It seems in Malaysia there now exist groups that refuse to make our country work. Failing to realize the unique social and cultural framework that we have, either through sheer stupidity or a much sinister agenda, they continually harp on issues that they know to be sensitive and delicate, in the name of that oh-so-familiar slogan of free speech. Regretfully, these exact same groups often forget about the importance of ‘responsible conduct’ when they embrace that convenient slogan. I am all for free speech, don’t get me wrong. But I am also totally against stupidity and irresponsibility.

The controversial “Allah” issue should not be an issue in the first place, if those involved could be wise enough to put national harmony before any other goals. I am not a theology scholar, so I would not attempt to address this issue from that angle. Furthermore, I see the unrestrained and zealous comments of those without knowledge and expertise, on everything under the sun, to be the main cause of the bulk of the problems we have today.

Allah is an Arabic word that had been used in the Malay world since the coming of Islam to this region. Historical chronology suggests that Muslim traders, whom arrived earlier compared to Christian missionaries, were those responsible for the introduction. The study of linguistics and semantics will tell us that words are “sounds” that we give meaning to. The process in which a word acquires its meaning and significance is a complex and interesting study of human consciousness. We will not go deep into the technicalities of these processes, but suffice to say that local culture, usage and convention play a major role in assessing the significance and concept that a word embodies.

It is true that in the Arab world “Allah” is the common term for god. However, in our country, through many centuries of usage and adaptation, that same term had gained a more specific meaning with Islamic connotation. It had become a proper noun (this is why “Allah” is always written with a capital A), and as all those who had paid attention in grammar class would know, proper nouns always refer to something specific. The Malay language provides more common terms to refer to god(s) of other faiths, examples being ‘tuhan,’ ‘dewa’ and ‘dewi.’ These terms can be variously used as a common or proper noun, depending on context.

The arguments that suggests “Allah” should be used by faiths other than Islam, just because the Arabs and Indonesian Christians are using it, from a linguist’s view, is redundant, and from a nationalist’s view, preposterous. Context differs with locality, and evidently our situation and context is different from those countries. One thing that we can’t get our head around is why should we follow Indonesia’s lead? Had this country proven to be a better model for a country, in any aspect, compared to us? Why must we, after 53 years of independence, look towards a country that had on many occasions showed hostility towards us, for a solution? What is the use of being independent if we continually admire the conventions from abroad, rather than developing and having confidence in our own system?

The usage of the term “Allah” differs between East Malaysia and the Peninsula. In the Peninsula the term embodies strong Islamic connotation. The Christians here do not and never have used the term “Allah” to refer to god. In East Malaysia, however, the native Christians do use it. My Christian friends from Sarawak told me that yes they do use the term, but they always make the distinction by using “Tuan Allah” when referring to their god. They understand the confusion that could be created by the casual use of “Allah,” and they, like the Muslim natives of East Malaysia, did not like the idea of confusion. For them, if one was to convert to any religion, one should not be confused as to which god one is submitting oneself to.

Christianity exists in various sects throughout the world. The liturgical languages used in the services differ with sect and location. The Vatican Catholics use Latin. The various Eastern Orthodoxies use Russian, Armenian, and Greek etc. The Coptic uses Arabic, while the Syriacs are probably the only church left still using the original language of Jesus, Aramaic. The plethora of languages used for services, and the lack of effort to reestablish Aramaic as the liturgical language (since it was the language spoken by Jesus himself), seems to suggest the name by whom god is called is not of central importance in Christian doctrine. If it was of grave concern, it would have been corrected a long time ago, in the various councils convened throughout Christian history. The use and adaptations of the various liturgical languages were accepted and tolerated by the original, pre-Christian practitioners of those languages. We assume that none of these communities opposed the absorption of their languages as a liturgical language by the Christian community. It seems to us that The Herald, through its active pursuit of this issue, is trying to break from the Christian convention, by imposing their will on the Malay language. This is despite the clear opposition and resistance of a majority of the original practitioners, the Malays. This makes us wonder the level of respect those from The Herald have with regards to the Malay community, in contrast to their predecessors who were in contact with the pre-Christian communities whose languages are now part of Christian liturgical practices. We would feel very much sad for the Christian faith, if its image of toleration and love is marred by The Herald, which seems adamant about imposing its will on a visibly reluctant community.

Maybe those from The Herald were not aware of the linguistic connotation and significance of the term “Allah,” and how it applied to the Malaysian context. We will give them the benefit of the doubt. They were testing waters unexplored. However, what we find unsettling is the zeal with which they are pursuing the issue. Muslims had clearly expressed their grievances and disagreement when this issue started, long before it spiraled into the chaos that it is now. It appears to us that those from The Herald were not wise enough to lay off the case when the ban was made by the Government. They decided that no, they had to bring it to another level. We say this action was unwise because they failed to realize the dire consequences it had on our social harmony. It doesn’t take a university education to see that tensions were brewing (then). Let us hope that this is just a case of poor judgment and lack of wisdom on the part of those from The Herald. We would be damned as a nation, if they did actually know exactly what they were doing. Stupidity can be forgiven, but malicious intent is much graver.

We Malaysians cannot begin to describe how angry we are at those responsible for the church and surau attacks. As I said earlier, I am totally against stupidity and irresponsibility. Hey morons, what did you think you were achieving by those attacks? The action was too stupid because it did not contribute to any solution. And do you honestly think that the Muslims and Christians will hail you as heroes for your cowardice? Why should they, after you smeared their image. Most Malaysians understand our faith well enough to know that it is strictly forbidden to cause damage to houses of worship. Whoever you are, we hope you will be sentenced the severest punishment. Scumbags like you are part of that group which I said refuse to make our country work. Please excuse my harsh language, but I put high emphasis on the exactness of meaning.

When Caliph Umar Al-Khattab entered Jerusalem, he was offered by the Patriarch of Jerusalem to pray inside the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. He refused, preferring to pray just outside it. Nothing in the doctrine of Islam or Christianity prevented him to pray in the church. It was only his foresight and good judgment that explained this action. He realized the implications the Christians will have if he did pray in it. He did not want future quarrels between Muslims and Christians over the significance of the church. Those with wisdom and good intent will never pursue anything just because they can. Doing things just for the sake of doing it, without much consideration for future implications is stupid, and might we say, destructive. We urge all those involved in this scandal to ponder the significance of Caliph Umar’s decision, and think about the consequences our actions today will have on the future.

I will refrain from making comments about the ruling made by Justice Lau. I will leave that task to the public. We believe that we are guaranteed the right to having our own opinion under the Constitution. We hope the next judge dealing with this case will impress us with a verdict worthy of the case. Please take into consideration the unique social and cultural framework that our country is based upon, and the consequences your judgments will have on the future of our harmony. We put our faith in the judicial system, so please do not disappoint us.

When the British granted us independence, they believed that we will become a failed nation, considering the social setting that they themselves had developed in our nation. So far we had proved them wrong. We must understand the unique and delicate situation that we are. Sensitivity and consideration must be employed in conducting ourselves. It will be such a shame if our actions today will contribute to the realization of what the British had predicted when they left us. For the sake of our nation, please ponder and think where we want our country to go from here. We decide.

Ku Ali