A while ago, I wrote a letter Compromise for Allah which basically called for the Catholic Church to 'relinquish' use of the term 'Allah' for the sake of everyone getting along.

That was a few weeks ago. Since then, I've pondered and thought about it more, have talked to others about it, and have read what the good readers of Malaysiakini have to say on the matter too. And while I haven't exactly changed my initial view of what would be the easiest way out, I would like to share some additional thoughts on the matter.

The issue, non-Muslims not being able to use the term 'Allah', is one of religious freedom, because it is an attempt to mandate how another should practice their faith. I understand now that it is not really a theological issue. Theologically, there have been countless letters and opinions that have pointed to many places in the Koran that advocate the Muslim's, Jewish and Christian God as 'Allah'.

Meanwhile, there has been no cited part of the Koran that definitively prevents non-Muslims from using the term. Now, given that the Koran is the definitive and authoritative document of the Islamic faith, it is clear from this that it is not a theological issue.

That it is not a theological issue is also consistent with the fact that this 'Allah ban' is a one of a kind in world history. This has never been an issue in any other part of the world, and has never been an issue in the past either. In fact, the opposite is true - Christians in the Middle East and in Indonesia use, and have been using, 'Allah' to refer to God for a long time now, and continue to do so without persecution.

So, it is not theological. What is it then? It's all about the lack of religious freedom in Malaysia. And as Marina Mahathir has pointed out - it is a political issue. Let me explain:

Constitutionally, a Malay is a Muslim. If a Malay Muslim chooses to no longer embrace Islam, what does he become? The logical answer to this, as would be in any other part in the world, is that they become a Malay non-Muslim. But this is an impossibility in Malaysia because of

our illogical constitution ('A Malay is a Muslim'). If a Malay Muslim somehow manages to no longer be a Muslim, then they also, by definition, cease to be Malay - the constitution is clear in that a Malay is someone who practices the Islamic faith.

If conversion to another faith was easy for the Malay Muslim, then this means that there is a real and significant possibility that the total amount of Malays in the country will decrease. Why? Because if Malay Muslims become non-Muslims, they also by extension become non-Malay.

And if the leading governing party is a race-based, that is Malay-based party, then this presents a unique issue and challenge. If the 'race' of the people that you represent can change, then you have a serious problem. This is because the strength of any political party is based on the amount of people that support that party.

For Umno, if Malay Muslims could convert to another faith, then this means that essentially, the possibility that they lose support of the people, by virtue of no longer being 'Malay' or 'Muslim' (inseparable) in Malaysia would be a problematic thing.

Seriously - that Umno is so adamant that Malays cannot in any way be 'lured' away to another faith is actually logical given this predicament. If Umno did allow or support ways that Malay Muslims might convert out of Islam, then it would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

And I believe that it is for this reason - that Malays cannot convert to another faith - that we have the current predicament here today about the term 'Allah'. The reasons that Umno have cited for why non-Muslims cannot use the term is precisely because of this - so that Malays are not confused or lured to another faith. It is not a theological issue. It is logically a political issue. And ultimately, it is an issue of religious freedom.

Mind you, if you agree with my logic thus far, then the larger issue at the end of the day is not really about religious freedom for non-Muslims in Malaysia. It's about how Malay Muslims don't have religious freedom in Malaysia.

We seldom think about it in such terms, but it is undeniable - Malay Muslims do not have religious freedom in Malaysia, in the sense that they are bound to practice only one faith and cannot explore, seriously consider, or convert to another faith. They are not free to choose their faith. Religiously and spiritually, they are not free.

Now there are plenty of Malay Muslims that are probably quite happy and fine with this. They say 'Why should I have to choose? I am perfectly happy to be a Muslim!'. But I also believe that there is a growing amount of Malay Muslims who question and wonder about what the other faiths have to offer.

Consider this - if Malay Muslims do not have religious freedom in Malaysia, isn't it expected that Malay Muslims would not understand how or why non-Muslims harp on and request that they get religious freedom (and are free to practice their faith; and use the word Allah in their own personal practice of that faith)? And a further question - if one group in Malaysia is denied religious freedom, how can the other groups have religious freedom too?

Freedom is, after all, a universal matter - either we are all free, or none of us are.

'What right do others have in dictating my own personal practice of my own faith?' asks the non-Muslim. But in Malaysia, what Muslims practice or do is mandated by a larger governing body. And this governing body (through fatwa) tries to decree what non-Muslims can and cannot do either.

But the attitudes of the people involved have been shaped by the predicament that I have detailed above - as Muslims themselves don't have the personal freedom in choosing or practicing their faith, is there any wonder why the non-Muslims' request for this freedom is denied?

Ultimately, I can only see religious freedom as being a reality in Malaysia if and only if we can sort out this issue - all people should be given the freedom to choose their faith and the practice of their faith. Faith is a personal matter. Sure, this doesn't mean that people should be allowed to believe in religions or faiths that result in harming others in any way.

But if you, or myself, wants to be a Buddhist or a Taoist or a Muslim or a Christian or a Hindu - what right has another person to stand in my way and prevent me from doing so?

We're talking about my beliefs about God and Man, which are essentially my attitudes towards Life (which God is essentially and undeniably a significant part of). My attitudes are by extension my thoughts - why do I have to think of things in the way that you mandate I think about them? They are my thoughts! Mine, not yours! They are personal! I am the final arbiter as to what I think and want to think - not you.

You may adamantly disagree with me purely out of your own religious convictions - 'My faith is the correct one; All other beliefs or religions are wrong; You have no right and cannot believe in something other than what I believe in because my faith is right and yours is wrong'.

If so, I don't really want to spend time disagreeing with you, and will only reiterate that just like you have a right to believe whatever you want to believe, so do I. Though I will point out that such views are clearly narrow-minded, and prevents one from seeing what else there is out there.

If you only know your own faith, and nothing of what else there is out there, how do you know that yours is 'correct'? Truly and logically, you cannot say that you do.

Kind of makes you wonder about the fact that non-Muslim religious material have to have a tag of 'For Non-Muslims only'. Who's benefit is this for? I think it serves two purposes - for one, it keeps people in the dark about what is going in other faiths/religions. And by extension (and secondly, it prevents people being tempted to explore what else there is out there. And this latter goal is very much in Umno's best interest. I doubt that that's a mere coincidence. And allthat fits into the whole 'Allah' matter.

This predicament, though, is somewhat expected. Seriously, I do not truly and fully cast blame on our current leaders as to why the lack of religious freedom is a real issue in our multi-cultural Malaysia (even more of a reason why we should strive towards true religious freedom for everyone. It's expected because we have a constitution, that frankly, is illogical.

If the constitution of the country, the document which details the spirit and the direction the country shall take, is flawed, then such issues will undoubtedly be born. But I shall leave the opening of that can of worms for another day I think.

On this matter of religious freedom, I will end with this. I fully believe, with all my heart and mind, that religion and spirituality is something that should always be encouraged. I believe that the government, whoever it is, should always endorse the practice of all faiths - Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhism, etc. I believe this because I believe that all religious practices and faiths have positive things to offer to the individual and to society.

The Malaysian code of morality is consistent with the beliefs of all these faiths. Whether it is an Islamic or Christian or Buddhist faith - it should be encouraged! Why? Because all religions preach of peace, love and good-will among all people of all faiths.

To advocate the opposite is, theologically, an un-spiritual and a non-religious stance. It would be un-theological in all faiths. Spirituality, morality, order, knowledge of God are good things. And if there are barriers that prevent us from learning more of these things, I think that they should be removed. Perhaps someday, the reality of a truly diverse Malaysia as a spiritual and faith-full country can be achieved. If so, we first need to sort out religious freedom.