KUALA LUMPUR, March 5 — Today, on Ash Wednesday, the start of the Christian holy season of Lent before Easter, the Federal Court will decide if the Catholic Church should be granted leave to contest the Court of Appeal ruling against its right to refer to God as “Allah” in its weekly, Herald.

On October 14 last year, the Court of Appeal overturned the 2009 High Court decision and found that the use of the Arabic word “Allah” was not integral to the Christian faith. The appellate court also ruled that allowing such usage would cause Muslims to be confused, and that the home minister had acted within his powers in banning the Herald from using the word. The Court of Appeal justified the ban on the grounds of national security and public order.

As the nation waits for the Federal Court to decide on whether it will go ahead and ponder key constitutional questions that the Herald case has raised, or whether it will simply leave the Court of Appeal ruling untouched, here are three things that we have learned from the “Allah” row.

1. It is about culture, not religion

“Allah” is a pre-Islamic word. It is not the name of God; it is a noun that means “The God” in Arabic. It is used without issue by Christians in Indonesia and the Middle East to refer to their God.

For centuries, Christians in Sabah and Sarawak were free to worship “Allah”. Even now amid the “Allah” row, government leaders in East Malaysia say that Christians have the right to use the word.

But former de facto law minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz said last October that Christians in East Malaysia must respect the exclusive right of Muslims to describe God as "Allah" in peninsula Malaysia, just as Malaysians here have to similarly respect customs in Borneo.

So, this appears to be a problem restricted to peninsula Malaysia. Why?

While it is viewed as a religious issue, the tussle over “Allah” is a battle by some Muslims in the peninsula to assert their cultural identity as Malay-Muslims at a time when they feel that their special position is under attack.

The rallying cry of Malay-Muslim rights groups like Perkasa and Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (Isma) would not have any traction in East Malaysia, which is the true melting pot that best illustrates “Malaysia, Truly Asia”.

As it stands, Malaysia is unique in its restriction on who may use “Allah”.

2. We do not know each other

Through it all, Muslims have asked the Christians, “Why do you now want to use ‘Allah’?”

But it is not just Muslims. Some Christians have also asked, “Why do we want to use ‘Allah’?”

If there is one thing that has surfaced from this entire tug-of-war, it is how little we actually know of one another as a nation.

As the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) points out, more than 60 per cent of Malaysian Christians only speak Bahasa Malaysia, and the word used for God in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible (Al-Kitab) since its translation in 1731, is ‘Allah’.

The word is used by Bumiputera Christians who only have Bahasa Malaysia as their common language in Sabah, Sarawak and peninsula Malaysia, and by the Baba community in Malacca.

It is not just “now” that they are seeking to use “Allah”, but rather that the rest of the country — or perhaps just peninsula Malaysia — is only now coming to realise this.

3. Things will not end with ‘Allah’ case

Whether the Catholic Church will get a chance to present further arguments to the Federal Court on their right to use the word “Allah”, or whether their battle will end abruptly today, Malaysia’s racial and religious problems will not end with the Herald case.

The case has brought to the fore long-simmering tensions that must be dealt with if Malaysia ever hopes to be a developed nation by 2020. It has also illustrated the gulf between the peninsula and East Malaysia.

Racial and religious conflict cannot be solved by the courts alone. It cannot be solved by politicians either, who will not dare take an unpopular stand, even if it is the right thing to do.

It will take each one of us to confront our prejudices, to shed our insecurities over our racial identity, and to take a leaf from our fellow Malaysians in Sabah and Sarawak on living together in diversity.

There is no silver bullet. Instead, we each must do our part for a cohesive Malaysian society that was envisioned by our forefathers.

We cannot just rely on a few individuals like Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir, or Azrul Mohd Khalib from Malaysians for Malaysia to build bridges.