'Allah' for Muslims only: Malaysia's top court

[Kompromat]

The word Allah is against fundamental Christian belief that Prophet Isa (Jesus) was the son of God.

The word Allah is *explained* only the Surah Al Ikhlas in the Quran in four verses.

1: Say, that Allah is One and the only.
2: Allah is, absolute and eternal.
3: He does NOT beget, Nor was he begotten.
4: There is absolutely nothing else like Allah.

Christian faith is based in the concept of 'The holy trinity', the Father, The Son and the holy Ghost, therefore the word Allah by defination is vehemently against the core Christian faith.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Once again, free speech stops when you use it to commit fraud and deceive people.

Free Speech stops when repressive governments stop it.

The word Allah is against fundamental Christian belief that Prophet Isa (Jesus) was the son of God.

The word Allah is *explained* only the Surah Al Ikhlas in the Quran in four verses.

1: Say, that Allah is One and the only.
2: Allah is, absolute and eternal.
3: He does NOT beget, Nor was he begotten.
4: There is absolutely nothing else like Allah.

Christian faith is based in the concept of 'The holy trinity', the Father, The Son and the holy Ghost, therefore the word Allah by defination is vehemently against the core Christian faith.

The muslim interpretation of Allah is certainly against the core Christian faith,
but the word "Allah" preceeds Islam, and its translation = "the Creator" is used
by Christians, and has been used by Christians since before Islam.
The translation to Swedish = "Skaparen" is commonly used to describe the Christian God.
Which such laws, it would be forbidden to translate Swedish texts to Arabic.
That does not make sense.

 

[Dubious]

I don't know what to say. Are missionaries trained by the Vatican in Islamic theology? Are Muslim missionaries trained in Christian theology? Somehow, I doubt it.

I dont know what they are trained in but if you have a degree in theology and are writing books and magazine...I would expect you to know the basics of what you are writing!

Its not like you expect a cobbler to write a magazine for medicine!

The word Allah is *explained* only the Surah Al Ikhlas in the Quran in four verses.

In more than just that ayat but that is the touching stone

 

[Black Mamba1]

The word Allah is against fundamental Christian belief that Prophet Isa (Jesus) was the son of God.

The word Allah is *explained* only the Surah Al Ikhlas in the Quran in four verses.

1: Say, that Allah is One and the only.
2: Allah is, absolute and eternal.
3: He does NOT beget, Nor was he begotten.
4: There is absolutely nothing else like Allah.

Christian faith is based in the concept of 'The holy trinity', the Father, The Son and the holy Ghost, therefore the word Allah by defination is vehemently against the core Christian faith.

Please note, this is an off topic post and just meant for information only.

If that is the definition of Allah (necessary and sufficient condition) then an old Hindu sect called advaitabaadI are fulfilling the criteria .
1. They believe in Param Brahmba (absolute truth) which is one and only
2. Brahma is absolute and eternal.
3. He does NOT beget, Nor was he begotten
4. There is absolutely nothing else like Bharma

In addition they believe
1. Brahma is omnipresent in everything in universe
2. Everything in this universe is virtual except Brahma
3. Brahma cannot be defined ( Does Kuran allow you to define Allah?)

Original Sankaracharyaa revived this ancient philosophy before Muslim invasion in India. He defeated many Gurues of other Pagan Hindu sects in open philosophical debates (These debates on phylosophy and religion were normal that time). But after that Muslim invasion happened , things went into different direction.

Nowadays also many people practice these. Organisation like Ramakrishna mission also believer of Adboitabad.

As they fulfill your 4 conditions, they can call their God (usually denoted by a sign ॐ) as Allah as it appears.

I am surprised with the similarity after going through your definition. Anyway, this discussion is off topic.

 

[Dubious]

The answer is right in the article you quoted:

My question is regarding Herald...Why did they change 1 word in their Magazine to Arabic? They have both Malay and English magazines and were fine with using Tuhan and God then they suddenly decided lets change one word to Arabic ...you know just for fun...

In other words, they've been using Allah to refer to G-d for a long time. The only thing that's changed is that the state suddenly decided to ban them from using it. It's not the Christian use of the word Allah that's new, it's the ban on using it by only one group that's new. As other users have pointed out previously in the thread, Christians in other Muslim countries use Allah when referring to G-d without a problem. It's only in Malaysia that it's a problem.
So why ban Christians from using the word Allah? That, too, is answered in the article:
"The idea is to use this as a political weapon to raise tensions," James Chin, a political science professor at Monash University, told AFP.
"They (the ruling party) feel that this is a vote-winner for the next election."
In which case, this ruling is indefensible, since it's not made to protect gullible Muslims. It's made to pander to their sense of supremacy.

The ban is on Harold...My guess is they did something more than change that 1 word...Because previously everyone used Tuhan...Only Arab Christians and some Malay Christians started using ALLAH...Harold only recently entered the picture with ALLAH (2005 or was it 2007)...Before that it didnt constipate on Tuhan or God...just suddenly it thought lets push our luck a bit more
I think you are jumping to conclusions!

The political bit in the article was refering to Harold...Malay Christians are still free to use it in the church...

Mind you the court is not that politically active..Maybe you need to read the case up instead of jumping in loops!

Please note, this is an off topic post and just meant for information only.

If that is the definition of Allah (necessary and sufficient condition) then an old Hindu sect called AdboitabaadI are fulfilling the criteria .
1. They believe in Param Brahmba (absolute truth) which is one and only
2. Brahma is absolute and eternal.
3. He does NOT beget, Nor was he begotten
4. There is absolutely nothing else like Bharma

In addition they believe
1. Brahma is omnipresent in everything in universe
2. Everything in this universe is virtual except Brahma
3. Brahma cannot be defined ( Does Kuran allow you to define Allah?)

Original Sankaracharyaa revived this ancient philosophy before Muslim invasion in India. He defeated many Gurues of other Pagan Hindu sects in open philosophical debates (These debates on phylosophy and religion were normal that time). But after that Muslim invasion happened , things went into different direction.

Nowadays also many people practice these. Organisation like Ramakrishna mission also believer of Adboitabad.

As they fulfill your 4 conditions, they can call their God (usually denoted by a sign ॐ) as Allah as it appears.

I am surprised with the similarity after going through your definition. Anyway, this discussion is off topic.

There is a lot of similarity between religions if only people would open their eyes towards similarities...most rush towards differences!

God with such a concept also existed in Africa pre-Islamic era....My guess is the similarity is due to common source...the differences arises from men's habit to play around with words

That is fine if Brahman is all that you mentioned...


But the min you put a picture on Brahman:

He is no longer equal to ALLAH...coz ALLAH doesnt have form ..and in the 4th verse it says there is nothing like HIM

There is absolutely nothing else like Allah.

Meaning nothing can show HIS shape or form...Not a statue not the imagination absolutely nothing!

 

[Kompromat]

@A.P. Richelieu

Please find me an 'authentic' document, which contains the word Allah and it must predate Islam. We'll continue the argument once you do that.

 

[Black Mamba1]

source...the differences arises from men's habit to play around with words

That is fine if Brahman is all that you mentioned...


But the min you put a picture on Brahman:

He is no longer equal to ALLAH...coz ALLAH doesnt have form ..and in the 4th verse it says there is nothing like HIM


Meaning nothing can show HIS shape or form...Not a statue not the imagination absolutely nothing!

It is my fault. My knowledge is limited. I could not explain properly. Advaita (a+dvaita) means non-duality. Brahman the hindu (Pagan) God whose picture you posted is different from Parama Brahman of advaita philosophy. Advatavadi Hindus do not make pictures/ statues of their God. They simply denote the singulerity of their God by a simbol ie ॐ as Param Bhamhan (God) is beyond definition too.
"Parama Brahman (Sanskrit) [from para beyond + Brahman (neuter) universal self or spirit] - That which is beyond Brahman. The self-enduring, eternal, self-sufficient cause of all causes, the essence of everything in the cosmos."

But I also believe in what you told in your last post ie "My guess is the similarity is due to common source...the differences arises from men's habit to play around with words"

 

[Dubious]

It is my fault. My knowledge is limited. I could not explain properly. Advaita (a+dvaita) means non-duality. Brahman the hindu (Pagan) God whose picture you posted is different from Parama Brahman of advaita philosophy. advatavadi hindu's do not make pictures/ statue of their God. The simply denote the singulerity of their God by a simbol ie ॐ as Param Bhamha (God) is beyond definition too.
"Parama Brahman (Sanskrit) [from para beyond + Brahman (neuter) universal self or spirit] - That which is beyond Brahman. The self-enduring, eternal, self-sufficient cause of all causes, the essence of everything in the cosmos."

But I also believe in what you tols ie "My guess is the similarity is due to common source...the differences arises from men's habit to play around with words"

Ahh I see..fair enough

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

@A.P. Richelieu

Please find me an 'authentic' document, which contains the word Allah and it must predate Islam. We'll continue the argument once you do that.

Sorry, I don't have an authentic document proving this, but I would like to refer to posting #9 in this thread.
A posting by a true Authority on PDF (@Aeronaut), and I trust his judgement.

"Sir i have to disagree. The genesis of the word Allah can be traced back to the time of Prophet Moses PBUH. According to Islam, Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same creator so why stop them from using the word Allah? - This is sheer discrimination from our perspective."

P.S. Sorry for being a smartass .

 

[Kompromat]

Sorry, I don't have an authentic document proving this, but I would like to refer to posting #9 in this thread.
A posting by a true Authority on PDF (@Aeronaut), and I trust his judgement.

"Sir i have to disagree. The genesis of the word Allah can be traced back to the time of Prophet Moses PBUH. According to Islam, Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same creator so why stop them from using the word Allah? - This is sheer discrimination from our perspective."

P.S. Sorry for being a smartass .

Precisely.

The word Allah comes from ancient Hebrew word Alloeh. Allah is a composition on Al Illah. For Jews and Muslims it is applicable however for Christianity it defies their basic belief in the trinity.

I have no objection to people using it as Muslims don't have a manopoly over the Creator. My intent was to highlight the paradox Christian church is pushing in Malaysia.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Again, you miss the point entirely.

It's OK for a Catholic to say he is not Christian, but it is bigoted for a non-Catholic to make that claim about Catholics.

In the same way that African-Americans sometimes use the n-word amongst themselves, but it is not OK for others to use it.
.

You have it backwards. If a black man tells me to not call him a N- and instead call him African-American, then I call him an African-American. If a Catholic tells me to call him Catholic, not Christian, then I call him a Catholic. How they refer to themselves internally is not relevant to me, since I am not one of them.

If, as you demand, I persist in calling him a Christian, it would then be fair to label me a bigot. Therefore, your careless labeling of users as bigots in this case in unwarranted, because the Catholic-Christian schism is both complicated and dealt with differently in various parts of the world. Don't assume that the way it is perceived where you live is the universal case.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You have it backwards. If a black man tells me to not call him a N- and instead call him African-American, then I call him an African-American. If a Catholic tells me to call him Catholic, not Christian, then I call him a Catholic. How they refer to themselves internally is not relevant to me, since I am not one of them.

If, as you demand, I persist in calling him a Christian, it would then be fair to label me a bigot. Therefore, your careless labeling of users as bigots in this case in unwarranted, because the Catholic-Christian schism is both complicated and dealt with differently in various parts of the world. Don't assume that the way it is perceived where you live is the universal case.

If you are a Christian, you could be either Catholic, Protestant or any of a number of groups.
There are a lot of differences (which wars have been fought over), so Catholics may not want to be lumped
together with Protestants, and prefer to be called Catholics.
Protestants would refer to them as Christians. I do not know anyone that would describe
themselves as Protestants, but they would agree if you asked them whether they
were Protestants or not.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

If you are a Christian, you could be either Catholic, Protestant or any of a number of groups.
There are a lot of differences (which wars have been fought over), so Catholics may not want to be lumped
together with Protestants, and prefer to be called Catholics.

Indeed, and I will call them whatever they want to be called. It's not up to me. If I call them something they don't want to be called, however, then I can be accused of bigotry. @Developereo seems to believe that it's bigoted to refer to Catholics by their preferred descriptor (Catholic), and I should instead refer to them as Christian, even after being directed not to. What a strange value system.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

My question is regarding Herald...Why did they change 1 word in their Magazine to Arabic? They have both Malay and English magazines and were fine with using Tuhan and God then they suddenly decided lets change one word to Arabic ...you know just for fun...


The ban is on Harold...My guess is they did something more than change that 1 word...Because previously everyone used Tuhan...Only Arab Christians and some Malay Christians started using ALLAH...Harold only recently entered the picture with ALLAH (2005 or was it 2007)...Before that it didnt constipate on Tuhan or God...just suddenly it thought lets push our luck a bit more
I think you are jumping to conclusions!

The political bit in the article was refering to Harold...Malay Christians are still free to use it in the church...

Mind you the court is not that politically active..Maybe you need to read the case up instead of jumping in loops!

My friend, you have accused me of jumping to conclusions several times, and I've let it pass in the interest of the discussion, but I'll answer it directly now. You are misrepresenting the case.

Malaysia's top court: 'Allah' for Muslims only

-"Malaysia's top court ruled Monday that non-Muslims cannot use the word "Allah" to refer to God, delivering the final word on a contentious debate that has reinforced complaints that religious minorities are treated unfairly in the Muslim-majority country."

-"In a 4-3 judgment, the Federal Court rejected a challenge by the Roman Catholic Church and upheld a government ban on the use of the word. Most Christians in Malaysia worship in English, Tamil or various Chinese dialects, and refer to God in those languages but some Malay-speaking people on the island of Borneo have no other word for God but "Allah," a Malay word derived from Arabic."

-"The government says Allah should be reserved exclusively for Muslims, who make up nearly two-thirds of the country's 29 million people. If other religions use the term, that could confuse Muslims and lead them to convert away from Islam, the government claims."

-"The ban appears to apply mostly to published materials, not spoken words, and newspapers using the term would lose their license. Imported Malay-language Bibles containing the term Allah, typically from Indonesia, already have been blocked. "

-"In Egypt, where at least 10%of the population is Christian, both Muslims and Christians refer to God as "Allah," and this hasn't generated any controversy or antagonism. Christians often refer to God as "al-Rab" in their liturgy, but use "Allah" more frequently in their daily life."

-"The same is true for Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation. Both groups use "Allah" — although Christians pronounce it "Al-lah" and Muslims say "Al-loh," so you can tell which religion the speaker is — but this hasn't caused friction."

---

So the Christian groups have unilaterally decided to ignore the ruling and pretend it only applies to that magazine, but that is not what the court ruled. Books (including Bibles) and newspapers that use the term in non-Muslim contexts will be banned. Note that Egypt and Indonesia have no such confusion when Christians use the word Allah. This can only lead to one of two conclusions:

1) This was a politically motivated move by the government to pander to the populace's sense of Muslim supremacy

or

2) Malaysian Muslims are especially gullible

Which one do you think it is?

Mind you the court is not that politically active..Maybe you need to read the case up instead of jumping in loops!

The government imposed the original ban. The court violated the Malaysian constitution's protection of freedom of religion to uphold this ban. So yes, both the government and court imposed this ban for political reasons. It is impossible not to conclude otherwise. And since it is a political, and not religious motive, then this action constitutes persecution.

 

[Dubious]

but some Malay-speaking people on the island of Borneo have no other word for God but "Allah," a Malay word derived from Arabic."

This bit is a lie....The word Tuhan is used all over Borneo...

Unless you are telling me Tuhan is some other language and not Malay

-"The ban appears to apply mostly to published materials, not spoken words, and newspapers using the term would lose their license. Imported Malay-language Bibles containing the term Allah, typically from Indonesia, already have been blocked. "

Because when people speak you can clarify it but something written cant be unless you are discussing it with somone!

-"In Egypt, where at least 10%of the population is Christian, both Muslims and Christians refer to God as "Allah," and this hasn't generated any controversy or antagonism. Christians often refer to God as "al-Rab" in their liturgy, but use "Allah" more frequently in their daily life."

This is true...But then again Egypt has Arabic language as its national language...Malaysia doesnt!