These silly disputes on the term ‘Allah' used in the Christian Bibles and publications by the Malay-Muslim authorities in Malaysia have been started since the year 1980. And I have been continuing my academic presentations over this absurd topic in Japan since the 1990s.
WAWASAN 2020 will be coming around the corner, but unless Malaysia has been blessed with oil, natural resources, etc., almost nobody in the world will take the matter seriously. It is simply a waste of time and energy. Worse than that, it is a serious deception and an intellectual murder.
This is exactly what I call an ‘intellectual Jihad’ in Malaysia.
By the way, Dr. Ng Kam Weng（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/archive?word=%22Ng+Kam+Weng%22）（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/archive?word=%22Ng%20Kam%20Weng%22&of=50）mentioned Dr. Daniel Pipes（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/archive?word=%22Daniel+Pipes%22）in the second section of his writings like this: ‘Daniel Pipes, a political commentator whom Muslim extremists love to hate.’‘Why in the world would a learned judge rely on someone who has no academic credentials? ’
(1) Well, Dr. Pipes is not a theologian but a historian and a specialist on the Middle East. He received a tenure at a prestegious university in the U.S., but he declined it due to his personal reasons that he liked writing than teaching.
(2) Dr. Pipes has written about Malaysian Islam in his book entitled "In the path of God: Islam and political power" (1983) which has been frequently quoted here and there. It was written and published when he was a lecturer at Harvard University, so he has indeed academic credentials.
(3) I think Dr. Pipes' descriptions about Malaysia are quite correct and amazingly far-sighted, which seem to be lacking among the current Christian theologians.
(4) Dr. Pipes has good Muslim friends in the U.S. and Israel. Radical Muslims seem to have failed to understand this fact.
(5) Most probably, Dr.Ng Kam Weng might have indicated ‘he’ meaning ‘Brutus Balan, an Australian’, but to avoid any unnecessary confusion, I added this explanation. (Lily)
1. Krisis Praxis（http://www.krisispraxis.com）
(1) Welcome to Ketuanan Islam (Supremacy of Islam) in Malaysia, 14 October 2013
by Dr. Ng Kam Weng
PREAMBLE TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF MALAYSIA (2013)
There is no God but the God of Islam, and the Court is his Herald.
All religions must be subject to the supremacy of Islam.
All citizens are equal but Muslims are more equal than others.
Cut to the chase, the Court of Appeal judgment released on 14/10/2013(No.W-01-1-2010) which prohibits Christians from using the word Allah is based on the supremacy of Islam in Malaysia. The judges identify “the community” as Muslim and relegate other religious believers to “group”. Since “group” is inferior and subordinate to the superior “community”, the judges ruled, “the welfare of an individual or group must yield to that of the community.”
The Appeal Court media summary statement section [6], which is a verbatim citation from the judgment written by judge Mohd Apandi section [48] reads,
“In the circumstances and the facts of the case we are also mindful of the Latin maxims of “salus populi suprema lax” (the safety of the people is the supreme law) and “salus republicae suprema lax” (the safety of the state is the supreme law) do co-exist and relevant to the doctrine that the welfare of an individual or group must yield to that of the community. It is also our reading that this is how the element of “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to be read with the freedom of religion in Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution.”
The documents maybe downloaded from www.kehakiman.gov.my
Today, it is the word Allah. Tomorrow it will be the offensive smell of roasted pork in the neighborhood. Finally, Christians may not display the cross or teach the doctrine of the Trinity since it is offensive to Muslims.
Are we on the slippery slide toward the Blasphemy Law?
This is the consequence of unnoticed backdoor Islamization of the law via legislation by the State Legislative Assembly, Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN). The strategy of the government is: quietly pass shariah-compliant State laws which include an obscure clause to empower Muslim authorities to act against non-Muslim communites. Bide its time and act when the machinery is in place. Ensure the Federal Court Muslim judges interpret the Federal Constitution in the spirit of Ketuanan Islam.
You are now required to pledge allegiance to the Federal Constitution duly interpreted in the spirit of Ketuanan Islam:
PREAMBLE TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION OF MALAYSIA (2013)*
There is no God but the God of Islam, and the Court is his Herald.
All religions must be subject to the supremacy of Islam.
All citizens are equal but Muslims are more equal than others.
ACCORDINGLY,
Article 3: Ketuanan Islam in the Federation
(1) Islam is the [supreme] religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony [that is, they must comply with the sensitivities of Muslims] in any part of the Federation [note that the word Federation includes Sabah and Sarawak].
(4) Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution [except for the purpose of confirming the supremacy of Islam].
Article 8. Equality
(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law, [but Muslims are more equal and entitled to more protection of the law].
Article 10. Freedom of speech, assembly and association
(1) Subject to the above provisions,
(a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression [subject to the limits defined by the Court in the interest of the sensitivity, dignity and supremacy of Islam].
God IS GREAT
・This final version renders haram and nullifies the Federal Constitution of version 1957 and 1963
(2)Appeal Court Inept Judgment Based on Internet Research, 15 October 2013
by Dr. Ng Kam Weng
The Court of Appeal in Putrajaya on 14/10/2013 over-ruled the earlier decision by Justice Lau Bee Lan in the Kuala Lumpur High Court to allow Christians (Herald) to use the word Allah. The wide ramifications of the Appeal Court decision calls for careful analysis to ascertain whether it is based on accurate facts which are foundational for a coherently argued and impartial judgment. I shall focus on the judgment delivered by one of the three judges, Justice Mohd Nawawi bin Salleh, since it ostensibly examines the facts pertaining to the legitimacy of Christians (the Herald) using the word Allah.
Justice Mohd Nawawi notes that Justice Lau Bee Lan in her High Court judgment concluded that “it is apparent that the use of the word “Allah” is an essential part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.” [2]
He then refers to some earlier court judgments which ruled that the wearing of the purdah and the serban was not integral to the practice of Islam. More importantly, he cites the principle that was used by a court in India to decide whether a dance involving public display of skulls and knives was integral to the practice of the sect in question. “Test to determine whether a part of practice is essential to the religion is to find out whether the nature of religion will be changed without that part or practice. If the taking away of that part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part.” [6]
This should have been a straight forward test. Dressing and dance change as fashions come and go. They would not be considered as constituting the essence or core of a religion. In contrast, the concept of God is THE defining centre for any religion. This being the case, Justice Lau’s judgment which affirms the word Allah is an integral part of Christian faith and practice would have been self-evident.
Justice Mohd Zawawi seems to think otherwise and proceeds to lay out the grounds for his decision to set aside the judgment of Justice Lau. The judge reiterates the claim made by the Muslim appellants that the word Allah is not found in the original Hebrew and Greek Bible, and as such, it cannot be integral to the practice of the Christian faith. However, the Muslim appellants’ assertion is disputed by the respondent for the Herald who emphasizes that the word Allah has been used for years by the majority of the Catholics to translate the Hebrew word elohim.
We should not miss the judge’s acknowledgment that “This debate does not exist for Arabic-speaking Christians who had continually translated “Elohim” and “Theos” (the primary terms for “God” in Biblical Hebrew and Greek), as “Allah” from the earliest known Arab Bible translations in the eight century till today.” [16]
But despite this acknowledgment, the judge opines the case might be different for non-Arabic speakers which he as a judge proceeds to adjudicate. Citing Lord Sumner, he explains this role would mean he “can be called upon to receive and to act upon either from his general knowledge of them, or from inquiries to be made by himself for his own information from sources to which it is proper for him to refer.”
How then does the judge proceed in his inquiry? Essentially, he offers a series of cut and paste, piecemeal quotations which he deems to have a decisive bearing on his judgment.
[17] “…One person who has written a book arguing against the use of the word “Allah” by Christian is a Nigerian, G.J.O Monshay. In his book, “Who is this Allah?”, Ibadan, Nigeria: Firelines Inst., 1990, he writes at page 8: “for long we had assumed that Christians and Muslims serve the same God, and that it is only in the language of expression and mode of worship that they differ.”. But he concludes that they are not. …”
It is telling that judge leaves out the sentence which follows immediately, “This assumption can no longer continue with the popular clich�・s of political correctness. What we believe must be according to facts from the original sources of the religion” (p.11-12. I am citing from the newer Chick Publications 2008 edition). The fuller context shows that the author rejects any facile identification of the God of Christianity and Allah if it is based on political correctness that is pervasive in the West. The judge would have regrets citing Monshay since the author in the newer edition argues that Christians cannot believe in the same God as the attackers of September 11 who were motivated by the belief that they were serving Allah. The judge would be appalled should he read further and find Monshay asserting that the Allah of Islam as “A lie engineered by the devil cannot be defeated by hazy and vague ideas” (p. 13).
Perhaps the judge should have made a wiser choice and cites a more balanced approach from Kenneth Cragg who is also mentioned in the book, “Those who say that Allah is not “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” are right if they mean God is not so described by Muslims. They are wrong if they mean that Allah is other than the God of the Christian faith” (p. 15).
It is evident that the judge has been both selective and careless in using his source. More significantly, he deliberately ignores other evidence from the book when it contradicts his view.
[18] “…In arguing that “Allah” is not the God of the Bible, Brutus Balan, an Australian, advances the following reasons:-
“The word ‘Allah’ no matter the origin pre Muhammad is understood in the Islamic context today as the Quranic deity. It is not a word that depicts the Trinitarian Yahweh-Elohim (Lord God) of the Bible. It is wrong for any translation of the Bible in any language to use this word ‘Allah’ to refer to the God of the Bible.”
The quotations seem to suggest that the judge has been diligent in doing. A simple search with Google would instantly locate this comment in the site belonging to Daniel Pipes, a political commentator whom Muslim extremists love to hate. The quotation was merely a response to an internet post. Given the utmost importance of the Court judgment, I would have expected the judge to rely on authoritative sources. However, he does not refer to original sources and scholarship. Why in the world would a learned judge rely on someone who has no academic credentials? Apparently, the learned judge considers an Internet comment would suffice for a robust intellectual argument.
The judge must be desperately grabbing at straws for evidence. Amazingly, he cites the next paragraph without any critical comment and caveat, “the word Allah that pre-dates Islam, a word that was and is a non Hebrew word for a pagan deity, the “Moon-god” of the pre Muhammad Arabs was Christianized and retained among the Middle Eastern Arab Christian converts finding its way in the Arabic Bible translation. Post Muhammad this same “Moon-god” is now appropriated and identified with the Islamic Quran by Muhammad” [17(2)]
Does the judge agree with Brutus Balan that the Allah whom Muhammad preached was the pagan “Moon-god”? I can safely assume that by now he would echo Shakespeare, “Et tu, Brute?”
[19] “…a Roman Catholic in Netherland, Tiny Muskens, called for all Christians to use the word “Allah”. However, the call was objected by the Protestant Christian as well as the Catholic Christians. The President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights disputed the idea…”
It is unclear why the judge cites this incident. Perhaps he wants to demonstrate that Christians are still disputing with one another over whether they should use the word Allah. It is telling that the judge could only refer to an isolated dispute involving an aged and retiring Bishop to buttress his claim that Christians are confused. The judge would have been more persuasive if he manages to offer cases of unresolved disputes between major Christian leaders. Obviously, he fails to provide a suitable example. Then again, is it the case that the judge considers internet research to be of such reliable quality that it provides credible support for a compelling court judgment?
In the light of his ‘impressive’ internet research, the judge confidently declares,
[24] From the above research, it can be seen that in spite of the word “Allah” is not the same as Elohim and Theos in the Bible, translators involved in translations of the Bible or revisions of the Bible in languages used by the majority Muslim community had used the word “Allah”…
This is an embarrassing declaration: The judge doesn’t realize that he is contradicting what he cited earlier in paragraph [16] – “This debate does not exist for Arabic-speaking Christians who had continually translated “Elohim” and “Theos” (the primary terms for “God” in Biblical Hebrew and Greek), as “Allah” from the earliest known Arab Bible translations in the eight century till today.”
I can only conclude that the judge does not read the sources with due diligence and care. Perhaps he simply does not understand what he is quoting. He then summarizes,
[25] In summary, judging from the many viewpoints and contentions that I have alluded before, we can conclude that the Christians themselves have not reached a consensus as to how to use the word “Allah”, whether in their many translations and versions of the Bible or in their general usage of it and this simply demonstrates how contentious and controversial such a usage.
This is the conclusion that the judge desperately seeks after and stubbornly asserts in the face of contrary evidence. For this reason, he cites academic pretenders at the fringe of the church rather than verify his facts with the most authoritative institutions for Bible translation in the Malay speaking world, The Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia and the Bible Society Malaysia. He ignores the fact the Malaysian Church leaders have consistently spoken with one voice in affirming the use of Allah to refer to God in the Malay Bible/Alkitab.
The judge asserts that using the word Allah will bring confusion to Christians.
[28] If the word “Allah” is to be employed in the Malay versions of the Herald to refer to God, there will be a risk of misrepresentation of God within Christianity itself, since the Christian conception of God as symbolised by the trinity is absolutely and completely dissimilar to the conception of Allah in Islam; in other words, the potential for confusion is not confined only to Muslims but also to Christians.
Ironically, it is the judge who is personally confused. The discussion so far shows him to be someone who is unable and unwilling to acquire a sound understanding of the Christian faith. But this does not stop him from going ahead to define for Christians what should or should not be integral for their faith.
[29] The upshot from the foregoing discussion is that the usage of the word “Allah” in the Malay version of the Herald to refer to God is not the essential or integral part of the religion of Christianity… It is also doubtful whether the opinion of the Respondent on the usage of the word “Allah” reflects that of Catholic majority.
But who is this judge who arrogates for himself the power and authority to decide unilaterally what is or is not an integral part Christianity? Christian doctrine is a sacred treasure to the Christian community of faith. No individual, not even a venerable Bishop dares to make any alteration without the consensus of other leaders. As a Muslim, he should have been wary of pronouncing how other religionists should profess their faith lest he inadvertently commits blasphemy against their God! Does the judge presume to teach Christians because he deems them to be confused. The judge’s assertion that Christians are confused is indefensible given the unanimous declaration on the Allah issue by CFM and the authoritative Bible societies.
An ill-informed judgment can only result in loss of public confidence in the integrity of the Judiciary. People have reasons to wonder if justice is poorly served by an Appeal Court judgment based on inept internet research.
Dr. Ng Kam Weng
Research Director
Kairos Research Centre
2. My Sin Chew（http://www.mysinchew.com）
Government wins appeal, Herald prohibited from using the word "Allah" 14 October 2013
PUTRAJAYA, Oct 14 (Bernama) -- The Malaysian Catholic weekly publication, The Herald, is prohibited from using the word "Allah" to refer to God.
This follows a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal here today to allow the government's appeal to set aside the 2009 decision of a High Court which had allowed the use of the word "Allah" in the publication.
Federal Court judge Datuk Seri Mohamed Apandi Ali, leading a three-member panel, said it was the court's common finding that the word "Allah" was never an integral part of the faith of practice of Christianity.
He said that taking into consideration the historical and religious facts, he could not find any plausible reason why the respondent (the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur) was "adamant" on using the word "Allah" in its weekly newsletter.
"To begin with, due recognition must be given to the names given to their respective Gods in their respective Holy Books such as "Yahweh" the God of the Holy Bible; "Allah" the God of the Holy Quran and "Vishnu" the God of the Holy Vedas," he said in his 40-page judgment.
"It is reasonable to conclude that the intended usage will cause unnecessary confusion within the Islamic community and is surely not conducive to the peaceful and harmonious tempo of life in the country.
"This conclusion is fortified by the fact that the majority population in this country is Malay and whose religion is Islam," said Justice Apandi, who presided on the panel with Court of Appeal Justices Datuk Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim and Datuk Mohd Zawawi Salleh.
He said that from his quick research of the history of the language of the Bible, it was clear that the word "Allah" did not appear even once as the name of God or even of a man in the Hebrew Scriptures.
"The name "Allah" does not appear, even once, in either the Old or New Testaments. In the Bible world, God has always been known as Yahweh," said Justice Apandi.
Justice Apandi had read the summary of the decision in open court. The court later released three separate written judgments.
In his judgment, Justice Apandi said the application for judicial review on matters of the nature as in this appeal militate against the spirit of "peaceful and harmonious" co-existence of the other religions in this country.
He said the purpose of insertion of the words "in peace and harmony" in Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution was to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and also insulate against any threat or probable threat to the religion of Islam.
He said that based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the usage of the word "Allah" in the Malay version of The Herald, without doubt, did have the potential to disrupt the even tempo of the life of the Malaysian community.
Justice Apandi said that based on the reasons given by the home minister in his affidavit-in-reply, it was clear that he was concerned with national security and public order.
"Since the minister concerned was in charge of internal security, it is not for the court to probe for strong evidential proof of national security. It must be inferred that the minister's decision, involving national security, is rational," he said.
Justice Apandi said it was his considered finding that the minister had not acted in any manner or way that merited judicial interference on his decision to prohibit the publication to use the word "Allah".
He was satisfied that sufficient materials had been considered by the minister (home minister) in discharging his function and statutory power under the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984.
He said it was also the court's judgment that the condition set by the home ministry in The Herald's publication permit, which prohibited The Herald from using the word "Allah", did not infringe on the respondent's constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, Justice Abdul Aziz, in his 34-page judgment, said the use of the word "Allah" in The Herald to refer to God among Christians would create confusion among the Muslims as the concept of God in Islam and in Christianity was worlds apart - in the former it referred to the concept of oneness of God whereas in the latter it referred to the concept of trinity of God.
"In this appeal, it has been shown that since 1986 the Home Ministry, when issuing the directive prohibiting the usage of four words including 'kalimah Allah', had already assessed the potential harm to public order and safety it would cause if the usage had not been restricted," he said.
Justice Abdul Aziz was of the view that the permission given by the Home Ministry for the printing and publication of 'Al-Kitab', the Malay version of the Bible in which the word "Allah" appeared, cannot be treated in the same manner as the printing and publication of The Herald with the usage of the word "Allah".
He said this was because the Home Ministry had already specified the condition that the Al-Kitab was to be used in churches and among Christians only and the words "Bukan untuk orang Islam" (Not for Muslims) were to be printed on the front page of the Al-Kitab.
Whereas The Herald, he said, was a newsletter which was used as the mouthpiece for the Catholic Church to disseminate information on the activities of the Catholic Church.
Justice Mohd Zawawi, in his 25-page judgment, said that from many viewpoints and contentions, the court could conclude that the Christians themselves had not reached a consensus as to how to use the word "Allah", whether in their many translations and versions of the Bible or in their general usage of it.
"This simply demonstrates how contentious and controversial such a usage is," adding that "Allah" was not the God of the Bible but "Allah" was a proper name and the only God in Islam.
He said the question of translating God as "Allah" was still being hotly debated among Christians worldwide.
On Feb 16, 2010, the Roman Catholic Church led by Archbishop Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam, filed a judicial review application naming the Home Ministry and the government as respondents, seeking, among others, a declaration that the Home Ministry's decision to prohibit the use of the word "Allah" in The Herald publication was illegal.
The weekly, published in four languages, had been using the word "Allah" to refer to God in the Herald Malay-language section, specially to cater for the people in Sabah and Sarawak.
On Dec 31, 2009, the High Court declared the decision by the Home Ministry prohibiting The Herald from using the word "Allah" was illegal, null and void.
The church's lawyer, S. Selvarajah, said outside the court today that an appeal would be made to the Federal Court.
"We have 30 days from today to file the application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. We will study the judgment before filing the leave application," he said.
3. Malaysian Insider（http://www.themalaysianinsider.com）
Church to fight on after “Allah” decision, says court ignored evidence, 14 October 2013
by Jennifer Gomez
The Court of Appeal's decision today prohibiting The Herald from using the word "Allah" goes against all evidence on the issue from around the world, argued the Catholic weekly's editor, Father Lawrence Andrew.
Andrew said that the church could not reconcile with the basis of the ruling today. He pointed out that in 2011, Putrajaya in its 10-point solution to the issue had allowed the printing and distribution of the Al-Kitab, the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible.
"The government allowed the printing and distribution of the Malay Bible but in the same breath is challenging the word used in Herald. This is a serious contradiction," he said.
He described as unfounded the argument that allowing the word to be used in The Herald would disrupt public order.
"This is baseless as we have been using the word for the last 18 years and it has not caused any inconvenience," said Andrew.
He said that today’s verdict was not based on law or the Constitution, and stressed that the church will soldier on.
"We are not discouraged, we will appeal to the Federal Court," he said.
Reverend Dr Herman Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM), who was also present in court, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying that he did not agree with the argument that the word "Allah" was not integral to Christianity.
"The learned judges obviously did not take into consideration that the Christians in Sabah and Sarawak and Malay-speaking Christians in Peninsular Malaysia have been using the word even before Independence," he argued.
He explained that Christians in the Middle East and Indonesia have been using the word "Allah", adding that the word predates Islam.
"Even in the Quran it is mentioned that the Christians and Jews believe in Allah, which explains why PAS had also said that Christians can use the word.
"But here, the judges made a ruling without calling expert evidence. This is very disappointing," added Shastri.
He said the CCM could not understand the "public order" argument accepted by the court.
"The people in East Malaysia have been using the word and they have been living in peace, so what public order are they talking about?
"Just because a few extremists are making a big issue of this does not make it a national security issue," he said.
Shastri noted that Putrajaya's 10-point solution to Christians in Sabah and Sarawak had not affected public order.
"If there was no fear of threat to public order then, how can the judges accept that argument now?" Shastri questioned, adding that his organisation would support the Catholic church's move to appeal today's decision. - October 14, 2013.
4. Anil Netto (http://anilnetto.com)
Allah issue: Christian Federation of Malaysia responds, 14 October 2013
One thing that many people do not realise is that East Malaysian indigenous and Orang Asli Christians constitute 60 per cent of the church in Malaysia and many of them use Bahasa Malaysia.
This is a CFM statement reacting to the Court of Appeal’s decision to bar the use of the word ‘Allah’ in the Malay-language pullout of the Catholic Herald weekly in Malaysia:
The Christian community in Malaysia is gravely dismayed and very disappointed by the decision of the Court of Appeal to uphold the power of the Minister to ban the use of the word Allah in the Herald publication. In a wide-ranging decision, all Christian publications in Bahasa Malaysia would appear to be affected by this ruling.
By stating that “the name ‘Allah’ is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity” the court has totally ignored the position of our East Malaysian Bumiputra and Orang Asli Christians, who constitute 60% of the church in Malaysia and who are Bahasa Malaysia-speaking.
In particular, by holding that “the welfare of an individual or group must yield to that of the community” and applying this principle to freedom of religion, this decision is yet another erosion and infringement of the constitutional protection to the freedom of religious communities to profess and practise their faith and to manage their own affairs.
In what would appear to be a re-reading and re-interpretation of Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution, it would now appear that a minority religion can only be practised and professed in Malaysia to the extent that it does not upset the “peace and harmony” of adherents of the majority religion.
The Bahasa Malaysia-speaking churches have been using the word Allah both before and after the independence of Malaya and the formation of Malaysia. The use of the word Allah by the Malaysian churches had not been an issue all these decades.
However, the various authorities in this country, by making an issue of it and by what would appear to be selective action or inaction, have only encouraged and fuelled further misunderstandings, mistrusts and brokenness between the Muslim and Christian communities. This will only further undermine the unity of Malaysians.
Despite this very negative development, the Christian Federation of Malaysia reminds all churches in Malaysia to always look to God and to pray for wisdom and guidance for all involved as to the next steps that they should take.
We welcome the fact that the decision of the Court of Appeal does not appear to cover the use of the word Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible, the Al-Kitab.
We expect our Honourable Prime Minister and the Cabinet to continue to honour the 10-point solution with respect to the Bahasa Malaysia Bible, the Al-Kitab. We shall, therefore, continue to use the word Allah in our worship, liturgy, prayers and educational materials of the church.
As Malaysian Christians we are committed to our beloved nation and our love for Malaysia remains steadfast and we continue to respond with love and not in hatred as we face this on-going trial and tribulation.
(Source: themalaysianinsider.com)
(End)
