Tag: god

Categories
Society

[2180] Of sneaky Hadi wants to sneak in Allah

Abdul Hadi Awang saw it and he capitalized on it. Given how the Islamic party he is in positions itself in the Allah controversy, he took the next step and suggested that the first principle of the Rukunegara[0] be changed from belief in god to belief in Allah.[1] If Allah is a generic term for god and god is the generic term for Allah, then they are equivalents, right?

Except, that I take the change as more insidious in nature. Not that the Rukunegara is the law of the land — hence its importance is debatable — but execution of that suggestion is problematic for future discourse on the status of Islam in Malaysia.

Equalizing god and Allah is really a double-edged sword. On one hand, it appeals to unity, at least among the Abrahamic religions especially after the divisive Allah controversy. On the other hand, quite sneakily, it offers greater ammunition for Islamists in future debates regarding secularism and the Malaysian state. I can imagine how later down the line some Islamists would support their arguments by citing the Rukunegara while conveniently forgetting that context which that suggestion was made.

I am not impressed by that suggestion. Even if the word god and Allah refer to the same concept, it is far easier to stick with the status quo rather than wade through the controversy that the change might ignite. Besides, not everybody subscribes to the argument that god and Allah refers to the same idea. I have not heard of Hindus, for instance, referring to their gods as Allah, never mind that the concept of monotheism does not appeal to Hinduism.

Consider also the atheists and the agnostics. Where are they in the grand scheme of things, Mr. Hadi? Burnt at the stake?

I feel there are many Islamists out there who subscribe to the exclusivity of the word Allah to the Muslim community in Malaysia. There would not have been a controversy if these Islamists do not exist. If the word god in the Rukunegara is to be changed to Allah, I am sure they will take this in some way as an Islamization of Malaysia. They will see it as a good move. I also will consider it as an act of Islamizing Malaysia. Unlike the Islamists however, I will be compelled to protest loudly.

As a secularist myself, I am not at all enamored by the first principle of the Rukunegara. I plainly dismiss it but I realize that raising objection to it is really a worthless exercise. Really, it is quite petty. But if Mr. Hadi wants to start a public discourse on the matter, let it be known that my default position is the abolition of the first principle.

And I think, I am not alone.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[0] — See Rukunegara at Wikipedia. Assessed March 22 2010.

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, March 22 (Bernama) — Pas president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang on Monday suggested that the first Rukun Negara be amended as the word Allah was widely used by non-Muslims.

“I call on the government to amend the first Rukun Negara from belief in God to belief in Allah,” he said during the debate on the motion of thanks on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s speech, in the Dewan Rakyat.

Abdul Hadi said the Al-Quran did not bar followers of other religions from using the word Allah. [Hadi Awang Suggests That First Rukun Negara Be Amended. Bernama. March 22 2010]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Society

[2146] Of the state must act against trangression

And so it has come to this. Amid the tension between those who support — or at least do not oppose — and those who oppose the use of the term Allah by the Catholic Church in Malaysia, a church was torched by arsonists, as the initial reports go.[1] I fear that this might not be the worst. In times like this, in the interest of protection of freedom, the rule of law is paramount.

It is in times like this that those who do not understand the rule of law, the limits of a person and the rights of others must face the full consequences of their transgression.

Rightful prosecution to the fullest extent of the law is not only justified, it is a must as to serve an important lesson to all. The snowball must be stopped dead in its track, if it is a snowball. Cautionary principle demands an action, regardless whether a snowball effect is in motion or not. Prudence must prevail in this matter.

The lesson is this: no matter how badly one detests the other, use of force is never an action for the first mover. It is not an option not just because there was no actual threat directed against the perpetrators, but also because physical threat on the perpetrators is not imminent.

One’s freedom is only up to the expression of that detestation and not an inch more. If one uses force to act on that detestation, as with the case with the burning of the church in Kuala Lumpur, then one must be prepared for a proper exaction of compensation by the state on oneself.

The door of legitimate state retaliation against the actual perpetrators of crime has now been opened. This is only on behalf of the victims. It is so as a matter of protection of rights, specifically right to property. And clearly, other rights too, such as right to life, if the transgressive momentum builds up. Attacks like this can easily be a life threatening case.

It is clear that the state cannot fail to carry out its responsibility. If the state fails to carry out this, it may open up the dangerous path of vigilantism.

Pray tell, even if that vigilantism were justified  — in fact, sadly, it is in the case of failure  — enough individuals would realize how far down the spiral would go to refrain from doing so.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) – A church in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur was firebombed early on Friday, gutting the first storey of the building in a residential area, amid a row over the use of the word “Allah” for the Christian God.

“It is confirmed that Desa Melawati church was burnt, at about 12.25 am in the morning. There were no fatalities. We are investigating the incident and suspect foul play,” said Kuala Lumpur Chief Police Officer Mohammad Sabtu Osman.

 

A court ruling last week allowing Catholic newpaper The Herald to use “Allah” for the Christian God has been appealed by the government of the mainly Muslim nation of 28 million people.

The issue has threatened relations between the majority Malay Muslim population and the minority ethnic Chinese and Indian populations who practise a range of religions including Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. [Malaysia Court Rules Catholic Paper Can Print ”˜Allah’. Niluksi Koswanage. David Chance. Louise Ireland. Reuters. January 8 2010]

Categories
Liberty Society

[2144] Of libertarian position on the Allah controversy

I have nothing clever to say with respect to the controversy involving the usage of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia (specifically, Catholic Christians I suppose) and objection raised by considerable number of Muslims there.[1] What I have to say is just some plain old consequences arising from my libertarian position. I think I have somewhat clarified my position while trying to explain, what I think is why some more conservative Muslims in Malaysia object to the use of the term Allah by Christians in Malaysia.

In any case, I am going to explain my position.

From the principle of freedom, specifically religious freedom and more broadly, freedom of expression, there is no reason for me to be alarmed by the recent court decision to allow Christians to use the term Allah to refer to their god in Malaysia. For any group to claim exclusive right over an idea that cannot be, in a sense, privatized or perhaps — however ridiculous this may sound — trademarked, is problematic. I cannot quite find the right words to describe it but clearly, no individual liberty has been transgressed by this action taken by Christians. Meanwhile, to prevent Christians from doing so will violate their liberty, and therefore should be untenable for libertarians.

Furthermore, based on the concept of secularism, which I consider as an essential aspect of the libertarian concept of the state, the state should have no role in this at all. So, to me, the court decision is only right. If the court had ruled otherwise, it would call for government intervention in form of religious control in the society.

Not only that, that government intervention will expand the frontier of the state into private life of a person. Just imagine the kind of mechanism required to enforce a ruling that insists the term Allah belongs exclusively to Muslims and no one else in Malaysia. Well, actually, you do not have to imagine it. It is already in place.

Lastly, this conflict paints both Christianity and Islam in Malaysia in a bad light: those Christians who insist in using the term Allah when there are other alternatives and conservative Muslims for their schizophrenic attitude. It is true that the Christian insistence does not violate liberty but hey, a lot of things a lot of people say and do do not violate liberty either. Whether all those things are the smart things to do or say is another matter altogether, even within libertarian constraint.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) — Malaysia’s High Court ruled that a government ban on non-Muslim publications using the word ”Allah” is unconstitutional, settling a dispute that stoked questions about religious freedom in the country.

The Herald, a weekly publication of the Catholic Church of Malaysia, filed for a judicial review after it was temporarily ordered to stop publishing for two weeks in December 2007 after using the word, which means ”God,” in its Malay-language section. [Malaysia Court Rules Catholic Paper Can Print ”˜Allah’. Manirajan Ramasamy. Ranjeetha Pakiam. Bloomberg. December 31 2009]