Summary of my views on the Allah Controversy in Malaysia
I have taken about half an hour to articulate my personal views on the Kalimah Allah, which has become a controversy
that is only unique in Malaysia. I believe the Christian community at large would agree with me. Due to time constraints, it is written as a blogpost, so do not expect perfection in the way it is written:
POINT 1. The word 'Allah' is basically an Arabic word which is similar to the Hebrew
and Aramaic words for 'Almighty' i.e Elah, Elahe / Elahi, Eloi, Elohim which
have been translated as 'God, Almighty.' Hence you have the 'Al' (as in
Almighty). All three languages belong to one group - the Semitic languages. In
fact, I happened to talk about the word 'Rahmah' which has its roots in both
Arabic as well as Hebrew, i.e. 'Rahamim' with EXACTLY the same sound. Read: https://focusmalaysia.my/we-all-come-from-the-same-womb-of-eve/
More about it here (read later):
- https://focusmalaysia.my/use-of-allah-conundrum-a-tough-balancing-act-by-the-unity-government/
- https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/567249
This is consistent with what Perak mufti, Dr MAZA said in a video:
https://focusmalaysia.my/not-all-muslims-agree-the-word-allah-is-exclusively-reserved-for-muslims/
Even PAS President, Hadi Awang (surprisingly) said: https://www.astroawani.com/berita-politik/sesiapa-pun-tidak-harus-dilarang-guna-perkataan-allah-namun-ada-sempadan-abdul-hadi-287759?fbclid=IwAR2cS5YT0tRJii7JGiB69AsUb7PvsvVx0bzraT2yKZyvDVOfT914k9io1OQ
POINT 2. The need to use the word Allah in Peninsular Malaysia
only arose due to three major reasons:
(a) More extensive use of BM by the younger generation of Malaysians and increasingly the need to conduct at least a service in BM to cater to the younger generations AND, for the sake of
(b) The East Malaysians who are attending our West Malaysian churches
(c) The 400 plus years of using the word Allah in East Malaysia (just like in Indonesia). To ask them to change it to another word would not make sense.
Plus, linguistically, the translation has correctly used the word Allah just like in the Arabic half a globe away and Indonesian Bible just a few hundred kilometres away. The English translation has no problem because we do not use Allah.
Hence, the idea of Christians using the word Allah to 'murtad' the Muslims is a far-fetched accusation that has no basis. The two issues should not be mixed.
Christians froo East and West Malaysia deserve the freedom to exercise their faith and worship Allah together any where in Malaysia. We do not wish to see a church service for East Malaysians in a building in Selangor, for example, to be disrupted just because of the location and pertapa the presence of West Malaysians. After all what wrong do we do if we worship our Allah? We do not desecrate the Name!
POINT 3. East Malaysians will bring along with them their
literature which has the word 'Allah' when they come to West Malaysia either to pursue their further education or work here. When they are in West Malaysia, this is
where they encounter these problems that are unheard of in pristine Sabah and Sarawak.
This is exactly what happened in the Jill
Ireland case. If she had gone back to Sarawak without going on transit at KLIA
2, she would have no problem. KLIA 2 is under the Selangor state with its own enactments on usage of certain words deemed to be Islamic and cannot be used by other people; hence, the
customs confiscated the CDs that she had purchased from Indonesia. Also, the list
under the Printing Press & Publications Act (PPPA) also has a list of four words which included the word 'Allah'.
I have checked with friends who use BM Bibles and have read Christian literature in BM for many years.
The word Allah is used.
The other three words are not used that extensively in
today's literature except for the older literature which were more Indonesian. The three words are: Solat, Kaabah and Baitullah.
Solat, for example, the East Malaysians may have found the
word 'doa' more meaningful for them.
Kaabah is DEFINITELY not used these days. There is no reason
for Christians to translate anything from the original text or literature from
English to Malay using the word 'Kaabah.'
Unfortunately, Baitullah which means 'house of God' in Arabic has an equivalent in Hebrew, which is Bethel (or Beth-El), a small town in Ancient Israel. Not sure if the town still
exists with this name. If, for some reason, the older literature translated it
to Baitullah, it's understandable because both ancient Hebrew and Arabic have the similar word.
POINT 4. Under the Federal Constitution, religious freedom for non-Muslims is guaranteed under Article 11 (3-5):
(3) Every religious group has the right—
(a) to man, age its own religious affairs;(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
(4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
(5) This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.
It is clear in the spirit of the Federal Constitution, EXCEPT for propagation, no one can restrict the way how the Christian or Sikh community use the word Allah.
For the record, no Christian would make fun of the word that is held so highly in the Alkitab. One of the Ten Commandments puts it clearly, "You shall not use God's name in vain."
Therefore, you won't see the name Allah written on shoes or
pieces of paper that are being stepped by a Christian. I can assure you. If
they do, they probably belong to a cult. We would want them punished, if not
under law, we know God will not take it lightly.
Just because it is an Arabic word does not mean it is exclusively an Islamic word. Even the Prophet Mohamad s.a.w never restricted the Jews and (more likely) the Catholics of his day from using the word 'Allah.' Even before the birth of the prophet, the word Allah was used by the pagan Arabs.
Under the federal constitution, Muslims cannot restrict
Christians or Sikhs from using the word in the way they deem fit just by certain Muslims in Malaysia set their own standards or their sense of what is right or wrong. They can keep the views to themselves but not impose them on people of other religious faiths. This is why the federal
constitution spells it out clearly in Article 11 (3a): "
POINT 5. The only thing that the law can restrict with regards to the use of the word Allah is only when it is used to propagate Christianity to Muslims.
We have to be careful with this definition as it can also be
exploited both ways.
Scenario One
Supposing if I were to leave behind my copy of the Alkitab on the dining table after dinner at the restaurant. It can be either by intention OR because I genuinely forgot to take it with me when I leave the restaurant.
BUT, in the event that a Muslim person picks it up and decides to keep the Alkitab and in the process got converted (become a murtad) without even me knowing it, his family can accuse me of trying to murtadkan their son, who is the waiter at the restaurant. Politicians get involved and things will just get worse. We have grearer faith in the Madani government leader’s that they would stand up for the truth if it is obvious thst i had left the alkitab unintentionally. This is why the use of the word by Christians and the efforts to murtadkan Islam should not be confused as though they have a causal relationship.
Even if the parents understand the circumstances, there will still be people who will exploit such a situation to create disharmony. To reset, it has to begin with the wrong that must be made right again. This is justice.
This is where it has to be thought through -- to what extent
the Christian is responsible, and to what extent the Muslim who became a
Christian is responsible.
Scenario Two
I give you another scenario that can be exploited. Take for example, I pick up a Sabahan boy from the hostel to attend the church service. One fine day, I happened to see a book that I think would answer his questions about God as the Creator vs Evolution. Let's say I bought the book for him and wrote: "Dear Kallang, I hope you enjoy reading this book. Signed, Stephen."
Kallang's book can be placed on his study table. In his absence, his roommate picks it up to read. He is converted. Who is to blame? Me, the one giving the book or Kallang who kept the book on his studytable? You cannot only blame Kallang or the one giving Kallang the book.
Kallang never attempted to preach to (let's say) Abu. But, how do you prove it?
At the same time, Abu who read the book and spitted on it can then turn around and accuse Kallang as the one trying to convert him. This is probably after a quarrel between the two roommates. But such thing has happened before, if you can recall, with two journalists from Harian Metro (if my memory serves me right) who sneaked into a church, took the holy communion emblem and spitted into it. No actions by the authorities although the article that was written was self-incriminating. We, Christians, despite feeling hurt, did not hold massive protests.
Back to Kallang story. Because Kallang is in Selangor, although he is free to use the word 'Allah' in his literature in East Malaysia, this can be turned into an issue by you know who.
———————————
HENCE, in the name of justice, all the government can do under the Federal Constitution is to prohibit that direct or active attempts to preach to Muslims. Instead of interfering into the religious freedom of others, Muslims must teach their people well. That is all!
But like I always say even without using the
word 'Allah', Muslims can also get converted. There are many stories in Muslim countries where people turn to Christ through visions and dreams. Who do you blame then? There are Muslim scholars who embarked on trying to prove the Bible is corrupted ended up becoming staunch Christians themselves.
The Church has learnt through the pre-Reformation dark ages that religion and politics cannot mix. State and the Church must be set apart. Or else, you will have disaster.
Since the first translation of the book of Luke into what appears to be more Indonesian than BM, we have never had any issues with the use of the word Allah.
The Federal
Constitution also enshrines the freedom to exercise one's faith in the way he or she sees fit.
However, the issue only began when there are people who stretch the law too far. I have mentioned this
before, and Joe Samad in his article in Free Malaysia Today said the same thing:
The word Allah cannot be copyrighted anywhere in the world. This is what some of the international Islamic scholars such Dr Tariq Rahman have also said to the Malaysian government in the past.
Therefore, the exclusivity of the word to Islam alone should not even arise.
In fact, laws that are against the Federal Constitution may not stand. The Federal Constitution is the basis for the formation of this country.
Comments
Post a Comment