Malaysia court upholds 'Allah' ban for non-Muslims | Daily Mail Online
Oct 19, Lim was arguing that the Home Ministry's ban of the word 'Allah' in Malay- Muslims had separately testified that there was no confusion and no threat of Christian publications and bibles that date as far back to the s. Oct 14, But the Malaysian government insists that ''Allah'' should be exclusively reserved for Muslims because of concerns its use by others would. Main · Videos; Allah non muslim malaysia dating. Woodward nothing chastened to me that's thereupon chastened to me under their twain life. After the canal.
They were also threatened with a fine of 1, ringgits and a six-month prison sentence, in case of recidivism . In response to this condemnation, feminist Marina Mahathir defended the candidates by saying: Originally authorized for the country's independence inapostasy became illegal following an amendment to the country's constitution in .
The international scandal unleashed by the Lina Joy  affair is one of the most famous representations. While this was not a problem during the colonial era, Muslims wishing to change their religion face severe deterrence. Beforethe question of freedom of religion and therefore of questions relating to the desire of citizens to change their religion was exclusively within the jurisdiction of secular courts.
The 'Allah' Ban In Malaysia: Latest Updates And Timeline Of Events
But since the law has changed, an amendment stipulates that secular courts no longer have the right to deal with claims by Muslims and that only Islamic Shariah courts have jurisdiction to discuss issues related to human rights .
Apostasy is one of them and it follows that it is constitutionally legally impossible for a Muslim to change his belief. Many Muslims who have changed their religion whether it is conversion to Buddhism, Christianity, Sikhism, Taoism and other beliefs are forced for their own safety to lead a double life.
In some cases denunciations of apostasy have already been reported as being reported to the authorities by family members or co-workers  .
In FebruaryEdry Faizal, a coordinator in charge of the Democratic Action Party, claimed that it was inconsistent from a Quranic point of view to forbid Muslims from freely changing beliefs, but from his point of view was the best alternative that the power had found to preserve its Malaysian electorate and consequently to remain in power continuously.
But he concluded that this was necessary because: In recent years, more and more voices have been asked to try to determine the number of ethnic Malay people supposed to have left Islam for another belief, the government has remained silent on the question that it is much too controversial for to be debated.
Nevertheless no data estimating the number of Malay converted to another religion was provided. Nonetheless, these remarks later triggered a polemic repeatedly repeated in the media by Islamist and nationalist circles that recognizing the right of the Malayans and the entire Muslim community to be free to choose their own beliefs would risk provoking a "Massive exodus of apostates" within the nation, the same slogan has also been listed on the official website of Islam in Malaysia.
Among the new rights provided to converts, if they have a descent, they have the right to convert their children by force to Islam  without having to consider the approval of his spouse.
The latter then rewarded his conversion by donating ringgits.
In order to ease interfaith tensions, the two teachers were subsequently fired and transferred out of the state of Sarawak. While segregation was racial in South Africa, in our country we live in religious segregation. Indira Gandhi, a case that has inflamed the Malaysian media since in which a mother of Hindu family opposed the decision of her former husband recently converted to Islam, for having forced his children to follow his conversion.
The main purpose of the conversion is to obtain de facto sole custody of her children since her ex-wife is not Muslim, and therefore is considered unfit to bring up her children under Malaysian law. I urge him not to waste his time. The civil courts have been very clear, in this case and that of Lina Joy, that they do not affect the conversion of a Muslim, regardless of what the issues are.
The government statement appeared to be an attempt to diffuse tensions in the nation of 29 million people, including a large non-Muslim minority that has often complained that it is treated unfairly in jobs and education and is denied full freedom of religion.
The Federal Court on Monday refused to grant leave to hear the appeal by the Catholic church over the word Allah in its newspaper. The church had asked the Federal Court to overturn the ban, but the court decided not to hear the challenge, declaring that the lower court's decision had been correct.
Malaysia court upholds 'Allah' ban for non-Muslims
Earlier this year, Malay-language Bibles containing the word Allah were seized by Islamic authorities from the office of a Christian group. The four judges who denied us the right to appeal did not touch on fundamental basic rights of minorities," said the Rev. Lawrence Andrew, editor of The Herald. He said the ruling would have a chilling effect on the freedom of religion guaranteed in the constitution. The government says Allah should be reserved exclusively for Muslims, who account for nearly two-thirds of the population, arguing that if other religions use the term, it could confuse Muslims and lead them to convert away from Islam.
Christian leaders deny this, arguing that the ban is unreasonable because Christians who speak the Malay language have long used the word in their Bibles, prayers and songs. This interpretation conceives of article 3 1 as a rights-protective provision for non-Muslims. It disagreed with the High Court on all three issues implicating religious freedom. While all three Court of Appeal judges issued individual grounds of decision, the ratio was broadly contained in an official media statement that the Court issued.
Rise of strict Islam exposes tensions in Malaysia
Constitutional protection of religious freedom extends only to practices and rituals that are essential and integral to the religion, 18 and it is the court that assesses the sufficiency of evidence to determine the existence of a religious practice, as well as its essentialness to the religion. According to this reading article 3 1it is the non-Muslims who have the responsibility of ensuring that the practice of their religion does not affect the peace and harmony of the country.
The Court of Appeal decision, on the hand, is perplexing from the perspective of constitutional history and principles. I argue, however, that it can be understood in the context of a line of judicial reasoning which endorsed two problematic legal positions posited by the ethno-nationalist ideology: This conflates Malay ethnicity with Islam, thus intertwining ethno-nationalism with Islam.
Nonetheless, nowhere is this more pronounced than in the High Court judgment in Lina Joy v.Malaysian Muslims come together to honour birth of Prophet Muhammad
Lina Joy was a highly publicized case of a woman of Malay descent who was raised a Muslim but later converted to Catholicism. She applied for her change of religion to be recognized in her official records in order to marry a non-Muslim.
The National Registration Department refused her application on the basis that she had to obtain a certificate of conversion from the Syariah courts, which had jurisdiction over the matter.
This was not practicable since the Syariah courts could detain her for religious rehabilitation instead of granting her the certification. The High Court rejected her application, and the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds. Islam as the religion of the Federation The judicial endorsement of Islam as having a superordinate status was asserted in the case of Meor Atiqulrahman referred to above.
Three schoolboys applied for judicial review challenging their expulsion from a public school for wearing serbans a type of Islamic headgear.
The school claimed that they had breached school uniform regulations, which permitted inter alia the tudung headscarf and songkok a type of headgear commonly worn by Malay-Muslims in Malaysia.
In its judgment, which was written in the Malay language, the High Court read article 3 1 as establishing the primacy of Islam in the following terms: In my opinion, Article 3 of the Federal Constitution means that Islam is the dominant religion amidst other religions which are practised in the country like Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu and others.
Islam is not of the same status as the other religions; it does not sit side by side nor stand side by side. Rather, Islam sits at the top, it walks first, and is placed on a mantle with its voice loud and clear. The High Court thus asserted that its reading of article 3 1 requires the government to maintain, encourage, and spread Islamic faith and practices.
Other religions must be arranged and directed to ensure that they are practiced peacefully and do not threaten the dominant position of Islam, not just presently but more importantly in the future and beyond. It is not meant to provide any normative content to constitutional law. However, both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in Meor only addressed the question obliquely. Thus, in endorsing the restrictions as necessary in the interest of ensuring inter-racial and inter-religious peace, the Federal Court implicitly affirmed the need to prioritize a pluralist nation over a radical vision of an ethno-nationalist one.
Textually, it also makes little sense. It would and could simply have read: Islam is the religion of the Federation, and other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony. Malaysian Muslim activist, Dr. Ahmad Farouk Musa, strongly criticized its paternalistic undertones. Warning that Malaysia was becoming a laughing stock of the international community, Reza Aslan points out that the word is merely an Arabic word referring to the generic concept of God: Frankly, anyone who thinks that Allah is the name of God, is not just incorrect, but is going against the Quran itself.
It is almost a blasphemous thought to think that Allah has a name. The Malaysian decision overlooks not merely the theology, but also the etymology of the word.