Judge was wrong on all counts of Allah's case

I wonder why the government had not managed to convince the judge of
all the obvious wrongs.

God is translated to Allah.
Lord is translated into Tuhan.

I would have thought that it is the opposite.
This blatant mistranslation is so obvious and an insult to any Malay
speaking person.

Once this is already very clear, apart from other erroneous mentions
of Arabic norms in the use of ALLAH which is not a translation of GOD
but NAME OF A GOD, just like ZEUS or APOLLO, it should be very clear
that all other basis for the judgements are completely wrong.

There is no constituitional protection against misleading, and
humiliating citizens of Malaysia which is done in deliberately
downgrading ALLAH into GOD, whereas TUHAN is upgraded to LORD.

TUHAN is a being.
LORD is a title so can be called a NAME, just like DATUK, SIR.
ALLAH is a NAME, just like ZEUS, APOLLO, NUNUK RAGANG. This is how
Arabs use it, so do Malays.
So the statement that Christian Arabs had misused the word ALLAH is
just conjecture and very unlikely as shown by culture, history and
literature.

GOD is also a being, not a name attached to the being.

Why on earth does this JUDGE allow the translation of GOD into ALLAH
just because some dictionaries made by non-Malay speaking authors say
so. Even Munshi Abdullah is not an authority of the Bible, so is not
qualified to translate the meaning of the Bible into Malay. If Munshi
Abdullah were Christian or formerly christian, then he is also not
qualified as being biased.

http://www.mysinchew.com/node/34085?tid=14

ws | Foreign | Opinion | Cartoons | MyKampung | Family | Features |
Photo Story | Kooky | 中文 |
Allah Case: Govt wrong on all counts
Opinion Religion in the news 2010-01-17 21:14
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 17 — High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan's
controversial 'Allah' ruling that rocked the nation over who had
rights to the term cited that the Home Minister and government's
actions had been illegal, unconstitutional, irrational and had failed
to satisfy that it was a threat to national security.

She also wrote about the apparent conflict in the matter between the
Federal Constitution and the various state enactments apart from
claims by Muslim groups that the matter cannot be taken to a civil
court.

The judge released the written grounds of her Dec 31 judgment late on
Friday while the increasingly acrimonious public debate over who has
the right to use the word "Allah" continues to rage on.

The Malaysian Insider obtained a copy of her 57-page judgment where
the judge lays out the reasons and the laws behind her oral
pronouncement.

In laying out her judgment, Justice Lau ruled that the Home Minister
and the Government of Malaysia, who were named as 1st and 2nd
Respondents respectively, has the discretion under Section 12 of the
Printing Presses and Publications Act to issue or revoke a permit to
the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam (the
Applicant) to publish the Church's newspaper, Herald — The Catholic
Weekly.

But, she stressed, the respondents had made decisions that were
illegal, unconstitutional and irrational when they barred the Catholic
newspaper from publishing the word "Allah" in its Bahasa Malaysia
section.

The case was brought by the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the
Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam on February
16 last year when he filed for a judicial review against the Home
Minister for barring it from using the word "Allah" as part of
conditions for getting a publishing permit.

Pakiam is officially the Herald's publisher.

The Home Ministry has successfully applied for a stay of execution in
the ruling pending an appeal.

Below are excerpts highlighting the main disputes.

On why the Home Minister's ban is illegal

"The Applicant submits the 1st Respondent has failed to take into
account one or more of the relevant considerations...

1. The word "Allah" is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for "God" and
in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, "God" is translated
as "Allah" and "Lord" is translated as "Tuhan";

The judge is completely wrong here and has no expertise to decide the
correct translation of the word "Allah"

2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking
countries have been using the word "Allah" in reference to the One
God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater
majority of other Christian denominations hold that "Allah" is the
legitimate word for "God" in Bahasa Malaysia;

Again completely wrong. Allah is just the name of a pagan God for
Arabs.
The reference is to the ONE GOD, not GOD which the first implication
of the translation of the GOD in the English bible.

It is the LORD that is the SPECIAL GOD. Why on earth was it translated
into the Malay word TUHAN, which is just a class of being, whereas
ALLAH is a name of A GOD.

This is an outrage and a downgrade of the meaning of ALLAH, into less
than TUHAN.

JESUS pray to TUHAN, but NOT ALLAH!!!!

3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic
believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and
Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a
culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;

But they have no right to mistranslate any MALAY WORD.

4. The word "God" has been translated as "Allah" in the "Istilah Agama
Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia" first published by the
Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;

5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated
"Deus" (the Latin word for God) as "Alla" as the Malay translation;

This dictionary, just as any English dictionary is not an authority of
the Malay language.
The Italian is obviously wrong, because there is another word, TUHAN
and DEWA in Malay which explains the word GOD better.

6. The Christian usage of the word "Allah" predates Islam being the
name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic
Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;

NAME OF GOD, not GOD.
Allah is A NAME OF A GOD, not GOD itself.
This is completely different and shows how idiotic and illogical the
judge is.

What the Malay translation is trying to do is to downgrade the word
GOD to Allah, instead of to a NAME.

Furthermore, this is completely wrong as shown by Arabic Christians in
using suffixes to the word Allah in order to differentiate Allah from
the PAGAN ALLAH. The PAGAN ALLAH predates the Christianity, and why
should Christianity adopt a pagan God's name when they should have
used a better name.

Why should the natives of Borneo and Malaysia use the name of a PAGAN
ARABIC GOD as a name, when they themselves have a better names for GOD
in their own folklores?
This argument is immaterial because the Malay bible downgrades the
name of GOD, Allah, into just GOD.

7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word "Allah" has been
used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew's Gospel in
Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the
second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru
and the Alkitab;

Only in the Matthew's Gospel and it was not authorised by Malay
translators as shown by the inconsistencies mentioned earlier.
Downgrading ALLAH to just GOD instead of THE NAME OF A GOD.
These christian translators must have ulteriour motives to HUMILIATE
MUSLIMS especially MALAYS.

8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay
literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he
translated the word "God" as "Allah";

He may have been an expert in ancient literature but many phrases in
ancient literature is no longer valid. The Malays don't use these
terms, let alone understand the Gospels and the implications of the
usages of the downgrading of the word Allah.

9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in
existence before 1957 which translation was carried out by the British
and Foreign Bible Society where the word "Allah" was used;

These are not experts in the modern Malay language and they have
ulteriour motives to distorn the meaning of ALLAH as used in the Malay
language.

10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in
Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word "Allah" was used;

11. There was also a publication entitled "An Abridgment of the
Christian Doctrine" published in 1895 where the word "Allah" was used.

12. Anther publication entitled "Hikajat Elkaniset" published in 1874
also contains the word "Allah"

13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the
Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used
by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for
generations;

14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular
Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word
"Allah" for generations and the word "Allah" is used in the Bahasa
Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught
Malaysia;

15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia
congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the
Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein
the word "Allah appears;

All these mistranslations and humiliations of the Malay language does
not mean that they are right. After all, they have ulteriour motives
to downgrade and confuse Muslims in this regions.

16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover
of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and
information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is
not for sale or distribution outside the Church;

Lies and mistranslations MUST NOT BE ALLOWED EVEN IN PRIVATE.
Similarly for murder, sexual crimes, are not allowed even though they
are done in private.
Confusing, mistranslating, humiliating the Malay language cannot be
tolerated just because they are made in private.

17. The said publication is not made available to members of the
public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;

18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause
public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion
of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has
never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant's use of
the word "Allah" in the said publication;

Because Muslims and Malays don't know about it. Once they know, the
reaction is very obvious. The judge is very ridiculous in supporting
this line of argument. She supports MURDER just because NOBODY
COMPLAINED.

19. In any event the word "Allah" has been used by Christians in all
countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/
Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/
or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these
countries;

Let us put to the VOTE NOW. I am very insulted and HUMILIATED by all
the mistranslations and downgrading of the word of ALLAH into just
GOD, whereas TUHAN is elevated to LORD, when in fact, it should be the
other way round.

20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or
belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a state
matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such
matters of Islam save in the federal territories

Let the state governments decide but what is obvious is that cheating,
humiliating MUSLIMS, is a FEDERAL offence.
Even though they are done in PRIVATE.

21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the
Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the
use of the word "Allah" in the said publication;

That can be revoked once the extent of the errors had been identified.

22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church
uses the word "Allah" for worship and instruction and that the same is
permitted in the Al-Kitab.

"The Applicant further submits that none of the above-mentioned
factual considerations were ever disputed or challenged by the 1st
Respondent as factually incorrect. I am incline to agree with the
Applicant as the response of the 1st Respondent to the factual
averments is a feeble denial in paragraph 41 of the Affidavit of the
1st Respondent which reads "Keseluruhan pernyataan-pernyataan di
perenggan-perenggan 50, 51 and 52(i)-(xxii) Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon
adalah dinafikan..." (Emphasis added)

"Therefore I find the 1st Respondent in the exercise of his discretion
to impose further conditions in the publication permit has not taken
into account the relevant matters alluded to above, hence committing
an error of law warranting this Court to interfere and I am of the
view that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 ought to be
quashed," she ruled.

On why the Home Minister's ban is unconstitutional

Justice Lau also said the applicant's grounds for the reliefs of
certiorari and declaratio is premised on the unconstitutional acts and
conduct being inconsistent with Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the
Federal Constitution..."

"Applying the principles enunciated in Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak (supra)
to the instant case, there is no doubt that Christianity is a
religion. The next question is whether the use of the word "Allah" is
a practice of the religion of Christianity. In my view there is
uncontroverted historical evidence allueded to in paragraph 52 (i) to
(xxii) alluded to above which is indicative that use of the word
"Allah" is a practice of the religion of Christianity. From the
evidence, it is apparent the use of the word "Allah" is an essential
part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa
Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and is
integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.

This is totally incorrect. Only in Arabic speaking nations. Malay
speaking people have different notions of the meaning of GOD, which is
TUHAN. Even in Arabic speaking nations, ALLAH IS NOT GOD, ILA is.
Allah is a name of a God. I don't think the Christian Arabs will make
such an error in distinguishing between GOD and ALLAH, the name of a
GOD, but the Malay translation has made such grave errors in
translation with ulteriour bad motives.

"The next consideration is the circumstances under which the
"prohibition" was made. The circumstances to my mind would be the
factors which the Respondents rely on to justify the impugned decision
which have been alluded to in paragraph 9(i) to (ix) above.

"As to the ground in paragraph 9(i) in my judgment, this is
unmeritorious for the reason which has been dealt under the issue of
whether the use of the word "Allah" endangers public order and
national security. As to the ground in paragraph 9(ii), (iii), (v) and
(ix), I have shown unchallenged evidence that there is a well
established practice for the use of the "Allah" amongst the Malay
speaking community of the Catholic faith in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah
and Sarawak and the origin of the word and its translation...

"Considering all the factors, in my judgment, the imposition of the
condition in the publication permit prohibiting the use of the word
"Allah" in the said publication, "Herald – the Catholic Weekly"
pursuant to the 1st Respondent's exercise of powers under the Act
contravenes the provisions of Articles 3(1), 11(1) and 11(3) of the
Federal Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional," she added.

On why the Home Minister's ban is irrational

"The Applicant challenges the impugned decision under this head of
irrationality/ Wednesbury unreasonableness which applies to "a
decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of
accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his
mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it..."

(a) It is utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the
Respondents on the one hand not to prohibit the congregation of the
Catholic Church to use the word "Allah" for worship and instruction in
their faith and in the AL-Kitab and on the other hand to state that
the same word cannot be used in the said publication which serves to
assist these persons in their worship and provide a medium of
instruction in their faith and to disseminate news and information
(see paragraph 52(xxii) of Applicant's Affidavit).

(b) It is also utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the
Respondents to require the Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of
the Catholic Church to use another word to denote the Bahasa Malaysia
word for "God" instead of the word "Allah" when such is and has always
been the word used for the word "God" in the Catholic Church and
throughout the Bahasa Malaysia speaking community of the Church in
Malaysia...

"In relation to the 2 additional grounds mentioned in paragraph 17.1
above, the Respondents responded —

1. Merujuk kepada perenggan 20 Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon, Responden-
Responden menegaskan bahawa Pernyataan YAB Perdana Menteri tersebut
yang telah dikeluarkan melalui media cetak "The Star" pada 20/4/2005
adalah amat jelas mengarahkan agar di kulit "Bible" dalam versi Bahasa
Melayu dinyatakan secara jelas bahawa ianya bukan untuk orang Islam
and ianya hanya dijual doi kedai-kedai orang Kristian. Walau
bagaimanapun saya sesungguhnya mempercayai dan meyatakan bahawa
kenyataan media yang dirujuk itu adalah berhubung dengan Al-Kitab
(Bible) sahaja dan tidak relevan kepada isu permit Herald – the
Catholic Weekly yang mana syarat yang dikenakan adalah amat jelas dan
perlu dipatuhi oleh Pemohon (paragraph 22 of the 1st Respondent's
Affidavit); and

2. the circulation of the Al-Kitab vide P.U.(A) 134 dated 13.5.1982
was made subject to the condition that its possession or use is only
in churches by persons professing the Christian religion, throughout
Malaysia.

"I find the 2 additional grounds submitted by the Applicant in
paragraph 17.1 above to be of substance. It is to be noted that a
common thread runs through like a tapestry in the Respondents'
treatment of restricting the use of the word "Allah" which appears in
the Al-Kitab are (i) that it is not meant for Muslims; (ii) to be in
the possession or use of Christians and in churches only. In fact,
these restrictions are similar to that imposed as a second condition
in the impugned decision save for the endorsement of the word "Terhad"
on the front cover of the said publication. Relying on the chapter on
maxims of interpretation at paragraph 44 p.156 of N.S Bindra's
Interpretation of the Statute, there is a maxim "Omne majus continet
in se minus" which means "The greater contains the less". One would
have thought having permitted albeit with the usual restrictions the
Catholic Church to use the word "Allah" for worship and in the Al-
kitab, it would be logical and reasonable for the Respondents to allow
the use of the word "Allah" in the said publication drawing an analogy
by invoking the maxim "The greater contains the less". Indeed I am
incline to agree with the Applicant that the Respondents are acting
illogically, irrationally and inconsistently and no person similarly
circumstanced would have acted in a like manner...

"I find there is merit in the Applicant's contention that when viewed
on its merits, the reasons given by the Home Ministry in the various
directives defies all logic and is so unreasonable," Justice Lau wrote
in her judgment.

On the seeming conflict between the Federal Constitution and the state
enactments to control and restrict the propagation of religious
doctrine among Muslims

She also wrote that, "Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal
Constitution, ten States have enacted laws to control and restrict the
propagation of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. The laws
are –

(i) Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic
Religions Enactment 1980 (State of Terengganu Enactment No.1/1980)

2. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1981 (Kelantan Enactment No.11/1981)

3. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1988 (Malacca Enactment No.1/1988)

4. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1988 (Kedah Darulaman Enactment No.11/1988)

5. The Non Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims)
Enactment 1988 (Selangor Enactment No.1/1988)

6. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1988 (Perak Enactment No.10/1988)

7. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1989 (Pahang Enactment No.5/1989)

8. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions
Enactment 1991 (Johor Enactment No.12/1991)

9. The Control and Restriction (The Propagation of Non Islamic
Religions Amoing Muslims) (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Negeri
Sembilan Enactment NO.9/1991); and

10. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Religious Belief and
Doctrine which is Contrary to the Religion of Islam Enactment 2002
(Perlis Enactment No.6 of 2002)

"It is not disputed that s. 9 of the various State Enactments provide
for an offence relating to the use of certain words and expression
listed in Part 1 or 11 of the Schedule or in the Schedule itself as
the case maybe of the State Constitutions and which includes the word
"Allah". Further, all these State Enactments are made pursuant to
Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution which reads "State law and
in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and
Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any
religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of
Islam." (Emphasis added)...

"Mr Royan drew to the Court's attention (i) that Article 11(4) which
is the restriction does not state that State law can forbid or
prohibit but "may control and restrict"; does not provide for State
law or for any other law to control or restrict the propagation of any
religious doctrine or belief among persons professing a religion other
than Islam...

"I find there is merit in Mr Royan's submission that unless we want to
say that s.9 is invalid or unconstitutional to that extent (which I
will revert to later), the correct way of approaching s.9 is it ought
to be read with Article 11(4). If s.9 is so read in conjunction with
Article 11(4), the result would be that a non-Muslim could be
committing an offence if he uses the word "Allah" to a Muslim but
there would be no offence if it was used to a non-Muslim. Indeed
Article 11(1) reinforces this position as it states "Every person has
the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause
(4), to propagate it". Clause 4 restricts a person's right only to
propagate his religious doctrine or belief to persons professing the
religion of Islam. It is significant to note that Article 11(1) gives
freedom for a person to profess and practise his religion and the
restriction is on the right to propagate.

"I find Mr Royan's argument is further augmented by the submission of
Mr Benjamin Dawson, learned Counsel for the Applicant which I find to
be forceful stating that this rule of construction is permissible in
the light of the mischief the State Enactments seek to cure and the
provision has to be interpreted to conform to the Constitution. … For
completeness I shall now spell out the preamble in full "WHEREAS
Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that State law may
control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or
belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. AND WHEREAS it
is not desired to make a law to control and restrict the propagation
of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons
professing the religion of Islam." (Emphasis added) …

"Applying the said test to the factual matrix of the present case the
Court has to bear in mind the constitutional and fundamental rights of
persons professing the Christian faith to practise their religion and
to impart their faith/religion to persons within their religious group
and in this case, the Catholic Church comprises a large section of
people from Sabah and Sarawak whose medium of instruction is Bahasa
Malaysia and they have for years used religious material in which
their God is called "Allah"; for that matter there is a large
community who are Bahasa Malaysia speaking from Penang and Malacca. On
the other hand the object of Article 11(4) and the State Enactments is
to protect or restrict propagation to persons of the Islamic faith.
Seen in this context by no stretch of the imagination can one say that
s.9 of the State Enactments may well be proportionate to the object it
seeks to achieve and the measure is therefore arbitrary and
unconstitutional.

"As to the concern of the Respondents there is no guarantee that the
magazine would be circulated only among Christians and it will not
fall into the hands of Muslims, I agree with Mr Royan there is no
requirement of any guarantee be given by anyone in order to profess
and practise an even to propagate it.

"In my view if there are breaches of any law the relevant authorities
may take the rleevant enforcement measures. We are living in a world
of information technology; information can be readily accessible. Are
guaranteed rights to be sacrificed at the altar just because the
Herald has gone online and is accessible to all? One must not forget
there is the restriction in the publication permit wich serves as an
additional safeguard which is the word "TERHAD" is to be endorsed on
the front page and the said publication is restricted to churches and
to followers of Christianity only," she added.

On the claim that the Home Minister's ban was to safeguard public
security and order

"There is merit in the Applicant's argument that the Respondents in
paragraph 45 of his Affidavit (also in paragraphs 6, 25 and 46) sought
to justify imposing the condition in purported exercise of his powers
under the said Act on a mere statement that the use of the word
"Allah" is a security issue which is causing much confusion and which
threatens and endangers public order, without any supporting evidence.
A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was
necessary on the ground of national security without adequate
supporting evidence is not sufficient in law....

"I find there is merit in Mr Dawson's argument that the Court ought to
take judicial notice that in Muslim countries even in the Middle East
where the Muslim and Christian communities together use the word
"Allah", yet one hardly hear of any confusion arising (see paragraph 52
(xix) of the Applicant's Affidavit which is not rebutted). Further, I
am incline to agree that the Court has to consider the question of
"avoidance of confusion" as a ground very cautiously so as to obviate
a situation where a mere confusion of certain persons within a
religious group can strip the constitutional right of another
religious groiup to practise and propagate their religion under
Article 11(1) and to render such guaranteed right as illusory,"
Justice Lau said.

On claims from the Muslim groups that "Allah" cannot be challenged in
court

On this, she wrote, "I had on 31.12.2009 dismissed the applications of
the Majlis Agama Islam (MAI) of Wilayah Persekutuan, Johore, Selangor,
Kedah, Malacca, the MAI and Adat Melayu Terenggganu and MACMA to be
heard in opposition under O.53 r.8 of the RHC (It is to be noted that
the MAI and Adat Melayu Perak and MAI Pulau Pinang did not file any
applicatio under O.53 r.8). That being the case, their submission
contending the issue of whether any publication in whatever form by a
non-Muslim individual or body or entity that uses the scared word of
"Allah" can be permitted in law is one that is within the absolute
discretion of the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) (in
respect of Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal
Territories) as the respective Heads of Islam and is therefore non-
justiciable is irrelevant at the substantive hearing of the judicial
review application and need not be considered by this Court.

"I adopt the following responses of the Applicant contending the
application is justiciable and I am of the view there is substance –

1. the Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions clearly
provide that the Rulers and the YDPA as the Head of Islam in the
States and the Federal Territories have exclusive authority only on
Islamic affairs and Malay customs;

2. subject to Articles 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution, the
control and regulation of all publications and matters connected
therewith are governed by federal law namely the Act and only the
Minister for Home Affairs is involved in the implementation and
enforcement of its provisions. Under this Act, only the Minister can
decide what is permitted to be published and in this regard the Rulers
and the YDPA have no role whatsoever under the scheme of this Act;

3. the present judicial reiew is not a judicial review of the decision
of the Rulers or the YDPA as Head of Islam concerning the exercise of
their duties and functions. It is only a judicial review of the 1st
Respondent's decision to impose a prohibition on the use of the word
"Allah" by the Applicant in a publication. Since the Rulers or the
YDPA cannot make any decision in respect of any publications and
matters connected therewith, the issue of non justiciability does not
arise.

On what the Court really ordered

She also listed out the orders from the court in the landmark case, "
In conclusion in the circumstances the Court grants the Applicant the
following order:

1. an Order of Certiorari to quash the decisio of the Respondents
dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant's Publication Permit for the period
1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the
Applicant is prohibited from using the word "Allah" in "Herald – the
Catholic Weekly" pending the Court's determination of the matter;

2. Jointly the following declarations:

(i) that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the
Applicant's Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until
31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is
prohibited from using the word "Allah" in "Herald – the Catholic
Weekly" pending the Court's determination of the matter is null and
void;

(ii) that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution the
Applicant has the constitional right to use the word "Allah" in
"Herald — the Catholic Weekly" in the exercise of the Applica' right
that religions other than Islam may be practised in peace and harmony
in any part of the Federation;

(iii) that Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that
Islam is the religion of the Federation does not empower and/or
authorize the Respondents to prohibit the Applicant from using the
word "Allah" in "Herald — the Catholic Weekly";

(iv) that pursuant to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution the
Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in
"Herald – the Catholic Weekly" in the exercise of the applicant's
right to freedom of speech and expression;

(v) that pursuant to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution the
Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in
"Herald — the Catholic Weekly" in the exercise of the Applicant's
freedom of religion which includes the right manage its own religious
affairs;

(vi) that pursuant to Article 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution
the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word "Allah" in
"Herald — the Catholic Weekly" in the exercise of the Applicant's
right in respect of instruction and education of the Catholic
congregation in the Christian religion.

(By DEBRA CHONG,TheMalaysianInsider)

MySinchew20101.01.17

More

Opinion
News
MyKampung
Allah Case: Govt wrong on all counts
Gagging corruption talk
2010 curtain raiser
Healing the hurt over Allah
If Jason is still alive...
An approaching nightmare
Whips and poison tongues
Encik Abu Kassim, you're not up to the mark yet!
A Malaysian, again?
The way out
The hassle of filling up the gas tank
Allah for Malays only?
More Opinions

PAS is blasphemous for downgrading Allah into God

If you read the English version of the Bible, in the old testament, it
refers to God as God, not father, lord or son-of-god, Jesus.

When they translate it into Malay, they change the word God into
Allah, instead of Tuhan, to the point that now they insist that when
Muslims pray, it is to be translated into: no god but god, or in
Malay, tiada Allah kecuali Allah, or vice versa, tiada tuhan kecuali
tuhan.

This is blasphemous of the highest kind. PAS is guilty of it for even
supporting such a notion.

There must be valid reasons why Muslims are told to pray in Arabic "la
ILA ha ILLALLAH", or "tiada TUHAN kecuali ALLAH",
i.e. distinguishing the word God from Allah.

I got this idea from a christian poster who insist that the correct
translation of the most important phrase in Islam is " no god but
god".
Now I am beginning to recall many of such cases. Now they will follow
it into Malay by translating god into Allah instead of tuhan.
so they will translate muslim prayer into "tiada allah selain allah".

It may sound similar but it is against the "akidah" of the Muslims. It
means that Allah is not even a god, unless you equate allah as tuhan,
the correct word for god, it will become "tiada tuhan selain tuhan",
and Allah will become another entity apart from tuhan, breaking the
concept of monotheism that is vital in Islam.

For Arabs it is not much of a problem because they all should know
that Allah is a NAME. The translation of Allah into ILA(God) just does
not appear, unless some English idiots want to insist on the Arabs to
change their history and culture to adopt Allah as ILA.

Even Christians wanting to use Allah as the name of their god, does
not appear much of a problem because Allah is also the name of the
pagan God, provided that it is still a name, not a translation of God,
where Arabs will use ILA.

For Malays and people in contact with Malays, it is a very big
problem. Natives in this region always refer to Allah as the NAME of
the Muslim god. All natives also have their own names for their gods,
but all use Tuhan as a translation for God when speaking Malay.

Only Malays speak Malay. Natives in Sabah are mostly non-Malay and
learn Malay as a second language but widely used to communicate among
other natives. The authority of the Malay language should be the Malay
and this is widely accepted, and Malays always translate God into
tuhan, but Allah as the name for the Muslim god, and no other religion
can use that name, in Malay.

Re: Christian Arabs never use Allah only All?h al-?Ab ( ???? ????, "God the Father")

On Jan 13, 1:33 pm, teacup <m.nara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> بِسْمِ اللّهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيمِ
>
> salaam,
> I want to respond to your answer:
>
> I see. If so, how about arabic speaking jews and christians?
> the message in QS 10:68 it is: "dont say that Allah has a son."
>
> if u are right, i.e., if the arabic speaking jews and christian never
> use the word "Allah" as God, then, IMHO, that ayat QS 10:68 would be

Arabic Jews and Christians will never use Allah as a translation of
God.
Allah is just a name of one of the many Arabic gods.

> pointless, because it means they (Jews n christian) have never say
> that "Allah" has a son, but "god" or "YWHH" has a son, right?

How can Christians use the name Allah for God when this is used by
Muslims and Pagans?
When Muslim and Pagan arabs use ILA as a translation for GOD, why on
earth should Christians use the name of a
GOD, Allah, as a translation for GOD. It is just ridiculous and
grammatically incorrect.

Othman is a name, but I am human. You don't start calling humans with
"Othman".
This is ridiculous in logic and grammar.

>
> let me give you a copy:
> قَالُواْ اتَّخَذَ اللّهُ وَلَدًا سُبْحَانَهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ لَهُ مَا
> فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ إِنْ عِندَكُم مِّن سُلْطَانٍ
> بِهَذَا أَتقُولُونَ عَلَى اللّهِ مَا لاَ تَعْلَمُونَ
> QS 10:68 They (Jews, Christians and pagans) say: "Allâh has begotten a
> son (children)." Glory is to Him! He is Rich (Free of all needs). His
> is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. No warrant
> you have for this. Do you say against Allâh what you know not.
>
> if you say that Allah is only muslim's god, then which muslim says,
> "Allâh has begotten a son (children)"
> and when does the arabic speaking christian and jews saya: "the
> muslim's God has begotten a son" ?
>
> No, (as far as I know) it was the Christians (some of them) who says
> "Allâh has begotten a son" i.e. Jesus (Isa)

The translation is utter incorrect. Jews will never say God has a son.

Since Christiany is older than Islam, why should Christians use the
word Allah that is
also used by Pagan Arabs? It does not make sense.
The only logical explanation is that the Christians are mocking
Muslims by saying that
the Muslim God, i.e. Allah, should have a son.

If Christians will never lower themselves to the level of the Pagan
Arabs. But based on the English translation of the
bible, the correct terms are father and holy spirit, which is what is
being used by Arabic christians, but by attaching the word "Allah",
the name of a chief god in Arabic, but tied with adjectives to
indicate the right god mentioned, i.e. Allah-the father, Allah-the
holy spirit.

Even this attachment of Allah should be a recent development. If the
English and other bible translations, see no need to attach other
names to "father" and "holy spirit", why should Arabic speaking
christian priests, sense the need to add names of Gods to "father" and
"holy spirit".

The only explanation for Christian Arabs and now Malay arabs to attach
the word Allah, and even pretend that it is a translation for God,
which even Muslims don't use, i.e. Allah is just a name of God, not a
translation of God itself.

It may be strange to Christians that since, Allah is the only God to
Muslims, that they should separate the two words together, but this is
done by Muslims. In fact stated over and over again more than 5 times
a day. "No God but Allah".

Now, the Christians pretend that the translation for God is Allah, for
them! Which is against Arabic grammar and tradition itself.

The only logical explanation is that Christians want to make people
believe that their god is exactly the same as the Muslim God, that has
become the majority in their surroundings. In this way they can
propagate their religion to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

It is not surprising indeed because the technique used by Christians
is that they emphasize LOVE and understanding among humans beings.
They claim that Islam and other religions lack these characteristics
and emphasize that Islam is violent etc. Christianity emphsizes FAITH
over LOGIC.

So it is not surprising that they will distract Muslims and non-
Muslims, into believing that Allah is also the God of Christians, so
changing from Islam to Christianity does not affect the believe in
God, and yet get the advantage of LOVE and other calming effects.
Similarly for non-Muslims.

This is becoming more true as Muslims don't even understand Islam, let
alone true Christianity. They view religion as a convenience.

> and the Jews (some of them) are the ones who says, "Allâh has begotten
> a son" i.e. Ezra (Uzair)" and "God has sons who liked the daughters of
> men (Genesis, Old Testament"

This is a translation of the old testament, not the Jewish belief.
>
> clearly, they are referring the word "Allah" for God.
> perhaps you might say: "that ayat doesn't clearly states it was the
> Jews, Christians, and Pagans."
>
> still, you want to say that arabicspeaking Christians and Jews don't
> use the word "Allah" for "God"?
> or that "Allah" is not a arabic word for "the God"
> now let's see this next ayat:
> وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللّهِ وَقَالَتْ النَّصَارَى
> الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللّهِ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِؤُونَ
> قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللّهُ أَنَّى
> يُؤْفَكُونَ
> QS 9:30 And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the
> Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is their saying with
> their mouths, resembling the saying of the those who disbelieved
> aforetime. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from
> the truth!
>
> the arabic and the translations clearly says:
> "the Jews say that Uzair is the son of Allâh"
> "the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh"
> "That is their saying with their mouths"
>
> clearly that is their SAYing with their MOUTHs
>
> there is no god but the God
> laa ilaha illallah
laa ilaha ill allah
ILA and ALLAH are very different words. How can they mean the same???

The phrase was written in the Quran. This is a Muslim view of the the
god, Allah.
The JEWS and Christians SAID to Muslims, not saying to themselves.
This is very different perspective entirely.

That is what the Christians say to Muslims but Islam didn't come
earlier than Christianity, and Allah is refered by Arab
pagans as one of their Gods. So it is natural that in their books,
they don't translate God into Allah, and the names of their gods are
not Allah.

Just as in those days, now, when they are in the minority, they claim
that the Muslim god is also their God, in order to confuse Muslims,
they even misinterpret the word God into Allah.

But Christians don't translate God into Allah(name) or other names of
god, it when they are the majority, such as in Europe. Which is
blatantly hypocritical indeed. They translate God into God, father
(name) to father, holy spirit(name) to holy spirit.
that is what the Arab christians do, but mischievously attaching the
word Allah in order not to be too obvious.
But not the case for the Malay translation of the bible.

god is translated into Allah instead of the correct translation in
Malay of TUHAN or DEWA or DEWATA

father is translated into Allah also. Not sure about this, but if this
is done, it is preposterous indeed.

How can Christains be allowed to translate GOD into Allah, when even
Muslim Malays don't?

When we refer to the gods of other religion, we use the term Tuhan,
not Allah.
God of Buddihsts. Tuhan orang Buddha. Certainly not Allah orang
Buddha.
God of Hindus. Tuhan orang Hindu. Certainl not Allah orang Hindu.
God of Christians. Tuhan orang Keristian. Certainly not Allah orang
Keristain.

Even Malays, when they become converted to Islam will say in Malay
also:

"tiada TUHAN melainkan ALLAH."
We also use it to remind ourselves in Malay despite the more than 5
times of saying it Arabic,
La ILA ha ill ALLAH.

This is nonsense of the highest kind.

What makes it worse is that these Christians are not Malay-native
speakers. They have their own languages.
To pretent that they have a right over a language that they only
adopt, is just nonsense.

It is just like Malaysian demanding in England, the right to change
the word GOD to ALLAH!!!
With the English allow it? Of course not, despite all the freedom of
speeches that you can forward.

>
> it is Allah/the God who created all men of all religion, so why must
> there be "our god", "your god" ? how many creator are there, huh?

If it is true that the accept the Allah as in Islam, that is correct.
This is not correct. They translate their God to mean Allah, confusing
people with the Muslim god.

God is God, but the name of God cannot be translated into God.
Just damn dishonest and incorrect in grammar and logic.
Do you want to read phrases that is full of grammatical errors?
Of course you don't because it is confusing.
So the whole idea of mistranslating into bad grammar is to confuse
people.

>
> just doing my part of QS 103:3: إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا
> الصَّالِحَاتِ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْحَقِّ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ
>
> wassalamualaikum wrwb.
>
> On Jan 11, 11:53 pm, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad"
>
>
>
> <othm...@lycos.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 6:39 pm, teacup <m.nara...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 9, 5:35 pm, "Ir. Hj. Othman bin Hj. Ahmad" <othm...@lycos.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Wikipedia is not completely reliable. There is a word for god in
> > > > Arabaic and that is not Allah.
> > > > Allah is just one of the many gods. The correct word for god is Ila.
>
> > > Assalamualaikum WRWB.
>
> > > I want to ask something. According to QS 10:68, what does the pre-
> > > Islamic Jews and Nashara called their god? ila? or Allah?
>
> > Jews have their own language and don't use Allah,http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:H151qqPWyCAJ:simple.wikipedia.or...
>
> > In Judaism, God (written "G-d" for religious reasons by many people)
> > is known by many names. The most important of these names is the
> > Tetragrammaton, or "Four-lettered word": YHVH, YHWH, or י - ה וה. Jews
> > are not allowed to say this name, and instead say Adonai. Even Adonai
> > is only used by some Jews in prayer. Most Jews would refer to God as
> > Hashem, or "The Name". Jews are not allowed to erase the
> > Tetragrammaton, so they rarely write it down outside of their most
> > holy books, such as the Torah.
> > Other names include Elohim, El, Shaddai, Tzeva-ot, 'Elyon, and Ehyeh-
> > Asher-Ehyeh which are respectively pronounced by observant Jews as
> > Elokim, Kayl, Shakkai, Tzeva-Kot.
> > Certain names, such as Shalom, are pronounced as written, but when
> > written one letter, in this case the last letter, is omitted. The last
> > of the above "other" list is often said as Ek-yeh Asher Ek-yeh.
>
> > > And what does it meant? "don't use the word 'Allah' " OR "don't say
> > > that Allah has a son"?
>
> > > Please enlighten me.
>
> > Muslim God has no son. And Muslims call their God, Allah. If you say
> > "Allah has a son", you are insulting the Muslims, because Muslims
> > believe that God has no son.
>
> > > Salaam.

CDC Swine Flu statistics suggests vaccination

The key figure is that case-hospitalisation which is
18-to-64s: case-hospitalization rate is 0.45 percent and the case-
fatality rate is 0.028 percent — above 64: case-hospitalization rate
of 0.52 percent, and a case-fatality rate of 0.032 percent — the
highest of any age group.

I assume that this hospitalisation is only necessary once Tamilflu had
been administered and failed to respond. After all, this is USA but
based on old statistics, only 70% doctors prescribe Tamilflu early,
which could explain the high case-hospitalisation in USA.

Despite Tamilflu, 4 out of 1,000 will be hospitalised.

Once you are hospitalised, treated with respirators or lung machines,
there is still 0.028 percent, i.e. 3 every 10,000 who got H1N1
symptoms, died.

With vaccination, this can drop to less than 1 in 100,000. Risk of
dying due to vaccination, still exists, but so far it had been no
death despite more than 10,000 vaccinations. A very low risk factor
indeed compared to Swine Flu infection.

Stolen: Get your flu shot
Seniors do need to beware of H1N1 flu
by Joanne Stolen
Share on Facebook Email Print Comment Recommend

ENLARGE
In some parts of the U.S., the H1N1 (swine) flu seems to be ebbing,
but around the world people are still coming down with the swine flu
and some are dying. As of January, an estimate of more than 11,500
people worldwide have died from the disease since the outbreak began
in April. This so far is still less lethal than the seasonal flu,
which kills between 250,000 and 500,000 people each year. What are the
current demographics?

Senior citizens have been mistakenly told they are less at risk, but
the facts emerging are that the risk of death for a senior who
contracts H1N1 is more than four times that of a child who gets it.
While people 65 and older are less likely to be infected with 2009
H1N1 flu, those who do become infected are at greater risk of having
serious complications from their illness. Children newborn to 17 are
at higher risk from catching H1N1 than they are from seasonal flu, and
they tend to spread it to more people than seniors do. CDC's decision
to prioritize children — especially during the fall, when vaccine was
in short supply — made sense from this perspective. However, the
federal government's explanation that seniors can rest easy is
misleading.

We have been told that children face a much greater risk from this
disease, and they are dying from it in numbers never seen with
regular, seasonal flu — and maybe seniors even have some special
immunity to H1N1. The problem is that the numbers don't add up, and
H1N1 is more than twice as deadly to seniors as to children. As a
result of this message, many older adults underestimate their own risk
and the importance of getting vaccinated. According to recent
statistics from the Centers of Disease Control (CDC), analyzed by
Peter Sandman, a scholar of risk communication, an estimated 21.3
percent of children newborn to 17 (of whom there are 75 million) have
contracted H1N1. Of those 16 million cases, there have been 71,000
hospitalizations and 1,090 deaths. That works out to a case-
hospitalization rate (the chance of being hospitalized if you contract
H1N1) of 0.44 percent, and a case-fatality rate (the risk of dying of
the flu if you get it) of 0.007 percent. Compare those numbers with
those for America's 194 million 18-to-64s. Of them, 27 million have
contracted H1N1, 121,000 have been hospitalized, and 7,450 have died.
A little math shows that 13.9 percent of this age group has contracted
the illness, but that the case-hospitalization rate is 0.45 percent
and the case-fatality rate is 0.028 percent — quadruple that of
children. Finally, among the nation's 39 million seniors, there have
been 4 million cases, 21,000 hospitalizations, and 1,280 deaths. That
yields a 10.3 percent risk of contracting H1N1, a case-hospitalization
rate of 0.52 percent, and a case-fatality rate of 0.032 percent — the
highest of any age group.

Why do elderly people die of H1N1? Seventy-five percent of the
fatalities examined had underlying medical problems, including heart
disease and cancer. The remaining 25 percent had no obvious
complicating factors. Most of the patients who died had breathing
difficulties. All of the patients who underwent the autopsies showed
evidence of acute lung injury and also had some sort of bacterial
infection as well. By contrast, the patients with heart disease,
cancer and other underlying causes had lung bleeding. Studies show an
overly vigorous inflammatory response triggered by the viral infection
may cause damage to lung tissue.

Right now there seems to be an abundance of vaccine available. Some
states are overstocked and have not enough cold storage facilities and
are actually returning their oversupply. Get your flu shot. Have I
gotten mine? Not yet. I'm trying to get over a slight cold first, but
I will. I picked up a form to fill out at City Market.

Breckenridge resident Dr. Joanne Stolen is a former professor of
microbiology from Rutgers now teaching classes at CMC. Her scientific
interests are in emerging infectious diseases and environmental
pollution.

There is no Lundayeh bible

The pastor lied again or try to mislead people.
It was a bible written in Indonesian Malay. God was mistranslated
into Malay word Allah instead of the correct one, Tuhan.
Ludayuh don't speak Malay natively. They have their own language and
their own words for God, which certainly don't include Allah, which is
Arabic based.

Since the Lundayuh bible is in Malay, they should respect the normal
rules of translation into Malay. Christian God cannot be translated
into the name Allah, because
it is the name of the Muslim God, in Malay. Lundayuh must respect the
language of the Malays since Lundayuh are not native Malay speaker.

Church officials reject minister's call to drop 'Allah' usage
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 11 — Church representatives here today rejected a
minister's call to drop the claim to use the word "Allah" in the
Christian sense.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom
earlier today urged church leaders to adopt the same approach as a lay
Sabah leader who reportedly said the word "Allah" should be reserved
for Muslim use in Malaysia because they have been using it longest.

"Will we or the church, if we don't use the word Allah, suddenly lose
or increase followers in the Christian faith 10-fold?" Utusan Malaysia
reported Datuk Clarence Bongkos Malakun, president of the Sabah
Justice of the Peace Council, saying in a statement from Kota Kinabalu
last night.

"It is time for us, the Christian community, particularly the Catholic
make an evaluation based on the present situation for security and
public peace and drop the word Allah to calm our Muslim brothers.

"Rather than insisting on the right to use the word Allah it is better
if Catholics only use the word 'Tuhan' or 'Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa',"
said Bongkos Malukun.

He added that Christians in Malaysia should stick to the Federal
Constitution and not follow those in Indonesia on the use of "Allah".

Pastor Danil Raut, the president of the Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB)
church in the peninsula, was highly critical of Bongkos Malukun's
statement and claimed it was not representative of the Christian
community.

"He's got the right to say his opinion but I definitely cannot agree
with him," Raut told The Malaysian Insider.

"So many people have been using the word before Merdeka. In the
language of our people, the Lunbawang and Lundayeh, 'Allah' means
God," he added.

"This is stated in the Lundayeh Bible, not the Malay Bible," he
stressed.

Pastor Richard Samporoh agreed.

"I think his statement is very political," Samporoh said. He noted
that Bongkos Malukun used to be a state assemblyman and is a Christian
but not a church minister and does not have the authority to speak for
all Christians.

"Many people, including the politicians, have misunderstood the whole
issue," said Samporoh, who heads the SIB church in Shah Alam.

"We're not demanding to use the word. We have been using it for almost
300 years. The case was only filed because of the ban from the Home
Ministry," he added.

Samporoh said he has been a pastor for over 30 years and the
controversy only erupted recently, after the federal government banned
the Catholic church from publishing the word "Allah" to refer to the
Christian God in the Bahasa Malaysia section of its weekly paper.

Samporoh further claimed that there was an agreement between the
federal government and the church in the 1980s that Christians be
allowed to use the word in their worship.

"We can use the word 'Allah' in our Bible, but it cannot be sold in
public bookstores," he told The Malaysian Insider.

"I'm not very sure if there was a written agreement but it was during
Musa Hitam's time," Samporoh replied when asked.

The Sabah-born pastor is also the adviser to the SIB church in the
peninsula and strongly supports inter-faith dialogues.

"Understanding each other is the best way to resolve problems. I don't
think the Muslims understand what is going on," he said.

Father Lawrence Andrew who edits the Catholic paper, Herald, was
reluctant to comment on the issue.

"My official position is this: the case is in the courts. Let the
court decide. I cannot comment on it," he reponded when contacted.

But The Malaysian Insider understands that in the Roman Catholic
church, only officials holding the rank of the bishop onwards have the
authority to make decisions.

The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam, who is
the publisher of Herald, could not be reached for comment.

He is currently away in Johor for meeting of bishops with the
Vatican's representative who is based in Singapore.

Pakiam is also the president of the Malaysian Bishops Conference

Allah on idots is an insult? And yet Allah in Bibles and Churches are not?

What is happening to Khalid the PKR CM of Selangor.

Although it is not good to force people to use religious terms in
anthems, we have to be practical.
I sang "God save Christian Soldiers" because it was my school's
anthem.

Of course we must be careful with what we believe in.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/7/nation/5427607&sec=nation

The word Allah present in Selangor anthem, says Khalid
By WANI MUTHIAH

SHAH ALAM: The word "Allah" is present in the Selangor anthem titled
Duli Yang Maha Mulia and the rakyat of all races sing it, said Mentri
Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim.

The word was an accepted general term for God in this context, he
added.

Khalid explained that if "Allah" was used to describe God as a form of
common understanding, there was nothing wrong in it.

However, he warned that the word must not be misused and action must
be taken when it happens.

"For example, if the word Allah is written on an idol, then we must
take action but this has never happened," Khalid told a press
conference after chairing the weekly executive council meeting here
yesterday.

The mentri besar added that the police must be strict in not allowing
street demonstrations in the state over this matter.

"The Selangor CPO (Deputy Comm Datuk Khalid Abu Bakar) is against
protests on the streets.

"He and I accept the fact that if anyone wants to protest, they can do
it inside a stadium," said Khalid.

He was responding to a question about possible demonstrations taking
place in the state over a court decision allowing the usage of the
term "Allah" by the Catholic weekly Herald.

Khalid said the state executive council had reached a consensus on the
matter and any wrong usage of the term would see the state taking
action.

PAS the hypocrite of Islam

I have long suspected PAS of being more interested in power than in
fighting for true Islamic causes.
In order to appease its so called allies, the non-Muslims, PAS now has
to spread the lies about Allah in Malay.

How can PAS agree that Allah is the ONLY word for GOD in Malay? Even
by being silent it also means that PAS has agreed with this absurd
statement.
Allah is not the translation of God in Malay or Arabic. Allah is the
name of a God. The correct translation of God in Malay is Tuhan, Dewa,
Dewata.

Even Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dare not agree with this
statement.Sufficient only to state that Justice can wait.

Unfortunately Justice cannot wait in this case. Too much damage had
been done.

Misleading people, even in private is also wrong in Law. Allowing
Christians to think that their God is exactly the same as the Islamic
God is blatantly misleading.

"From numerous other verses, it is abundantly clear, argued the ulama
of exegesis (tafseer) that the name of Allah is not an exclusive right
of the Muslims. Al-Qurtubi, an expert in exegesis of the Quran,
concluded that in verse 40 above, Allah is not only commemorated in
mosques but as well in the others places of worship of the Abrahamic
faiths namely Christianity and Judaism."

It is not a question of the right to use the word Allah but to confuse
people with the word Allah. In the middle east, Allah may be used by
pagans alike but in Malaysia, the Malays and natives who are in
contact with the Muslim Malays have always known that Allah as the
name of the Muslim God. The Malays also know that there are many of
them who are not Muslims and they were not Muslims before. Malays were
Hindus before Islam

As for "Allah" to be commemorated in Synagogues, this is not true
because Jews use other names for their God, but what is clear is that
Monotheistic God were commemorated but not necessarily using the word
"Allah".
Al-Qurtubi is therefore is completely wrong in his interpretatioin of
the quran.

"Theologically (from the perspective of Faith or Aqidah), even though
the idol-worshippers of Mecca accepted Allah as Rabb (God), it is only
in the domain of Allah as al-Rububiyah or Allah as the Creator and
Sustainer. In the complete Islamic faith, Allah is not only the
Sustainer and Creator (Tauhid Rububiyah) but as well the Law-Giver and
Sovereign (Tauhid Uluhiyah), besides a myriad other attributes only
worthy of the Most High. They nonetheless recognise and believe in
Allah only as a Sustainer."

True for Arabs but certainly not true for Malays and natives who are
Malay speaking in Malaysia and Indonesia. Malays have pre-Islamic and
Hindu Gods names as well as vocabulary for God which is Tuhan, Dewa,
Dewata, Allah in Malay is just a name for the Muslim God. Malays are
not aware of any pagan Arabs because they have never been in contact
with Pagan Arabs, not even Christian Arabs.

"In this regard, PAS has again stressed the usage of "Allah" must not
be misused or abused or it will affect racial and religious harmony in
the country."
So how can PAS agree with the statement that Allah is the ONLY
translation of God in Malay, when it is not. The translation for God
in Malay is Tuhan, Dewa or Dewata.
In fact Allah, just as in Arabic, is just the name of a God. IN Malay,
Allah is the God of the Muslims, and that is all that the Malays know,
either Muslim Malay or non-Muslim Malay.

To misinterpret the word Allah is a form of misuse and abuse for the
sanctity of the Malay language, let alone the faith of the Malay
Muslims and native Malay-speaking non-Muslims.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/opinion/dzulkefly-ahmad/48967-can-pas-remain-steadfast

Can PAS remain steadfast?
JAN 8 – There is no denying the fact that the controversial Allah
issue has the propensity to causing turbulence, even if some may deem
it a non-issue. Hence to say that the now infamous High Court's ruling
on usage of "Allah" is a potential time bomb threatening the country's
social fabric, is indeed an understatement!

When this writer came into the meeting room for the PAS Central
Political Bureau in the PAS headquarters in Jalan Raja Laut on Monday
night, January 4, that thought haunted him.

Worse still there are many others most willing to jump into the 'siege-
mentality' bandwagon. Expectedly the ruling had triggered a deluge of
Malay-Muslim into angry protestors, mostly perceived as Umno-backed
groups. They have threatened to hold mass demonstrations although a
stay of execution filed by the Home Ministry has been granted. The 1-
Malaysia-PM most irresponsibly and regrettably has consented to that
and his Home Minister most willing to be his best lap-dog.

Understandably, this writer's anxiety in attending the PAS' Central
Political Bureau was beyond description. He was surer of what he
didn't want, as what he wanted has been made known earlier and has
somewhat already ruffled feathers in the party.

The calamity that may befall PAS flew in the face. He feared that PAS
might joined hands with the rest of the disgruntled to oppose the High
Court decision and insisting that Allah is exclusively the God of the
Muslims, hence outlawing others its usage.

He feared that PAS will be trapped in the machination of Umno and that
would be the end of "PAS for All". While it is admittedly true that
PAS is in acute need of the Malay-Muslims votes all the more now than
before, PAS must not succumb to the temptation of appeasing Malay-
Muslims constituency merely for votes, much worse, hands in gloves
with its political nemesis, Umno. The signs of late, are not to be
taken frivolously.

Regardless, he wanted the decision of 'permissibility of the usage of
the name of Allah' be firstly based on principles and later to be
contextualized to the political and social realities of the Malaysian
demography ie the plural and mixed make-up of our society.

The writer fully understood that the debate is as acrimonious and as
precarious as PAS' available options. But by God's grace and guidance,
Alhamdulillah, PAS' stance on the issue is now clear and unequivocal.
He surely couldn't narrate of what really happened in the 3 hours
discussion behind closed doors. His only fear now is, 'Can PAS remain
Steadfast' on that stance, come what may?

He now outlines the gist of the consensus. Firstly, to clarify the
position of permissibility based on the provision of the Quran and its
exegesis and secondly, to contextualise its application given the
plural and complex multi-cultural make-up of our society. It
essentially addresses an issue or policy of a government from the
perspective of maintaining Maslahah Ammah or Public Interest and
avoidance of Mafsadah or Disorders and Inconveniences.

The Quran has, in no uncertain terms, documented that the community
during the advent of the final prophet, Muhammad (may peace be upon
him) had similarly used the word "Allah".

Allah says in the Holy Quran: "If you ask them, who it is that created
the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say, "Allah". Say:
"Praise be to Allah". But most of them understand not.

(Luqman, Chapter 31; Verse 25)

Theologically (from the perspective of Faith or Aqidah), even though
the idol-worshippers of Mecca accepted Allah as Rabb (God), it is only
in the domain of Allah as al-Rububiyah or Allah as the Creator and
Sustainer. In the complete Islamic faith, Allah is not only the
Sustainer and Creator (Tauhid Rububiyah) but as well the Law-Giver and
Sovereign (Tauhid Uluhiyah), besides a myriad other attributes only
worthy of the Most High. They nonetheless recognise and believe in
Allah only as a Sustainer.

More explicitly of the other Abrahamic religions, the mention of the
word Allah is seen in the verse in the Chapter of Hajj (Pilgrimage)
verse: 40. Allah says:

"Had not Allah Check and Balance the aggression and excesses of one
set or group of people by means of another, there would surely have
been destruction of monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in
which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundance…." (Hajj, Chapter
22, verse 40).

From numerous other verses, it is abundantly clear, argued the ulama
of exegesis (tafseer) that the name of Allah is not an exclusive right
of the Muslims. Al-Qurtubi, an expert in exegesis of the Quran,
concluded that in verse 40 above, Allah is not only commemorated in
mosques but as well in the others places of worship of the Abrahamic
faiths namely Christianity and Judaism.

It would be imperative to note of the jurisdiction of two of the most
outstanding contemporary scholars in the Muslim world, namely Sheikh
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Sheikh Dr. Wahbah Az- Zuhaili who recently
visited Malaysia, concerning this issue. Both were recipients of the
award "Tokoh Ma'al Hijrah", in 1431H and 1429H respectively.

Without any hesitation they concurred unequivocally that the usage of
the word Allah has never been the monopoly of the Islamic creed. It is
a terminology shared with the adherents of the Abrahamic faith. Islam
identifies itself with the People of the Book as the 'Abrahamic
family' within the Semitic Tradition (Hanifiyyah), the tradition of
Abraham who is recognised as the father of the three Semitic
religions.

The Quran is even more explicit in reminding that Muslims worship the
same Almighty Allah recognized by Christians. The Qur'an commands
Muslims to declare that the God they worship and the one worshiped by
the followers of revealed books, including Christians, is one: "… and
say: "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to
you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit".

(Al-Ankabut, Chapter 29: verse 46).

While it is true that they do not believe in the attributes of Allah
as totally prescribed in Islam, the above reminder is nonetheless made
by Allah that their God is One and the same. This is despite the fact
that Christianity and Judaism are totally different Abrahamic
religions in terms of articles of faith and convictions.

Hence, based on Islamic principles, Quranic text and exegesis, the use
of the word Allah by the people of the other Abrahamic faiths such as
Christianity and Judaism, is permissible. This is PAS's stance as
pronounced by the President.

The answer is in the definitive "Yes". It's truly a non-issue if only
we refer to the Quran, as also exemplified by revered Ulama.

Having clarified the principle position of permissibility, the tougher
question to address is the application of the principle ie in what and
under what circumstances is it permissible, given the complex and
plural multi-religio-racial make-up of our Malaysian society.

Incidentally, the discussion could be equally addressed from the
perspective of the Federal Constitution (FC). Firstly, the Article 3
(1) of the FC which assures Islam as the official religion of the
Federation and other religions can be practiced in peace and harmony
amply provides for the case of Catholic Church. Article 11 (1) equally
provides for fundamental right of all religion to profess and practice
religion of their choice.

In the propagation of the religion of the Catholic Christians, they
are limited by the provision of Article 11 (4), which prohibits the
propagation of Christianity to Muslims and Article 11 (5) which
stipulates that the public order must be maintained.

The Catholic Herald has reassured Malaysians that the Church was not
on any campaign to convert Muslims as emphasised by father Lawrence
Andrew.

"There are allegations we're trying to convert Muslims. "We're not
doing that", he told the Malaysian Insider.

In this regard, PAS has again stressed the usage of "Allah" must not
be misused or abused or it will affect racial and religious harmony in
the country.

"As a responsible Islamic body, PAS is ready to explain this issue to
all parties in order to ensure a harmonious environment that is based
on the principles of fairness, such as is guaranteed in the
Constitution and by Islam itself," PAS president Abdul Hadi Awang said
in a statement issued after the three-hour long discussion.

In this regard, the former Mufti of Perlis has also stressed the need
to have clear guidelines. He said that the word "Allah" could only be
used to refer to the one true God and not to be ascribed to stones and
idols.

The PAS president has also called on all parties not to politicise the
matter as this could threaten the peace among the different religious
groups in the country.

PAS strongly objects to any aggressive and provocative approach that
can lead to tension in society.

By advocating a solution of dialogue and discourse, PAS has presented
herself as an Islamist party that understands the need of a plural
politics in the new landscape of national politics. This is very
reassuring and consoling.

To cite Tengku Razaleigh, "In a milestone moment, PAS, the Islamic
party, is holding onto the more plural and moderate position while
Umno is digging itself into an intolerant hard-line position that has
no parallel that I know of in the Muslim world".

The writer now concurs with the Tengku that Umno will be spurred to
more desperate attempts at fanning both narrow religious and parochial
racial sentiments.

PAS must hold on to its Islamic principles to stand for "Justice for
All".

Rather than championing the exclusive usage of the name of Allah for
Malay-Muslims, PAS together with her Pakatan component parties must
wage an all out attack on Umno on the narrow racial approach of Malay
Hegemony, perversion of power, the spread of corruption, the plunder
of the nation's wealth and the repression of the people's rights,
which are all in total contradiction with and diametrically opposed to
Islam.

PAS is on the right political trajectory for now but judging by the
intense challenges many would like to ask, "can PAS remain steadfast"?

Allah knows best and only time will tell. Frankly, is there a choice?