Copyright Notice

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the author, at the address below.

Sakmongkol ak 47

ariff.sabri@gmail.com

Friday, 1 January 2010

Allah before The Courts

Langit Makin Mendung Kipandjikusmin


When Tun Salleh Abbas beseeched his brother judges to carry out certain measures to contain the intrusion of the executive on the judiciary, one judge was said to remark- that's like asking us to carry out a revolution.

When the learned Justice Lau ruled in favour of the Church, her ruling was also revolutionary as well as potentially incendiary.

Like many Malaysians, I waited keenly for the court ruling on the ban in the use of the term Allah by Catholics in their publications. The court ruled in favour of the Catholic Church. It ruled that the banning of the word Allah constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to practise own religion.

As Farther Andrew Lawrence said, Christians and Muslims have lived with each other peacefully in Malaysia for hundreds of years. They did and will continue for the simple reason; Malays who are Muslims don't go to churches and are not ware that Catholics use the same term to refer to their God. They did and will continue doing so, because Malays tolerate different faiths.

Had they known of the usage, I am not sure whether usage of the term will not go unchallenged.

Can we explain the legal intricacies behind the high court ruling that Catholics can use Allah in their religion to the Muslims in kampongs, at the various madrasahs and suraus across the country? Can we explain to them, the court ruling is necessary to guarantee the constitutional rights of other people of other faiths to practice their religion freely? Can Malays in Malaysia accept yesterday's ruling as aimed at upholding the provisions of our Constitution?

I am afraid not. This is how Malays see the issue.

What is being done here is the pillage and violent abuse of Muslim self respect. Any self respecting Muslim in Malaysia will never countenance such blatant and insensitive violation on what is generally but nonetheless rightly perceived as ownership over the use of the word Allah.

Yes, Muslim owned the word Allah but it does not reside in the provisions of legal texts. Herein lies the root of the problem. It is the perception that ownership of the term resides in legal texts and therefore renders it absolutely 'reviewable' and amenable to clever and ingenious legal reasoning, that leads us today, to a most unfortunate ruling by the Malaysian High Court.

I say unfortunate, not not right.

The fact is, ownership of the term Allah, resides in the bosom of millions of Muslims and hence, the hijacking of its ownership through some legalistic twists, constitute a rape and pillage on the Muslim person. The word Allah does not rest in a receptacle that in turn rests on the pillars of legal principles which are amenable to judicial discretion. It rests on the altar of worship supported by the pillars of faith jealously guarded by UNREASON.

No Muslim here in Malaysia, even with a modicum of self worth is willing to accept this 'final solution' on their religion. So when the UMNO leader said that this ruling will cause disturbances, we see the operation of unreason has begun.

Yesterday, I wrote an article on the controversial short story ( Malay cerpen) of Langit Makin Mendung. In light of the court's rulings, I reproduce here some passages from that story with some changes to reflect on the state of mind of the Muslims here.



After the Russian sputnik smashed into the Buraq carrying the Prophet, the Prophet and his fellow traveler to earth were thrown off and landed on soft clouds. He cast his eyes below:-

Sejenak dilontarkan pandangannya ke bawah. Hatinya tiba-tiba berdesir ngeri.

"Jibril, neraka lapis ke berapa di sana gerangan?"

"Paduka salah duga. Di bawah kita bukan neraka tapi bagian bumi yang paling durhaka. Kuala Lumpur namanya. Ibukota Malaysia, sebuah negeri dengan 26 juta rakyat yang malas dan bodoh. Tapi ngakunya sudah bebas BH. dan punya wawasan super jelas, 2020."

"Tak pernah kudengar nama itu. Mana lebih durhaka, kuala Lumpur atau Sodomah dan Gomorah?"

"Hampir sama." kerna ada mantan timbalan PM nya di bicarakan atas tuduhan penyakit yang pernah melanda Sodomah dan Gomorah".

"Adakah umatku di Malaysia?" "Hampir semua, kecuali Cinanya , India nya tentu."

"Kalau begitu, kapirlah bangsa di bawah ini!"

"Sama sekali tidak, 60 persen dari rakyatnya orang Islam juga."

"60 persen," wajah nabi berseri, "15 juta umatku! Muslimin dan muslimat yang tercinta. kulihat mesjid yang cukup besar, mereka bersembahyang Jumat begitu ramai, tapi ngapa pada waktu lain, mesjid nya tampak gersang?"

"Soal 15-16 juta hanya menurut statistik bumiawi yang ngawur. Dalam catatan Abubakar di surga, mereka tak ada sejuta yang betul-betul Islam!"

"Aneh. Gilakah mereka?"

"Aneh!""Memang aneh."

"Ayo Jibril, segera kita tinggalkan tempat terkutuk ini. Aku terlalu rindu pada Medinah!"

"Tidak inginkah paduka menyelidiki sebab-sebab keanehan itu?"

"Tidak, tidak di tempat ini!" jawabnya tegas, "rencana risetku di Kairo."

"Sesungguhnya padukalah nabi terakhir, ya Muhammad?"

"Seperti telah tersurat di kitab Allah," sahut Nabi dengan rendah hati.

"Tapi bangsa di bawah sana telah menabikan orang lain lagi."

"Apa peduliku dengan nabi palsu!"

"Umat paduka hampir takluk pada ajaran nabi palsu!"

"Ya, Islam terancam. Tidakkah paduka prihatin dan sedih?" terdengar suara Iblis, disambut tertawa riuh rendah.

Nabi tengadah ke atas.

"Sabda Allah tak akan kalah. Betapapun Islam, ia ada dan tetap ada, walau bumi hancur sekalipun!"

Suara Nabi mengguntur dahsyat, menggema di bumi, di lembah-lembah, di puncak-puncak gunung, di kebun-kebun karet, dan berpusar-pusar di laut lepas.

Gaungnya terdengar sampai ke surga, disambut takzim ucapan serentak:

"Amien, amien, amien."

Neraka guncang, iblis-iblis gemetar menutup telinga. Guntur dan cambuk petir bersahut-sahutan.

"Naiklah, mari kita berangkat ya Rasulullah!"

Muhammad tak hendak beranjak dari awan tempatnya berdiri. Hatinya bimbang pedih dan dukacita. Wajahnya gelap, segelap langit mendung di kiri-kanannya.

Jibril menatap penuh tanda tanya, namun tak berani bertanya.

18 comments:

Anonymous,  1 January 2010 at 12:04  

Nice one, Dato Sak.

Like one oracle said, current leaderships' GOD is MONEY !!!

Panji Hitam.

walla 1 January 2010 at 12:18  

A: 'It's just a word.'

B: 'No, it's THE word to millions across seas, spanning aeons.

It is the Unifying Factor solemnly shared with their every breath from deep within the innermost recesses of their very souls. It is uttered when prostrating, ministering, purifying. It binds, holds, unifies and relieves. It transcends space, time, even wysiwyg.

It's more than a word, A. Without that Word, what do they have?'

A: 'Then the same can also be said of the other faith who uses the same word.

The fact that millions of one faith use the word doesn't necessarily require that the thousands of another faith can't use the same word to signify a similar Entity.'

B: 'Indeed that is logical, and logic was applied in the ruling. When logic is applied like that, it is based on universal principles independent of how many will be affected.

But the universal principles you mention are the principles detected and documented by human minds and applied to the general objective of order for the common good.'

A: 'Then won't you agree that the greatest common good is to acknowledge that the "similar Entity" could actually be the "same Entity"?'

B: 'In essence? Yes. But in customs and practice? No.

I have a question for you. If logic is used in courts, why is logic not used with regards the appearance of the Word according to historical records? Let me rephrase that. Where and when was that Word first used? That's what i want to ask. What is the geneology of that Word?

If we incorporate that line of thought, the next question is how important is the genesis of that Word to the faith that it is applied to?

Can you answer me that question?

Look, the differences between religions are like the forks on the roads of life. You come to a major junction which diverges different paths. Which to take, you ask? As you ask that question, suddenly road signs appear from nowhere. You are puzzled and undecided what to do next.

In our real world, there will be other bystanders standing nearby who will notice your predicament and help you along. But they can only help you according to what they themselves feel and know.

Moreover, it is very likely you would have been born into a particular group of bystanders yourself, so that you will just go along in the same fabric of your daily existence. It then becomes a social cohesion paradigm. So you take one particular route. Will it lead to the same Destination in the end? No one has come back to tell. What starts as a mystery continues or ends as a mystery.'

A: 'So where are we then, B?'

B: 'Well, we can agree to disagree. That's better than disagreeing to agree, don't you think, considering it's all quite mysterious?'

walla 1 January 2010 at 12:19  

A: 'But a judgment has been made which has to be applied.'

B: 'Then there are two things that can happen. One, it will be challenged but the challenge cannot hold in the same court. Because the court that had ruled had ruled according to principles in which it is constituted. If it had been another type of court, perhaps the judgement would be different and in accordance with the principles of that type of court. So there is consistency.

But when the ruling leaves the courtroom and starts walking down the street, what happens? That we must ask ourselves. Theory and practical can be different, no?

Remember, man is imperfect. He is mystified at the fork of the roads of life. That's why there are social cohesion paradigms (SCP) to provide him with some identity in order to use one roadsign to get to another roadsign so as to complete the journey.

This of course doesn't apply to Putrajaya, the only place on earth where one can get lost in five minutes because all the roadsigns point to one another. Like the policies designed there. Hahaha.'

A: 'Be serious, Tun. What is the second option, you think?'

B: 'The second option is for all, and i mean all together, to understand Him first. Let Him sort out His own calling cards. You know, A, if we are to believe in what you allude as One Entity for all religions but taking different Forms and Identities, then He is actually using different calling cards for different religions.

Since different, their contents will also be different. Different address, mobile, email id, for instance. But if your unification model is correct, those are actually proxies leading to one final Identity.'

A: 'Can i pour you a drink, Tun?'

B: 'Thanks. Trouble is, religions divide people. Instead of unifying minds, they create divides which cause different believers to start defending that they are on the right road and the others are on the wrong roads.

So if we are asking that the second option be taken, how long do you think it will take before people will be able to see your unifying model? To answer my own question, another five millennia. Why? Because the different bystanders will think it their responsibility to defend the differences, although if you ask them why, i am sure they can't say.'

A: 'So what should happen in the meantime with the ruling walking our streets if the first option is negated and the second option needs another five thousand years to come to some semblance of reality?'

B: 'Again, two options. One, the ruling is accepted and both go their own way and use the Word as they believe It should signify to them.

Two, the smaller group uses the word 'God' or even 'Yahweh' or some other suitable word, and declines to apply the ruling that it applied for.'

A: 'Either would be difficult, don't you think so?'

B: 'If people can make effort to see the essence of faith, the matter will be easily resolved.'

A: 'But if you, how will you decide?'

B: 'I will decide by looking at it like this:

for one, it is a transliteration; for the other, it is THE word.

and for all, divisiveness amongst men over which calling card is real is contrary to the very essence of Him, for He gave different calling cards to multiply options and roadsigns to Him, not for men to fight amongst themselves in clouds of dust by the roadsides.'

A: 'Hey, you cheat me one, Tun. You actually believe in my unifying model. Tell me why.'

B: 'Because i see the essence of Him in her, A.'

A: 'Sigh, you poor old sentimental romantic.'

B: 'Where's my drink, Sofea?'

Anonymous,  1 January 2010 at 14:25  

Listen here people. Bottomline is, the non Malay non Muslims do not respect the Malays and Islam anymore. They are testing the social contract and the tolerance and the leadership of Malay politicians and Muslim NGOs with the attitude of -"kita mau buat ini macam, kalau berani lawanlah! Kami tak takut dan tak hormat sama awak".


itu saja isunya.. bila sudah menang yang ini.. mereka akan usahakan untuk test benda yang lain. sudah dapat seinci, mereka tidak akan berganjak. mereka mau seinci lagi.. dan lagi.. dan lagi... dan lagi.. dan lagi...

Anonymous,  1 January 2010 at 15:05  

Sak,
Arabs don't have issues with christians using Allah in the middle east. Why should you?
Perhaps, we should start banning moslems using "Amein" then. It derives Judeo-Christian book, Amen. So be it.
Then what next.

Sak,
There are far more important things to do. As a fellow of what moslems called as people of book advises you, stop defending God. Especially you are just a mortal
Now, I understand that in the old testament why Uzzah was struk dead. Not sure it's in the Quran
The Ark was transported back to the city. At a point, it wobbles & about to fall. As a pious person, Uzzah hold on to it. Next thing, he's dead. Why?????

Sak,
I suggest that you should focus on being a pious moslem & leave the rest to God

Anonymous,  1 January 2010 at 16:14  

Dato' SAK,

Lantak ke depa le. Apa nak buat kalu ada sistem kehakiman, satu sirkular dan satu syariah. Yang penting orang islam tahu dan tak lari akidahnya. SAK ulas sikit pasal gula yang menyambut tahun 2010, apa kesan kpd orang desa dan penjaja kecil kueh mueh dan teh kopi dan implikasi kpa mapan politik sekarang. cite sikit.

Anonymous,  1 January 2010 at 16:23  

u want to use the name Allah as if u are worshipping the same God we worship, but the god u worship is not Allah. to us Allah anak mariam is blasphemy. Allah as a burly bearded man sitting on a cloud is totally not acceptable.

subhanallah.

btw, why the name Allah only in the malay bible? not french, italian, spanish? etc etc tec? why not the word tuhan? isn't tuhan is the malay word for god? better still if you really want to be malay why not 'dewata raya' or 'sang yang tunggal'?

this is beyond freedom of religion, this is interfering in another's religion.

-hamba Allah

Anonymous,  1 January 2010 at 18:40  

religious issues are always controversial and fiery and further comments would only add oil into the fire. I shall refrain.

no worries, dato anyway. there's always the Appeals Court.

Lets not start 2010 on the wrong footing.

Are You Gonna Go My Way,  1 January 2010 at 19:35  

Dato,

As this is a landmark case, and the judgment given by the court if it is not written correctly to confine the permission on the use of Allah just for the Herald, it will open the floodgate to the using of the word Allah anywhere.

Many anti BN comments already praise the court decision and some even suggested putting the word Allah just below the cross on the rooftop of churches. We can only wonder what the reaction of Muslim people would be.

Too much rule of law..there’s no more rule of heart..

Anonymous,  1 January 2010 at 20:21  

Agama Kristian adalah berasaskan agama kaum Yahudi iaitu Judaism. Dan dalam agama tersebut, Tuhan adalah terdiri dari Bapa (the Father), Yesus (the Son) dan the Holy Ghost. Dalam istilah Yahudi, mereka menggunakan perkataan Elohim iaitu perkataan berganda. Konsep perkataan berganda ini ada tertera dalam bahasa Arab dan bahasa Yahudi. Ungkapan Arab membezakan diantara satu, dua dan lebih daripada dua. Ungkapan bahasa Yahudi membezakan di antara satu, dua, tiga dan lebih daripada tiga.

Perkataan Allah berdasarkan konsep satu. Asas perkataan Allah adalah dari perkataan El yang membawa maksud Tuhan. Perkataan Elohim, iaitu bahasa Yahudi, adalah berdasarkan konsep Tuhan terdiri daripada 3 dan seorang yang berugama Kristian tidak boleh menganggap dirinya sebagai penganut ugama Kristian jikalau mereka tidak dapat menerima pengorbanan Yesus sebagai pengantar di antara manusia dengan Bapa (the Father). Sepatutnya, Injil dalam Bahasa Melayu menggunakan perkataan Elohim. Itu tepat.

Tidak ada timbul apa2 agenda oleh mereka yang berugama Kristian. Menjadi penganut Kristian bukannya tertakluk kepada pendiriaan masing2. Ianya tertakluk kepada Kemahuaan Tuhan. Kalau Tuhan dah meramalkan yang seorang tu bakal menjadi penganut ugama Kristian maka ia akan termakbul dan segala initpati akan diberi oleh Tuhan.

Saya sebagai penganut agama Kristian amat tidak bersetuju dengan keputusaan Makhamah nie.

Suci Dalam Debu 1 January 2010 at 20:21  

Sir,

Indonesia is the largest muslim nation in the world and they don't have a problem with the christians there using Allah in their Al Kitab.

I have a video of a forum Arimatrea debate between mualaf (mantan Christen) and murtadin (mantan muslim) about "Mengapa kutinggalkan salib? Mengapa kutinggalkan Masjid?" and in the debate the word "Allah" was never an issue.

In fact I know two brothers, one a muslim and the other a christian. I asked the muslim if he has any problem with his brother being christian and he replied absolutely not. Dia bilang isu agama hak dan pilihan masing-masing.

And they are as close as brothers can be.

Anonymous,  1 January 2010 at 20:39  

I am happy the anonymous 16:14 started asking far more important. Hey, what happen to rise of price for the sugar. The effect on poor people including moslems

Sak,
If you believe God is almighty, stop defending God. Trust God instead. I dare to say further, the more you try to impose on others, the more you would fail
I thought Islam means submission to God. For once, submit to God lah

People,
Perhaps, it's God's will that Christians can use Allah as God. It's God's will. Don't you think so

Anonymous,  2 January 2010 at 09:06  

I consider this is a case of overblown and over sensitive.

Ask ourselves first this question and not others first...as to who owns the word "Allah"

1. To us .. no one. It refers to the Father the God whom Christians, Jews and Muslims worship. Am I right or wrong? Are Muslims praying to the same God as Christians and the Jews?

The only difference is
Muslim reach Allah through the prophet Mohammad
The Christians through Jesus the Son of God (Also part of the holy Trinity)
The Jews through no one and goes direct to Allah the Father God.

Now if anyone can dispute this let me know.

2. Then is it true that the word "Allah" had been used by Chritians for centuries ? If true then it definitely does not belong to any one religion. What is there to argue?

3. The use of Allah are only among Christians and in Malay (Indonesian) and read by Christians. So what is the worry?

I am not Catholic. But honestly I would prefer they not use it .. not because it is not the right word to use, but because ... (too many reasons)

But then the Indonesians are also using it in their Indonesian version of the bible and no problem there.

Why should we?

Another thing, certain bloggers here did mention about ...

and to Anon 14:25
"Listen here people. Bottomline is, the non Malay non Muslims do not respect the Malays and Islam anymore. They are testing the social contract and the tolerance and the leadership of Malay "

Bottomline is you are the kind that breeds intolerance.The right to use a "word" has nothing to do with respecting or not respecting the rights of Muslims. Rather this issue is about the rights of non Muslims to use a word not the rights of Muslims at all.

And further you are so very childish and think your are treating non Muslims like little children with the word.
"sudah dapat seinci, mereka tidak akan berganjak. mereka mau seinci lagi.. dan lagi.. dan lagi... dan lagi.. dan lagi..."

How immature you can be with these words. These are the attitudes that make our country so problematic. One cannot take a loss and must win all the time.

KS Cheah 2 January 2010 at 10:19  

Dato' Sak,

What's in a name? Shouldn't the Word be more important than the word? Both Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic religions and therefore refer to the same god. So what is the beef?

I think the main fear here is that Muslims may be tempted to convert to Christianity. But then again wouldn't that be a a double edged sword?

Being a non-believer myself, I have observed that religion is bad for god. This nomenclature thingy is a case in point.

The Tiger

donplaypuks® 2 January 2010 at 20:21  

The Arabic word 'Allah' pre-dates the advent of Islam in 7th century A.D. and non-Muslim Arabs have been using the term 'Allah' to refer to their Gods from ancient times.

I believe it is so in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East and Indonesia as well.

So, I find it puzzling that we in Malaysia are up in arms over what is the norm in the birthplace of Islam and its diaspora.

Why on earth would Muslims here be confused over the Koranic 'Allah' and the other usage of it? How many in East or West Malaysia came out to say they were confused before this court ruling?

Malaysian Muslims are NOT stupid or of a lower IQ than their brethren elsewhere!!

dpp
We are all of 1 race, the Human race

Eyes Wide Open 2 January 2010 at 22:40  

You have written an incisive article in your usual strong intellectual thrust.

But respectfully, I must strongly disagree based on the following points.

1) I have rebutted the "exclusive ownership" argument ad nauseam, ad infinitum. I won't repeat it here. You can read my extensively researched arguments against this flimsy premise under the tag "Allah". I'll merely briefly mention here that the term "Allah" (and its various permutations) have been in use to refer the the "One Supreme Being" in the Middle East region since before Islam, Christianity or even Judaism! These great monotheistic religions simply adopted the word to express their faith.

So what exclusive ownership?

2) Equating non-Muslim use of the word "Allah" as raping the Muslim personhood? Come on la!

If we were to accept this argument, then Christians could demand that all references to Jesus Christ should be stricken out from the Quran! Because belief in Jesus resides in the hearts of all Christians. Belief in the doctrines about Jesus Christ also rests on the altar wof worship supported on the pillars of faith!

Should Christians regard Islam's reference to Jesus in a completely different doctrine as a rape and pillage on their faith and personhood?

Since Christianity came 600 years BEFORE Islam, by virtue of seniority Muslims should respect and obey the wishes of Christians should such a claim arise that the Quran's Jesus conform to Christian doctrine or be stricken out altogether, just as some Muslims expect the same of Christians re "Allah" right?

I'm not saying we should get into a semantic tug-of-war. But put forward your arguments by all means, just let's not be hypocritical about it!

3) To state that "The word Allah...rests on the altar of worship supported by the pillars of faith jealously guarded by UNREASON" is, I think, Dato's most damaging statement to your cause.

In all of Creation, God created only Man to have reason. It is by the exercise of reason that Man is able to control his base desires and grow in his faith, through spiritual disciplines such as worship, prayer, fasting, study and reflection. No other creature in the world is able to do such things simply because they are beings without reason!

Since God created Man as the only creature with "reason", and Man's growth in his faith in God rests on activities that require the exercise of reason, the implication is that as Man grows in his closeness to God, he exercises MORE of his reason.

Stating that faith is guarded by UNREASON is surely an insult to the sincere spiritual seeker!

Anonymous,  3 January 2010 at 04:55  

it would appear that the roman catholic church [RCC} of malaysia
is again
undergoing a transformation today when the leaders of the
RCC in Malaysia is seeking to use Allah as their God. This is
actually not new . The idea was first initiated by pastor
tiny mulken from netherland who had spent 8 years as a
pastor in Indonesia. Read more at

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293394,00.html

In the 1500 s Martin Luther rejected the concept of buying
forgiveness and started a new branch of christianity.

Hopefully the leaders of the RCC would be brave enough to follow
the footsteps of Martin Luther in coming out with a truly
radical transformation that would lead roman catholics and
muslims truly share one true god , Allah -the one and only
;he begets nor is begotten a son.


Earlier when the RCC had voiced a campaign to use Allah as
god in their publication I had made known my objections
variously through writings in the blog. Having done a thorough
literature search on the net about the roman catholics and Allah
I have come to realize that it was foolish to object what is
in fact a very good thing. Earlier in my writings I was
influenced by the narrations of the role of the the catholic
priests and their intrigues in influencing the decision making
during the time of Elizabeth 1. The movies Elizabeth 1 and Elizabeth 2
would be a good start in getting to understand the psyche of the
catholic thinking.


In my earlier writings where I strongly objected the use of Allah by the catholics,
The beauuty of the possiblity that the catholics in malaysia may
simply want to use Allah as god and are willing to drop the
issue [or silent ] of the triunion god [my take] eluded me. It is by necessary
implication that the roman catholic leaders in malaysia are
silently agreeing to the unique god , Allah [as referred to
by muslims in the country ] when they seek the court's help
to get themselves the right to use Allah as their god in the malay translation of the bible.
Interestingly Martin luther too was instrumental
in getting the bible translated. As Islam , Christianity and Judaism
are the oldest religion and are related by the common god and prophets
it is logical that they address the common god as Allah. All
the reasons from the body of catholics and persons who opposed the
use of the word Allah are abundantly available for the leaders
of the RCC in malaysia to peruse from the following websites-



http://christianblogs.christianet.com/1187194406.htm
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/does-catholic-church-equate-allah-and.html

http://www.albertmohler.com/?cat=Blog&cid=991

Despite all the negative comments in using Allah as god by bodies of
catholics and pastors, the RCC of malaysia
still want to get the court to approve the use of Allah as god.
The word Allah has a special meaning in the constitution. For over
50 years Allah has meant the one god ; he neither begets[has a son ]
nor is he begotten [born of someone].
. In simple translation -He has no son and was not born of someone.
Public policy considerations demands that the approval by the
judge [ Dato Lau] would carry an important corollary that the ALLAH
REFERRED TO IS ALLAH WHO HAS NO SON NOR is he born [begotten] so that
everyone is clear of the definition which has withstood the test of time
in malaysia.


Now we have seen the RCC malaysia wants a transformation and the
gomen under ds najib also wants a transformation . May i
suggest that our media -tv [earth and satellite ] , radio and papers
carry this new year message-


Salam 1 Malaysia di bawah naungan Allah yang satu- tiada
Ia beranak atau diberanakkan.

for all muslims , catholics and everybody who believe in the creator!



notoktok

donplaypuks® 3 January 2010 at 18:52  

Bro

There are so many issues here.

Firstly, God gave us thinking brains and the ability to reason. The notion that God and religion are in the realm of UNREASON is unsustainable by logic. Otw, Satan worshippers, pedophiles, hardcore porn supporters and serial killers can all justify their beliefs and perversions by claiming that you and I do not understand UNREASON.

Probably, humanity is at a stage where our mental development is not sufficient yet to understand these question regarding the Central Mystery. But throughout history, the Prophets - Manu, Buddha, Moses, Mohammad and others have revealed that the right human can breach the wall of UNREASON!!

The Allah matter was not an issue in Sarawak before they joined M'sia in 1963. So, following your premise of the Constitution and doing the right thing, should Sarawakians minorities be denied what has long been customary there, because the Federal Govt issued a fiat?

I also don't buy your point that Islam in M'sia need not be in consonance with what is accepted in Mecca, the birthplace of Islam, or its diapora in India, China, Indonesia and elsewhere. Are there two Islams? Are you confused? Is Zul Nordin, his children or his constituents, confused? Is any Muslim in M'sia really confused? I doubt it.

And, the Opposition has nothing to do with it. Just as we lost Pedra Bianca to S'pore due to incompetent UMNO/BN Ministers, AG and mainland Federal Govt Lawyers, so too this issue.

No one in W.Malaysia (including non-Muslims) refer to the God of Islam as other than "Allah". We refer to other gods as "Tuhan" in BM. But, Sarawakians have the right of antiquity.

What's happening now is that finally we are learning to dance with our fellow Eastern countrymen, who have long been treated as poor second cousins who are there only to deliver Parlaimnetary seats.

Don't forget that our Constitution does, with its special provisions clauses, make it legal for 1 Country, 2 Systems. With the formation of M'sia in 1963 and the inclusion of Sarawak and Sabah, it may well be 1 country, 3 systems!!

dpp
We are all of 1 race, the Human Race

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP