User:Jacklee/sandbox2

Muslims and controversies

Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri is a court decision holding that Christians have the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" as long as use of the word was limited to educating Christians. The case is under appeal.

Background
Herald – The Catholic Weekly is a Roman Catholic weekly newspaper published in Malaysia by the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur on behalf of the Bishops of Peninsular Malaysia under the authority of a publication permit issued under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 by the Menteri Dalam Negeri (Minister of Home Affairs).

Prior to the events that led to the court case in question, the Herald had several run-ins with the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Ministry issued to the publisher three warning letters on 10 March, 16 March and 1 July 2007, followed by a show-cause letter on 16 July 2007. The complaints were that the Herald had not properly printed its printing or serial number on the newspaper, and had carried articles that were contrary to the terms of its publishing permit. The following year, the Government of Malaysia stated that the Herald would have its publishing permit suspended if it went ahead and published an editorial on the 2008 Permatang Pauh by-election. An official with the Home Ministry's Publications Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit said this was because such an editorial was on a topic involving current affairs and politics, matters that the newspaper was not permitted to touch upon. The response of the Herald's editor, Father Lawrence Andrew, was that the authorities had nothing to worry about as the newspaper was targeted at Catholics and not the general public. Further, the Herald had never gone beyond issues of religion in its publications: "The editorial is only asking people to pray for a just and fair by-election. Can't we Christians ask fellow Christians to pray? Is that against the law? ... We comment on issues. The Pope comments on issues. It's normal for us to have an ethical interpretation [of current events and politics]."

On 16 July 2008, the Herald received another letter from the Home Ministry alleging that an article entitled "America and Jihad" published on 22 June had degraded Muslims, and had "focused on political issues on Anwar Ibrahim", a prominent opposition politician. This was denied by the newspaper's editor, who characterized the article as "an ethical analysis about the world after the Sept 11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers".

Facts
The publisher of the Herald applied to the High Court in Malaya in Kuala Lumpur in December 2007 for leave seeking a declaration as to whether it was permitted to use the name Allah to refer to God. This followed a directive issued by the Minister of Home Affairs forbidding its use of the word. Leave was granted on 5 May. In the meantime, the prohibition was extended by the Minister of Internal Security who, in a letter dated 12 February 2008, imposed a condition on the publishing permit of the Herald stating that it could not use the word.

In November 2008, applications were made by the state Islamic councils of the Federal Territory, Johor, Kedah, Melaka (Malacca), Penang, Selangor and Terengganu, and the Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association, to intervene in the case so that they could request a stay of proceedings to enable the Federal Court of Malaysia to decide whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The applications were granted on 21 November. The Malaysian Gurdwaras Council made a similar application as the name Allah also appears in the Sikh holy scripture, the Guru Granth Sahib, and because they wished to prevent the issue becoming one of confrontation between the Roman Catholic Church and Islamic councils.

The publisher of the Herald renewed its publishing licence on 30 December 2008 for the period 1 January to 31 December 2009. However, according to the publisher, it was subsequently ordered to stop publishing its Bahasa Malaysia (Malay language) edition. On 8 January 2009, the Herald received a letter dated the previous day from the Ministry of Home Affairs cancelling its letter of 30 December 2008 and approving a permit to publish the newspaper only if the name Allah was not used in the newspaper. The following day, 9 January, the Secretary of the Home Ministry's Publication Control and Al-Quran Texts Unit, Che Din bin Yusoh, issued a statement saying that the Herald had never been prohibited from using Malay. Rather, "The Ministry is only against the use of the word 'Allah' to refer to God. The correct and appropriate translation for God in Bahasa Malaysia or Melayu is 'Tuhan'." The Herald, disputing this version of the events, wrote to the Ministry demanding that it rescind its order banning the use of Malay in the newspaper.

On 16 February, the publisher of the Herald applied again to the High Court in Malaya in Kuala Lumpur for leave to apply for judicial review of the Ministry's 7 January 2009 decision, naming as the respondents the Minister of Home Affairs and the Kerajaan Malaysia (Government of Malaysia). It asked for the following relief, among others:


 * 1) An order of certiorari to quash the Ministry's decision dated 7 January 2009 that the publication permit of the Herald was subject to the condition that it was prohibited from using the word Allah pending the Court's determination of the matter.
 * 2) Jointly or in the alternative, the following declarations:
 * 3) That the Ministry's decision of 7 January 2009 was illegal, null and void.
 * 4) That the Herald's publisher had the right to use the word Allah pursuant to Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution.
 * 5) That the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 did not authorize the Ministry to prohibit the use of the word Allah in the Herald.
 * 6) That the use of the word Allah was not exclusive to Islam.

Judgment
Judge Lau Bee Lan of the High Court rendered her judgment in the matter on 31 December 2009. She ruled in favour of the publisher of the Herald, quashing the Home Ministry's 7 January 2009 decision to subject the publication permit of the Herald to the condition that it could not use the word Allah. She also declared that the decision was illegal, null and void; and that the publisher of the Herald had the constitutional right under Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 to use the word Allah.

Legality under administrative law principles
The publisher of the Herald challenged the Ministry's decision on traditional administrative law grounds, namely, that it was illegal, unreasonable within the meaning of the principle in the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation and ultra vires the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. The Home Minister argued that the decision was legal as he was empowered by the Act to attach any conditions to a publication permit as he saw fit. Further, section 13A(1) of the Act, an ouster clause, stated: "Any decision of the Minister to refuse to grant or to revoke or to suspend a licence or permit shall be final and shall not be called in question by any court on any ground whatsoever."

Lau J. held in the first place that the Minister could not rely on section 13A(1) of the Act as, according to its wording, it did not apply to the imposition of conditions in licences, particularly where the conditions impinged on constitutional matters. She agreed with the applicant that provisions that restrict constitutional rights should be strictly construed, and that the ouster clause could not deprive the court of jurisdiction to exercise its powers of judicial review. She quoted the Court of Appeal of Malaysia's 1995 decision ''Syarikat Kenderaan Melayu Kelantan Bhd. v. Transport Workers' Union'':

"An inferior tribunal or other decision-making authority, whether exercising a quasi-judicial function or purely administrative function, has no jurisdiction to commit an error of law [which categories of such error are not closed] ... Since an inferior tribunal has no jurisdiction to commit an error of law, its decisions will not immunized from judicial review by an ouster clause however widely drafted."

Illegality
The judge agreed with the Herald that the Minister had failed to take into account several relevant considerations when making his decision, including the following:


 * For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking countries have been using the word Allah in reference to the One God. The Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and a majority of other Christian denominations hold that Allah is the legitimate word for God in Malay.
 * In particular, Malay has been the lingua franca of many Roman Catholics in the Malay Peninsula, especially in Malacca and Penang, for many centuries, and they have a culture of speaking and praying in Malay. Malay-speaking Christians in the Malay Peninsula, Sarawak and Sabah have consistently used the word Allah for generations, and the word is used in the Malay and Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia) translations of the Bible used throughout Malaysia. In addition:
 * A Malay–Latin dictionary published in 1631 translated Deus (the Latin word for God) into Malay as Alla.
 * Allah was used in a printed edition of the Gospel of Matthew published in 1629, the first complete Malay Bible published in 1733, and the second Malay Bible published in 1879.
 * Abdullah bin Abdul Kadir (Munshi Abdullah), considered the father of modern Malay literature, used the word Allah when he translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852.
 * The Herald is a Roman Catholic weekly newspaper intended for dissemination of news and information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere, and is not for sale or distribution to members of the public, especially to Muslims. In the newspaper's 14–year existence there have never been any untoward incidents arising from the use of the word Allah.
 * The control and restriction of religious doctrines or beliefs among Muslims is a state matter, and thus the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such matters except in the Federal Territory.

These factual considerations were not disputed or challenged by the Minister as incorrect. By taking them into account, the Minister had committed an error of law.

In addition, the Minister and the Government of Malaysia had taken into account various irrelevant considerations, such as the following:


 * Several states of Malaysia had enacted laws to control or restrict the propagation of religions among Muslims and had prohibited the use of certain Islamic words or phrases in publications of other religions. However, as different states prohibited different words and phrases, confusion arose as to which terms were prohibited.
 * As a result, in 1982 the Government had prohibited the Al-Kitab (the Bible in the Indonesian language) under the Internal Security Act 1960. Following appeals from Christian organizations, an exemption was granted in 1982 for the use and possession of the Al-Kitab by Christians in churches.
 * However, due to continuing confusion and unease in the community due to ineffective enforcement of the prohibition against Islamic words and phrases in religious publications, on 19 May 1986 the Government determined that the words Allah, Kaabah, Baitullah and Solat were exclusive to Islam and could not be used in published materials of other religions except to explain concepts pertaining to Islam.

Irrationality
The publisher of the Herald also argued that the impugned decision was irrational in the Wednesbury sense, that is, it was "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". In addition to the reasons that the Herald had relied on to argue that the decision was illegal and unconstitutional (see below), it submitted that it was irrational and unreasonable for the Minister and the Government:


 * not to have prohibited the Roman Catholic Church from using the word Allah in worship and instruction in its faith and in the Al-Kitab, and yet to have stated that the word could not be used in the newspaper which assisted Roman Catholics in their worship and served as a medium of instruction in their faith; and
 * to require the Malay-speaking congregation of the Roman Catholic Church to use a word other than Allah to refer to God when the latter had always been used in the Church in Malaysia.

In response, the Minister and Government contended that they had taken into account relevant considerations such as the status of Islam under the Constitution, various enactments on the control and restriction of the propagation of religious doctrines and beliefs among Muslims, government policy, public security and safety, and religious sensitivity. Lau J. held that since the respondents had permitted the Catholic Church to use the word Allah for worship and in the Al-Kitab, it was only logical and reasonable if they had also permitted the use of the word in the Herald on the principle that "the greater contains the less". Thus, the respondents had acted illogically, irrationally and inconsistently.

Minister's decision
The publisher of the Herald submitted that it had a legal right to use the word Allah as it had constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression (Article 10 of the Constitution of Malaysia) and religion (Article 11(1)), to manage its own religious affairs (Article 11(3)(a)), to practise its religion in peace and harmony with Islam in any part of the Federation (Article 3), and to instruct and educate the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion (Article 12). This right extended to propagating the faith amongst the non-English-speaking faithful in Malaysia, especially Indonesian and Arabic-speaking Christians. In response, the Minister and Government claimed that the applicant's conduct contravened various state enactments controlling and restricting the propagation of non-Islamic religions among Muslims. The judge found this submission unconvincing as there was no nexus between the enactments and applicant's actions.

The judge also disagreed with the respondents that the applicant had neither shown it was unable to profess and practise its religion under Articles 3 and 11 by being prohibited from using the word Allah, nor that the prohibition had obstructed an integral practice of its religion within the meaning of Meor Atiquirahman Ishak v. Fatimah Sihi. According to Meor Atiquirahman, to determine whether a particular law or regulation is constitutional under Article 11(1), the following factors should be taken into account:

"First, there must be a religion. Secondly, there must be a practice. Thirdly, the practice is a practice of that religion. All these having been proved, the court should then consider the importance of the practice in relation to the religion. This is where the question whether the practice is an integral part of the religion or not becomes relevant. If the practice is of a compulsory nature or "an integral part" of the religion, the court should give more weight to it. If it is not, the court, again depending on the degree of its importance, may give a lesser weight to it."

Furthermore, the extent or seriousness of the prohibition and the circumstances under which the prohibition is made must be examined. A total prohibition should be viewed more seriously than a partial or temporary prohibition.

Applying Meor Atiquirahman to the facts of the case, the judge found that there was uncontroverted evidence that the use of the word Allah was a practice of the religion of Christianity in Malaysia, and that it was an essential part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay-speaking community of the Roman Catholic Church in Malaysia and integral to the practice and propagation of their faith. The Minister's exercise of power to prohibit the Herald from using the word Allah thus contravened Articles 3(1), 11(1) and 11(3) of the Constitution, and amounted to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1)(a).

State enactments
The Minister and Government contended that in deciding to prohibit the applicant from using the word Allah, they had considered the existence of state enactments controlling and restricting the propagation of religious doctrines or beliefs among Muslims which were valid under Article 11(4) of the Constitution. Moreover, the decision avoided confusion and misunderstanding among Muslims, as there was no guarantee that the Herald would be circulated only among Christians and would not fall into the hands of Muslims, particularly as the newspaper was also accessible to everyone online.

Lau J. noted that Article 11(4) authorized the control or restriction of the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief "among persons professing the religion of Islam". Reading the state enactments harmoniously with this provision, a non-Muslim might commit an offence if he used the word Allah with a Muslim, but there was no offence if the word was used with another non-Muslim person. This was consistent with Article 11(1), which states: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion, and, subject to clause (4), to propagate it." If the Court did not adopt such a construction of the state enactments, the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 3, 8, 10, 11 and 12 would be illusory. The respondents' decision was also arbitrary and disproportionate to the object sought to be achieved by the state enactments. As regards the respondents' concern that the Herald might be seen by Muslims as was accessible on the Internet, the judge said:

"In my view if there are breaches of any law the relevant authorities may take the relevant 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 that there is the restriction in the publication permit which serves as an additional safeguard which is, the word "TERHAD" ["LIMITED"] is to be endorsed on the front page and the said publication is restricted to churches and to followers of Christianity only."

Justiciability
The respondents claimed that the use of the word Allah in the Herald would be a threat to public order and safety, and would offend religious sensitivities. Further, it was for the Executive to decide what measures were necessary to protect public security and public order and to prevent offence to religious sensitivities, and the court was not in a position to question such decisions. The Court found that the respondents had provided no material evidence that the use of the word Allah caused confusion and threatened and endangered public order. It took judicial notice of the fact that in other Muslim countries, including those in the Middle East, both the Muslim and Christian communities used the word Allah without any confusion arising. In addition, the right to practise and propagate one's religion under Article 11(1) would be rendered illusory if a person could be prevented from engaging in an activity because it was possible that certain members of another religious group might become confused.

Orders
The High Court granted the applicant the following orders:


 * An order of certiorari quashing the respondents' decision of 7 January 2009 that the publication permit of the Herald for the period 1 January to 31 December 2009 was subject to the condition that the applicant was prohibited from using the word Allah pending the court's determination of the matter.
 * Declarations that:
 * the respondents' decision was illegal, and null and void;
 * Article 3(1) of the Constitution which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation did not empower and/or authorize the respondents to prohibit the applicant from using the word Allah in the Herald; and
 * pursuant to Articles 10, 11 and 12, the applicant had the constitutional right to use the word Allah in the Herald in the exercise of its right to freedom of speech and expression, right to freedom of religion (including the right to manage its own religious affairs), and right in respect of instruction and education of the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion.

On January 6, 2010, the High Court granted a stay of its own ruling that the Herald can publish the word Allah, in reference to God, in the Bahasa Malaysia section of its paper. The decision was reached in chambers, after both lawyers for the government and the church came to a mutual agreement to stay the decision until the case is settled in the Court of Appeal.

The ruling emphasized that use of the "Allah" by Christians is protected by the constitution as long as it is not used to proselytize Muslims. The court determined the home minister considered irrelevant factors when deciding to prohibit the use of "Allah" by "The Herald." The terms of reference cited in the High Court ruling stated that the Home Minister and government’s actions had been illegal, unconstitutional, irrational and had failed to satisfy that the usage of the word 'Allah' was a threat to national security.

On the ruling by the Malaysian government on February 27, 2008, The Herald's editor stated that the controversial ban on the word Allah to mean God for non-Muslims is still in place. Father Lawrence quoting a letter dated February 16, 2009, said that the printing, publishing, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words Allah, Kaabah, Baitullah and Solat were prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written with the words "FOR CHRISTIANITY" in font type Arial of size 16 in bold.

On February 26, 2009, The Herald got permission to use the word Allah on its masthead, provided it clearly states that the magazine is 'For Christians only'. This was stated in the recently gazetted Internal Security Act signed by the Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar on February 16. However on February 28, 2009, the Home Ministry rescinded the government gazette that allowed conditional use of the word Allah in Christian publications. The government's decision to ban the use of the word Allah in The Herald remained in force until the court decided otherwise.

Statements
.

Violence
­­­

Several acts of arson and vandalism have been carried out against churches in Malaysia since the Herald decision on 31 December, 2009. The government has responded by increasing security at places of worship and condemning the attacks.

The Malaysian opposition has criticized the government's handling of the Herald case and the resulting protests. Some opposition leaders claim that these protests, together with the government handling of the 'Allah' controversy may have been the prime reason for the church attacks. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has defended his government’s decision to allow Muslims to protest against the ruling, with government observers seeing it as a form of damage control.

The law firm representing The Herald was burglarized on January 14, 2010 and a lawyer's laptop  and cash was found to be missing.

A senior official in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, said that Christians in Sabah and Sarawak should be allowed to use the word “Allah” because it has been part of their custom for decades. However he said that they must respect the sensitivities of area Muslims, who are uncomfortable with the use of the word by non-Muslims, and not use the word there. Nazri further reiterated this statement including the state of Penang and the Federal Territories, adding that the other states in the country had Islamic affairs enactments which prohibited the use of the word by non-Muslims.

Church ministers from both sides of the South China Sea slammed the federal government’s latest attempt at a compromise, saying that it is a ridiculous arrangement and undermines freedom of expression in the country. The Islamic Development Department (Jakim) maintains that Christians should not be allowed to use the word “Allah”, rejecting the suggestion that the word could be used in East Malaysia while remaining banned on the peninsula. Its director-general Datuk Wan Mohamad Sheikh Abdul Aziz said there should not be two sets of laws and rules to deal with the “Allah” issue.