Judge was wrong on all counts of Allah's case
- From: "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad" <othmana@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:26:42 -0800 (PST)
I wonder why the government had not managed to convince the judge of
all the obvious wrongs.
God is translated to Allah.
Lord is translated into Tuhan.
I would have thought that it is the opposite.
This blatant mistranslation is so obvious and an insult to any Malay
Once this is already very clear, apart from other erroneous mentions
of Arabic norms in the use of ALLAH which is not a translation of GOD
but NAME OF A GOD, just like ZEUS or APOLLO, it should be very clear
that all other basis for the judgements are completely wrong.
There is no constituitional protection against misleading, and
humiliating citizens of Malaysia which is done in deliberately
downgrading ALLAH into GOD, whereas TUHAN is upgraded to LORD.
TUHAN is a being.
LORD is a title so can be called a NAME, just like DATUK, SIR.
ALLAH is a NAME, just like ZEUS, APOLLO, NUNUK RAGANG. This is how
Arabs use it, so do Malays.
So the statement that Christian Arabs had misused the word ALLAH is
just conjecture and very unlikely as shown by culture, history and
GOD is also a being, not a name attached to the being.
Why on earth does this JUDGE allow the translation of GOD into ALLAH
just because some dictionaries made by non-Malay speaking authors say
so. Even Munshi Abdullah is not an authority of the Bible, so is not
qualified to translate the meaning of the Bible into Malay. If Munshi
Abdullah were Christian or formerly christian, then he is also not
qualified as being biased.
ws | Foreign | Opinion | Cartoons | MyKampung | Family | Features |
Photo Story | Kooky | 中文 |
Allah Case: Govt wrong on all counts
Opinion Religion in the news 2010-01-17 21:14
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 17 — High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan’s
controversial ‘Allah’ ruling that rocked the nation over who had
rights to the term cited that the Home Minister and government’s
actions had been illegal, unconstitutional, irrational and had failed
to satisfy that it was a threat to national security.
She also wrote about the apparent conflict in the matter between the
Federal Constitution and the various state enactments apart from
claims by Muslim groups that the matter cannot be taken to a civil
The judge released the written grounds of her Dec 31 judgment late on
Friday while the increasingly acrimonious public debate over who has
the right to use the word “Allah” continues to rage on.
The Malaysian Insider obtained a copy of her 57-page judgment where
the judge lays out the reasons and the laws behind her oral
In laying out her judgment, Justice Lau ruled that the Home Minister
and the Government of Malaysia, who were named as 1st and 2nd
Respondents respectively, has the discretion under Section 12 of the
Printing Presses and Publications Act to issue or revoke a permit to
the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam (the
Applicant) to publish the Church’s newspaper, Herald — The Catholic
But, she stressed, the respondents had made decisions that were
illegal, unconstitutional and irrational when they barred the Catholic
newspaper from publishing the word “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia
The case was brought by the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the
Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam on February
16 last year when he filed for a judicial review against the Home
Minister for barring it from using the word “Allah” as part of
conditions for getting a publishing permit.
Pakiam is officially the Herald’s publisher.
The Home Ministry has successfully applied for a stay of execution in
the ruling pending an appeal.
Below are excerpts highlighting the main disputes.
On why the Home Minister’s ban is illegal
“The Applicant submits the 1st Respondent has failed to take into
account one or more of the relevant considerations...
1. The word “Allah” is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” and
in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, “God” is translated
as “Allah” and “Lord” is translated as “Tuhan”;
The judge is completely wrong here and has no expertise to decide the
correct translation of the word "Allah"
2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking
countries have been using the word “Allah” in reference to the One
God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater
majority of other Christian denominations hold that “Allah” is the
legitimate word for “God” in Bahasa Malaysia;
Again completely wrong. Allah is just the name of a pagan God for
The reference is to the ONE GOD, not GOD which the first implication
of the translation of the GOD in the English bible.
It is the LORD that is the SPECIAL GOD. Why on earth was it translated
into the Malay word TUHAN, which is just a class of being, whereas
ALLAH is a name of A GOD.
This is an outrage and a downgrade of the meaning of ALLAH, into less
JESUS pray to TUHAN, but NOT ALLAH!!!!
3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic
believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and
Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a
culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;
But they have no right to mistranslate any MALAY WORD.
4. The word “God” has been translated as “Allah” in the “Istilah Agama
Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia” first published by the
Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;
5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated
“Deus” (the Latin word for God) as “Alla” as the Malay translation;
This dictionary, just as any English dictionary is not an authority of
the Malay language.
The Italian is obviously wrong, because there is another word, TUHAN
and DEWA in Malay which explains the word GOD better.
6. The Christian usage of the word “Allah” predates Islam being the
name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic
Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;
NAME OF GOD, not GOD.
Allah is A NAME OF A GOD, not GOD itself.
This is completely different and shows how idiotic and illogical the
What the Malay translation is trying to do is to downgrade the word
GOD to Allah, instead of to a NAME.
Furthermore, this is completely wrong as shown by Arabic Christians in
using suffixes to the word Allah in order to differentiate Allah from
the PAGAN ALLAH. The PAGAN ALLAH predates the Christianity, and why
should Christianity adopt a pagan God's name when they should have
used a better name.
Why should the natives of Borneo and Malaysia use the name of a PAGAN
ARABIC GOD as a name, when they themselves have a better names for GOD
in their own folklores?
This argument is immaterial because the Malay bible downgrades the
name of GOD, Allah, into just GOD.
7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word “Allah” has been
used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in
Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the
second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru
and the Alkitab;
Only in the Matthew's Gospel and it was not authorised by Malay
translators as shown by the inconsistencies mentioned earlier.
Downgrading ALLAH to just GOD instead of THE NAME OF A GOD.
These christian translators must have ulteriour motives to HUMILIATE
MUSLIMS especially MALAYS.
8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay
literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he
translated the word “God” as “Allah”;
He may have been an expert in ancient literature but many phrases in
ancient literature is no longer valid. The Malays don't use these
terms, let alone understand the Gospels and the implications of the
usages of the downgrading of the word Allah.
9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in
existence before 1957 which translation was carried out by the British
and Foreign Bible Society where the word “Allah” was used;
These are not experts in the modern Malay language and they have
ulteriour motives to distorn the meaning of ALLAH as used in the Malay
10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in
Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word “Allah” was used;
11. There was also a publication entitled “An Abridgment of the
Christian Doctrine” published in 1895 where the word “Allah” was used.
12. Anther publication entitled “Hikajat Elkaniset” published in 1874
also contains the word “Allah”
13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the
Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used
by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for
14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular
Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word
“Allah” for generations and the word “Allah” is used in the Bahasa
Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught
15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia
congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the
Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein
the word “Allah appears;
All these mistranslations and humiliations of the Malay language does
not mean that they are right. After all, they have ulteriour motives
to downgrade and confuse Muslims in this regions.
16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover
of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and
information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is
not for sale or distribution outside the Church;
Lies and mistranslations MUST NOT BE ALLOWED EVEN IN PRIVATE.
Similarly for murder, sexual crimes, are not allowed even though they
are done in private.
Confusing, mistranslating, humiliating the Malay language cannot be
tolerated just because they are made in private.
17. The said publication is not made available to members of the
public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;
18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause
public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion
of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has
never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant’s use of
the word “Allah” in the said publication;
Because Muslims and Malays don't know about it. Once they know, the
reaction is very obvious. The judge is very ridiculous in supporting
this line of argument. She supports MURDER just because NOBODY
19. In any event the word “Allah” has been used by Christians in all
countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/
Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/
or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these
Let us put to the VOTE NOW. I am very insulted and HUMILIATED by all
the mistranslations and downgrading of the word of ALLAH into just
GOD, whereas TUHAN is elevated to LORD, when in fact, it should be the
other way round.
20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or
belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a state
matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such
matters of Islam save in the federal territories
Let the state governments decide but what is obvious is that cheating,
humiliating MUSLIMS, is a FEDERAL offence.
Even though they are done in PRIVATE.
21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the
Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the
use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;
That can be revoked once the extent of the errors had been identified.
22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church
uses the word “Allah” for worship and instruction and that the same is
permitted in the Al-Kitab.
“The Applicant further submits that none of the above-mentioned
factual considerations were ever disputed or challenged by the 1st
Respondent as factually incorrect. I am incline to agree with the
Applicant as the response of the 1st Respondent to the factual
averments is a feeble denial in paragraph 41 of the Affidavit of the
1st Respondent which reads “Keseluruhan pernyataan-pernyataan di
perenggan-perenggan 50, 51 and 52(i)-(xxii) Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon
adalah dinafikan...” (Emphasis added)
“Therefore I find the 1st Respondent in the exercise of his discretion
to impose further conditions in the publication permit has not taken
into account the relevant matters alluded to above, hence committing
an error of law warranting this Court to interfere and I am of the
view that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 ought to be
quashed,” she ruled.
On why the Home Minister’s ban is unconstitutional
Justice Lau also said the applicant’s grounds for the reliefs of
certiorari and declaratio is premised on the unconstitutional acts and
conduct being inconsistent with Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the
“Applying the principles enunciated in Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak (supra)
to the instant case, there is no doubt that Christianity is a
religion. The next question is whether the use of the word “Allah” is
a practice of the religion of Christianity. In my view there is
uncontroverted historical evidence allueded to in paragraph 52 (i) to
(xxii) alluded to above which is indicative that use of the word
“Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. From the
evidence, it is apparent the use of the word “Allah” is an essential
part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa
Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and is
integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.
This is totally incorrect. Only in Arabic speaking nations. Malay
speaking people have different notions of the meaning of GOD, which is
TUHAN. Even in Arabic speaking nations, ALLAH IS NOT GOD, ILA is.
Allah is a name of a God. I don't think the Christian Arabs will make
such an error in distinguishing between GOD and ALLAH, the name of a
GOD, but the Malay translation has made such grave errors in
translation with ulteriour bad motives.
“The next consideration is the circumstances under which the
“prohibition” was made. The circumstances to my mind would be the
factors which the Respondents rely on to justify the impugned decision
which have been alluded to in paragraph 9(i) to (ix) above.
“As to the ground in paragraph 9(i) in my judgment, this is
unmeritorious for the reason which has been dealt under the issue of
whether the use of the word “Allah” endangers public order and
national security. As to the ground in paragraph 9(ii), (iii), (v) and
(ix), I have shown unchallenged evidence that there is a well
established practice for the use of the “Allah” amongst the Malay
speaking community of the Catholic faith in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah
and Sarawak and the origin of the word and its translation...
“Considering all the factors, in my judgment, the imposition of the
condition in the publication permit prohibiting the use of the word
“Allah” in the said publication, “Herald – the Catholic Weekly”
pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s exercise of powers under the Act
contravenes the provisions of Articles 3(1), 11(1) and 11(3) of the
Federal Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional,” she added.
On why the Home Minister’s ban is irrational
“The Applicant challenges the impugned decision under this head of
irrationality/ Wednesbury unreasonableness which applies to “a
decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of
accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his
mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it...”
(a) It is utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the
Respondents on the one hand not to prohibit the congregation of the
Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and instruction in
their faith and in the AL-Kitab and on the other hand to state that
the same word cannot be used in the said publication which serves to
assist these persons in their worship and provide a medium of
instruction in their faith and to disseminate news and information
(see paragraph 52(xxii) of Applicant’s Affidavit).
(b) It is also utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the
Respondents to require the Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of
the Catholic Church to use another word to denote the Bahasa Malaysia
word for “God” instead of the word “Allah” when such is and has always
been the word used for the word “God” in the Catholic Church and
throughout the Bahasa Malaysia speaking community of the Church in
“In relation to the 2 additional grounds mentioned in paragraph 17.1
above, the Respondents responded —
1. Merujuk kepada perenggan 20 Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon, Responden-
Responden menegaskan bahawa Pernyataan YAB Perdana Menteri tersebut
yang telah dikeluarkan melalui media cetak “The Star” pada 20/4/2005
adalah amat jelas mengarahkan agar di kulit “Bible” dalam versi Bahasa
Melayu dinyatakan secara jelas bahawa ianya bukan untuk orang Islam
and ianya hanya dijual doi kedai-kedai orang Kristian. Walau
bagaimanapun saya sesungguhnya mempercayai dan meyatakan bahawa
kenyataan media yang dirujuk itu adalah berhubung dengan Al-Kitab
(Bible) sahaja dan tidak relevan kepada isu permit Herald – the
Catholic Weekly yang mana syarat yang dikenakan adalah amat jelas dan
perlu dipatuhi oleh Pemohon (paragraph 22 of the 1st Respondent’s
2. the circulation of the Al-Kitab vide P.U.(A) 134 dated 13.5.1982
was made subject to the condition that its possession or use is only
in churches by persons professing the Christian religion, throughout
“I find the 2 additional grounds submitted by the Applicant in
paragraph 17.1 above to be of substance. It is to be noted that a
common thread runs through like a tapestry in the Respondents’
treatment of restricting the use of the word “Allah” which appears in
the Al-Kitab are (i) that it is not meant for Muslims; (ii) to be in
the possession or use of Christians and in churches only. In fact,
these restrictions are similar to that imposed as a second condition
in the impugned decision save for the endorsement of the word “Terhad”
on the front cover of the said publication. Relying on the chapter on
maxims of interpretation at paragraph 44 p.156 of N.S Bindra’s
Interpretation of the Statute, there is a maxim “Omne majus continet
in se minus” which means “The greater contains the less”. One would
have thought having permitted albeit with the usual restrictions the
Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and in the Al-
kitab, it would be logical and reasonable for the Respondents to allow
the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication drawing an analogy
by invoking the maxim “The greater contains the less”. Indeed I am
incline to agree with the Applicant that the Respondents are acting
illogically, irrationally and inconsistently and no person similarly
circumstanced would have acted in a like manner...
“I find there is merit in the Applicant’s contention that when viewed
on its merits, the reasons given by the Home Ministry in the various
directives defies all logic and is so unreasonable,” Justice Lau wrote
in her judgment.
On the seeming conflict between the Federal Constitution and the state
enactments to control and restrict the propagation of religious
doctrine among Muslims
She also wrote that, “Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal
Constitution, ten States have enacted laws to control and restrict the
propagation of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. The laws
(i) Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic
Religions Enactment 1980 (State of Terengganu Enactment No.1/1980)
2. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1981 (Kelantan Enactment No.11/1981)
3. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1988 (Malacca Enactment No.1/1988)
4. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1988 (Kedah Darulaman Enactment No.11/1988)
5. The Non Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims)
Enactment 1988 (Selangor Enactment No.1/1988)
6. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1988 (Perak Enactment No.10/1988)
7. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1989 (Pahang Enactment No.5/1989)
8. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1991 (Johor Enactment No.12/1991)
9. The Control and Restriction (The Propagation of Non Islamic
Religions Amoing Muslims) (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Negeri
Sembilan Enactment NO.9/1991); and
10. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Religious Belief and
Doctrine which is Contrary to the Religion of Islam Enactment 2002
(Perlis Enactment No.6 of 2002)
“It is not disputed that s. 9 of the various State Enactments provide
for an offence relating to the use of certain words and expression
listed in Part 1 or 11 of the Schedule or in the Schedule itself as
the case maybe of the State Constitutions and which includes the word
“Allah”. Further, all these State Enactments are made pursuant to
Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution which reads “State law and
in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and
Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any
religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of
Islam.” (Emphasis added)...
“Mr Royan drew to the Court’s attention (i) that Article 11(4) which
is the restriction does not state that State law can forbid or
prohibit but “may control and restrict”; does not provide for State
law or for any other law to control or restrict the propagation of any
religious doctrine or belief among persons professing a religion other
“I find there is merit in Mr Royan’s submission that unless we want to
say that s.9 is invalid or unconstitutional to that extent (which I
will revert to later), the correct way of approaching s.9 is it ought
to be read with Article 11(4). If s.9 is so read in conjunction with
Article 11(4), the result would be that a non-Muslim could be
committing an offence if he uses the word “Allah” to a Muslim but
there would be no offence if it was used to a non-Muslim. Indeed
Article 11(1) reinforces this position as it states “Every person has
the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause
(4), to propagate it”. Clause 4 restricts a person’s right only to
propagate his religious doctrine or belief to persons professing the
religion of Islam. It is significant to note that Article 11(1) gives
freedom for a person to profess and practise his religion and the
restriction is on the right to propagate.
“I find Mr Royan’s argument is further augmented by the submission of
Mr Benjamin Dawson, learned Counsel for the Applicant which I find to
be forceful stating that this rule of construction is permissible in
the light of the mischief the State Enactments seek to cure and the
provision has to be interpreted to conform to the Constitution. … For
completeness I shall now spell out the preamble in full “WHEREAS
Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that State law may
control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or
belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. AND WHEREAS it
is not desired to make a law to control and restrict the propagation
of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons
professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added) …
“Applying the said test to the factual matrix of the present case the
Court has to bear in mind the constitutional and fundamental rights of
persons professing the Christian faith to practise their religion and
to impart their faith/religion to persons within their religious group
and in this case, the Catholic Church comprises a large section of
people from Sabah and Sarawak whose medium of instruction is Bahasa
Malaysia and they have for years used religious material in which
their God is called “Allah”; for that matter there is a large
community who are Bahasa Malaysia speaking from Penang and Malacca. On
the other hand the object of Article 11(4) and the State Enactments is
to protect or restrict propagation to persons of the Islamic faith.
Seen in this context by no stretch of the imagination can one say that
s.9 of the State Enactments may well be proportionate to the object it
seeks to achieve and the measure is therefore arbitrary and
“As to the concern of the Respondents there is no guarantee that the
magazine would be circulated only among Christians and it will not
fall into the hands of Muslims, I agree with Mr Royan there is no
requirement of any guarantee be given by anyone in order to profess
and practise an even to propagate it.
“In my view if there are breaches of any law the relevant authorities
may take the rleevant enforcement measures. We are living in a world
of information technology; information can be readily accessible. Are
guaranteed rights to be sacrificed at the altar just because the
Herald has gone online and is accessible to all? One must not forget
there is the restriction in the publication permit wich serves as an
additional safeguard which is the word “TERHAD” is to be endorsed on
the front page and the said publication is restricted to churches and
to followers of Christianity only,” she added.
On the claim that the Home Minister’s ban was to safeguard public
security and order
“There is merit in the Applicant’s argument that the Respondents in
paragraph 45 of his Affidavit (also in paragraphs 6, 25 and 46) sought
to justify imposing the condition in purported exercise of his powers
under the said Act on a mere statement that the use of the word
“Allah” is a security issue which is causing much confusion and which
threatens and endangers public order, without any supporting evidence.
A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was
necessary on the ground of national security without adequate
supporting evidence is not sufficient in law....
“I find there is merit in Mr Dawson’s argument that the Court ought to
take judicial notice that in Muslim countries even in the Middle East
where the Muslim and Christian communities together use the word
“Allah”, yet one hardly hear of any confusion arising (see paragraph 52
(xix) of the Applicant’s Affidavit which is not rebutted). Further, I
am incline to agree that the Court has to consider the question of
“avoidance of confusion” as a ground very cautiously so as to obviate
a situation where a mere confusion of certain persons within a
religious group can strip the constitutional right of another
religious groiup to practise and propagate their religion under
Article 11(1) and to render such guaranteed right as illusory,”
Justice Lau said.
On claims from the Muslim groups that “Allah” cannot be challenged in
On this, she wrote, “I had on 31.12.2009 dismissed the applications of
the Majlis Agama Islam (MAI) of Wilayah Persekutuan, Johore, Selangor,
Kedah, Malacca, the MAI and Adat Melayu Terenggganu and MACMA to be
heard in opposition under O.53 r.8 of the RHC (It is to be noted that
the MAI and Adat Melayu Perak and MAI Pulau Pinang did not file any
applicatio under O.53 r.8). That being the case, their submission
contending the issue of whether any publication in whatever form by a
non-Muslim individual or body or entity that uses the scared word of
“Allah” can be permitted in law is one that is within the absolute
discretion of the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) (in
respect of Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal
Territories) as the respective Heads of Islam and is therefore non-
justiciable is irrelevant at the substantive hearing of the judicial
review application and need not be considered by this Court.
“I adopt the following responses of the Applicant contending the
application is justiciable and I am of the view there is substance –
1. the Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions clearly
provide that the Rulers and the YDPA as the Head of Islam in the
States and the Federal Territories have exclusive authority only on
Islamic affairs and Malay customs;
2. subject to Articles 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution, the
control and regulation of all publications and matters connected
therewith are governed by federal law namely the Act and only the
Minister for Home Affairs is involved in the implementation and
enforcement of its provisions. Under this Act, only the Minister can
decide what is permitted to be published and in this regard the Rulers
and the YDPA have no role whatsoever under the scheme of this Act;
3. the present judicial reiew is not a judicial review of the decision
of the Rulers or the YDPA as Head of Islam concerning the exercise of
their duties and functions. It is only a judicial review of the 1st
Respondent’s decision to impose a prohibition on the use of the word
“Allah” by the Applicant in a publication. Since the Rulers or the
YDPA cannot make any decision in respect of any publications and
matters connected therewith, the issue of non justiciability does not
On what the Court really ordered
She also listed out the orders from the court in the landmark case, “
In conclusion in the circumstances the Court grants the Applicant the
1. an Order of Certiorari to quash the decisio of the Respondents
dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period
1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the
Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the
Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter;
2. Jointly the following declarations:
(i) that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the
Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until
31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is
prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic
Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter is null and
(ii) that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution the
Applicant has the constitional right to use the word “Allah” in
“Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applica’ right
that religions other than Islam may be practised in peace and harmony
in any part of the Federation;
(iii) that Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that
Islam is the religion of the Federation does not empower and/or
authorize the Respondents to prohibit the Applicant from using the
word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly”;
(iv) that pursuant to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution the
Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in
“Herald – the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the applicant’s
right to freedom of speech and expression;
(v) that pursuant to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution the
Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in
“Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s
freedom of religion which includes the right manage its own religious
(vi) that pursuant to Article 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution
the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in
“Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s
right in respect of instruction and education of the Catholic
congregation in the Christian religion.
(By DEBRA CHONG,TheMalaysianInsider)
Allah Case: Govt wrong on all counts
Gagging corruption talk
2010 curtain raiser
Healing the hurt over Allah
If Jason is still alive...
An approaching nightmare
Whips and poison tongues
Encik Abu Kassim, you're not up to the mark yet!
A Malaysian, again?
The way out
The hassle of filling up the gas tank
Allah for Malays only?
- Prev by Date: Re: MIC, MCA, GERAKAN
- Next by Date: BISNIS SCRIPT WEBSITE dan E-BOOK BISNIS
- Previous by thread: Donations required from Muslims in Malaysia
- Next by thread: Re: Judge was wrong on all counts of Allah's case