1. Malaysiakini (http://www.malaysiakini.com)
(1) PAS: Non-Muslims can't use 'Allah' for 'God', 14 January 2013
PAS appears to have shifted its stance on the use of 'Allah' by non-Muslims, after its Syura Council decided that the word cannot be used as a translation for 'God' or 'Lord' in non-Islamic religious texts.
“... (This is) not allowed because it is wrong in meaning and an abuse, and it does not meet the real requirements which could lead to clear confusion. Hence it should be prevented,” reads a carefully-worded statement issued after the council met last night.
The council, which is the party’s highest decision-making body, is chaired by spiritual leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.
Its members were unanimous in deciding that:
1. ‘Allah’ is a holy word referring to the lord revered by Muslims, ‘the only one lord, who has no child and is not child of others’.
2. The word 'Allah' is universal (in that) it refers to ‘the lord of the worlds’. (So) anyone can mention ‘Allah’, just as the ignorant non-Muslim Arabs had used it to say that ‘Allah created the world’.
3. The word is used specifically by Allah himself to name himself ‘Allah’. The word cannot be translated into any language in the world because it does not meet the real requirements of this word. Similarly, other foreign words cannot be translated into 'Allah'.
The statement, jointly signed by Nik Abdul Aziz and his deputy Haron Din, was issued to clear the ambiguity of remarks by party president Abdul Hadi Awang (right), who did not explicitly say whether non-Muslims can use 'Allah' in their religious text.
He had said that ‘Allah’ should not be abused by people of other faiths, by assigning different meanings to the word, other than the Muslim interpretation.
At the same time, he had said that Islam does not prohibit people of other faiths from using ‘Allah’ in their religious practice.
Mixed reactions
Abdul Hadi's stance, while shared by the Pakatan Rakyat top leadership, had split PAS into two camps.
Several PAS leaders - Nik Abdul Aziz, deputy president Mohamad Sabu, Youth chief Nasruddin Hassan and deputy ulama chief Mahfodz Mohamed - supported the stance.
Another group - including secretary-general Mustafa Ali, Haron, ulama chief Harun Taib and information chief Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man - were against the use of ‘Allah’ in other religious texts such as Malay-language Bible.
Matters became complicated for Pakatan when DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, in his Christmas message, called on Putrajaya to allow Christians to use the term 'Allah' in the Malay-language Bible.
DAP later clarified that the call was only for use of the word in Sabah and Sarawak.
On the ‘Amanat Haji Hadi' (Haji Hadi's Message), the Syura Council urged the government to allow Abdul Hadi to explain the issue over national channels TV1 and TV3 for at least an hour.
Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim had rejected the request on the ground that it would breach a decree issued by the National Fatwa Council in 2002.
(2) No air time for Hadi, says Info Minister Rais, 3 January 2013
Less than a week after giving the green light for PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang to explain his ‘Amanat Haji Hadi' (Haji Hadi's Message) over national TV, Information, Communications and Culture Minister Rais Yatim has shelved the plan.
According to a Utusan Malaysia report today, Rais has explained that the proposal to air the message will breach the fatwa issued by the Muzakarah committee of the National Fatwa Council on July 24, 2002.
He said the fatwa had ruled that the message delivered by Abdul Hadi during a ceramah in Kuala Terengganu on April 7, 1981 branding Umno ‘infidel', is against Islamic teachings.
The fatwa, Rais claimed, prohibits Muslim from spreading, teaching, learning and practising the message apart from selling, printing, distributing, purchasing or possessing it, as it is against the benefit of Muslim community and the sanctity of the religion, as well as principles of Islamic preaching.
"Therefore the ministry and Radio Television Malaysia (RTM) are bound by the fatwa made by the Muzakarah committee of National Fatwa Council.
"As a conclusion, the forum cannot be held unless Abdul Hadi is ready to retract the message," he was quoted as saying.
The dispute surrounding the message delivered 32 years before was resurrected recently by Umno leaders and the pro-Umno media demanding Abdul Hadi to retract it as it has split the Muslim community.
Rais had earlier responded to Abdul Hadi's request,saying he could explain over the state-owned RTM if the content is suitable.
However, he had also said Abdul Hadi must submit an application to RTM and that other religious experts would join the show.
The proposal has received mixed reactions from Umno leaders and Muslim scholars.
In another related development, former inspector-general of police Rahim Noor told a forum aired on TV3 last night that Hadi’s message had burnt the spirit of leftists then in fighting against the government.
According to Berita Harian which carried a report on the forum, Rahim also claimed that one of the implications of the message was the Memali incident, which resulted in the deaths of 14 civilians and four policemen.
He claimed that police had obtained concrete evidence through investigations after the incident which found that booklets of Hadi’s message had been pasted on the walls of villagers’ houses.
“They managed to strengthen the ‘belief’ of the followers to the extent that they were willing to fight with the police because they thought the security forces were part of Umno and must be combated,” he was quoted as saying.
2. Krisis Praxis（http://www.krisispraxis.com）
‘Allah’ is Substitute for Hebrew Words ēl, ĕlōah, and not for English Word ‘God’, 10 January 2013
by Dr. Ng Kam Weng
For news event regarding the Sultan of Selangor’s decree that says non-Muslims must not use the word Allah see my other post at:
Religious Liberty Watch, Selangor Sultan Says non-Muslims Must Not use ‘Allah’, Pakatan and Christian Federation of Malaysia Disagree
MAIS secretary Datuk Mohd Misri Idris announced “His majesty the Selangor Sultan has made a decision and decreed that the word ‘Allah’ is a sacred word specific to Muslims and is strictly forbidden to use by any non-Muslim religion in Selangor as stated in a fatwa and gazetted on 18 February 2010.”
The ban is unprecedented and it is questionable whether a fatwa can be applied to non-Muslims. In any case, as a non-Muslim, my profession of faith cannot be determined by any human authority (whether the government or the Sultan). It is ultimately between me and my God.
Only God is almighty; still he does not impose blind obedience onto his decree. Instead, he invites us reason with him. As God decreed, “Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob” (Isaiah 41:21) and “Put me in remembrance; let us argue together; set forth your case, that you may be proved right” (Isaiah 43:26). Authority in matters of faith is legitimate not because it is backed by legal or political coercion, but because it is supported by a compelling argument that is open to reason. The only force that is legitimate is the force of truth and peaceable persuasion.
In this respect what rational justification have the authorities given for the ban? What evidence, reasons and arguments have the advisers to the authorities set forth that would legitimize the ban? It is significant that IKIM (headed by graduates from ISTAC and working with officials from JAKIM) released a press statement that coincides with the Sultan’s decree. Perhaps a declaration from a think-tank would encourage rational discourse whereby matters of religious disputes could be settled in an amicable manner. Alas, such hopes are quickly dashed.
The experts advising the authorities are mistaken right from the beginning. The press statement from IKIM goes as follows, “Kenyataan Media oleh YBhg. Datuk Nik Mustapha bin Haji Nik Hassan, Ketua Pengarah IKIM “Internet TV IKIM Siar Muzakarah Pakar Terjemahan “God” Sebagai Allah : Mengenal Pasti Punca dan Permasalahannya”.
The press statement follows a meeting of ‘translation experts’ seeking to identify the causes and problems of the present Allah controversy. Note how IKIM experts simply frame their discussion as the problem of translating the word “God” as “Allah”. Unfortunately, these experts have misconstrued the problem from the start. What comes across from IKIM press statement is that the Christians in Malaysia are insisting on substituting the English word ‘God’ with the word ‘Allah’. It is arguable that such an act makes no sense and these experts conclude that Christians must be up to mischief, that is, they are attempting to confuse Muslims.
I agree with IKIM experts that substituting the word ‘God’ with ‘Allah’ seems an unnecessary choice for translation. Indeed, I personally am happy to address my God as ‘God’. But then I am talking about using the Bible and praying to God in English. I see no need to substitute the word ‘God’ with ‘Allah’ and IKIM can rest assured that the English speaking churches in Malaysia would agree with me. Truth be told, it is IKIM that is mischievous in insinuating that the Christians in Malaysia for no good reasons want to substitute ‘God’ with the word ‘Allah.’
More importantly, the insinuation from IKIM is a red-herring that distracts us from addressing the reality that the Allah controversy in Malaysia pertains to the right of the Bumiputera Christians from East Malaysia and Peninsular Orang Asli Christians to continue using the word Allah in the Malay Bible (Alkitab) which has been around for generations. These Bumiputera Christians are only asking the authorities to respect their right to profess their faith in their mother tongue. Malaysian Bumiputera Christians have consistently insisted that when they use the word ‘Allah’ they are only maintaining a continuity with historical churches which use the Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic) when they translate the Hebrew words ēl, ĕlōah (Hebrew) orĕlāh (Aramaic) or alaha (Syriac) into Allah (Arabic and Malay Bible).
What could be more natural than the choice of the word Allah? Just look the words – linguistically they share similar roots and sound similar. The simple reason is they are cognate languages or dialects within the family of Semitic languages. They share similar sounds as these linguistic communities have existed side by side for millennia. In the same way, words sound similar but also slightly different when one compares Hokkien, Cantonese and Hakka since they all are dialects within the Chinese language. Any reasonable person who acknowledges the historical background (and not dogmatically write them off as times of ignorance, jahiliyyah) would agree that it would indeed be an unnatural decision not to follow the historical-linguistic trajectory (Hebrew words ēl, ĕlōah (Hebrew) or ĕlāh (Aramaic) or allahu (Syriac) into Allah (Arabic or Bahasa Malaysia) and adopt the word Allah.
IKIM statement, “IKIM berharap siaran TV IKIM dan penulisan artikel ilmiah di laman web IKIM (www.ikim.gov.my) akan membantu orang ramai memahami isu ini dan berharap isu ini akan dihentikan polemiknya,” suggests that the scholarly articles from both its website and TV IKIM should put a stop to the Christian polemics that is the source of the controversy.
The Muslim scholars speaking in TV IKIM did not hide their enmity towards Christians, based on their (mis)perception that Christians are both incompetent translators and mischievous missionaries when they adopt the word Allah. The viewer would be disappointed that these scholars did not offer evidence from comparative philology, linguistics and sound arguments. All one gets is dogmatic religious assertions, deliberate misrepresentation of the Bible, rhetoric and polemics. O yes! IKIM is the one guilty of polemics with the suggestion that Christians have caused offence in taking ‘God’ as ‘Allah’ when in reality Christians are innocently maintaining the centuries-old practice of using the word Allah as equivalent to the original words ēl, ĕlōah and allahu in their revealed Scriptures. In common parlance, IKIM press statement is a fig leaf to cover up an act (the ban) that is simply intellectually unwarranted and legally indefensible.
Appendix
For those who can handle linguistic technicalities of comparative philology, I give below two much abbreviated entries (leaving out references to ancient sources) on the word ēl, ĕlōah (Hebrew) orĕlāh (Aramaic) from the two most authoritative lexicons for Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic – 1. (BDB): Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon and 2. (HALOT): Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
IKIM simply parades the old presentations from its scholars without any change, as though no one has critiqued them and found them wanting. You may read my response to their papers: Refutation of Muslim Scholars’ Arguments in the Allah Controversy at:
Part 1/3 http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/06/refutation-of-muslim-scholars%E2%80%99-arguments-in-the-allah-controversy-part-13/
Part 2/3
http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/06/refutation-of-muslim-scholars-argument-in-the-allah-controversy-part-23/
Pat 3/3
http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/07/refutation-of-muslim-scholars%E2%80%99-arguments-in-the-allah-controversy-part-33/
3. The Malaysian Insider（http://www.themalaysianinsider.com）
(1) Sultan’s decree on Allah and response to IKIM , 10 January 2013
by Dr. Ng Kam Weng
JAN 10 — Rulers are looked upon as symbols of national unity. For this reason Rulers or Sultans normally stay above political contestations and social controversies. This would be a most appropriate posture of royal dignity. An intervention that is premature would only exacerbate disunity among his subjects. He intervenes only when the conflict is so intractable that his intervention is absolutely necessary. Knowing exactly when to intervene is the mark of a wise Ruler. Obviously, he can restore unity only when he is seen to be impartial and has the interests of all his subjects equally in his heart.
Many of us wonder why the Sultan of Selangor chooses to decree that the word “Allah” is forbidden to use by any non-Muslims religion in Selangor at a time of obvious political tensions and deep social divisions in the run-up to the coming general election.
The Ruler has absolute discretion in making any decree. He can rule, but will he reign, at least in the hearts of all his subjects? In this regard, other national leaders from political parties and leaders from the Christian and Sikh communities have expressed concerns, if not disagreement with the decree of the Sultan.
What now happens to the harmony between the Sultan and his subjects? The Christian assurance is that providence is ultimately in the hand of God, the one and only almighty ruler over human history and society.
Meanwhile, MAIS secretary Datuk Mohd Misri Idris announced “His majesty the Selangor Sultan has made a decision and decreed that the word ‘Allah’ is a sacred word specific to Muslims and is strictly forbidden to use by any non-Muslim religion in Selangor as stated in a fatwa and gazetted on 18 February 2010.”
The ban is unprecedented and it is questionable whether a fatwa can be applied to non-Muslims. In any case, as a non-Muslim, my profession of faith cannot be determined by any human authority (whether the government or the Sultan). It is ultimately between me and my God.
Only God is almighty; still he does not impose blind obedience onto his decree. Instead, he invites us reason with him. As God decreed, “Set forth your case, says the Lord; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob” (Isaiah 41:21) and “Put me in remembrance; let us argue together; set forth your case, that you may be proved right” (Isaiah 43:26). Authority in matters of faith is legitimate not because it is backed by legal or political coercion, but because it is supported by a compelling argument that is open to reason. The only force that is legitimate is the force of truth and peaceable persuasion.
In this respect what rational justification have the authorities given for the ban? What evidence, reasons and arguments have the advisers to the authorities set forth that would legitimise the ban? It is significant that IKIM (headed by graduates from ISTAC and working with officials from JAKIM) released a press statement that coincides with the Sultan’s decree. Perhaps a declaration from a think-tank would encourage rational discourse whereby matters of religious disputes could be settled in an amicable manner. Alas, such hopes are quickly dashed.
The experts advising the authorities are mistaken right from the beginning. The press statement from IKIM goes as follows: “Kenyataan Media oleh YBhg Datuk Nik Mustapha bin Haji Nik Hassan, Ketua Pengarah IKIM. Internet TV IKIM Siar Muzakarah Pakar Terjemahan ‘God’ Sebagai Allah: Mengenal Pasti Punca dan Permasalahannya”.
The press statement follows a meeting of “translation experts” seeking to identify the causes and problems of the present Allah controversy. Note how IKIM experts simply frame their discussion as the problem of translating the word “God” as “Allah”. Unfortunately, these experts have misconstrued the problem from the start. What comes across from IKIM press statement is that the Christians in Malaysia are insisting on substituting the English word “God” with the word “Allah”. It is arguable that such an act makes no sense and these experts conclude that Christians must be up to mischief, that is, they are attempting to confuse Muslims.
I agree with IKIM experts that substituting the word “God” with “Allah” seems an unnecessary choice for translation. Indeed, I personally am happy to address my God as “God”. But then I am talking about using the Bible and praying to God in English. I see no need to substitute the word “God” with “Allah” and IKIM can rest assured that the English-speaking churches in Malaysia would agree with me. Truth be told, it is IKIM that is mischievous in insinuating that the Christians in Malaysia for no good reasons want to substitute “God” with the word “Allah”.
More importantly, the insinuation from IKIM is a red herring that distracts us from addressing the reality that the Allah controversy in Malaysia pertains to the right of the Bumiputera Christians from Sabah and Sarawak and Peninsular Orang Asli Christians to continue using the word Allah in the Malay Bible (Alkitab) which has been around for generations. These Bumiputera Christians are only asking the authorities to respect their right to profess their faith in their mother tongue. Malaysian Bumiputera Christians have consistently insisted that when they use the word “Allah” they are only maintaining a continuity with historical churches which use the Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic) when they translate the Hebrew words ēl, ĕlōah (Hebrew) or ĕlāh (Aramaic) or alaha (Syriac) into Allah (Arabic and Malay Bible).
What could be more natural than the choice of the word Allah? Just look the words — linguistically they share similar roots and sound similar. The simple reason is they are cognate languages or dialects within the family of Semitic languages. They share similar sounds as these linguistic communities have existed side by side for millennia. In the same way, words sound similar but also slightly different when one compares Hokkien, Cantonese and Hakka since they all are dialects within the Chinese language. Any reasonable person who acknowledges the historical background (and not dogmatically write them off as times of ignorance, jahiliyyah) would agree that it would indeed be an unnatural decision not to follow the historical-linguistic trajectory (Hebrew words ēl, ĕlōah (Hebrew) or ĕlāh (Aramaic) orallahu (Syriac) into Allah (Arabic or Bahasa Malaysia) and adopt the word Allah.
The IKIM statement, “IKIM berharap siaran TV IKIM dan penulisan artikel ilmiah di laman web IKIM (www.ikim.gov.my) akan membantu orang ramai memahami isu ini dan berharap isu ini akan dihentikan polemiknya,” suggests that the scholarly articles from both its website and TV IKIM should put a stop to the Christian polemics that is the source of the controversy.
The Muslim scholars speaking in TV IKIM did not hide their enmity towards Christians, based on their (mis)perception that Christians are both incompetent translators and mischievous missionaries when they adopt the word Allah. The viewer would be disappointed that these scholars did not offer evidence from comparative philology, linguistics and sound arguments. All one gets is dogmatic religious assertions, deliberate misrepresentation of the Bible, rhetoric and polemics. O yes! IKIM is the one guilty of polemics with the suggestion that Christians have caused offence in taking “God” as “Allah” when in reality Christians are innocently maintaining the centuries-old practice of using the word Allah as equivalent to the original words ēl, ĕlōah and allahu in their revealed Scriptures. In common parlance, the IKIM press statement is a fig leaf to cover up an act (the ban) that is simply intellectually unwarranted and legally indefensible.
・Dr Ng Kam Weng is research director of the Kairos Research Centre.
・This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
(2) Law experts: Royal decree on ‘Allah’ not binding on non-Muslims, but…, 10 January 2013
by Amin Iskandar, Debra Chong and Leannza Chia
The ‘Allah’ word can be found in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. — File pic
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 10 — Neither the Selangor Sultan’s decree nor a fatwa banning non-Muslims from using the word “Allah” for their gods is enforceable, lawyers say, but they added that a 1988 state law could trigger another courtroom battle for those who persist — in the latest faith storm to hit Malaysia.
Christians and Sikhs nationwide have protested the Selangor Sultan’s blanket ban and warning by the state’s Islamic authorities that they would enforce the law on non-Muslims, insisting they have the constitutional right to also call their gods “Allah” as prescribed in their holy books.
The Muslim-dominant country, which provides for syariah courts to run alongside the civil courts, has created several gray areas due to an overlap of powers, several law experts toldThe Malaysian Insider when contacted yesterday.
“The statement by HRH itself has no legally binding authority. It should not have any effect on non-Muslims,” said Syahredzan Johan, referring to Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah’s decree issued on Tuesday.
“But the 1988 enactment is legally binding as it has been passed by the state legislative assembly. It is this 1988 enactment which may be used against non-Muslims,” the civil liberties lawyer added.
The 1988 Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment does not create syariah offences but civil offences, Syahredzan explained, which means the case would be tried in the civil courts and not the syariah courts, which has jurisdiction only on Muslims.
But the lawyer noted that section 9 of the 1988 state law “cannot be a blanket ban on the use of the word ‘Allah’ for non-Muslims, as it would encroach on a non-Muslims constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion under Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution, which the states do not have power to restrict or control”.
He also pointed to a 2009 judgment where the civil High Court ruled that “if any action is taken by the Rulers and YDPA which affect the affairs of non-Islamic religions, such action would be construed as unconstitutional”. YDPA stands for Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a title accorded the country’s king.
“According to the judgment therefore, any attempt to use the 1988 enactment to prohibit freedom to practice religion would be unconstitutional.
“Until it is overturned by the appellate courts, the judgment is good law,” Syahredzan said.
The 2009 High Court judgment was a landmark case brought about when the Catholic Church challenged the Home Ministry’s decision to bar it from publishing the word “Allah” to describe god in a non-Islamic context.
The Home Ministry’s appeal has been languishing at the Court of Appeal for the past three years. In the meantime, the Catholic Church remains barred from publishing the word in the Malay section of its weekly newspaper.
Other law experts weighing in on the controversy voiced similar views to Syahredzan’s, noting that Selangor was not the only state that has passed laws restricting the spread of non-Islamic religions.
Syarie lawyer Nizam Bashir pointed out that state laws touching on Islam only have effect on “persons professing the religion of Islam”.
He said the controversy was related to freedom of speech and expression as provided for under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution, which only Parliament has the power to restrict.
“If you look at the Guru Grant Shaib holy book of the Sikhs, it has got the word ‘Allah’ in so many places. Are we going to edit the holy book of another community?” Nizam asked, before answering, “That’s wrong. The royal decree cannot apply.”
Afiq Mohd Noor, a member of the Lawyers For Liberty (LFL) group, told The Malaysian Insider that any penalty imposed on non-Muslims would be against the Federal Constitution.
Section 9 of the Selangor enactment prescribes a fine of RM1,000 on non-Muslims upon conviction but no jail sentence.
It was silent on the action to be taken should the offending non-Muslim refuse to pay the fine.
Law lecturer Azmi Sharom said his reading of the Selangor state law meant that non-Muslims cannot use the word “Allah” only if they were proselytising their religion to Muslims”, a point High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan had detailed in her 2009 judgment.
“The problem with the High Court decision is one of jurisdiction,” the University Malaya don said, adding the case of the Catholic Church versus the Home Ministry was a federal dispute while the royal decree and the Selangor enactment were state matters.
“There is a conflict here and I can’t give you a definitive answer as to which will prevail,” Azmi said in his email response to The Malaysian Insider.
Mohamed Hanipa Maidin, legal adviser to Islamist opposition party PAS, was guarded in his response, saying: “It can be argued so long as the law prohibits non-Muslims to use the word Allah among themselves as a blanket prohibition, such law is invalid.
“Only if it is propagating to Muslims, such act is against Article 11(4).”
Afiq, the human rights activist, said the matter was now up to the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) Selangor government to decide as it was an offence under state laws.
“But what is the PR government going to do? That is the question,” he said.
Race and religion are inseparable issues in Malaysia, where the Malays — who make up 60 per cent of the 28 million population — are constitutionally defined to also be Muslims, and therefore are subject to the dictates of the state Rulers who are each the head of Islam.
The country’s supreme law states that Islam is the religion of the federation but also provides for other religions to be practised freely.
The “Allah” dispute, which first erupted after the watershed 2008 Elections, remains a hot-button topic in the run-up to this year’s polls.
（End）
