SUBANG JAYA, July 14 — The current tussle over the word “Allah” is due to an “internal contradiction” in the Federal Constitution, which supports both Islamic and secular ideals, a law academic said today.

Joshua Neoh, a Malaysia-born lecturer with the Australian National University (ANU), said Malaysia’s constitution is worded in “double speak” and differing narratives, which enabled both Muslims and non-Muslims to back up their respective legal arguments in the “Allah” dispute.

“The text (in the constitution) engages in double speak, a double vision... which allows two competing ideological groups to find voices in the same (constitution).

“Both the Catholic church and Muslim fundamentalists can draw arguments to how they have the constitutional right to do what they do,” Neoh said at a seminar here titled “The name of God on trial: Narratives of law, religion and state in Malaysia.”

An example of this contradiction could be seen in the Reid Commission report — the document that helped in the drafting of Malaysia’s constitution — which stated that Malaysia is a secular state but Article 3 of the constitution places Islam as the religion of the federation.

Neoh also pointed out that the Federal Constitution guarantees the rights of a Malaysian to profess a religion of choice, yet at the same time, Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam.

“Muslims can propagate to non-Muslims but not otherwise… Muslims cannot come out of Islam but non-Muslims can convert into Islam,” he said.

“How do you make sense of this? The constitution leaves Malaysia in a bind,” he added.

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

Joshua Neoh said Malaysia’s constitution is worded in 'double speak' and differing narratives, which enabled both Muslims and non-Muslims to back up their legal arguments in the 'Allah' dispute, on July 14, 2014. — Picture by Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

Commenting on this, Neoh said that issue at hand went beyond the legal fight for the exclusive use of the Arabic word for God, observing that the dispute will continue outside of courtrooms.

The tussle was a symptom of a larger context on the very meaning of the country’s supreme law, he said.

“It is a contest about the origin of our state and the future of Malaysia. The court does not have the final word, the courts never have the final word in any constitutional matter,” he said.

Neoh added that dissenting judgments, like in the Herald case were crucial as it allows a counter-argument on the matter.

“All decisions could be revisited and challenged judicially. The losing side in a judicial battle can always live to fight another day. That is the very nature of (a) constitutional interpretation,” the lecturer said.