An unusual legal dispute has emerged in Malaysia recently about whether non-Muslims may use the word "Allah" to refer to God. The Malaysian government contends that the word is strictly Islamic and may only be used by Muslims, not by the minority religious communities of Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus in the country. The government argues that use of "Allah" in non-Muslim publications will confuse Muslims and presumably make them more likely to convert to other religions. A Catholic publication challenged this prohibition and the Malaysian High Court has ruled in favor of the publication. "Allah" is the English transliteration of the Arabic word for God, and both Christian and Jewish speakers of Arabic generally use it to refer to "their" God. The term entered into the Malay language with the arrival of Arab traders and one report I read claimed that there is no other recognized word in Malay for God. Some people contend that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But that's not so clear. What are the identity conditions that can be used to determine that my God is the same as your God? For example, most Christians think that God consists of three persons and that one of the persons is the Son of God. Muslims generally consider these beliefs to be both polytheistic and unacceptably anthropomorphic. If there is such radical disagreement about the nature of God, would it not make more sense to say that Christian and Muslims worship two different beings? Neither being might exist for all we know! In any event, maybe it would make sense to reserve "Allah" for the Muslim God (except that Christian Arabs may protest that they were using the word first).
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
An interesting issue! It seems extremely significant that there is no recognized Malay word for "God" aside from "Allah". If that is, in fact the case, isn't this a clear-cut case where the government cannot restrict usage?
For example, "Kleenex" refers to a name brand, and one presumably ought not be able to infringe upon the use of the word without permission of the copyright holders. However, imagine that, instead of calling their products "Kleenexes", they were called "Tissues". Additionally, assume that there is no 3rd-party competitor to Kleenex; they have a monopoly on tissues. However, let's say that I create a tissue and call them "Tissue", which sounds like a direct ripoff. However, my response is that there is no other word in the English language for "tissues" than, well, "tissues"! It seems to me that one cannot claim proprietary usage of a word if that word is, in fact, a generic, non-proper word and the only available word in the language which refers to its reference.
Same if I created a brand called "Sugar" which sold sugar or if I wrote an essay and called it "Essay". If you wrote an essay and its form was greatly similar to mine, and in fact could serve as a substitute for mine, it nevertheless would not be, I believe, infringing upon my rights.
Thoughts?
At the heart of this issue is the phrase "the government argues that use of 'Allah' in non-Muslim publications will confuse Muslims and presumably make them more likely to convert to other religions." Malaysia is a country with an interesting government, heavily influenced by the British Empire and based loosely on a Parliamentary system, though the head of the government is styled a king. However modern it may seem, the government is dominated by radical Muslims and is often the oppressor of minority groups. In fact, a now-banned group (banned for being a "security risk" for the nation) called the HINDRAF, or Hindu Rights Action Force, staged protests with participation in the tens of thousands. These protests were put down with much force and certainly no regard for the message that was being communicated.
At the root of this issue no doubt is the fact that most powerful governments value their power. Since some offices, such as many of the local government offices of Chief Minister, are hereditary and being a Muslim is a necessary requirement to hold these positions, it is in the interest of the Muslims in power to retain that power. For other religions (i.e. the Catholic Church) to use the word Allah, or the Malay equivalent, obviously means that those religions are seeking converts via evangelism. This presents a problem for the "princes" of Malaysia, as their Socratic "cave" is no doubt being threatened by "confused" Muslims converting (such deliberate phraseology as 'confused' is overtly dismissive of any idea other than the Muslim meta-narrative.)
What is shocking here is that one of the Malaysian High Courts sided against the government's ban, and is a testament that, contrary to a growing perception, Western Civilization is a noble and good civilization. The British Empire spanned the globe and brought its legal and educational system with it. For all its warts, it did leave the world with a common language and with natural rights ideals planted in formerly rigid and totalitarian soil.
The Justices of Malaysia's various courts have been persons, like current Chief Justice of the Federal Court Zaki Tun Azmi (who would have been styled Lord President of the Federal Court prior to 1994 - how cool is that?), have been largely educated at British universities with names like English College. Though the Malay system also incorporates sharia law, blurring the lines of church and state, it is the legacy of Britain and its common law system. Thus non-Muslim users of the word "Allah" in Malaysia may thank Western Civilization and the Anglo-Saxon culture, the "great Satan" of Islam, for their freedom to do so.
Thank you, Prometheus Soldana, for a very insightful and informative post.
I don't have the time to comment on the several preposterous assertions Mr. Prometheus makes about western society, comments that would be particularly about the imperial attitudes and the oppression that resulted from them. I will say that it is no wonder that a patriarchal system is also oppressive. Human rights and religion do not seem to go hand in hand. Situations like this are just more proof that the world would be better off without fundamental religious types.
There are some important aspects of this issue that are addressed in a Time magazine article I read. (Read it online here: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952497,00.html)
First, the recent decision of the high court overturns a 2007 prohibition forbidding the use of the Catholics to use Allah in their publications. It is important to realize that the recent ruling did not just come out of left field to suddenly allow other religious bodies from using the word Allah - they had been doing so already and for a long time: "'We have been using the word for decades in our Malay-language Bibles and without problems,' the Rev. Lawrence Andrew, editor of the Catholic publication."
Resentment grew, (60% of the population is Malay Muslim), and in 2007 the prohibition passed, and yet now that prohibition has been removed. The tensions are not a new phenomenon stemming from this most recent ruling but were already fully grown by 2007 - this has now re-opened the even more aggravated cut and disrupted the "compartmentalization" that was "essential to maintaining social stability" according to authorities who disagree with the high court's decision.
Lawyers for the Catholic church reportedly made the following argument, which I believe if true hits right at the crux of the matter:
"[T]he word Allah predated Islam and was commonly used by Copts, Jews and Christians to denote God in many parts of the world. They argued that Allah is an Arabic word for God and has been used for decades by the church in Malaysia and Indonesia. And they said that the Herald uses the word Allah for God to meet the needs of its Malay-speaking worshippers on the island of Borneo. 'Some people have got the idea that we are out to convert [Muslims]. That's not true,' the lawyers said on behalf of the Herald."
Lastly, and this addresses a part mentioned in this post and Zach's comment, the lawyers also argued that there actually IS a proper word for God other than Allah in the language: Tuhan.
So it seems that the Catholics were using Allah on purpose, though purportedly not for converting Muslims, but because that was their traditional word for the God that they worship.
And as the Malay constitution includes the freedom of religion and speech, the high court has sided with the Catholics, thus allowing various religions to use Allah if they choose.
Hey, sorry everyone: the link up above goes nowhere.
This one should work better!
Time Magazine, 01/08/2010, "Can Christians Say 'Allah'? In Malaysia, Muslims Say No"
Post a Comment