War of The Words: Malaysia Edition

The recent spate of attacks on churches in Malaysia has further divided its complex social structure. The attacks on the churches were incited by the overturning of a law that made it illegal for non-Muslims to use the word 'Allah' - in reference to God.

How It All Started

The row started when the authorities moved to ban the import of religious books by The Sabah Evangelical Church of Borneo - the reason being the use of the word 'Allah' in a Christian context. A Roman Catholic publication - The Herald also received multiple warnings from the government that it would have its licence revoked if it continued the usage of 'Allah.' This led the two organizations to move against the ban on the usage of the word 'Allah' by non- Muslims. However, the Malaysian government later back-tracked on its actions by reversing the ban and allowing The Herald to use the word 'Allah' in reference to God. This resulted in a spate of attacks targetted at churches and Catholic schools across the country by extremist groups - opposed to the reversal of the ban.

What Went Wrong?

Malaysia has been seen and often quoted as a diverse and peaceful example for many Muslim countries. Yet, the government's attempt at encouraging more cohesion between the religions only resulted in violence. Which forces me to think that it may be too late for any governmental to rectify what it's own policies have resulted in - over the years - an alienation of the various cultural and religious groups from each other.

Malaysia has always seemed to be an organic society - growing with and embracing its diversity of peoples in daily lives but the law suggests otherwise. More recently, the strict implemenation of these laws has pushed the communities apart. Prior to the church burning incidents, there was the Hindraf controversy, where Hindu rights activitsts were arrested. The group demanded equal opportunity for ethnic Indians and an end to the advantages granted to the majority Malays by the goverenment. The arrests were made on the basis that Malaysia law does not allow public meetings for more than 5 people and that the protest could incite racial tensions. The arrests only led to more bad blood between the government and ethnic Indians.

On the other hand, the government - in particular the Prime Minister, Najib Razak, himself is engaging in some serious public relations activity with his 1Malaysiablog - which is updated regularly and aimed at peace-building and engaging the people in the works of the government. The blog has been condemning the attacks on the churches - insisting that they are not representative of the wider Malaysian or Islamic ideology.

Mind Your Language

But this very problem is, in fact, the result of a 1986 legislation prohibiting non-Muslims from using words such as Allah, Baitullah, Solat and Kaabah. The words are obviously Arabic in nature and not native to Malaysia or any other Muslim country outside the Arab world. The question then arises - does any group have the sole right to use a language/certain words? If so, who can define the 'ownership' of vocabulary? Christian and Jewish Arabs have been using the word Allah and it variants since time immemorial as a reference to 'God.' Similarly, every language has its specific word for the idea of 'God' - 'Khuda' in Persian and Urdu, 'Tuhan' in Bahasa Melayu/Indonesia and so on.

While I do understand the outcry of the minority groups over the use of the word 'Allah' and the seemingly nonsensical original legislation - is it really worth the trouble it has caused? This is an issue both parties should take into consideration.

The fact that the word Allah has been used by Christian and Jewish Arabs for ages in often quoted in arguements for the case that everyone should be allowed to use the word Allah. In this case, Arabic is the mother-tongue of all three religious groups in question - Muslims, Jews and Christians and hence, no contention for the use of the word 'Allah.' Similarly, Pakistani Christians use the word 'khuda' without a second thought. The question here, should not be a religious one, but a linguistic one.

If we take a strictly linguistically puritanical approach - when religious texts are translated, the translation should be complete - including references to God. This would simply ensure a better understanding for the reader and possibly lead to less confusion and conflict. In the Malaysian context, if the 'Christian' books in question were in Malay then the word to be used should have been 'Tuhan,' and not Allah. Allah being an Arabic word.

But the truth of the matter is - languages are not set in stone - they are constantly evolving and representative of social changes as they happen. But at a time when the common usage of the word Allah by the Muslim and Christian groups of Malaysia, could have been a common ground between the two - it has become a divisive force. For everything that Shakespeare is worth, there is much truth is his words - 'what's in a name?' If we called God by any other name, He would be just as forgiving?