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.

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.

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.

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.

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

‘Allah’: The blame game — The Malaysian Insider

‘Allah’: The blame game — The Malaysian Insider

JAN 12 — The Roman Catholic Church is now being asked to drop its claim to use “Allah” and to resort to dialogue to prevent further religious tension and strife.

This, after eight churches and a convent school becoming targets of arson, stone and paint attacks over four days.

This, after the government successfully applied for a stay of the Dec 31, 2009 High Court ruling that the Catholic weekly Herald may use the word to describe the Christian God in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

While a Catholic bishops conference in Johor also stressed the need for dialogue in the wake of the unprecedented attacks, it is interesting that the call for dialogue comes from Barisan Nasional (BN) politicians and their party-controlled media.

None of them said anything when the then-BN and Umno home minister Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar unilaterally and arbitrarily banned the Catholic weekly from using the term in 2007, citing national security and to avoid misunderstanding and confusion among the populace.

And there was no call for dialogue then; just a decree with no recourse.

The Catholic church did what it thought was right under the Federal Constitution and asked for a judicial review late that year.

To cut the story short, Syed Hamid had stopped the Herald from using a name it had already used for years, and a name that Christians in Sabah and Sarawak have used for centuries.

And on New Year’s Eve, the High Court ruled the Herald had a right to use the name, for there is nothing in the Federal Constitution that forbids it.

And to cut the latest story shorter, the Umno-controlled Utusan Malaysia today came out with reasons why “Allah” is exclusive to Muslims, citing aspects of Syariah law and the Federal Constitution.

The Malay-language newspaper also implicitly argued the church’s claim to the name has stoked tensions and by dropping it, would calm the tense situation.

In other words, don’t blame anyone else if churches continue to be attacked. Drop the claim, all will be fine. Then, we can talk.

Just blame yourself for “reaping what is sown”, as an Umno blogger eloquently wrote when saying the church had robbed the Malays of the word “Allah”.

That’s hardly the start of a dialogue by any standards. It would be best for BN politicians and Utusan to say explicitly: “You are not worthy to use the name. And we have made that law.”

Perhaps the government should realise it cannot legislate faith. It might have done so under Article 160 of the Federal Constitution to define Malays, but limiting names for God is unknown in the world.

It is disingenuous to blame the Catholics for starting this row, and asking for a dialogue now or to tell the people it’s a trick to convert Muslims to Christianity, to threaten their faith, to challenge the position of Malays and the Malay Rulers.

The Catholics cannot be blamed for all of the above. Nor the Christians. That would be the easy way out, to blame victims for the crime committed by its perpetrators.

The blame should be on the person who made them lose their constitutional rights; no more, no less.

What anyone wants to call their God is their right. No more, no less.

Allah: Future implications of the High Court decision — Fatimah Zuhri

Allah: Future implications of the High Court decision — Fatimah Zuhri

JAN 11 — By now, every single person in this country, whether they are Muslim or not, would have realised that on Dec 31, 2009, Judge Lau Bee Lan made a ruling to allow the usage of the word “Allah” to be published in The Herald..

Many of my Muslim friends who are bored/not interested in politics have asked me “what is the big deal about this?”

Let us take a closer look at the future implication of the High Court decision.

First of all, we have to understand how the Legal System works.

When a judge makes a ruling/decision on a case they would tend to refer to previous decision made by the same Court.

For example (very simple example) :

a) On December 2000, Ali was caught eating an apple, which he took from his neighbour’s garden. He was sentenced to pay RM500 and serve 1 day in jail.

b) On December 2009, Abu was caught with eating an orange which he took from his friend’s refrigerator when he was visiting his friend’s house.

c) When Abu is brought in front of Judge Fatimah, the Judge will check if there is any previous “similar” decision made. The prosecutor will then recommend to the Judge the same sentence which was made on December 2000 against Ali.

d) This is what we call a “precedent”. Since there is an existing “precedent”, Judge Fatimah will then sentence Abu to RM500 and 1 day jail.

e) If you compare Ali and Abu, it would look like Abu committed a lesser or different crime but in the eyes of the Law they both committed the same crime and the sentence should be the same.

Now let us go back to the High Court decision on the word “Allah”. Judge Bee Lan decision was that The Herald is allowed to use the word “Allah” on the basis of “human rights”.

Unfortunately, there are some highly irresponsible Muslim who say “So what?!”.

Well, let say a year from now, on Jan 9, 2011, a person of Hindu or Buddhist or ANY faith goes to the court and says “I want the word Allah to be used to refer to my God”.

Since there is already a precedent (Dec 31, 2009 – Judge Bee Lan decision), the court will then say OK using the same basis of “human rights”!

At the end of the day, everyone will then start to associate the name Allah with their God. It does not matter if the faith is Samawi based (Judaism, Christian and Islam) or non-Samawi based (Hinduism, Buddhism, Ayah Pin, etc...)

Again some Muslim will say “So what?”

Well, let’s say Ayah Pin followers go to the public and shouted, “Wahai orang ramai, Ayah Pin ialah Allah!”

Another example, a child who was born in a Christian family. When this child grows up and sees so many contradictions in the Bible (eg in 1 Corinthians 5:11 it clearly stated that a person should not drink alcohol, but in Luke 7:33-34 it shows that Jesus/Isa a.s. did drink wine!), the child will grow up becoming an atheist (do not believe in any religion or any God).
Give the perfect gift this holiday season, Inspiron™ 14

When this child grows up to become an atheist, when his Muslim friend talks about Islam, he will ridicule Islam and say “According to Malaysia’s legal system, Allah in Islam and Christianity is the same. So your religion (Islam) is no different from that of my parents (Christianity)”.

Worst, if he marries a Muslim woman! I dare not imagine what will happen to their child...

If we did not have the High Court decision which equates Christian God toAllah, perhaps we can tell him:

“Look here, my friend, my God is One God. He does not have a son nor does He have any parents, there is none equal or the same to Him. That, my friend, is the difference between my religion and that of your parents!”

If there is no High Court decision which can equate the Christian God to Allah, then the atheist cannot say anything else.

Now, if you are tired after reading these 19 points, I suggest you have a break first, because there are another 15 points remaining. You can continue at a later time to read point 20-35.

Let us take a look at another case. California Proposition 8 which was passed in November 2008 in the United States of America, a day after President Obama was elected to office.

Although the issue is different, the implication aspect of it is the same.

California Proposition 8 was a proposition to change the constitutional amendment of the United States.

A year before (in 2007) the California Supreme Court made a decision that equates Homosexual and Lesbian marriages to Heterosexual marriages.

Homosexual marriage is men marrying men and Lesbian marriage is women marrying women. While heterosexual marriage is between men and women.

The decision by the Court was made under the same basis which our own High Court made the decision on “Allah”, which is “Human rights”.

Imagine, my dear readers; how can a marriage between men and women be equal to a marriage between homosexuals and lesbian? How can a homosexual or a lesbian couple have a child? If half of the US population are involved in these sick marriages, in 20 years time, American population will be cut by half.

These were the questions raised all around California. The Christians, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish Californians were upset by this decision.

What did they do? They held campaigns, pressured the state government, pressured the federal government and many more.

A year later, due to the pressure by the common people, the Court had to hold another round of proposition.

On the evening of Nov 4, 2008, the majority of the Californian people rejoiced and celebrated at the announcement that the proposition to reject the notion that normal marriage was equal to Homosexual/Lesbian marriage has succeeded.

Anyone who has been to the United States, should know that California is like Bangsar. The Californian people are the most liberal people in the United States. Yet they manage to reject the sick notion that normal marriage between men and women were equal to homosexual marriages.

Dear gentle readers, unfortunately in Malaysia, we have some Muslim who wants to make a political issue out of this. Irresponsible people such as Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim (PKR) and YB Khalid Samad (PAS) want to use this issue to gain non-Muslim votes for their political party (Pakatan Rakyat) n the up-coming General Election.

This is really unfortunate. If one read and understood my points above, you would now realise the future impact of the High Court decision.

Currently, the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has asked the Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammudin Hussein to make an appeal so that the decision can be over-turned. We congratulate this excellent decision by the Government of Malaysia! However we have to continue our campaign. Please do not act in anger. Peaceful campaign and peaceful protest is the way forward.

Last, I urge that everyone of us can understand the issue. It is not just about losing a “word”. It is more than that. It is for the future of our children and grand children. If we do not defend it, a year from now every religion will call their God as Allah. Perhaps who knows, 5 years from now we will have Homosexual marriages as well. Do we want this to happen?

“ Tepuk dada tanyalah selera...”

* Article sourced from a Facebook note by Fatimah Zuhri.

* This article is the personal opinion of the writer or the newspaper. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

Catatan Dialog: Allah Sape Punya.

A dialogue is being organized on 11 January 2010 by the University of Malaya
Muslim Students Society on this issue. Details are as follows:

*Allah: Siapa yang Punya?*

Organized by Free Public Forum and Persatuan Mahasiswa Islam Universiti
Malaya

[catatan dibawah dari seorg rakan...]


Alhamdulillah ana baru sahaja pulang dr KLSCAH selepas menghadiri forum tersebut. Dengan sedikit catatan yang dibuat, berikut diperturunkan pandangan2 & hujah setiap panelis mengikut turutan masing2.

Panelis 1: Dr. Khalif Muammar, Felo di Institut Islam dan Tamadun Melayu (ATMA) Uni. Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

* Allah bukan nama generik, ia nama khas, oleh itu TIDAK BOLEH digunakan oleh agama lain
* kalimah suci akan rosak jika digunakan dengan interpretasi sendiri
* nama Allah yang digunapakai oleh orang Arab jahiliyah telah melalui proses ISLAMISASI
* Luqman:25, Hajj:40
* definasi Allah adalah berdasarkan Surah Al-Ikhlas: As-Samad, Lam yalid walam yulad
* jangan nanti satu hari Msia akan jadi seperti Indonesia, i.e. gereja = Rumah Allah


Panelis 2: Sdr. Hasmi Hashim, penulis.

* isu ini dilihat sebagai Clash of Civilisation dan perlu pada pengurusan krisis yang bijak
* penggunaan nama Allah dalam Bible terjemahan Melayu telah lama digunapakai
* hujah yang digunakan adalah sejarah Munsyi Abdullah yang diminta oleh Paderi THomson dari gereja pertama di Melaka 150 tahun lalu untuk menterjemah Bible kepada Bahasa Melayu. Munsyi Abdullah menggunakan perkataan ALLAH sebagai terjemahan dari GOD.


Panelis 3: Dr Azwira A. Aziz, Pensyarah Fakulti Pengajian Islam Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).

* beliau mengulas dari sudut proses undang-undang
* perbezaan besar antara MENGGUNA nama dan MEMILIKI nama
* tiada nas yang jelas MELARANG non-muslim menggunakan nama Allah di dalam Al-Quran
* isu timbul kerana peguam2 yang mewakili kerajaan gagal membuktikan
1) Kalimah Allah adalah khusus untuk orang Islam
2) Penganut Kristian tidak menggunakan kalimah dalam ajaran dan kitab Bible, tapi hanya dalam mingguan Herald Tribune
* kalimah Allah adalah penggunaan bangsa Arab selepas risalah diturunkn pada Nabi Muhammad s.a.w, sedangkan dalam bahasa Ibrani (dari Nabi Musa a.s.) Allah disebut Aloha dan Bani Israel (dari Nabi Isa a.s) pula menyebut Allah sebagai Alaha
* Arabic Bible menterjemah Tuhan sebagai Allah

Panelis 4: Dr Mohd Farid Mohd Shahran, pengerusi Himpunan Keilmuan Muda (HAKIM), pensyarah Usuluddin dan Perbandingan Agama Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM).

* beliau mengupas dari sudut kewajaran menterjemah GOD sebagai Allah
* ia bukan isu siapa yang monopoli penggunaan kalimah suci
* dalam kamus Oxford & Cambridge, ALLAH diterjemah sebagai LORD of the Muslims
* dalam menterjemah kalimah, perlu ikut konteks di Malaysia kerana ia tidak sama dengan di negara2 Arab
* toleransi kita adalah: LAKUM DINUKUM WALIYADIN
* sekiranya Kristian mahu menggunakan kalimah Tuhan dengan alternatif, gunakan terma asal seperti ELOHIM atau YAHWE
* kita perlu bezakan apakah FAKTA dan apakah KEBENARAN


Panelis 5: Mr. Shah Kirit Kakulal Govindji (pendakwah, Saba Islamic Media).

* isu ini berasas untuk menjadi isu sensitif kerana penggunaan bahasa seharusnya untuk MENJELASKAN maksud, bukan untuk MENGELIRUKAN
* kerisauan orang Islam adalah penerjemahan orang Kristian dari GOD kepada ALLAH akan digunapakai untuk dakyah kepada orang Islam
* sekiranya perlu untuk terjemah GOD sebagai kata umum, gunakan ILAH
* hujah beliau dengan memberi contoh2 ayat dari English Bible berkenaan hubungan Jesus dan Lord seperti: Jesus merasakan Lord lebih besar dari dirinya, Jesus berdoa pada Lord, dan juga Jesus solat sepanjang malam. Ini tidak bertentangan dengan konsep tauhid sekiranya Lord di sini diESAkan
* dalam Bible, Commandment yang paling penting adalah: the Lord (our Allah) is ONE


Panelis 6: Sdr. Eddin Khoo , budayawan, penulis dan pengkaji agama.

* isu berpunca dpd kegagalan untuk membincangkan hal2 agama yang kompleks
* ia juga bayangan sebenar krisis institusi negara
* faktor demografi juga sebagai punca Sermon di gereja2 di Borneo disampaikan dalam Bahasa Melayu, dan ini telah berlaku 100 tahun lalu
* perkara ini perlu ditangani secara KOLEKTIF dengan meraikan kepelbagaian, mengendalikan isu sensitif ini secara bertamadun agar kita saling mengenali


Panelis 7: YB Khalid Samad , Ahli Parlimen Shah Alam.

* banyak nas di dalam Al-Quran membenarkan kalimah Allah digunapakai oleh non-muslim
* namun, Allah bagi non-Muslim tidak sama dengan Allah bagi Muslim
* beliau merujuk seerah Rasulullah ketika baginda menulis Perjanjian Hudaibiyah. Baginda memulakan dengan kalimah Bismillahirrahmanir rahim. Suhail b. Amru wakil Quraisy membantah kerana bagi mereka, mereka tidak mengenal Allah yang bersifat PENGASIH PENYAYANG. Suhail minta menggantikan Bismika Allahumma
* perbezaan yang ketara adalah Muslim menggunapakai nama Allah dengan penuh kefahaman ttg konsep Tauhid Uluhiyah, Rububiyah, Asma' wa Sifat dan BUKAN hanya pada nama
* rujuk Ali-Imran:164, apabila menggunakan kalimah yang SAMA, mudah untuk menjelaskan ketidakfahaman ttg konsep tauhid pada non-Muslim. Di sinilah bermula usaha DAKWAH


Sesi Q&A juga hangat kerana banyak soalan ditujukan pada YB Khalid Samad yang kelihatan berpolitik kerana banyak kali menyebut UMNO sebagai punca isu ini diperbesarkan. W/bgmnapun ana tidak tunggu hingga akhir sesi kerana harus pulang.

Jzkk.

Why is your Allah not my Allah?

Why is your Allah not my Allah?

Erna Mahyuni | Jan 6, 10 10:22am

comment As an East Malaysian, I am neither surprised nor angry about
Malay/Muslims being up in arms over the 'Allah' High Court ruling.

It was to be expected, really.

What does anger me is getting comments from West Malaysian Christians that
it is 'silly' for Christians to lobby to use the word 'Allah'.

One rather un-enlightened Christian said that "Allah is also a word used
to describe one particular god in a pagan religion...so for Christians to
use 'Allah' is strange and silly."

The whole 'Allah' debacle highlights a bigger, more endemic problem in the
Malaysian, or should I say West Malaysian mentality: General ignorance of
how the 'others' or 'lain-lain' live.

It seems very hard for most West Malaysians to understand that:
Not all bumiputeras are Malay.
Not all bumiputeras are Muslim.
It isn't just West Malaysian Muslims who have a very limited worldview but
Christians as well.

They don't understand that in East Malaysia, with its high population of
indigenous Christians, Bahasa Malaysia is used in services.

Most of these Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians have spent their whole
lives thinking, praying and referring to their God as Allah Bapa (Father
God).

And now the government says they can't. That only Muslims can use the word
'Allah' when that isn't true in other countries.

Look at Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the
world, which allows the printing and dissemination of bibles in Bahasa
Indonesia that refer to God not as 'Tuhan' but as 'Allah'.

The Indonesian Muslims don't worry that their brethren will be 'confused'
by these bibles. So why is our Home Ministry and all these religious
groups up in arms?

The answer to that is politics. Religion is, unfortunately, something as
mixed up with politics as is race. Political parties unabashedly use
religion as a tool to win debates, with Umno often accused of trying to
'out-Islam' PAS.

Religion is not a private matter in this country and is, instead, aired
like so much dirty laundry. What other Southeast Asian country has
officially sanctioned civilian peeping Toms who consider it their civic
duty to weed out fornication?

Malay is our language, too

Despite the many varied ethnicities in Sabah, they have managed to get
along without bloodshed or May 13-like incidents.

How have we managed it when West Malaysia's three main races mostly give
each other a wide berth? It's called tolerance, people.

All Sabahans speak a slightly modified version of Malay with the funny
little suffix 'bah' tagged behind a lot of words or sentences.

In rural areas, this heavily-accented version of Malay is the only means
for most people to communicate with each other. They speak, think, dream
and yes, even pray in the language.

Sabahan Michelle Quek asks: "Is it more important to recognise that some
Muslims lay claim to the word as being exclusive to their faith, or
recognise that a practical need for the word exists for East Malaysian
Christians?"

Her question embodies the difficult balancing act that Malaysia has in
attempting to address the needs of its varied peoples as well as the gulf
between East and West Malaysia.

Kavin Ch'ng, who is married to a Sabahan says that locally, for many
generations, Malay-speaking Christians have always referred to Allah and
Tuhan in the same breath.

"Why only now does the government kick up such a fuss?" he asks. What is
important, Ch'ng says, is mutual respect.

"I think there is a way to co-exist - if only our government can actually
wrap its head around the concept of context."

Sarawakian El'Bornean finds it disturbing that West Malaysians now want to
dictate how one's personal faith is practiced.

"The true Malaysians are here in Sabah and Sarawak," he says, citing
examples of his Muslim friends who have no qualms sitting with friends in
non-halal stores and visiting churches.

Despite being surrounded by Christians, East Malaysian Muslims do not
consider their faith easily shaken, he asserts.

Sabahan Dusun Zara Kahan has a humorous, if facetious, solution.

"If (some) Muslims insist on ownership of the term 'Allah' then Christians
must do the same with the term 'Tuhan'. Do you know how many Hari Raya
songs will be in jeopardy? End of issue!"

No, we don't want to convert you

In West Malaysia, technically Christian worship services in Malay are
illegal. But Sabahan and Sarawakian students ask for them anyway.

Many of these Malay-speaking East Malaysians feel uncomfortable attending
worship services in English because the terms are unfamiliar. Muslims
often cite the 99 names of Allah and for Christians in East Malaysia as
well as Lebanon and Syria, Allah is their name for God.

All this talk about 'confusion' is really the product of West Malaysians
not mixing with their East Malaysian brethren.

If you visit the Dusuns in Ranau, you could well meet locals as fair as
highland Chinese with slanted eyes who would greet you with the
traditional Muslim salam.

Wander into an East Malaysian Chinese coffee shop and you would see
tanned, Malay-looking locals happily digging into char siew or other pork
dishes

In East Malaysia, you can't easily tell what faith someone professes or
what race his forefathers were just by looking.

This is very disturbing to the West Malaysian psyche. I have met West
Malaysians who get very agitated when I refuse to tell them either what
religion I profess or what race I am.

They don't know what to do with me because they can't categorise me. I
don't fit into their safe little boxes which decide how they will treat
me.

What annoys me as well is this West Malaysian paranoia that Christians
have a secret ongoing campaign to convert Muslims on the sly.

Let us be honest. If converting Muslims to Christianity was as easy as
pouring holy water into your drinking water or putting the word 'Allah' in
all available religious literature, the Pope would have sanctioned it
years ago.

Christians don't get 'brownie points' by forcibly converting unwilling
Muslims.

I suppose all the Malay-looking Christian East Malaysians really confuse
the locals to the point they rabidly proclaim that churches are succeeding
in their nefarious campaign to take over Muslim souls.

In East Malaysia, Christians and Muslims come in various sizes, shapes and
colours. Even huge extended families often have different religions,
sometimes staying under one roof.

It is not unusual for an East Malaysian to have not just Christian, but
Buddhist, Muslim and animist relatives. A friend of mine says it is a
convenient excuse to celebrate the many public holidays with more gusto.

When told that someone is marrying a person of another race, the common
reaction is: "Oh, your kids will be cute!" No heated discussion about
traditions or religious differences because the unspoken assumption is
that the couple will work them out.

Because they do.

Be Malaysia, not 1Malaysia

A well-known comedian talked about the recent Al-Islam undercover foray
into churches. Its so-called investigative journalists entered churches on
false premises and desecrated the communion wafer.

Did the Christians protest? asked the comedian. Did they declare bloody
war? Did they have angry sermons and plan noisy demonstrations outside
churches on Sunday?

No. What did the Christians say? "Forgive them-lor. Pray for them-lor."

The comedian mused that the incident was actually excellent public
relations for the church.

Despite our annoyance with West Malaysian intolerance, do you see East
Malaysians picketing?

We gripe, we grumble, we send politely worded statements. Yet we still
believe in the Malaysia that our Tourism Ministry tries to sell, but which
seems to be a myth in West Malaysia.

Do you want to know why? Deep in the heart of most East Malaysians, we
truly believe in tolerance. We believe in the ideals of Malaysia.

We don't have to give 'muhibbah' a name because we live it. Since 1963, we
have lived as Malaysians, believing in true tolerance and that race or
religion matters little.

We truly do believe that West Malaysians can and should get over us using
'Allah' to worship God. Isn't Allah the God of all mankind? Isn't your
Malaysia our Malaysia too?

Erna Mahyuni, a Sabahan, is a Malaysiakini team member.

Penggunaan kalimah “ALLAH”

Penggunaan kalimah “ALLAH”
Datuk Seri Tuan Guru Abdul Hadi Awang

Penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh penganut agama bukan Islam telah menjadi bahan polemik hangat dalam negara kita, dan ianya menjadi semakin panas setelah pihak Mahkamah Tinggi membuat keputusan memberi keizinan kepada pihak gereja katholik mengguna-pakai perkataan Allah dalam bahan penerbitan mereka. Realiti kehidupan dalam negara kita ialah, kedudukan masyarakat kristian adalah dalam lingkungan kehidupan masyarakat umum yang hidup secara bersama, khususnya masyarakat yang hidup di dalamnya umat Islam, mahu tidak mahu ianya akan menyentuh perasaan mereka, kerana perkataan ALLAH adalah sangat mulia di sisi umat Islam.

Apa yang menghairankan ialah, sebelum ini pengamal ajaran kristian itu menyebut ‘tuhan’ dengan bahasa mereka masing-masing. Ada pun umat Islam yang terdiri daripada berbagai bangsa dan bahasa tetap berlafaz dan menulis dengan perkataan “Allah” dari kitab suci mereka (Al Quran). Perkataan “Allah” ini tidak diterjemahkan lagi ke dalam bahasa masing-masing, kerana perkataan ALLAH tidak mampu diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa lain, dengan berpegang kepada makna asalnya dalam bahasa Al Quran.

Persoalannya ialah, adakah ianya boleh dibenarkan begitu sahaja di atas konsep kebebasan beragama ?. Hakikatnya, kebebasan secara saksama seharusnya mempunyai batas sempadan yang tidak menimbulkan masalah sehingga boleh mencetuskan perkara yang boleh merosakan hubungan sesama manusia. Jangan sampai kita ‘terbabas’ dalam mencari kebebasan. Perkara ini perlu dijawab secara ilmu, kerana umat Islam menyebut dan menulis kalimah Allah mengikut maknanya yang sebenar sehingga menjadi akidah yang menjadi asas kepada amalan mereka.

Apa yang perlu di fahami ialah, adakah penggunaan perkataan Allah oleh penganut agama lain itu adalah mengikut makna perkataan “Allah” yang tepat, dengan maksudnya yang sebenar dari segi bahasa Arab ?. Atau adakah mereka yang bukan Islam itu memakai perkataan itu dengan mempunyai maksud mereka sendiri yang tidak tepat mengikut bahasa bangsa yang menggunakannya, sehingga ianya boleh menjadi ejekan atau mengurangkan maksudnya sehingga menyentuh perasaan penganut Islam yang memuja kalimah ini ?. Suatu hakikat yang perlu difahami dengan terang dan nyata ialah, bahawa umat islam di serata dunia yang terdiri dari berbagai bangsa dan bercakap berbagai bahasa pula, sedang menggunakan perkataan “Allah” mengikut maksudnya yang sebenar inilah.

Perkataan Allah di sebut oleh orang arab atau pengguna bahasa arab yang menganut berbagai agama, sama ada penganut yahudi, kristian dan penyembah berhala sejak dahulu kala. Al Quran menyebut secara jelas bahawa penganut agama-agama itu menyebut dan menulis perkataan Allah.

Firman Allah bermaksud:

61. Dan sesungguhnya jika Engkau (Wahai Muhammad) bertanya kepada mereka (yang musyrik) itu: "Siapakah yang menciptakan langit dan bumi, dan yang memudahkan matahari dan bulan (untuk faedah makhluk-makhlukNya) ?" sudah tentu mereka akan menjawab: "Allah". Maka bagaimana mereka tergamak dipalingkan (oleh hawa nafsunya daripada mengakui keesaan Allah dan mematuhi perintahNya) ?.

Firman Allah bermaksud:

63. Dan Sesungguhnya jika Engkau (Wahai Muhammad) bertanya kepada mereka (yang musyrik) itu: "Siapakah yang menurunkan hujan dari langit, lalu ia hidupkan dengannya tumbuh-tumbuhan di bumi sesudah matinya?" sudah tentu mereka akan menjawab: "Allah". Ucapkanlah (Wahai Muhammad): "Alhamdulillah" (sebagai bersyukur disebabkan pengakuan mereka Yang demikian), bahkan kebanyakan mereka tidak memahami (hakikat Tauhid dan pengertian syirik).

Firman Allah bermaksud:

25. Dan Sesungguhnya jika Engkau (Wahai Muhammad) bertanya kepada mereka (yang musyrik) itu: "Siapakah yang menciptakan langit dan bumi?" sudah tentu mereka akan menjawab: "Allah". Ucapkanlah (Wahai Muhammad): "Alhamdulillah" (sebagai bersyukur disebabkan pengakuan mereka yang demikian - tidak mengingkari Allah), bahkan kebanyakan mereka tidak mengetahui (hakikat Tauhid dan pengertian syirik).

Firman Allah bermaksud:

38. Dan demi sesungguhnya! jika Engkau (Wahai Muhammad) bertanya kepada mereka (yang musyrik) itu: "Siapakah yang mencipta langit dan bumi?" sudah tentu mereka akan menjawab: "Allah". Katakanlah (kepada mereka): "Kalau demikian, bagaimana fikiran kamu tentang yang kamu sembah yang lain dari Allah itu? jika Allah hendak menimpakan daku dengan sesuatu bahaya, dapatkah mereka mengelakkan atau menghapuskan bahayanya itu; atau jika Allah hendak memberi rahmat kepadaku, dapatkah mereka menahan rahmatNya itu?" Katakanlah lagi: "Cukuplah bagiku: Allah (yang menolong dan memeliharaku) ; kepadaNyalah hendaknya berserah orang-orang yang mahu berserah diri".

Firman Allah bermaksud:

9. Dan Demi sesungguhnya! jika Engkau (Wahai Muhammad) bertanya kepada mereka (yang musyrik) itu:" siapakah yang menciptakan langit dan bumi?" sudah tentu mereka akan menjawab: "yang menciptakannya ialah Allah Yang Maha Kuasa, lagi Maha Mengetahui".

Firman Allah bermaksud:

87. Dan Demi sesungguhnya! jika Engkau (Wahai Muhammad) bertanya kepada mereka: "Siapakah yang menciptakan mereka?" sudah tentu mereka akan menjawab: "Allah!". (jika demikian) maka Bagaimana mereka rela dipesongkan (dari menyembah dan mengesakanNya) ?

Ayat-ayat tersebut di atas mendedahkan bahawa orang-orang bukan Islam yang menganut berbagai agama itu mengaku wujudnya Tuhan yang bernama Allah mengikut naluri dalam Tauhid Rububiyyah (Adanya Tuhan Pencipta Alam) dan ianya hanya sekadar itu. Namun kepercayaan mereka sebegini tidak menepati hakikat dari makna perkataan Allah mengikut maknanya yang sebenar, iaitu supaya mengesakan Allah dalam ibadah dan cara hidup seluruhnya.

Hari ini kita melihat mukjizat Al Quran, apabila mereka memaksa diri untuk menggunakan perkataan Allah, pada hal selama ini mereka menggunakan perkataan yang menamakan Tuhan dengan bahasa masing-masing seperti GOD dan LORD; dan kalau itulah Allah mengikut kefahaman mereka maka ianya adalah tidak tepat dengan maksudnya.

Umat Islam tidak boleh memaksa kefahaman mereka yang salah ini untuk mengikut ajaran dan takrifan bahasa umat Islam, walaupun mereka percaya kepada Tuhan yang Maha Berkuasa, tetapi mereka melantik tuhan-tuhan yang lain daripadanya dengan berbagai-bagai cara. Kalangan penganut kristian dengan kepercayaan Trinity dengan mengadakan isteri dan anak bagi Tuhan Yang Maha Esa dan Yang Maha Suci itu. Agama yang lain menambah perlantikan Tuhan mengikut kefahaman mereka masing-masing.

Mengikut ajaran Islam perkataan Allah ialah salah satu daripada nama-nama yang banyak bagi Tuhan Yang Maha Esa (Al Asma Al Husna) . Imam Al Baihaqi menulis dalam kitabnya (Al Asma Wa Sifat).

“Perkataan Allah itu ialah Tuhan Yang Maha Esa, tidak berbilang lebih dari satu dan tidak ada sekutu baginya (sama ada dinamakan bapa, anak dan apa sahaja). Allah mengikut bahasa arab yang fasih dan nyata bermaksud, Dia Sahaja Tuhan, Yang Maha Esa, tidak ada lagi tuhan yang lain daripadanya. Perkataan ALLAH itu daripada perkataan AL-ILAH dengan menambah AL kepada perkataan asal ILAH yang bermakna Tuhan secara umum. Apabila di letakkan Alif dan lam (AL) menjadi yang khusus satunya yang dikenali dan diyakini benarnya, kemudian dimudahkan sebutannya dengan membuang beberapa huruf, maka di sebut ALLAH. Penambahan Al dalam bahasa arab bertujuan makrifah (yang di kenali) secara khusus yang tidak boleh dikelirukan dengan kepercayaan salah, iaitu berbilang tuhan” .

Al Quran mengajar cara penjelasan makna yang sebenar, begitu juga hadith-hadith Rasulullah SAW. Penjelasan inilah yang dinamakan sebagai ‘menyampaikan dakwah’, sebagaimana yang diamalkan oleh Rasulullah SAW. Tanpa melarang mereka dari menyebut perkataan Allah, tetapi kita memberi penjelasan berdasarkan ilmu, bahawa penggunaan perkataan Allah oleh mereka yang percaya adanya sifat ketuhanan dan nama ketuhanan yang lain daripada Allah adalah tidak tepat.

Apabila Rasulullah SAW menghantar surat kepada raja-raja yang menganut agama kitab, dan disebut dalam surat perutusan itu firman Allah yang menjelaskan kepercayaan yang sebenar kepada Allah yang bermaksud:

64. Katakanlah (Wahai Muhammad): "Wahai ahli kitab, marilah kepada satu kalimah yang bersamaan antara Kami Dengan kamu, Iaitu kita semua tidak menyembah melainkan Allah, dan kita tidak sekutukan dengannya sesuatu jua pun; dan jangan pula sebahagian dari kita mengambil akan sebahagian yang lain untuk dijadikan orang-orang yang dipuja dan didewa-dewakan selain daripada Allah". kemudian jika mereka (Ahli Kitab itu) berpaling (enggan menerimanya) maka katakanlah kepada mereka: "Saksikanlah kamu Bahawa Sesungguhnya Kami adalah orang-orang Islam".

Perutusan Rasulullah SAW mendedahkah bagaimana golongan Ahli Kitab (Kristian dan Yahudi) memakai perkataan yang sama apabila menyebut perkataan Allah, seterusnya dijelaskan dengan makna aqidah yang tepat secara ajaran Tauhid, iaitu mengesakan Allah tanpa syirik, sama ada syirik itu melakukan upacara ibadat dengan menyembah tuhan-tuhan yang lain daripada Allah, atau mematuhi hukum-hukum dan undang-undang ciptaan para ahli agama (pendita) dan pemimpin-pemimpin (Arbab) yang mencipta undang-undang dan hukum yang menentang hukum Allah. Mereka telah menghalalkan apa yang diharamkan oleh Allah dalam kitab yang diturunkan kepada Rasul mereka sendiri, atau mengharamkan apa yang di halalkan, atau memberi hak ketuhanan kepada ahli agama sehingga boleh mengampunkan dosa yang menjadi hak Allah sahaja.

Kesimpulannya, kita tidak boleh melarang mereka menggunakan perkataan Allah di kalangan mereka sendiri, dalam ibadat mereka dan amalan mereka, walau pun salah maksud dan maknanya yang asal mengikut bahasa kita. Adapun menggunakan perkataan Allah oleh mereka terhadap masyarakat Islam untuk menyebarkan agama mereka dengan fahaman mereka, atau menjadikan perkataan ALLAH sekadar mengubah jenama bagi melariskan barangan dalam masyarakat Islam, tidak boleh dizinkan sama-sekali. Ini adalah kerana menyalahgunakan perkataan Allah yang Maha Suci kepada umat Islam dan bercanggah dengan makna mengikut bahasa yang di amal oleh umat Islam, adalah dikira menodai kesucian dan kemurnian kalimah ALLAH di hadapan umat Islam.

Iman ‘Ali K.W, menegaskan kepada mereka yang menyalahgunakan perkataan yang benar dengan tujuan yang salah, dengan apa nama sekalipun :

(Kalimahnya benar , tetapi dimaksudkan dengan tujuan yang salah).

Kalimah ALLAH adalah paling benar, tetapi kalau menulis atau menyebut perkataan Allah laksana memakai jenama barangan untuk melariskan jualan di tengah masyarakat umat Islam, maka ianya sangat menyentuh sensitiviti umat Islam. Keadaan ini akan menyebabkan semua kalangan umat Islam yang berbeza pertubuhan (NGO), fahaman politik dan individu, bersatu untuk mengeluarkan suara hati mereka yang sangat memuliakan kalimah ALLAH. Suasana sebegini boleh menimbulkan ketegangan dalam masyarakat majmuk yang ada dalam negara kita.

Al Quran juga memerintah penganutnya supaya tidak menghina dan mencaci penganut agama lain sehingga menyebabkan mereka mencaci Allah.

Firman Allah yang bermaksud :

108. Dan janganlah kamu cerca benda-benda yang mereka sembah yang lain dari Allah, kerana mereka kelak, akan mencerca Allah secara melampaui batas dengan ketiadaan pengetahuan. Demikianlah kami memperelokkan pada pandangan tiap-tiap umat akan amal perbuatan mereka, kemudian kepada Tuhan merekalah tempat kembali mereka, lalu ia menerangkan kepada mereka apa yang mereka telah lakukan.

Demikianlah keterbukaan Islam terhadap kebebasan beragama dengan batas sempadan yang tidak menegangkan hubungan dalam masyarakat berbagai agama.

Wallahua’alam.

7 Januari 2010

Vatican Campurtangan?

“We must all realise that this is not an ‘Allah’ issue alone. The ‘Allah’ issue has become the vehicle to ensure that our federal constitution is not buried and Syariah law becomes the law of the country. This is the real danger.”

Father Lawrence Andrew; Editor, Herald Tribune

17 March 2009; Malaysiakini
------------ --------- --------- -
Vatican support for Allah signature campaign
17 March 2009
by Joe Fernandez

A signature campaign that activists in Sabah and Sarawak have initiated on the right of Christians in Malaysia to use the term ‘Allah’ for God is said to have received the support of the Vatican.

Kota Kinabalu church activist Ronnie Klassen said Herald editor Father Lawrence Andrew, who is in Rome on a periodic visit to the Vatican, had indicated this in an email dated March 14, in reply to his request for views and support of the signature campaign.

It is understood that the contents of the email could not have been penned without the prior approval of the Holy See. Lawrence wrote: “We must all realise that this is not an ‘Allah’ issue alone. The ‘Allah’ issue has become the vehicle to ensure that our federal constitution is not buried and Syariah law becomes the law of the country. This is the real danger.”

He cited contradictions in Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s recent public statements that indicate inherent ‘danger’ for the status of the federal constitution. Abdullah, he pointed out, has assured that Malaysia is not a theocracy but at the same time has insisted that it is a "Negara Islam". “...There can be no Negara Islam without Syariah law and culture. So, is he not slowly preparing to make Syariah law the law of the country?” asked Lawrence. Lawrence’s email was brief, said Klassen, but the priest - who will leave Rome today - gave the assurance that the church’s lawyers are studying the issue.

The government has prohibited the Herald, a Catholic weekly, from using the word ‘Allah’ on the ground that it could mislead Muslims. The matter is currently under judicial review and a decision is expected on May 28.

Progress of campaign Klassen said Lawwence’s email was the fourth piece of good news for the signature campaign in recent days, following the comments of:
• PAS spiritual advisor Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat who said that non-Muslims have as much right to use the term ‘Allah’ for God as Muslims;
• former Grand Iman of Masjid Negara Taib Azamudden Mat Taib and PAS state assemblyperson for Baling, who said both Muslims and non-Muslims use the term ‘Allah’ although their interpretation varies; and
• Sarawak minister of religious affairs Daud Abdul Rahman, who said the state would not gazette the use of ‘Allah’ for Muslims only, alongside ‘Baitullah’, ‘solat’ and ‘Kaabah’, given that the majority of Sarawakians are non-Muslims.

Klassen said the signature campaign, which he and PKR vice-president Jeffrey Kitingan initiated, has received both brickbats and bouquets, and that the process has not been smooth as they would have liked.

“What really rankles is the continued silence by leaders like Joseph Pairin Kitingan, Bernard Giluk Dompok, Maximus Jonity Ongkili, Joseph Kurup and others from the various cultural bodies,” said Klassen.

“Dompok’s people tell me that their boss is treading cautiously on the issue in public, but that he is working quietly behind the scenes.” This, he explained, was because Dompok had been more vociferous in public previously, but that few had stood up for him after he was threatened with jihad, due to political expediency.

The signature campaign will close at the end of this month. A memorandum accompanied by the signatures collected will then be submitted to Abdullah in Putrajaya.
http://malaysiakini .com/news/ 100364

------------ --------- --------

Herald editor Father Lawrence Andrew has clarified that he had not gone to Vatican with the intention of giving a briefing on the ‘Allah' issue.

He told Malaysiakini that the Vatican has never interfered in the matter and neither had it given any support for the signature campaign organised by a church activist.

He said his visit to Rome had nothing to do with the Herald issue.

He also expressed disappointment that the Kota Kinabalu church activist Ronnie Klassen had decided to make public a private e-mail correspondence. (March 18, 2009/12.06pm)

Pembangkang perlu bertaubat

Utusan: Pembangkang perlu bertaubat

HULU SELANGOR 10 Jan. - Pembangkang diminta supaya bertaubat kerana sanggup memperjudikan kestabilan dan kemerdekaan negara dengan menjadikan isu kalimah Allah serta kejadian serangan ke atas gereja sebagai modal meraih sokongan politik walaupun sedar perkara itu boleh menyemarakkan api perkauman.

Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein berkata, tindakan pembangkang mengeskploitasikan isu itu sangat tidak bertanggungjawab kerana ia boleh meruntuhkan keharmonian dan kestabilan yang dinikmati sejak merdeka.

"Kalau pun hendak berpolitik, berpolitiklah dengan cara bertanggungjawab dan bukannya mengeksploitasi isu sensitif seperti ini. Saya menyeru kepada mereka (pembangkang) bertaubatlah kerana kesan daripada perbuatan ini sangat besar.

"Menuding jari mengatakan UMNO yang sengaja menimbulkan isu adalah satu tuduhan jahat kerana adalah tidak masuk akal kita hendak menghancurkan kestabilan yang telah dibina sekian lama oleh kerajaan," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian ketika berucap merasmikan ceramah pendidikan sempena program UMNO Juara Rakyat, di sini hari ini.

Hishammuddin mengulas tindakan pembangkang yang sejak bermulanya isu bantahan penggunaan kalimah Allah sehinggalah serangan gereja secara berterusan menuduh bahawa, kemelut yang timbul itu kononnya angkara UMNO

Katanya, kepentingan negara mesti didahulukan berbanding kelangsungan politik kerana tiada makna kejayaan membentuk kerajaan baru jika keadaan rakyat dan negara kucar-kacir.

Menurut beliau, pertimbangan itulah yang menjadi asas kepada kerajaan apabila Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan seluruh anggota Kabinet mengutuk sekeras-kerasnya serangan terhadap beberapa gereja di Selangor dan Perak.

"Bukan sekadar mengutuk tetapi Perdana Menteri sendiri turun padang melihat kesan serangan, malah, dengan segera meluluskan peruntukkan RM500,000 bagi membaiki semula rumah ibadat yang rosak," katanya.

Mengulas lanjut, Hishammuddin kemudiannya melahirkan perasaan kecewa dengan sikap pembangkang yang gemar mempolitikkan semua isu asalkan ia memberi kepentingan kepada mereka.

Katanya, tiada gunanya menjadi kerajaan jika rakyat dan negara berada dalam keadaan kacau-bilau, malah, tegasnya, penyesalan pada masa itu sudah terlambat dan tidak berguna lagi.

Sementara itu, Hishammuddin memberi jaminan bahawa keadaan keselamatan negara terjamin wgalaupun berlaku beberapa insiden serangan di gereja dan surau.

Jelasnya, pihak keselamatan telah mengambil semua langkah yang perlu bagi memastikan kestabilan negara tidak terancam.

"Laporan media asing yang menggambarkan negara ini berada dalam keadaan meruncingkan adalah tidak benar kerana insiden serangan yang berlaku adalah kecil.

"Buktinya hari ini apabila rakyat pelbagai lapisan agama dan kaum boleh duduk bersama bagi menjayakan program UMNO Juara Rakyat," katanya.