Articles 3(1) and 11(4) still prevail

Federal Court decided against The Herald Weekly highly controversial and politicised appeal to allow them to use ‘kalimah Allah’ in the publication and upheld the Court of Appeal judgment against the Christian Federation of Malaysia’s weekly.

Herald Weekly fails to get leave to appeal “Allah” ban


PUTRAJAYA: The Herald Weekly today failed to get leave from the Federal Court to challenge the Home Ministry’s ban on its use of the word “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia edition.

A seven-man panel led by Chief Justice Ariffin Zakaria delivered a majority 4-3 judgment on the matter, here, today.

Also on the panel are Court of Appeal president Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif, Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Federal Court judge Tan Sri Suriyadi Halim Omar, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum and Federal Court judges Datuk Jefrrey Tan Kok Wha and Datuk Zainun Ali.

Earlier, Perkasa vice-president Syed Osman Mansor said the non-governmental organisation will not go against any decision made by the apex court.

“Whatever the decision is, we will abide to it. We will not take it to the streets if the ruling is to allow an appeal.

“Of course, we would be disappointed if the appeal is allowed but as I said we will abide to the decision,” he said.

Perkasa president Datuk Ibrahim Ali said that disappointed or not the people will have to accept the decision.

“We had on various occasions discussed this matter in our Supreme Council meetings and there will not be any sort of demonstration.

Some 500 Perkasa members, men, women and children, clad in black T-Shirt written “Allah just for Muslim” had gathered at the Palace of Justice as early as 5.30am to show support.


The four versus three majority at the Federal Court decision upheld that the definitive provision in the Federal Constitution 3(1) where it states ‘Islam is the religion of the Federation of Malaysia’ and 11(4) prohibiton to profess the faith of Non Islamic religion to Muslims, still stand.

Article 3.1 & 3.2 of the Federal Constitution

Article 3.1 & 3.2 of the Federal Constitution

Despite this judgment is on the case brought forth by CFM to take to court Home Ministry for banning the ‘kalimah Allah’ in the Malay edition of the Herald, this should be the precedent and an end  on the controversy, once and for all.

Any interpretations about using “Allah” to replace “God” in Christian publications should fall back to this ruling.

This include in the case of Malay bibles, confiscated from the Bible Society of Malaysia on 2 January 2014 in Damansara Kim, Petaling Jaya. Majlis Islam Selangor (MAIS), which is the state religious council and answerable directly to HRH Sultan Selangor already proclaimed that the seized bibles would not be returned.

The score on Apex Court's landmark ruling, which comes against pockets of minority's fancy

The score on Apex Court’s landmark ruling, which comes against pockets of minority’s fancy

This is consistent to the titah of HRH Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah Ibni Almarhum Sultan Salahuddin Abdul Aziz Shah that “Allah is exclusive to Muslims and other faiths are prohibited to use it”.

However, it is clear many pockets of minority who claims to be Malaysians and swore by the Federal Constitution including legal practitioners, are not able to respect the decision of the Apex Court. The 4-3 majority rule that translate to the interpretation of the existing laws in the context of upholding the Court of Appeal ruling to disallow the use of ‘kalimah Allah’ by CFM The Herald is sublime.

The Malay Mail online:

Bar VP: Federal Court should have allowed ‘Allah’ appeal

JUNE 23, 2014

1 1 Google +0 1

Muslim supporters gather in front of the Federal Court as they wait for the seven-member bench to decide on the appeal by the Catholic church against a lower court’s decision forbidding it to use the word ‘Allah’ in its publication, on June 23, 2014. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng

KUALA LUMPUR, June 23 — The Federal Court should have permitted the Catholic Church to challenge a court decision upholding a ban on its use of “Allah” in its newsletter as the application met the criteria for appeal, said vice president of the Malaysian Bar Steven Thiru.

Steven said the questions posed in the case had fulfilled the requirements of Section 96(a) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, which involved the questions of public importance, as well as Section 96(b) on constitutional issues.

“It is regrettable that the Federal Court refused leave,” Steven told The Malay Mail Online today.

“The Federal Court has missed the opportunity to decide on important points of constitutional and administrative law that affect minorities’ rights and the protection of minority rights under our constitutional scheme,” he added.

Earlier today, the Federal Court rejected the Catholic Church’s application to appeal against the Home Ministry’s ban on the Arabic word “Allah” in its weekly paper, the Herald, in a 4-3 decision by the seven-member bench.

Steven said the case of the Herald had raised important constitutional questions involving Article 3 (Islam is the religion of the federation), Article 8 (equality before the law), Article 11 (the right to profess and practise one’s religion) and Article 12 (the prohibition of religious discrimination) of the Federal Constitution.

The lawyer added that the Federal Court’s refusal to grant leave to the Catholic Church meant that the Court of Appeal’s ruling last year stood.

As part of its judgment, the appellate court said that “Allah” was not integral to the Christian faith and that the home minister was justified in banning the Herald from describing God with the Arabic word on grounds of national security and public order.

“It could be used as binding precedent on the lower courts unless it can be distinguished on the facts (if the other cases are on very different facts) or is shown to be ‘per incuriam’ (if it is shown that the Court of Appeal’s decision is contrary to established principles of law),” said Steven.

Already, its effects have been felt beyond the Herald, despite Putrajaya’s continued insistence that the ruling was limited to the Catholic paper.

Last month, the Kuala Lumpur High Court struck out Sabah Sidang Injil Borneo’s (SIB) 2007 lawsuit against the Home Ministry for confiscating three boxes of Malay-language Christian publications that contained the word “Allah”, citing the Court of Appeal’s decision.

It may also have repercussions on the lawsuit brought by Sarawakian Christian Jill Ireland Lawrence Bill against the Home Ministry for seizing in 2008 her personal compact discs (CD) containing the word “Allah” that is pending.

When asked if the Federal Court’s decision nullified the Cabinet’s 10-point solution that allowed the distribution of Christian holy scriptures in the Malay, Indonesian and indigenous languages, Steven said: “This could well be the upshot of the decision if the Court of Appeal’s judgment is construed as being applicable beyond the Herald case”.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia, an umbrella body representing churches nationwide, said today that it would hold Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and Putrajaya to a statement by the top lawyer on October 20, 2013, that the Court of Appeal’s decision was confined to the Herald.

Steven also said that nothing in the Federal Court’s judgment, as read out in court today, would allow Selangor’s Islamic authorities to dispose of the Malay and Iban-language bibles that they had seized from the Bible Society of Malaysia in January.

Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that “Allah” was not integral to the Christian faith and that the home minister was justified in banning the Herald from using the Arabic word on grounds of national security and public order.


Bar Council office bearers are demonstrating their attitude and arrogance no different to Chinese Chauvinists DAP. They neither respect the stance of Rulers as Constitutional Head for all religious matters nor the Federal Constitution and/nor State Constitution.

The fact is that protecting the interests of minority by challenging against what clearly provided in the Federal Constitution, which is the document  enacted by Parliament by representatives of the rakyat of upholding the sovereignty of this nation as an independent state.


Published in: on June 23, 2014 at 12:30  Comments (17)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

17 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. No. The prohibition is on the newsletter only. Not other publications. The Malay bibles is never meant for Muslim. Otherwise non Muslim should never use malay language at all as it is exclusive for malay only.

  2. When the Ducth came to what is today Indonesia, they knew the locals were using the word Allah to refer their one and only god. The equivalent of god in Dutch in the local language is tuhan. The locals would say ” tuhan kami yang esa ialah Allah”. Dutch on the other hand did not use the the word Allah and were using the word God to refer to their trinity god, god the father god the son and god the holy spirit. It was deceitful of the Dutch to translate their god into bahasa indonesia as Allah instead of tuhan.This must be corrected today and Supreme Court has done just that.

    • Ya then please correct it at East Malaysia as well without fear and not just for political support as well. Why have 2 set of rules in a country.

    • Notwithstanding the East Malaysian Bumiputeras have used the word Allah even in their Iban Bibles before Malaysia came into existence. When something is so ingrained it will be difficult and unjust to just ask them to change it for our sake i.e claiming that Muslims are confused (?). In any event, the ruling only applies to the Herald, which is a newspaper. the Iban and BM Bibles are for the East Malaysian Christians so let’s not muddy the waters.

  3. It’s a pity that God/The Almighty cannot be approached directly to ask what is His Will in this matter.

    Oh, wait – there are mere mortals who presume to be privy to the thoughts, wishes and commandments of He who is God/The Almighty.

    And, so, they can act on His behalf without “fear or favour”.

    Anyway, this issue will continue to smoulder….

    And the embers will still be there….

    Not swept under the carpet and consigned to oblivion.

    • Hah, the Oleg bloke is back. Wonder if he is connected with kinchin of the previous post. Similar tendencies – giving only opinions, no facts or references.

      Funny opinion this time – about approaching and asking God. He has been told that the opinions of others here are as good as if not better than his. No problem if the opinions don’t cause problems. But his do.

      For he says “this issue will continue to smoulder…” Kamon man, the Federal Court is the highest court of the land. No less than seven members sat. What more do you want? Why the bloody hell can’t you respect the decision of the highest court of the land? Why on earth can’t you accept that decision as final? Why in the blazes do you talk about the issue “will continue to smoulder, the embers will still be there”? You are seditious, you SOG.

      What sweeping under the carpet are you talking about? You making fun of the highest court of the land? You are contempt of court and can be hauled up, arrested and charged so.

      In the interest of ,maintaining normal relations among the adherents of the religions concerned in this country, I wish to respectfully ask that the authorities do so against him.

  4. They have to follow christian in Indonesia. Liberalize the use of ‘Yaweh’ and nobody will disturb as stipulated in the Malaysia Ruling.

    Mengado-ngado…tujuan hendak memurtadkan dan mencampuri hal ehwal Melayu Islam dan akhir nya Perlembagaan. Menyerang cara preman…

    Moga tiada lagi kalut selepas ini.

  5. […] in early 2010 due to a High Court decision in favour of the Christian Herald Weekly. While BigDog argues that the apex court’s ruling upholds Articles 3(1) and 11(4) of the Federal […]

  6. “PETALING JAYA: The Christian community will continue to use the word “Allah” in their Bibles, church services and gatherings despite the Federal Court’s dismissal of the church’s application for leave in The Herald case, said the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM).

    …..”We continue to maintain that the decision of the Court of Appeal, and its reasoning in arriving at their decision, were so critically flawed in so many respects,” said Eu.”
    – The Star

    Yes as someone pointed out it’s a pity… unless the decision is in their favor than it is the “Will of The Almighty”. Anything else is just a decision of “mere mortals who presume to be privy to the thoughts, wishes and commandments of The Almighty”

    This reminds me of what Churchill said about fanatics:
    “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

    Can the Malay Muslim (even PERKASA for that matter) be blamed solely for behaving in a way that amount to disrespecting a court ruling?

    • We must not allow the above. The authorities must seriously consider taking action on those who do not respect the decision of the Federal Court, the highest court of the land, in so far as that ruling applies to the non-use of the kalimah Allah.

      Again the blokes are giving only their opinions when saying “its reasoning in arriving at their decision, were so critically flawed in so many respects”. And such opinions make many Muslims feel uneasy because the highest court of the land has made a decision.

      They should be nipped in the bud. Take them to court so as to get a clear message across the entire population of the country that the decision of the Federal Court should not be taken lightly. It’ll be anarchy if the people are allowed not to respect and criticize the decisions of highest court of the land. There is no higher court than that in the country.

      One way to do so is to charge them in court. Either under the Sedition Act or for contempt of court or under any other laws that exist in the country now.

      • Putrajaya has stated that the ruling only applies to the Herald newspaper. So what is there to charge them in court. If we were to be fair we should also cage the likes of ISMA and PERKASA for sedition.

      • You need to read again what Jitu said – not respecting the decision of the Federal Court, the highest court of the land, by saying ““its reasoning in arriving at their decision, were so critically flawed in so many respects” appears to be a contempt of court.

      • The Federal Court ruling should bring closure to the Kalimah Allah issue which had spanned over eight years. Blogger John F Seademon also wrote that.

        He said people should note that one of the dissenting members (of the Federal court bench) is Malay and a Muslim.

        He also disputed some of the arguments made on behalf of the Catholics in Malaysia, saying that it was made without understanding the history behind this ruling and how Articles 3(1) and 11(4) of the Federal Constitution came about.

        The blogger also quoted part of the judgment delivered by the Federal Court which stated that the usage of the word “Allah” or popularly known locally as the Kalimah Allah, is not an integral part of the faith in Christianity.

        Seademon had also contended in the past that Kalimah Allah is not an integral part in Christianity. It is because the concept of trinity is an antithesis of the “Oneness” of Allah.

  7. “asked if the Federal Court’s decision nullified the Cabinet’s 10-point solution that allowed the distribution of Christian holy scriptures in the Malay, Indonesian and indigenous languages” –

    I agree that the Federal Court is the highest authority in the land. It’s even higher than the Cabinet on matters that it has ruled. The Cabinet cannot disregard or take any position which contradicts or even diverges from the Federal Court’s ruling.

    There’s no where else anybody can go to if not satisfied with the Federal Court’s ruling. Got to accept it. If any one goes against it, it’ll be contempt of court and can be charged.

  8. I wonder how this polemic will develop into should the buddhists suddenly want to call their reclining Buddha ALLAH, and the Hindus want to call one of their gods as ALLAH.

  9. Masaalah utama dengan pendatang ini ialah mereka nak pakai logik, latar belakang dan undang-undang Amerika Syarikat tetapi pada masa yang sama buat-buat lupa mereka tinggal di Malaysia.

    Bila kita persilakan puak-puak tak sedar diri ini untuk berhijrah ke negara yang undang-undangnya menepati cita rasa mereka, mereka tak mahu pulak, kerana mereka tahu mereka tak akan hidup sesenang dan semewah di negara kita.

    Mengalahkan Belanda dapat tanah, kita berkompromi macamana pun mereka tak akan puas hati. Bila dia bersuara – demokrasi, hak asasi manusia; bila kita bersuara – rasis, penganiayaan walaupun undang-undang menyebelahi kita.

  10. What is the Bar Council doing ? Politics or Laws for the benefit of the laymen or women. There are at least 3 vital Laws for Commerce and Industry which have not been up-dated or revised by the Government since their inception.

    1. The Companies Act. 1965. Not revised or updated for 49 years.

    2. The Trustees Act 1949. Not revised or updated for 65 years.

    3. The Bankurptcy Act 1967. Not revised or updated for 47 years.

    The practice of the Laws is a living matter unlike the practice of medicine in which common diseases come first. Every legal case is dfferent – hence the reliance on precedents etc.

    If our beloved Malaysia’s Laws are backward, how can we put our best foot forward and compete with our rivals in the Region ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: