１． HarakahDaily.Net （http://www.harakahdaily.net）
Akhbar Kristian guna nama Allah, 20 Jun 2006
Oleh Abdullah Abdul Rahman
Saudara Pengarang,
Tuan, saya seorang petugas di Menara Petronas, KLCC. Hari ini (20 Mei) saya menerima senaskhah akhbar HERALD The Catholic Weekly bertarikh 21 Mei yang diedarkan secara percuma, tetapi di akhbar itu dinyatakan harganya RM1.00. Akhbar ini mempunyai KDN - PP 8460/12/2006, ISSN: 1394-3294.
Apa yang memusykilkan saya, mengapa akhbar ini diedarkan secara bebas. Selain berbahasa Inggeris, di dalam terdapat seksyen bahasa Melayu, Cina dan Tamil. Apa yang memeranjatkan saya, ada artikel dalam bahasa Melayu yang menggunakan nama Allah secara bebas. Saya bimbang anak-anak muda akan mudah terpengaruh dengan propaganda ini.Turut menulis dalam akhbar ini pada keluaran ini ialah Marina Mahathir. Beliau menulis mengenai orang Islam yang 'akan mengamuk' jika ada pihak cuba membuat karya mempertikai Islam seperti buku dan filem Da Vinci Code yang mempersoal ajaran Kristian.
Tajuk tulisannya, The Followers, dengan satu gambar kumpulan orang membantah sesuatu dengan 'caption': "If anyone tried to write a similar thriller based around Islam, they'd be hounded and pilloried and threatened with death, thousands would riot in protest and people who would never have been able to read the book either because they are illiterate or can't afford it would have died."
Bersama-sama ini saya sertakan sebuah rencana di seksyen bahasa Melayu (muka surat 23, ada tiga muka surat dalam bahasa Melayu) untuk rujukan semua.
"Kasih Allah; Tidak membeza-bezakan" Renungan Hari Minggu
Minggu Paskah VI
Bacaan I: Kis 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48
Bacaan II: 1 Yoh 4: 7-10 Injil: Yoh 15:9-17
Katerina memang luar biasa. Cuba bayangkan. Dia tabah dan sabar menghadapi tabiat dan perangai anak perempuannya.
Nama anak perempuannya itu ialah Janet dia berperangai aneh, dan ganjil bin ajaib, tidak sewajarnya sebagai anak gadis. Apalagi sebagai puteri dari Katerina, anggota Kerasulan Wanita Katolik yang terkenal aktif. Cara hidup Janet benar menghina nama baik namanya.
Janet suka berpakaian yang aneh-aneh. Baginya berpakaian di tempat umum dan di rumah itu sama saja. Cara berpakaian menjadi sumber pertengkaran di antara dia dan mamanya. "Mamanya terlalu kuno, tidak ikut perkembangan zaman," kata Janet setiap kali bertengkar.
Katerina selalu mencuba menyakinkan Janet dengan suara yang lemah lembut. Tetapi sia-sia belaka. Setiap kali diberi nasihat Janet membunyikan radio atau CD dengan suara yang kuat. Dan suara mamanya tenggelam dalam bunyi muzik.
Itu baru soal pakaian. Pergaulan Janet dengan lelaki lebih teruk lagi. Janet sering berganti-ganti teman lelaki. Sering keluar rumah dengan lelaki yang berlainan. Sudah menjadi kebiasaan Janet untuk berteriak memanggil nama lelaki yang dikenalnya apabila melintas di jalan. Kalau sudah begitu, mamanya lari ke dalam bilik menyembunyikan rasa malu.
"Ke manakah nak kusimpan mukaku ini," dan ia sering menjadi pertanyaan Katerina kepada Janet. Tanpa sopan Janet menjawab, "Biarkan di kepala."
Janet memang tidak asing lagi sebagai seorang yang rajin ke gereja pada hari minggu. Hanya yang menjadi persoalan ialah caranya berpakaian. Banyak umat lain yang terganggu kerana melihat cara Janet berpakaian yang tidak sesuai dengan pakaian untuk masuk ke rumah Allah. Hampir telanjang!
Itulah Janet yang selayaknya dibenci oleh mamanya Katerina, kerana memalukan dan mencemarkan nama keluarga. Tetapi Katerina selalu berkata, "tidak apa, biarlah dia begitu, dia tetap anak saya. Saya tetap mencintainya." Kalau saja Katerina berkata; "saya membenci Janet, biar dia itu anak saya," orang tidak mempermasalahkannya. Ada ramai orang berbuat begitu. Orang hanya mencintai orang yang baik dan balik membencinya kalau dia berubah menjadi jahat. Contoh tentang hal itu terlalu banyak. Tetapi sangat sedikit orang yang bersikap seperti Katerina.
Bagi orang Kristian, ajaran Cinta Kasih yang ditegaskan Yesus sudah bukan barang dan hal baru. Bahkan rumusannya seperti tertulis dalam Injil sudah dihafalkan. Hanya dalam Injil Yohanes, ajaran Cinta Kasih diberi dasar yang lain "supaya kamu saling mencintai seperti Aku telah mengasihi kamu." Pertanyaan kita ialah bagaimana Yesus mencintai kita?
Seperti Aku mencintai kamu, bukan kerana kamu baik, suci, dan tidak berdosa. Kalau Tuhan mencintai kita tunggu sampai kita baik dan benar maka manusia tidak bakal menikmati cinta Tuhan.
Cinta Tuhan memang lain. Biar pun manusia berdosa Tuhan tidak berubah jestru tindakan penebusan ada kaitannya dengan dosa manusia dan cinta Tuhan. Jestru di mana ada dosa di sana cinta Tuhan semakin tampak.
Dengan tetap mencinta Janet, Katerina sudah mewujudkan kata-kata Tuhan. Seperti Aku mencintai kamu. Janet tetap dicintai walapun dia berlaku aneh dan mengundang emosi.
Memang mencintai orang atau selama orang itu baik lebih mudah daripada mencintai orang yang tidak baik. Apalagi kalau kejahatan seseorang langsung merugikan kita.
Ada orang tua yang secara tegas mengatakan putus hubungan dengan anaknya kerana anaknya begitu dan begitu. Atau sebaliknya. Ada anak yang bersumpah tidak mahu berbaik dengan orang tuanya kerana sesuatu hal tertentu.
Ada pemimpin di pejabat yang membenci orang bawahan kerana dia jahat. Nasibnya, pengkatnya tidak pernah diperhatikan. Ada guru atau pensyarah yang membenci murid atau mahasiswa/winya. Keputusan peperiksaan mereka selalu rendah bahkan sehingga mereka gagal.
Allah adalah kasih, dan setiap orang yang mengaku diri mengenal Allah dan menjadi milik-Nya hanya terbukti kalau hidupnya memancarkan penghayatan cinta kasih. Sebaliknya, segala hal yang kita lakukan, yang bertentangan dengan penghayatan cinta kasih, tidak berasal dari Allah. Kerana itu, tinggal dalam kasih Allah menjadi usaha pertama yang perlu diperjuangkan. Selanjutnya, kasih Allah yang sudah kita rasakan akan menggerakkan diri kita untuk mencintai sesama.
Itulah tugas perutusan kita; menjadi nabi cinta kasih sayang di zaman ini. Melalui tugas perutusan tersebut, kita turut serta dalam karya Allah, yakni menanamkan cinta kasih Allah dalam hati setiap orang dalam masyarakat di mana pun kita berada.
Seperti Roh Kudus juga dicurahkan Allah kepada setiap orang dari bangsa mana pun yang takut akan Dia dan yang berkenan kepada-Nya kerana mengamalkan kebenaran Allah; demikian cinta kasih Allah diharapkan dapat dirasakan oleh semakin ramai orang di dunia ini.
Kita adalah duta-duta kasih. Marilah kita berusaha bersama agar cinta kasih menjadi menjadi suasana yang boleh dinikmati oleh semua orang di dunia ini; suasana kasih yang memberikan kehidupan dan kesegaran. Yesus minta supaya kita saling mencintai seperti Aku mencintai kamu. Manusia berbuat sebaliknya; seperti kamu mencintai aku. Amin - Paderi Valentine Gompok, OFM Cap
Akhirnya, bagi pengetahuan semua, akhbar ini diterbitkan oleh 'The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur' bagi pihak 'The Bishops of Penisular Malaysia, yang beralamat di Petaling Jaya. - Abdullah Abdul Rahman, KLCC.
Sekiranya terdapat sebarang komen, aduan, cadangan, pendapat, rencana atau sebagainya, sila emelkan ke harakahdaily@.... Artikel akan disiarkan di ruangan Surat Pembaca atau bersesuaian.
Isu Yang Sama, Perspektif Berbeda
wtv8
Saluran Alternatif Anda
di http://wtv8.tv
Setiap Sabtu Jam 9 Malam
Siaran Ulangan Setiap Hari
Email: webtv_8@...
２．Things to know about Muslims and Arabs
（http://thingstoknowaboutmuslimsandarabs.com)
Is Allah for Everyone?, 2 January 2008
by Maria
Recently there has been an uproar about the use of the name "Allah" by Christian missionaries in Malaysia. Here is a basic lowdown on Malaysia's religious breakdown. Malays are known to be Muslims - they are born Muslims and do not convert out of Islam (this is what is stated in the mainstream media). A fraction of non-Malays, who are mostly Chinese and Indians, are Christians. The rest are Buddhists and Hindus respectively. I would say Christinaity has be (sic) spreading widely in Malaysia. We see the church doing a lot of charity and social work that allow them to be the attractive choice of "way of life." Recently they have requested to use the name "Allah" instead of "God" in their English publications.
The government (mainly Muslim) rejected their request in order to safeguard the sanctity of Allah's name, citing that it would not befit Allah Ta'ala to have association with the Church. I can't speak for the Muslim reaction but I would guess many would be bewildered as to why Christians would want to be associated with "Allah" in the first place. "They" worship God, we worship Allah.
When I first hear about this I thought, well the Arabic Bible is written in Arabic, and God is known as Allah. That was my first reaction, which stunned many. I guess not many people know that an Arabic bible exists let alone Christian Arabs exist. At the same time, I do feel worried that such gazetted Christian publications with the reference to God as Allah and Prophet Jesus (blessings upon him) as "son of Allah" would be misleading to Muslims who lack the opportunities to pursue a fulfilling education. By reading stories or publications with such references, children especially could easily interpret that what they were reading was a Muslim message.
I don't disagree with the missionaries using the name Allah. As for as I am concerned, Allah is the work for God in Arabic, and in actual fact, Muslims worship God and God alone. Sure, I do not believe that Allah has a son - and that is why I am not a Christian - and having said that, I also do not believe that God has a son - it is exactly the same thing. I understand that Muslims revere "Allah" in a way no other religion does, I do not deny that. At the same time however, the fact that these particular group of Christians are accepting the word "Allah" as God speaks for itself.
Muslims are often represented as worshippers of Allah the God of the Moon, Allah the Arabic God, Allah the God of Something or Another - and some other extremely hurtful and atrocious names and descriptions. Na'uzubillah. I feel somehow, this change acts as silent da'wa for Muslims. Could the Christian missionaries in the long run suddenly realise that the word Allah is a word for God that can never pluralised? Allah can never represent more than one deity, let alone 3. We will see, Allah knows best.
I think it is a good thing, that after some thought, the government reversed their decision, allowing the Church to substitute God for Allah. Allah knows best, Allah knows best. He Himself preserves his religion in ways we fail to imagine.
But for Muslims, especially those who are still learning to understand Islam as the complete way of life and have not studied other religions to understand their beliefs and practices, it is a call to wake up and learn to appreciate what Islam has to offer. I speak for myself too. I believe that if I had not known about the Arabic bible I would have strongly opposed such a request by the Church.
It is not fair to blame others when brothers and sisters leave the faith. Christianity and Judaism share more similarities to Islam than differences - and we should know of both of them. There are plenty of honourable references to Christians and Jews in the Qur'an as the People of the Book.
We will see how this unravels - I am sure this has happened in other countries - the word Allah being used in other religions. If there are, let us know, it would be interesting to see how Muslims around the world react to changes like this.
３． “Shariah @ National Law” （http://zfikri.wordpress.com/）
①‘Tuhan, Dewa, Allah For Wording Of The Constitution?’, 27 December 2007
In her letter to Malaysiakini “Malay word for God is ‘Tuhan’ “Fathima Idris wrote: “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 Allah”.”
Based on Indonesian experience at the time of constitutional debate (1945) in the using of the word “Allah,” Muslims and Christians did not have a problem with the use of the word. But Hindus strongly disagreed with the wording of the constitutional preambule and provisions. Why?
Before Islam influenced Malay language, there were two words available for God in Malay: “Tuhan” and “Dewa.”“Di dalam bahasa Melayu atau bahasa Indonesia; dua konsep atau nama yang berhubungan dengan “Ketuhanan”, yaitu: Tuhan sendiri dan Dewa. Penganut monoteisme biasanya menolak menggunakan kata Dewa di Indonesia, tetapi sebenarnya hal ini tidaklah berdasar. Sebab di Prasasti Trengganu, prasasti tertua di dalam bahasa Melayu yang ditulis menggunakan Huruf Arab (Huruf Jawi) menyebut “Sang Dewata Mulia Raya”. Bagaimanapun, pada masa kini, pengertian istilah Tuhan digunakan untuk merujuk Tuhan yang tunggal, sementara Dewa dianggap mengandung arti salah satu dari banyak tuhan sehingga cenderung mengacu kepada politeisme (Wikipedia).”
After Islam came, the word “Allah” taken by Malay to name God. And “the word ‘Allah’ is used in Indonesian language version of the Bible, but the pronunciation is different from that used by Indonesian Muslims (Answers.com).”
Indonesian Hindus use the word “Dewa” to call their gods. Therefore, in Indonesian context, according to the those participating in the constitutional debate (Muslims, Christians, Hindus), the Malay word “Tuhan” is more neutral than “Allah” and “Dewa.”
②‘No Allah In The Hebrew Bible’, 31 December 2007
If we look to the origin of the Bible in Hebrew, as explained by Bob Kee in his letter to Malaysiakini, there is no word “Allah” in the Bible. That is why those who argue for the use of “Allah” in Malaysian Bible refer to Arabic word for the use. The evolution of Malay language before Christianity came to the Archipelago also could not help the argument for the use of “Allah.” The plausible explanation is by referring to the contemporary development of Bahasa Malaysia after the coming of Christianity to the Archipelago. It means, before the coming of Christianity the Malay word “Allah” referred to Muslims’ God and after the coming of Christianity it refers to Muslims’ God and Christians’ God.
What he claims is the same as what the following article says:
Is Allah in the Bible?
“Our belief in a holy book, like the Quran, or in a holy prophet, such as Muhammed, must be preceded by our belief in Allah. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider a prophet.”
Words of– Imam Mohamad Jawad Chirri,
Islamic Center of America, Detroit, Michigan
Psalms 138:2, I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. King David
II Timothy 3:16, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: The Apostle Paul Bible, Ezekiel 44:23-24, And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments… It is impossible for us to arrive at the truth regarding Islam and the Bible without controversy along the way. Imam Chirri above sounds deceptively like King David and the Apostle Paul. The problem is, Allah and Jehovah, as we saw in the last chapter, wrote mutually exclusive books.To answer the chapter title question above, we must deal with Ahmed Deedat and the Mullahs who claim that Allah can be found in the Bible. If their claim is true, then we come to a grinding halt, and, as you will see later, Elohim is in big trouble if Allah is another name for the God of the Bible. We are using Ahmed Deedat’s booklet, What is His Name? (FOOTNOTE 1: What is His Name, Ahmed Deedat. Take note please. Each new Part of this book starts over with footnote numbering.) On page 25 of Deedat’s book, he gives a list of the names of deities in Hebrew, English, and Arabic. It is a very clever list. He claims that Elah, a Hebrew Bible name, is the same as ILAH in Arabic. There is just one problem. For a comparison of the Muslim notion on sin and that of the Bible, CLICK HERE.
Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is Elah the name of God. It is the name of a man and the name of an oak tree. (FOOTNOTE 2: Pictorial Ency. of the Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, Vol. 5.) The “EL” prefix may have been included in the name Elah by ungodly rebellious Jews because certain oak trees were used for worship of EL, which Elohim hated. Godly kings in Israel chopped these oak trees down to prevent their association with Elohim.
Deedat’s claim would be like saying that “Isle,” “aisle,” and “I’LL” are all geographical terms because they sound like “isle.” It makes a good story, but it won’t work. However, we are grateful to Ahmed Deedat who has helped us identify Allah by admitting that “ILAH” is the root name for Allah. The complete name of Allah before it is contracted to the shorter form, is “AL-ILAH.” (FOOTNOTE 3: 65 / 8 / 185) In Arabic, “ILAH” is the masculine root word for Allah, or “god.” Also, on the famale side, “AL-ILAT” is the feminine resulting in Allat.The “AL” on the front of Al-ILAH is simply the definite article “the.” (FOOTNOTE 4: 163 / 5-6 / 1341, Islamic Propagation Center Int. Durban, S. Africa) AL-ILAH and AL-ILLAT are the root forms of the two names, Allah and Allat, from ancient Sumer where they were names of the god and goddess. Allat is the goddess referred to in the “Satanic Verses” in Al-Koran, Sura 53:19-23.
We will show the complete picture in a later chapter, but Deedat opened Islam’s back door to ancient paganism for us, and we will follow this on into the inner pagan sanctuary of Allah and his origin. There is no contracted form of God’s name in the Bible, as Deedat claims, in the Old Testament of the Hebrew Bible. EL, Elohim, or EL-Elyon are not found in any local pagan form along the path of ancient history outside of holy usage in the Bible and by pre-Islamic Semites. The God of the Bible is not found in epigraphic inscriptions along the trade routes as an alter to Allah. Nor is Elohim found in the cuneiform tablets of Sumer and Babylon as an alter for any other god of ancient times.
Also, this Allah of Islam is not Elah of the Bible unless Allah was a son of Esau named Duke Elah (Genesis 36:41) or was Allah one of the kings of Israel? (I King 16:6-8, 13-14) Poor old Deedat has wandered into myths and legends of his own invention, and they just don’t work.
We look next at Deedat’s and the Mullahs’ claims that “Alah” is used by Dr. C.I. Scofield to clarify the origin and meaning of Elohim. The note cited is in the footnote of the Scofield Reference Bible, King James Version, under Genesis 1:1. (FOOTNOTE 5: Deedat claims Alah and Elah are variations of the same Hebrew word. “Alah” is the word for an oath or vow, while Elah is the name of a man, a valley, or an oak. This is typical of the ethics of the Mullahs who try to destroy the Bible and its truths.)
We must note that Dr. Scofield is just as entitled to make mistakes as Ahmed Deedat or anyone else. That is why Scofield’s comments are in the footnotes. They are not inspired. The Mullahs and Deedat are very selective with the Bible, in one breath attacking it, and in the next breath, quoting it as authoritative, as the occasion demands, even going to the footnotes for help. We do not play this game. You will never find this writer exalting Al-Koran, text or footnotes, to uphold the truth.
Dr. Scofield says that “EL” is combined with “ALAH” (sic) to give the name of God, which is bizarre, since the two words do not contract into Elohim, as any primary school student can see! “ALAH” supposedly gives the concept of an oath to the name of God.
First, “ALAH” is a plain Hebrew word, not a contraction as with “Allah” of Islam, which comes from “AL-ILah,” and thus the double “LL.” So, “ALAH” in Hebrew has no relationship linguistically to the Allah of Arabic and the Koran.
Second, there is no record in the history of the Hebrew language that “ALAH” is part of the concept of “EL” or “Elohim.” This is why the revised edition of the Scofield Reference Bible omitted the note on “ALAH.”
Dr. Charles Feinburg, who was on the committee to revise the second edition footnotes of the Schofield Reference Bible, was trained in Hebrew to be an Orthodox Rabbi. After his conversion to Christ, he attended Dallas Seminary, and it is rumored that he graduated with one of the highest scores ever seen in the seminary’s history. His choice to omit the note on “ALAH” clearly sustains the obvious, that is, Dr. Scofield blundered.
Ahmed Deedat has been very helpful to use Schofield’s erroneous note. He has shown that Muhammed was not the only one to blunder by listening to Satan in the Koran, Sura 53. Imam Deedat has built his house of cards on the errors of a mere man. Dr. Scofield was sincerely wrong, and so is Deedat (Or is he?), and so are those who follow these deformed reasonings of the Mullahs?
It is clear by this example of Islamic scholarship that Allah is not in the Bible, and Elohim is not in the Koran or Mecca. So what is the origin of Allah?
４. “Direct to the Point/Tepat dan Jitu” （http://raduan-taib.blogspot.com:80）
More about the usage of Allah by the Christians , 31 December 2007
by Raduan Md Taib
It was very amusing to read the article in the Sun today (31st December 2007) by Pauline Puah entilted "Different faiths, same language".
In her article Pauline Puah had conveniently forgotten some historical facts. It may be deliberate or she purposely did not highlight the historical data even though she claimed to be looking at the historical and cultural context.
She quoted Dr Ng Kam Weng, the research director of the Christian think-tank Kairos Research Centre. Dr Ng was quoted as saying that the earliest christian writing in Malay, Kitab salat as sawal (Christian prayers), was printed in Arabic (in) 1514. Christian catechisms in Malays were published around 1545 and ended with the complete Malay Bible (1731-1733).
Note the significance of the years mentioned?
All happened three years after the fall of the Muslims in the Malacca Sultanate to the Portuguese in 1511. The christian catechisms in Malay happened thirty four years after fall of Malacca. Dutch ruled Malacca and later followed by the British who ruled until our Merdeka in 1957. So the Bibles began to be translated in Arabic and Malay after the fall of the Islamic Malacca Sultanate and the process of translation continued throughout the period when the country was under colonial rule.What was and is the purpose of these Malay translations of the Bibles and using the name Allah when referring to God? It is none other than to confuse the Muslims and subtly was and still as an attempt to convert them to Christianity as can clearly be seen in the third G or Gospel of the British colonizers which will be discussed below.Thus we can see clearly that Christianity came with the colonial powers first the Portuguese, then Dutch and lastly the British. The religion is really the religion of the colonial masters. And it can be referred to as the colonial religion.
After the fall of Muslim Malacca sultanate in 1511 when the Bibile was translated into Malay and using Allah's name to refer to their God, was it done with the agreement of all the Muslim rulers throughout the Malay world (Nusantara) that encompassed Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore and Brunei or was it the sole and arbitrary decisions of the rulers of conquering western powers of Portuguese, Dutch and the British and their administrators?
In other words there was and still is, no legitimacy for the usage of Allah to refer to the Christian God? Why was Tuhan not used instead? It is part of an attempt to spread Christianity. Thus after Merdeka it is the right of the dominant Muslim majority in Malaysia to do away with what had been illegitimately done. And this is what the Ministry of Internal Affairs is doing.
And the Ministry's actions should be supported by all Muslims in this country. It is not about winning points during the coming elections. Neither was it an attempt to politicize the issue. It was about correcting the mistakes done when the country was under by the colonial masters during their rule from 1511 until 1957.The British was clear in their intentions when they came to conquer the Eastern countries like Malaysia. They were here for three purposes.
Firstly for gold , namely , to get as much wealth from this country as much as possible.
Secondly, for glory i.e to make their names famous as conquerors of the Asian nations.
And thirdly it was for the gospel, namely, to spread the teaching of Christianity among the peoples under their rule and to get as many new converts as possible .
In conclusion it would be interesting to ask the Christians whether they used the name Vishnu when referring to God in the Tamil Bible or Dewata in the Sanskrit Bible just to show their consistency?
５. “The Other Malaysia” （http://www.othermalaysia.org)
‘Do Malaysian Muslims understand what “Allah” means?’, 25 December 2007
by Farish A. Noor
At the time of writing this, I am in Cairo in the company of my Egyptian friends who are Muslims, Catholics and Copts. Eid has passed and I attended several dinners and celebrations where Muslims and Copts celebrated together, visiting each others’ homes and ate til we could not eat any further. What is worse, Christmas is upon us and so once again Muslims, Catholics and Copts will be heading for the communal table for the communal feast and there will be much licking of chops, munching of bread, gobbling of sweet deserts and drinking for everyone. It is all simply too pleasant to belive, yet it is real and this is what life is like for many in Cairo, the ‘Mother of civilisation’ and home to more than twenty million Egyptians from all walks of life.
What is most striking to the outside observer like me - though rather banal for the Egyptians themselves - is the fact that 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 at the confounding logic of such a non-argument, which speaks volumes about the individual’s own ignorance of Muslim culture, history and the fundamental tenets of Islam itself.
For a start, the word ‘Allah’ predates the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad and goes way back to the pre-Islamic era. Christians had been using the word long before there were any Muslims, in fact. Furthermore the word is Arabic, and is thus common to all the peoples, cultures and societies where Arabic - in all its dialects - is spoken, and is understood by millions of Arabic speakers to mean God, and little else. One could also add that as “Allah” is an Arabic word it therefore has more to do with the development and evolution of Arabic language and culture, and less to do with Islam. It is hard to understand how any religion can have a language to call its own, for languages emerge from a societal context and not a belief system. If one were to abide by the skewered logic of the Minister concerned, then presumably the language of Christianity (if it had one) would be Aramaic, or perhaps Latin.
The Minister’s remark not only demonstrated his shallow understanding of Muslim culture and the clear distinction between Arab culture and Muslim theology, but it also demonstrated his own lack of understanding of the history of the Malays, who, like many non-Arabs, only converted to Islam much later from the 13th century onwards. Among the earliest pieces of evidence to indicate Islam’s arrival to the Malay archipelago are the stone inscriptions found in Malay states like Pahang where the idea of God is described in the sanskrit words ‘Dewata Mulia Raya’. As no Malay spoke or even understood Arabic then, it was natural for the earliest Malay-Muslims to continue using the Sanskrit-inspired language they spoke then. Surely this does not make them lesser Muslims as a result?
The ruckus that has resulted thanks to the threat not to allow the publication of the Malaysian language edition of the Christian Herald therefore forces observers to ask the simple question: Why has this issue erupted all of a sudden, when the word Allah was used for so long with narry a protest in sight? At a time when the Malaysian government is already getting flak as a result of the protests by Malaysian Hindus who insist that they remain at the bottom of the economic ladder despite fifty years of independence, now it would appear as if the Malaysian government cannot get enough bad publicity.
The administration of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi came to power on the promise that it would promote its own brand of moderate Islam that was pluralist and respectful of other cultures and religions. But time and again the Malaysian public - first Hindus and now Christians - have felt necessary to protest over what they regard as unfair, biased treatment and the furthering of an exclusive brand of Islam that is communitarian and divisive. The latest fiasco over the non-issue that is the name of God would suggest that Prime Minister’s Badawi’s grand vision of a moderate Islam has hit the rocks, and is now floundering. Just how the ministers and elite of this government is to regain their course is open to question, but what is clear is that some Ministers should get their basic knowledge of their own religion in order first.
６．Guardian Unlimited, UK （http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk:80）
Copyright ‘Allah’, 29 December 2007
by Ali Eteraz
I just read that a Catholic newspaper in Malaysia is not being allowed to refer to God as "Allah" as it has always done. I guess the government thinks that Muslims have a monopoly over the word.
The Church has, quite appropriately, sued the government for this absurd pronouncement, arguing that the word "Allah" is merely an Arabic word for God, which has been used by members of many faiths, long before Islam was even founded.
This is yet another instance (do they ever stop?) where Islam is being used by conniving leaders to advance political agendas. Leaders in Malaysia promote supremacist, dominionist versions of Islam, because it makes political sense for them to do so. Sixty per cent of the country is Malay-Muslim; the rest are Chinese Buddhists, Tamil Hindus and animists. So, if you can control the Muslims, you will control the government. Therefore, ever since Malaysia's independence in 1957, Islamocentric ideas have been utilised by politicians thirsty for political power.
This Islamist programme has gone through two stages.
In the first stage, it simply sought to apply Islamic laws to Muslims, making comforting gestures to non-Muslims that Islamic laws would not be applied to them. In this stage, Sharia courts, which are separate from the secular legal system, were created. This occurred in the 1980s, specifically under an amendment of Article 121(A) of the constitution which said that civil courts (which apply secular law) had no jurisdiction over matters under the control of a Sharia court. This produced some absurd results. I recall a story (via Farish Noor) where at a club non-Muslims were told by the PA system "to enjoy themselves" while the Muslims were told to segregate themselves on the basis of gender.
However, it looks as if the second stage has now taken off. In this stage, Islamist laws are being applied to non-Muslims (the curse of self-replicating fundamentalism). A Christian publication cannot use the word "Allah" for God. A Hindu Muslim couple with six children was forcibly separated on the basis of Sharia (which reminded me very much of the racism of the American South when miscegnation was legally prohibited). A Hindu woman was forced to bury her husband as a Muslim because a secular court judge (who is, surprise surprise, a Muslim) stated that his court could not challenge the ruling of the Sharia court which, in an ex parte ruling no less, had declared the Hindu man a Muslim. Obviously, Islamism wouldn't be complete without some completely assinine rulings, like when a fatwa targeted genies, mermaids, vampires, phoenix birds and ghouls.
There are, of course, some voices against the spread of Islamism, but as always, they are both under-recognised and under-valued.
A Hindu Rights Force has been created, composed of 30 Hindu organizations. The group Sisters in Islam, is still chugging along having opposed Islamisation for years (though I'm sure they could use some donations).The writer Farish Noor has been on a tireless crusade (can we call it a jihad?) against Islamism for as long as I can recall, fighting "the fascism in our midst." Mr Noor's commentary on the use of the word "Allah" is at his blog.
Anwar Ibrahim, who was previously finance minister for Mahathir Mohammad's Islamist party and almost became prime minister until he was framed in a sexual scandal in 1998, has gone after the government by challenging the corruption of judges. Ibrahim's approach might be successful. Recently there was news of a Sharia court judge being sacked for all sorts of corruption (imagine that: a corrupt Islamist). I have been in touch with Ibrahim's assistants, and they are both western educated and more importantly, liberal-minded.
Even Marina, the daughter of Mahathir bin Mohammad - as he likes to be called in Arab fashion - has discussed the "apatheid" of Malaysian women.
Finally, for the boring, as I am often accused of being, there is the work of Afghan-Malay scholar, Muhammad Hashim Kamali, such as his book, Freedom of Expression in Islam.
In the Malaysian case, theoretical anti-Islamist programmes are useful, but the fundamental point is that there have to be more Malay-Muslims who have to be willing to put aside their racial preference (for Malay), and join the Chinese (Buddhists) and Tamil (Hindus). This is, in fact, what Farish Noor is often agitating for. Historically, this has been difficult to do because Malays have felt resentful towards the wealthier Chinese, and taken out their aggression against the weaker (and smaller) Hindus. Yet, if Malaysia is going to stymie the Islamist push, which - make no mistake - it is clearly suffering from, this reconciliation must happen, and soon.
In this context, I can't help but think of Naipaul's book, Among the Believers, from 1980, specifically the section on Malaysia, where he describes meeting some Islamist activists:
"The second document that Mohammad left me with was a pencilled paper he had prepared for our meeting. It was an outline of what he had said about the restructuring of Malaysia; and it was just as abstract [as the first document] ...
"Mohammad's last paragraph, on the 'political system' of his ideal state, called for 'Imam-like leadership: Khalifah is God's representative on earth'. It called, in fact, for someone like Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini ruled in Iran as God's representative. It was Mohammad's wish that someone like that should rule in Malaysia. It was his only concrete proposal.
"That was where his Malay and Muslim passion, his knowledge of history, the beginning of self-awareness and intellectual life, had led him. He had no idea of reform or any ameliorative process. It was his only concrete proposal."
There is something instructive in that passage - about dealing in the concrete - which is an important lesson not just for Malaysians, but anyone who is coming face to face with Islamist supremacism.
(End)
