What's new

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

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


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

I do not speak Malay, so I would appreciate your guidance on the issue. I have read that Tuhan actual translates as "Lord," not "G-d." and thus is not a proper substitute for Allah in many situations.

Regarding the publications, at least it sets to rest the fiction that this ruling only applied to that one magazine.
 
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?
Look at the newspaper sources of the country it happened ..I.E. Malaysia not borrowed news with their added spices!

Maybe even try CNN:

But after the Federal Court announced its verdict on Monday, the government released a statement saying that the ruling would only apply to the Church's newspaper, which has been at the center of the court battle since Malaysian authorities ordered the publication to cease using the Arabic word in 2007.

Malaysian Christians will still be able to use the word "Allah" in church, the government's statement said.

"Malaysia is a multi-faith country and it is important that we manage our differences peacefully, in accordance with the rule of law and through dialogue, mutual respect and compromise," the statement said.


Malaysia to Christians: Don't say 'Allah' - CNN.com

Pry do show me where it says books as well...
 
This is true...But then again Egypt has Arabic language as its national language...Malaysia doesnt!

Doesn't this make the Malaysian case even more absurd? If those who are most familiar with the term are comfortable with Christians using it, who are Malaysians to say otherwise?
 
I do not speak Malay, so I would appreciate your guidance on the issue. I have read that Tuhan actual translates as "Lord," not "G-d." and thus is not a proper substitute for Allah in many situations.

Regarding the publications, at least it sets to rest the fiction that this ruling only applied to that one magazine.
Did you even try google translate? Google Translate
 
Look at the newspaper sources of the country it happened ..I.E. Malaysia not borrowed news with their added spices!

Maybe even try CNN:

But after the Federal Court announced its verdict on Monday, the government released a statement saying that the ruling would only apply to the Church's newspaper, which has been at the center of the court battle since Malaysian authorities ordered the publication to cease using the Arabic word in 2007.

Malaysian Christians will still be able to use the word "Allah" in church, the government's statement said.

"Malaysia is a multi-faith country and it is important that we manage our differences peacefully, in accordance with the rule of law and through dialogue, mutual respect and compromise," the statement said.


Malaysia to Christians: Don't say 'Allah' - CNN.com

Pry do show me where it says books as well...

The government decided to pretend that the court issued a ruling that was different from the ruling it actually issued, which was unilateral. That is my reading of the situation. If you are able to provide a link to the actual court ruling, I would be happy to read it to find out the truth, but I cannot seem to find it. Perhaps you are more knowledgeable about where to look.
 
Doesn't this make the Malaysian case even more absurd? If those who are most familiar with the term are comfortable with Christians using it, who are Malaysians to say otherwise?
Because the magazine was in English and Malay while in Egypt everything is all in Arabic so no one can say selective changing occured
 
Google Translate is not reliable by any means. We need to ask a native Malay speaker. Do you speak Malay?
Malay itself has a lot of dialects I speak 2 of them fluently while a third not so...and I understand Bahasa Indonesia but not that well..
 
Malay itself has a lot of dialects I speak 2 of them fluently while a third not so...and I understand Bahasa Indonesia but not that well..

I was unaware of that. Isn't it then possible that the reference to Borneo is correct, and Tuhan is not used in that way, or doesn't exist, in that area?
 
I was unaware of that. Isn't it then possible that the reference to Borneo is correct, and Tuhan is not used in that way, or doesn't exist, in that area?
No it is not correct at all hence I even suspect the news...sounds a little spiced up to excite people!

In Borneo they use Tuhan more than other parts of Malaysia...why? Because the indigenous people of Borneo speak Bahasa Melayu rather than Arabic mixed so those who are not Muslim will usually go Tuhan...Even those who are Muslims call upon Tuhan as god (esp the previous generation) but those who can speak Arabic will go Ya ALLAH...
 
Last edited:
The New York Times did not feel it necessary to distinguish between Protestants and Catholics when presenting the Christian scholars, and neither do I. They present the views of different scholars on the matter of Christian missionaries in Malaysia, and you may decide to ignore some, for whatever reason, but it doesn't mean others will do so.


The distinction was made only after you stated that the people quoted in your source were Christians and missionaries. I pointed out that Dr. Reynolds was not a missionary but a Muslim theologist, at which point you accused me of calling Reynolds a Muslim, i clarified that i never said he was a Muslim by faith but that he was a Muslim theologist, i then questioned his claim because he gave no source and he himself is not a missionary that can testify to tactics used in missionary work. I then clarified that he was a Catholic and not a Muslim, i further clarified that there is a difference between the generic umbrella 'Christian' which includes protestant denominations and Catholics.

You may not see that as important but you are the one that mentioned his religious affiliating by claiming he is not Muslim, i agreed that he wasn't Muslim, he was Catholic, and for an honest and accurate debate i felt it was worth noting his denomination as being Catholic, i also made a distinction between catholics and Christians. The beliefs of Catholics are very different from protestants, their interpretations of the bible is at odds with almost every other Christian denomination, and there are many, while most other denominations agree and practice on the same principles. Moreover, the Catholics have traditions that are not even traced to the bible. Catholics believe in Christ, Christianity is centered around Christ, so there is no problem with Catholics being called Christians, although Catholics also center their beliefs on the Virgin Marry and saints, this is where there is a divid, and where many Catholics make a strong distinction between being called a Catholic and not a Christian, while many protestants argue that Catholics are not Christian because their belief does not center only on Christ but on Marry and the saint.


I have made my position clear many times, so why is this still an issues?



Uh no.

You kept denying that missionaries were doing anything wrong. When I pointed out misconduct by missionaries, you kept saying, what does this have to do with Allah?






That is simply not true, i challenged you to prove your claim because you were openly being discriminatory against Christianity; and mind you, this is not the first time you have openly attacked Christianity. With this in mind i wanted you to prove these allegations, not because i did not believe missionaries use questionable tactics but because i felt you needed to back those claims which are obviously fueled by a bias towards Islam and against Christianity. My positions also still stands, and you still have not proven me otherwise, that these tactics are very rarely used, in fact your own source admits this. Likewise, you have been implying that it is a widespread epidemic but there is no quantitive evidence to confirm this.






As I explained elsewhere, talking about Jesus the individual is legitimate for anyone.




Not according to you. Read you own quote careful, here it is:



b) the missionaries' use of 'Allah' is semantically and theologically incorrect, since the Muslim concept of 'Allah' is fundamentally different from the Christian concept.



You can not forbid Christians from using the word allah because it is a fundamentally difference concept from that of Christianity, yet on the other hand allow Muslims to use Jesus (said Isa in Arabic) when talking about Jesus. The point here is that the Muslim concept of Jesus and the Christian concept of Jesus are totally different.

Something here has to give, either Christians are allowed to use the terminology of their choice or Muslims have to follow the same rules.




The comparable example to abuse of the word Allah by Christian missionaries would be if Muslim missionaries started talking about the Holy Spirit or Trinity, since these concepts are not present in Islam and any use of them by Muslim missionaries would be deceitful.




And this is totally fine. It's free speech, if a Muslim missionary starts talking to a Christian about the trinity, i see no offense in that. If a Muslim missionary tries to claim the trinity as a part of Islam, again i have no problem with that. Why you may ask? Because it is not true, why should it be my business if someone miss represents their religion? Even if the Muslim convinces a Christian that the trinity exists in Islam so what? That enough will not cause anyone to convert, and if it does eventually that Christian will find out the truth.




The NYTimes article quotes three individuals: one defending the missionaries and two opposing their tactics.




This does not mater, the article could have been written in any way, if the author wanted they could have gotten ten people defending missionaries and one apposing them.




Readers can go back and see that you used his name to claim that even critics of missionaries accept the use of 'Allah'. That is simply not so. The only person in that article defending the usage is the missionary advocate.



You are grasping onto an argument based on a spelling mistake and not the content of the message. The readers can go back and see that i pointed out and even quoted myself saying, Dr. Garrison which is a missionary defended the use of the word allah. I have said this many times and in once instance i inadvertently spelled Dr. Reynolds in place of Dr. Garrison.

I'm not sure why you keep brining up an issue on a spelling technicality. My argument and quotes from Dr. Garrison should leave no question as to my position.




In an ideal world, everybody should be able to use whatever words.




Yes and in most secular/European countries you can say whatever you choose.




However, cashed up Western missionaries have abused this word to the point where innocent Malaysian Christians have become collateral damage.



Innocent Malaysian Christians have become collateral damage because of hysteria and insecurities.
 
Is there anyone in Malaysia which is protecting the weak and less educated against Islam?
(Except missionaries of course)
I guess yes, the government as in many other Muslim countries is putting more emphasis on education, and Islam's obligations protect the weak inherently. Islam is a social religion on top of being an individual religion, people can help by sending or offering money and expertise, no need for missionaries to tell you the truth, since their only aim is to convert people to Christianity which has learned and derived its civilized social patterns from Islam.
 
Last edited:
I then clarified that he was a Catholic and not a Muslim

Wrong.

You displayed your bigotry by claiming that Catholics are not Christian. Ever since then, you have been running from pillar to post to try and justify your bigotry or to downplay it.

That is simply not true, i challenged you to prove your claim because you were openly being discriminatory against Christianity; and mind you, this is not the first time you have openly attacked Christianity.

Provide evidence or run along.

Not according to you. Read you own quote careful, here it is:
b) the missionaries' use of 'Allah' is semantically and theologically incorrect, since the Muslim concept of 'Allah' is fundamentally different from the Christian concept.

More desperation from you. I never raised the issue of Jesus, it was YOU. I only replied to your statements about Muslims using Jesus.

My argument has always been about the use of Allah by Christian missionaries.

Regardless of your dismissal of Dr. Reynolds as a Catholic or whatever, the fact remains that he is a knowledgeable expert on the subject. Good enough for the New York Times to present his views.

Once again, I never claimed that Dr. Reynolds was a missionary. I said he was an expert on missionary misconduct.

If a Muslim missionary tries to claim the trinity as a part of Islam, again i have no problem with that.

Your personal preferences are irrelevant,

You may not have a problem with someone robbing a bank, but it is still a crime.

You are grasping onto an argument based on a spelling mistake

No spelling mistake. The context and content of your statements is crystal clear.

You tried to slip by a completely false assertion and, when caught out, are back-peddling.

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.

What pathetic desperation from the Israeli apologist.

Show me where I claimed that you should not refer to Catholics as 'Catholic.

SHOW ME.

Substantiate your desperate assertion.

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.

Your example with African-Americans shows your inability to grasp the concept. If one African-American tells you it is OK for you to call him the n-word, it does NOT mean that you can start using it for all African-Americans.

Do educate yourself on fundamental set theory.

All Catholics are Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic.

Given your posting history about Muslims and Palestinians, it is not surprising that you are defending bigotry. Not at all.
 
Last edited:
Wrong.

You displayed your bigotry by claiming that Catholics are not Christian. Ever since then, you have been running from pillar to post to try and justify your bigotry or to downplay it.



I have explained this is extreme detail but you still have a difficult time putting the concept together. Are catholic beliefs the same as most Christian denominations? No, is the Catholic bible the same as the King James version? No? Do the Catholics interpret the scriptures the same way protestants do? No. Do Catholics have separate traditions? Yes. Do all Catholics call themselves Christians? No. Do all Christians call Catholics Christians? No.


You may call a Catholic a Christians, i have no problem here, a Catholic can call themselves a Christian, i have no problem with that. I call a Catholic a Catholic and not a Christian, that is not bigotry. End of story.



Provide evidence or run along.



Provide evidence for you discriminating against Christianity? Are you being sarcastic? Almost every single one of your posts in this thread are supporting discrimination against Christians. And it's not only me with this viewpoint many other people here agree that this is discrimination.






More desperation from you. I never raised the issue of Jesus, it was YOU. I only replied to your statements about Muslims using Jesus.


You did not need to raise the issue of Jesus and i never said you did. I raised the issue with Jesus as an example of how bias and unfair this Malaysian law is, this is no more desperate then you using analogies about doctors, which were false by the way. You replied the following when asked about Jesus:

"the Muslim concept of 'Allah' is fundamentally different from the Christian concept."

I can make the same argument for Jesus, the Christian concept of Jesus is different from the Muslim concept of Jesus. Yet this does not stop Muslims from talking about Jesus to Christians, it does not stop Muslims from calling Isa Jesus.


Muslims get special privileges now?







Your personal preferences are irrelevant,


So are yours yet you have been making arguments for your personal preferences when it comes to Christians using 'allah', how ironic. I stated i have no problem with Muslims talking about the trinity when talking to Christians after you mentioned the trinity and how it would be deceitful for Muslims to speak about it when talking to Christians. I'm not insecure for this to bother me.




No spelling mistake. The context and content of your statements is crystal clear.


You may have had an argument if i kept repeating the same thing over and over; however, i made one spelling mistake, if anyone actually goes through and reads my posts they will see that i have mentioned Dr. Garrison as the person that defends the usage of allah multiple times. I even quoted myself; moreover, i never bothered correcting that mistake because i have nothing to hid and i know that whoever takes the time to read through my posts will eventually realize it was a mistake. You are running out of valid arguments to challenge me so now you are attacking a spelling mistake.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom