Malaysiakini.com（http://www.malaysiakini.com）
(1)But other churches do use 'Allah', 26 February 2009
by Malaysian Christian
I refer to the letter Other Christian denominations not using 'Allah'.
The writer’s allegation that the Malaysian Catholic Church hides ulterior motives vis a vis the use of the word ‘Allah’ in the Herald magazine is, at best, a conjecture not grounded on facts.
Here I would like to invite readers to consider the writer’s allegations and the replies. Judge for yourselves:
1. ‘The decision to use the word 'Allah' can only mean that the Church, which is in a competition with other Catholic denominations including America's Church of the Latter Day Saints, or the Mormons to enlist new members, is trying to target Muslims in this country.’
While we cannot determine how the writer came to his conclusion, perhaps he should take cognisance of the fact that the Herald magazine is only meant for Catholics. It is not for sale to the general public.
A rather feeble way of trying to propagate the faith among the masses if ever the writer’s allegation is true.
2. ‘For instance, since the Catholic Church believes in the 'Trinity' ie, God, the Holy Son and the Holy Ghost, is it going to use the term 'Anak Allah' for the ‘Son of God’?’
To answer this question, one has to only refer to the Alkitab, which is the BM/Indonesian translation of the Bible. ‘Anak Allah’ is the BM/Indonesian translation of the term ‘Son of God’.
3. ‘The Muslims here may find it quite palatable if the Orthodox Church of Russia, Serbia, Greece, Cyprus or Romania want to use the word ‘Allah’ because these churches do not believe in the concept of the Trinity’.
If the writer were to do a little homework, he would realise that the doctrine of the Trinity is an integral part of the Orthodox Church. Try telling otherwise to any Orthodox Church member!
4. ‘I believe the Orthodox Church also believes in the Unitary of God and regards other Catholic denominations as ‘deviant teachings’.’
I’m not sure what the writer means by his use of ‘the Unitary of God’. If the writer is referring to Unitarianism, then he’ll be pleased to know that both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church are in agreement in rejecting such belief. As for the name-calling alleged to by the writer, I believe such an issue, if it exists, plagues other religions too, no?
5. ‘I would also want to ask the Malaysian Catholic Church if whether the word ‘Allah’ is being used by all Catholic countries like Ireland, France, Italy and all the Catholic churches in the US, UK, Australia and those in Latin America. Hello, I don't think so.’
Neither do I. God is referred to in the language used by the people. In Malaysia, the people of Sabah and Sarawak especially, have long used ‘Allah’ for God in Scripture and worship, way before the formation of Malaysia.
6. ‘If the Catholic Church of Malaysia still wants to pursue this matter, have they consulted other Catholics and also the Pope because all the Catholic teachings must come from the Vatican.’
The writer could enquire of Catholic Church in Malaysia and enlighten the rest of us, yes?
7. ‘And finally, if the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Southern Baptists, the Mormons, the Lutherans, and the myriad of other Christian denominations are not using the word ‘Allah’ for God, why are Malaysia's Catholics insisting on using it?’
For the writer’s benefit, not only do the Bahasa Malaysia-speaking Catholics use the word ‘Allah’ for God, but so do the BM-speaking members of the Anglican, Methodist, BCCM and SIB churches.
Why deny the right of these peace-loving Malaysians to use the word ‘Allah’ when it is not exclusive to Muslims even in the Middle East? Palatable or not, it is something to chew on.
(2) 'M'sians must not use the words 'car' or 'women'...', 26 February 2009
by Michael
I refer to the letter Other Christian denominations not using 'Allah'.
The writer keeps saying the term ‘other Catholic denominations’. Firstly, this is incorrect.
Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity.
The others that he mentions, the Mormons (which are the same as the Church of Latter Day Saints), the Orthodox Churches, the Lutherans, the Southern Baptists, etc are all denominations of Christianity and are not Catholic denominations.
There really is no such thing as ‘Catholic denominations’ except there is Orthodox Catholicism and the non-Orthodox.
Also, ‘all’ Christian religions, including Orthodox Russian, Greek, etc, do, in fact, believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Sprit and the Virgin Mary as well.
They only differ on certain practices but all believe in the Old Testament and the New Testament. However, Catholics pray to the Virgin Mary.
I spent 10 years living in Moscow, Russia; two years in Almaty, Kazakhstan and people there have used the term ‘Allah’ for God.
You will also find that in certain African countries and even in Middle-East countries, the term ‘Allah’ is and has been used for God.
The fact is, Christianity uses whatever word a population is more a accustomed to. When Christianity was first being introduced to the Eskimo/Inuit, they did not understand the word or term for ‘Shepherd’.
So instead, the word was replaced with ‘fisherman’, a word they knew the meaning of. This is a classic case of using a word or term that suits the culture you are speaking to. This is something that any first year anthropology student in the US learns.
The term ‘Allah’ is being used in more than 22 countries worldwide for the term ‘God’ by Christian denominations, a fact that is easily looked up on the Internet, let alone any university library in the sociological/cultural anthropological areas.
The point here is that does any country or religion have a right to say that a language belongs to them and them only? I do not see any other place in the world saying such a thing and besides ‘Allah’ is not originally a Malaysian word.
So how is this any different than the US telling Malaysians they cannot use or should not use the word ‘women’, or ‘car’ or any other word since it is not your word?
But then again, these words do not come from nor belong to the US either. No one country or religion or political group can lay claim to a language especially when that word from a language is not even their own.
(3) 'Allah': Bishop to seek AG's views, 27 February 2009
by Hafiz Yatim
The Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop will seek a clarification from the Attorney-General's Chambers on the decision by the home minister to allow the use of the word 'Allah' in Christian publications.
This is in light of the order signed by Minister Syed Hamid Albar which carried the title 'Internal Security (Prohibition On Use of Specific Words on Document and Publication) Order 2009'. The order allows Christians to use the term 'Allah' but only in print.
'The printing, publishing, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words 'Allah', 'Kaabah', 'Baitullah' and 'Solat' are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written the words 'For Christianity’,” read the order.
The decision by the minister comes after a year following the Home Ministry's decision to prohibit the use of the word 'Allah' in Christian publications.
Counsel Porres Royan, who is representing the archbishop, informed High Court Judge (Appellate and Special Powers division) Lau Bee Lan over the latest development.
"Our application was made under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. We have to study the order made by the minister on whether it can be repealed or revoked and its further implications.
"We will deliberate our discussion with the AG's Chambers and if we find comfort, this matter may not have to be heard," the senior counsel told the court.
Senior Federal Counsel Nizam Zakaria said she was informed that the minister as the first respondent had made an order dated Jan 21, 2009, which was gazetted on Feb 16, allowing Christians to use the word 'Allah' in Christian publications.
"I believe that the applicants' application in the matter would be academic," she said.
Judicial review application
The archbishop named the minister and government as respondents in the March 19, 2008 judicial review application, where it sought the following declarations:
• The decision by the respondents dated Feb 12, 2008, that the permit gained by the applicant's publication permit from Jan 1, 2008 till Dec 31, 2008, was subject to the "guides of publication" dated March 1, 2007, which prohibits the applicant from using the word 'Allah' - in the weekly publication, Herald - The Catholic Weekly is illegal, null and void.
• The applicant is entitled to use the word 'Allah' in the Herald; and
• that the word 'Allah' is not exclusive to the religion of Islam.
The application, supported by an affidavit by Archbishop Murphy Nicholas Xaview Pakiam, also seeks costs of the action.
Meanwhile, the court fixed May 28 to hear the application from seven state Islamic councils and the Malaysian Chinese Muslims Association and also the Gurdwara council to set aside their application as interveners in the judicial review.
The state Islamic councils in question were Terengganu, Federal Territory, Penang, Selangor, Kedah, Johor and Malacca.
Lau also fixed July 7 to hear the application to possibly refer the case to the Federal Court.
(4) Church council: Thank you, but..., 27 February 2009
The Council of Churches of Malaysia (CCM) today welcomed the confirmation by the government that the word 'Allah' may be used by a religion other than Islam.
However, CCM general-secretary Hermen Shastri raised several questions pertaining to the order made pursuant to Section 22(1)(c) of the Internal Security Act which reads:
"The printing, publication, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words 'Allah', 'Kaabah', 'Baitullah' and 'Solat' are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written with the words 'For Christianity'."
The order, dated Jan 21 and which came into effect on Feb 16, also stipulated that the words 'For Christianity' be written clearly in font type Arial of size 16 in bold.
According to Shastri, the wording of the order causes great concern and gives rise to several questions.
What about the Sikh religion?
"Firstly, why is there a specific order in relation only to the Christian religion? The Sikh religion, for example, also refers to 'Allah' in their sacred texts. By virtue of the wording of this order, they will still be prohibited from using the word 'Allah'," he said.
"Secondly, all of a sudden, people in possession of such documents and publications are now in a position of being in possession of a prohibited document unless they take action to ensure that the words 'Untuk agama Kristian' or 'For Christianity’ in font type Arial of size 16 in bold are placed on its front cover.
"This is an unfair imposition and an unwarranted restriction on the practice of the Christian religion in this country," he added.
By making prohibited something which was hitherto not prohibited, Shastri said the order constitutes retrospective penal legislation that violates Article 7 of the Federal Constitution. Under Section 44A of the Internal Security Act 1960 which states:
"Any person guilty of an offence against this part for which no special penalty is provided shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to both."
'This situation is unacceptable'
Thirdly, Shastri said, the introduction of conditions as a pre-requisite to the use of the aforementioned words still constitutes a limitation on the freedom of religion as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.
"This situation is unacceptable. We regret that the government did not see fit to engage with us before introducing this order," he added.
In view of this, CCM urged the government to accept that the use of the term 'Allah' is a heritage that belongs not just to one religion.
"We further urge the government not to attempt to regulate or circumscribe its use through the introduction of pre-conditions and by punitive criminal legislation," he added.
The order signed by Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar comes after a year following the Home Ministry's decision to prohibit the use of the word 'Allah' in Christian publications.
(5) 'Allah' term: ISA can't supercede constitution, 27 February 2009
by Ashvin Raj
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Church council: Thank-you, but...
I refer to the recent order by the home ministry to prohibit the word ‘Allah’ on Christian publications unless the front cover of these publication have the words ‘For Christianity’ stamped on them.
The home ministry has also decreed that "the words ‘For Christianity’ .. shall be written clearly in font type Arial of size 16 in bold’. The order was made Section 22(1)(c) of the Internal Security Act.
This restriction seems to be unnecessary and even overly-zealous. The home ministry has reasoned that this prohibition is necessary to prevent any breach of the peace.
From my observation, the only people who are capable of breaching the peace are politicians who become emotional and overreact.
This prohibition is contrary to Article 11(1) of the federal constitution which gives every person the right to profess, practice and propagate his religion. However, it is admitted that the right to propagate religion is subject to possible additional restrictions.
For example, Article 11(4) of the federal constitution allows the relevant legislative bodies (eg, the respective state assemblies of the various states) to legislate restrictions (not prohibitions) on the propagation of religion and such restrictions to be only amongst persons professing Islam.
This would mean that propagation is not restricted amongst non-Muslims. But each state legislative assembly has the right to decide on whether to restrict that propagation to Muslims only.
However, the Internal Security Act (ISA) is not a law made under Article 11(4) of the federal constitution. As such, it would seem that it cannot be used to restrict the propagation of religion among non-Muslims.
The ISA was not meant to restrict religious freedom among non-Muslims but to prevent terrorists from subverting the state. This means that the ISA cannot supercede provisions guaranteeing freedom of religion in our federal constitution.
The home minister cannot restrict the right of Christians to propagate their religion to other non- Muslims at all. This would be a gross injustice especially to East Malaysians who have been using the word ‘Allah’ for many decades.
It is the word that they have been so used to and they understand that it means ‘God’ for the Abrahamic faiths of the Middle East, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The government through the home ministry seems intent on restricting religious freedom among non-Muslims and treating Muslims like children.
The time has come for the home ministry to behave with more maturity and respect religious freedom in this country where all Malaysians have recognised Islam as the official religion and that all other faiths can be practiced in peace without any hindrance or fear amongst Malaysians.
(6) God more interested in what we do、27 February 2009
by KW Zhang
I refer to the letter Other Christian denominations not using 'Allah'.
I must say that the writer’s reasoning is far from godly either. Being a born-again Christian, I am exasperated that Malaysia is truly ignorant about religions. ‘Allah’ is an Arabic term for God being used universally by Muslims and Christians worldwide.
Who is he that goes all way to stop the publication of the word ‘Allah’ when all languages are derived from Him? It is proclaimed that all Muslims and Christians are descendants from Abraham. If Muslims decide to call him Ibrahim and Christians interchange between Abraham and Ibrahim, what wrong is there?
If my brother calls our mother ‘Mama’ and I decide to interchange between ‘Mummy’ and ‘Mama’, what crime have I committed? Just because God chose to reveal His trinity concept to his other children, it doesn’t mean that He has changed. Who are we to judge who and what He is?
If we proclaim water as one element, does it mean that its composition of two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule is false? If one had presented this discovery to the royal courts of England or France in the Middle Ages one would likely be burned at the stake. I am not a physicist but I believe God’s evidence is in our nature for He has created it.
Therefore, the word ‘Allah’ is not exclusive to any religion. I believe that we are the only nation in the world that prohibits the use of the term ‘Allah’ in the Malay translated Holy Book or Christian Malay publications. The world is laughing at our ignorance and that is what I am most angry about.
I have never felt this low in my esteem as a Malaysian which is further compounded by incompetent politicians elected who are keen to turn our parliament into a fully public-funded circus. And who says that only Catholics are using this word and not any other Christian denomination?
I am not Catholic and sometimes in Church we sing Malay gospels written by Indonesians which occasionally interchange the terms ‘Allah’ and ‘Tuhan’ depending on its rhyme.
Does that mean all churches in Malaysia will be banned from using songs from Indonesia or elsewhere that use the word ‘Allah’ or it must be substituted with the appropriate word before it can be projected on the screen for the worshipers?
Indonesia, being the world’s most populous Muslim nation even allows Christian broadcasting in their media which can be received on our TVs too though the reception is poor. I was surprised but is it any wonder that its people are more diverse and dynamic although it is one of the poorest countries in the world? In my opinion, other Christian denomination are not making a brouhaha over this matter because it will not affect their faith or belief.
They would just shake their heads in disbelief and leave it in God’s hands. The Catholic Church, being the largest denomination, have their reasons for doing so which is best known to them.
But I would like to remind my brethren in Christ that in the Bible, one of the spies that wants to trap Jesus asked the Lord, ‘Teacher, we know what you speak and teach is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us (Jews) to pay taxes to Caesar or not?’
Jesus saw through their duplicity and said to them, ‘Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscriptions are on it?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied. Jesus then said to them, ‘Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’.
What does this means? It simply means that if the government would want you to follow its rules without threatening your faith and practice as Christ’s follower, please do so. It makes no sense to go against it even though they know not what they were doing.
I think its time to stop all this nonsense before it gets out of hand. True Christians are not ritualistic and therefore the absence of that ‘sensitive’ word would not deprive one from entering Heaven if the soul has received salvation.
God is more concerned over what we did for Him in our lifetime than what we call Him. That is why we haven’t seen Christians protesting on the streets with banners defending this right because it is silly.
(7) Writer's debate on 'Allah' term lost in irrelevancy, 27 February 2009
by Dr Ng Kam Weng
I refer to the letter Other Christian denominations not using 'Allah'.
This letter displays so much ignorance that under normal circumstances, it would not merit a reply. However, a concise and decisive response is given here only because readers of Malaysiakini surely deserve a more enlightened discourse on the issue.
I find the writer misguided on three counts:
First, he is plainly misguided about what the Eastern Orthodox Church believes in. Perhaps the writer is mistaken because historically, the Orthodox Church did not accept the Western Latin Church’s formulation of the Trinity that says the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son (the filioque clause discussed in any standard text on doctrinal history).
But contrary to the writer’s view, the Orthodox Church’s rejection of the filioque clause is not because it does not believe in the Trinity but because it believes it has a clearer formulation of the doctrine of Trinity.
In this regard, the writer’s statement that the Orthodox Church ‘believes in the Unitary of God and regards other Catholic denominations as ‘deviant teachings’" is plainly wrong. Just two examples will show how ill-informed the writer is.
The Catechism of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Church reads: ‘God the Father is the fountainhead of the Holy Trinity. The Scriptures reveal the one God is Three Persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – eternally sharing the one divine nature’.
Second, the writer is guilty of a simple confusion of sociological category when he included the Mormons within mainstream Christianity. In any case, why should it be surprising even if Mormons do not use the word ‘Allah’ since the Mormon’s concept of God is more polytheistic than monotheistic or Trinitarian?
From the semantics point of view, the word Tuhan would serve the Mormons just fine. In contrast, the semantic overlap but distinction between the words ‘Allah’ and Tuhan is just appropriate for Malaysian Christians whose mother tongue is Malay to express their belief in the one God who is Trinitarian.
Third, the writer just got lost in irrelevancy when he posed the rhetorical question as to whether the Malaysian Catholic Church has conferred or confirmed with the other Catholic churches in Ireland, France, US or Latin America regarding the appropriateness of using the word ‘Allah’.
Let me assure the writer (if he doesn’t already know) that there are millions of Methodists, Anglicans and Baptists who are more than happy to use the word ‘Allah’. But still, the writer’s rhetorical question is plainly irrelevant.
The point is that these overseas churches are not using Bahasa Malaysia for their liturgy and Bible instruction. Why in the world do Bahasa-speaking native Christians in Malaysia need to go to foreigners to guide them on how to use their mother-tongue?
I can only conclude that the likes of the writer are not bothered to do a bit of homework to avoid such blatant errors, and judging from the tone of his letter, people like him are more interested to slander or undermine the reputation of the Malaysian church.
(8) Each one expresses 'God' in their own way, 27 February 2009
‘All countries have their own native languages and they will translate the word 'God/Allah' into their own language. A good example is Indonesia. I am pretty sure Christians there use the word 'Allah' very extensively.'
Editor's Note: Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar had on Feb 16 signed a gazette titled as ‘Internal Security (Prohibition On Use of Specific Words on Document and Publication) Order 2009'.
It allows Christians to use the term Allah - but only in print.‘The printing, publishing, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words Allah, Kaabah, Baitullah and Solat are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written with the words ‘For Christianity,’ says the gazette.
On Other Christian denominations not using 'Allah'
Asraf Abdullah: As a Muslim convert, I find this letter un-called for and it is very offensive and disrespectful not only to the Christian communities but also to the whole country as well.
I thought I was brought up in a society that teaches us to respect others regardless of their race and religion but the writer's comments clearly defy this.
Why are you and others attacking the Catholic Church over the word ‘Allah'? Is a certain word only applicable to a certain religion? The writer's remarks that other Catholic countries such as Ireland, France etc are not using the word 'Allah' are totally un-called for.
These countries have their own native languages and they will translate the word 'God/Allah' into their own language. A good example is Indonesia.
I am pretty sure Christians there use the word 'Allah' very extensively in their teachings. We do not see Muslims there condemning Christian communities over the word 'Allah'.
In fact the Bahasa Melayu Bible is produced in Indonesia and exported to Malay-speaking countries including Malaysia. Come on, man, use your common sense.
The Catholic religion has over 1.1 billion followers all over the world and each one of them expresses the word 'God' in their own way. So, please, give Malaysian Catholics a break.
Malaysian Too: I wish to categorically ask this person, ‘Did you do your research?' How do you know only the Catholics use the term? The fact is, the other Christian churches in Malaysia also call their supreme God ‘Allah' when conversing in Malay and other indigenous languages.
The writer talks of the Catholic Church ‘wanting to use the term Allah'. What I say is it is not their ‘wanting' to do it but, in fact, the churches have been using the term ‘Allah' for generations in their worship and sermons in Borneo and Indonesia.
The writer mentions a group of other Christian churches (Anglicans, Methodist, Baptists, etc.) as not using the word ‘Allah'. I think he is confused.
As for foreign countries, when the church services of these denominations are in English or Greek or Serbian or Russian, they use the word ‘God' or ‘Deo' or whatever the term ‘God' is in their languages.
But if services/mass is in Bahasa Malaysia (or you may call it Bahasa Indonesia if you object to Christians services being conducted in Bahasa Malaysia), Iban, Kadazan, Dusun, Kayan, Kenyah, Melanau, etc, or in a Peninsula Orang Asli language, the supreme God is referred to as ‘Allah'.
This is because the Bible was translated into these languages from the Arabic-language Bible and this was before the Europeans such as the Dutch, Portuguese or English colonised our region.
And, how many times have we heard that the term ‘Allah' was first used by Christians in the Middle East before other religions borrowed the term?
I am not a Catholic myself, but it greatly disturbs me to see that Catholics or other Christians are being told that they can't use a term they have used for generations in their worship of their God in their own languages.
So, what's next? Ban music and musical instruments like the Taliban did?
Stephen Hong-an Lim: The writer should remember that the various Christian denominations he mentions in his letter use ‘God,' in their own languages. Definitely churches in the countries he mentioned in his letter do not use the term‘Allah.'
But they use the word of their own local languages. The Chinese-language churches use the word ‘Shangdi' for ‘God, the Javanese churches in Java, Indonesia, use ‘Gusti.'
If the writer goes to Arabic-language churches in the Middle-East such as in Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, surely he will find the they use the Bible in Arabic, and the word ‘Allah' is used, just like how the Christian communities in Indonesia use the word ‘Allah.'
I find it strange to see that the Arab people, who are the real owner of the Arabic language, do not make a fuss over Arabic-speaking Christians using the word ‘Allah' while Malay-speaking people such as the writer claim that the word ‘Allah' is solely their property.
The writer may wish to read an article written by an Muslim Indonesian scholar, Ulil Abshar Abdallah, which explains the semantic origin of the word ‘Allah.' Before the Islamic era in the Arab countries, the word had already been use to refer to deities the people at the time worshiped.
I also find it strange to see that in Malaysia, the country which upholds the freedom of religion, the Bible is not allowed to be printed in Bahasa Malaysia. Malay-speaking Christians use the Bible in Bahasa Indonesia, instead.
Lastly, the writer said that the use of the word ‘Allah' is trying to target Muslims in the country. Does the writer mean that Malay Muslims are an easy target and can be easily cheated?
I am sure that Malay Muslims can use their thinking to see whether something is Islamic or not, regardless of the use of the term ‘Allah' by non-Muslims.
When I was in Cairo a few years ago, I attended mass in a church there. The Bible was recited in Arabic and the recitation sounded like a tilawatil Quran in Malaysia.
AWTC: We have covered this ground many times before on these very same page and there have been numerous explanations by both Christians and Muslims (including very staunch and learned Muslims from PAS) as to why it is legitimate from a Muslim standpoint for Christians to use ‘Allah'.
It is also a violation of the rights of Malay-speaking, Iban-speaking, etc, Christians to forbid them from practicing their religion freely. And as noted before, Sikhs use the word ‘Allah' as well.
The writer brought up the problem of the Christian belief in the Trinity with regards to the use of the term ‘Allah'. This belief existed during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, and the Prophet criticised it, but never forbade the Christians from using the term ‘Allah'.
If the Prophet himself did not forbid it, why do Malay-Muslims (and only Malay-Muslims, not any other Muslim in the world, including our brothers next door in Indonesia) forbid it?
Secondly, the writer said, ‘I would also want to ask the Malaysian Catholic Church if whether the word ‘Allah' is being used by all Catholic countries like Ireland, France, Italy and all the Catholic churches in the US, UK, Australia and those in Latin America. Hello, I don't think so.'
Sure, but they don't speak a language which uses the word ‘Allah' as a common term for God. The Catholic church in all Arab countries, in Indonesia, and other countries do use the word ‘Allah' for God.
Thirdly, the writer claims that only the Malaysian Catholic Church uses ‘Allah' and not other Christian denominations, saying ‘if the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Southern Baptists, the Mormons, the Lutherans, and the myriad of other Christian denominations are not using the word ‘Allah' for God, why are Malaysia's Catholics insisting on using it?'
This is completely false. Firstly, there are no ‘Southern Baptists' in Malaysia - that is an American denomination. We do have ‘Baptists' which are related the ‘Southern Baptists' and they - as well as the Anglicans and Lutherans - do use ‘Allah' when speaking in Malay, Iban, etc.
I have no idea about the Mormons - they are not considered Christians by most denominations because they believe that Jesus is a separate god from God the Father - but I would not be surprised if they do as well.
In fact, go to any Malay-speaking, Iban-speaking, etc, Christian congregation of any denomination and you will find they use ‘Allah' and, in fact, have been doing so long before there was any country called ‘Malaysia'.
The writer also asks the Malaysian Catholic Church to check with their Pope, but why do they need to do that when centuries before the Prophet Muhammad, Arab Christians who followed the Pope were already using the word?
Finally, the writer claims that it is okay for the Orthodox church to use the term ‘Allah' because they are not Trinitarian. This is completely false.
All Orthodox churches believe that God consists of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is the lack of Orthodox Christians in Malaysia that led the writer to make these wrong assumptions.
But there are ample Orthodox sites on the Internet you can verify this with. By the way, I am not a Catholic.
Tanak Wagu: The writer's letter smacks of ignorance of Christianity in Malaysia, particularly in East Malaysia. The use of the word ‘Allah' is prevalent among all major Christian denominations in East Malaysia.
The use of this word stems from the Malay-language Bible which has been in use for quite some time. Please note that the Malay-language Bible has the words Untuk Umat Kristian on the opening page.
As for his assertion that the Orthodox Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Russia , Romania and Serbia do not believe in the concept of the Trinity, I would advise him to study the theology of these Christian churches.
Trinity, which is incomprehensible to Muslims, is central to Christian belief. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox Catholic and traditional Protestant churches strongly emphasise the concept of Trinity.
On his allegation that the use of the word ‘Allah' is because the Catholic church is trying to target Muslims, I should say that this allegation is without any basis. It is impossible to proselytise among Muslims because of the syariah laws that govern them in this country.
And please be reminded that the Catholic Herald paper - which is at the centre of conflict here - is only sold within church premises to churchgoers. Now why would any Muslim enter these premises to buy these non-Muslim publication?
What is even funnier is that why would they buy it and then claim the Catholic Church is trying to confuse Muslims!
Unless the writer believes that there is more than one God, then there should be no reason for him to object to Christians praying to Allah. After all, Allah created us all. That I believe is a Christian belief as well as a Muslim belief.
But then again, if he thinks the Catholic Church is trying to influence his fellow co-religionists, then why not ban the English translations of the Quran which use the words ‘Jesus' and ‘Mary'.
Is this not an attempt to confuse Muslims into believing that Jesus of the Gospel and Isa of the Quran are essentially the same? I don't know. But what I do know is that there is a verse in the Quran which says ‘unto you your religion, and unto me, my religion'.
Henry Hock Guan Teh: The writer may have misunderstood two issues. The first is that unlike the Muslims of various tongues who refer to their god as ‘Allah' only, Christians from various tribes can refer to God in their own language.
Hence, the writer's misunderstanding brings him to write a not-so-perfect argument on why Catholic countries like Ireland, France, Italy, USA, UK, etc will not use the word ‘Allah' as reference to their God.
Obviously they will not because those Catholics can refer to God in their own languages because the Christian God has the knowledge of all languages besides Arabic. The writer cannot equate Islamic law and theology on how to address God with Christianity's.
The second misunderstanding is that Malaysia's Catholic Church is not saying that from now on, their God's name is ‘Allah'. They are saying that the Arabic word ‘Allah' has been used by the Malay-speaking Christian communities eg, the Orang Asli and the Indonesian Christians.
The word ‘Allah' is not like a trademark or copyright but part of a language comfortably used by Malay-speaking Christians. The writer cannot impose the same theological understanding for the word ‘Allah' on other religions.
In addition, the writer need to realise that Arab-Christians, before the coming of Prophet Muhammad, had been using the term ‘Allah' since it is their language.
The writer also needs to know that it is not only the Catholics that use the word ‘Allah' but also Malay-speaking Protestants. Hence, there are no qualms over the word between Catholics and other denominations or even other Catholics from other countries.
The Hokkien-speaking Catholic refers to God as ‘Tian Chu'. As for me and other Chinese Christians, we refer to God as ‘Shang Ti' a term actually used by non-Christian Chinese several thousand years ago in China during the pre- Shih Huang Ti era. Any problem with that?
Save Malaysia: My father is from a staunch Protestant family while my mother was brought up in a Roman Catholic chapel thanks to her staunch Catholic family.
My grandparents are respected leaders at their respective churches. I grew up reading both the Malay and English Bible, and I'm very grateful that those are not the only literature I ‘ve read (I've read my husband's Baghavad Ghita too).
History tells us that while the term 'Allah' is best known in the West for its use by Muslims as a reference to God, it is also used by Arabic speakers including those who are Christians and Jews, in reference to the Almighty one ie, God.
Interestingly, in pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was used by Meccans as a reference to the creator-god, possibly the supreme deity.
Perhaps, Malaysia, Indonesia (mind you the biggest Islamic country that does not seem to have a problem with Christians using the word ‘Allah') and the Arab countries are using the word ‘Allah' because of their use of the Malayan/Arab language.
It is worth to note that Munshi Abdullah (the father of modern Malay literature) translated the Bible into Malay in 1852.
Meanwhile other parts of the world would probably find English, Latin or their respective mother tongues as their medium of communication. If the Christian Arabs of today have no other word for 'God' other than 'Allah', what then could they use?
Some suggest that Christians should use the words, Tuhan and Dewa instead. Are we suggesting to the Indonesians and Arab world that they should not use the words too?
I think not. With that said, who would be marginalising who in this country?
(9) 'Allah' issue erupts again, 28 February 2009
by Hafiz Yatim
While the Roman Catholic's Archbishop's suit against the home minister and the government seemed to be at its end following the gazetting of an order under the Internal Security Act in allowing the use of the word "Allah" in Christian texts with restrictions, it has met with opposition from the Syariah Lawyers Association.
Its president, Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar, wants minister Syed Hamid Albar to withdraw the order and the gazettement be withdrawn quickly.
Zainur Rijal said the order made by Syed Hamid goes against the Cabinet ministers’ directive at its meeting on May 19, 1986 which allowed the use of 12 words in other religious texts outside Islam.
"The four words which were gazetted including 'Allah' were not among the 12 words that was agreed upon. Hence, the move taken by Syed Hamid goes against the spirit of the Cabinet directive and is considered illegal," he said.
Besides the word "Allah", the other words allowed to be used based on the order were “Kaabah”, “Baitullah” and “Solat”. These terms have been in wide use among the local Christians in Sabah and Sarawak.
Zainur Rijal pointed out that as the directive had also been adopted by several state governments under the purview of Malay rulers, the order signed by the minister can be considered defective.
"This is because Islamic matters comes under the jurisdiction of the Malay rulers. Hence, with the order, it could be considered Syed Hamid had committed 'derhaka' (treason) against the Malay rulers," he said.
Order became effective on Feb 16
Syed Hamid signed the order which carried the title “Internal Security (Prohibition On Use of Specific Words on Document and Publication) Order 2009". The order allows Christians to use the term “Allah” but only in print.
'The printing, publishing, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words 'Allah', 'Kaabah', 'Baitullah' and 'Solat' are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written the words 'For Christianity’," read the order.
Yesterday, senior Federal Counsel Nizam Zakaria informed the High Court (Appellate and Special Powers Division) the order had become effective on Feb 16 after it was gazetted.
"I believe that the applicants' application in the matter would be academic," she said.
The archbishop named the minister and government as respondents in the March 19, 2008 judicial review application, where it sought the following declarations:
(1) The decision by the respondents dated Feb 12, 2008, that the permit gained by the applicant's publication permit from Jan 1, 2008 till Dec 31, 2008, was subject to the "guides of publication" dated March 1, 2007, which prohibits the applicant from using the word 'Allah' in the weekly publication, Herald - The Catholic Weekly is illegal, null and void.
(2) The applicant is entitled to use the word 'Allah' in the Herald; and
(3) That the word 'Allah' is not exclusive to the religion of Islam.
The application, supported by an affidavit by Archbishop Murphy Nicholas Xavier Pakiam, also seeks costs of the action.
Meanwhile, the Mufti of Perak, Harussani Zakaria was quoted by Utusan Malaysia to be surprised with the decision by the minister to allow the use of the word “Allah”.
Harussani who is the “Tokoh Maal Hijrah” recipient questioned why this should be allowed.
"According to the Perak Islamic Council enactment, such matters should not be allowed," the mufti said, affirming what Zainur Rijal had claimed.
In the case, seven state Islamic councils namely Terengganu, Federal Territory, Penang, Selangor, Kedah, Johor and Malacca and the Malaysian Chinese Muslims Association had applied to be interveners on the side of the home minister and government.
The case was fixed for hearing on May 28.
(End)
