The Allah issue: not politics or favoured resort of gutter politicians.

The things that we dread are already happening.

UMNO cannot answer back. It's allowed to, only when and if its answers and responses are agreeable. It's a Henry Ford-esque dictum of: you can have any colour as long as it's black. Of course we can't agree if it's wrong.

This isn't an issue of politicising Allah as Anwar Ibrahim claims. When some silly person asks where is Allah in UMNO's administration- obviously with below the belt cynicism implied, that does NOT excuse any Muslim even if he/she is from dreaded UMNO to speak up. That silly person hasn't got the monopoly to speak about Islam nor does he/she owns religious righteousness. You can't prequalify who can and cannot speak up for Islam.

Somehow, suggesting that what UMNO is doing is diverting the public from UMNO's own political vulnerabilities, is so passé. The wrongs in society caused by the government's mismanagements will be exposed anyway despite attempts to divert, subvert or cover them. You mean to say, you people too will be quiet because UMNO people don't want to speak about it? Since when does speaking out against injustices and wrongs dependent upon whether its sanctioned or otherwise by UMNO by employing, to humour Mr Anwar and others, 'diversionary' tactics? So don't patronise us by suggesting that only our accusers have the monopoly over what is right.

The same suggestion can be applied to PKR and to Anwar Ibrahim. PKR is politicising the issue to cover its own political vulnerabilities. The latest drama is the resignation of the once pony-tailed Sallehuddin Hashim. (Son of the colourful Hashim Gera). His resignation may have been precipitated by Anwar's stand on the Allah issue.

We don't give a damn how UMNO or PKR want to handle this issue. This isn't about UMNO or PKR- it's about religion and to Muslims it's about Islam. Why can't this issue be treated as beyond partisanship? Debate whether it's wrong or right and more important whether it's appropriate. We just don't compromise on certain principles.

The majority of Muslims(less the more confident and the more knowledgeable, the caviar clerics, smoked-salmon sermoners, the Bolshevik Believers) are agitated and plain angry. The people in the bracket are all ok. They have no problem with their Islam. Only the plebeians do.

They are angry not because their sentiments and emotions are inflamed by the powers that be. Their resentment is voluntary and spontaneous. Those angry aren't just people from UMNO or UMNO supporters. PAS rank and file members and supporters are too. The Muslim public in Malaysia is angry also.

This time, the anger is caused by the legal permission that says the name Allah is now shareable. Hence, it is now possible to claim the Allah is the God of Christians and Muslims alike.

Malays are opposing the permission to use the name Allah because it is WRONG. This is the reason. It has nothing to do with Malay/Muslims being provincial, timid and so forth. It also has nothing to do with denying others to practice their own religions.

Let's be clear. The Muslims here oppose the use of Allah by Catholics not because they want to deny Christians to practice their religion. It's not even about religious intolerance as some of the caviar clerics and the Bolshevik Believers want others to believe.

Muslim oppose because the meaning of Allah to Muslims is different than that understood by Christians. To the Catholics it's just a name to refer to God. To Muslims it's not just a name. To allow that means we are compromising our religious beliefs. And by compromising does not mean we are less confident of our own religiosity which when shaken leads Malays to convert to Christianity as suggested by RPK.

The deliberate effort to impute the same meaning in the name Allah even though it's used by 2 distinct religions is the issue here. The Christian Allah and the Muslim Allah do not have the same meaning and implications therein.

If they have the same meaning, why do Muslims and Islamic religious authorities go berserk when a Muslim wants to convert to Christianity? We shouldn't make any fuss if we share the same God and His attributes, right? Anwar Ibrahim in this case, should support any Muslim who wants to convert to Christianity since by the definition so wished; Allah is the God of Christians and Muslims. Such a definition is untenable.

So when the Muslims insist that Allah cannot be used by Catholics if its usage carries with it meanings alien to that understood by Muslims, can we then judge the Muslims as being intolerant?

What are the Muslims doing here? Not waging war against Christianity but protecting Islam.

The more we talk about this issue, for us Muslims at least, the issue is not about balancing sensitivities. The issue is whether it is right to assign the same meanings to the name Allah when It is used by both Christians and Muslims.

Now, when UMNO argues the case for disallowing the use of Allah it must argue on the basis of right, wrong and appropriateness. Right and wrong are pure principles while appropriateness is discretionary.

Balancing of sensitivities is the foundation of tolerance. Insisting on the rigid application of principles, fixed and uncompromising laws can also lead to an impersonal, overbearing and imposing state apparatus. What do you call that? Plutocracy? Kleptocracy? Only people wealthy in religious knowledge or rich in legal knowledge are the only ones who can define how society should behave? And when we don't behave in accordance to their refined tastes, we are gutter politicians and those who agree with gutter politicians are rancid material?

We do not want that. Disallowing balancing of sensitivities will lead us to induced rigor mortis.

The whole idea of tolerance rests on our ability to manage sensitivities. We should be horrified at the idea of demanding we desensitise ourselves in favour of sticking to impersonal principles WHEN doing so generates unrest and animosity between religious people. The victim will be peace.

Even the rigidity of the law requires the occasional intervention of equity. When that happens, that does not and has never meant the non-application of pure legal principles made the law less just.