Good form, bad form

Here is the problem. We now have Muslims going around saying Allah is just a form. Hence people say, Muslims have to learn to be less excited about form. Concentrate on the substance. To balance things up, we say, non Muslims have to learn to be sensitive.

I like this kind of thinking. So, we can now worship a tree- because a tree is just a form. A chair is a home. If we concentrate fully, behind the tree is the essence of Allah. It's all in the mind.

This issue hasn't died down. When they( public outcries and anguish)  are not published or their undercurrents not captured by the lethargic mainstream media, it does not mean, they have died down. They only mean the MSM has been sleeping and slow footed to capture the essence of the mood of the people.

It's not about form. Allah for Muslims is the foundation of our Aqeedah . It incorporates the principles of Tauheed. To say, it's just a form, devalues the Islamic religion. If other people say its just a form of terming God, let them. We don't have to prostitute ourselves.

Tweet

Read more...

Muslim cabinet members must stand and be counted!

 

On the contrary, all Muslim ministers in the cabinet must study the 57 page judgment on the Allah issue and come forward with reasoned arguments to 'overrule' the judgment by the judge.

To not do it, will mean we hold you as having devalued our own religion. Or even worse, you sit idly by while your religion is abused.

Don't be like Anwar Ibrahim. Look carefully at he is doing. He is only prepared to give a qualified endorsement to the use of Allah- he is playing both sides (no pun intended). Yes- let's allow others to use Allah but don't allow them to abuse it.

What kind of prescription is this?

It is a prescription of a deceptive and devious mind at work. That kind of endorsement- a qualified support is not operational at all. What does it mean? Yes or no? When will the usage be deemed as abuse and therefore invites censor or ban? How my friend?

What mechanism will we put in place that raises the alarm that the name of Allah has been abused? Anwar can't give us that mechanism. Would he classify the DAPSY's call for the use of Allah over the whole of Malaysia as an abuse of tolerance? Will he consider this a case of giving your calf wanting also your leg? Isn't this an abuse already? Even at this preliminary stage, renders Anwar's prescription of can- but- cannot- abuse, WORTHLESS already.

It's pathetic to suggest that this entire ruckus is a ploy by UMNO to regain lost Malay ground. UMNO is far from perfect. We know that. We know it's infested with ne'er do wells as pointed out by Tengku Razaleigh, but who is to say, these elements will not be purged? Indeed that is the only way for UMNO to regain credibility, which is by ridding itself from elements bringing it down. On the other hand, the Pakatan structure is waiting for its implosion.

When will that happen? It will happen when Anwar is punished for the wrongs he has committed. Even people within Pakatan have resigned to the fact that this time Anwar may have reached his cul-de-sac. If not, how do you explain, his bizarre attempts to postpone his trial in the civil court indefinitely by creating whatever legal ruses he can think of? Cornered, he is fighting using brass knuckles.

Why is he for example insistent on being tried the shariaah way which requires 4 witnesses to see the action taking place? Who in their right minds will ever want to see such spectacle? And only an imbecilic person will bring people watch his exploits.

There's a scientific alternative in DNA analysis which can replace the actual 'seeing' by 4 witnesses. Why is Anwar suddenly infatuated with an ancient way to prove his innocence, when in the issue of Allah, he chooses a liberal stand?

How can such a person, ding-donging from one position to another position, be believable?

The Allah issue is not a second or 3^rd leg of a conspiracy to discredit the Pakatan grouping as suggested by Syed Hussein Ali. The severity and gravity of Anwar's personal case are not lessened by this disingenuous attempt to include Anwar's personal problem under the same roof as the Allah issue where all, it is claimed are part of an UMNO strategy to discredit Pakatan. You think Anwar's case is diluted if we can be made to believe that it's all part of an UMNO game to destroy the credibility of the disparate grouping Anwar leads? Come on!

Then there is our venerable Lim Kit Siang.

Why is Mr. Lim Kit Siang so patronizingly concerned that the cabinet must practice collective responsibility over this matter? That it involves allowing each minister to make their stand?

What if the cabinet makes a stand that the word Allah, in recognition of the sensitivities and fairness, recognizing the supremacy of the Malay rulers over issues affecting the wellbeing of the Islamic religion, desirous of maintaining racial harmony, declares that Allah is exclusively reserved for Muslims?

The stand behooves all those who have differing views to submit to the views of the majority, i.e. endorse the cabinet stand.

The same principle will have it that those who object on conscientious grounds or whatever grounds the warped minds of ministers trod on at that moment, be asked to leave the cabinet so as to qualify as genuine practitioners of collective responsibility? Doing that, they receive the standing ovation of Lim Kit Siang?

Will these cabinet members imagined by Lim Kit Siang to have the guts and gumption to insist and even demand that Allah can be used not only in East Malaysia but over the whole of Malaysia, resign the cabinet posts? That is the principle of collective responsibility isn't it? That once the cabinet makes it stand, everyone must acquiesce otherwise, he or she must make the honorable exit and tender resignation?

Why should Lim Kit Siang deny the government its right of appeal against the decision at first instance? The effects after the first judgment are all out in the open for all to see. That these matters are possible and real outcomes of the judgment should have been conceived by the judge. That would make her averments that the prosecution has failed to show adverse repercussions could happen, crumble.

Adverse repercussions did happen after that- churches burned and mosques desecrated. We have no guarantee that these things will not occur further.

Tweet

Read more...

The Pathologization of the Muslim mind

In 1974, when I was in lower sixth form, I read a book on the oppression of black Americans. The exact title of the book escapes me. But the message there stays.

One of the ways, White America oppresses the black Americans is to categorize them as mentally dysfunctional individuals. The American dominated institutions then could justify actions to incarcerate blacks in mental institutions.

This was the classic version of psychological sweeping of the problem under the carpet.

Official white America doesn't have to deal with mentally dysfunctional people- they just lock them away.

The pathologization of minds continues today. In our society, Muslims who hold steadfast to the insistence that Allah be used exclusively by Muslims are regarded as mentally dysfunctional, emotional, their arguments flawed etc. they are assigned as bigots, narrow minded, diffident as opposed to confident.

I don't accuse those who elect to support the free usage of Allah as emotional. or bigoted. I did however, classify those liberated Muslims who advocate its liberal use as salon Muslims, Bolshevik believers etc only as a description that the views they champion, are particularistic as opposed to universal. Their views are particular to them and their like minded fraternity. Certainly I believe their views are not shared by the majority of Muslims here in Malaysia.

By extolling this elitist view, what are we doing actually? We see comments on blogs peppered with things like, " how we wish there are many people like you Pete, or how we wish there are many who think like Marina. "

Well, I have heard some people say- Marina's views as regards religion are eclectic because she synthesizes them from the many husbands she has had.

Cruel, but maybe some truth there.

We unwittingly perpetuate the colonizing of our own non-Western-mind. The idea that this Allah issue has caused the Muslims to be traumatized and dysfunctional leads to the perception, that Malays who are emotional and narrow minded are under qualified and lack capacity for self-government. We have seen that actually when commentators come in and say, if this is the way, Malays handle the issue, this country will go the Pakistan way, the Zimbabwe way.

The only way to avoid that is to adopt the liberal way, extol the thinking of salon Muslims, Bolshevik believers and so forth. We are asked to be mindful of what others say and so forth. Be nice to them, so that others are nice to us. Where shall this kind of thinking eventually lead to?

The construction of populations as traumatized and dysfunctional, is leading to their disqualification from self-government.

Calling us dysfunctional and narrow minded Malay Muslims and the fact that spokespersons for the enlightened chattering classes would even think that such words could be touted as acceptable demonstrates the elite supremacist commoditisation of the average Malay. That categorization is a legacy of a colonized mentality that has transformed itself, into a cultural mainstay that proudly links the liberated Muslim minds to acceptable mainstream Western and modern thinking.

Tweet

Read more...

The government must hasten the appeal on the Allah judgment.

 

Told you so.

Lim Kit Siang has asked the government to withdraw its appeal against the judgment of Lau Bee Lan. It is to show the sincerity of the government.

Would it also be reasonable now, to ask the Catholic Church to volunteer withdrawing the usage of Allah in its Catholic Herald? Would it be reasonable also to ask the Catholics agree in a government decision to ban Malay bibles printed wherever, from use in Malaysia?

Lin Kit Siang asks, in echoing Muhyidin Yassin's call for an interfaith dialogue. The object of interfaith dialogue is to foster understanding, Mr. Lim, not see to the fusion of religions or religious elements into a One Malaysia religion.

We are not looking for a rojak religion, with a new One Malaysia name, incorporating the similarities in all the major religions. The similarities encourage open dialogues and understanding while retaining all their core beliefs at all times.

How can Islam subsist under a Cao Dai like environment having to sacrifice the most basic foundation of the Islamic faith-Aqeedah founded on Tauheed?

No, Mr. Lim Kit Siang- the Catholics should volunteer to desist in the usage of Allah in their Herald and stop using Malay Bibles having the name of Allah therein.

Mr. Prime Minister- you must decide either there is One Allah or none. One Allah applicable to the whole of Malaysia, not one in the East and one in the West.

The DAPSY is against the use of Allah in the East only insisting that it be allowed to be used in the whole of Malaysia. There you are, they are knocking at the master bed room.

Mr. Prime Minister- make a 'bad' decision- declare that Allah is for Islam only. A bad decision is better than neither here nor there, or half here and half there.

Tweet

Read more...

West Malaysia Allah, East Malaysia Allah

This is part 2 of the letter I received from Persatuan Peguam2 Muslim Malaysia.

 

The Birth of Allah's Son-Part 11

 

 

 

The Judge presiding the case of the Herald, Datuk Lau Bee Lan, in her decision disallowing MAIS, MACC 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 11^th 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.

 

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 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 9^th 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.

 

 

Information Secretariat

Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia.

Tweet

Read more...

Be nice, so that Muslims are treated nice.

Ah..so it's just some excuse to uncle-tom some people out there? We need to be nice to our minorities because hopefully, others will be nice to our Muslim minorities. Muslims all over the world are run down and run over. Now, that's a definition of being nice to minorities.

Once you compromise on the underlying principles you prostitute yourselves. Then, there is no stopping you being nice to all and sundry. The nice sounding signals are given by people such as Khalid Samad( whom Pas rank and file consider heretic), Miss Marina Mahathir, leader of the salon Muslims and Abim?( a bunch of Bolshevik believers).

We, the rest? Are all miscreants and religious bigots.

I received a copy of the views of some Muslim Lawyers who have banded together under the Persatuan Peguam2 Muslim Malaysia. This was some time ago. Obviously Nazri hasn't been to a place to see how this issue is viewed by Muslim professionals. You see, with Nazri, what HE knows he has got no problems. Hence a fortiori , what he doesn't know, is even more a no problem to him.

The birth of Allah's Son- Part 1

The Malays, as one foreigner once summed up, are a people who rest under the coconut tree with the sun shining 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 best 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 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) 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. They have blatantly disregarded the Guideline since 1986 until 2007, and with that action, provoked the sensitivities of the Muslim community. Since no immediate and decisive action was taken by KDN in response to this consistent breach, 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 Malaysian Association of Chinese Converts ("MACC") who were deeply concerned on the effects of the publication on the Muslims in general, especially as they were under the impression 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 MACC 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, MACC 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 reaction of the Muslim community to the Court decision dated 31.12.2009 has been largely one of disbelief, anger and humiliation; a deep wound that if it were at all to recover, would require a long healing process.

Information Secretariat

Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia

Date: 11^th January 2010

Tweet

Read more...

When the mice are away, Nazri(the Cat) comes out to play.

I hope, Nazri isn't talking on behalf of the PM. I hope, he is on a frolic of his own. Because, if he does speak on behalf of the PM- the permission given is vastly out of sync with the character of a person responsible for coming up with the One Malaysia concept, KRAs and implementation of inherited KPIs. The permission represents recklessness and light thinking- while only serious and meticulous planning results in the creation of such concepts.

The way the government is handling this Allah issue, if what Nazri said is true, shows the government is clueless as how to deal with the matter. It goes along the way, solving issues as matters of expediencies.

This kind of management style isn't like MBO or something along that genre. Indeed, the way the government handles this issue is as though, it thinks of something as it goes along. This kind of thinking isn't culled from books like Blue Ocean Strategy which the PM favours or some lessons imparted by management thinkers.

If I were to describe the management style- it's the management style of Captain Jack Sparrow. In the film Pirates of the Caribbean, Sparrow thinks of a game plan as he goes along.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has described the management style of the government succinctly:-

As a mark of our decline, at some point in our recent history the government itself began to speak the language of sensitivities. In the controversy over whether Christians are allowed to use the term "Allah" the government talks about managing sentiment when it should be talking about what is the right thing to do. This is what government sounds like when a political system and its leadership have come unstuck from the rule of law. IT GOES FROM ISSUE TO ISSUE, HOSTAGE TO THE BRINKSMANSHIP OF SENSITIVITIES. Small matters threaten to erupt into racial conflict. The government of a multiracial society that cannot rise above sentiment is clearly too weak or too self-interested to hold the country together. It has lost credibility and legitimacy. The regime is in crisis.

This is Captain Jack Sparrow's kind of management style- going from issues to issues, solving them as expediencies. The management style suggests no underlying, stable principles. While I agree with Tengku's description and observations, I do not over elements which he accepts as underlying principles. To him, it's the rule of law and doing what is right. Incidentally, doing what is right is the calling of the leader. Obviously by not doing what is right, the present government has no leadership.

Doing the right thing calls on the Prime Minister to bring closure to this issue but not in the way Nazri does- appeasing the voters in the fixed deposit states. If Allah cannot be used by Catholics in West Malaysia, it cannot so too in East Malaysia. There is only One Allah not Two. But we should not be too hard on a person known more for his outbursts and almost nightly sojourns at the watering holes in Shangri-La should we? Yes we shouldn't be too hard on salon believers, Gauche caviar , Chardonnay Muslims and members of the chattering class appearing on 101 East al Jazeera. The only thing worth seeing there was perhaps the interviewer.

Doing the right thing requires the PM to call for a congregation of the national council on fatwas, or something like a national council of muftis, national council of ulamas to state once and for all, the views of Muslims over this Allah issue. The principles of Aqidah and Tauheed are not less underlying principles such as doing the right thing and rules of law expounded by Tengku Razaleigh. Indeed, they are more relevant as regards matters of the Islamic religion than Tengku Razaleigh's rule of law and doing the right things.

I want to get away from the Allah issue. But it doesn't die down. This time Nazri Aziz, the minister who has this penchant for shooting from the hip tells everyone, that Allah can be used in East Malaysia. By his own admission he has been to an Iban Church and heard the word Allah spoken of. He has no problems with it.

If Nazri comes out with the government stand on the basis of having no problem when visiting and Iban Church, God Allah save us! Is this a decision based on an underlying principle? You are going there to do some balls licking fearing you lose the fixed deposit states.

Hallelujah!

I hope this declaration by Nazri isn't a frolic of his own. But it does not matter, if it's done in the course of his duty as His Majesty's Minister, then his boss or his employer is vicariously liable or responsible. We are being reasonable therefore to infer than Nazri's declaration received the blessings of the Prime Minister.

Please decide Mr. Prime Minister.

Tweet

Read more...