Malaysiakini.com （http://www.malaysiakini.com）
(1)‘Allah' ban and The Joshua Project, 8 January 2008
by Fathima Idris
I refer to the letter Ban on ‘Allah’ term bizarre. The writer asks, ‘What is wrong with the Christians using the term anyway? What is the real worry?’
Let me tell the writer that the real worry is the proselytising activities by evangelists in this region. It is no secret that this is part of the area has been targeted by evangelists for ‘church planting’ and it is in this light that the whole controversy about the usage of ‘Allah’ has to be viewed.
Among the evangelists’ work is The Joshua Project which states that ‘... the 10/40 Window is the rectangular area of North Africa, the Middle East and Asia between 10 degrees and 40 degrees north latitude [...] called ‘the Resistant Belt’ and includes the majority of the world’s Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists [...] (and) the 10/40 Window has several important considerations: first, the historical and biblical significance; second, the least evangelised countries; third, the unreached people groups and cities; fourth, the dominance of three religious blocs; fifth, the preponderance of the poor; sixth, the strongholds of Satan within the 10/40 Window’.
The purpose of the Joshua Project is ‘to spread passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ’. The Mission of the project is ‘to highlight the people groups of the world that have the least Christian presence in their midst and to encourage pioneer church-planting among every ethnic people group’.
So, contrary to what the writer claims, it is not Muslims who ‘can’t live with differences and try to impose their will upon others’; it is the evangelists’ striving to turn every Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist in the world into Christians and that is how ‘conflict inevitably results’.
As the letter The issue is proselytising, not terminology points out, the use of Islamic terms is a way to lure Muslims to Christianity.
The evangelists acknowledge that Muslims are the most difficult people to evangelise to. A visit to some of the evangelist links clearly shows the degree of sophistication they use to proselytise to Muslims. See here and here.
The blurb to a video called the ‘Malay Video – Malaysia & Singapore 1999' has this to say:
‘The Malays welcome both friend and stranger with warm smiles and friendly faces. Yet only a handful have chosen to follow Jesus Christ. Essentially 100% of the Malays are Muslim. In general, they are content with life, identifying with Islam to the point that they believe ‘a Malay who gives up his religion will cease to be a Malay’. Unless something changes, they will live and die beyond the reach of the gospel. Now is the time for bold, powerful prayer and strategic planning.’
Now, is this not propagation of religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam and how is this practice in peace and harmony with Islam?
Evangelical proselytising is a problem Muslim nations encounter, as seen in Afghanistan where missionaries go in the guise of aid workers.
In Malaysia, there are laws to prohibit the proselytising to Muslims and the Federal Constitution provides for other religions to be practised in peace and harmony with Islam.
Thus Muslims in Malaysia have to be vigilant of the Christian evangelical movement which comes in many guises seeking Muslims to apostatise, undermine the constitution and damage the fabric of the country.
(2)‘Allah' term not to confuse or propagate, 9 January 2008
by Henry Hock Guan Teh
I refer to the letter ‘Allah’ ban and The Joshua Project.
I can see that the writer is very concerned with the protection of the Malays and their religion. This is good and reflects the behaviour of a real and faithful Muslim. As she is aware, both Christianity and Islam are missionary religions ie, religions with the passion for bringing the message of God/Allah to all the people on this planet Earth.
Therefore, any criticism on Christianity's intention to propagate will similarly reflect badly on Islam which has the same intention too. In one of His last commandments, Jesus told his disciples ‘Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations ...’. This is one of the hallmarks of Christianity. If this is taken away from us, we lose our identity.
The Malaysian government has and will try to stop Christianity from propagating (we Christians call it 'witnessing') but history has shown that Christianity will still live on even if peaceful Christians are thrown into a lion's den.
We are never taught to make disciples by coercion or by trickery. In fact we are taught to love our neighbours and always explain our faith to those who accuse us, with much love and reverence.
The Catholic Church did not intentionally use the word 'Allah' to confuse or propagate to Muslims. The name 'Allah' was used much earlier even before the coming of Prophet Muhammad.
(3) Don't confuse 'Churchianity' with Christianity, 14 January 2008
by Steve Oh
I refer to the letter ‘Allah’ ban and The Joshua Project.
While others have focused on the word 'Allah' in the debate on its ban, Fathima Idris has gone off the rails by linking it to foreign Christian websites. What relevance are they to the debate? Even the government does not link the subject with foreign websites but claims the ban is to ‘avoid confusion’.
It is dishonest of the writer to associate the debate to foreign Christian websites and overtly link them to it. Perhaps the intention is to alarm than substantiate the ban with valid arguments. The writer must surely know that her own religion itself is missionary so its just a case of pot calling kettle black.
You only need to look in the Internet to see the plethora of Muslim websites, many targeting Christians. So what is the fuss over Christian websites? Unless the writer believes that only her religion has the right to proselytise to whoever they want but others don't. This, in fact, is the unfair policy practised in the country.
Sadly in trying to appease the religious extremists in the country, the government has only deprived other Malaysians of their fundamental rights and breached all known conventions on human rights on the freedom of conscience. The government exists not only for any particular race or religion but for all Malaysians and must be fair and not lopsided in its policies and actions.
On the subject of the ‘Allah’ ban, many Muslims have given their opinions. Some are against, others for. But in the final analysis, only the truth matters and there is no Islamic or constitutional grounds for the ban. If the word were not historical, Christians would be the first to distance themselves from its use and would not be taking the government to task.
Christians, after all, are taught to submit to the authorities but not when they impose something unfair. The government would have done better explaining the Islamic teaching on 'Allah' and contrasting them with the Christian teachings rather than an outright ban. This is the enlightened and civilised approach - through education.
There will always be confusion and it is the duty of all to sift the wheat from the chaff. After all, if individuals can do it why can't the government with all its resources.
Raja Petra Kamaruddin's article All that is haram explains the origin of the word 'Allah' and gives a historic context that would enable anyone with a simple mind to understand. Every Malaysian should read it and this coming from a Muslim.
The crux of religion is not argument but peace with God and meaning in life. The solution to world peace is not religious segregation but tolerance and respect for the right of the individual to freedom of conscience. It is unnatural, not to mention unfair, to force someone to belong to a religion against his or her conscience or to prevent inter-religious dialogue.
Such actions do not belong in religion. Christians don't indulge in proselytisation. They only tell others about God's message and leave it to their hearers to make up their minds. ‘Churchianity’ should not be confused with Christianity. Many things were done in the past by followers of all religions through ignorance.
There is no coercion, trickery or bribery in the Christianity that Jesus taught. Anything else is not of Christ though done in his name by groups with their own ideas. It is all by faith and is voluntary. People can accept or reject God by their response to the Gospel.
A Javanese Christian leader once told me that during the riots in the aftermath of the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, Muslims went on a rampage. But one Muslim village head rallied his villagers to surround and protect a church and school. Not all is negative between Christians and Muslims and such acts of human kindness don't get into the media.
We should spread love and understanding, not suspicion and hatred.
(4) Nobody can proselytise to you if you're strong, 9 January 2008
by Lucia Lai
I refer to the letter ‘Allah’ ban and The Joshua Project.
The Joshua Project is an international project and had been around for a long time. What has it to do with our country? It can’t be denied that Christianity is a missionary religion and one of its purpose is to evangelise to people (the same as Islam – I’m sure Islam is trying to convert people too). Each individual is free to stay or go, believe or not, and be responsible to God alone for his decision.
Let’s not go international. Look at our country and specifically at the main issue – the fear of the Herald proselytising to Muslim by using the word ‘Allah’.
Proselytising intrudes into the person’s spiritual life and pushes him to convert. Yes, proselytising means to induce someone to convert to one’s own religious faith. If people fear that Muslims who happen to read the Herald (a very thin chance indeed!) and will be induced to become Catholics when they see the word ‘Allah’, then sorry to say their own faith in their religion is shaky.
The point is if your faith is strong, why be worried of people proselytising or evangelising to you? You may listen, you may read but you’ll still remain rooted firmly in your own faith if you believe in your own faith strongly.
Remember the definition of proselytising? It intrudes into one’s spiritual life and forces one to convert. Tell me, if you happen to read a publication not of your faith, is that intruding into your life? And how does just you reading force you to convert?
I always think that it is kind of silly that there is a law in our country that prohibits non-Muslims from proselytising to Muslims. Isn’t religion supposed to be a personal thing? Why do we need a law then? Isn’t this so telling of the government not trusting their own Muslim brethren?
Thank God there is no law that says ‘No proselytising to Christians’. I would be very offended.
（End）
