The two articles below are well-written, although I do not agree with her statement in the last sentence ‘Islam, the religion of peace’. Correctly speaking, it should be ‘Islam is submission to Allah.'
Dr. Patricia A Martinez is a Catholic lady and received a Ph.D in Islam from Temple University in the U.S.（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20080617）. As for her work, please refer to my previous posting（http://d.hatena.ne.jp/itunalily2/20130924）. (Lily)
Malaysian Insider（http://www.themalaysianinsider.com）
(1) Solution to escalating ‘Allah’ row, 24 January 2014
by Dr. Patricia A Martinez
I appreciate Professor Dr Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi's – “Turning the other cheek on the 'Allah' issue” – attempt at finding a solution to this escalating and indeed, serious issue that besets our nation over the use of the word “Allah” by Christians.
However, I would like to point out the following which contradict the purpose of his noble intention:
• Christians have indeed turned the other cheek already: the demonstrations outside the court in Putrajaya and elsewhere and the threat by Umno of a mega-demonstration in the future, the Umno roadshows to “explain the Allah issue to the ummat Islam” which falsely and conveniently targets a single Christian – Father Lawrence Andrew (when it is all Christians who are standing up for our Constitutional right of Freedom of Religion), the threats to burn the Alkitab, the false accusations, police reports, threats, the use of the “Allah” issue to demonise the opposition and make the ridiculous claim that Christians want to turn Malaysia into a Christian state (Utusan Malaysia) the burning of the effigy of Andrew and his photographs – over two years – have elicited no similar response whatsoever from Christians.
• At the most, the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) and the heads of the churches in Sabah and Sarawak have merely issued statements. So indeed, Christians have endured, and have already “turned the other cheek” for the peace that we hold as our highest teaching, and for the harmony of our beloved nation. Indeed, Muhammad Tajuddin’s allusion to “safety” of Christians indicates he is aware of just how much danger we have and are facing with no retaliation of any sort whatsoever except for appeals for calm, rationality, and prayer.
• Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr are invoked by Muhammad Tajjudin as examples: neither of these heroes of peace “turned the other cheek”. They taught the world the word “civil disobedience” and went on to protest the injustice meted out to them by carrying on with doing what was banned, but without violence, against an unjust coloniser (Gandhi) and an unjust law (segregation – Luther King Jr). For example: African-Americans in huge numbers occupied “All White” sections of buses, restaurants and walked in peaceful protest marches. They did not continue back into racial segregation and “turn the other cheek”.
• Prophet Muhammad, by Muhammad Tajuddin’s own inadvertent admission, “did not turn the other cheek” ultimately: he formed an army and went after the Quraysh and took Mecca from them.
• The author of the letter suggests Christians use Tuhan instead of “Allah”. The CFM fact sheet (in three languages) which is widely available on all online media and from the CFM, explains this among other significant issues. The Alkitab – translated into Malay four centuries ago – uses both Tuhan and Allah.
In passages where God refers to God’s self as “Lord”, then the passage reads, “Saya adalah Tuhan dan Allah kamu”. “I am your Lord and your God”. To replace God with ‘Tuhan’ would mean writing “Saya adalah Tuhan dan Tuhan kamu” which would make us polytheists, when Christians are monotheists like Muslims.
The theology of the Trinity notwithstanding, as Muslims in even the heartland of Islam understand, “Allah” is simply a linguistic referent for god from the language, culture and geographical region of the three Abrahamic faiths. And Christianity predates Islam...
As this issue about the use of the word “Allah” malingers, there are significant perspectives which are not being articulated, or often enough, and I would like to clarify some key points.
• The status quo for centuries was that Bahasa Malaysia-speaking Christians who constitute 64% of all Christian Malaysians and who only have BM as their common language and for their Alkitab has been its peaceful use until recently. If all Christians are asking for is to maintain the status quo, what is there “to give in”, and “compromise” about? Surely by logic it is for those who changed the goal posts to do so?
• Who changed the status quo? Religious authorities banning the word “Allah” and even other words like “Haji” and “surau” by non-Muslims? And the then home affairs minister who decided that an in-house, by-subscription-only newsletter of the Catholic Church, (The Herald) could not use the word “Allah” in its BM section since the Herald is distributed in Sabah and Sarawak. This is the source of the “Allah” issue but it is not highlighted at all, especially for Muslims.
• After years of negotiating, pleading, providing evidence behind closed doors ended unsuccessfully, the Catholic Church had no choice but to take the home minister to court over the ban. This final step is the logical and ultimate recourse for Malaysian citizens who are protected by the Constitution’s pledges, including freedom of religion and the freedom to manage one’s religious affairs. So, do note, Christians did not start this “Allah” issue.
• The Catholic Church happened to own the first publication that the ministry chose to “ban” – any other Christian publication could have been chosen. Thus, the struggle to maintain the status quo for the rights of 64% of Malaysian Christians is a struggle for all Christians. It is not a Catholic Church “fight” and Andrew, a Catholic Jesuit priest and editor of the Herald, is not the villain of the “plot”.
• Nowhere else in Christian services or the Bible in English, Tamil or Chinese, does the word “Allah” appear, and Christians have no intention to change “God” to “Allah” in these Bibles. This is one of the biggest lies circulating, with the addendum that Christians are now trying to usurp Malay and Muslim “rights” – a “sensitive” issue for those who propound “ketuanan Melayu”.
• Ever since the Court of Appeal judgment banning Christians from using the word “Allah”, distinguished Muslim scholars from all over the world as well as imam have all disagreed or even poured scorn, or said they are “embarrassed” about the Malaysian Muslim version of protecting “Allah” (featured in the alternate media). In similar vein, as have the media of the heartland of Islam – the Middle East; and Turkey, Pakistan, as well as our neighbour Indonesia which is the largest Muslim nation in the world, and whose headline in the Jakarta Post was “Since when do Muslims own God?”... inferring precisely the argument that Christians make: that “Allah” is simply a linguistic referent for God. No big deal.
• Christians are peace-loving and not aggressive, we would be happy not to retaliate and ask the agressors in this issue to turn any cheek. We just ask that Malaysia reverts to the peaceful status quo that was disrupted and then manipulated, distorted and now demonised for what we believe is for any other agenda except Islam. The wonderful world religion Islam is being deployed for other – including political – agendas.
• There is nothing in the Quran that stipulates Christians cannot use the word “Allah”. Christians are described as People of the Book and the closest to Muslims. Yes, there are both positive (more) and negative (much less) passages in the Quran about Christians and Jews. The theory of Naskh or abrogation of these positive verses does not come into consideration here. Naskh is used largely for jurisprudential issues since the syariah is taken from the Quran. And the verses subject to naskh have been reduced from just 270 to approximately 20. And none of the positive verses on Christians has been abrogated.
I write the above with the hope of clarification that brings rationality to this issue which is getting out of hand dangerously – largely by manipulation, deceit, genuine ignorance and even political expedience.
And I write with the utmost respect for Islam, the religion of peace, which is being distorted and sullied in the process of this ugly disruption of the peaceful status quo for 64% of Christian Malaysians. – January 24, 2014.
・Dr Patricia A Martinez reads The Malaysian Insider.
・This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
(2) View the Allah controversy in context, 21 February 2014
by Abdullah Ismail
I refer to Nehali’s article “Brahma instead of Allah?” [The Malaysian Insider, February 17, 2014]. It was in response to my reply in The Star, February 8, 2014, to Dr Patricia A. Martin Martinez’s comment on the Allah issue.
I shall ignore his sarcasm, arrogance and baseless statements and focus on the core issues.
The reason Muslims in Malaysia object to the description of God as Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible and their liturgy is that over 1.2 billion Muslims in every corner of the world use the word to believe in God who is one, unique, and neither begets nor is begotten, which is in direct conflict with the Christian concept of God as Trinity. The Christian belief that Jesus is God in flesh and blood whom God the Father sent to humankind to atone for the sin committed by Adam would be sacrilege to Muslims.
Contrary to what Nehali writes, Muslims do not understand the Trinity as God physically giving birth to a son called Jesus.To them, it does not make sense to believe in one God, at the same time embrace the Trinity, that is, three in one doctrine.
Interestingly, many Bible scholars also share the same view. They have been questioning the doctrine of Trinity which was adopted as dogma only in 325 A.D. by the Nicene Council with a strong dissenting view, and affirmed in 381 A.D. by the Council of Constantinople. According to late Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford University, Jesus of Nazareth never believed, or taught, that he was the second person of a divine trinity. Vermes was a distinguished scholar and translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even the physicist Isaac Newton had a problem with the Trinity doctrine.
Nehali claims that “the consensus among world experts is that Allah is the most appropriate translation for God since time immemorial”. Who are these “world experts” and when was the consensus reached? If his claim is correct, why do the Bibles in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, English and Dutch not refer to God as Allah?
In the original Hebrew Bible, God is called “Elohim” and the Son of God “Ben Elohim”. In the original Greek Bible, God is called “Theos” and in the Latin Bible as “Deus”. According to accounts by Munshi Abdullah, the Jakun had used the word “Deus” for God, which was also used in Portuguese churches in rural Malacca. The original Hebrew and Greek Bibles were translated into other languages. So why not use “Elohim”, “Theos” or “Deus,” instead of Allah for God in the Malay Bible since they will have a direct link to the original Bibles?
The argument that 'Allah' is used in the Indonesian and Arabic Bibles and that there is no objection to it is irrelevant to the issue of what concept of God the term embodies and the impact it would have if it is freely used in publications, talks and lectures in Malaysia, a multi-religious country. Absence of objection does not mean consent. For a long period the colonised people did not stand up and resist colonial rule. That does not mean they consented to it.
The Indonesians and Arabs may be indifferent and careless about infringements to their religion. Just look at the lack of any effective response from the Muslim world to the aggression, violation of human rights, indignities and abuses committed against Muslims in Palestine, United States, Europe, Afghanistan, and India. Thus, some Muslims’ indifference to the misuse of the term 'Allah' for God in the Malay Bible is no justification for permitting it.
Calling God as “Elohim”, or “Theos” or “Deus” instead of Allah in the Malay Bible will not in any way prevent or interfere with the right of Christians to practise their faith. So why are certain Christian groups stubbornly refusing to drop Allah for God in the Malay Bible and use a name closer to the original Bible? Is there a hidden agenda, some Muslims ask?
The Allah controversy is of recent origin. When the Malay Bible with God referred to as Allah was confined to churches and Christian homes in East Malaysia, Muslims were not interested in the issue since it hardly impacted them. But when attempts were made to bring it to West Malaysia, and disseminate widely in the public domain in East Malaysia, Muslim suspicions were aroused.
Almost 25 years ago, Professor Naquib Al-Attas had a meeting with the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur and representatives of the Christian community, including Ministers. They told him that they, as patriotic citizens, wanted to pray in Bahasa Malaysia and use the word 'Allah' for God.
He advised them not to use it as it does not fit into their idea of God as Trinity. He told them 'Allah' belongs to the language of Muslims all over the world and not to any particular national language. His advice was ignored and Christian books and publications began to use Allah for God of the Bible. Then, Muslim groups objected and the authorities took action to stop it.
Muslim concern about this issue must be viewed in the context of the project of the rich and powerful neo-evangelical movement centred in the United States to evangelise the whole world in preparation for the arrival of Jesus Christ. The well-researched and documented book 'Armies of God' by the scholar Ian Buchanan reveals the strategy and tactics of this project. It exposes the link between the United States Government/leaders, the corporate sector and the neo-evangelist movement and their goal of global hegemony for the church and the US.
Two major churches in Malaysia have strong ties with the Islamophobic Christian-Zionist network known as the International Coalition of Apostles. Also, Sidang Injil Borneo, formerly Borneo Evangelical Mission, was in 1975 absorbed into the Colarado-based Overseas Missionary Fellowship (OMF), whose mission includes evangelisation of Muslims, China and the tribal groups.
Neo-evangelists are not averse to practising deception in their missionary work. On this aspect, Buchanan writes: “The business of converting Muslims has become the fastest growing branch of the evangelical movement … And deception is the essence of the task.” The Allah controversy has to be seen in this context.
Muslims have no problem with Christian missionary work which has been going on for hundreds of years. We have had very good relations with Christians until recently when aggressive neo-evangelism became active. What we object to is the link between neo-evangelist churches and foreign powers and churches with an agenda for control, domination and hegemony of the world. - February 21, 2014.
・Abdullah Ismail is secretary-general of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organisations (MAPIM).
・This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
（End）
