I believe that they are relying on section 7 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act (“PPPA”) that vests the Minister of Home Affairs absolute powers and discretion to revoke or suspend the publication licence to the Catholic weekly, the Herald if he is satisfied that such continuous publication is prejudicial to public order, morality, security, or which is likely to alarm public opinion, or which is or is likely to be contrary to any law or is otherwise prejudicial to or is likely to be prejudicial to public interest or national interest. This will be interpreted in conjunction with article 11(4) of the Constitution prohibiting propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

What is the issue? That’s the more difficult and complex question. Confusion now abounds as to what is the real issue.

The following are probable facts:

· Allah means in Arabic ‘the God’ and Earnest is right that even contemporarily Christians in predominantly muslim countries eg Arab Christians call their God Allah and the bibles in predominantly muslim countries like Indonesia and even Nigeria have used the same reference raising question whether based on world wide norms there is really exclusivity in such a reference for Muslims only;

· At the most basic level, while both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic and Abrahamic faiths, that is where the similarities end, and the differences including the two obvious ones pointed out in my earlier post begin and it is clear that Christians and Muslims conceive their respective Deity differently and it is trite they are different faiths;

· In western predominantly Christian countries, Christians do not by and large refer to their God as Allah. In court when they swear on the bible to say the truth and nothing but the truth “so help me God” they don’t recite so help me “Allah”.

Here the Christians don’t amongst themselves and in relation to others refer to God as Allah. Neither does the English version of the Bible mention such reference. Perhaps only in the Bahasa version the reference is used as in Herald’s case.

There are however two things peculiar in our local context.

One is Article 11(4). The other is that all Malay Muslims would refer to God as Allah. Then there are non muslims in general and Christians in particular who do not normally refer to God as Allah in ordinary use except as I said where Bahasa – the dominant language of the Muslim Malays – is used. So Johari’s argument is, if you have alternatives to describe (eg Tuhan) why choose Allah in that language which is mother tongue to Malay Muslims which may lead to confusion and perceived by at least some Malay muslims as an attempt at proselytization, which is prohibited? Granted this might not be the motive of Herald but it is perception that counts so why choose the term under these circumstances when (i) it is a sensitive issue to Malay Muslims and (ii) in matters of religion it is good to be clear and don’t use a common term when referring to God when different communities perceive their Gods differently?

This is the practical issue, it is raised, the law is invoked, and it must be addressed. To raise issues about Johari’s credentials on matters of faith is irrelevant to the central issue raised here, given as what Bigjoe said, politicians are suspected to sometimes raise such issues for political capital.

To cite the Indonesian bible is also not exactly relevant as the Indonesian Constitution promulgated by Soekarno rests on Pancasila philosophy which was influenced by Western universal humanism, the key words being “Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab’ embracive universal humanism embracive of indigenous philosophical tradition, Indian-Hindu, Western-Christian, and Arab-Islamic traditions. Visitors to Indonesia will testify that on matters of religion, it is les restrictive and generaly more tolerant of diversity.

In Arab countries, the comparison also reaches a limit when it is recollected that Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs likely share more things in terms of culture in common except for the difference in religion. So the same description of different Gods likely is less an issue than here where majority Christians and Malay Muslims are comparatively very different in culture as well (besides religion), not to mention Article 11(4). So where the groups are also very different in culture and also language (when they’re not speaking the National Language) any similarity of reference when describing what essentially is different Gods of different faiths, it becomes more sensitive and poignant that may be perceived as either leading to confusion at best or prohibited proselytization at worst.

The question is always there : if there’s another word like “Tuhan” why use the same word as majority Muslims especially when in language other than Bahasa, Christians don’t normally refer to God as Allah? True no one has copyright or patent (if one wants to see it that way) but in the extenuating circumstances of this country (eg article 11(4), why from practical stand-point of avoiding confusion, choose the same reference when there are other options?

Of course a lot of people here are angry because they see this development as yet another advance of increasing religious intolerance in a multiracial society. This may well be the case but again it does not squarely address Johari’s practical point that it may lead to some Malay Muslims not well versed in English, reading the Bahasa version of the Herald and getting either confused or angry that the name of their God has been used by a different religious group.

As stated earlier it is not reality of no intention to proselytize on Herald’s part that counts – it is perception and in this country such matters are very sensitive, and perception is as important as reality, that may fall under purview of section 7 of PPPA read with Article 11(44) of the constitution.

Ultimately although the law is invoked as justification, the decision and considerations are always political. We all know that.

Thanks DarkHorse for your reference to the Malaysiakini’s letter which, according to my check, was written by someone going by the name of Fathima Idris.

It is not just a question of why CAN’T Christians use the word [“since ‘Allah’ is a general word that is not the registered intellectual property of Islam”], it is also a question of why WOULD they want to use the same word commonly used by Malaysian Muslims here when the understanding of God in Christianity is different in some fundamental aspects from that in Islam, and when there is an available alternative generic word “Tuhan” existing in Bahasa – as stated in the Rukun Negara – for differentiation?

This constant reference to Arab or Arab-speaking Christians using “Allah” as justification for equal application here appears not to address the question whether in light of their speaking Arabic only, they ordinarily have any other word for God but Allah.

I am just trying to understand this from the rational angle. I can understand the heat generated by Johari’s statement if Christians here use this term ordinarily in English but it is not the case. [When my Christian friends discussed matters of faith with me, I have never heard them mention even once that God was “Allah” except by reference to the God of Muslims].

Can this issue be discussed objectively without excessive emotions? Already my earlier first posting here has drawn flak when a reader sarcastically commented that I could have Johari’s job – I would do a much better job!

It is not my intent to offend anyone here but I am merely trying to evaluate the issue at hand generated by Johari with some measure of objectivity.

“…..//…..If moderates don’t take centre stage, surely extremist elements will occupy it, making us fall for their extremist approach being touted as a religious or national approach…Moderates should play a role in ensuring that members of the public were not swayed by extremist propaganda which played on people’s emotions by raising sensitive religious and racial issues….//….”

This is a correct statement.

However what is problematic is nothing that was said suggests or gives a clue who exactly are the extremist elements which played on people’s emotions by raising sensitive religious and racial issues!

If they are not properly identified – and if the forces of democracy are blamed for raising sensitive religious and racial issues instead of the extremists themselves – what’s good in such a general statement?

It may even end up encouraging extremist elements emboldened by their detractors being labeled extremists instead!

World wide Pro-democracy elements are pitched against
extremist elements.

Ironically the latter seem to be gaining upper hand whenever – and also because – they are ever prepared to resort to violence and force to suppress those who are non violent and resort to dialogue and reason as weapons to fight the democratic cause!

The latest casualty is Benazir Bhutto – assassinated/shot by suicide bomber a few hours ago in a campaign rally. [She earlier escaped two bombings by Islamic extremists that killed 136 during her homecoming procession]. Pakistan is now facing the prospect of turmoil.

Extremists should not be appeased or encouraged. If they were, and gain ground, it is difficult to reverse the process.

Malaysia should learn this from the experience of other countries.

No point of just sending condolence to the Pakistani people and condemning the odious act of violence when lessons are not drawn and learnt.

What I mean is if there is a need to mention and describe in Bahasa God as He is understood in Christianity and also in Islam during the same occasion…How to differentiate?