Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com)
Use of the 'Allah' term: What next?, 13 October 2010
by BS Poh
COMMENT When considering a solution to the current impasse over the 'Allah' issue, we must remind ourselves of the importance of remaining cool-headed and not be under the sway of emotions.
Fairness, courtesy and compassion would require that we hear out the views of those who differ from us and genuinely try to understand them. We need also to distinguish between issues - whether they are political-and-historical, or theological-and-linguistic.
While not denying the relevance of politico-historical considerations, the theological-linguistic ones should hold sway in what is basically an epistemological issue.
The Christian protagonists need to further remember that we are seeking to glorify God, to edify the church, and to advance the gospel. In short, Christians must be guided by spiritual considerations and biblical principles.
We now come to consider the reasons that have been put forward for the retention of the use of 'Allah' by Christians.
The reasons are:
i. The use of 'Allah' for 'God' among the Christians in Arabic countries preceded the advent of Islam.
ii. The Bible has been translated into Malay for over 300 years in which 'Allah' is used.
iii. Indigenous Christians in the states of Sabah and Sarawak have been using 'Allah' long before the two states joined Malaysia in 1963.
iv. It is the constitutional right of non-Muslim Malaysians to use 'Allah' since the freedom of religion, speech and association is guaranteed, and the use of any language, including Malay, is not the sole prerogative of any ethnic group.
It is to be noted that all these reasons are socio-political and historical ones. When the linguistic consideration comes in, it has been pointed out that there are affinities between the Hebrew 'El' 'Eloah' and 'Elohim' with the Arabic 'ilah' and 'Allah'.
Malaysian Christians choose to use 'Allah' instead of 'Elohim' because, it is claimed, 'Allah' has been absorbed into the Malay language and it means 'God'.
Linguistic problems
In my 2009 article, I have pointed out that in the Malay language, 'Allah' is not a proper noun derived from a generic word. It is adopted from Arabic, while the corresponding generic word, 'ilah', has not been similarly adopted.
The word 'Allah', therefore, becomes a personal name for God. In fact, in the Malaysian context, it is the personal name of the god of Islam.
The standard Malay dictionary, the Kamus Dewan, lists 'Allah' (with uppercase 'A'), and 'Ilah' (with uppercase 'I') but not 'allah' (with lowercase 'a') or 'ilah' (with lowercase 'i').
What I am saying is that 'allah' and 'ilah' (with lowercase 'a' and 'i') are not words in the Malay language. They have not been absorbed into Malay yet. That is why it is incorrect to say, 'Salah satu allah orang Hindu ialah Subramaniam' ('One of the gods of the Hindus is Subramaniam').
Similarly, it is incorrect to say, 'Salah satu ilah orang Hindu ialah Subramaniam'. Instead, we would say, 'Salah satu tuhan orang Hindu ialah Subramaniam,' ('One of the gods of the Hindus is Subramaniam,').
Both 'Tuhan' (with uppercase 'T') and 'tuhan' (with lowercase 't') are listed in the Malay dictionary.
You see now that the word 'Allah' as used in the Alkitab is inaccurate. Instead, 'Tuhan' should have been used. We may not draw a parallel with the Arabic Bible because 'Allaah' (with uppercase 'A') as used there is derived from the common noun, 'ilaah' (with lowercase 'i').
The word 'ilaah' (with lowercase 'i') is native to the Arabic language, but not to the Malay language. The Arabic Bible uses 'Allaah' in a similar way to 'God' (with uppercase 'G') in English, which is derived from the common noun, 'god' (with lowercase 'g').
The same may be said when compared with Bibles in other European languages such as French, Dutch, and German, which use 'Dieu', 'God', and 'Gott' respectively.
When the translators of the Alkitab chose 'Allah' as a translation for 'God', they were left with the word 'Tuhan' which was used for translating 'Lord'.
There was no need for them to choose another word to translate the Greek word 'Kurios' which, when applied to Jesus Christ, carries the connotation of deity. The expression, 'Tuhan Yesus Kristus' seems most appropriate for 'the Lord Jesus Christ'.
However, the use of 'Allah' for 'God' and 'Tuhan' for 'Lord' leads to awkwardness, and even inaccuracy, in the translation of certain passages. Two examples are the following:(9)
Deuteronomy 6:14-15, You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are all around you (for the LORD your God is a jealous God among you), lest the anger of the LORD your God be aroused against you and destroy you from the face of the earth.
2 Corinthians 4:4, ...whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
The Alkitab renders those verses as follows:
Ulangan 6:14-15, Janganlah kamu mengikuti allah lain, dari antara allah bangsa-bangsa sekelilingmu, sebab TUHAN, Allahmu, adalah Allah yang cemburu di tengah-tengahmu, supaya jangan bangkit murka TUHAN, Allahmu, terhadap engkau, sehingga Ia memunahkan engkau dari muka bumi.
2 Korintus 4:4, ......yaitu orang-orang yang tidak percaya, yang pikirannya telah dibutakan oleh ilah zaman ini, sehingga mereka tidak melihat cahaya Injil tentang kemuliaan Kristus, yang adalah gambaran Allah.
As we have pointed out above, the use of 'allah' (with lowercase 'a') and 'ilah' (with lowercase 'i') is linguistically inaccurate. The word 'tuhan' should have been used instead.
Furthermore, the word 'allah' is used in one verse, while the word 'ilah' is used in the other verse. Which of these two words is the translation for 'god', or are they both equally valid translations? Or is this an attempt to reproduce the Arabic singular and plural, namely 'ilaah' and 'aaliha'?
Since when did the Malay language take on such a rule of inflection, such that the singular 'ilah' becomes the plural 'allah'? This is grammatically inaccurate. In Malay, the rule of transforming the singular to the plural is to duplicate the singular as a hyphenated word, e.g. 'orang-orang' (people), 'tuhan-tuhan' (gods), etc.
We see now that the use of 'Allah' and 'Tuhan' in the Alkitab is linguistically inaccurate, and it is also grammatically inaccurate.
Element of inaccuracy
Another point should be noted, it introduces an element of inaccuracy in the result, or outcome, of the translation. There are, therefore, inaccuracies in linguistics, in grammar, and in the translation itself.
How this happens is that by using 'Allah', which in Malay is a personal pronoun - not a proper noun derived from a common/generic noun - we have subtly changed the meaning of those scriptures where it occurs.
When we translate 'the image of God' as 'gambaran Allah' instead of 'gambaran Tuhan', we have subtly changed the message much like translating 'the voice of Dad' into 'the voice of John', although John might be the name of my dad.
The word 'Dad' (with uppercase 'D') is a proper noun derived from the common noun 'dad' (with lowercase 'd'), while 'John' is a personal name not derived from a common noun.
Similarly, when we translate 'the Lord Jesus Christ' as 'Tuhan Yesus Kristus', we have subtly changed the meaning from 'Jesus Christ who is Lord (or Master)' to 'Jesus Christ who is God'.
We know that the use of 'Lord' in reference to Jesus Christ carries the connotation of deity, but the connotation is to be distinguished from the root-meaning of 'Lord', or 'Kurios' in Greek. The work of translation should be kept separate from the work of interpretation.
Theological problems
Apart from the problems arising from linguistic considerations, we must also consider the problems that are theological in nature. Evangelicals hold to the principle of 'sola scriptura', which means that the Bible alone is the authority in all matters of faith and practice.
This principle leads to three obvious corollaries that are of direct relevance to us. The first corollary is that no writings other than the Bible are to be accepted as the revelation of God. The 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament together constitute the complete revelation of God.
We do not accept any other book as part of Scripture, much less the Quran which was written and compiled more than five hundred years after the completion of the last book of the Bible.
To evangelical Christians, the Quran is not inspired Scripture. Those who accept the Quran as inspired, in the same sense that the Bible is inspired by the Spirit of God, are not true evangelicals.
The second corollary is that the God revealed in the Bible is alone the true God. Not only is the way of salvation revealed in the Bible alone (Acts 4:12), but the true God is revealed therein.
The existence of the true God, together with some of His attributes, are revealed in nature and the human conscience such that man stands condemned before Him for suppressing the truth (Rom. 1:20-21; 2:14-15).
However, a saving knowledge of the true God is revealed in the Bible alone. The Athenians attempted to worship the true God which they did not know (Acts 17:22ff.). Paul declared the character of the true God to them, and showed that He could be known through knowing the Jesus Christ.
The knowledge of God referred to is both objective and subjective in nature. In other words, it is not just having a saving knowledge of God through faith in Christ, i.e. having a subjective faith, but it is also having a correct understanding of what the true God is like, i.e. having an objective faith.
The Muslims are attempting to worship the true God, calling Him 'Allah', when He is unknown to them objectively and subjectively. They do not have a subjective (saving) knowledge of the true God because they have not known the Son of God.
Only those who have known the Son know the Father (John 14:7, 9). They also do not have an objective knowledge of the true God because the true God is correctly revealed in the Bible alone.
The God of the Bible is the Trinitarian God, not the unitarian god of the Quran. Furthermore, the prophet Isa of the Quran is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible, the Son of God who has taken upon Himself perfect human nature and who died on the cross and rose from the dead.
The Quran denies that that the prophet Isa is the Son of God and that He died on the cross. The Isa of the Quran is 'another Jesus' different from that of the Bible (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4), and the 'Allah' of the Quran is another god different from that of the Bible (cf. 1 Cor. 8:5-6).
We draw some conclusions from the two corollaries before proceeding to consider the third one. Since we do not accept the Quran as divinely inspired, and reject the god and the prophet Isa taught in it, we would not want the God of the Bible and the Saviour revealed in it to be confused with what are taught in the Quran. While it is appropriate for Arab Christians to use 'Allah' in reference to God, it is not so for Christians who speak other languages.
Arab Christians may rightly use 'Allah' in reference to God not only because it is linguistically correct in Arabic, but also because they have developed a religious vocabulary distinctively their own, without fear of confusion with Islam.
Personal name
In Malay, 'Allah' is the personal name of the god of Islam. It is not a proper noun derived from a common noun such as 'allah' or 'ilah', for no such words exist in the Malay language. Instead, the common noun for 'god' in Malay is 'tuhan'.
It is common knowledge that people throughout the world generally associate 'Allah' with Islam. The word 'Allah' is inextricably linked to the Quran because most Muslims do not approve of the translation of their holy book into other languages. The Muslims do not hide the fact that they believe in biological increase. As the population of the world increases exponentially, 'Allah' will increasingly be associated with them. To use 'Allah' in reference to God in the Alkitab is theologically unacceptable and practically unwise.
The third corollary of the principle of 'sola scriptura' is that the Bible is sufficient to guide us in translating the word of God into other languages. Scripture teaches by commands, precepts, principles, and examples.
It is a hermeneutical rule that the examples of Jesus Christ and the apostles, correctly understood, constitute teaching that must be followed. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:1, 'Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.' He says in Philippians 4:9, 'The things which you learned and received and heard and saw in me, these do...' John Owen says that an apostolic example 'hath the force of a divine institution'(10).
The principle of 'sola scriptura' gives rise to 'the regulative principle' of worship, by which only what is commanded in Scripture is to be carried out in the worship of God. It stands in contrast to 'the permissive principle'(11), which holds that whatever is not forbidden by God's word is permissible in worship. Reformed Christians and informed evangelicals hold to 'the regulative principle' of worship, while other evangelicals hold to 'the permissive principle' - with sad and confusing consequences.
Rightly speaking, the parent principle of 'sola scriptura' would mean that the word of God should regulate all areas of our life, including how we serve Him, and not limited to worship. The translation of Scripture to other languages is a service to God, for it brings God's word close to others who speak those languages. The 1689 Confession advocates the translation of Scripture into other languages:
'...the Scriptures are therefore to be translated into the ordinary language of every nation into which they come, so that, with the Word of God living richly in all, people may worship God in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.'(12)
・BS POH is an apolitical, politically-concerned, pastor and a former detainee under 'Operasi Lalang'. His persistence in confining his interest to spiritual issues may be seen here（http://www.ghmag.net./）.
［comments］
・Proarte： It seems ridiculous that Malays would want to have monopoly on an Arabic term which is generic for God in the Arab world. But then this is Malaysia where Islam is bastardised and logic does not apply. The poor pastor appears to have been 'turned over' as a result of his stint in Kamunting and as a result has no respect for basic truth and an understanding of the Abrahamic faiths. The Koran claims to be a continuum of the revelations of Allah in the Torah and Bible. Muslims, Jews and Christians share common prophets. Now what are prophets if not messengers of Allah? Yes, Chrisitans and Muslims differ in theological understanding of the nature of Jesus, but for the pastor to say that the Koran was referring to a 'different' Jesus shows his ignorance of Islam. The Koran says that Jesus did not actually die on the cross but it 'appeared' so. Significantly, the Koran also quotes Jesus as saying that he would die and rise from the dead! Not many Muslims know or would want to admit this.
・Joker： A waste of my time reading this article. If the Arab Muslims and Arab Christians both use 'Allah' and according to the writer, this does not confuse the Arabs because they 'have developed a religious vocabulary distinctively their own'. What does that mean? Does that not simply mean when 'Allah' appears in a Bible it refers to the Christian God but when it appears in the Quran then it refers to the Islamic God? Why does it confuses Malays but not Arabs or for the matter of fact, any other Muslims? All faithfuls believe his/her religion is the true path to salvation but in Malaysia, only the BN govt & UMNO 'muslims' forces others to bow down to them. The very simple historical fact is that Christians in Malaysia have been using 'Allah' since before Merdeka. When the Christian God calls himself "God" or "Allah", that is a pronoun, i.e His Name. It would be blasphemous for mere mortals to 'change' the name to Tuhan just to be 'linguistically' correct when it is the author who is in error.
・Henry Hock Guan Teh: God is spirit and hence worship Him in spirit & in truth. God cannot be perfectly described by mere vocabulary. Comprehension on His true attributes are not confined by the Malay dictionary, whether in a lower or upper casing. Such semantic argument used is unfair to those who have been using "Allah" as referring to their God long before BS Poh was born. They have worshipped God in spirit with all their hearts and soul in the similar Malay name they understood, though it may not cohere to the official Malay dictionary. Whatever reformed epistemology or linguistic argument will not affect their intellectual acceptance that "Allah" is God whom they worship Him in spirit & in truth. God bless those who truly love Him, whether wrongly use the correct man-made vocabulary. St. Anselm wrote,"Let me seek thee in longing, let me long for thee in seeking, and find thee in love and love thee in finding ... for I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand".
・Rentap：The question is why only in Malaysia Muslims are confused? Don't you think it is weird? It is very clear that the motive is based on political mileage.
・Henry Ong Baba：Hence the Christians in Malaysia will continue to use the word "Allah". Thank you.....!!!
・Stephanie Yeap Suan Sim：Multiple deities in Hinduism are not translated as "tuhan-tuhan". They are known as "dewa-dewa". Female deities are known as "dewi-dewi". Tuhan or Allah refers only to the One God.
（End）
