Of late I have been receiving questions about the controversy these days in Malaysia about ‘Allah’ as Malay Muslims object to the use of word ‘Allah’ by Catholic Christians. The Malays feel only Malay Muslims can use the word Allah and Christians cannot. The High Court of Malaysia also allowed the use of the word Allah by Christians. However, the Government of Malaysia suspended the Supreme Court’s verdict, not because it was trying to defy the orders of Court but because the controversy has become politically unmanageable.

That multi-religious societies experience inter-communal or inter-religious tensions in some form or another is trite. All of Malaysia’s Malays are Muslims and constitute about sixty per cent of the population. In Malaysia, Malay and Muslim are synonymous. As the weaker and poorer sections of society tend to embrace Islam in the hope of equality and justice, in Malaysia too, poorer communities embrace Islam and the Malays until recently, were poor and backward. However, in modern Malaysia today, most of them are well educated and economically better off.
 
The Malays who oppose the usage of the word Allah by Christians, argue that it will confuse ordinary Malays and in view of missionary activities of Catholic Christians, they want to ward off the possibility of confusion among Malays. This may have its own rationale but does nothing to resolve the communal differences that have to be dealt with through dialogue and mutual understanding.

In fact, those who object to use of word Allah by Christians are on weak grounds. As Allah is one and creator of all of us, He cannot be monopolised by any religious, much less linguistic community. The word Allah in Arabic was in use before Islam appeared in Mecca. As Maulana Azad points out in his Tarjuman al-Qur’an, the word Allah is derived linguistically from pre-Islamic ‘eel’ as in  Jibra’il or Israf’il etc. The word in Hebrew was also iloh or  ilah and by adding ‘al’ (which in English is used to represent ‘the’). Thus al-ilah (the God) became Allah in Arabic and was used to mean supreme God.

Muslims should welcome the fact that non-Muslims too used the word to mean God or Ishwar. As such, how can one object to use of Allah by others? Anyone who learns Arabic and talks about God will have to use the word Allah. All Christian Arabs freely use Allah in countries like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon etc. and no one objects to it. At least I do not know whether any Muslim Arab has ever objected to its use.No language can be monopolised by any one religious community. In India too, many Hindus learnt Arabic and Persian which was a court language and they fluently spoke Persian and even wrote poetry in Persian. There were several first rate Urdu poets who were Hindu and they employed words like ‘Khuda and Allah in their poetry.

And as for the fear that the use of word Allah by Christians would confuse Malay Muslims and they may convert to Christianity – such a fear is simply not well grounded. Only those who feel their religion is followed without much conviction can entertain such fears.

Any multi-religious or multi-cultural democracy does not work smoothly in an ideal sense. Even advanced western countries are facing problems of inter-religious tension. In France, there is often tension between African Muslims and white Frenchmen. Such conflicts are not so much religiously inspired but economic and political in essence. Only weeks ago, the rightist French Government of Sarkozy proposed a ban on the burqa. It intends to impose a fine of 750 Euros, which is sizeable amount. Now, by any stretch, it is ridiculous for an advanced democracy to dictate what one should or should not wear. The rightist government of France has denounced the burqa as a‘prison’ and even if it is, it is not business of government to dictate the nature of dress.

However, the socialist left is opposing such a ban even though they also consider the burqa quite undesirable as well. However, they do not consider it desirable to ban it. As religion cannot be in defined by the deeds of a few extremists, secularism cannot be in danger just because some women wear the burqa in France. But the French government seems intent on scare-mongering.

In many countries with multi-religious and racial polities, the right wing within the religious majority community successfully suppresses voices of reason. Moderates are normally silenced through the creation of mass hysteria. There is a great need for civil society to play its role and support enlightened policies as most moderate intellectuals have no time or interest to study the issue in depth and become victims of high pitched propaganda.

What the world and even Malaysia needs are public intellectuals who raise their voices of reason and take a public stand, risking their own reputation, or even careers. Most of our moderate intellectuals get stuck into a discourse of indifference and give way to such extremist forces. We should always be ready like Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre or Noam Chomsky to fearlessly criticise the powers that be in keeping with conviction. What is the use of conviction which does not inspire you to speak out irrespective of consequences? Be it a controversy about Allah or burqa or crime of the Zionists or rigidity of orthodoxy. It is these moderate forces that will ultimately preserve any democracy.