In Malaysia, the Sultan of Selangor had recently decreed that all non-Muslims in the state of Selangor is banned using the word "Allah" as it is a holy word exclusive to Muslims.
It would appear that His Highness echoes, reiterates and refines a particular piece of the law - 'Section 9 of the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 prohibits the use of "Allah" by non-Mulsims in any matter related to their religions.'
While the section imposes silence of the word on those who practice another religion (by that logic, atheists, humanists and Freemasons to a certain extent could use the word, as these labels are clearly not 'religions'), His Highness, upon the edict, appears to have made a blanket ban on all who do not profess to the religion.
PAS on the other hand, opines that Islam does not restrict the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims, it must not be "misused' by them to the extent that it confuses Muslims.
What is the aim of the decree? Various quarters have replied by upholding the sanctity of Islam. The fact that tickles the logical faculty of the brain is that there are many more prominent ways to uphold the sanctity. For instance, encouragement of doing more charitable acts of kindness.
Arguably, there ought to be a separation of state and religion (while still able to maintain Islam as the official religion of Malaysia). By law in Malaysia, the Sultan is the religious leader of Islam, and has powerful jurisdictions in religious affairs. The bone of contention which arises is why can it be allowed for a decree in one religion affect the religion of another (and to a certain extent non-believers)? This looks like a breach of confidence of non-Muslim citizens, especially Christians who intend to use "Allah" in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible, but cannot due to a putative infringement.
Separation also reduces or prevents imposition of beliefs and values from a particular religion to another lay person who is not a believer in the said religion. Firstly, imposition of belief can be a nuisance, as to change one's beliefs to the standard of another. Secondly, impositions can be beyond persuasive in and forceful in nature which makes 'freedom to believe' as apparent as the void.
The blanket ban also seems to ooze injustice as a strict liability offence. That means those would be those lacking the intention to say the word, out of habit, at the spur of the moment or accidentally and actually utter it would be liable for the offence which is uncool. To make someone liable for an act he or she did not intend hampers and mocks further the already heavily criticized dual justice legal system.
Furthermore, to not be able to casually talk about religion in relation to the particular word only debilitates the freedom of speech of citizens. It's bad enough as it already is that many topics are considered taboo locally and are arbitrarily banned from table conversations, ranging from sex to politics to religion. Why is it that these subjects come as too sensitive as a substance to converse about? I believe, the only way we will be able to progress further mentally and socially is to able to talk about anything under the sun. Restriction of speech only agitates the more intellectual and yet one can be so surprised with the brain drain at the speed of Mach 5 from Malaysia to elsewhere.
Another issue is the the attempt to define "Allah", an arabic word which means "He is the only one lord" cannot be accurately translated to another language. Some may take a subjective approach, and finds the meaning to which he sees fit, while others sees the word on a more wholesome scale where they accept the general most accepted definition. The question of the chicken of the egg comes to mind - the objective or subjective definition?
Perhaps if we were able to have a telepathic conversation with His Highness, we can try to pick out the rationale behind this decree; till then, many of us scratch our heads in befuddlement.
