The Allah Controversy: The Future Implications of the High Court Decision

By: Fatimah Zuhri*

[ Please forward/email this to as many people as you know. Feel free to translate to BM or to post/copy this in your websites/blogs. Feel free to send it to the newspaper. Please spread this message. ]

PART 1:

1. By now every single person in this country whether they are Muslim or not, would have realised that on 31st December 2009, Judge Lau Bee Lan have made a ruling to allow the usage of the word "Allah" to be published in The Herald publication.

2. Many of my Muslim friends who are bored/not interested in politics have asked me what is the big deal about this?

3. Let us take a closer look at the future implication of the High Court decision.

4. First of all, we have to understand how Legal System works.

5. When a judge makes a ruling/decision on a case they would tend to refer to previous decision made by the same Court.

6. For example (very simple example):

a) On December 2000, Ali was caught of eating an apple which he took from his neighbour's garden. He was sentenced to pay RM500 and 1 day in jail.

b) On December 2009, Abu was caught with eating an orange which he took from his friend's refrigerator when he was visiting his friend's house.

c) When Abu is brought in front of Judge Fatimah, the Judge will check if there is any previous "similar" decision have been made. The prosecutor (peguam dakwa) will then recommend to the Judge to use the same setence which was made on December 2000 against Ali.

d) This is what we called as "precedent". Since there is an existing "precedent", Judge Fatimah will then sentenced Abu RM500 and 1 day jail.

e) If compared between Ali and Abu, it would look like Abu committed a lesser or different crime but in the eyes of the Law they both committed the same crime and the sentence should be the same.

7. Now let us go back to the High Court decision on the word "Allah". Judge Bee Lan decision was that The Herald is allowed to use the word "Allah" on the basis of "human rights".

8. Unfortunately, there are some highly irresponsible Muslim who say "So what?!".

9. Well, let say a year from now, on 09.01.2011, a person of Hindu or Buddhist or ANY faith go to the court and say " I want the word Allah to be used to refer to my God ".

10. Since there is already a precedent (31.12.2009 - Judge Bee Lan decision), the court will then say OK using the same basis of "human rights" !

11. At the end of the day, everyone will then start to associate the name Allah with their God. It does not matter if the faith is Samawi based (Judaism, Christian and Islam) or non-Samawi based (Hinduism, Buddhism, Ayah Pin, etc...)

12. Again some Muslim will say "So what?".

13. Well, let say Ayah Pin followers go to the public and shouted, "Wahai orang ramai, Ayah Pin ialah Allah!"

14. Another example, a child who was born in a christian family. When this child grows up and see so many contradictions in the Bible (e.g. in 1 Corinthians 5:11 it clearly stated that a person should not drink alcohol, but in Luke Luke 7:33-34 it shows that Jesus/Isa a.s. did drink wine!), the child will grow up becoming an atheist (do not believe in any religion or any God).

15. When this child grew up to become an atheist, when his Muslim friend talk about Islam, he will ridiculed Islam and say " According to Malaysia's legal system, Allah in Islam and Christinanity is the same. So your religion (Islam) is no different from that of my parents (Christianity).

16. Worst, if he marries a Muslim women! I dare not imagine what will happen to their child...

17. If we did not have the High Court decision which equate Christian God = Allah,
perhaps we can tell him,

"Look here my friend, my God is One God, He does not have a son nor does He has any parents, there is none equal or the same to Him. That my friend, is the difference between my religion and that of your parents!"

18. If there is no High Court decision which can equate Christian God = Allah, then the atheist can not say anything else.

19. Now, if you are tired after reading this 19 points, I suggest you have a break first, because there are another 15 points remaining. You can continue at a later time to read point 20-35.


PART 2:

20. Let us take a look at another case. California Proposition 8 which was passed in November 2008 in the United States of America, a day after President Obama was elected to office.

21. Although the issue is different, the implication aspect of it is the same.

22. California Proposition 8 was a proposition to change the constitutional amendment of the United States.

23. A year before (in 2007) the California Supreme Court made a decision that equates Homosexual and Lesbian marriages = Heterosexual marriages.

24. Homosexual marriage is men marrying men and Lesbian marriage is women marrying women. While heterosexual marriage is between a men and a women.

25. The decision by the Court was made under the same basis which our own High Court made the decision on "Allah", which is "Human rights".

26. Imagine my dear readers, how can a marriage between a men and a women is equal to a marriage between homosexuals and lesbian? How can a homosexual or a lesbian couple can have a child? If half of the US population are involved in these sick marriage, in 20 years time, American population will be cut by half.

27, These were the questions raise all around California. The Christians, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish Californinans were upset by this decision.

28. What did they do? They held campaigns, pressured the state government, pressured the federal government and many more.

29. A year later, due to the pressure by the common people, the Court had to hold another round of proposition.

30. On the evening of November 4th 2008, the majority of the Californian people rejoiced and celebrated at the announcement that the proposition to reject the notion normal marriage = Homosexual/Lesbian marriage has succeded.

31. Anyone who have been to the United States, should know that California is like Bangsar. The Californian people are the most liberal people in the United States. Yet they manage to reject the sick notion that normal marriage between a men and a women = homosexual marriages.

32. Dear gentle readers, unfortunately in Malaysia, we have some Muslim who wants to make a political issue out of this. Irresponsible people such as Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim (PKR) and YB Khalid Samad (PAS) wants to use this issue to gain non-muslim votes for their political party (Pakatan Rakyat)in the up-coming General Election.

33. This is really unfortunate. If one read and understood my points above, you would now realise the future impact of the High Court decision.

34. Currently, the Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib have asked the Home Minister Dato Seri Hishammudin to make an appeal so that the decision can be over-turned. We congratulate this excellent decision by the Government of Malaysia! However we have to continue our campaign. Please do not act in anger. Peaceful campaign and peaceful protest is the way forward.

35. Last, I urge that everyone of us can understand the issue. It is not just about losing a "word". It is more than that. It is for the future of our children and grand children. If we do not defend, a year from now every religion will call their God as Allah. Perhaps who knows, 5 years from now we will have Homosexual marriages as well. Do we want this to happen?

"Tepuk dada tanyalah selera..."

Thank you.

Salam,
Fatimah Zuhri.


*Fatimah Zuhri is a non partisan writer who writes for the well being and love for her children, grandchildren and for her beloved nation, Malaysia

(Source: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=248615967270)