1. Malaysiakini（http://www.malaysiakini.com）
(1) PAS can keep 'Allah', but Pakatan's decision stands, 4 February 2013
‘The constitution has made it clear, so has the courts, so has Pakatan Rakyat. PAS wants to differ, let them.'
PAS: No second thoughts on 'Allah' issue
Black Mamba: I don't see the rationale why DAP chairman Karpal Singh should appeal to PAS on the use the word ‘Allah'. PAS is being true to its calling as a Islamic party and a defender of its own doctrine.
Its syura council can decide on anything it wants. But its decisions are not binding on non-Muslims.
It's the courts in our secular system that decide if non-Muslims can use the word ‘Allah' and so far the courts have ruled in the non-exclusive use by all stakeholders of other faiths.
Just leave it as that and not make a big issue out of a non-issue that has been around for centuries.
The Mask: I fully agree and endorse the view that we should leave the ‘Allah' issue alone. The PAS syura council has every right to make the decision.
On the other hand, we Christians will continue to call our God any way we like, including Allah in Bahasa Malaysia.
TimeForChange: Why beg PAS to reconsider? If there was a previous agreement with the other partners in the coalition to allow ‘Allah' to be used by non-Muslims, then we have to ask ourselves whether PAS has kept faith with its partners. Why the 180-degree turn?
Jiminy Qrikert: PAS' strategy is simple. It is playing to the gallery of Malays in the super Malay-majority states/seats. These seats have very small numbers of non-Malay voters.
Moreover, it is very likely that within these groups of non-Malays in the super majority-Malay seats, there are only a very small number of Christians.
So, the gamble is to appeal to the Umno Malay fence-sitters and undecided Malays via religion. It wants to come across as champions of Islam while pissing off only a few Christians.
It is a fine knife-edge gamble, but PAS did not account for a majority of non-Muslims being pissed-off.
So, the simple clarion call to all non-Muslims is vote PKR or DAP. Just remember to cross out the PAS symbol as your vote of protest.
There must be sufficient numbers of protest votes for PAS to realise that they cannot back stab non-Muslims and get away with it.
If they can do this when they are fighting to get into Putrajaya, imagine what PAS will do when they get in. There might be Malays too who will protest.
Shanandoah: Pakatan must divorce itself from PAS. If that is not possible, DAP should quit the Pakatan coalition and go it alone if necessary.
Malaysia is a secular country. Do not let theocracy creep in slowly under any circumstances. It's religion that brought in all the illegal immigrants into the country.
How could any word be exclusive only to a certain religion? That's ridiculous. If so, then it has to be patented.
Rahman: Either PAS abandons Pakatan or Pakatan ejects PAS. The one taking the initiative will have more credibility.
Pemuda Tua: I've two Christian friends who are still committed to vote for Pakatan. I don't see any much impact from this issue on Pakatan and PAS.
Both of them understand that the PAS syura council decision is based on Islamic beliefs. It is the words of the Holy Quran and the hadith that led to such a decision and no one can change that, even if PAS has to lose votes for this.
PAS respects other religious beliefs and we expect the same thing from others. Again, if the majority in Pakatan decide otherwise, then what can PAS say? Remember that PAS has agreed that any implementation of Pakatan policies must be based on majority vote.
We're making a decision based on our own religious beliefs. To go against it, Allah will damn us to hell. That is a risk that we don't want to take. We're not hypocrites like Umno-BN.
Cogito Ergo Sum: Just right at the 11th hour, Pakatan leaders screw up. Now, when BN gets its two-thirds majority, Pakatan has an excuse - its stand on 'Allah' has done it in.
ABBN: Can our East Malaysian Christian brothers and sisters call their God ‘Allah' while they are in West Malaysia?
MA: So at the end of the day, we Christians and like-minded people should not be voting any PAS fellows either to the state or parliament seats.
They have proven once too many times that they are all wolves in sheep's clothing.
Apa Ini?: The constitution has made it clear, so have the courts and so has Pakatan. PAS wants to differ, let it. In any case, don't vote BN. Get off the issue, Karpal.
Human Being: The syura council has no jurisdiction over non-Muslims. Period. Non-Muslims can call their gods or God by whatever names they like.
・The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments.
(2) Checks on non-Muslim groups are unconstitutional, 6 February 2013
by MCCBCHST
The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) is of the view that Article 11 of the federal constitution sufficiently provides for and safeguards the right of each person to profess and practice one’s religion of choice.
Further, Article 11(3) expressly provides that every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.
Accordingly, any attempt by any party to dilute the rights expressly provided for by the federal constitution would be tantamount to denigrating the supreme law of the country.
Recently, the Selangor Islamic Council (Mais) issued a statement to the effect that the use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims is prohibited.
The statement by Mais also gave the impression that its ruling would be binding on non-Muslims. This is tantamount to imposition of restrictions by an Islamic council or body against non-Muslims. lt could also be seen as an attempt to control the religious practice of a non-Muslim religion by an Islamic body or organisation.
Any attempt to govern non-Muslims or interfere with non-Muslims’ practice of their religion by any Muslim body must be stopped immediately. It would be against the federal constitution.
This unhealthy practice could also lead to unwanted social repercussions and raising of tensions between communities.
The federal constitution clearly provides and guarantees religious freedom and the right for each religious body to regulate their own affairs. The federal constitution under Article 11(4) allows the states to enact laws to restrict propagation of other religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
However, there are no laws whether federal or state that enables any Muslim body or organisation to impose rulings or ‘fatwas’ on non-Muslims. In any event, any laws that are inconsistent with the federal constitution would be void pursuant to Article 4 of the federal constitution.
The only restriction imposed on non-Muslims in the federal constitution, pursuant to Article 11(4), would be pertaining to the “propagation of religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”.
However, there are no restrictions imposed on the practice or propagation of a religion among persons who do not profess or practice Islam.
ln other words, if you do not profess or practice Islam then no restrictions may be placed on you as to how you practice your religion. Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs.
ln this regard, in the Herald’s case the High Court had held: ... (i) The rulers and Agong have no prerogative powers to govern the affairs of other religions and the fact that the affairs of other religions are governed not by the rulers and Agong but by their own religious group is clearly enshrined in Article 11(3) of the federal constitution.
lf any action is taken by rulers and Agong which affect affairs of non-Islamic religions, such action would be construed as unconstitutional. Further, if any laws other than those set out in Article 11(4) of the federal constitution are passed, such laws would also be construed as unconstitutional.
Overlooked fact
We further view with concern the statement by the former Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheik bdul Halim that “non-Muslims cannot use the word ‘Allah’ as it is enshrined in the constitution of 10 states that restricts its usage to Muslims only”.
We fail to understand how the former chief justice could overlook the fact that all the enactments of the 10 states are made under Article 11( ) of the federal constitution, and that Article 11(4) only provides for the “control or propagation of any religious doctrine or belief amongst persons professing the religion of Islam”.
This article does not forbid other religions from propagating to their adherents.
Therefore, the provisions in the state enactments, forbidding the use of certain words by non-Muslims is clearly unconstitutional and was therefore rightly held so by the High Court in December 2009.
The fact that “Islam is the religion of the federation” in Article 3 of the federal constitution is not disputed by anyone.
However, we must point out that it is balanced by the word “and” and the second limb of Article 3 need to be read together with the first limb that is “other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the federation”.
The provisions of Article 3 (4) that “Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this constitution, means that Article 3 stands independently and does not affect other provisions of the federal constitution.
Lord President Salleh Abas in Che Omar bin Ghe Soh V PP (1988) 2 MLJ 55 (SC) stated “...the intention in making Islam the official religion of the federation was primarily for ceremonial purposes for instance to enable prayers to be offered in the Islamic way on official occasions such as the installation of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Merdeka Day and similar occasions”.
This explanation was accepted by the rulers and accordingly Article 3 enacts that “Islam is the religion of the Federation”. The Supreme Court went on to say that the law in the country today is secular law.
Accordingly, the MCCBCHST supports the decision of our respective member organisations to continue the use of the word ‘Allah’ as found in their Holy Scriptures.
To otherwise impose any restrictions on any religious group on the practice of its own religion would be unconstitutional.
Daozhang Tan Hoe Chieow - president, MCCBCHST
Sardar Jagir Singh - deputy president, MCCBCHST
Venerable Sing Kan - vice-president, MCCBCHST
Reverend Dr Thomas Philips - vice-president MCCBCHST
RS Mohan Shan - vice-president, MCCBCHST
Prematilaka KD Serisena - hon secretary-general, MCCBCHST
・The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) is a non-profit interfaith organisation in Malaysia.
(3) Interfaith group warned for defending use of 'Allah', 7 February 2013
A Muslim organisation has warned an interfaith group not to defend the use of the word "Allah" as the Malay translation for God in Malay language bibles.
"The Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) should consider the possible consequences of their calls that are against the federal constitution, said Pertubuhan Muafakat Sejahtera Masyarakat Malaysia (Muafakat) president Ismail Mina Ahmad.
"The anger of Muslims can no longer be contained, judging from the response of the Muslim community through police reports, public talks, demonstrations, and information sessions. If untoward incidents happen, then the MCCBCHST should be blamed," he said in a statement today.
He was criticising MCCBCHST's statement yesterday for defending the use of the translation and questioning the Selangor Islamic Council (Mais), as well as former Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheik Abdul Halim, both who forbade its use.
In MCCBCHST's statement, the group argued that such interference of how non-Muslims propagate their religion to other non-Muslims is an infringement of Article 11(3) of the federal constitution, which gives the right to each religious group to manage their own affairs.
Ismail said the issue is a "destructive political chess game" and MCCBCHST should avoid it.
In addition, he urged Muslim NGOs who sits in the interfaith harmony promotion committee with MCCBCHST, to reconsider their membership, because the latter is "dishonest and not earnestly trying to make peace".
2. WorldWide Religious News（http://wwrn.org）
Ahmadinejad visits Cairo: How sect tempers Islamist ties between Egypt, Iran
by Kristen Chick ("The Christian Science Monitor," February 5, 2013)
Cairo - Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Cairo today in the first visit of an Iranian leader to Egypt since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Although Mr. Ahmadinejad traveled to Egypt for a summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, not specifically to meet with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, his trip highlights the thaw in Egyptian-Iranian relations since an uprising unseated former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Egypt literally rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad and President Morsi greeted the Iranian president with a kiss on the cheek as he welcomed him at the airport. Morsi made the first visit to Tehran by an Egyptian leader in three decades in August, also for a summit.
But while Ahmadinejad's visit is historic, analysts say it does not likely herald the start of close ties between the two regional powerhouses because Egypt has too much to lose with its Sunni Gulf backers and international allies.
“There are very real constraints on Morsi's ability to concretely improve relations with Iran,” says Elijah Zarwan, a Cairo-based senior policy fellow for the European Council on Foreign Relations. With Egyptian state institutions like the intelligence service opposed to strengthening ties with Iran, and Egypt's wealthy allies in the Gulf and the US also frowning at the prospect, “the costs to closer ties with Iran far outweigh the benefits,” says Mr. Zarwan. The US, European countries, and Cairo's Sunni Gulf allies are all hostile to Shiite powerhouse Iran.
Egypt and Iran cut ties after a 1979 revolution brought hardline clerics to power in Tehran, while in Egypt then-president Anwar Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel. Egypt offered asylum to Iran's exiled leader, Shah Reza Pahlavi. Iran named a street in Tehran after the assassin who killed Sadat. Egypt soon became a major US ally in the region, while Iran became an enemy.
A limited outreach
Morsi began improving relations when he visited Tehran in August for a Non-Aligned Movement summit. Yet he used the visit to criticize Iran for being one of the biggest backers of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has lost the support of most of the Arab world for ordering a violent crackdown on his country's uprising, and to call for Assad to step down. He also made a subtle dig about Shiite Islam in his summit speech.
Still, the exchange of visits would have been unthinkable during Mr. Mubarak's reign.
Morsi is under pressure to distinguish himself from Mubarak's foreign policy, and thawing relations with Iran is part of his effort to establish a more independent foreign policy, says Zarwan. Last fall Morsi proposed an initiative to end the Syria crisis that involved Iran in a regional committee, and offered Iran incentives, including restored ties, to end support for the Syrian regime. Iran did not take Egypt's offer, but the Associated Press reports that the two leaders held a 20-minute talk about resolving the Syrian conflict after Ahmadinejad's arrival. The Iranian president also visited the Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar, a respected center of Sunni Muslim scholarship and learning.
And there are other benefits to ending the enmity between the two countries, says Mustapha Kamel Al Sayyid, a political science professor at the American University in Cairo. Egypt is on a very short list of nations that do not have diplomatic relations with Iran. “Even the United Arab Emirates, which has a territorial dispute with Iran, has diplomatic relations with Iran,” he says. “Iran is a very important regional power, and it's in the interest of Egypt to have relations” with such a player.
The Gulf between
But taking serious steps to improve ties with Iran in a more concrete way would come at a high cost for Egypt.
It risks jeopardizing ties with wealthy Gulf Arab countries that are hostile to Iran like Qatar, which recently gave Egypt $2.5 billion to shore up its finances amid a floundering economy. And the US, which accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons and has sought to isolate Tehran diplomatically while also levying sanctions on it, would also be deeply dismayed. The US gives Egypt around $1.5 billion every year, mostly in military aid, and its support is seen as key for the $4.8 billion IMF loan Egypt is seeking.
A State Department spokeswoman told reporters in a press briefing yesterday that Ahmadinejad's Cairo visit is “an opportunity for the Egyptian government to give him the same strong messages that the international community has been giving about their nuclear behavior, about their terrorist behavior, etcetera.”
Egypt's foreign minister sought to allay Gulf fears yesterday when he downplayed Ahmadinejad's visit and said “Egypt's relationship with Iran will never come at the expense of Gulf nations.”
But the obstacles to closer ties aren't just international. Egypt's intelligence service, which plays an important role in Egyptian foreign policy, would be strongly opposed to serious rapprochement, notes Zarwan.
And many Islamists have concerns about the Shiite theocracy as well. The most organized Salafi group in Egypt released a statement criticizing Ahmadinejad's visit, rejecting “Shiite influence on Egypt.” Salafis helped elect Morsi and took nearly a quarter of the seats in Egypt's now-dissolved parliament. Anti-Shiite rhetoric and discrimination against Egypt's tiny Shiite minority are common in Egypt.
・Disclaimer: WWRN does not endorse or adhere to views or opinions expressed in the articles posted. This is purely an information site, to inform interested parties of religious trends.
(End)
