Posted on by Kit

A commentary on Nazri’s offer of a way out

By N.H. Chan
Malaysian Insider
Jan 20 2010

This is what the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said (The Star, Saturday, Jan 16, 2010). Nazri, who was voicing his personal opinion over the “Allah” issue, noted that Sabahans and Sarawakians could still conduct Mass and give sermons in Bahasa Malaysia but should not use the word “Allah” while in the peninsula.

“It is all right to hold Mass in Bahasa Malaysia but do not use the word ‘Allah’. They must use Tuhan as in the national language,” he said in an interview.
Although he agreed that the word “Allah” had been long used in Christianity way before Islam existed, Nazri said: “That’s why I say it is all right in Sabah and Sarawak but culturally, you cannot apply it in a place where Allah has always been Islam’s God.”

But where is it said anywhere – certainly it is not in the Koran – that Christians cannot apply Allah in a place where Allah has always been Islam’s God.

The Jews and the Christians have always considered that Islam’s God is the same God of Abraham and of Jesus Christ. Indeed, Jesus Christ was acknowledged by Prophet Mohamed as one of the prophets of God.

Also, one may ask, is there any place on earth where Allah has not been Islam’s God? Even China is a place where Allah has always been Islam’s God.

There are more Muslims in China than Malaysia could ever hope to have even though most of the Chinese people there are not believers of Islam or, for that matter, of any of the main world religions. In fact, Chinese Muslims existed in China centuries before there were any Malay Muslims in Malaya as the peninsula was then called.

Like the majority of the population of China, the Malays of peninsular Malaya then were heathens in the eye of Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

All the English dictionaries give the meaning of “Allah” – which is an English word by importation – as “the Muslim name for God”.

But then the Honourable Minister suggested that if you must hold Mass in Bahasa Malaysia do not use the word “Allah”. “They must use Tuhan as in the national language”, said the Minister.

But the synonym for Tuhan is Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia dictionary.

Now, why do Christians prefer to use the word “Allah” when they translate the Bible into Bahasa Malaysia? The reasoning is this: Islam’s name for God is Allah, who is the same God as Abraham’s God. Abraham’s God is also the God of the Hebrew people, namely the Jews. And the God of the Christians is the same God of Abraham, the Muslims and the Jews.

Only the approach or method of worshipping the same God is different depending on whether you are a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew.

So if you use a word like Tuhan it does not apply to the God of the Muslims who is Allah and not Tuhan. But the God of the Muslims is the same God as the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is the same God of the Jews and of the Christians.

So that the name Allah is more appropriate for the Christians who worship the same God.

37 Replies to “A commentary on Nazri’s offer of a way out”

  1. hahahahahahaha…Reading the message makes you know…the fact of the matter is…Najib tried to pull a stunt to win Muslims votes….backfired!
    Now Nazri’s reasoning…only Nazri or UMNO Malays can understand.
    Trace when Nazri started talking…like so…after how many days or hours…or how many churches were torched up…and…what are the reactions of Malaysians…and you will note…he knows…UMNO BARU cannot win more votes with the ruse.

  2. But then…UMNO guys told the 91 foreign representatives.. questioning them….not to compare apple to orange….which is so idiotic and childish respond.
    I guess…UMNO Malays know more about the Islamic religion more than anyone.
    Najib was decorated with the highest order from Saudie King…two days ago.

  3. … and next, during the Puasa month all non-Muslims also cannot eat lest they will tempt the Muslims to eat and drink and defile themselves during the holy month.

    When the adhan prayers are called, all non-Muslim must stop whatever they are doing five times a day lest Muslim sensitivities might be provoked against insults to “Allxh” and they might lose control of their minds and go on a rampage.

    Pork and liquor to be totally banned wherever there is a Muslim living nearby lest Muslims might get confused and mistaken pork for mutton and beer as a soft drink.

    All other places of worship will not be allowed lest Muslims might be converted and become Christians, Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs and Baha’is.

    And so on …

    Since now “Allxh” has lost his omnipotence in UMNO’s Bolehland, whatever UMNO says supersedes or abrogates the laws of nature and the Koran.

  4. If Abraham were to be alive this day, he would probably have regretted that he married the second wife, Hagar, too hastily without listening to God when God told him not to marry Hagar too soon and should wait a bit longer in order to see a child who would yet be born by Sarah.

    Abraham would be very sad to see that the descendants of his second wife, Hagar, were trying very hard to stop the descendants of his first wife, Sarah, from addressing God as “Allah” in the Malay language during the worship session. Abraham would probably have never expected that his practicing polygamy could cause so many problems to his descendants to the extent that the long-lasting quarrel between the descendants of the two wives had to linger on until this day.

    So, Christians had better not practiced polygamy!

  5. I can’t sing the Johor nor the Selangor state anthem since I cannot call on His-Name-Who-I-Cannot-Speak to bless my King as it was decreed I shall not speak of Him-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
    Since my “Tuhan” cannot bless HRH, be’cos he holds that we do not believe in the same God. I have always believed in Him, my God, Who said, “I-Am-Who-Am”. I believed Him to be Omnipotent and Omnipresent.

    My children are confused as we often pray together for everyone in the world. How am I to explain to them that certain people do not wished to be prayed for, for reasons best known to themselves?

  7. Someone wrote –
    “sorry guys…out of topic but of GREAT interest, have to share this…..

    A non-Muslim man came home from work and his children ran to him and called out “Ayah! Ayah!”

    His Muslim neighbour got very upset and said to him, “Can you please tell your children not to call you ‘Ayah’?”

    The man asked, “Why?”

    The neighbor retorted, “Because my children call me ’Ayah’ too. They might get confused and mistake you to be their father.”

    boy, that man nearly killed his indon maid for teaching his children malay word for “Father”…hi hi hi.”

  8. //But where is it said anywhere – certainly it is not in the Koran – that Christians cannot apply Allah in a place where Allah has always been Islam’s God.//
    ———————————

    The Koran is the standard of truth for Islam. Muslims who reject the teaching of the Koran are not true believers of Islam. The truth of the Koran does not depend on any cultural practice. Since UMNO believes that their culture is greater than the Koran they are preaching a different form of Islam which is not Islam

  9. “gofortruth” writer……Same joke posted by Storm62 at Susan Loone’s blog.
    Nice one. I wonder who really was the first contributor.
    As we all know….it is UMNO trying to fool Malaysians and we should not let them make us unpatriotic Malaysians.
    Sign the individual State anthems with pride.
    Do not allow UMNO to disunite us.
    [deleted]
    UMNO is not the wise ones .for sure.
    There is a limit to everything…and have we reach that limit?…not yet.

  10. Islam does not accept Jesus as God…that’s all…and the Christians and Muslims have been fighting for centuries…to protect.the one true God.
    But in Malaysia…UMNO is fighting to protect a word…which is used by Christians for centuries..with no problems from each camps.
    The late Arafat used to attend Christmas Sunday mass with Christians using the word “Allah” freely.
    But UMNO is better that Arafat..with no issues to promote their dirty .. religion politics…had to chose the word “Allah”..the moment a Judge declared…OK for Christians to us it..hoping it is a golden opportunity to create problems between Muslims and Christians.
    Yes…UMNO is not interested in truths.
    It is interested only how to find ways and means..how to stay in power forever.
    Found out Muslims are protecting churches from being burnt off…and Christians are praying for forgiveness…it backfired UMNO’s intentions.
    This shows vast majority Malaysians are ready to unite.
    Najib knows it too well….and you can expect denials after denials…from all of them.
    UMNO does not play any game fair and square.
    In fact…UMNO does not conduct themselves.. like elected politicians.
    They are all little dictators…..corrupted to the core.
    This issue have made more Muslims hate UMNO. and Najib.

  12. Try to check some of your words …change it…and beat the moderation…Suckkars.
    You are not the only one feeling frustrated.
    Do not give up…if you feel you have something to contribute.
    Sometimes..”waiting moderation” is actually protecting you too.,.by blog owner…or protecting himself…as a responsible blog owner…you choose.

  13. Well you can’t blame Nazri for coming out with ideas like this. He is not free from the infectious disease of Mahathirism and as we have just seen that ‘Mr. 9/11 is Avatar’ spreads living in a dream world like a plague.

  14. moderation is probably necessary with the activities of a heavy-handed PDRM and the biased ICC Ministry.
    What is perhaps annoying is some posts simply disappear without trace!
    You post your comments and “submit” and next thing is you get a new page without your comments …..simply disppear like PI Balan!

  15. There are problems in NH Chan’s arguments.

    There is no contention that Jews, Christians and Muslims share common Abrahamic traditions. In terms of ancestry, Jews trace back to Isaac, son of Abraham. Like wise, prophet Mohammed also trace back to Ismael, son of Abraham. [Abraham was promised by God to be the father of a huge nation. Abraham and his 1st wife Sarah failed to have a baby. He had a child (Ishmael) by Hagar. God subsequently intervened and Sarah (she was 90 then) became pregnant with Isaac]. Thats the common heritage/history.

    The descendents if Issac and Ishmael then went different ways in worship, rituals etc, interpretation (Muslims, for example, don’t believe in the Trinity because they don’t believe Jesus is the son of God).

    However the fact that there is common historical ancestral roots tracing back to Abraham, does it necessarily mean that Muslims and Christians each view they share the same God, ie. Abraham’s God?

    NH Chan says “The Jews and the Christians have always considered that Islam’s God is the same God of Abraham and of Jesus Christ”. Is that a fact? I don’t think that just because Jews, Christians and Muslims have common ancestor in Abraham, and Abraham believed in God, it is safe to say, as NH Chan does, that Abraham descendents on Sarah’s side (Jews and Christians) consider Islam’s God “ of descendants on Hargar’s side is the “same God of Abraham and of Jesus Christ” (anymore than the opposite is the case of Muslims considering Christians’ God as theirs) !

    NH Chan says “only the approach or method of worshipping the same God is different depending on whether you are a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew.”

    However the difference in “approach or method of worshipping” makes all the difference and ought not to be trivialised when Judaism of Jews, Christianity of Christians and Islam of Muslims are each based on monotheism.

    Monotheism means that there is only one God. [Unlike polytheism of the Chinese (generally) worshipping on their altars more than one deity]. This also implies from the monotheistic faithfuls’ point of view – “if our God is true God, then the others’ cannot be, whether common tradition or not!”

    Yes there can exist tolerance for other’s pursuing their beliefs – and for some, whats harm in the other using same name to describe God – but this does not change the monotheistic equation and in no way implies any group believing that they share the same God as the other groups.

    Not only does that hold true here but world wide. See for example the conflict in the Middle East between Israelis (Jews) backed by Americans (Christians) and Palestinians and Arabs (Muslims) or (historically) the Crusades between Muslim Saladin and Christian Richard the Lionheart. If they believe they share same God would they be fighting each other, often in the name of God???

    So NH Chan’s premise – “But the God of the Muslims is the same God as the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is the same God of the Jews and of the Christians” – and therefore his conclusion “so that the name Allah is more appropriate for the Christians who worship the same God” may not necessarily hold from perspectives of certain other Muslims who question the factual accuracy of the first premise, and therefore do not agree that the conclusion that follows from it!

  16. In saying “but the God of the Muslims is the same God as the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is the same God of the Jews and of the Christians” NH Chan implies that Jews, muslims and Christians share same God, the God of their common ancestor, Abraham. This is the premise.

    Following that premise he concludes, therefore “the name Allah is more appropriate for the Christians who worship the same God.”
    Christians (reading Malay version of the bible) may describe and know the name of their God by “Allah” but that does not mean in any way that Christians (just because of that description alone) believe, from the monotheistic standpoint, that the God they worship is the same as Muslims (anymore than vice versa the Muslims believe that the God they worship is same as Christians) – common Abrahamic traditions notwithstanding.

    If Christians group and the Muslim Group do not generally view they share the “same” God, from where does he deduce that it is “more appropriate” to share same description of God?

    Please note NH Chan’s argument – same God (common ancestor’s Abraham’s God) – therefore from that, same description is OK.

    But the argument is fallacious because it is not “same God” from either Christians or Muslims’ perspective.

    I am not saying that there’s anything wrong in Christians using or describing their God in Bahasa Malaysia as “Allah” as customarily done in East Malaysia. From my perspective it is just a description. We should be tolerant.

    What I am saying it is that it is not correct from logical angle to argue “more appropriate” to use the term just based on same “same God” argument (of Abraham) when NH Chan cannot seriously put forth Christians and Muslims view their God the same.

    To some (less tolerant) from both faiths, they will extrapolate to argue further that God is defined by His desciption, so no same God means no same description!

  17. The better argument then to defend use of “Allah” by Christians using the Malay language is not the thelogical argument of “same God – same description” – but the practical logic raised by Dr Chen in subsequent thread “Catholic use of Allah is prompted by demand of East Malaysian Christians living in Peninsular Malaysia” as
    when he cited Bernard Dompok as explaining “many East Malaysians have gravitated to Peninsular Malaysia to look for work. Many have stayed in the Peninsula for over twenty years or more. They go to church and because their language is Malay, the Christian churches have been conducting masses and services for them in the national language.The East Malaysian Christians call the Almighty ALLAH..”and they will be confused if they use another word “Tuhan” in Peninsular where they work. As Dr Chen Man Hin correctly stated, “It is also clear that the use of Allah is not meant to confuse Muslims or to poselytise (to convert) the muslims. It is to serve the need of East Malaysia Christians to pray to Allah.”

    Unless you don’t want them to come to peninsular to work and have their religious service here or stop them from using the national language on matters religious, what other practical option is there to avert confusion on their part if Nazri’s half way compromise of usage of Allah in East Malaysia and something else in Peninsular were implemented???

    We’re already a laughing stock internationally over the dispute of the word and will be laughed even more when a dichotomy of two different terms for God is prescribed for and dictated to the same set of people (East Malaysian Christians well versed in Malay) of a same country (Malaysia), supposedly galvanised by one national ideology the supposedly inclusive “1 Malaysia”, and which word is to apply and when depending on an extraneous and whimsical geographical factor whether they have crossed the South China Seas!

    This is what we are telling the world what we want to do. The world will think we’re absurd, and out of our minds!

  18. I think Dr. Chan’s claim, though put forward and argued in layman terms, is philosophically sound.

    How a name refers to an object is an interesting issue in the philosphy of language that has far-reaching implications for philosophy of science and philosophy of language.

    According to the descriptive theory of nominal reference, one can refer to an object with a name only if most of the essential descriptions associated with the name are true. This theory has largely been rejected. The theory currently in vogue is Saul Kripke’s causal theory of nominal reference.

    According to Kripke’s theory, people in different historical periods can refer to the same object with a name despite changes in descriptions associated with it over time by the following process. At the initial stage, reference is fixed by perception when the perceiver says, ‘object O shall be named X’. After reference-fixing, the name is passed on by communication over time. That’s why scientists of different ages who accepted different theories can refer to the same object, though they disagree about their understanding of that object. Likewise, Jews, Christians, and Muslims can refer to the same God despite their different understanding of it, because of the historical continuity of the names of God first used by Jews in Hebrew, followed by Christians in Aramaic and Hebrew, which were then translated into many languages, including Arabic by Christians, where one of these Arabic translations was subsequently adopted by Muslims.

    The main idea is that people can succeed in reference without success in description. The historical chain of successive use through communication originated in the initial reference-fixing secures the reference. Christians and Muslims do decribe God differently (if one of these concepts are right, then either Christians or Muslims have misdescribed God), but they refer to the same God by names such as ‘Allah’.

  20. Suppose the proponent of the ‘Allah’ ban rejects the claim that Christians and Muslims refer to the same God by the name ‘Allah’ because he rejects the causal theory and insists on the descriptive theory (see my earlier posting). In that case, his descriptive theory entails that Christians and Muslims cannot refer to the same God with a shared name.

    Suppose we grant the completely unreasonable and irrational assumption of the proponent of the ban that when a name does not refer to the same God as used in two religious communities, one of them must be prohibited from using the name to refer to their God since it might cause confusion. Does it follow that the most reasonable thing is to ban Christians from using the name ‘Allah’? Given that ‘Allah’ was first used by Christians to refer to their trinitarian God, doesn’t it make more sense to say that Muslims should not use that word to refer to their different God?

  22. Even If all the so-called religious experts in the world come to Malaysia to discuss the best solution to the WORD problem, I don’t believe that UMNO will accept the answer as the last fall back is Ket……. plus the matter of confusion among their followers.
    I expect politicians of both sides will exploit this issue untill the next GE.

  23. ///Given that ‘Allah’ was first used by Christians to refer to their trinitarian God, doesn’t it make more sense to say that Muslims should not use that word to refer to their different God?///–Lee Wang Yen

    Yes, it does. That is why UMNO is a bully.

  25. Assuming for the sake of argument the preposterous assumption that there are good grounds for banning, the historical facts relevant to deciding whose use of the word should be banned are supposed to be those related to how the word Allah has been used in the history of Christianity and Islam. The incontrovertible fact is that the word was first used by Christian to refer to their trinitarian God.

    But UMNO argues that in our unique Malaysia we should focus on our own ‘landscape’ rather than the above history. Even if we grant this unreasonable assumption that the relevant historical facts are the history of its use in Malaysia, they can’t say that ‘Allah’ has always been used in Malaysia to refer to the Islamic God. Malaysia didn’t exist before 1963. As of 1963, ‘Allah’ has been used in Malaysia to refer to both the Islamic God and the Christian God, as East Malaysian Christians had used that term to refer to their God since the 19th century

  26. ///According to Kripke’s theory, people in different historical periods can refer to the same object with a name despite changes in descriptions associated with it over time by the following process/// – Lee Wang Yen.

    I would imagine not only different historical periods, different geography and cultures, whatever other differences, it is true that from philosophical perspectives of what is true, the same “object” (God, if I may be permitted to so refer) is God the Almighty, and creator and everything regardless of what one calls Him, whether “God” to English speaking Christians or “Allah” to Muslims or “Yaweh” a description of God in the Hebrew Bible….

    However although “God” may, by definition, have the essential attributes of being all powerful, all Good and Creator, common to all three religions of Abrahamic traditions – and hence in this philosophical sense is or could be argued “One and the Same”, yet I would imagine, rightly or otherwise, that the majority of believers of any monotheistic religion (ie only One God) will NOT think along these philosophical lines or that theirs and others’ God is actual reference to one and the same Entity, albeit referred to by different names (for NH Chan’s argument to stick).

    Notwithstanding common attributes ascribed to God or the historical continuity from Abraham line, people also ascribe their notion of God with other attributes that may be dissimilar from those of the others. It is not just difference in reference-fixing of what one calls Him.

    NH Chan’s argument rests heavily on common Abrahamic roots tracing back to Prophet Abraham :
    · “But the God of the Muslims is the same God as the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is the same God of the Jews and of the Christians
    · “So that the name Allah is more appropriate for the Christians who worship the same God”

    He relies heavily on the assumption that “God of Abraham is the same God of the Jews and of the Christians – and Muslims just because historically it is traceable to God of Abraham, a common ancestor….

    One can say that common Abrahamic roots could explain why elsewhere (say) in Indonesia and parts of Middle East, “Allah” is used by Christians of a faith of same Abrahamic root as Islam but to proceed on an argument that it is ‘appropriate’ to so because of “same God” between Christianity & Islam – by reason of common ancestor, and historical line leading to Abraham?

    What is acceptable by philosophical argument as sound may not necessarily be what ordinary people perceive and accept as common sense.

    If one conducts a survey amongst Christians & Muslims (separately) and ask each group whether they think their God is the same as the other group, I doubt they’ll answer in the affirmative.

  27. ///The incontrovertible fact is that the word was first used by Christian to refer to their trinitarian God///. However to ordinary Muslims theirs (whom they also refer to as “Allah” as the Christians) is not a trinitarian God, hence not “same God” based on common Abrahamic heritage as NH Chan puts it to justify why its usage by Christians is ‘appropriate’.

    ///Given that ‘Allah’ was first used by Christians to refer to their trinitarian God, doesn’t it make more sense to say that Muslims should not use that word to refer to their different God?/// (Lee Wang Yen)

    We don’t have to go that far but if ‘Allah’ was first used by early Christians to refer to their trinitarian God pre-dating even Islam, then that is the reason why Christians can share use the same word for referencing.

    This is different from the “same God argument” that ordinary people of both faiths would find it hard to accept.

  29. In my previous postings I’m putting forward two different arguments. Note the ‘assuming for the sake of argument…’ in my second and third postings (ignoring those correction postings).

    You’re surely right that many monotheists think that they mean rather different things when they use the same word ‘God’ (or Tuhan, Allah, theos, el, elohim etc) to refer to God. But that’s consistent with the fact that they refer to the same God. We must distinguish between sense (meaning) and reference. Christians and Muslims use the word Allah with different senses, but they do refer to the same God by it, given the historical chain originating in the initial reference-fixing.

    For this reason, you’re surely right about the probable outcome of those proposed linguistic surveys. But that outcome is entirely compatible with the claim that Christians and Muslims refer to the same God with the word ‘Allah’.

    Appealing to the historical facts regarding the origin of the word in Jewish usage, which is subsequently adopted by Christians and Muslims, is especially apt, since it shows us, according to the causal theory of reference, that Christians and Muslims indeed refer to the same God with the word ‘Allah’. So Chan’s argument is sound. His argument for the propriety of Christian usage is based on common reference, not common meaning/sense.

  30. Note that in my first posting (#18), I support Chan’s claim that the Christian usage is appropriate by arguing that Christians and Muslims refer to the same God with the name ‘Allah’ by appealing to the causal theory of reference.

    I then put forward in #20 and #25 two different arguments for why the Allah ban is unacceptable. In those postings I argue that EVEN IF we GRANT for the sake of argument that the causal theory is wrong and that the descriptive theory is right (which entails that Christians and Muslims do not refer to the same God), we still have good reason to think that the ban is unjustified.

    It’s important to take note of this ‘EVEN IF’ strategy and not to pit my arguments or claims in #20 and #25 against my argument in #18, given that I grant as a matter of argumentative strategy in 20 and 25 what I what I explicitly reject in 18.

  31. Thanks for the comments & contributions to the debate, Wang Yen.

    Our problem now is how to resolve the ban controversy, calm the situation after 9 churches, one mosque, three suraus, one Sikh temple and one convent school have been damaged from arson arising from this ‘spiral of madness’ as Kit describes it.

    It entails canvassing the most persuasive of a range of arguments calculated to exert the best practical effect that all sides can accept as a solution.

    The argument that “we must distinguish between sense (meaning) and reference. Christians and Muslims use the word Allah with different senses, but they do refer to the same God by it, given the historical chain originating in the initial reference-fixing” is an argument though appreciated by logician, philosopher or theologian or an educated layman, is, I surmise, not an argument (even if right by “the causal theory of reference”) that UMNOputras or the suspected arsonists (dispatch riders, office boys and clerks) will either understand or buy to concede their positions.

    I like the practical argument made by Tan Sri Bernard Dompok/Dr Chen Man Hin in the other thread “Catholic use of Allah is prompted by demand of East Malaysian Christians living in Peninsular Malaysia”.

    He says: “Many East Malaysians have gravitated to Peninsular Malaysia to look for work. Many have stayed in the Peninsula for over twenty years or more. They go to church and because their language is Malay, the Christian churches have been conducting masses and services for them in the national language. Hence there is a demand for Herald, the Catholic weekly, to print church news not only in English but also in Malay, and they have to use the word Allah. The East Malaysian Christians call the Almighty ALLAH.It is clear therefore that the Herald must use the word Allah to keep East Malaysia Christians happy.”
    The key point made is that “it is also clear that the use of Allah is not meant to confuse Muslims or to poselytise (to convert) the muslims. It is to serve the need of East Malaysia Christians to pray to Allah” (when in peninsular as well), consistent with 1 malaysia motto. It also directly addresses the official reason for the ban : possible confusion and poselytisation of the muslims by Christians’ use of the same word in Malay.

    Re Nazri’s “offer of a way out” – on the issue of confusion, it seems to me that East Malaysian Christians working in Peninsular are more likely to get confused by God being referred to as Allah in East Malaysia but Tuhan in Peninsular, not understanding why there’s such a difference in reference just because of the South China Sea. On the issue of poselytisation of the muslims, Nazri himself is quoted to have said “Actually, in my opinion, I prefer to let it be….If everyone prays to Allah, they’ll all be Muslim. It’s a good ploy for Muslims to convert non-Muslims” thus obliquely admitting that the chances of poselytisation of the muslims by use of common reference are as equal or remote as conversion of Christians to Muslims!

    So where is left of any other argument in support of sustaining the ban?

  32. The latest is this so called Malaysian joke making its round on the Internet.

    A man came home from work and his children ran to him and called out ‘Ayah! Ayah!’.

    His neighbor got very upset and said to him, “Can you please tell your children not to call you ‘Ayah’?”

    The man asked, “Why?”

    The neighbor retorted, “Because my children call me ’Ayah’ too. They might get confused and mistake you to be their father.”

  33. ///The Jews and the Christians have always considered that Islam’s God is the same God of Abraham and of Jesus Christ. Indeed, Jesus Christ was acknowledged by Prophet Mohamed as one of the prophets of God.///–N.H. Chan

    If Prophet Mohamed acknowledged Jesus Christ as a prophet of God, he had to accept that the God that sent Jesus Christ as prophet was the same God that made him prophet. Otherwise it made no sense for Prophet Mohamed to accept the status of Jesus Christ as Prophet before his time, if he did not recognise Jesus Christ’s God as his own. Had the God that made Jesus Christ the Prophet been different from what Prophet Mohamed considered as God, there was no need for him to acknowledge Jesus as such. In fact if Prophet Mohamed did not consider the God known as Allah before his time as the same God, he could have chosen the word ‘Tuhan’ to show that his God is different from that of Jesus Christ. Obviously Prophet Mohamed was at liberty to call his God a different name though Christians before him were not obliged to. Indeed, they were not under UMNO government then.

    Unless Nasri challenged the statement that Jesus Christ was acknowledged by Prophet Mohamed as one of the prophets of God, then Allah is the same God for anybody who call his God Allah.

  34. Ah Lar never said Christians cannot use the word. Unfortunately, some of his followers in Bodohland are so stupid and uncivilised, to claim ownership of a simple word. They are mentally weak and can easily be manipulated to create trouble. This kind of attitude and culture is bad for the development of the country. Sooner or later, civil-unrest will break out, and the economy will burst, unless PR takes over the government.

  35. If what N H Chan says “The Jews and the Christians have always considered that Islam’s God is the same God of Abraham and of Jesus Christ” is correct, it does not mean the converse is true that Muslims also consider that Islam’s God is the same .

    However a “God” like other concept is defined by attributes and characteristics as commonly understood. Here Christian God and the Muslim God are “one and the same” in attributes of being all powerful, benevolent, and the Creator but they are also different in salient aspects, one of which is Christians believe in trinitarian God but not Muslims…There are other major differences but we’ll not go through them here. Based on these differences those who want to believe that the Gods are different, they will cite these differences.

    However those who want to defend the position that they are one and the same could also argue so. They’d say that these are mere differences of beliefs about God. Just because a person or groups of people view God in different ways doesn’t mean that God is a different God. Especially so when the referencing fixing is based historically on Abraham’s God. Wang Yen has argued cogently in these respects.

    Judaism and Christianity have vantage point of being earlier than Islam. Based on monotheistic view (that there is only one God and no other) it is only logical that from many (not all) Christians’ perspective claims to knowledge of God from another monotheistic religion that came after like Islam should be a reference to the same God as theirs especially derived from same Abrahamic roots. They even argue that many of Prophet Mohammad’s teachings appear to have been based on what earlier Jews and Christians believed and shared. As Loh has argued logically in #33, if Islam recognises Jesus as one of the prophets then the God that made him prophet must be one and the same.

    The line of argument could take off (nicely) based on the main advantage of Chistianity being earlier having gained some foothold in Mecca by the time of the Prophet Muhammad, so it is ventured to be argued that his teachings might have been so influenced to the extent of any parallelism in beliefs between the two great faiths.

    It explains clearly how it is entirely plausible that the word “Allah” was used by Christians even in Arab lands well up to the time of Islam and after.

    The trouble is – as I said about the surveys if conducted amongst groups of Christians or Muslims –the perception of the majority of each group (which is what really counts) will likely not accept (from monetheistic standpoint) the same God argument, and I doubt the philosophical, theological or historical arguments above discussed in support of it will be accepted for any meaningful and practical solution to this controversy. People understand concepts based on similarities or differences comparing one entity to another – thats common sense- and here there are significant differences in meaning of God between the 2 faiths (trinitarian versus unitrian). [And this is the root problem (different God perception) that denies the earlier group usage of “Allah” since time immemorial!].

    Wang Yen is correct in saying that NH Chan’s argument for the propriety of Christian usage is based “on common reference, not common meaning/sense”. However it is, in practical terms, difficult to resolve a controversy amongst contending groups via public discourse urging a “common reference” argument when majority of people, who need to be influenced for resolution of conflict, proceed on a different platform of “common meaning/sense”, which one cannot say is wrong or unreasonable either.

  36. Muslims believe that Islam is a fulfilment of Judaism and Christianity. Christians believed
    (650 years) before Islam, that Christianity is a fulfilment of Judaism. So they ALL refer to the same God!

    Christians, and later Muslims, used “Allah”; and Jews (long before Christians and Muslims) used a name related (in word origin) to the “Allah” of the Arabic language.

    Muslims do not believe that Jesus was God, but that is a matter of disagreement as to the true nature of the SAME GOD. Muslims DENY that the Abrahamic God is a Trinity (Father, Son(Jesus), and Holy Spirit); CHRISTIANS BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT MUSLIMS DENY regarding this matter!

    That is why Muslims are Muslims and Christians are Christians.

  37. I’am no really good in religion. But one can find useful knowledge in the following address IF THEY’re BRAVE enough to find the truth:

    The Truth About Jesus Christ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIPhUY8kIBo&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=84749B8A66EF8BCA

    Debate Between Dr Zakir Naik nad dr William Campbell

    http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2236614

    Islam: The Religion Of Truth by Abdur Raheem Green

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCgj6p3JTLg&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=84749B8A66EF8BCA

    mcy0077

Leave a Reply