It really is not my intention to turn the politics of Islamic countries into a ten-truck motorway pile-up comedy show. They do it to themselves. I just happen to be standing on the overpass with my handycam, that’s all.

Take a look at Malaysia. Three judges of the Malaysian appellate court have just overruled a verdict handed down in 2009, which allowed (a tad condescendingly) non-Muslim faiths to use the Arabic word “Allah” to refer to their God. Please note how respectful I’m being here. I carefully chose upper case. The new ruling specifies the name “Allah” as distinctly Islamic. From now on, only Muslims may use this word to refer to their unique Deity. All other faiths must find another word, as the use of Allah, however traditional it may be in their communities, is now prohibited to them. Specifically, the court is talking about publications, but the ruling has already been given a wider interpretation because, quite reasonably, when someone says a thing they are effectively making it public, broadcasting and ergo “publishing” it, albeit to a limited “distribution” of people in a room.

Malay Christians have been quick to point out that they have always used the name “Allah” in the monotheist sense, as equivalent names in regional languages carry the baggage of cultural attachments to local pagan religions. They insist that depriving them of their word for God will entail mental pain of a high order: a denial of their cultural heritage, a reorientation of many expressions and idioms, not to mention the retranslation of all their scriptures and books. But many influential Muslims are obstinate and vocal in their support of the ruling. They insist that “Allah” is theirs alone, and in a predominately Islamic nation (70%), who is going to argue? I am, for one, even if I don’t live there. Why? Because the ruling is petty, ignorant and unfounded, that’s why.

Firstly, and most importantly from the Islamic perspective, the Prophet himself uses the name “Allah” in the context of historical verses recounting the hardships and triumphs of God’s messengers before him. Allah’s interactions with the biblical prophets are described in the Quran. Thus it is clear by what name Mohammed wants the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus to be known to his own faithful … and that name is Allah. Moreover, the extension of the protection of Islamic institutions under the Caliphate to the “People of The Book” must surely include the use of names and attributes. The term “People of the Book” refers directly to Christians and Jews, although it could reasonably be enlarged to include Zoroastrians, if only by inference, since these appear in one of the gospels as the Three Wise Men from the East. These faiths can all be found in modern Malaysia, and unless that nation’s Jews speak Hebrew, which I doubt, or the Zoroastrians all speak Farsi, which is possible but unlikely, then they are all affected by the ruling.

Secondly, but most important when arguing from an etymological and historical point of view … the Christians got there first! Pre-Islamic Christian communities in the Fertile Crescent shared the same linguistic roots as their Muslim descendants and generally used the name “Allah” to describe the God of Jesus, even leaving inscriptions on their tombstones to that effect: a common one being a description of the deceased as “Abd Allah” or the Servant of God, precursor of the modern Arab name Abdullah. So such a restriction on the use of the term as is here being indicted into law transgresses one of the most universally accepted fundamentals of any jurisprudence: the legitimacy of ancient use or the primacy of precedence.

Thirdly, and most damning for the so-called judges who have thus transparently exposed their ignorance to the guffaws of the world, Jesus himself used it. When not referring to his “Father” (“Ab-ba”), Jesus used “Alaha”, the name for God in his own Aramaic tongue, the language of the first written accounts of his teachings and thus at the root of all Christian philology and exegesis. Do the judges really wish to put either the Islamic Jesus, son of Mary, or the Christian Jesus, Son of Allah, in the dock? Do they know who they’re messing with?

So, having convincingly demonstrated how ignorant and unfounded the Appeals Court ruling is, it is only left to me to demonstrate its pettiness and append a Q.E.D. to this article. The ruling is petty, insofar as it seems particularly small-minded to legislate people’s use of a term that is neither defamatory nor crude, neither pejorative, insidious nor slanderous. But perhaps “petty” is the wrong adjective. Indeed, is “petty” a word one should ever use to describe the wise deliberations and conclusions of respected men, lights of their community, holding high office in one of its most influential institutions, men whose behaviour and character should be above reproach? For just how “petty” is it to deliberately ratchet up the tension in an already taut relationship? Can “petty” be the appropriate descriptor when the decision these giants of jurisprudence have handed down is equivalent, not to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, but to throwing a bomb into a theatre that is already burning?

If there were an adjective that best describes the incitement to violence represented by this verdict, it would be “reckless”. And if I were a supreme court judge in Malaysia, I’d be after these three wise guys for “inflammatory discourse with the intention to arouse inter-communal violence” … and if that violence were indeed to erupt, which in the meantime it has, then I’d take them all down as accessories to whatever crimes were committed in the name of the God of their choosing.


© Edwin Drood, October 2013