However, Mais’s entire justifications for the raid and seizure of the copies of the Bible are either misinterpretation of a law by itself defective, or outright lies in stating the facts.
Mais chairperson Mohamad Adzib Mohd Isa in a statement described the raid as “inspection and investigation”. He said Jais’ action was in response to public complaints regarding the publication of the Malay Bible (Al-Kitab), “wherein the name ‘Allah’ is in the Bible – which, if proven - is an offence under Section 9 of the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Enactment)”.
Mohamad Adzib said the investigation was needed to determine whether such publications containing the word ‘Allah’ have contravened Section 9 of the 1988 Enactment. And the enforcement of such a law was meant to “prevent the propagation of other religious doctrine or belief amongst the Muslims”, and therefore it should not be interpreted as interference into the practice of other religions.
But Section 9, which prohibits the use of ‘Allah’ and 33 other Arabic words and phrases irrespective of whether these words are used in proselytizing to Muslims, is ultra vires the 1988 Enactment’s own preamble which clearly states that the entire purpose of the 1988 Enactment is to prevent proselytisation of Muslims as provided under Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
Section 9 is also ultra vires Article 11(2) and (3) of the federal constitution which guarantee full freedom to practice and manage one’s religion with the only proviso under Article 11(4) which allows state governments to enact state laws to restrict the propagation of other religious doctrines to Muslims.
In other words, the only possible restriction to religious freedom under the federal constitution is the freedom to proselytise to Muslims. Any other restriction - including dictating what a religion should not do - is a breach of Article 11(3).
Hence, Section 9 of the 1988 Enactment is hopelessly defective and inoperative in law as it indiscriminately bans the use of these prohibited words without considering whether these words are actually used to proselytise to Muslims.
Merely ‘inspecting and investigating’
Moreover, the wording of Section 9 is such that an offence is only committed through the act of delivering public speeches or making public statements. Possession and storage of publication - as in the case of BSM - is definitely not an offence under the 1988 Enactment.
Mohamad Adzib also claimed that Jais was merely “inspecting and investigating”, but this is clearly a blatant lie, as the 15 Jais officers accompanied by police - without any search warrant - threatened with aggressive language to break into the BSM premises if denied entry, and carted away all the 300 over copies of the Bible and arrested BSM’s president and its manager, who were later released on police bail.
If the purpose was really to check on the holy book, wouldn’t it have been sufficient to just ask for a copy of it? Why threaten the owners and confiscate all books and arrest its top officials?
Mohamad Adzib also tried to support the Jais raid by bringing in the Selangor Fatwa Committee which had earlier issued a fatwa prohibiting the use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims. The simple answer to that is: fatwa is not applicable to non-Muslims as they are not subject to Syariah jurisdiction. Islamic authorities cannot dictate to other religions what word to use or not in their religious practice.
Mohamad Adzib further sought support from the recent Court of Appeal ruling on ‘Allah’, but that wouldn’t help either, as the judgment only upholds the home minister’s banning of Catholic weekly The Herald from using ‘Allah’. Such a ban has certainly not been extended to the Bible.
It is clear that all the justifications put up by Mohamad Adzib are either flawed in law or false in fact.
Hence, Jais is clearly guilty of illegal entry, robbery and wrongful arrest.
It is amazing how the proponents of the ‘Allah’ ban could remain recalcitrant in the face of overwhelming world opinion - in particular the Islamic world - that expressed disapproval or puzzlement, or even ridicule at the Malaysian government’s unique action to prohibit non-Muslims from using a word universally accepted as the name to call the Almighty God.
Especially when ‘Allah’ was used by Arab Christians and Jews to call their God long before the founding of Islam, and the Quran also readily accepted the practice of sharing this name with other religions.
Have these proponents of the ban ever given serious thoughts to why all the 1,400 million Muslims in the world have no qualms about other religions using ‘Allah’, with the exception of perhaps a few million in Malaysia?
Why should these few million Malaysian Muslims be so special?
Are they so sure that their conviction is grounded in the Holy Quran?
by KIM QUEK, a retired accountant and author of the banned book, 'The March to Putrajaya'.
Hi! Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that Encourage me for collecting more valuable books myself. So this is a numerous post. Islamic Bookstore Islam is the religion of peace, and it is a standout amongst the most consecrated and reliable religions, which has given us direction in each part of life. Not only that, Islam has given us instruction with learning which has no restrictions.
ReplyDelete