There is nothing that is at once both sinister and hilarious as a nation enacting regulations based on religious dictates. These efforts are hilarious because they sound, to a foreigner’s ear, as the most ridiculous laws that humans invented. Governments informed by faith ban stuff that is innocuous (to wit the Saudi ban on women driving!). They then mandate stuff that is moronic. And they divide communities on the basis of irrational beliefs. But more than stupid, these rulings are sinister for these directives, be they blasphemy or moral impositions, can entrench bigotry and lead to savagery.
Beacons of tolerance capture control of a word in the fight against freedom. |
A week ago,
a court ruled that only Muslims can use the word
"Allah" to refer to God. The absurdity
of this is that “Allah” is a combination of two Arabic words meaning “The God”
where “al” Is the definite article and “Lah” is a slight abbreviation of the
word for deity. Thus Allah is the God
and in a monotheistic sense, the sole god (lower case “g”). It is not only deployed by Muslims. It is the word used by Arabic and Maltese
Christians, some Sephardi Jews and other faiths with an Arabic communion such
as the Baha’i.
In one sense I get the Judge. Outside the Middle East, the word Allah does
have Islamic overtones. But those
overtones are not actually correct. And
anyway, who cares? The word is not monopolised
in monotheism by Islam and even if it were solely used in Islam, why the
problem with others talking the Allah talk?
Malaysia is a society with three ethnicities,
Chinese, Indian and Malay (Bumiputra), who are treated differently by
their government. The Bumiputra have
racial preference through affirmative action by way of various employment and
other advantages. This discrimination is
underpinned by the faith differences.
The Bumiputra are overwhelmingly Muslim; the 8% Indians
are Tamil Hindus and the 25% Chinese are Buddhist with a Christian sub-minority. This ruling is aimed at the Chinese
Christians and therefore appears to be part of the Malaysian ethnic issues
rather than a pan Islamic one.
So outside Malaysia, if is fortunate that a number
of Muslim scholars are condemning the decision. For example, in Pakistan, the ruling has been
called insular by the Dawn newspaper. Islamic theologians and some Malaysian politicians
also regard the decision with dismay.
Nonetheless,
this does shed some light on how the provincial Muslims in an otherwise modern
country view faith and ethnicity.
Clearly, litigants and the judge in this case (on appeal to a State
court) felt that this matter was of such gravity that dramatic action was
needed. More objective observers in KL
seem to be ashamed by the decision. However, it is clearly an attack on the
Christian minority’s religious freedom and therefore is disgusting. In more violent countries, such rulings
inevitably signal the legitimate hounding of Christians and other apostates by
the followers of Islam. It is incumbent
on all atheists to condemn this in the name of Christian freedom and I do so.
In Africa,
the Middle East and parts of Asia, this ruling would be just another signal for
a religious pogrom. This ugly decision
is bigotry writ large and is a great advertisement for atheism.
What is
your view?
Is this
ruling an isolated provincial mistake or evidence that supports the view that Islam
generally is intolerant?
Is this
just an anomaly or conclusive evidence that atheism is wonderful?
What is it
about the combination of faith and ethnicity that leads both to brilliant
cultural diversity and murderous violence?
Will ethnicity and faith ever be separated?
Over to you
guys...