It is a great Christmas letdown and disappointment that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi did not assure Malaysians that he will not allow the middle ground to be intruded and encroached by extremists in Umno or the civil service by striking down unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions on Herald, the Catholic weekly.
I was expecting Abdullah to put to rest the controversy over the use of ‘Allah’ by Herald in its Bahasa Malaysia section when he attended the Christmas High Tea Reception hosted by the Christian Federation of Malaysia at Bukit Nanas, Kuala Lumpur yesterday, and I dare say that my sense of disappointment was not mine alone but of the entire audience with representatives from diverse religions in the country – Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikkhism and Taoism.
In his speech, Abdullah reminded Malaysians not to allow extremist tendencies to take root and undermine interracial harmony in the country.
He said the moderates should play a role in ensuring that members of the public were not swayed by extremist propaganda which played on people’s emotions by raising sensitive religious and racial issues.
“I’m really concerned when issues involving religion are brought up from time to time and the attendant problems that all of us would need to address.
“If moderates don’t take centre stage, surely extremist elements will occupy it, making us fall for their extremist approach being touted as a religious or national approach.”
Abdullah cannot be more right that the greatest threat to inter-racial and inter-religious understanding, goodwill and harmony stem from religious extremists hiding in religious groups, political parties and the civil service who have been intruding and encroaching into the middle ground, edging out the moderates from the centre stage.
This is the main reason why religious polarization has surfaced in its most serious and dangerous form in the past four years in the 50-year history of the nation, gravely undermining national unity and the nation-building process.
Johari has “>admitted that he was personally responsible for the decision that the word “Allah” can only be used in the context of Islam and not any other religion, and to impose the new condition on this restriction on the Herald banning the use of the word “Allah” as well as the publication of its Bahasa Malaysia section when the annual publishing permit of the Catholic weekly comes up for renewal in the next few days.
Abdullah owes Malaysians an explanation whether he was privy to Johari’s decision or he only knew about it when there was a public furore and protest over the unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions for the renewal of the Herald publications permit.
A poster on my blog has most pertinently pointed out that if the term “Allah” cannot be used by Christians to refer to God in Malaysia, then Malaysia may become an anomaly among the nations of the world, because of the following reasons:
1. The term “Allah” was in use long before there was Islam religion in the world.
2. The term “Allah” was used to refer to God by Arabic-speaking Christians before Arabic-speaking Muslims existed.
3. Malaysia is probably the only nation where the use of the term “Allah” by Christians to refer to their God is prohibited, whereas its use to refer to Christian God has never been prohibited in many countries in the Middle-East and the Americas.
There are approximately 1.8 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world, after Christianity. How many Muslims and others objected to Malaysian Christians’ use of the term “Allah” to refer to their God? Is it just only the government of Malaysia with over 15 million Muslims, comprising less than one per cent of the world Muslim population?
Several states, including Johore, Kedah, Pahang, Perak, Selangor, Kelantan and Terengganu use the word “Allah” in their state anthems. Does this mean that these State Anthems will have to be amended to conform to the new Johari directive banning the use of “Allah” by non-Muslims?
Abdullah must not only rail speak up against extremist and intolerant elements who are undermining the middle ground and national interests with their “narrowly-defined demands”, but must be prepared to act against them regardless of whether they hail from religious groups, political parties or from the bureaucracy.
The unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional Johari order to Herald to ban its Bahasa Malaysia section and the use of “Allah” is an acid test as to whether the Prime Minister is a leader of Malaysian moderates from all faiths defending the middle ground from extremist and intolerant groups.
Is Abdullah prepared to strike down the Johari order to demonstrate that he is a leader of moderates in Malaysia, not just in words but also in action?
Allah (Arabic: ????, All?h) is the standard Arabic word for “God”.[1] The term is most likely derived from a contraction of the Arabic article al- and ?il?h “deity, god” to al-l?h meaning “the [sole] deity, God” (ho theos monos); another theory traces the etymology of the word to the Aramaic Al?h?.[2]
While the term is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is used by arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews in reference to “God”.[3][1][4] The term was also used by pagan Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity in pre-Islamic Arabia.[2]
The concepts associated with the term Allah (as a deity) though differed from tradition to tradition. In pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was not the sole divinity, had associates and companions, sons and daughters. There was also a kind of kinship of between Allah and the jinn. [5] In Islam, Allah is the pivot of the Muslim faith who is only God, all-merciful and omnipotent, transcendent creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind.[3][1] As the Arab Christians today have no other word for ‘God’ than ‘Allah'[6], they for example use terms All?h al-ab (???? ????) meaning God the father, All?h al-ibn (???? ?????) mean God the son, and All?h al-ruh al koudous (???? ????? ?????) meaning God the Holy Spirit. There are both similarities and differences between the concept of God as portrayed in the Qur’an and the Hebrew Bible. [7] The Qur’an also rejects the Trinitarian conception of God as three persons in one substance (see Trinity).[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah
.
“If moderates don’t take centre stage, surely extremist elements will occupy it, making us fall for their extremist approach being touted as a religious or national approach.â€
– Our PM has said more enlightening words like this for many of the voes we are facing, but nothing seems to be implemented. Just reading what has been written for him. His heart is elsewhere – and God knows where.
So now “Allah” is Malaysian BN/UMNO government’s copyright?
Definitely it’s not Muslims’ ?!
Abdullah does not practice what he preaches. Moderation and tolerance is meant for non-Muslims whereas Muslims are allowed to be extreme as it is their right. They can dictate what language or words Christians can or cannot use; they can dictate where Buddhist or Taoist can place their statues; they decide which Hindu temples can exist. It is their NEP right.
Badawi has blasphemed Jesus Christ by saying that he is a “servant of God”. The Christian leadership prefer to take the civilized approach to the issue by educating its people, rather than going amok and creating riots.
Shame on you Badawi for insulting the Christian people on one of its most holy day. Shame on Jeane for not taking the opportunity to correct him, despite as an ex-Catholic, she should have remembered what Christians believe.
This goes to show the arrogance of UMNO and BN. They have come to a point where they think they have full immunity from saying and doing what is morally wrong. God’s wrath be upon you!
AAB is just playing to the gallery especially when GE is around the corner. The BN can use this opportunity to show to the certain majority sections of the society (i.e the Malay-Muslims) that they are the champions for the rights at the same time creating a siege mentality for all Muslims to unite and vote for BN. It is only then that their interests will be safeguarded. Same old tactics..next thing they will paint Anwar Ibrahim as the champions of the Christians instead..
Say no to BN’s opportunistic politics..
Vote for a change
Vote DAP/PKR/PAS for an alternative government
Long live the Opposition!!
Negarawan: They can insult other religions with impunity but should a Christian Prime Minister on Eid Festival say the Mohammad is not the last prophet, you can bet that Muslims from Mecca to Dhaka will call for his head and riot in the streets.
Action speaks louder than words any day, any time. Hence, by AAB’s very actions lately, he has in fact labeled himself as very extreme and a high-handed PM.
In any conflict, both parties claim to be right. But common sense tells us that such cannot be the case. One is often more to be blamed than the other but neither will admit any wrongdoing on his/her part.
Malaysia is an old man already, being 5 more years to pension ie 55 years. Yet, the country is beset with more problems than ever. To sleep through important meetings is therefore extreme albeit an extreme form of lethargy.
Let all do AAB a big favour by sending him into retirement, a long overdue one too. To vote BN out is not only moderate but compassionate as well. Happy New Year all!
Let all do AAB a bigger favour by sending him not into retirement, but into Kamunting, for his blasphemous remarks
Make no mistake – the PM is an extremist. He is totally alive to what is happening around him. Islam Hadhari was approved by 2 Arab scholars one of whom was Yusuf Qardawi whom Anwar refused to meet when he went to Mecca after his munich operation.
AI refused to meet him as the latter supported `suicide bombings`.
I don’t know if Badawi is a moderate or extremist in hiding but I am sure that he is no intellectual giant and hence incapable of comprehending why this issue is that important for the average practitioners not of Islamic faith.
In his mind he is probably asking why not use other words like Tuhan rather than Allah? He is also probably thinking that even if its technically correct, the reasonable ones should just not bring it up now since many Muslim can’t understand it and sensitive to it.
After all, this PM keep insisting there is no need for a new vision when its clear from everybody face that he should and may need to from the start.
The man just don’t get it.
“So now “Allah†is Malaysian BN/UMNO government’s copyright?”
No, it’s reserved exclusively for Bodohwi. He’s the GOD of Islam Hadhari.
At church every Sunday, we use “Tuhan Yesus” to refer to Lord Jesus and “Allah” to refer to God.
There are huge concentrations of Middle East Muslims in different parts of the United States.
“As the Arab Christians today have no other word for ‘God’ than ‘Allah'[6], they for example use terms All?h al-ab meaning God the father, All?h al-ibn mean God the son, and All?h al-ruh al koudous meaning God the Holy Spirit.” WikipediA
For a guy like Johari to come out to say what he said shows the narrow mindedness of Malaysia’s leaders.
But let’s not miss the wood from the trees. It is all about Article 11(4) of our Constitution among others.
Come on guys ..
Most of our politicians are not really that ‘holy’ otherwise they could have been history by now.
We are going to have the next GE very soon and as usual these are those ‘acting events’ for our BN government to put up to show their concern.
According to YB Kit, a poster here has pointed out that the term “Allah†was in use long before there was Islam religion in the world, and that term “Allah†was used to refer to God by Arabic-speaking Christians before Arabic-speaking Muslims existed.
That was however eons ago. Could it be denied that since then based on contemporary history “Allah†has, world wide, been used by Muslims as reference to God and not others? Is there a dispute of facts here?
Also according to TheWrathOfGrapes citing Wikipedia, “there are both similarities and differences between the concept of God as portrayed in the Qur’an and the Hebrew Bible†– and I would refer to at least two fundamental differences.
One such difference is “the Qur’an also rejects the Trinitarian conception of God as three persons in one substance (see Trinity)â€. I am no theologian but from little I know this means that for amongst Christian faiths, Holy Trinity refers to the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God, and Jesus commanded his followers to baptize in the name of Trinity, ie. the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is denied in Islam, which considers the idea of a triune God to be blasphemy.
The second fundamental difference is that unlike Christianity that holds Jesus as the Son of God through whom God is revealed, Islam from the beginning denies this central assertion that Allah has any son!
If these are truly factual theological differences between the two faiths, then the strong adherents of either will steadfast hold the view that the truth of one cannot admit the truth of the other, no matter that in the interest of political correctness and tolerance this is not openly said out.
Which is why strong adherents of the Islamic faith will want the exclusive use of the word “Allah†as reference to the Almighty to distinguish from the God of other faith – to mark these fundamental differences and avoid confusion so to speak – which I assume some of the very strong or evangelical amongst the Christian faiths too might equally desire the difference of description to be maintained.
Some who support the position of the Catholic weekly “Herald†to use ‘Allah’ Herald in its Bahasa Malaysia section would argue that God is, by definition, magnanimous and he wouldn’t mind what He is called and the arguments over what to call Him is mere semantic exercise, an invention of man, not an assertion by God : so what’s the big deal especially when in today’s world in which Muslims and Christians are pitched in conflict (as evinced by, say, 911 and Bali bombings) – and Samuel Huntington said that there was a “civilisational conflict†– wouldn’t it ease much of the conflict between the Christian and Muslim faiths if they share the same term by reference to God?
The truly devout will definitely object to this “practical approach†for one cannot justify the use of expedience to blur the fundamental differences of the faiths – even in the interest of bridging religious differences for harmony for, to them, the truth is important and if differences in absolute truth cannot be bridged these differences should at least be marked by a difference of how God is addressed!
Especially so here where from day one of the promulgation of the Constitution it is intended under article 11(4) that proselytization or “propagation of any religious doctrine or belief†“among persons professing the religion of Islam†is strictly prohibited!
Of course whether the use of ‘Allah’ by Herald in its Bahasa Malaysia section would tantamount to proselytization or contravene the restriction in Article 11(4) is matter of interpretation depending on persons and how they argue to justify their respective points of view.
The PM is of course right when it comes to ‘quotable’ quotes – “If moderates don’t take centre stage, surely extremist elements will occupy it, making us fall for their extremist approach being touted as a religious or national approach.â€
But does he clarify who is the extremist or moderate on this issue of the Herald? :)
“Most of our politicians are not really that ‘holy’ ” Jimm said
In my everyday conversations with “people in the know”, I am told that many of our leaders and their wives consume liquor and they are not mere social drinkers. They are habitual drinkers.!!!!!!!!!!
I am referring to those who speak highly of their religion and pretend to be holy. These are devils in disguise. These are the people who give “sermons” to the rakyat on being holy and defenders of their religion.
I hope these fellows will be exposed for their hypocrisies.
i was thinking the same too when i read about his speech about tolerance and respect. they like to call on us to respect islam…. but does islam respect us??
anyway since it is still the christmas season (until 6 jan.), here’s a christamas wish from me:
may allah bless you and keep you in his tender care this christmas and forever.
I have scratched my head so hard I might lose whatever hair I have left trying to figure out this PM of ours.
Most times he seems totally oblivious to what is going on around him. OK maybe he is half asleep most of the time but surely his aides cannot fail to brief or keep him informed what is going on. Unless those aides have a hidden agenda to make sure he remains in his semi comatose state.
Take this “Allah” issue for example. Anyone with the most basic common sense, let alone a PM, will know he has to take a stand on this since his Govt.(and to be more specific HIS ministry) has issued a letter on this matter. Yet there he is blithely making a statement about religious moderation when the letter from his Govt smacks of religious extremism unless he can explain and justify the letter better than the answer given by his deputy, whose reply to the press reveals his total ignorance of his own religion. I have no quarrels with his wish to make a public fool of himself except for the extreme danger his actions poses for religious harmony on the occassion of the Christians’ most important day. In my most generous mood I would say it was sheer stupidity that prompted the issue of the letter which was so insensitively timed. This assumption would not be misplaced given the inumerable examples we have seen from UMNO. But less generous Christians may interpret the timing of this letter as a deliberate intimidation intended to belittle their religion. Hence the urgent need for a clarification from AAB, which he again chickened out or totally oblivious to.
It is such abdication of responsibility that force people to take to the streets to seek justice. If the No 1 man shys away from making the hard decisions what choice do the people have left except to make the matter known openly?
Every sunday. In churches Allah is used for prayers in Malaysia. I dare johari to ban the word allah used in prayers of songs.
and see the head for churches reaction to that.
anyway, in communist country people bless you by saying ” may the god we don’t believe bless you.” It is law there where the people are not to believe in god. In malaysia it is not a big deal on use of the word “allah”. Allah will understand what your intention. you can call HIM LIm Kit Siang. and he knows you are refering to Allah.
I just want one particular race or one particular religion not to be pushed. be like the good old days …we stayed in harmony.
Bed Avi please wake up and look into peoples matters.
Robert Lau, the assistant minister for housing, is championing the catholic. has he made any comments yet? who else are the catholic ministers?
let’s send Robert Lau to meet with the prime minister
If the term ‘ALLAH’ was used to refer to God before the time of Islam, isn’t it prudent for Islam to have chosen a different name of reference to avoid confusion?
Now having used the same name that people from other faiths have been using and to ban people from using that name appears to me nothing but BULLY!
Malaysia is truly an international laughing stock!!!
Do we elect people to serve us or to bully us?????
The word “Allah” is in the Arabic and Jewish Bibles. It is also in the original English Bible text in the first book of Moses (Musa), Genesis. Also, the peoples of the book used “Allah” (God) BEFORE the advent of Islam. See:
http://answering-christianity.com/allah5.htm
and
http://answering-christianity.com/allah6.htm
and
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Why-Believe-in-Allah/Allah-inthe-Jewish-Bible.htm
For fuller write-ups and listings, see:
http://answering-christianity.com/allah.htm
As far as I can see and understand, “Allah” means “God” NOT specifically the Muslim God.
When used in the various Bibles, “Allah” would mean God, and does NOT refer to the Muslim God.
Imam Hadhari should quickly solve this minor storm in the teacup before heading for his holidays.
If they are real serious about this word “Al…”, then enact it as a law, (get it passed in Parliament), teach this in all schools, colleges, universities, put up notices everywhere, especially, entrance points n churches n temples, make announcement on all incoming flights (like warning on drug), get all tourist guides to warn foreigners, get all bus drivers who drive in foreigners (to warn foreigners) from borders, have different versions of state anthems for non-Muslim, put it in Rukunegara (can always modified), and see how the rest of the world will look at Msia.
These officers (Joha…etc) are wasting time saying n doing meaningless things
All this talk about the Christian God and the Muslim God and the meaning of ”Allah” in Arabic etc misses the point.
The point is there is increasing religious intolerance shown by Malaysians of the Muslim faith encouraged by their leaders, of racial and religious polarization a process encouraged by our Constitution when it fails to separate church (read: mosque) from state.
To think that such increasing religious intolerance shown by Muslims to those who are not Muslims over the years has not resulted in feelings of alienation by the latter is to fail to acknowledge the meaning of religious ‘polarization’ and its effects on society.
We are today seeing the effects of a government policy that has its roots in Article 3 (1) and Article 11(4) – a process if unchecked will result in a fragmented society. No doubt about it in my mind.
‘a process if unchecked will result in a fragmented society. ‘, Msia is already half fragmented. who fragmented it ? or whose policies cause this fragmentation? U know I know lah! Look like going to fragment further, How sad!
Thinkler,
since when Yusuf Qardhawi aprove Islam Hadhari?
where you heard it? from Government media?
YB has rightly pointed out the reference by another poster which alludes effectively to the question: ‘which comes first: Christianity or Islam’. Since Christianity first came on to the world scene, then Christianity should have the natural copyright to the term ‘Allah’ if such a copyright is actionable. But that would be ludicrous!
Can anyone copyright the name ‘Mama’ or “papa”? Ok, that’s a no-brainer. It’s my papa.It’s my mama. Similarly, it’s my God, whatever the name that has been prescribed to me by the holy books.
Actually, the people of the Old Testament were using all the different names of God long before anybody else ever did. Somehow the Jews never thought that the unpronounceable (and unspeakable too!) name of God can be copyrightable. Somehow I can’t help feeling that “The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the LORD scoffs at them” (Psalms 2:4) who seek to ‘monopolise’ his NAME as if it has anything to do with his deity. God has no favourites. In fact, ‘many will cry out “Lord, Lord” in the last days’ but God will turn his face away and say ‘I knew you not”.
Still, I would desist if UMNO can get an international and exclusive copyright for the word “Allah”. Until such time, UMNO should know better than shuffling garbage claims around under the pretext of religion.
“Can anyone copyright the name ‘Mama’ or “papaâ€? Ok, that’s a no-brainer. It’s my papa.It’s my mama. ” HORNBILL
The “Mamas and the Papas” may want to.
http://serene555.multiply.com/journal/item/206/Sabah_church_sues_PM_over_book_ban
Now that a church in Sabah has sued the PM Badawi and the Malaysian Government for manufacturing the dubious semantics of ‘ALLAH’ resulting in banning of imports of all periodicals that has such references.
I SAY VERY GOOD. At least the leader/s does not say “let’s just pray!”
I hope more will follow suit.
And to pulau_sibu’ posting at 12: 14.15,
Robert Lau championing the rights of the Christians? I am thinking about whether will he champion the rights of the “UNDERGROUND”???
If Pak Lah is truly a religious person as many had claimed before, then he will do the right thing to dismiss Johari’s personal claim on the ‘Allah’ issue. But as our previous Prime Ministers ( except Tunku Abdul Rahman, in my opinion ) have exhibited a tendency towards putting Malay agenda and Muslim agenda before national interest, I doubt Pak Lah wants to anger the Malay voters, especially when it is this close to the general election. Like all UMNO leaders ( it’s shameful to call these people leaders), MIC, MCA and Gerakan leaders, they do NOT have the right CONSCIENCE to face the truth and do the right thing. When God or Allah questions these leaders during ‘Judgement Day’ or ‘Hari Kiamat’ on why they made blunders in the name of God, perhaps then they may realize. Until then, please allow them to ‘sleep walk’ and goven the country.
LET’S WAKE THEM UP IN THE NEXT ELECTION.
God bless Malaysia
It is absolutely correct that the root of the problem is ultimately the failing secularity of our constitution.
There is no such thing as a non-secular non-theocratic country. This issue is like the PM, he don’t want to make hard choices when he has to and in the end what happens is rubbish.
Muslim religious teachers in Malaysia today still preach the Islamic concept of heaven in a terminology which is neither Malay nor Arabic, but Hindu. The sanskrit word “Syurga†is always used in connection with the Islamic concept of paradise. The proper Arabic word for this is actually “Al-Jannahâ€. In the same way, the Hindu religious term “neraka†or hell is used by Muslim Malays to explain the Islamic concept of hell. The Arabic word for hell is “Al-Nar†or the place of fire. Then the Muslim fast, the annual religious abstention from food and drink, is known by the Sanskrit term “puasaâ€. A Muslim religious teacher is often called “guruâ€, another Hindu religious term, in fact the name of a Hindu deity, Betara Guru. The Muslim prayer is among the Malays, called “sembahyangâ€. “Sembah†in Sanskrit means to pray, and “yang†is a Sanskrit term meaning divinity or conjuring respect, as in “Sang Yang Tunggalâ€, the most divine one, and “Yang Dipertuanâ€.
http://www.geocities.com/aizaris/suvarnabhumi.html
This is the appropriate time for the PM to lead the way in correcting the way in which sanskrit prayers are held at hindu temples as it `insults` his religion.
All Christians should vote opposition to teach this sleepwalking PM a big lesson!!!
Islam as practiced in Malaysia has been polluted by Animism and Hinduism because Malays were once Hindus before Islam reached its shores.
Don’t know if Sikhism has any role. Never heard of Malays being followers of Sikhism.
I am pretty sure Abdullah has privy to Johari’s statement.
As the policy of monopolistic usage of the name ‘Allah’ is not new.
Frankly, if I didn’t read blog, I really think “Allah” refer to Muslim world. That’s the education I received in Malaysia. Truly katak di bawah tempurung.
Can’t blame Minister said that kind of word. He probably “didn’t know”. Yet, he also didn’t know how to “apologize”. This “apologize” is not taught in Malaysia too, because “maruah” is too high.
As you know Tony Pua did point out our government “sapu” all unemployed Bumi graduate to be government servants. Some of them “excel” to become the Minister of Malaysia. Many of them have no common sense, no insight, and only know how to bullshit all the way to above. Did any Minister become Minister without working as government servant first?
Everything is so rotten inside our BN Government. How to expect good fruit to be produced by bad trees?
Heard the news that AAB is planning for TPM2 post if BN win the election in 2008. Why not also TPM3 (for Indian). Don’t be fooled. He never walk to talk. He has big ears, now he also want to have big mouth. He was the one said to setup IPCMP. He also said to wipe out corruption. He also said we must respect other religions. NOTHING HAPPEN AS HE SAID!
We have to cut the bad tree from producing more bad fruits!
“All Christians should vote opposition to teach this sleepwalking PM a big lesson!!!”
I should add that All Malaysians should vote opposition.
As this matter is not just about Christians.
It is about fundamental human rights. As censoring god’s name is against Freedom of Religion.
AAB is Not GOD so he cannot decide when to use the
word, ‘ALLAH’!! Just stick to what The Bible says…
and its definition and usage!!
ALLAH means GOD to everyone, Not specifically for
Islamic God is called ALLAH…!! Just go ahead with
that. No big deal.
AAB preaches one and practises another…!!! Watch
out for this kind of wicked and crooked person…!!
“Muslim religious teachers in Malaysia today still preach the Islamic concept of heaven in a terminology which is neither Malay nor Arabic, but Hindu.” Tickler
What has concepts got to do with terminology when expressed in different languages??
The concept of Heaven and Hell is the same be one a Christian, Muslim or Hindu or Sikh for that matter. The prevalence of Sanskrit words in the Malay language is to be expected as Malays were once Hindus before they became Muslims.
Good. Keep repeating, they have forgotten.
“… Allah will understand what your intention. You can call HIM LIm Kit Siang, and he knows you are refering to Allah….â€
ahluck, anyone who has some understanding of the Bible will never make such a bizarre statement like you.
Many names are used in the Bible to refer to Jesus. However, that does not mean you can call God by anything you want.
FYI, go to http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestudyresources/qt/namesofgodjesus.htm
The website has 102 biblical names of God and Jesus.
Please stop calling God by the name of Lim Kit Siang or ahluck.
That was however eons ago. Could it be denied that since then based on contemporary history “Allah†has, world wide, been used by Muslims as reference to God and not others? Is there a dispute of facts here? – Jeffrey
The above statement may be erroneous.
Let us look at living history and hear from our contemporaries today in the 21st century, including those who go to Church every Sunday :
ahluck Says:
Today at 12: 07.39 (1 hour ago) Every sunday. In churches Allah is used for prayers in Malaysia. I dare johari to ban the word allah used in prayers of songs.
DiaperHead Says:
Today at 11: 11.03 (2 hours ago) At church every Sunday, we use “Tuhan Yesus†to refer to Lord Jesus and “Allah†to refer to God.
We need not look at Arabic-speaking Christians in the Middle-East and the Americas, who have been using “Allah†to refer to their God since the 1st century, whereas Arabic-speaking Muslims started to use “Allah†to refer to their God since the 7th Century. We just need to look at our neighbor contemporary Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world.
The Indonesian government presumably has presumably no problem with Christian publications in the Indonesian language, which use the term “Allah†today, not eons ago.
Several years ago, a group of churches changed the word “Allah” to “Yahweh” throughout the whole Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia Bible, and had it printed. Recently the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia took these churches to court (probably for copyright infringement), and won their case, and the Indonesian police then entered these churches and confiscated all those Bibles.
A few days ago, a church in Sabah sued the Prime Minister in the Kuala Lumpur High Court for banning the import of some Christian books in the Indonesian language from Indonesia, where the term “Allah†was used. The general consensus is that the church has already lost the case even before the first hearing.
Even though there are religious extremists in Indonesia who could resort to massacres under the slightest provocations, their government is seen to be more tolerant than ours in these matters.
Shouldn’t our judiciary emulate Indonesia’s judiciary over the use of the term “Allah�
Shouldn’t our Ministry of Internal Security emulate its Indonesian counterpart’s capacity for tolerance for the use of the term “Allah†by Christians in their translated Bible and books?
Shouldn’t our Minister of Internal Security overrule his deputy, Johari’s order to ban HERALD, the Catholic weekly?
Let’s hope that good sense will prevail and that the government will give way.
AAB should confiscate the Indonesia bibles too
http://www.bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/indonesian_tb/01_001.htm
Some people have gods with eyes that cannot see, ears that cannot hear, hands that cannot move, legs that cannot walk…. So believers of such “god†will need to assists their “god†to see, hear, and take revenge by bombing people, lawyers to protect their name etc.
To this fanatics, I say:
“There is only one God. And you are not Him.â€
So don’t try to play “God.â€
Call Him by whatever name you want but He sure doesn’t need your help to defend Himself!
Once they got their way with this ‘Allah’ issue, they will come out with more!
And whatever they managed to ‘rob’, they or their future generation (primarily the UMNOputras, and generally the ignorant Malays who would follow whatever their leaders say) would say that has been their right! The non-Malays must never ever touch on this issue or you’d be ISAed! NEP is one of the case. Mula-mula to help the poor Malays for 20 years, and now they consider their ‘right’!
Jeffrey (Koit)- looking at the quality and depth of your post you can have Johari’s job. You are doing a much better job
“The website has 102 biblical names of God and Jesus.” kathanboy
Rather than they being different names of God, I’d say that these are references to God.
I believe in the Koran God comes by one name throughout. The reason being the Koran is compiled as one document whereas the Bible is a gathering some 26 different books all written at different times by different writers. Each writer writes for a different audience. Hence the different styles – and names.
Having said, aren’t we missing the point?
With the banning of the word from being ‘misused’, politicization of religion is being moved one notch up.
What’s in a name??
AAB should confiscate the Indonesia bibles too
http://www.bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/indonesian_tb/01_001.htm
— k1980
The term “Allah” for God appears 31 times in Chapter 1 of Genesis (Kejadian) in the modern online Indonesian Bible above. It has also been used in the old and new Arabic Bibles since ancient times. The modern online Bible with Arabic translation can be accessed here :
http://www.waterlive.org/
Why would our Ministry of Internal security ban Christian publications, which use the term “Allah†when the governments in most Muslim countries, including the Indonesian government, do not bat an eyelid over the use of the term “Allah†in the translated Bibles?
Is it because our Deputy Internal Security Minster, Johari still does not know, when the rest of the world already knew that Christians had used the term “Allah†a few hundred years earlier than the Muslims and continue to use the term until the modern era of digital communications today?
If the Ministry of Internal Security does not budge, the Church may need to prevent this encroachment on their constitutional rights by engaging top lawyers to resolve conflicts in the Constitution if any, despite general diffidence in the judiciary. A Sabah church has already made the first move.
Anyone of you ever wonder for a second why is the symbol for Islam a crescent moon and a five pointed star ?
The UMNO `GODS’ must be crazy.
What is the issue here?
Is it the refusal of a license or the refusal to allow the Church to continue maintaining their Bahasa Malaysia section of their weekly paper? Or is there no difference? Because license will be withheld under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 for non-compliance with the terms?
The law which has its beginning when the country was a British colony in the throes of an armed communist armed insurgency, when there was a need to regulate the media, providing guidelines to reporters etc, the Act amended many times, has led to abuse. It has been used to restrict political discourse, stifling political opposition and manipulating news to suit the needs of an agenda.
Winning the case in a court of law against the government is an uphill task (an unwinnable case in my opinion) since Article 10 and similar provisions of our Constitution have serious qualifications built into them.
It seems not to be about Article 3(1) and Article 11(4) – but the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.
Any lawyers on board who care to express their views?
Jeffery QC? Which part of the Act will the government be relying upon to refuse the license?
It’s not unusual to receive a personal letter from your parent signed off simply as “papa” or “mum”. When the person receives it, he or she knows it is from his or her parents. Say, if the letter is accidentally passed to another person, that person would know that the letter is not from his papa or mum and that the contents are not meant for him or her. That is because the relationship of the parents and his children are intimate and personal between them.
Say, if a 15 year old boy accidentally received a letter written by another parent to his 40 year old son, he would know that the personal letter is not meant for him. But notwithstanding, because his letter is signed off by using the word “papa” or “mum” which are the same words that the 15 year old boy calls his parents, he forbade the 45 year old man from using the word “papa” or “mum” in all his letters. Henceforth, he banned all letters carrying such words notwithstanding that he knows his own parents had not wrote the letters and that the 40 year old man had called his parents “papa” and “mum” for 40 years, much longer than him.
How many of you – no matter whether you are chinese, malay, indian, iban or kadazan – would you think that the action of the 15 year old boy is correct? Or do you think that he is a brainless, self-centered, obstinate bully?
Religion is personal between a person and his God. No matter how you call HIM, you would not mistaken HIM – similarly you would not mistaken your own papa and mum. The only time you don’t know a letter is from your own parents, it is because either you are not educated or you don’t know or if you are not close with your own parents. In that case, you need to educate yourself or get closer with your parents. But you can’t blame or wrong the other person simply because you are not educated or close with your own parents!
Like the personal letter, how any any person mistaken or confuse “allah” for the “other” God if they are mentioned on a newsletter with Christian or Muslim headings?
And how can this Johari who is allegedly corrupt and had freed some gangsters involved in crime, prostitution, human traficking, gambling in return for $5 million get to decide on matters of religion? He is a mockery of his own religion!
“…the Church may need to prevent this encroachment on their constitutional rights by engaging top lawyers to resolve conflicts in the Constitution..” EARNEST
Yes, but the court will have first to determine if there has been an “encroachment on their constitutional rights”, if there is a real conflict as opposed to apparent conflict among various provisions of the Federal Constitution of 1957.
Don’t think there is case law which the plaintiff’s lawyers could rely on. If any, decisions have gone the other way. But of course that cannot be made a reason for not convening the suit against the government. There should be lawyers who are willing to work pro bono. They should pursue it right up to the Federal Court if they can.
It’d make for an interesting reading if it goes as far as the Court of Appeal – for both lawyers and law students.
The conflict as I see it, is between provisions of the 1984 Act and Article 10 of our Constitution. Is there any case of a plaintiff winning their case under the said Act?
I believe that they are relying on section 7 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act (“PPPAâ€) that vests the Minister of Home Affairs absolute powers and discretion to revoke or suspend the publication licence to the Catholic weekly, the Herald if he is satisfied that such continuous publication is prejudicial to public order, morality, security, or which is likely to alarm public opinion, or which is or is likely to be contrary to any law or is otherwise prejudicial to or is likely to be prejudicial to public interest or national interest. This will be interpreted in conjunction with article 11(4) of the Constitution prohibiting propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
Thanks for responding, Jeffrey.
“….if he (Minister) is satisfied that such continuous publication is prejudicial to public order, morality, security, or which is likely to alarm public opinion, or which is or is likely to be contrary to any law or is otherwise prejudicial to or is likely to be prejudicial to public interest or national interest.”
No right of judicial review of the Minister’s decision? Like in the ISA?
There can be no doubt that the lawyers for the plaintiff would be relying on Article 10(1) – but like I said this Article is heavily qualified by clauses (2), (3) and (4).
To win they would have to show that PPPA is ultra vires the Constitution.
The prospect of winning the case – zilch! But that is just my 2-cents.
But the publicity would be good for the political opposition since it is campaigning on constitutional issues of free speech and freedom of religion.
oh my god!!! or should it be… omigosh!!!
it’s only a word! it won’t kill anyone for heavensake!
we really have clowns in parliment!!! minus DAP…
What is the issue? That’s the more difficult and complex question. Confusion now abounds as to what is the real issue.
The following are probable facts:
· Allah means in Arabic ‘the God’ and Earnest is right that even contemporarily Christians in predominantly muslim countries eg Arab Christians call their God Allah and the bibles in predominantly muslim countries like Indonesia and even Nigeria have used the same reference raising question whether based on world wide norms there is really exclusivity in such a reference for Muslims only;
· At the most basic level, while both Christianity and Islam are monotheistic and Abrahamic faiths, that is where the similarities end, and the differences including the two obvious ones pointed out in my earlier post begin and it is clear that Christians and Muslims conceive their respective Deity differently and it is trite they are different faiths;
· In western predominantly Christian countries, Christians do not by and large refer to their God as Allah. In court when they swear on the bible to say the truth and nothing but the truth “so help me God†they don’t recite so help me “Allahâ€.
Here the Christians don’t amongst themselves and in relation to others refer to God as Allah. Neither does the English version of the Bible mention such reference. Perhaps only in the Bahasa version the reference is used as in Herald’s case.
There are however two things peculiar in our local context.
One is Article 11(4). The other is that all Malay Muslims would refer to God as Allah. Then there are non muslims in general and Christians in particular who do not normally refer to God as Allah in ordinary use except as I said where Bahasa – the dominant language of the Muslim Malays – is used. So Johari’s argument is, if you have alternatives to describe (eg Tuhan) why choose Allah in that language which is mother tongue to Malay Muslims which may lead to confusion and perceived by at least some Malay muslims as an attempt at proselytization, which is prohibited? Granted this might not be the motive of Herald but it is perception that counts so why choose the term under these circumstances when (i) it is a sensitive issue to Malay Muslims and (ii) in matters of religion it is good to be clear and don’t use a common term when referring to God when different communities perceive their Gods differently?
This is the practical issue, it is raised, the law is invoked, and it must be addressed. To raise issues about Johari’s credentials on matters of faith is irrelevant to the central issue raised here, given as what Bigjoe said, politicians are suspected to sometimes raise such issues for political capital.
To cite the Indonesian bible is also not exactly relevant as the Indonesian Constitution promulgated by Soekarno rests on Pancasila philosophy which was influenced by Western universal humanism, the key words being “Kemanusiaan yang adil dan beradab’ embracive universal humanism embracive of indigenous philosophical tradition, Indian-Hindu, Western-Christian, and Arab-Islamic traditions. Visitors to Indonesia will testify that on matters of religion, it is les restrictive and generaly more tolerant of diversity.
In Arab countries, the comparison also reaches a limit when it is recollected that Christian Arabs and Muslim Arabs likely share more things in terms of culture in common except for the difference in religion. So the same description of different Gods likely is less an issue than here where majority Christians and Malay Muslims are comparatively very different in culture as well (besides religion), not to mention Article 11(4). So where the groups are also very different in culture and also language (when they’re not speaking the National Language) any similarity of reference when describing what essentially is different Gods of different faiths, it becomes more sensitive and poignant that may be perceived as either leading to confusion at best or prohibited proselytization at worst.
The question is always there : if there’s another word like “Tuhan†why use the same word as majority Muslims especially when in language other than Bahasa, Christians don’t normally refer to God as Allah? True no one has copyright or patent (if one wants to see it that way) but in the extenuating circumstances of this country (eg article 11(4), why from practical stand-point of avoiding confusion, choose the same reference when there are other options?
Of course a lot of people here are angry because they see this development as yet another advance of increasing religious intolerance in a multiracial society. This may well be the case but again it does not squarely address Johari’s practical point that it may lead to some Malay Muslims not well versed in English, reading the Bahasa version of the Herald and getting either confused or angry that the name of their God has been used by a different religious group.
As stated earlier it is not reality of no intention to proselytize on Herald’s part that counts – it is perception and in this country such matters are very sensitive, and perception is as important as reality, that may fall under purview of section 7 of PPPA read with Article 11(44) of the constitution.
Ultimately although the law is invoked as justification, the decision and considerations are always political. We all know that.
The game is called ‘politics’ and it has to be fought on two fronts – the legal and the constitutional, and the other the extra-legal and extra-constitutional. For the latter we would need the likes of Che Guevara.
Is there a Che Guevara amongst us?
Kit has fought long and hard on the first front and has achieved success of sorts as some would say. So maybe the time has arrived for a Malaysian Che Guevara to wage a simultaneous struggle for equality and justice?
Do you subscribe to that, Jeffery?
Pak Lah is no General Fulgencio Batista and Malaysia is not Cuba in the 50s.
“Make no mistake – the PM is an extremist.” Tickler
A mild mannered and soft spoken man is a religious extremist?
I thought according to the latest Country Profile on Malaysia compiled by the U.S. Department of State annually describes Malaysia as a country practicing moderate Islam?
To help balance comments on this thread, I post herewith comments from a reader of Malaysiakini on the subject:
I find Wong Yee Kiat’s ‘Allah’ controversy shows need for non-Muslim dept claim that since Arab Christians refer to God as Allah in Arabic, thus Christian Malaysians by virtue of the Federal Constitution should be able to do the same in Bahasa Malaysia, quite intriguing to say the least.
When did secular Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia become so accepting of Arab culture? So far, every time Muslims here use Arab terminology, expressions or attire, there has been a chorus of disapproval from them about Arabisation. Why then the sudden claim of affinity to the Arabs to the extent that Wong asks “Since ‘Allah’ is a general word that is not the registered intellectual property of Islam, why can’t Christians use the word?â€
Let me ask him, if Allah is a general word then why does Herald use the word “Allah†only in its Bahasa Malaysia section? Why not refer to God as Allah in their English, Tamil and Chinese sections the same way the Arab Christians refer to God? Clearly this is being done to proselytise to Muslims, which is clearly against the constitution. This is why Muslims oppose it.
Quoting Wikipedia, Wong writes that “Allah is the standard Arabic word for God†but when was Allah ever a standard word for God in the Nusantara? The Malay word ordinarily used for God is “Tuhanâ€. Even when passages from the Quran are translated into Bahasa Malaysia the word “Tuhan†is used in place of “Allahâ€.
Thus if Wong is sincere in the assertion that Christians here refer to Allah since it “originated in the Arab world†then I believe they would have no objections to the first principle of the Rukun Negara being amended to read “Kepercayaan kepada Allahâ€.
——————————————————
When is this going to end?
Thanks DarkHorse for your reference to the Malaysiakini’s letter which, according to my check, was written by someone going by the name of Fathima Idris.
It is not just a question of why CAN’T Christians use the word [“since ‘Allah’ is a general word that is not the registered intellectual property of Islamâ€], it is also a question of why WOULD they want to use the same word commonly used by Malaysian Muslims here when the understanding of God in Christianity is different in some fundamental aspects from that in Islam, and when there is an available alternative generic word “Tuhan†existing in Bahasa – as stated in the Rukun Negara – for differentiation?
This constant reference to Arab or Arab-speaking Christians using “Allah†as justification for equal application here appears not to address the question whether in light of their speaking Arabic only, they ordinarily have any other word for God but Allah.
I am just trying to understand this from the rational angle. I can understand the heat generated by Johari’s statement if Christians here use this term ordinarily in English but it is not the case. [When my Christian friends discussed matters of faith with me, I have never heard them mention even once that God was “Allah†except by reference to the God of Muslims].
Can this issue be discussed objectively without excessive emotions? Already my earlier first posting here has drawn flak when a reader sarcastically commented that I could have Johari’s job – I would do a much better job!
It is not my intent to offend anyone here but I am merely trying to evaluate the issue at hand generated by Johari with some measure of objectivity.
Yes, and to add to the ‘confusion’ here is what Farish A. Nor who was in Cairo recently has to say:
“……..in all these celebrations ranging from Eid for the Muslims to Christmas for the Catholics and Copts the word ‘Allah’ is used to denote that supreme and singular divinity, God. Catholics and Copts alike exclaim ‘Masha-allah’, ‘Wallahi’, ‘ya-Rabbi’, ‘Wallah-u allam’, and of course ‘Allahuakbar’ day in, day out, everywhere they go. The coptic taxi driver blares out ‘By Allah, cant you see where you are parking??” as he dodges the obstable ahead. The Catholic shopkeeper bemoans “Ya Allah, ya Allah! You can only offer me two pounds for the scarf? Wallahi, my mother would die if she heard that! Ya-Rabbi, ya-Rabbi!”
Yet in Malaysia at the moment yet another non-issue has been brewed to a scandal for no reason: The Malaysian Catholic Herald, a publication by and for Catholics in the country, has been told that it can no longer publish its Malaysian language edition if it continues to use the word “Allah” to mean God. Worse still, the country’s Deputy Internal Security Minister Johari Baharum recently stated that “Only Muslims can use the word Allah” ostensibly on the grounds that “Allah” is a Muslim word. The mind boggles…”
Wither goes Allah?
Perhaps it is time for the Deputy Minister to get a new face – and join facebook!
Very soon .. “BABI” as in BM means pig will be removed and banned as it’s also against their religion practises …
no, no only they are able to use on you, not on them!
If at all, the word “Allah” is copyrighted to Muslims only, why then are non-Muslim police personnel made to wear the badge with a crown and the words “Allah” and “Mohammed” on their sleeves?
wat so big deal about the word Allah ha.Indonesian chritian have been using the word for so long and morever their bahasa is more pure than us if i am not mistaken.we have been borrowing bahasa word from them anyway.If Islam is the truth why so scare of peoples getting confused of the word Allah and also conversion.Is lam will stand for itself instead of you guys protecting it.anyway i think muslim are really scare of christian cause ir really spread a lot faster than islam.
////Malaysians must give priority to moderation and not be dragged into extremism, as it would pull the people apart, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in his speech at a Christmas tea party organised by the Christian Federation of Malaysia. “If we sit together and eat the same food, it symbolises the friendship, degree of tolerance and mutual respect,” he added. —The Star online 25 December 2007///
What if we sit together and eat different food?
Is eating the same food a requirement for sitting together? It is trite that somebody’s food is another’s poison. Others’ food cannot become your poison if it is not consumed by you. Similarly food that is not Halal when eaten in front of a Muslim would not make the Muslim less religious. Also, moderate Muslim would not take it as a challenge to his religion when a non-Muslim consumes non-Halal food in his presence. There are Muslims in almost every country, and not all countries maintain separate dining areas for people of Muslim faith. Surely Muslims living in other countries are not considered less religious.
Would the PM be moderate to think that instead of eating the same food, eating different food together would also enhance friendship, degree of tolerance and mutual respect? Obviously the PM is aware that non-Halal food is not served in hostels and colleges of higher learning. Would PM AAB approve non-Halal food to be served in hostels and university colleges where there are non-Malay students, as was the practice in the 1960s? Surely, PM AAB had the experience in sitting in the same dining hall eating with non-Malays who had non-Halal meals in front of him. It did not make PM AAB less Muslim!
The origin of the word Allah (arabic) is from the word Allaha (which means GOD) and Elahi (My GOD) in Aramaic; a language spoken during the times of the CHRIST. Check the link below
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20071001130229AAnpzJV
or just watch Passion Of The Christ movie by Mel Gibson.
Who gave these the right to limit what people of other faiths call their GOD? It is between them and their GOD.
“My religion is between me and my maker” – Mohandas K. Gandhi
“…why WOULD they want to use the same word commonly used by Malaysian Muslims here when the understanding of God in Christianity is different in some fundamental aspects from that in Islam, and when there is an available alternative generic word “Tuhan†existing in Bahasa – as stated in the Rukun Negara – for differentiation?…†Jeffrey
To answer your question I would like to refer to the posting by Anbar on December 24, 2007 in which he/she quoted:
[The Rev. Lawrence Andrew, editor of the Herald, said the weekly’s use of the word Allah was not intended to offend Muslims. “We follow the Bible. The Malay-language Bible uses Allah for God and Tuhan for Lord. In our prayers and in church during Malay mass, we use the word Allah,†he told the AP.]
In the Bible the apostles referred to Jesus as Lord and God. If only one word “Tuhan†is allowed to be used then how do you translate accurately verses such as John 20:28?
John 20:28, Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!â€
Look, I am using the word Allah, see nothing wrong with me. Allah, there I go again, OH yes Allah again. I read the Encyclopedia, and there is Allah again. Everyone in the whole WIDE WORLD IS USING ALLAH, so…will God strike me down? No, I did not abuse his name. So if God did not strike me down, why should I be afraid of stupid leaders in Malaysia?
“What if we sit together and eat different food?”
Orthodox Jews in the United States face the same problems involving the need to keep ‘kosher’. Jews and Muslims following the dictates of the Torah and Muslims of the Koran draw their beliefs from the same source i.e. the Old Testament of the Christian Bible:
http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm
The orthodox and the traditionalists among the Jews shop at stores selling only kosher food (certified as such) and dine at restaurants only serving kosher food.
I once had dinner with a Jewish family. They served themselves only kosher food ;and for their guests they serve non-kosher food which are kept separate. Even dishes on which kosher food was served were separate and are kept separate in the kitchen. They have a maid whose duty among others is to keep kosher and non-kosher food separate always, for example, in different freezers with dishes being cleaned separately.
What were Malays who have always been Muslims, doing during the Tunku’s and Razak’s time. Were the Malays then less Muslims than they are today?
“…..//…..If moderates don’t take centre stage, surely extremist elements will occupy it, making us fall for their extremist approach being touted as a religious or national approach…Moderates should play a role in ensuring that members of the public were not swayed by extremist propaganda which played on people’s emotions by raising sensitive religious and racial issues….//….â€
This is a correct statement.
However what is problematic is nothing that was said suggests or gives a clue who exactly are the extremist elements which played on people’s emotions by raising sensitive religious and racial issues!
If they are not properly identified – and if the forces of democracy are blamed for raising sensitive religious and racial issues instead of the extremists themselves – what’s good in such a general statement?
It may even end up encouraging extremist elements emboldened by their detractors being labeled extremists instead!
World wide Pro-democracy elements are pitched against
extremist elements.
Ironically the latter seem to be gaining upper hand whenever – and also because – they are ever prepared to resort to violence and force to suppress those who are non violent and resort to dialogue and reason as weapons to fight the democratic cause!
The latest casualty is Benazir Bhutto – assassinated/shot by suicide bomber a few hours ago in a campaign rally. [She earlier escaped two bombings by Islamic extremists that killed 136 during her homecoming procession]. Pakistan is now facing the prospect of turmoil.
Extremists should not be appeased or encouraged. If they were, and gain ground, it is difficult to reverse the process.
Malaysia should learn this from the experience of other countries.
No point of just sending condolence to the Pakistani people and condemning the odious act of violence when lessons are not drawn and learnt.
The term “Allah” has been used by Arabic speaking Christians since the first century, and used in the Malay version of the Bible since the 19th century, before Malaysia was formed, and in fact well before all of us here were born.
It is ridiculous to ask why “Allah” is not used by English speaking Christians, or Chinese speaking Christians.
I have attended Christian wedding ceremonies conducted in Chinese (mandarin); not a single word of English or Malay was used. Similarly Chinese church services are conducted exclusively in Chinese. This was because the audience were all Chinese.
I understand from personal communications that Church services conducted in Malay do not use any English word in the same sentence, and Church services conducted in English do not use any Malay word in the same sentence. This is all for the sake of the audience who are either more comfortable with the Malay or English language.
The verses are read in purely one language. There is no such thing as “rojak”.
Church services are conducted in very disciplined manner, not like the former CJ Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s manner of speaking as in an interview where he mooted the abolition of the common law from our legal system a couple of months back. An English sentence of his can be freely and awkwardly interspersed with Malay words, and vice versa. He later denied having said that through Nazri causing him to mislead the Parliament, even though some journalists had already taped recorded the whole interview.
The transcript of the interview which YB Lim had reproduced in this blog a couple of months ago proved that it was possible to murder both the English and Malay languages at the same time.
Murder of languages is strictly prohibited in church services.
And it is dangerous that the most “deeply ignorant” (using Truman Capote’s phrase) among us do not know that they are ignorant. This can lead to the unjustifiable banning of Christian publications in the Malay language where “Allah” has been used to refer to Christian God for hundreds of years.
To be consistent, is there any attempt by our Ministry of Internal Security to ban Malaysians from accessing online Christian publications (see below) in the Arabic language where “Allah” has been used to refer to Christian God for thousands of years?
http://www.waterlive.org/
Jeffrey, QC
Allow me to borrow a line from you. This is the practical issue, it is raised it must be addressed.
“…why WOULD they want to use the same word commonly used by Malaysian Muslims here when the understanding of God in Christianity is different in some fundamental aspects from that in Islam, and when there is an available alternative generic word “Tuhan†existing in Bahasa – as stated in the Rukun Negara – for differentiation?…†Jeffrey
To answer your question I would like to refer to the posting by Anbar on December 24, 2007 in which he/she quoted:
[The Rev. Lawrence Andrew, editor of the Herald, said the weekly’s use of the word Allah was not intended to offend Muslims. “We follow the Bible. The Malay-language Bible uses Allah for God and Tuhan for Lord. In our prayers and in church during Malay mass, we use the word Allah,†he told the AP.]
In the Bible the apostles referred to Jesus as Lord and God. If only one word “Tuhan†is allowed to be used then how do you translate accurately verses such as John 20:28?
John 20:28, Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!â€
Kanthanboy,
Thanks for the explanation. Pardon my ignorance but if, as what Earnest says, church services are conducted in very disciplined manner – and if conducted in Bahasa, then throughout in Bahasa without rojak mixing of English or other languages – and if further God as in Christianity is referred to as “Allah†throughout, then what is the word used in Bahasa, if a need arises, during such times, to mention about God of the Muslims in Islam? If it also Allah won’t there be confusion when we all agree that the way Christians understand God is different from Muslims?
What I mean is if there is a need to mention and describe in Bahasa God as He is understood in Christianity and also in Islam during the same occasion…How to differentiate?
For example, in a church congregation conducted in Bahasa throughout, how does one say “we go to the church on Sunday for prayers to God whilst muslims go to the mosques to pray to their God on Frioday”?
Will it be “kita orang Kristian pergi ke gereja pada hari Ahad untuk bersembangyang kepada Allah manakala orang Islam pergi ke majid pada hari Jumat untuk bersembayang kepada Allah”?
Would there not be confusion then as we’re talking of 2 different religious groups having a different understanding of their Gods? And when it comes to important matters of faith, would you not agree that there should not be ambiguity and confusion?
Yes we’re all agreed that we should stem religious extremism whenever it rears its ugly head that is if what Johari ruled was motivated by or pandering to extremism but what if he said he was looking at the practical aspects of differentiating terminology in a multiracial society comprising, amongst others, Muslims and Christians abiding by article 11(4) of the Constitution/Merdeka Social Contract prohibiting propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam – and where a muslim (whether by inadvertance or intention) reading and hearing the same expression of “Allah” may get influenced by the teachings?
by which article et
“we go to the church on Sunday for prayers to God whilst muslims go to the mosques to pray to their God on Fridayâ€?—Jeffrey
I believe the sentence is very clear in english, when the same word God is used. Like somebody said in this blog before, everybody calls his father or mother his own way, and they know perfectly who they are, and who would respond.
In Malay language, the same word Allah can be used in two places, and people would know who they refer to.
Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholders, and Allah lies in the mind of the believers; they can take to believe who they want.
But the issue is not a matter of logic, but politics of religion. The ban on the use of the word Allah is to tell people who write the Bahasa Malasia version that the route to Allah is through the mosque, and not the church. Bolehland observes rule by law, and laws are used to achieve the objectives of the powerful, the community or religion as the case may be.
///Bolehland observes rule by law, and laws are used to achieve the objectives of the powerful, the community or religion as the case may be/// – Loh.
Of course, I agree with theirs is politics of religion..so how do we counter that, if not by politics of logic (our only resource) as I raised in the most recent thread “Do Malaysian Muslims understand what ‘Allah’ means” by Farish Noor?
BN certainly does not observe the rule of law!
The judiciary having fallen victim to executive interference over the years has been interpreting the law to suit the needs of the ruling regime. What rule of law are you talking about? Rather than the rule of law, we have instead, the rule of men.
Non-enforcement of the laws, or their selective enforcement, to suit the political needs of the ruling regime certainly does not amount to observing the rule of law.
Selective prosecution, and more recently the prosecutorial misconduct by the prosecutor surely is no indication of a state that could be described as the rule of law – not by a long shot!!
Actually, the issue over the use of the word “Allah” is not important. What is more important is the word “Halal”. High government officials in Malaysia stress so much on halal when they come to the food they consume and things they use but are they the least bit halal when it comes to accepting bribes? All bribes are non-halal according to Islam so why are these high officials corrupted! As if such big deal on the use of the word Allah then!!!!
And don’t forget these two words are made up of the same alphabets. Disrespecting one is equivalent to disrespecting the other!
Tell me if there is “rasuah halal”!
“These officers (Joha…etc) are wasting time saying n doing meaningless things” – cheng on soo
What else do you expect these people to do? Can they handle “big and important” things? Are they the least bit capable? That is why these so called government servants are the ones creating problems and interpreting the laws their ways. The purpose is to create opportunities to make RM RM RM and RM!!!!! But in this case is to show their superiority!