NUFFNANG

Wednesday, 20 January 2010

'ALLAH' - STATEMENT FROM Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia

KENYATAAN PERSATUAN PEGUAM MUSLIM
Salam 2 all.

On‘Allah’ January 18, 2010 13:30 Herald Issue –
Part I
The Malays, as one foreigner once summed up, are a people who rest under the coconut tree with the sun shinning brightly and cheerfully upon them whilst the wind blow softly against their faces.
This observation is meant as a compliment to the temperament of the Malay Muslims.
As compared to Muslims of other countries, the Muslims of Malaya did not go through a period of great conflict and bloodshed to obtain independence.
As a result, you have a Muslim community who is tolerant and receptive to other religion and races.
The constitutional position of Islam and the Malays can be understood by making an analogy to a house owner who welcome visitors into their house and allowed their visitors the right to use the living room, dining room, the bedrooms, the garden, and all other areas, except, the house owner was to say, “Never ask for the right to use my own master bedroom. It is my special privilege.”
After a few decades, the house owner has shared everything in his house except for his own master bedroom.
He finds that his visitors, having enjoyed unlimited access and use of all the parts in his house are now knocking on the doors of his master bedroom, demanding for the right to use his own master bedroom, his last bastion.
The case of the weekly Herald has jolted the largely Malay Muslim community into the realisation that their last bastion, their master bedroom (i.e. Islam and Malay privileges) is now very much at stake.
The positive outcome from the Herald fiasco is the unity of majority of the Muslims coming to the fore to protect and defend a matter held dear to their very essence, their religion, culture and sense of identity.
The Herald had since 1986, illegally used the words “Allah” to refer to God in its publication.
Under Control of Undesirable Publications of the Printing Presses And Publications Act introduced in 1984, the Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) (Ministry of Home Affairs) has the power to introduce the Garis Panduan Penerbitan Kementerian Dalam Negeri (“Guideline”) to regulate publications such as the Herald.
According to the Guideline, words such as “Allah”, “Kaabah”, “Baitullah” and ‘Solat” are not allowed to be used by religions other than Islam.
The KDN then issued a letter dated 19.05.1986 instructing and advising the weekly Herald not to use the words contained in the Guideline.
Such words are deemed as sensitive to the Muslim community and may cause disharmony, disunity and confusion among the community especially the Malay Muslim community.
However, instead of adhering to KDN’s instructions and advice to cease publishing the word “Allah”, the weekly Herald repeatedly breached the Guideline by reproducing the publication in the Herald containing the words “Allah”.
The Archbishop of the Titular Roman Catholic Church (“the Church”) himself admitted in his Affidavit that a total of eight letters were sent to the Herald by KDN advising them to cease the use of the word “Allah” in their publication which went unheeded.
The word “Allah” is banned for use by non Muslims under the anti propagation laws of states in its schedule of offensive words.
Despite a clear statutory provision disallowing the use of Allah by non Muslims, the Herald continued in acts of infringement of the anti propagation laws and blatantly disregarded the Guideline since 1986 until 2007.
Since no immediate and decisive action was taken by KDN in response to this transgression of state law and consistent breach of the Guideline, the Church was emboldened enough to file a Judicial Review dated 19.03.2008 for the following declarations:-
1. that the Church is entitled to use the word ‘Allah’ in The Herald, a weekly Catholic publication of the Church;
2. that the Guideline by the Kementerian Dalam Negeri is illegal; and
3. that the use of the word “Allah” is not exclusive for the religion of Islam.
The Herald meanwhile, posted their publication online until it came to the attention of the Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (“MAIS”) and the Muslim Chinese Association of Malaysia (“MACMA”) who were deeply concerned on the effects of the publication on the Muslims in general, especially as they were made to understand by the Church that the publication was to be solely for internal circulation of members of the Church.
With its posting online by the Herald however, meant that the general public and those outside of Kuala Lumpur including the world at large would have unlimited access to the Herald.
The MACMA feared that the publication would cause confusion among converts due to the terminology used.
It may also open the floodgates for other beliefs to challenge the Guidelines and use the word “Allah” in their practise.
As a body entrusted with the protection of the rights and interests of Islam and the largely Malay Muslims, MAIS viewed these developments with alarm and concern.
MAIS is empowered under state legislation to dispense their duties as the lawful representative of the Sultan of Selangor including to advise the Sultan of Selangor on any matter impacting the unity and interests of the Muslims.
Having presented to the Sultan of Selangor the gravity of the matter, the Sultan of Selangor found the situation to be sufficiently compelling for MAIS’s intervention.
With the blessings and unequivocal support of the Sultan of Selangor, MAIS filed applications to be admitted as interveners for both the Summons and Review.
Their action was emulated by other Majlis Agama Islam of the States of Wilayah Persekutuan, Terengganu, Johore, Pulau Pinang and Melaka.
Throughout the case, solicitors and MAIS officers handling the case attest to the ease by which they were able to advise and brief the Sultan of Selangor and to obtain further directions.
The deeds of the Sultan of Selangor shall be crafted in our historical manuscripts as a monarch who has displayed a deep conscience and understanding of his role as protector and custodian of Islam and Malay rights, in the case brought by the Church.
The intervener applications by MAIS, MACMA and Majlis Agama Islam of States were provided for by statutory provisions under the Rules of the High Court.
Unfortunately, the Court did not allow their application even though MAIS argued for their inclusion under the various provisions in the Rules of High Court, including provisions for special entry to oppose the judicial review.
The Court did not recognise the statutory duties of MAIS under state legislations as the lawful body to advise and aid the Sultan of Selangor in such matters of judicial review relating to the rights and interests of Islam and the largely Malay Muslims.
The Court made a pronouncement that MAIS have no basis to justify that they have a direct interest in the case, in total disregard to MAIS’s statutory function as adviser and aid to the Sultan of Selangor in matters of Islam and Muslim rights.
Thus, MAIS was denied the opportunity to put forth their arguments before the Court by the Judge presiding the case, Datuk Lau Bee Lan.
This situation proved fatal to MAIS’s intervener application and was a major factor that led to a decision in favour of the Herald.
The Court decision meant that the words “Allah” and consequently, “Allah’s Son” were allowed to be used in the Malay pages of the Herald weekly.
The Court decision has also set a precedent that where it deems fit, parties who expressly transgressed and breached laws, may still come to Court challenging the authorities’ right to enforce laws under the guise of “constitutional rights”.
This is one of the greatest mockeries to our judicial system. Consequently, the reaction of the Muslim community to the Court decision dated 31.12.2009 is largely one of disbelief, anger and humiliation; a deep wound that if it were at all to recover, would require a long healing process.

Herald Issue –
Part II
The Judge presiding the case of the Herald, Datuk Lau Bee Lan, in her decision disallowing MAIS, MACMA and Majlis Agama of States as interveners, made special mention of the fact that the applicants in this case were unable to provide concrete evidence that the use of the word “Allah” is sensitive to the Muslim community and would cause disharmony, disunity and confusion among the Muslim community.
As such, it may be inferred that the Judge was of the opinion that the usage of the word “Allah” by the Herald and the Church would not be of material consequence as far as the Muslim community is concerned.
Events that unfolded during the days immediately succeeding the decision proved otherwise.
NGOs, Islamic organisations and various other organisations whether politically connected and apolitical were greatly moved by this outright disregard of the Muslim’s community sensitivities.
The government, initially unsure of the correct stand to be taken, followed the stance set by our former premier in this issue, where Tun Mahathir in his statement immediately after the Court decision was handed down stated that “….the word “Allah” is specific for Muslims..” and “…in Peninsular Malaysia we have never heard of Christians using the word Allah when referring to God in the Malay language, why are we using the word now?..”.
Tun Mahathir’s sentiment is shared by many Muslim groups in Malaysia who questioned the motives behind the application by the Church to use the word “Allah” in the Herald which may, subsequently lead to the use of the word of “Allah” in a Malay language version of the bible.
The other versions of the bible, which is the English, Chinese and Tamil language do not include the word “Allah” in their publications.
As such, it seems that the word “Allah” and as such, “Allah’s Son” are meant to be used exclusively for a Malay language version and targeted for the largely Malay Muslim community.
The demonstrations of opposition to the Court decision that took place all over the country culminated in sporadic attacks against Churches in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Perak, Malacca and Sarawak, hinting to possible civil unrest if left unabated.
A news report dated 11th January 2010 in the Star which states “…Some 1,700 members of the Protestant Church packed the hall for the joint Mandarin and English services from early yesterday…” points blankly to the age old customary usage of English and Mandarin in their Church services, which reinforces the suspicion of the Muslim community towards the intention of the Church in using the word “Allah” in the Malay language pages of the Herald-Weekly and the Malay version of the bible.
Members of Churches testify through at least one blog (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/12096) as follows:-
“It is for the use of ‘Allah’ in worship and publication in Bahasa, not in English…Yes, they had use God and will continue use God in English worship/publication but in Bahasa, they want to use ‘Allah’ back”.
In respect to the attacks against the Churches, there have been notable efforts by the government to pacify the Christian community whereby monetary compensation and contribution to repair the Churches were offered.
The Muslim community generally do not condone the attacks and belief that these attacks are isolated incidences and committed by extremist individuals.
However, similar efforts by the government to pacify the Muslim community are wanting and the Christian community have not come strongly forward to state their disagreement with the application by the Titular Roman Archbishop to use the word “Allah” in Malay language pages of the Herald-Weekly.
In order to contain extremist individuals and comfort the wounds of the Muslim community inflicted by the Church’s Court application, a more decisive stand has to be made by the government authorities.
Although the stand by the government authorities in this issue is uncertain and lacking in direction, the King – Yang Dipertuan Agong Al-Wathiqu Billah Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin ibin Almarhum Sultan Madmud Al-Muktafi Billah Shah (“Yang Dipertuan Agung”) came forward to point the direction that the government is supposed to drive in this issue.
In the statement issued by the Yang Dipertuan Agung dated 9th January 2010, the Yang DiPertuan Agung reminded all parties to respect Islam as the religion of the Federation and emphatically stated that the use of the word “Allah” shall precisely follow that as understood and complied in the Islamic context.
The statement made by the Yang DiPertuan Agung had to a certain extent, provided some semblance of relief from the black abyss that currently envelopes the muslim community.
The statement by the Yang DiPertuan Agung that Islam is the religion of the Federation is of great significance in its meaning and effect.
Under the Constitution, Islam holds a special position that is unquestionable.
This special position is entrenched in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution that states, “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace in harmony in any part of the Federation.”
Therefore, Article 3 establishes the sovereignty of Islam as the religion of the Federation and the rights of other religions to be practised shall not encroach on the rights of Muslims to practise Islam nor cause disharmony to Islam.
The description of Islam as a religion above others under the Constitution is aptly described by Judge Mohd Nor Abdullah in a decided case in the year 2000 (Meor Atiqurahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors [2000] 1 CLJ 393), where Islam is likened to a majestic tree known as the “Pokok Jati” which is tall, strong and luminous.
It stands and walk before others, its presence is in the main arena with its voice heard loud and clear.
If its nature is not as such, then it cannot be said to be a religion above others in the Constitution.
The Yang DiPertuan Agung, in taking the office of Yang DiPertuan Agong, is subject to the Oaths he had pledged as stipulated in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.
In accordance to the Oaths taken under the name of Allah, the Yang DiPertuan Agong has an undisputable sacred duty as custodian and protector of the religion of Islam and Malay rights.
In the case of the Herald, the Yang DiPertuan Agong, having been advised by Constitutional experts, came instantly to the defence of the Islamic religion and being an institution by itself, was the first to pledge support for the Sultan of Selangor in the intervener application.
The Majlis Agama of Terengganu, being the state directly under the Yang DiPertuan Agong was initiated as a party through its Majlis Agama Islam to the intervener application.
For states that have no Sultan such as Malacca, Pulau Pinang and Wilayah Persekutuan, the Yang DiPertuan Agong took upon himself to instruct the Majlis Agama of these states to join in the intervener application.
The Sultan of Johor, meanwhile, came into the intervener application through the advice of their Mufti.
The main thrust of the Yang DiPertuan Agong’s and Majlis Agama States’ concern is the confusion that the misuse of the word “Allah” would cause among the Muslims and non Muslims alike.
The concept of Allah as understood, embraced and practised by the Muslim community in Malaysia is totally distinct and separate from the concept as understood by the Church conceptually, culturally and theologically.
Whereas, the concept of Allah embraced by the Muslim community in Malaysia as defined in the context of Muslim and Malay tradition is Allah in a MONOTHEIST (TAUHID) sense as opposed to the concept of TRINITY of God as understood by the Church.
In the aftermath of the Church attacks, calls were made for the Muslim community to remain calm and not to disrupt harmony.
Some opinions chided the Muslim community for their intolerant behaviour towards the Court Decision and even advised that the issue of the use of the word “Allah” in the Malay language pages of the Herald-Weekly has been unjustly magnified.
The nation has forgotten one critical aspect in all of this mayhem; the Muslim community did not start the encroachment of the rights of other religious communities.
Instead, the act of the Church in bringing the matter to Court is seen by the Muslim community as a belligerent and provocative act and this fact should be acknowledged by all, as a first step towards healing wounds.

Azril Mohd. Amin
Information Secretariat,
Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia.
(Muslim Lawyers Association of Malaysia)

Tuesday, 19 January 2010

LAGU ALLAH JESUS PULAK DAH!!

LAGU ALLAH JESUS PULAK DAH!!
Salam 2 all.

Saya makin bertambah hairan dengan segelintir puak-puak Kristian di Sabah/Sarawak yang berdegil mahu menggunakan kalimah 'ALLAH' sebagai ganti nama 'God' bagi tuhan triniti mereka-bahawa ALLAH itu Tuhan Bapak, Tuhan Anak & Roh Suci. Dan bertambah hairan saya dengan segelintir Melayu yang menyokong dan bersetuju dengan penggunaan kalimah ALLAH dalam bentuk syirik dan kufur ini!!

Satu soalan saya mahu tanya kepada mereka: apa yang kamu faham tentang nama 'ALLAH' itu? Tahukah kamu bahawa kamu telah terperdaya untuk mempercayai ALLAH itu adalah Tuhan Triniti: Tuhan Bapak, Tuhan Anak & Ruh Suci. Sebenarnya Tuhan ALLAH itu Satu. Dan itulah risalah yang dibawa oleh Nabi Adam, Nabi Ibrahim, Nabi Musa, Nabi Isa dan Nabi Muhammad saw. Kesemua para Rasul dan Nabi, daripada Adam a.s hinggalah ke Nabi Muhammad saw membawa risalah tauhid yang sama..ALLAH itu Tuhan yang Satu..sembahlah Dia.

Ulama' Yahudi 'Abdullah Bin Salam, dari kaum Yahudi Bani Israel, kaum yang telah beribu tahun menggunakan nama ALLAH tetapi mempercayai ALLAH punya anak bernama Uzair telah terus meninggalkan amalan kufur dan syirik itu apabila Nabi Muhammad menegaskan risalah bahawa amalan menyatakan ALLAH ada anak bernama 'Uzair adalah 'amalan syirik dan kufur! Abdullah bin Salam tanpa sebarang keraguan mengakui bahawa ALLAH itu Satu, dan terus menyembah ALLAH yang Satu itu.

Raja Kristian Maharaja Najasyi daripada Habsyah, ketua satu kaum yang beratus tahun lamanya menggunakan nama ALLAH sebagai Tuhan tetapi mempercayai ALLAH punya anak bernama Isa Al Masih @ Iesous @ Yesus @ Jesus. Tetapi apabila dakwah sampai kepada beliau oleh Ja'far Abi Tolib At Tayyar yang membacakan surah Maryam, menceritakan bahawa Isa @ Jesus itu bukanlah Tuhan Anak tetapi hanyalah seorang Nabi, lantas Raja Besar Kristian itu terus meninggalkan 'amalan syirik dan kufur itu dan mengakui ALLAH itu Satu dan mempertuhankan ALLAH yang Satu itu!

Adakah kamu tahu, Bishop Tiny Muskins, seorang Paderi Kanan daripada Gereja Roma Katolik Belanda berusia 71 tahun baru-baru ini mencadangkan penggunaan ganti nama 'God' kepada 'ALLAH' untuk tujuan penyatuan dan kesatuan manusia. Tetapi sedarkan kamu wahai Kristian Sabah/Sarawak apa jawapan pimpinan Kristian terhadap cadangan itu? Mereka menolaknya bulat-bulat.

Seorang paderi Kristian yang terkenal, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Presiden The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary menegaskan bahawa cadangan menggantikan nama 'God' kepada 'ALLAH' tidak boleh diterima sama sekali oleh dunia Kristian (sila baca kenyataan beliau dibawah). Jadi bagaimana pula kamu sebagai penganut agama Kristian boleh menerimanya? Apakah kamu sudah merujuk kepada Pope kamu di Vatican sana? Apa pandangan beliau? Sudahkah kamu baca kenyataan daripada Vatican bahawa nama Tuhan kamu ialah YHWH? Tetapi nama itu terlalu suci buat kamu sehingga kamu tidak dibenarkan menyebutnya?! Dan sebaliknya kamu memilih untuk mencemar kalimah suci ALLAH Yang Satu!

Saya juga mahu bertanya, tidak terfikirkah kamu mengapa nama tuhan kamu berubah-ubah mengikut kaum dan bahasa? Tidakkah itu sepatutnya membuka mata, jiwa, pemikiran dan hati kamu untuk mengenal tuhan yang lebih benar. Dan saya katakan kepada kamu Tuhan yang benar, yang berhak disembah ialah ALLAH Yang Satu. Kamu sendiri pun tahu, tidak mungkin Jesus yang mencipta kamu. Kamu sendiri pun tahu, tidak mungkin Jesus mencipta dunia ini. Kamu pasti tahu tidak mungkin Jesus yang menumbuhkan pokok-pokok, mendatangkan hujan, membuat gunung-ganang dan lain-lain. Pasti kamu yakin bukan Jesus yang menghidupkan dan mematikan!! Sudah pasti jawapan kamu bahawa ALLAH lah yang membuat itu semua. Kalau kamu akui ALLAH yang mencipta, yang menumbuh, yang menghancurkan, menjadikan, menghidupkan dan mematikan; mengapa kamu tidak mahu menyembah ALLAH Yang Satu itu?

Mengapa kamu hanya jadikan ALLAH soal istilah, sedangkan ALLAH itu wajib disembah! Ini bukan isu terminologi, ini soal aqidah dan kepercayaan! Sebab itu saya seru kamu, marilah akui ketuhanan ALLAH yang Satu, dan sembahlah ALLAH yang Satu itu. Kalau iktiqad dan aqidah kamu begitu, mempercayai dan mengakui ALLAH itu Satu, maka kamu berhak memakai dan menggunakan nama ALLAH itu tanpa sebarang batasan dan halangan. Tetapi kalau kamu masih berdegil mahu mencemar nama ALLAH dengan perbuatan syirik dan kufur, mendakwa ALLAH punya anak dan sekutu, maka kamu sebenarnya mengisytiharkan perang aqidah terhadap kami umat yang mengakui dan menyembah ALLAH Yang Satu!

Maka atas sebab itulah kami meragui niat kamu sebenarnya, apakah ada agenda halus dan terancang dikalangan kamu, untuk menimbulkan huru hara dan kaca bilau dari segi pemikiran dan aqidah Tuhan Yang Satu ini? Maka benarlah apa yang difirmankan oleh ALLAH Yang Satu kepada kami, "sesungguhnya kamu kaum Yahudi dan Kristian, selama-lamanya tidak akan setuju dan redho dengan umat Islam yang mempercayai dan menyembah ALLAH Yang Satu. Malahan kamu akan berusaha selama-lamanya untuk memesongkan kami supaya kami mengikut cara dan kepercayaan kamu bahawa ALLAH itu ada anak dan sekutu. Namun kami ingin memberitahu kamu, cukuplah bagi kami Al Quran itu. Kami tidak akan terpedaya dengan mainan kamu. Kami yakin dengan kepercayaan kami bahawa ALLAH itu Satu, dan kepercayaan itu adalah benar dan yang haq, dan kami pasti menang dan berjaya, walaupun kamu tidak menyukainya!".

Wassalam.

Zulkifli Bin Noordin
Isnin
02 Safar 1431
18 Januari 2010

##########################################################

Is Calling the Christian God 'Allah' Wrong?

(Rujukan: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070823/is-calling-the-christian-god-allah-wrong/index.html)

One of America’s pre-eminent evangelicals is challenging the advice of a retiring Roman Catholic Bishop in the Netherlands who has raised eyebrows worldwide by suggesting Dutch Christians pray to “Allah.”
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argues that it is inappropriate for Christians to call God Allah based on irreconcilable theological differences associated with the name Allah and core Christian beliefs.
The key condition behind calling the Christian God Allah is that Allah must refer to the same God as the one in the Bible. However, this requirement presents “a huge problem for both Muslims and Christians,” contends M ohler.
The theologian pointed out that the Qur’an explicitly denies that Allah has a son, and Islam considers the idea of a triune God to be blasphemy.
“Thus, from its very starting point Islam denies what Christianity takes as its central truth claim – the fact that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father,” wrote Mohler on his web blog Wednesday.
“If Allah has no Son by definition, Allah is not the God who revealed himself in the Son. How then can the use of Allah by Christians lead to anything but confusion …and worse?”
Last Monday, during an interview with a Dutch TV program, 71-year-old Bishop Tiny Muskens promoted the idea of Dutch Christians calling God Allah, believing that it would ease much of the conflict between the Christian and Muslim faiths. Muskens contended that God doesn’t mind what He is called and the arguments over what to call Him is an invention of man.
“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? …What does God care what we call Him? It is our problem,” said Muskens, according to The Associated Press.
The retiring bishop was a former missionary to Indonesia – the most populous Muslim country in the world – for eight years, where he said priests used the name “Allah” while celebrating Mass.
In response, Mohler pointed out that it would be difficult to support the argument that “Allah” can be used as a generic term for God. The theologian said separation of Allah from the language, theology, and worship closely associated with it is difficult. Moreover, even non-Arabic speaking Muslims use Allah when referring to their god.
Another irreconcilable difference is that Jesus commanded his followers to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
“When this command is taken seriously and obeyed, the whole issue is greatly clarified – a Christian cannot baptize in the name of Allah,” stated Mohler.
“So Bishop Muskens is disingenuous at best when he suggests that God does not care about His name. This is not a matter of mere ‘discussion and bickering,’” said Mohler.
“If Allah has no son, Allah is not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ…This is no mere ‘discussion and bickering.’ This is where the Gospel stands or falls,” the theologian concluded.
Bishop Muskens in the past endorsed other controversial ideas which went against the Vatican leadership – such as those who are hungry can steal bread and that condoms should be permissible in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Wednesday, 6 January 2010

Isu Kalimah Allah:Keputusan Muzakarah Jawatankuasa Fatwa Majlis Kebangsaan Bagi Hal Ehwal Ugama Islam Malaysia Mengenai Isu Tuntutan Penganut Kristian

Isu Kalimah Allah


Keputusan Muzakarah Jawatankuasa Fatwa Majlis Kebangsaan Bagi Hal Ehwal Ugama Islam Malaysia Mengenai Isu Tuntutan Penganut Kristian Terhadap Penggunaan Kalimah Allah

Bil. Muzakarah : Kali Ke-82

Tarikh : 5 Hingga 7 Mei 2008

Tempat : Holiday Villa Hotel & Suites, Alor Star, Kedah

1) Ulasan/Hujah

  1. Perkataan Allah yang digunakan oleh umat Islam adalah merujuk kepada Allah Yang Maha Esa dan lafaz Allah yang telah digunakan oleh orang-orang Kristian adalah merujuk kepada ‘Tuhan Bapa’ iaitu salah satu oknum daripada akidah triniti. Ia berbeza sama sekali dengan apa yang dimaksudkan oleh Reverend Datuk Murphy Pakiam, Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur bahawa perkataan Allah telah lama digunakan oleh orang-orang Kristian sejak sebelum kedatangan Rasulullah s.a.w. Selain daripada itu, lafaz Allah juga tidak pernah disebut di dalam teks bahasa Greek yang merupakan bahasa asal penulisan Bible. Ini adalah kerana perkataan Tuhan di dalam bahasa Greek adalah ‘Theos’ bukannya Allah.
  2. Perkataan Allah juga tidak pernah terdapat di dalam bahasa asal Perjanjian Lama yang dikenali sebagai Taurat dan Perjanjian Baru yang dikenali sebagai Bible. Ini adalah kerana Perjanjian Lama ditulis dalam bahasa Hebrew manakala Perjanjian Baru ditulis dalam bahasa Greek. Perkataan Hebrew yang membawa maksud Tuhan ialah El, Eloh, Elohim dan juga Yhwh.
  3. Kalimah Allah Lafz al-Jalalah adalah khusus dan mutlak untuk agama Islam dan mafhumnya berbeza dengan mafhum Allah yang digunakan oleh agama lain seperti Kristian.
  4. Perintah mahkamah yang dipohon oleh Catholic Herald Weekly untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa larangan penggunaan kalimah Allah yang telah dikeluarkan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri adalah bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan bukan eksklusif kepada agama Islam boleh memberi kesan yang besar kepada kedudukan agama Islam sekiranya orang Islam sendiri tidak peka dan perhatian yang sewajarnya tidak diberikan oleh pihak berkuasa agama di negara ini.
  5. Walaupun dari segi sejarah kalimah Allah telah digunakan sejak sebelum kedatangan Islam lagi, namun penggunaannya adalah berbeza dan perlu dilihat dari segi substancenya. Kalimah Allah yang digunakan oleh Kristian adalah bersifat Taslis dan syirik, sedangkan bagi Islam ia bersifat tauhid.
  6. Kalimah Allah merupakan lafaz suci yang perlu dijaga dan berkait dengan akidah. Umat Islam perlu peka dan bertanggungjawab dalam isu ini. Sikap membenarkan sesiapa sahaja menggunakan kalimah tersebut semata-mata untuk menunjukkan bahawa Islam meraikan agama lain hanya akan mendatangkan mudharat yang lebih besar kepada agama dan umat Islam.
  7. Umat Islam perlu tegas dalam menjaga kesucian dan identiti agama kerana bersikap terlalu terbuka sehingga membenarkan perkara-perkara yang menjadi hak Islam disalahgunakan oleh agama lain adalah amat merbahaya kerana matlamat utama Kristian menggunakan kalimah Allah adalah untuk mengelirukan umat Islam dan menyatakan bahawa semua agama adalah sama.
  8. Kalimah Allah sebenarnya tidak ada di dalam Bible, yang digunakan ialah perkataan God. Tetapi di dalam Bible yang diterjemahkan ke bahasa Melayu, perkataan God diterjemahkan sebagai Allah.
  9. Isu penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh agama bukan Islam ini melibatkan isu berkaitan Siasah Syar’iyyah dan Kerajaan wajib menjaga kesucian agama dan umat Islam. Fatwa perlu dikeluarkan oleh Jawatankuasa Fatwa Negeri supaya kesucian agama dan akidah umat Islam dapat dipertahankan.
  10. Pertimbangan Jawatankuasa dalam melarang penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh agama bukan Islam bukan hanya dilihat dari aspek keselamatan, tetapi faktor utama adalah berasaskan kepada akidah dan kesucian agama Islam.
  11. Dalam keadaan di mana agama dan umat Islam dihimpit dengan pelbagai gerakan yang cuba menghakis kedaulatan Islam sebagai agama rasmi negara, umat Islam perlu bersatu dan menunjukkan ketegasan dalam menjaga maruah agama.
  12. Larangan terhadap penggunaan kalimah Allah ini telah diputuskan oleh Jemaah Menteri pada 16 Mei 1986 yang memutuskan empat (4) perkataan khusus iaitu Allah, Solat, Kaabah dan Baitullah tidak dibenarkan penggunaannya oleh bukan Islam. Pada masa ini terdapat 10 buah negeri telah memperuntukan larangan penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam Jadual kepada Enakmen Kawalan Dan Sekatan Pengembangan Agama Bukan Islam Kepada Orang Islam kecuali Sabah, Sarawak, Pulau Pinang dan Wilayah Persekutuan yang masih dalam proses menggubal Enakmen ini.

2) Keputusan

  1. Setelah meneliti keterangan, hujah-hujah dan pandangan yang dikemukakan, Muzakarah bersetuju memutuskan bahawa Lafaz Allah merupakan kalimah suci yang khusus bagi agama dan umat Islam dan ia tidak boleh digunakan atau disamakan dengan agama-agama bukan Islam yang lain.
  2. Oleh itu, wajib bagi umat Islam menjaganya dengan cara yang terbaik dan sekiranya terdapat unsur-unsur penghinaan atau penyalahgunaan terhadap kalimah tersebut, maka ia perlu disekat mengikut peruntukan undang-undang yang telah termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.
************************************************

Pandangan Dr. Haron Din hafizahUllah

(Bahagian. 1)
video video


Bahagian 2
video video

Video Kenyataan Haron Din


Video Kenyataan Haron Din :




AnWAR PERNAH ANGGAP KRISTIAN SBG. ANCAMAN /

  • AnWAR PERNAH ANGGAP KRISTIAN SBG. ANCAMAN

    1. Isu bantahan penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh penganut Kristian belum reda. Momentum perlu diterus dan disuarakan oleh umat islam menyatan bantahan, namun harus mematuhi undang-undang negara. Namun tiada satupun kenyataan keluar dari pihak pelaksana yang menerima penghakiman tersebut serta pembuka ruang perkara begini terjadi.

    2. x-pkr bukanlah lulusan dari Temple University (spt Dr. Muhd. Nur Manuty) untuk merasionalkan penghakiman tersebut. Juga tidak pernah bergurukan Dr. Ismail Faruqi seperti AnWAR. Jauh sekali memiliki sarjana dari Universiti Al Azhar seperti Datuk Hj. Hadi Awang. Pendidikan formal mengenai pengajian islam hanyalah dari universiti tempatan namun bersifat antarabangsa.

    3. Meneliti afidavit yang difailkan oleh pihak gereja menyokong permohonan mereka boleh menceritakan segala-galanya. Mereka menggunakan sepenuhnya pendekatan undang-undang bagi mencapai hasrat mereka. Tiada langsung unsur-unsur kerohanian penerimaan kalimah Allah bagi pihak mereka. Hasrat mereka bagi mendapatkan penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam buletin terbitan mereka yang konon untuk edaran ahli sahaja.

    4. Tiada langsung hujah pihak gereja mereka menerima konsep "rabbul 'alamin" ( Tuhan sekelian alam). Jadinya kepada pihak PKR dan 'Erdogan' dalam PAS, tidak perlulah bersusah payah berhujah hendak merasionalkan penghakiman tersebut. Sampai mati pun pihak gereja tersebut tidak akan menerima konsep rabbul alamin spt yang dihujahkan Dr. Muhd. Nur Manuty.

    5. Berkaitan hujah perkataan Allah dibenar untuk kegunaan agama-agama Samawi, ianya harus direnung kembali. Islam juga membenarkan sembelihan oleh penganut agama Samawi dimakan oleh orang Islam. Islam juga membenarkan perkahwinan umatnya dengan penganut agama Samawi ini tanpa perlu menukar agama. HARUS DIINGAT! Itu dahulu, di zaman nabi. Agama Samawi yang wujud sekarang adalah jauh menyimpang dan dianggap kufur.

    6. Sembelihan dan perkahwinan dengan penganut agama Samawi tidak lagi dibenarkan oleh Islam kini, kerana mereka dikatogerikan kafir. Saya percaya hujah Datuk Dr. Haron Din bertunjangkan pegangan ini serta lebih mendalam ulasannya. JAdi tidak perlu kita merasionalkan apa yang telah diketahui selama ini bagi kepentingan diri sendiri. Jangan juga mahu menjadi 'jaguh' semata-mata bagi meraih populariti.

    7. Di Malaysia, Kristianisasi dianggap sebagai ancaman kepada negara oleh Majlis Keselamatan Negara. Saya tidak pasti ianya masih relevan atau tidak di pihak MKN. Apa pun ini adalah fakta bahawa penyebar agama kristian tidak pernah berdiam diri dalam mengembangkan agama mereka biarpun undang-undang Malaysia menghalangnya. AnWAR sendiri pernah menjadi jaguh dalam hal ini.

    8. Sewaktu memangku jawatan PM seketika dahulu, AnWAR menyifatkan Syiah dan Kristianisasi adalah sama, dan ianya ancaman kepada negara Malaysia! AnWAR mengarahkan Pusat Islam ketika itu menangani isu ini dengan tegas. Kini beliaulah yang membuka ruang untuk penyebar agama kristian mengelirukan umat islam. Beliau juga yang mula-mula menemui semua ketua-ketua agama (selain islam) sejurus kembali ke Malaysia 2005.

    Bagi saya yang cetek ilmu ini, baiklah kita mencegah sebelum parah! Majoriti umat islam negara ini adalah pengikut dalam soal islam. Berapa ramai yang spt Dr. Muhd. Nur Manuty (yang digunakan oleh AnWAR) boleh berhujah agar tidak terkeliru dengan penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh penganut Kristian?

    Di saat hujah (jika dibenarkan) kita boleh berda'wah kepada penganut Kristian, berapa ramai anak-anak muda Melayu islam spt penagih-penagih dadah, mat rempit, penghuni lorong hitam nanti yang terkeliru dan kemudiannya murtad dek layanan kelas pertama mubaligh-mubaligh kristian ini (diketahui golongan ini sering dihampiri oleh petugas-petugas gereja).

    Oleh itu, cegah sebelum parah, jangan sudah terhantuk baru terngadah! Jangan sampai nasi menjadi bubur. Apa pun rasional ynag menyokong penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh penganut kristian haruslah disanggah! DAlam konteks Malaysia, lebih banyak keburukan dari kebaikan jika perkara ini dibenarkan berlaku. Kita harus berani menyatakan pendirian kita. JAngan jadi seperti AnWAR yang menjadi 'chameleon' setiap masa demi nafsu membara mahu ke Putrajaya.......

    SEkian


PENGGUNAAN KALIMAH “ALLAH” – KELIRU & JANGAN MENGELIRUKAN...



YB Zulkifli Nordin mengemukakan pertanyaan melalui blognya: “Saya mahu tanya puak-puak Melayu yang beriya-iya sangat nak benarkan Kristan Malaysia guna nama ALLAH sebagai ganti nama Tuhan yang mempunyai anak Jesus saperti mana kepercayaan Kristian, sudah kah mereka bertanya kepada Pope Benedict, Ketua Agama Kristian?


Sudahkah satu survey dibuat dikalangan Kristian di Malaysia apakah mereka mahu nama Tuhan mereka sekarang menjadi ALLAH? Apakah statistik yang sudah dibuat untuk menunjukkan peratus Kristian Malaysia yang benar-benar mahu tukar nama Tuhan mereka kepada ALLAH? Pelik bangsa Melayu ni, beriya-iya benar dia nak menjual nama Tuhannya sendiri..demi apa??”

Zulkifli melalui blognya memperturunkan kontroversi yang berlaku di kalangan Kristian Eropah apabila ada cadangan nama 'God" ditukar daripada Jesus kepada ALLAH. Bacalah sendiri pada akhir entri ini yang saya salin daripada http://zul4kulim.blogspot.com.

Kerana itu, satu keputusan atau pendirian tegas perlu dalam menentukan sama ada penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitan Herald The Catholic Weekly – boleh atau tidak boleh dipakai?

Jangan lagi membiarkan masyarakat terkeliru dengan kenyataan pihak-pihak yang mendakwa diri mereka mewakili parti, NGO atau tokoh Islam.

Soalnya kini mana satu mahu dipakai pendapat kerana ia bercelaru dan terus bercelaru.




Pendirian PAS atau kenyataan oleh pemimpin PAS jelas berbagai -menggambarkan betapa parti yang mendakwa ia parti Islam pun tidak sehaluan.

Di pihak kerajaan dan UMNO pendirian mereka jelas walaupun dianggap mempunyai ‘provokatif jahat’.
Malah, sebanyak 22 pertubuhan bukan kerajaan (NGO) Islam menyokong penuh tindakan kerajaan memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membenarkan Gereja Katolik menggunakan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitan Herald-The Catholic Weekly.

Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom berkata, keputusan itu diambil dalam sesi perbincangan Jawatankuasa Teknikal Undang-Undang Syarak dan Sivil, Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim) bersama kumpulan NGO itu semalam. “NGO-NGO Islam juga menyokong semua langkah yang diambil oleh kerajaan untuk menjaga keharmonian dan keamanan negara serta semua penganut agama tanpa

membelakangkan Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang memperuntukkan Islam sebagai agama rasmi negara,” katanya semalam.

Khamis lalu, Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur membuat keputusan membenarkan Herald-The Catholic Weekly menggunakan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitannya atas alasan ia ada hak dalam Perlembagaan.
Hakim Datuk Lau Bee Lan menegaskan, KDN telah bertindak secara salah ketika mengenakan larangan penggunaan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitan akhbar mingguan itu.

Pada ketika PAS Pusat mengambil pendirian dan menegaskan bahawa perkataan “Allah” boleh digunakan oleh agama samawi seperti Kristian dan Yahudi, kenyataan bercanggah turut dikeluarkan oleh pemimpin penting PAS seperti Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat dan Datuk Harun Taib.

Harun menegaskan bahawa PAS sama sekali tidak akan bersetuju dengan tindakan pihak tertentu menggunakan perkataan Allah dalam penerbitan mingguan di gereja katolik.

Nik Aziz pula berpendapat penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh agama lain tidak boleh dibenarkan sama sekali kerana ia akan menyebabkan kekeliruan di kalangan umat Islam. Mursyidul Am PAS berkata, biar pun dari segi hukum membenarkan agama ‘samawi’ seperti Kristian dan Yahudi menggunakan kalimah itu tetapi dibimbangi ia disalah gunakan pihak tertentu.

Agak mengejutkan ialah apabila pemimpin PAS seperti Khalid Samad yang dianggap bertopeng parti Islam terus sikap berdegil dengan hujah-hujahnya yang masih berkisar kepada istilah Allah bukan hanya kegunaan orang Islam, apabila mengatakan al-Quran membenarkan istilah Allah digunakan orang bukan Islam, dan Rasulullah tidak menghalang.

Sebuah blog yang menyifatkan Khalid sebagai “Archbishop" menyokong pandangan Zulkifli Nordin yang menyanggah dan menjawab balas hujah Khalid. Zulkifli mempersoalkan kenapa Khalid Samad, seorang ahli politik PAS boleh menerima hujah yang lahir dari ugama yang sesat kaedah keesaaan tuhannya. Itu yang timbul gesaannya Khalid keluar parti PAS.

Bagi Parti PAS pula, ia berpendirian - penggunaan kalimah “Allah” secara salah dan tidak bertanggungjawab wajar dielakkan, agar ia tidak menjadi isu yang boleh menjejaskan keharmonian kaum dan agama dalam negara ini.

Pendirian PAS tersebut telah diputuskan dalam Mesyuarat Khas Lajnah Politik yang diadakan di sini semalam ekoran keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membenarkan akhbar mingguan gereja Katolik, Herald pada Khamis lalu.

Perbincangan yang dihadiri oleh 25 ahli itu dipengerusikan oleh Presiden PAS, Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang, disertai oleh Timbalan Presiden PAS, Nasharruddin Mat Isa, Setiausaha Agung, Datuk Mustafa Ali dan dua orang Naib Presiden, Salahuddin Ayub serta Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man.

Pesuruhjaya PAS Terengganu, Datuk Harun Taib jelas tegas apabila mengatakan PAS sama sekali tidak akan bersetuju dengan tindakan pihak tertentu menggunakan perkataan Allah dalam penerbitan mingguan di gereja katolik.

Menurut Harun yang juga Ketua Dewan Ulama PAS Pusat, penggunaan dalam penerbitan Herald The Catholic Weekly dilihat sebagai satu penghinaan terhadap agama dan juga umat Islam.

Lebih jelas katanya, keadaan itu dilihat boleh mengundang kekeliruan orang Islam di seluruh negara dan dikhuatiri penggunaan kalimah agung itu tidak mengikut maksud sebenar sebagaimana dalam Islam.

“Saya tidak bersetuju kerana ia boleh mengelirukan umat Islam, tidak semua mereka guna mengikut maksud sebenar perkataan itu,” katanya kepada Sinar Harian.

Pada masa sama katanya, kepercayaan orang Islam dan bukan Islam juga berbeza apabila Islam meyakini Allah bersifat Esa yang jelas bercanggah dengan kepercayaan agama lain.

Harun berkata, penggunaan kalimah itu memberi kesan amat besar kepada umat Islam yang boleh mengguris perasaan mereka.

Nik Abdul Aziz menjelaskan, biar pun dari segi hukum membenarkan agama ‘samawi’ seperti Kristian dan Yahudi menggunakan kalimah itu tetapi dibimbangi ia disalah gunakan pihak tertentu.

Beliau berkata, masalah penggunaan kalimah Allah timbul kerana tiada badan perunding antara pihak Islam dan Kristian yang menyelesaikan kemelut itu dengan baik menyebabkan ia kini menjadi isu sensitif.

“Kita bimbang dan takut orang ini salah guna perkataan Allah iaitu salah guna dalam pengertian, sebab itu dalam fiqah kita boleh sekat orang bukan Islam guna perkataan Allah walaupun benda itu harus.

“Saya juga bimbang kalimah ini disalah guna sehingga menyebabkan orang Melayu beragama Islam keliru... dia kata sana Allah, sini pun Allah sehingga akhir-akhir ini dia minta gereja pun dipanggil masjid Kristian.
“Pengunaan Allah boleh tetapi dibimbang disalah guna, jadi lebih baik kita berhenti daripada membenarkan agama lain guna perkataan Allah,” katanya.

Pada 1 Mac 2009, Nik Abdul Aziz dalam sidang akhbar di sini menegaskan, tidak salah bagi orang bukan Islam menggunakan perkataan Allah bagi merujuk kepada Tuhan.

Ini kerana, kata beliau, dalam al-Quran sendiri ada menceritakan bahawa orang bukan Islam telah menggunakan perkataan Allah sejak zaman Nabi Muhammad lagi.

Sementara itu, Nik Aziz berkata, masalah penggunaan kalimah Allah timbul kerana tiada badan perunding antara pihak Islam dan Kristian untuk menyelesaikan kemelut itu dengan baik menyebabkan ia kini menjadi isu sensitif.

Sehubungan itu, beliau mencadangkan supaya badan rundingan itu diwujudkan secepat mungkin.
Beliau tiada halangan jika dipanggil menjadi ahli panel dalam majlis rundingan tersebut bagi menjelaskan keadaan sebenar.


Presiden PAS Dato’ Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang dalam satu kenyataan yang dibacakan oleh ketua Penerangan PAS Pusat Ustaz Idris Ahmad hasil mesyuarat PAS kelmarin berkata: “PAS memberikan peringatan kepada semua pihak supaya tidak menyalahgunakan perkataan Allah bagi mengelirukan atau menjadikan politik murahan untuk mendapat sokongan rakyat.

“Al-Quran telah menyarankan cara yang betul menggunakan perkataan Allah sebagaimana yang dinyatakan dalam surah Al Imran ayat 64,” kata

PAS dengan tegasnya ingin menolak sebarang bentuk tindakan agresif dan provokatif jahat yabg boleh menggugat keharmonian dan mencetuskan ketegangan masyarakat.
Siapa agresif dan provokatif jahat dalam soal ini?

Oleh itu katanya, PAS dengan segala rasa penuh tanggungjawab bersedia untuk menjelaskan isu ini kepada semua pihak bagi mewujudkan suasana harmoni berdasarkan kepada prinsip keadilan sebagaimana yang termaktub dalam perlembagaan dan dijamin oleh Islam.

Apa juga pertelingkahan, sewajarnya kita semua tunggu keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi (Bahagian Rayuan dan Kuasa-kuasa Khas) petang ini untuk mendengar permohonan Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) bagi penangguhan perintah mahkamah yang membenarkan majalah Herald-The Catholic Weekly menggunakan perkataan Allah.

Timbalan Pendaftar, Nik Isfahanie Abd Rahman menetapkan tarikh itu selepas Peguam Kanan Persekutuan, Andi Razalijaya A. Dadi memfailkan notis penangguhan di pejabat Pendaftar Mahkamah Tinggi sekitar tengah hari semalam.

Andi memberitahu pemberita, sijil kesegeraan turut difailkan bersama-sama notis itu bagi mendapatkan tarikh pendengaran awal.

Hakim Datuk Lau Bee Lan yang membenarkan penggunaan kalimah itu akan mendengar permohonan itu pada kira-kira 2.30 petang ini dan keputusan terletak di tangan beliau.

(Petikan daripada http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070823/is-calling-the-christian-god-allah-wrong/index.html)

IS CALLING THE CHRISTIAN GOD "ALLAH" WRONG:

One of America’s pre-eminent evangelicals is challenging the advice of a retiring Roman Catholic Bishop in the Netherlands who has raised eyebrows worldwide by suggesting Dutch Christians pray to “Allah.”

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argues that it is inappropriate for Christians to call God Allah based on irreconcilable theological differences associated with the name Allah and core Christian beliefs.
The key condition behind calling the Christian God Allah is that Allah must refer to the same God as the one in the Bible. However, this requirement presents “a huge problem for both Muslims and Christians,” contends M ohler.

The theologian pointed out that the Qur’an explicitly denies that Allah has a son, and Islam considers the idea of a triune God to be blasphemy.

“Thus, from its very starting point Islam denies what Christianity takes as its central truth claim – the fact that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father,” wrote Mohler on his web blog Wednesday.

“If Allah has no Son by definition, Allah is not the God who revealed himself in the Son. How then can the use of Allah by Christians lead to anything but confusion …and worse?”

Last Monday, during an interview with a Dutch TV program, 71-year-old Bishop Tiny Muskens promoted the idea of Dutch Christians calling God Allah, believing that it would ease much of the conflict between the Christian and Muslim faiths. Muskens contended that God doesn’t mind what He is called and the arguments over what to call Him is an invention of man.

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? …What does God care what we call Him? It is our problem,” said Muskens, according to The Associated Press.

The retiring bishop was a former missionary to Indonesia – the most populous Muslim country in the world – for eight years, where he said priests used the name “Allah” while celebrating Mass.

In response, Mohler pointed out that it would be difficult to support the argument that “Allah” can be used as a generic term for God. The theologian said separation of Allah from the language, theology, and worship closely associated with it is difficult. Moreover, even non-Arabic speaking Muslims use Allah when referring to their god.

Another irreconcilable difference is that Jesus commanded his followers to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

“When this command is taken seriously and obeyed, the whole issue is greatly clarified – a Christian cannot baptize in the name of Allah,” stated Mohler.

“So Bishop Muskens is disingenuous at best when he suggests that God does not care about His name. This is not a matter of mere ‘discussion and bickering,’” said Mohler.

“If Allah has no son, Allah is not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ…This is no mere ‘discussion and bickering.’ This is where the Gospel stands or falls,” the theologian concluded.

Bishop Muskens in the past endorsed other controversial ideas which went against the Vatican leadership – such as those who are hungry can steal bread and that condoms should be permissible in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

source : Rakyat Malaysia

Tuesday, 5 January 2010

3-in-1 allah, etc., Bloggers against Blasphemies/The Allah Name Issue: A Patronymic Nom de Plume, or merely.../ Allah,the Bible,Christians and Moeslem

3-in-1 allah, etc., Bloggers against Blasphemies

Updated 5pm:-
4/1 Home Ministry files appeal at Court of Appeal against the High Court decision that allows Catholic weekly, Herald, to use the word 'Allah'/STAR

Original posting ...

A campaign, in the name of Allah. Inevitably, a group of bloggers has stared a campaign, Bloggers against Blasphemies, in response to the High Court ruling allowing the use of "Allah". Blogger SatD, who is initiating the BaB campaign, worries that the judgment would test the collective consciousness of the Malay-Muslim majority of the Malaysian population. "At what price", he asks.
"... here's the thing about Collective Consciousness.......it defines what is acceptable and what is not in a society.....if killing a person or raping a child is considered acceptable and does not offend the collective consciousness of the society..then it is not a crime to do so.....in that particular society...and the law which governs us is also based on the Collective Consciousness Value System......."
Read SatD's call to back this campaign, h e r e. He attaches his posting with the blistering "... a 500-yr old itch?" arguments by Apo, who's hoping that his piece will help the PM's Dept and the Home Ministry in their appeal against the High Court decision.

pic, today's headlines of the PM calling for calm.

Also, read Anas Zubedy's "Allah, the Bible, Christians and Muslims" here to understand why even the more open-minded Muslims can be offended by the High Court judgement:

'Failing to do so will create mistrust because the correct term for God in Malay is Tuhan.The Muslims will question your consistency and sincerity.

Because the real issue here is Trust. Not the technicality of the term Allah, Tuhan, Elohim, Elah etc.'

More related postings:

Bujai: May "ALLAH" bless Augustine Paul

source : rocky bru


The Allah Name Issue: A Patronymic Nom de Plume, or merely the Scratching of a Five Hundred Year old Itch?

Posted on 1:53 AM by satD

Apocryphalist......the blogger without a blog is back with guns blazing........

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Justice Datuk Lau Bee Lan, in her oral decision, held that the Herald had the constitutional right to use the word in the magazine to propagate the Christian religion but not Islam.

She said that pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, it was an offence for non-Muslims to use the word "Allah" to Muslims to propagate the religion.

But it was not an offence for non-Muslims to use the word to the non-Muslims for the purpose of religion, she added.”



The judgement disallowing the ban by Justice Lau rests partially on the above reasons but if one were to continue with a little scrutiny, together with a little research, one will find that that same argument too would be the sole reason FOR allowing the ban. Perhaps Justice Lau missed reading the following report by the Washington Times:

…Some states restrict the use of certain religious terms by Christians in the Malay language, lest Muslims be confused. Yet, despite the obstacles, some Christian proselytizers are busy.

The Rev. Kumar — not his real name — recalls the religious police rattling his front gate in the middle of the night. The warning was clear.

"But I am not afraid," Mr. Kumar said. "My work is God's will and I have a worthy cause to fight for. [Malays] have a right to find Jesus." .

Who is the main “target” for these “busy Christian Proselytizers? The Malays! The very exact reason, object with which this whole schnoozle began in the first place. At least that’s what the good Reverend Murphy Pakia--- err I mean Reverend Kumar contended. And when Justice Lau gave the following judgment:

“She said the minister had also failed to adduce evidence that the use of the word would threaten national security and create misunderstanding and confusion among Muslims.”

I wonder how much different THAT would if she had read the following paragraph in the same report:

…His evangelical church has 12 branches throughout Malaysia and 30 affiliates, and Mr. Kumar estimates that 100 Muslims are converting to Christianity every month in the country. He said there has been a marked increase in interest in the past three years, since the September 11 attacks in the United States.


Or perhaps the following, from the same report:-


… She (the converted malay muslim) conceded, though, that part of the assistance involved introducing Malays to Christian doctrine. She recalled parking herself at a McDonald's wearing a Muslim head scarf to more effectively introduce Muslim schoolgirls to the Bible.

In Kuala Lumpur, boys who are a part of Mr. Kumar's proselytizing movement frequent mosques.

Christians reputedly also have resorted to sponsoring picnics for Malay children and offering them gifts.


You know what I personally think? I think the above account by the Washington Post is pure fabrication and fiction. But if it is true, hey! That alone could be ample reason to ponder upon the rationale behind the judgements regarding the lifting of the ban!

But then, if anything, this Washington Post article that unbeknownstly reveal the true intent and cite the vigor with which certain christian missionaries increase their efforts to meet up with their conversion KPIs border that of laughable insanity. But let us all face it. All religions have conversion agendas. Some more pronounced than others perhaps, but then in the case of the missionary-cum-colonialists that had as their dictum “For Gold, Glory and God”, the geopolitics of these agendas is worthy of scrutiny.

To begin with, note that the bulk of these proselytizing efforts have mainly, in the past few hundred years or so, been concentrated solely onto the eastern and southern parts of the globe. The Post reports:-

“ In the cramped lobby of Mr. Kumar's headquarters, a magazine headline reads: "Storming the Enemy's Stronghold."

The first paragraph explains, "Within the 10/40 window," referring to the area stretching roughly from the Middle East through India, China and into Southeast Asia, "lie 62 of the least evangelized nations on this planet." The area is viewed by some zealots as the last stronghold preventing Christian global dominance. ”


Ah! Christian Global Dominance. Had Justice Lau’s decision resulted in the continued banning, surely such Dominance would be very difficult to materialize.

Why the obsession to baptise the east? Well simple. Because lately in the west many people are leaving Christianity, mostly towards atheism if they no longer believe in God, or to Islam (mostly) if they still do but feel a need to satisfy the quest and questions that they have been having all this while. A great majority of these converts are personalities of high standing in society---like artistes, public figures, politicians, scientist etc. The ones not in the limelight mostly are made up of intellectuals or have high education levels.

They sent in Yvonne Ridley to infiltrate the Taliban, she converted to Islam instead. They installed a staunch Christian, Captain Cormier Michel, to lead the command of the International Security Assistance Force to kill the Afghans, he converted to Islam instead. They used Michael Jackson, who once declared “I would rather not sing than realize that my songs are listened to by the Arabs”, to infiltrate the hearts and minds of middle east youngsters, and HE converted to Islam instead. They sent in St. John Philby to do some colonialist expansionism works in the middle east and HE found Islam. They sent in Disciple of Christ Joseph Estes to Egypt to convert muslims there and HE got converted instead.

In fact highly respectable priests---whose KPI would definitely include the number of fresh new converts they could bring in, THEMSELVES found the light in Allah instead: Bishop of Uramiah Benjamin Keldani, Bologne priest Anselm Tormeeda, Pentecostal church minister Kenneth Jenkins, Sri Lankan Catholic Father George Anthony, Egyptian Coptic strongman Abraham Philobus, United Methodist Deacon Jerald F. Dirks, Lutheran Archbishop Martin Mwaipopo, Jehovah Witness Minister Raphael Narbaez, Russian Orthodox Archpriest Vaicheslav Polosin, German Catholic Doctor of Theology Dr A.R. Lehmann all had converted to Islam when they attempted to “study the religion deeper so they could understand the psyche of the Muslim world for the sole purpose of converting them”.

Even the staunch questions of atheism could not bear the brunt of truth when its moment has come: atheists Zhang ChengZhi from Communist China, Kazakhstan president Nazarbayez, British Museum’s Professor Martin Lings, even Singapore Chief Minister (former) Lim Yew Hock.

Other interesting converts include Radu Fremos, Dracula’s brother (the real one), Cambridge Professor Tim Winter, Italian Ambassador T. Cardilli, notorious assassin Carlos the Jackal, famous KGB operative Alexander Litvinenko, US congressmen Andre Carson and Keith Ellison, American poet Daniel Moore, Ethiopian Emperor Lij Iyasu, Moldavian Prince Illie Rares, Lutheran James Yee, “I gotcha” singer Joe Tex, and many others.

When you have public personalities of repute embracing Islam, you can imagine the impact it has on the lesser stratas of society. Fox News carried a special report that highlights an alarming number of American youths converting to Islam everyday. And contrary to popular notions of causes and effects, the sales of Quran SPIKED in United States immediately following the aftermath of the 9-11 incident despite the west’s insistence (helped by christians everywhere else) that Islam has to do with Terrorism. Despite Lavonising the incident to demonise this pure religion, Islam is---and has been so far---the world’s fastest growing religion, come whatever issues.

It is understandable then, to expect that Christian missionaries turn elsewhere for conversion KPIs. It is understandable too to expect that they do this with vengeance and a hidden rage: rage that resulted from THEIR own adherents leaving the faith in masses.


Now if in the west former christians are attracted to Islam through intellectual ponderings, dogmatic scrutiny or just pure search-for-truth questionings, the situation is different with the converts in the east, mostly towards Christianity. Many are motivated by monetary rewards given by the missionaries themselves. I watched one biblical series regarding missionary activities in Indonesia in the United States one day and in one, they showed a priest reciting the bible in malay and the congregation, made up of some very poor children there, reciting along with him. After the sermon or recital was over, he took out wads of rupiah notes and distributed them to each, saying “Nah, ini gaji kalian!” The Vatican, perhaps the world’s richest corporation, spends untold amount of money for conversion agendas.

Notice too the missionary activities during the Aceh disaster. Humanitarian objectives were not the primary reason for them helping. Setting up chapels and churches, guised under “help centers”, malay bibles were also distributed along with blankets and potatoes, albeit knowing the fact that the acehnese had always been strong adherents to Islam so much so that the area has been nicknamed Veranda of Mecca (Serambi Mekah). Converting malays has been an inherent crusade that the christians regard with testosteronal overdrive, almost to the point of vengeance, seeing how the hundreds of years of efforts by Spanish expansionists and European colonists fail to win even a miniscule number of malays to start believing in Three Gods, Original sin and Redemption by death that the locals find so nonsensical and abhorrent about.

Conversion efforts amongst people of lowly educated population or those who are of relatively less advanced culture, like the dayaks, senois, the deep Sarawakian and Sabahan natives, etc are relatively painless. It is easier for the missionaries with condescending personalities, with an air and picture of the advanced-but-kind-hearted Mat Sallehs, to convert these natives because they do not have to debate out with them on zany dogmas like Original Sin, Divinity of Man, Trio of Godhood, Redemption of Humanity’s sin by dying on the Cross and other preposterous concepts which form the main qualms of those very western intellectuals abandoning Christianity in the first place. This ease, coupled with wads of cash, make regions like Africa, South East Asia, South America be fertile conversion grounds for almost all types of Christian denominations. (That itself is quizzical: do not be surprised if you go to any orang asli place and you find more than one type of church and the inhabitants themselves start to be divided on which church they go to: how can they if the RSV version of the bible in one senoi camp are not accepted as the word of God by another senoi camp using the King James edition!)

Preachers, having almost given up in trying to preach and defend the concepts I mentioned above to western christians who suddenly find themselves freed from the constraints of dogma and need to have more sensible explanations about them, therefore turn to the relatively easier and less-sophisticated natives to hone their missionary skills.

The case with the Chinese in Malaysia is a bit different: This target group, who are far from poor and therefore do not need any financial motives, conversion tactics are done using bootstrap principles: namely that of dissent towards anything Malay. To the chinese, anything that sounds malay-ish and associated to them is hateful. This has been a main weapon of the missionaries. Thus they would readily welcome any faiths which to them is reminiscent of and symptomatic to the idea of inherent rebellion. Christianity is an outlet for them to show dissent.

Even so, many among the Chinese would find the teachings and dogmas of this new faith to be quite irrational and absurd, but to them, being subservient to and agreeing with the malays would be much more unacceptable, and therefore changing faiths suddenly become an attractive lure. The Chinese is one people whose “fear of losing out or being left out” (commonly termed as Kiasu) dictates their every move, every trait of behavior. Do not be surprised to find three or more different faiths residing in some Chinese individual: Confucianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Taoism etc … to ascertain that “if this one does not hit the mark, then this other one will” --- as if to obtain a quadruple insurance that their well being in the hereafter will more likely be guaranteed by bringing as many possible permutations of truths as possible. Now I surely applaud this fail-safe method of celestial trial-and-error, but would like to suggest them to expand the coverage a bit more, cos they really do not hit the mark as yet with those lists.

The Malaysian Indians, however, have a nobler purpose for conversion. After being in the social quagmire of the caste system for so long, conversion allows some Indians to taste being a notch up in society’s rung of acceptance ladder. In the Abrahamic faiths, one do not need to distinguish one human being from another based on the nature of their births in society. If I were an Indian born in a low caste family, I surely would be inspired by my fellow indians like Father Lawrence Andrew and how high a standing and fully respected he is in society. My twice-tanned skin would turn white with envy! And the name, Look at the name! With this kind of name now instead of some Puthucheary or Tanabalan, tell me if I am not in the same league as Norah Jones, Charles Xavier or James Cameron.

Which brings me to this: that cultural and racial glorification could be another factor. (Racial glorification is the inverse of racism: always getting awed at those races you regard superior than yours) . Christianity is associated with pictures of Richard Branson, of Bill Gates, of Angelina Jolie. Oh never mind none of these believe in Christianity, but at least they are now in the same name pool, anyway, much like Rudolf does. That is, “Richard Hong” is much more cooler than, say, “Abdullah Wong” anytime. This is, of course, a peculiarity only of south east asian chinese. The mainland inhabitants have about 40 million Christians and they do not suffer from this predicament. That is, they do not have Peters or Michaels or Janettes attached to their names to affirm that they are christians. By contrasts, the Jets and Hackens and Brackens and Kersons might have appellations more adornful than the western christians themselves by faithwise it doubtful that they are equally so (In contrast, there are 20 million mainland chinese muslims, much more than the malays themselves ).

Thus it can safely be said that conversion to Islam for the western people are motivated by their intellectual desire to find meaning and answers to an otherwise perplexing set of dogmas that they had been taught since early childhood, while conversion to Christianity are almost always driven by economics, the need to be dissentful, as well as the need to be associated with anything western.

But will conversion efforts be successful purely on the grounds of dogma change among the malays? Not as it stands. In order to attract malay youths, some “proselytizers” introduce a very unlikely carrot: the kinds of western lifestyles a potential renegade muslim can be accorded once the shackles of Islamic constraints are unbounded. Conundrically, these lifestyles are anti-thestical to the kind ministry that Jesus Christ represented: freewheeling booze, free sex, homosexuality and hedonism in general. But their contention is this: isn’t Jesus all about Love, Love, Love? Why should you constraint your life to a set of rules and regulations and religious restrictions that Islam promotes? What is the meaning of living life to the fullest if you cant do that, cant drink this, cant eat that, can’t sleep things out?

Booze: well see now there is no prohibition in christianity at all? And the sexual revolution: this has succesfully replaced the norm of the sanctity of marriage and the preservation of family life in western christian countries so don’t you want to move a notch ahead in terms of progress and modernism? And homosexuality: yes I know that the bible condemns it but it’s all interpretations, you see. And see how we have even wedded same sex couples in many christian countries and even downplay the roles that priests play in the abuse and sodomization of boys under their care? And all this from a religion that preaches those exact iniquities to be abominations by all God’s messengers from Adam to moses to Jesus to Muhammad.

Folks. Islam is the last bastion of the purity of God’s teachings as laid down by the Torah, Bible and Qur’an. It now stands alone and unaided in disallowing the tamperings of the original scriptures that seek to replace God’s true teachings with ever-changing priestly ones.

And because of this purity, the efforts to discredit Islam, to sway its adherents away from its straight path (pun intended) and INTO other religions including Christianity, cannot be blamed on the Christian Priests with KPI pressures alone.

The blame lies beyond, on a much more sinister, diabolical, Luciferan origin. The dirtying of the name Allah by associating blasphemies is only one of the means, albeit a first step …


Apocryphalist

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few post back I touch a wee bit about Collective Consciousness.........here's the thing about Collective Consciousness.......it defines what is acceptable and what is not in a society.....if killing a person or raping a child is considered acceptable and does not offend the collective consciousness of the society..then it is not a crime to do so.....in that particular society...and the law which governs us is also based on the Collective Consciousness Value System.......

To me...the actions of the Catholic Church and the corresponding High Court judgment on 31st Dec 2009 will test the Collective Consciousness of the Malay Muslim Majority of the Malaysian Population .........at what price will it be?


In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;

Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;

He begets not, nor was He begotten;

And there is none like unto Him

Al-Ikhlas 112

To my fellow brothers and sisters......Join us as "Bloggers Against Blasphemies" takes its first baby steps into the cyberspace....feel free to use the logo below as a sign of support to the cause...........



satD
The Uranus Monkey

source : Pure Shiite


Allah, the Bible, Christians and Muslims.

I am happy that today in Malaysia, Christians and Muslims can share the word Allah. But ...

Sigh ......

It is sad, unfortunate and bad for UNITY that we had to go through the courts to get a go-ahead to use the term “Allah” in the Bible. This is because the real issue is not about language or semantics, it is about TRUST.

Because we Christians and Muslims cannot be truthful to ourselves and each other and hide what is in our hearts, we pretend to debate and argue using the legal framework instead of using our religiosity and good hearts to come to a working relationship – and we call ourselves the followers of Christ, followers of Muhammad?

We fail to frame important questions like “How would Jesus deal with this issue?” or ‘What would Muhammad do in a similar situation?”

The verdict be it “for or against” is a lose-lose situation.


Today, a segment ( I think it’s a large one) of Muslims will see this as “ The Christians has won!” and will likely take prejudiced and narrow-minded counter actions ( Even Rockybru an open minded Muslim is not happy – rockybru). The Christians on the other hand will perceive the verdict as the triumph of truth over evil. But in actual fact it is a triumph of insecurity over trust in God, ourselves and fellow mankind.

Christians must know better. This is just a triumph in a legal sense, but is it a moral one? Do you remember the trial that Jesus had to go thru before his cruxifixion? Who was trying to use a legal avenue? Christ or his enemies?

As a morally oriented religion, Christians must seek a moral victory and winning of the hearts. Did the Christians win the hearts of the Muslims with this verdict? Are the Muslims feeling closer to the Christians because today we can share the word Allah?

I have written an extensive article on the subject showing that the Quran is okay with using the tern Allah in the Bible. Why then is a segment of Muslims dead against it? Below is the conclusion, it may shed some light. To read the entire article, click here.

I call likeminded Muslims and Christians who know in their hearts what the real issues are, come forward and make good the situation – and provide a platform of TRUST – a win-win solution.
Share what is said behind each other's back, things our own people and leaders do or say behind closed doors.

We need whistle blowers on both sides.

Come forward and tell the truth about our own fellow faithful's mistakes, wrong deeds and intentions. We are interested in Truth. If any Muslims say an untruth -not in line with the Quran or something that is not good for all, Muslims must come forward and whistleblow. Similarly within Christianity (and Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.).

So we can learn to deal with such issues in more Christlike manner, more like Muhammad and be better Christians, be better Muslims and be a true child of God.

The Conclusion

It is clear that it is not just permissible to use the term Allah to refer to God in the Bible, it is exactly what the Quran wants us to do. Is it not an irony?

I would like to thank my Christian brothers and sisters in their effort to make Allah the universal name of God and wanting the name to be the preferred reference to God in the Bible.But, you must not stop there.You must also strive hard to ensure that not just the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia Bibles use the term Allah but all the other translations in the world regardless if they are in Japanese, English, Russian or Hindi uses the same term.

Malaysian Christians can lead the world of Christianity to make Allah the universal name for God with the solid support of their Muslim brothers and sisters. Anything that can bring us closer together must be supported. A shared universal name to call our God Allah seems most appropriate beginning.Failing to do so will create mistrust because the correct term for God in Malay is Tuhan.The Muslims will question your consistency and sincerity.

Because the real issue here is Trust. Not the technicality of the term Allah, Tuhan, Elohim, Elah etc.

This is where we need to focus.There are three levels of trust missing.

Firstly we do not trust each other. The Muslims perceive the inconsistency of Christians wanting to use the term Allah in the Malay bible and not the other translations as a plot to convert Malay Muslims to Christianity. And, the Christians perceive the Muslims rejection to the usage of the term as another strategy to block the spread of the Christian faith to Muslims in Malaysia. This feeling is deep in the Christians' psyche as they find it as unfair the lopsided law on conversion in Malaysia (Check what the Quran say about this at 83:1-3 and 5:8).

Secondly, we do not trust ourselves. The Muslims lack confidence of fellow Muslims and feel that by just using the term Allah, their faith towards Islam can be shaken. The Christians lack confidence that being Christ like is enough to attract others to the faith.

Yet the deepest rot is the lack of trust in Allah or God or Tuhan or any other names you want to call upon Him! Both Muslims and Christians fail to trust that Allah will be with those who are true and love those who trust Him. If we do so, we have nothing to fear and nothing to grieve. Failing to trust Him, we become weak, insecure and misguided.

"There are many Lamps, only one Light" Rumi

Anas Zubedy