as symbolised by the trinity is absolutely and completely dissimilar to the conception of “Allah” in Islam.

In other words, the potential for confusion was not confined only to Muslims but also to Christians.

The above remains the highest judicial pronouncement, albeit obiter, on the prohibition of the usage of the word “Allah” when the application for leave to appeal was not granted by the Federal Court by a majority (4:3).

Obiter or obiter dictum refers to a judge’s comments or observations, in passing, on a matter arising in a case before him which does not require a decision. Obiter remarks are not essential to a decision and do not create binding precedent. However, obiter remarks of senior judges may be indirectly instructive or persuasive.

Be that as it may, we should also not lose sight of the 10-point solution which was referred to by Justice Nor Bee Ariffin in the Jill case. The 10-point solution was set out in a letter dated April 14, 2011 from the then prime minister to the Christian Federation of Malaysia.

The letter showed that the then government came up with the 10-point solution following discussion held with the Christian Federation of Malaysia and other Christian groups to resolve the Bahasa Malaysia/Indonesia Bible and also other religious issues. The 10-point solution was a cabinet decision.

The judge said: “The 10-point solution demonstrated the cabinet’s acceptance and acknowledgment that the usage of the word ‘Allah’ is never an issue in Sabah and Sarawak and the Christians are allowed to use the word in the two states without restrictions.

“For that matter, in recognition of the large Christian community in Sabah and Sarawak, there are no conditions that are attached to the importation and local printing of the Bible in all languages, including Bahasa Malaysia, Bahasa Indonesia and indigenous languages.

“However for West Malaysia, taking into account the interest of the larger Muslim community there, the Bibles in Bahasa Malaysia or Bahasa Indonesia imported or printed will have the words ‘Christian Publication’ and the cross sign printed on the front covers. By doing this, one will not be confused that this is a Christian publication.

“I have reason to believe … that the 10-point solution is an all-encompassing religious tolerance initiated by the cabinet that may provide the solution to end the long-standing religious controversy as there seems to me to be a consensus between the parties in resolving rather than entering into religious debates and polemic on the use of the word ‘Allah’.”

Do we share an all-encompassing religious tolerance? – May 22, 2023.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.