COMMENT Idris Jala’s defence of the cabinet’s position over the ‘Allah-Alkitab’ crisis and the 10-point solution is untenable because it is fundamentally flawed. Although he made it clear that this is hispersonal opinion, Idris is basically defending the cabinet over an indefensible policy.
The cabinet’s 10-point solution of 2011 is flawed because it is essentially a one country, two laws policy. This is both wrong and unacceptable.
The 10-point solution was imposed unilaterally by the cabinet, although discussions with some church leaders were held behind closed doors. The immediate response of the umbrella body, the Christian Federation of Malaysia, was to reject the solution.
Other church organisations, denominations and fellowships of pastors adopted a similar posture, with the exception of the Bible Society of Malaysia, which is not a spokesman of the Church in any case but a Bible bookshop.
The use of the word ‘Allah’ predates Islam. It is not exclusive to Islam. The 10-point solution fails to understand this.
Just last week a senior pastor pointed out that on the Day of Pentecost, as described in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, Arabs as well as people of other ethnicities were present on that occasion, 600 years before the Quran was compiled.
The Bible also pointed out that each people’s group was declaring “the wonders of God in their own tongues” (Acts 2:11). The Arabs would have no doubt used the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God.
In the Malay-speaking world, portions of the Bible were first translated (in Indonesia) in 1612, in which the word God was translated as ‘Allah’. This was not only the first non-European translation of the Bible, but it was done well ahead of any translation of the Quran into Malay.
Even the legendary Munshi Abdullah translated the Bible into Malay and preferred the word ‘Allah’ for God. The Christians were, therefore, the first to use the word ‘Allah’ in the Malay-language Bible.
This puts to rest the argument that the word ‘Allah’ is exclusive to Muslims. The principle is that the first to use the term is entitled to claim priority over those who used it later. Again, the 10-point solution has missed this moot point.
What the cabinet failed to accept
Even as Islam is the religion of the federation, freedom of religion for each and every citizen remains a most fundamental human right of every citizen and is recognised and protected by the Federal Constitution. This, the cabinet has failed to accept or understand.
So fundamental is this right that even when a state of emergency rule is proclaimed under Article 150 of the constitution, among other things, the right to freedom of religion cannot be tampered with or removed.
We have lived through several emergencies or martial law periods in our short history. Yet not once has our fundamental right to freedom of religion been curtailed or set aside.
Sub-clause 6A of Article 150 of the constitution is clear: “...nor shall Clause (6) validate any provision inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution relating to any such matter or relating to religion...”
This plainly means freedom of religion remains protected and guaranteed by our constitution, even under emergency rule.
The supremacy of the constitutional guarantee and protection of our freedom of religion becomes clear at once, when read together with Articles 3 and 11. The safeguard for freedom of religion, as rightly pointed out by Idris Jala, is further amplified in what is known as the 18- and 20-point agreements submitted by the Sarawak and Sabah governments for inclusion into the new Constitution of Malaysia in 1963.
We are also acutely aware that freedom of religion is also a cornerstone of United Nations conventions on fundamental human rights and that the state should not intervene in matters of religion.
Ball in Federal Court
This was the position rightly taken by the High Court in the Herald case, when it decided on Dec 31, 2009, that the home minister was wrong in imposing a condition that the Catholic weekly’s annual publishing permit would only be renewed if it did not use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God in its Bahasa edition.
Sadly, last year the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court judgment by ruling that the usage of the word ‘Allah’ is not integral to Christianity.
In so doing, the Court of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction and usurped the ecclesiastical jurisdiction that belongs solely to the Church in Malaysia. It is up to the Federal Court now to restore the status quo. This can be remedied with a consent judgment.
Idris Jala’s contention is that Article 11 (4) allows for the various so-called state Islamic enactments to “control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”. That may be so, but the operative words are “control” and “restrict”.
However, the various state Islamic authorities started gazetting fatwa “prohibiting” non-Muslims from using a slew of words such as ‘Allah’. This “prohibition” is clearly in violation of the constitutional provision and therefore strikes at the heart of the supremacy of the constitution.
Many have called for Idris Jala to resign from the cabinet over the 10-point solution. Many are also aware of Idris’ Christian heritage from the Kelabit Highlands, the Bible Belt of Malaysia.
Idris preached his first sermon while a Form Three student, way back in October 1973. Some believed him while some others doubted. The rest is history.
But history repeats itself. Today, when Idris to tries to preach religious tolerance, there are many who believe in him, just as there are doubters. I may disagree with Idris, but as a fellow believer, I will still listen to his sermon.
BOB TEOH is a journalist. He authored the book ‘Allah - More Than A Word’ and was once secretary-general of the Jakarta-based Confederation of Asean Journalists.
The cabinet’s 10-point solution of 2011 is flawed because it is essentially a one country, two laws policy. This is both wrong and unacceptable.
The 10-point solution was imposed unilaterally by the cabinet, although discussions with some church leaders were held behind closed doors. The immediate response of the umbrella body, the Christian Federation of Malaysia, was to reject the solution.
Other church organisations, denominations and fellowships of pastors adopted a similar posture, with the exception of the Bible Society of Malaysia, which is not a spokesman of the Church in any case but a Bible bookshop.
The use of the word ‘Allah’ predates Islam. It is not exclusive to Islam. The 10-point solution fails to understand this.
Just last week a senior pastor pointed out that on the Day of Pentecost, as described in the Book of Acts in the New Testament, Arabs as well as people of other ethnicities were present on that occasion, 600 years before the Quran was compiled.The Bible also pointed out that each people’s group was declaring “the wonders of God in their own tongues” (Acts 2:11). The Arabs would have no doubt used the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God.
In the Malay-speaking world, portions of the Bible were first translated (in Indonesia) in 1612, in which the word God was translated as ‘Allah’. This was not only the first non-European translation of the Bible, but it was done well ahead of any translation of the Quran into Malay.
Even the legendary Munshi Abdullah translated the Bible into Malay and preferred the word ‘Allah’ for God. The Christians were, therefore, the first to use the word ‘Allah’ in the Malay-language Bible.
This puts to rest the argument that the word ‘Allah’ is exclusive to Muslims. The principle is that the first to use the term is entitled to claim priority over those who used it later. Again, the 10-point solution has missed this moot point.
What the cabinet failed to accept
Even as Islam is the religion of the federation, freedom of religion for each and every citizen remains a most fundamental human right of every citizen and is recognised and protected by the Federal Constitution. This, the cabinet has failed to accept or understand.
So fundamental is this right that even when a state of emergency rule is proclaimed under Article 150 of the constitution, among other things, the right to freedom of religion cannot be tampered with or removed.
We have lived through several emergencies or martial law periods in our short history. Yet not once has our fundamental right to freedom of religion been curtailed or set aside.
Sub-clause 6A of Article 150 of the constitution is clear: “...nor shall Clause (6) validate any provision inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution relating to any such matter or relating to religion...”
This plainly means freedom of religion remains protected and guaranteed by our constitution, even under emergency rule.
The supremacy of the constitutional guarantee and protection of our freedom of religion becomes clear at once, when read together with Articles 3 and 11. The safeguard for freedom of religion, as rightly pointed out by Idris Jala, is further amplified in what is known as the 18- and 20-point agreements submitted by the Sarawak and Sabah governments for inclusion into the new Constitution of Malaysia in 1963.
We are also acutely aware that freedom of religion is also a cornerstone of United Nations conventions on fundamental human rights and that the state should not intervene in matters of religion.
Ball in Federal Court
This was the position rightly taken by the High Court in the Herald case, when it decided on Dec 31, 2009, that the home minister was wrong in imposing a condition that the Catholic weekly’s annual publishing permit would only be renewed if it did not use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God in its Bahasa edition.
Sadly, last year the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court judgment by ruling that the usage of the word ‘Allah’ is not integral to Christianity.
In so doing, the Court of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction and usurped the ecclesiastical jurisdiction that belongs solely to the Church in Malaysia. It is up to the Federal Court now to restore the status quo. This can be remedied with a consent judgment.
Idris Jala’s contention is that Article 11 (4) allows for the various so-called state Islamic enactments to “control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”. That may be so, but the operative words are “control” and “restrict”.
However, the various state Islamic authorities started gazetting fatwa “prohibiting” non-Muslims from using a slew of words such as ‘Allah’. This “prohibition” is clearly in violation of the constitutional provision and therefore strikes at the heart of the supremacy of the constitution.
Many have called for Idris Jala to resign from the cabinet over the 10-point solution. Many are also aware of Idris’ Christian heritage from the Kelabit Highlands, the Bible Belt of Malaysia.
Idris preached his first sermon while a Form Three student, way back in October 1973. Some believed him while some others doubted. The rest is history.
But history repeats itself. Today, when Idris to tries to preach religious tolerance, there are many who believe in him, just as there are doubters. I may disagree with Idris, but as a fellow believer, I will still listen to his sermon.
BOB TEOH is a journalist. He authored the book ‘Allah - More Than A Word’ and was once secretary-general of the Jakarta-based Confederation of Asean Journalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.