They can perhaps stop you propagating, but cannot stop you using the word at all!
I think that piece of law (which prohibits non-Muslims from using certain words like Allah, kiblat etc etc) is ultra vires the Federal Constitution and is therefore void.
The Constitution only allows enactments to be passed to govern certain aspects of the Muslims’ acts in matters concerning the “precepts of Islam“. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision which allows States to pass laws under this allowance which govern non-Muslims.
I am of course mindful that Article 11 provides that state laws may be passed to control the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. If I may digress here for a while. This provision does not appear to only restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine OTHER THAN ISLAM among Muslims. It therefore is arguable that under this proviso, any propagation of ANY religious doctrine (note that it said religious doctrine and not merely “religion”) among Muslims may be curtailed by the States.
In the light of the Constitutional provision, the States (as opposed to the Federal legislative ie the Parliament) may not willy-nilly pass laws under the pretext of protecting the Muslim faith which seeks to and have the effect of infringing the rights of non-Muslims or even the Muslims themselves. State laws must firstly find their juridical basis from the Constitution in order to be valid and enforceable.
Now, those laws which seek to prohibit non-Muslims from using certain words have no Constitutional basis at all because those laws are blanket prohibitions which are ultra vires the Constitution.
Firstly, those laws do not in any way bring themselves within the purview of the provision of Article 11. If those prohibitions are limited to any act being carried out to propagate religious doctrine among Muslims, then arguably those laws are valid. Even in that event, the Constitutionality of those laws can still be challenged as they seek to impose prohibitions and govern non-Muslims, which quite clearly is BEYOND the purview of the State list permitting laws to be enacted by the States.
Prohibiting non-Muslims from using certain words under the pretext of preventing them from propagating their religious doctrines to Muslims ex facie and without more is tantamount to prohibiting non-Muslims from carrying on with their way of life and belief just because those way of life or beliefs MAY cause Muslims to convert to another faith.
Now, how ridiculous would that be?