Interfaith council dismayed, shocked by ruling

The interfaith council representing non-Muslims is shocked and dismayed by today’s court ruling on the Allah issue, particularly where it cited threat to public order as the reason for banning the use of the word Allah in the Catholic weekly, Herald.

Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism president Jagir Singh (pic) also expressed shock over the court's finding that the word was not integral to the Christian faith.

"This is appalling. How can it be prejudicial to public order when the Herald is only meant for circulation among Christians?" he asked.

He noted Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali's interpretation of Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution, to mean that the words “peace and harmony” were to protect the sanctity of Islam and to insulate the religion against any threat faced.

Stressing that this reasoning does not hold, Jagir said that on the contrary, the provision meant that non-Muslims could enjoy religious freedom without interference.

"And in this case, Herald is only meant for Christians. There is no threat or suggestion of propagation to Muslims,” he said.

Article 3 (1) cannot be interpreted to mean to threaten other religions, he added.

He said the decision was not only of national concern, but would also affect thinkers and religious leaders around the world.

As such, he said an appeal to the Federal Court was necessary to re-examine the issue.

Catholic lawyers too, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying the decision affects the fundamental religious rights of the minorities in Malaysia.

Kuala Lumpur Catholic Lawyers Society president Viola De Cruz Silva said, "It is of public interest especially when the court has found that the use of the word Allah is not an integral part of the Christian faith, when almost 1.6 million Christians in Sabah and Sarawak have used the word for centuries".

She said the court finding - that the minority must yield to the majority - sent a frightening message that the minorities’ rights are subject to the whims and fancies of the majority.

Viola also noted that the voices of those who professed moderation were drowned out by the voices of those who were intolerant.