1.The New Straits Times Online （http://www.nst.com.my）
(1) Towards 'purifying' the understanding of Allah, 3 May 2008
By Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
IN the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Say: He is Allah, the One and Only! Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.
THE above is a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, of an important surah (or chapter) 112 named Al-Ikhlas (Purification of the Unity of Allâh), of the Quran.
It is recorded as one of the earliest revelations by Allah to the Prophet Muhammad aimed at “purifying” the understanding of Allah.
The word ikhlas is derived from the Arabic root which means to be purified or refined, re-emphasising the significance of the Oneness (Unity) of Allah as the central message in Islam.
After all, the Oneness of Allah or Tauhid is the very foundation of everything Islam.
At a tender age, Muslims will memorise this chapter as a testimony to the Essence named Allah, as an elaboration of the Muslim shahadah (article of faith): There is no god (ilah), but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
In other words, unlike “gods” (alihah), there can be no plural for Allah.
Allah (the stress is on the letter ‘L’) as a substantive Name is not shared by any other, and is inclusive of all His other attributes. In contrast to the word ilah, “god” in Arabic, Allah is not comparable to other objects or beings, nor in any way is associated with them.
In a verse (18:26) of the Quran, this is further reaffirmed: He lets none associate with Him and shares His judgment. Not even His works or obedience which is due to Him alone.
As explained by A.M. Omar, former editor of the Encyclopedia of Islam, Allah is a Personal Name (Ism al-Dhat), in contrast to other attributive and descriptive names such the Most Gracious, Most Merciful and so on.
These names however, in no way have primacy over the name Allah.
The Quran (7:180) mentions: “To Allah alone belong all the fairest and most perfect names (Asma al Husna), so call on Him by those, and leave alone those who deviate from the right way with respect to His attributes and violate their sanctity.”
Indeed, the word Allah is not a construction of al-ilah as often claimed.
To quote Omar, the word Allah is a different and an independent word.
“The first two letters ‘Al’ in the word Allah are an integral, inseparable part of the word. They do not denote the definite article al of Arabic, which is equivalent to the English ‘the’. In Arabic, the prefix al is added before the noun to emphasise the word in the sense of “most” or “all”, for example al-Rahman– the Most Gracious, or al-Alim – The All-Knowing.”
Omar cited one Sibwaih, the great grammarian, and Khalil, the great linguistic, as saying, “Since Al in the beginning of the word Allah is inseparable from it, so it is a simple substantive, not derived from any other word.”
Being a Proper Name, it has, therefore, no parallel or equivalent in any other language of the world, nor can it be translated to be equated to another God, Lord or Creator in other beliefs or religions. Particularly so when the Name Allah is associated with other entities, be it a son, a father or any part of the so-called “godhead” or any other form of deities or symbols of therefore.
Such associations (in thoughts and deeds), known as shirk, not only violates the shahadah (therefore Islam) but it is starkly negated by Allah Himself as in surah Al-Ikhlas, in addition to many others that reinforced the notion of Oneness, one of the critical messages of the Quran.
For example: Associate no partners with Allah, surely this (act of) associating partners (with Him) is a grievous wrong. (31:13).
Again: Indeed he who associates anything with Allah falls from a high place, and either the birds snatch him or the wind blow him off to some deep far away place (22:31).
Shirk is therefore is the gravest of all evils and ignorance.
Succinctly, Allah is one Name that can only be understood within the definition of the Tauhidic Reality of the One and Only Eternal and the Absolute, and not merely in conformance to a concept of monotheism.
Allah, The Reality, is beyond any conceptual notion. To do otherwise is to do commit a heinous injustice against Allah. As He said clearly in the Quran: “Do you know any other name (which comprises all the Attributes of perfection), and don’t you know that there is no one who is called the same.” (19:65).
・The writer is the vice-chancellor of Universiti Sains Malaysia. He can be contacted at vc@usm.my
© Copyright 2009 The New Straits Times Press (M) Berhad. All rights reserved.
(2) Of God's many names and the use of 'Allah' , 10 March 2009
by Mohammad Hashim Kamali
OF the 99 beautiful names of God (al-asma' al-husna), three, namely "Allah", "al-Rahman" and "al-Rahim", are most favoured. This is known by all 114 suras of the Quran, except for one, beginning with the typical Islamic phrase, the tasmiyah: Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim ("In the name of God, the most compassionate, the most merciful"), a phrase that includes all the three chosen names of God.
Similarly, every Quranic recitation in the five daily prayers begins with the tasmiyah. Of the three names, God has chosen only two, that is, "Allah" and "al-Rahman", by which He may be called.
The reason for the exclusion of "al-Rahim" is probably due to its repetition of the meaning of "al-Rahman". They obtain from the same root, rahima (to be kind, compassionate).
It is reported that the second caliph of Islam, Umar ibn al-Khattab, explained this repetition by saying that "al-Rahman" is meant for Muslims and "al-Rahim" for the rest of mankind.
This understanding endorses the principle that God is universal, omniscient and omnipresent. He is the creator and cherisher of all without exception.
"Allah" is the Arabic equivalent of "God", and the two words have been used synonymously by all people throughout the history of religion.
God has made Himself known to Muslims by His 99 illustrious names, which consist of His attributes that occur throughout the Quran.
The self of God is not known to us; we only know Him by these names and attributes -- such as Ghafoor (forgiving), Wadood (loving), Kareem (noble), Lateef (gracious) and Haleem (perseverant, patient).
When read together, they also set the ethico-cultural optima that Muslims should emulate and manifest in their conduct within the family, in society, and at all times.
Belief in one God, or monotheism, is the central theme of the Islamic principle of tawhid, the oneness of being, which means that there is only one God and essentially also one humanity.
Tawhid permeates every aspect of Islam, in that the presence of God in the universe is the connecting force that binds the whole of the created universe into coherent parts.
Tawhid also implies unity of the human origin in one and the same creator, an article of the Islamic faith implying an innate sense of belonging for all members of the human fraternity.
God, therefore, belongs to the whole of humanity and no sect or section of humanity may deny this sacred link to anyone.
God created Adam and breathed into him of His own spirit and then created from it its pair, and from them a multitude of humans that scatter on the face of the earth.
Those who believe in God are repeatedly asked in the Quran to remember Him often and nurture God-consciousness into themselves through zikir (remembrance), whenever they can.
It should be obvious, then, that in reference to all monotheists, there is no restriction whatsoever regarding the use of the word "Allah" when mentioning Him partakes in the spirit of remembrance, invocation and doa.
This is the basic position of Islam.
However, when Allah is mentioned in a context that amounts to distortion and abuse, if the usage is clear in its abusive import and wording, it may amount to blasphemy, which is an offence.
In the event of more subtle varieties of misuse, that is, when a good use is intended to obtain a bad result, the position may be ascertained under the principle of sadd al-dharai or blocking the (lawful) means for obtaining an unlawful end.
For instance, commerce is lawful by itself but when it is used as a means of usury (riba) or of hoarding and profiteering that inflict harm and distort the normal flow of trade in the marketplace, then the means towards such ends should be blocked.
This can also be said of marriage, which is lawful, but if someone enters into it for quick gratification, to be followed by an abusive divorce, the marriage in question is unlawful, and the authorities are within their rights to prevent it.
This may also be said of the use of "Allah" if the purpose is to convert unsuspecting Muslims, as occurred in some parts of Indonesia, whereby a specious parallel is drawn by Christian missionaries between Islam and Christianity in order to entice Muslims to embrace Christianity.
It is a question to some extent of differentiation between the upright and the deceitful propagation of a doctrine.
If there are equivalent words, such as "Tuhan", but "Allah" is used instead for purposes of proselytisation, then it could well amount to distortion of the kind that violates the sensitivities of the Muslim community as well as taking advantage of the ignorance of its targets.
If Christianity does not accept Islam as a valid religion to begin with, then for Christian missionaries to select only the word "Allah" out of Islam for purposes of proselytisation is tantamount to a misapplication of the term.
Had they recognised Islam as a valid religion, the issue might have begged a different answer. Moreover, the Christian doctrine of Trinity is also founded in an understanding of God that cannot claim acceptance in the Islamic doctrine of tawhid.
Allah's illustrious name may thus be used by all monotheists, Muslims or non-Muslims, for its intended purpose, but if it is used in a way that amounts to distortion and abuse, be it by a Muslim or non-Muslim, it should be obstructed by recourse to the principle of sadd al-dharai.
This principle should not be too liberally applied, however, and confined only to manifest instances of abuse.
・The writer is the founding chairman and CEO of the International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies, Malaysia
© Copyright 2009 The New Straits Times Press (M) Berhad. All rights reserved.
2. The Sun (http://www.sun2surf.com/article.cfm?id=30962)
Inconsistent, insensitive translations of ‘Allah’, 11 March 2009
by Dzulkifli Abdul Razak
THE use of the term "Allah" has captured the attention of the media again. Of late, even a newspaper from down south carried a commentary on the issue. The slant is usually political, and not religious, and does not throw any new light on the issue. It also does not appeal to the intellect; instead, it seems to border more on emotions that further confuse the issue.
To all Muslims the term "Allah" is laden with the concept of Tauhid – that Allah is "the One and Only" as defined in the Quranic language, which happens to be Arabic. Allah cannot be understood without this concept of his oneness. Any attempt to do so will amount to a vulgarism of sort, and an affront to Muslims.
Moving forward, let us briefly try and understand the reasons for Muslim misgivings by using the Bahasa Indonesia version which is translated from the English New King James Version and authorised by Konperensi Waligerja Indonesia (Edition, 2004). Let us randomly take The Gospel according to Luke, translated as Injil Lukas, to briefly illustrate the point.
In Luke, "God" is generally substituted by "Allah", whereas "Tuhan" is commonly used to substitute "the Lord". Note the article "the" applies to "Tuhan," but not to "Allah". Hence, where there is "the Lord God" in the English version, it becomes "Tuhan Allah". "The Lord their God" becomes "Tuhan, Allah mereka". Note the use of a comma!
On some occasions though, "God" is also translated as "Tuhan", though "God" in this example does not carry the article "the" as in "the Lord". So does it mean there is a time when "God" is not "Allah"? Or that "Tuhan" is "Allah" after all?
Yet, on other occasions, "Allah" is used as substitute for "the LESUS." But then, "the LESUS your God" is rendered as "Tuhan, Allahmu" – note again the comma!
Just from these few random examples, one can already sense the complexity and confusion in the use of "Allah" in the translated version.
To make matters even more confusing, the biblical name "Mary" is rendered as "Maria" – when the Quranic equivalent would have been "Maryam"; And "John" as "Yohanes" instead of "Yahaya." Or for that matter "Gabriel" is not even translated but kept as it is. The Quranic "Jibrail" as an equivalent is not even considered! How about "Jesus" himself? Why is this rendered as "Yesus", rather than "Isa"? In the Quran both are the son of Mary or Maryam.
If the worry is that the use of the word "Isa" in the Quran is limited only to him being the son of man and not of Allah; unlike what is understood for the biblical "Jesus" – then should not the same consideration and sensitivity for Muslim feeling be shown when "Allah" is used in the translation, without any concern for the Quranic Tauhidic concept. This inconsistency, indifference and arrogance is rather obvious when it comes to the biblical "the Son of God" and the use of "Anak Allah" as an equivalent in the translation – something which is conceptually outright not acceptable to Muslims. In fact, it tantamounts to the denial of the concept of "Allah" as explained in the Quran, Surah Al-Ikhlas 112: 3 that "He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable to Him".
The consequence of this translation will be that Muslims will be confronted with blasphemous ideas that Allah has a son; that Allah’s son was born in the manger; that Allah’s son was crucified; that Allah’s son died for all of us. This may have public order implications under section 298 of the Malaysian Penal Code which forbids the wounding of religious feelings.
As it stands, the use of "Allah" the way it is can only arouse suspicions as to why an Arabic word is used for an Indonesia-Malay translation of the Gospel. Why not use the Hebrew or Armenia equivalents, instead?
To add on to this suspicion is why there is no insistence that examples in the fore-mentioned names be substituted with the Arabic equivalent, including places like "Jerusalem" which is substituted by "Yerusalem" which is not the name in Arabic either.
On the contrary, there are biblical names that are readily rendered to the equivalent Arabic in the translation. The examples are numerous, for instance: David as Daud; Zacharias as Zakharia; Aaron as Harun; Joseph as Yusuf; Moses as Musa; law of Moses as Taurat Musa (though, more appropriately it should have been "hukum Musa", since there is the specific term "Torah" for "Taurat").
The final straw is when the patriarch "Abraham" who is the fountain head for Judaism, Christianity and Islam is also not rendered to Arabic "Ibrahim" – but left as "Abraham". Here, the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and insensitivities in the use and misuse of the word "Allah" become even clearer. And this must be the concern of all.
・Tan Sri Professor Dzulkifli Abdul Razak is Vice-Chancellor of USM. Comment: letters@thesundaily.com.
（End）
