Monday, February 8, 2010

Buku Satu Allah 3 Aqidah.


Alhamdulillah buku saya yg ketiga bertajuk Satu Allah Tiga Aqidah, terbit pada hari isnin April 20, 2009.

Buku ini adalah kompilasi pendapat mengenai tuntutan nama Allah oleh pihak kristian. Pendapat pro dan kontra dari pelbagai pihak di kompilasikan dalam buku ini.

Buku ini saya terbitkan kerana bagi saya, peristiwa tuntutan pihak kristian ini adalah satu lakaran dalam sejarah yg perlu di semadikan dalam satu bentuk buku. Ianya perlu disimpan oleh kita untuk pengetahuan cucu cicit kita nanti, andaikata mereka mahu mentelaah perkara ini.

Dalam buku ini juga, saya telah membuat kompilasi ayat ayat quran yang berkaitan dengan Nabi Isa.

Dari satu aspek, saya mengambil risiko perniagaan kerana saya tidak tahu samada ada org yang mahu membeli buku atau dapatkah saya menjual sebanyak 1000naskhah yg diterbitkan. Tetapi kerana subjek ini amat menarik, saya meneruskan juga penerbitannya. Saya tidak nampak saya akan reprint buku ini.

Buku ini berharga RM17. Boleh di dapati dipintu masuk PWTC semasa pesta buku antarabangsa sehingga ahad Apri 26,2009. Ianya boleh juga dibeli direct kepada saya dgn harga RM17+Rm3pos, dengan sms kepada saya.

Mungkin anda boleh menolong dengan membeli buku ini dan buku saya yang lain.

Nota: beberapa maklumbalas yg saya terima dari beberapa pembaca, buku ini baik bagi mereka.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Finding Unity in Malaysia's Diversity

Finding Unity in Malaysia's Diversity
By Najib Razak - wall street journal

In contrast to the impressions left by some international reporting, in the hours and days after the recent vandalism of churches and other places of worship in Malaysia, the true spirit of our nation has shone through. Across religions and races, Malaysians have spoken with a unified voice in condemning the despicable acts of a few. Citizens have joined as one to assert that vandalism is never an acceptable way to express diverse views or resolve differences.

Many measures have been taken to counter this violence. Muslim groups volunteered to safeguard churches in their towns. Muslim social activists have written petitions to oppose these senseless acts of vandalism. Muslim civic groups are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Christians, Hindus and Buddhists to ensure that all people can freely worship as they wish. Christian and civic leaders have urged calm and interfaith dialogue; they are fully aware that those who perpetrated these acts do not represent the Muslim majority in Malaysia. I saw this first hand when I visited the Metro Tabernacle Church to meet with the pastor and to commit support for rebuilding.

Let us be honest in recognizing that religious beliefs are deeply held, and in the legal case currently pending related to non-Muslims' use of the word "Allah" in Malay-language publications, there are passionate views on many sides. As a nation, we will work together to resolve this issue.

Malaysia is certainly not the first country where a few individuals commit criminal acts under the false pretence of supporting a particular religion. But I am determined that the vandalism of places of worship and arson at the Tabernacle in recent days—and the powerful response from everyday Malaysians—can be transformed into a moment from which we can learn.

We will bring the perpetrators to justice. But this will also be a time when we stand united as one people to unequivocally denounce violence and reaffirm that we remain committed to the national drive we call "1Malaysia."

We must resolve to maintain a fair and open society where there is opportunity for all Malaysians to flourish. My administration is liberalizing ownership requirements in key sectors of our economy; encouraging foreign direct investment in an era of globalization; creating 1Malaysia clinics to provide access to health care; and extending educational opportunities to all Malaysians.

These reforms have sometimes been politically difficult. But they are important because the long-term health of Malaysia's society and the economy can only be built on what unites us rather than what divides us. We will not waver from the pursuit of 1Malaysia. While there may be some who debate this approach, there is room for open discussion and consideration about how we realize this vision of a strong, fair nation.

Many Malaysians have been appalled by the irresponsible and dangerous finger-pointing of a few politicians who put personal political interests before Malaysia's national interest. They try to score political points by hammering on sensitive issues. My government chooses a different path. We will reach out to all parts of Malaysian society in the coming days to foster open dialogue and work to resolve sensitive issues together.

While one church was damaged and others were vandalized, along with a Sikh temple and Muslim prayer rooms, the values we hold dear—religious freedom, tolerance, peace and fairness—remain the bedrock of our nation. The diversity of our population is the true strength of our country. Across races and across religions, this is the foundation upon which we will advance 1Malaysia. It represents a great challenge but, together, it can be our greatest achievement.

Mr. Najib is prime minister of Malaysia.

dua article dari anwar ibrahim dan PM Najib keluar serentak di wall street journal pd 26 Jan 2010.

Muslims Have No Monopoly over ‘Allah’

From Wall Street journal

By Anwar Ibrahim

Malaysia has once again resurfaced in international headlines for the wrong reasons. Over the last two weeks, arsonists and vandals attacked 10 places of worship, including Christian churches and Sikh temples. Though there were no injuries and the material damage is reparable, the same cannot be said about the emotional and psychological scars left behind. After numerous conflicting statements from government officials, the underlying causes of the violence are still unaddressed. Malaysia’s reputation as a nation at peace with its ethnic and religious diversity is at stake.

Malaysia’s poor handling of religious and sectarian issues is not unique. The ill treatment of minority groups in Muslim countries is often worse than the actions Muslims decry in the West. I have called attention to the broader need in the Muslim world for leadership that demonstrates consistency and credibility in our call for justice, fairness and pluralism. These values are embedded in the Islamic tradition as the higher objectives of Shariah expounded by the 12th-century jurist al-Shatibi.

We have seen Muslims around the world protest against discriminatory laws passed in supposedly liberal and progressive countries in the West. Yet just as France and Germany have their issues with the burqa and Switzerland with its minarets, so too does Malaysia frequently fail to offer a safe and secure environment that accommodates its minority communities.

The recent arson attacks exemplify what’s wrong with the way Malaysia regards its non-Muslim citizens. The attacks were provoked by a controversy over the use of the word “Allah” by Malaysia’s Christian community, which numbers over two million, or about 10% of the population. In late 2007, the Home Ministry banned the use of the word by the Herald, a Catholic newspaper, and later confiscated 15,000 copies of Malay-language Bibles imported from Indonesia in which the word for God is translated as “Allah.” A Dec. 31, 2009 ruling by the Kuala Lumpur High Court overruled the earlier ban, asserting constitutional guarantees regarding the freedom of religion in Malaysia. Since then, an already tense situation boiled over, largely due to incitement by a few reckless politicians, the mainstream media and a handful of nongovernmental organizations linked by membership and leadership to the United Malays National Organization, the ruling party.

For example, Utusan Malaysia, the nation’s largest Malay-language daily—which is also owned by UMNO—has inflamed Muslim religious sentiments by accusing non-Muslims of desecrating the name of the “Muslim” God and alleging a Christian conspiracy to overrun this predominantly Muslim nation through conversion. I have seen these incendiary propaganda techniques used before, when politicians and demagogues exploit public sentiment to garner support by fomenting fear. Such tactics are useful diversions from embarrassing scandals ranging from controversial court decisions, to allegations of exorbitant commissions extracted from military procurements, to the theft of two jet engines from the inventory of the Royal Malaysian Air Force. This behavior has been exacerbated since the ruling party lost its two-thirds majority in parliament last year. UMNO is now desperately struggling to regain public support.

Few Muslims around the world would endorse the claim that we have a monopoly on the word “Allah.” It is accepted that the word was already in the lexicon of pre-Islamic Arabs. Arabic’s sister Semitic languages also refer to God as “Allah”: namely, “Elaha” in Aramaic, and “Elohim” in Hebrew. Historical manuscripts prove that Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christian and Jews have collectively prayed to God, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, as “Allah” for over 1,400 years. The history of Islam in Southeast Asia is known for its pluralistic and inclusive traditions, and amicable relations between Muslims and non-Muslims have been the norm for generations.

Muslim scholars outside of Malaysia thus find our “Allah” issue absurd and cannot fathom why it has sparked protest and outrage. Minority Muslim populations living in the West, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11, have diligently tried to remind the public that Muslims, Christians and Jews share common Abrahamic roots and ultimately worship the same God.

Local sensitivities have been aroused over this issue. They should be handled through dialogue and engagement. Instead of permeating a sense of insecurity or a siege mentality, Muslims must be encouraged to engage and present their concerns to the Christians in a constructive manner. The example of Muslim Spain is a moment in our history to which Malaysian Muslims should aspire. But efforts toward fostering a convivencia are not only found in the past. The ongoing “Common Word” initiative, a global effort launched in 2007 that captured the support of over 130 of the world’s most prominent Muslim scholars, has made historic progress towards building goodwill among Muslims and Christians to find ways to live in sincere peace and harmony. It is ironic that noble efforts such as these are being undone by the actions of Muslims themselves.

Malaysia’s international reputation has taken a beating since Prime Minister Najib Razak was sworn in last year. Despite his efforts to promote national unity, news about the caning of a young Muslim woman charged with drinking, the mutilation of a cow head in protest of the construction of a Hindu temple, ill treatment of Muslim converts who revert to their earlier faith and even the outlawing of the practice of yoga by Muslims have many at home and abroad wondering which direction Malaysia is headed under Mr. Najib’s leadership. There are already misgivings about governance, human rights, the rule of law and rampant corruption; Malaysia dropped 10 spots on Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perception Index, our worst showing in over 15 years. The vision of Malaysia as a peaceful and stable location for investment, tourism and migration is now in peril.

This matters most for Malaysians who have to contend with an increasingly polarized social and political landscape. Malaysia cannot afford to be held hostage by the vested interests of a few who manipulate faith and identity as a means to elicit fear for political and economic gain. This is old politics, and it has become clear that those who incite hatred are only doing so to prolong their monopoly on power. The majority of Malaysians reject this approach. They realize that overcoming the challenges we face—a stagnant economy, declining educational standards and rising crime—depends on our ability as a nation to internalize and make real the principles of fairness and justice to all.

PAS dan nama Allah

PAS dan nama Allah

JAN 23 — “75 peratus orang Melayu menolak pandangan PAS yang mengizinkan Kristian menggunakan nama Allah. Hanya 25 pertaus sahaja menyokongnya. Di kalangan bukan Melayu pula, 90 peratus menyokong PAS manakala 10 peratus sahaja menentangnya.”

Inilah kenyataan yang saya temui hari ini. Ia berdasarkan analisa rambang yang dibuat oleh beberapa pihak ekoran isu nama Allah.

“Jika begitu kedudukannya, PAS akan kalah di semua kerusi yang ditandinginya,” kata saya kepada pihak yang memberikan maklumat itu kepada saya. Analisa saya kepada maklumat itu adalah:

75 peratus dari 60 peratus orang Melayu akan mengundi Umno. Hanya 25 peratus sahaja akan mengundi PAS. Ini bermakna, PAS hanya akan mendapat 15 peratus pengundi kelompok ini.

PAS akan mendapat 36 peratus dari 40 peratus pengundi bukan Melayu di Malaysia. Ini bermakna, jumlah undi yang diperolehi PAS adalah 51 peratus berbanding dengan Umno 49 peratus dari seluruh kelompok masyarakat negara ini.

Jika begitu kedudukannya, walaupun PAS mendapat sokongan majoriti masyarakat Malaysia tetapi PAS akan kalah di kesemua kerusinya kerana PAS hanya bertanding di kawasan Melayu majoriti melebih 70 peratus.

Inilah dilema PAS... kalau dilihat kepada senario hari ini.

Namun, saya melihat dari perspektif berbeza. Benar inilah senario hari ini tetapi bukannya senario hari esok dan hari-hari seterusnya. Ini kerana, senario hari ini berlaku berdasarkan emosi orang Melayu dan bukan berdasar fakta sebenar kenapa PAS bertindak sedemikian dalam isu nama Allah ini.

Secara ringkasnya, pendirian PAS dalam isu nama Allah adalah:-

1) PAS setuju tidak salah agama Kristian menggunakan nama Allah kerana semua agama Samawi sememangnya menggunakan nama Allah untuk Tuhan mereka.

2) PAS tidak mahu nama Allah disalahgunakan untuk tempat-tempat yang tidak sewajarnya.

Jelas apa yang diputuskan oleh PAS adalah berdasarkan Islam yang menjadi dasar PAS selama ini. Keputusan itu tidak dibuat PAS kerana kepentingan politik atau kerana emosi para pemimpinnya yang berbangsa Melayu dan beragama Islam itu. Ia pula dibuat oleh pucuk pimpinan tertinggi PAS selepas berbincang dan bermesyuarat.

Dan buat pertama kalinya selepas isu unity government, para pemimpin utama PAS bersatu hati dalam tindakan mereka. Kalau selama ini kelihatan semacam ada kumpulan-kumpulan dalam PAS, isu nama Allah telah menyatukan mereka kembali.

Pemimpin yang membuat kenyataan berbeza dari keputusan 12 Jan itu juga bertegas, pandangan mereka sebelum itu adalah pandangan pribadi. Kini pandangan mereka adalah sama dengan pandangan parti yang diputuskan 12 Jan itu.

Terbukti kini secara perlahan-lahan, PAS telah membuat keputusan yang tepat dengan keperluan parti dan keperluan negara sebenarnya. PAS bukan lagi parti kampung atau parti keagamaan sempit tetapi parti yang meletak kepentingan negara didepannya.

Bayangkan jika PAS berpendirian menentang keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membenarkan Kristian menggunakan nama Allah itu. Saya yakin, kalaulah PAS mengambil keputusan itu, bukan lapan gereja yang menjadi mangsa “vandalism”. Bahkan, berpuluh-puluh gereja yang bakal menjadi mangsa. Ia bukan lagi dinamakan “vandalism” tetapi serangan berdasarkan “jihad agama”.

Saya katakan semua ini kerana sememangnya perasaan curiga di dalam masyarakat antara Islam dan Kristian ini sudah lama ditanam. Siapa yang menanamnya tidak diketahui. Yang pasti, ia umpama “fitnah” yang sedang tidur. Jika ia digerakkan, maka akan bangunlah ia.

Oleh itu, sesiapa yang masih tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan PAS ini perlu berfikir sekali lagi. Fikiran itu hendaklah dibuat dengan rasional dan berdasarkan sikap terbuka, bukannya emosi. Apakah yang PAS buat itu betul atau salah.

Benar, Umno menggunakan segala organ dan jentera yang dikawalnya untuk mempengaruhi masyarakat agar memihak kepada pemikiran sempitnya iaitu menentang permohonan Kristian itu. Ia bertujuan untuk memberitahu rakyat Umnolah pejuang agama sebenar. PAS hanya memperalatkan agama bukannya pejuang agama.

Antaranya Umno menggunakan platform yang paling ampuh di kalangan orang Melayu iaitu mimbar Jumaat dan Istana untuk mempengaruhi emosi dan pemikiran orang Melayu.

Minggu lepas, sekurang-kurang hampir semua mimbar Jumaat di semua masjid dalam Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur membaca teks khutbah yang dibekalkan oleh pihak berkuasa agama yang dikawal kerajaan. Dalam khutbah itu, dibahaskan betapa tidak wajarnya Kristian dibenarkan menggunakan perkataan Allah. Ini kerana Kristian tidak percaya kepada Allah yang satu tetapi trinity.

Di Selangor, pihak berkuasa agama negeri mengeluarkan titah Sultan Selangor melarang nama Allah digunakan oleh agama Kristian.

Namun, ia tidak membawa kesan yang besar. Ini kerana, kewibawaan ulama PAS dalam hal agama ini jauh lebih baik. Bayangkan jika PAS juga bersama mereka... hancurlah negara.

Zulkifli Sulong- The Malaysian Insider
*The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Jesus in Islam

Di saat saat peluang berdakwah di buka luas untuk kita, harap semua ambil kesempatan ini untuk sampaikan kisah Jesus in Islam kepada seramai mungkin manusia

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4757022845544241963#docid=5824503235708840999


sumbangan: arah.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Judge Written Judgement

Four reasons for controversial ‘Allah’ ruling

By Debra Chong

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”;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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”;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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

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;

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.

“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.

The Malaysian Insider.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Penggunaan nama Allah oleh non muslim di Indon

From: Siti Farhana binti Ahmad Tajuddin

To: undisclosed- recipients:

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:35 PM

Subject: Penggunaan nama Allah oleh non muslim di Indon

Just nak kongsi pengalaman sepanjang lebih 5 tahun tinggal dan belajar di
Indonesia. Saya tidak berniat memburukkan Indonesia.. They have my respect,
dan saya tahu orang2 Indonesia tidak seburuk yang disangkakan di sini...
(orang Indonesia baik dan ramah, pintar dan rajin.. that's a fact!)

Pengalaman ini saya kongsi supaya orang ramai boleh tahu dan membayangkan
implikasinya jika penggunaan nama Allah oleh non-muslim dibiarkan. Di satu
sisi memang agak lucu, tapi di sisi lain terdapat keseriusan di dalamnya

Aku ingat satu hari aku bukak TV perdana dia pastu tengok satu program.. Aku
ingat ceramah agama lah.. dia punya penceramah punya semangat berkobar2..
"Kita semua sudah berdosa! Allah Maha Kuasa! Allah Maha Penyayang!
Kembalilah kita semua ke jalan Allah! (aku dalam hati, Alhamdulillah. .
bagus!) pastu tak pasal2 dia sambung "Kembalilah ke Yesus Kristus dan Bunda
Maryam!" aku langsung tergolek.... astaghfirullah! ceramah Kristian
rupanya..

Satu lagi kenangan aku kat Indonesia, kalo baca surat khabar sana nanti ada
slot obituaries: "Telah Kembali ke Rahmat Allah, Sdr. XXX pada XXX Semoga
ruh beliau dicucuri rahmat Allah" Bila tengok balik nama yang mati Eduardus,
Kristus, Paulus, etc. (nama org Kristian) pastu ada salib diikuti tulisan
kecik "ash to ash, dust to dust, fade to black"... tergolek lagi aku..
wakakaka...

Satu lagi cerita aku kat Indonesia, satu hari aku 'bermusafir' lah ke daerah
Jawa Barat naik motor, pastu nak berhentilah solat.. aku toleh ke kiri kanan
jalan cari masjid.. Pastu aku nampak ada signboard kalimah Allah (dlm arab!)
pastu ada banner "Ayuh kerjakan kewajipan kita kepada Allah dan agamanya!"
aku pun pergilah dekat.. tup2 aik, awat lain macam tempat ni, siap ada
patung jesus kena salib??!! Tergolek lagi aku.. lah.. gereja Kristian
rupenye..

Satu lagi kat sana nak beli buku-buku agama kena hati-hati.. Aku dulu pernah
'usha' buku kat kedai buku.. Ada satu buku aku tak ingat persis tapi tajuk
buku dia lebih kurang camni: "Memantapkan Iman Anda Kepada Allah" bila
bukak2 browsing per helai aku start confuse, amacam lain macam aje ayat2 dan
hadis dia.. Aku tengok balik lah.. ayat2 kutipan dari Bible.. tergolek aku
lagi... lah, buku dakwah Kristian rupanya..

risau gak klu jadi camni kat mesia

di tengah tengah bandar bandung juga terdapat sebuah geraja yg dinamakan
"rumah allah"...mcm mcm lagi isu akan timbul lepas ni selagi malaysia
mengamalkan demokrasi-sekular