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

[ptldM3]

Once again, you demonstrate your difficulty with English and Logic. Since your comprehension difficulties are clouded by your bigotry (you again claimed that Catholics are not Christian), I can walk the readers through what the New York Times article talks about.

You keep repeating the same thing without even debating it which tells me you have no argument. On the other, hand i have actually spoken about the subject in depth. So do you want to debate, or do you want keep repeating the same empty rhetoric?

I also said that there is a big difference between Catholicism and Christianity and that many Catholics especially the few that i have spoken to do not like it when people call them Christians. Also refer to # 137, in it i stated that Catholics can call themselves Christians as in they believe in Christ but that Catholics and protestant Christians share very different beliefs. Again do not clump the two together or keep assuming that i somehow favor certain viewpoints based on religion, it does not matter if it's Christian, Catholic or Muslim.

The whole article is about the tactics used by Christian missionaries, specifically in the context of the ongoing controversy about the use of 'Allah'. The 'Allah' issue is the backdrop to the whole debate. It is stated clearly in the first paragraph in plain English.

The debate is as follows:

The unscrupulous missionaries claim their use of 'Allah' is justified and present their case. There is no dispute that they use 'Allah'; the only dispute is whether it is justified.

Congratulations! You have just said what i have been saying in every post. The problem is that before you would not budge and instead insisted that your opinion and the opinion of Dr. Reynolds were unmistakably the correct opinions, while i cautioned that this debate i subjective with different parties disagreeing.

The experts on the other side point out that

a) missionary organizations encourage their operatives to use 'Allah'

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

In that case then Muslims should not be allowed to use the word 'Jesus' when speaking to Christians since the Muslim concept of Jesus is fundamentally different from the Christian concept.

See what i did there? Your concept is bigotry in its purest form, you are not only advocating suppression of free speech by trying to mask it as differences in concept but you are also advocating the discrimination of Christians which is brushed off as collateral damage.

The question then becomes whether the missionaries are just misguided or deliberately malicious. That's where the experts point out that the missionaries have a history of misconduct and deception. Such misconduct includes calling themselves as 'muslim' to deceive people.

One person has said this and not expert(s). I have stated that missionaries have probably done questionable things in the past but i still questioned Dr. Reynolds source, which he gave none. This is not to say he is a liar but that rather he gives no evidence or back-round to his claim. Being a phD or anyone in power does not excuse you from making mistakes or repeating things that they have heard from other people. Even i have had professors that were bias and mostly one sided.

For example in 2003 when the Bush administration was telling the world of Iraqi WMD the Bush administration lied, not to mention governments agencies also lied to certain people in the Bush administration, in essence a bunch of people in positions of authority were lying. These people were highly educated, had contact with UN weapons inspectors, the CIA, FBI, and various other groups and organizations. Yet these people lied to the world, this included 'experts' lying.

Notice no missionaries have admitted to calling themselves Muslims rather this is an allegation and even if we assume that some missionaries at some point used this tactic. it would be rare even Dr. Reynolds the man that made this claim admitted so by saying it would be "extreme" cases. So if this does happen albeit rarely it would be unjust to impose such a discriminatory rule on an entire people.

The NY Times article, in the interest of fairness, lets both sides tell their point of view. It does NOT change the fact that missionaries engage in misconduct, including calling themselves 'muslim' and using 'Allah' in a way that is theologically inaccurate.

The point is that even Dr. Reynolds states that it happens in "extreme" cases. It is also rare for Muslims to use violence in the name of Islam against other, so just because 1% of Muslims do use violence against other people how fair would it be to impose discriminatory practices against all Muslims? Not very.

And I notice you still haven't answered my question about your idiotic allegation that Dr. Reynolds defended the use of 'Allah'. Go ahead and demonstrate your intellectual (in)competence by showing us where Dr. Reynolds does that.

Listen.....to what i say and what i have said in the past. I stated that it was David Garrison that said this, i said this many times, in one post i inadvertently wrote Dr. Reynolds when i meant to say Dr. Garrison but i have said that it was Dr. Garrison enough times and even before you asked for clarification for you to know that i was talking about Dr. Garrison.


Here i am talking about it:

"Garrison never denied using the word allah, in fact he made a strong argument as to why it is appropriate to use."

And here a quote from your source:

As Dr. Garrison explains it, “there is only one God, the God who created the heavens and earth,” so talking about the Christian God as “Allah” is not misleading.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

We cant judge the believe...But the Muslims believe ALLAH begets not while Christians believe Jesus the son of god...so basically it cant be the same god...and it is rare to see Muslims say ALLAH to Christians...Usually they say Tuhan...I am not sure is it out of being humble or attributing ALLAH only to Muslim god...
No they are not really...Because I told you the definition of ALLAH ...ALLAH is 1 and nothing like HIM, HE begets not nor is begotten...If Tuhan fits this fine...God of Christianity has begotten a son called Jesus if Tuhan fits in this ...fine!


I have mimicked one about an hr ago

I now better understand the difference between Allah and the Christian deity, but do you see how this is an asymmetrical ruling? You say that Muslim missionaries cannot know what Christians believe, so if the use of the word Allah is deceptive, it's unintentional. Yet you assume that the Christian use of the word Allah must be deceptive, even though you pointed out to me that Christians also use the word Allah when referring to G-d. Is it possible that when Christians say that Jesus is the son of Allah, they say it sincerely, because they don't know that Allah is not the same as their own deity?

 

[Dubious]

I now better understand the difference between Allah and the Christian deity, but do you see how this is an asymmetrical ruling? You say that Muslim missionaries cannot know what Christians believe,

Dont get me out of context...when I said know I meant in their hearts...but know from their lips is simple...we say ALLAH begets not they say Jesus is son of god!

so if the use of the word Allah is deceptive, it's unintentional.

Oh it is intentional when they know the definition of ALLAH...if they dont they shouldnt use words they dont know the meaning off

Yet you assume that the Christian use of the word Allah must be deceptive, even though you pointed out to me that Christians also use the word Allah when referring to G-d. Is it possible that when Christians say that Jesus is the son of Allah, they say it sincerely, because they don't know that Allah is not the same as their own deity?

Well when soo many people tell them that Lam ya lid walum yu lad (ALLAH BEGETS NOT NOR HE IS BEGOTTEN) ...I am sure you see the difference...and if they dont know something how can they be going around preaching? shouldnt they be taught what they are preaching? or are you saying it is alright to go around saying anything without taking responsibilities for thy actions?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Dont get me out of context...when I said know I meant in their hearts...but know from their lips is simple...we say ALLAH begets not they say Jesus is son of god!
Oh it is intentional when they know the definition of ALLAH...if they dont they shouldnt use words they dont know the meaning off

Well when soo many people tell them that Lam ya lid walum yu lad (ALLAH BEGETS NOT NOR HE IS BEGOTTEN) ...I am sure you see the difference...and if they dont know something how can they be going around preaching? shouldnt they be taught what they are preaching? or are you saying it is alright to go around saying anything without taking responsibilities for thy actions?

I think the safer course is to assume (if one is going to make assumptions) that Christian missionaries know Christianity well, but probably don't know Islam very well. Christian missionaries may only have a passing knowledge of Islam, and so may truly believe (out of ignorance) that Tuhan and Allah are equivalent. How can one prove otherwise?

You are more familiar with this case than I am. What proof was presented during the court case that the missionaries knew that Allah and that Christian deity were in fact different deities, as opposed to believing that using Allah was only a tactical choice, to speak to Muslims in terms they thought Muslims would understand? In other words, how was it shown to be an intentional deception?

 

[Dubious]

so may truly believe (out of ignorance) that Tuhan and Allah are equivalent. How can one prove otherwise?

Ok even if they do...Must they manipulate 1 word? When Muslims in Malaysia pray both to Tuhan (god) and ALLAH...why manipulate that?

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Ok even if they do...Must they manipulate 1 word? When Muslims in Malaysia pray both to Tuhan (god) and ALLAH...why manipulate that?

The difference between us is that you assume they are manipulating the word, and I assume it is simply part of their outreach effort, in the same way that any teacher will try to teach in terms the student will understand. For those unfamiliar with Allah, I imagine Muslim missionaries begin by talking about G-d until they can introduce to the potential convert the concept of Allah, and this is done not out of a deceptive attempt to trick the convert into believing G-d and Allah are the same, but rather to build off of the knowledge base that the convert already has. I am not familiar with the methodology of missionaries, but since it is a pro-active activity and not a passive one, it would make sense for the information to flow with as little resistance as possible.

Note that my comments do not condone missionary activity, or cast any judgment on which religion is better. It is not for me to say. I only seek to explain what this case looks like from an outsider's perspective.

 

[Dubious]

You are more familiar with this case than I am. What proof was presented during the court case that the missionaries knew that Allah and that Christian deity were in fact different deities, as opposed to believing that using Allah was only a tactical choice, to speak to Muslims in terms they thought Muslims would understand? In other words, how was it shown to be an intentional deception?

The very fact that they say Jesus is son of ALLAH shows either lack of knowledge (hence they really shouldnt be preaching that at all)

Look I am not sure but not every tom dick and harry can get up and become a missionary...you get training to convince...and mind you that was the Vatican's magazine...So are you telling me Vatican had no clue who ALLAH is? Then Catholics are in trouble if Vatican - same people who cry that Muslims oppress non Muslims this and that (pretend to be an expert in laws and religions) yet dont know the basics of what they are supposed to be an expert on?

I have not read the case as it 1st started in 2007 I think...it was an on going process!

The government had previously banned the use of "Allah" in the local Malay-language edition of the Church's Herald newspaper.

But a government spokesman later clarified: "The ruling only applies to the Herald newspaper's use of the word 'Allah'. Malaysian Christians can still use the word 'Allah' in church."

"The Christian community continues to have the right to use the word 'Allah' in our Bibles, church services and Christian gatherings... as we have done all this while," said Eu Hong Seng, chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia.

In 2009 a court ruled in favour of the Church, sparking a spate of attacks on houses of worship. Last October, an appeals court reinstated the ban.

Malaysia has largely avoided overt religious conflict in recent decades, but tensions have been growing.

Two petrol bombs were thrown at a Malaysian church in January, causing minor damage.

Also in January, Islamic authorities seized hundreds of Bibles, which contained the word "Allah", from a Christian group.

Around 2.6 million people among the Southeast Asian nation's 28 million people are Christians, who come from mostly ethnic Chinese, Indian or indigenous backgrounds, while 60 percent are Muslim ethnic Malay.

Minorities have long resented a decades-old positive discrimination policy which favours Malays in education, housing and employment.

Prime Minister Najib Razak, who took office in 2009, has increasingly rolled back his initial reformist and conciliatory rhetoric in a bid to please hardliners of his United Malays National Organisation, which has ruled the country virtually uninterrupted since independence in 1957.

"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."

Top Malaysian court dismisses "Allah" case - Channel NewsAsia

Too much speculations...

But the question is yet unanswered: Why change 1 word to Arabic in a 100% English/ Malay magazine?

The difference between us is that you assume they are manipulating the word, and I assume it is simply part of their outreach effort, in the same way that any teacher will try to teach in terms the student will understand. For those unfamiliar with Allah, I imagine Muslim missionaries begin by talking about G-d until they can introduce to the potential convert the concept of Allah, and this is done not out of a deceptive attempt to trick the convert into believing G-d and Allah are the same, but rather to build off of the knowledge base that the convert already has. I am not familiar with the methodology of missionaries, but since it is a pro-active activity and not a passive one, it would make sense for the information to flow with as little resistance as possible.
Note that my comments do not condone missionary activity, or cast any judgment on which religion is better. It is not for me to say. I only seek to explain what this case looks like from an outsider's perspective.

Fair enough...

It could be the case...

The thing about Malay Missionaries is if they talk about Tuhan / god they wont jump into talking about Yahweh/ Jehova/ Ellah or anything they will stick with the word Tuhan....

So it is really strange for a Catholic missionary group to produce a magazine for which they have no knowledge! That under some laws could be distribution of fake news/ information or whatever they call it...

But yea since they allowed it in 2009 and then now are taking it back...it could be politically linked

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

The very fact that they say Jesus is son of ALLAH shows either lack of knowledge (hence they really shouldnt be preaching that at all)

Look I am not sure but not every tom dick and harry can get up and become a missionary...you get training to convince...and mind you that was the Vatican's magazine...So are you telling me Vatican had no clue who ALLAH is? Then Catholics are in trouble if Vatican - same people who cry that Muslims oppress non Muslims this and that (pretend to be an expert in laws and religions) yet dont know the basics of what they are supposed to be an expert on?

I have not read the case as it 1st started in 2007 I think...it was an on going process!

The government had previously banned the use of "Allah" in the local Malay-language edition of the Church's Herald newspaper.
But a government spokesman later clarified: "The ruling only applies to the Herald newspaper's use of the word 'Allah'. Malaysian Christians can still use the word 'Allah' in church."

"The Christian community continues to have the right to use the word 'Allah' in our Bibles, church services and Christian gatherings... as we have done all this while," said Eu Hong Seng, chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia.

In 2009 a court ruled in favour of the Church, sparking a spate of attacks on houses of worship. Last October, an appeals court reinstated the ban.

Malaysia has largely avoided overt religious conflict in recent decades, but tensions have been growing.

Two petrol bombs were thrown at a Malaysian church in January, causing minor damage.

Also in January, Islamic authorities seized hundreds of Bibles, which contained the word "Allah", from a Christian group.

Around 2.6 million people among the Southeast Asian nation's 28 million people are Christians, who come from mostly ethnic Chinese, Indian or indigenous backgrounds, while 60 percent are Muslim ethnic Malay.

Minorities have long resented a decades-old positive discrimination policy which favours Malays in education, housing and employment.

Prime Minister Najib Razak, who took office in 2009, has increasingly rolled back his initial reformist and conciliatory rhetoric in a bid to please hardliners of his United Malays National Organisation, which has ruled the country virtually uninterrupted since independence in 1957.

"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."

Top Malaysian court dismisses "Allah" case - Channel NewsAsia

Too much speculations...

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.

But the question is yet unanswered: Why change 1 word to Arabic in a 100% English/ Malay magazine?

The answer is right in the article you quoted:

The government had previously banned the use of "Allah" in the local Malay-language edition of the Church's Herald newspaper.
But a government spokesman later clarified: "The ruling only applies to the Herald newspaper's use of the word 'Allah'. Malaysian Christians can still use the word 'Allah' in church."

"The Christian community continues to have the right to use the word 'Allah' in our Bibles, church services and Christian gatherings... as we have done all this while," said Eu Hong Seng, chairman of the Christian Federation of Malaysia.

---

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.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

it is exactly buyer beware, that is why governments (at least here in North America) have or finance consumer protection agencies.
Some schemes are just too overwhelming for the weak and less educated, and this is in the most advanced societies, the less advanced or the third world countries offer a much bigger pool of these education-weak people, hence a good opportunity for praying cons.

It is a big difference.
if you buy a lousy vacuum cleaner, you want your money back and need legal help by the system.
If you convert to a new religion, you do not need the help from the government.
You can leave whenever you want.

The weak and the less educated still have the right to make their own decisions,
without government intervention and/or censorship.
If they are less educated, there is nothing to stop missionaries for Islam to approach them,
and convince them that it makes more sense to be a Muslim.
Obviously some want to remain Christian, even at the risk of Death Penalty, like the
recent case in Sudan. Do you believe she is weak?

Noone can make informed decision, without knowing about which religions are available,
and what are their main ideas.
The government should make sure that the basic concepts of all major religions
are taught in school, on an equal terms. Muslim student that want to further
study Islam should do that through Muslim organisations, and not through
ordinary school, which should be neutral.

A lot may convert just because someone is taking a personal interest in them.
Whatever the reason, it is not the business of a government to say which religion you have.

 

[idune]

Good question. Why do Muslims in Malaysia who don't speak Arabic refer to G-d as Allah?



I don't know. Why do Malaysian Muslims who don't speak Arabic refer to G-d as Allah?

Really, is this is the line of naive question you want to raise? One does not have to speak Arabic, Muslim holy book the Quran is in Arabic, read and followed by Muslims regardless of their native language. Its time for these neo Islam brasher to lay off.

 

[Developereo]

Hello,
Why would any young person would think that they are praying muslim prayers,such a fool thinking,first the young people thinking are not so weak,that watchin them would convert us in to their religions,when you faith in One God and in his last Prophet MOHAMMED(P.B.U.H) ,such tricks can Confuse us,we all know that christians and jewish believe in Allah ,but christian have other beliefs and jewish had other,if we try to stop them fro msaying that word,which word would they use

I don't know how much experience you have with deceitful missionaries. They are one thousand times more cunning and devious than you imagine. The proselytizing is not as straightforward as you believe. It is slow, insidious, and indirect, taking months, not days.

You've not called other users idiots and bigots, or at least not that I've seen. The TTA vetting process continues to confuse me.

Someone who says that Catholics are not Christians is a bigot.

YOU may find it acceptable and, if so, that says more about you.

It has been shown that the restrictions you complain about in Europe, exists in Malaysia

Instead of blabbering, show us where there is a national law in Malaysia restricting Christians from erecting steeples. Show us where Christian women are restricted from wearing religious clothing.

The rest of your post justifying repression of Muslims in Europe best serves to expose your bigoted agenda.

Like a clueless schmuck, you keep spouting stock phrases like 'freedom of speech' without having the faintest clue what it means.

The restriction on the word 'doctor' is a restriction on free speech in order to protect the public from fraudsters. Similarly, due to the fraudulent activities of Western missionaries, the restriction on the word 'Allah' had to be imposed.

The fault lies with the Western missionaries.

 

[Developereo]

I struggle to reconcile this with your concern over the way Muslims are treated in Europe. When a Muslim nation imposes controls on the very language non-Muslims may use, and you are comfortable with this, it undermines your previous argument calling for equal treatment.

Malaysian Muslims and Malaysian Christians have co-existed for a long time. The Malay word for God is Tuhan, which has been used by Malaysian Christians for centuries. Allah is an Arabic word, which is used in the context of the Islamic God.

Some Malaysian Christians used the word 'Allah' informally and innocuously for some time, and it was not an issue. The problem came with cashed up Western missionaries who used fraudulent and deceitful means to convert people to Christianity. Such deceitful means include calling themselves 'muslim' and deliberately using the word 'Allah' instead of 'Tuhan' in order to deceive people into thinking they are inviting people to a Muslims prayer/discussion session.

The Malaysian ruling is in response to this widespread usage by deceitful Western missionaries. As always, when fraudsters abuse freedom of speech and authorities have to clamp down, innocent collateral damage will occur and, in this case, the collateral damage happens to be the Malaysian Christian community.

Keep in mind that this 'repression' is nowhere comparable to the bigoted laws enacted in Europe against Muslims. The Malaysians have not forbidden Christians from erecting church steeples. They are not restricting the dress code of Christians.

This is especially problematic because several Muslim countries have a habit of executing Muslims who convert to another faith. It's good that such countries set such a tolerant example, and can thus be given the benefit of the doubt when imposing laws that control the very language that non-Muslims can use.

When language is used to deceive people or commit fraud, then the state has a right to intervene.

The fault lies with Western missionaries for abusing language to commit fraud. As I noted, if a lot of mathematics PhD started opening medical clinics as 'doctors', then use of that word would be regulated more strictly.

What percent of a group needs to be abusive before it is acceptable to sanction the entire group? I'm sure you see where I am going with this.

The question isn't what percent of a group, but how widespread is the impact.

If a handful of rich Western organizations distribute millions of Bibles throughout the country, or open up deceitful conversion centers around the country, then it will have a big enough impact to be taken seriously.

 

[ptldM3]

The restriction on the word 'doctor' is a restriction on free speech in order to protect the public from fraudsters. Similarly, due to the fraudulent activities of Western missionaries, the restriction on the word 'Allah' had to be imposed.

The fault lies with the Western missionaries.

There is no laws that i am aware of that restrict people from calling themselves doctors, i can go around and call myself a doctor, even a cosmonaut. As long as i don't operate on people or break into a soyuz rocket i think i will be just fine.

By your logic Muslims should be banned from using the word 'Jesus' because the Jesus of the Koran and the Jesus of the bible are different, not to mention Jesus is not an Arab word.

 

[Developereo]

I've read the entire thread, thanks. @Develepereo is too close to the issue to judge it objectively, so I would rather deal with a level-headed person like you, if you don't mind.

My issue is this:
1) The justification for the ban is that the use of the word "Allah" is deceptive, since the Christian deity and the Muslim deity are essentially different, and Muslims would be confused when Christians speak of Allah.
2) There is now a law that bars Christian missionaries from using the word "Allah" in their missionary work against Muslims.
3) There is no parallel law which bars Muslim missionaries from using the word "Tuhan" in their missionary work against Christians, even though Christians could misunderstand "Tuhan" as referring to the Christian deity, instead of the intended "Allah"
4) There is no law which bars Muslim missionaries from using the word "Allah" in their missionary work against Christians, even though Christians already believe Allah refers to the same deity that they believe in.

If all four points are correct, then this can only be interpreted as asymmetrical repression. Are all four points correct?

Your understanding is incorrect.

First, Tuhan is the Malay word and everyone is entitled to use it, unlike the imported Arabic word Allah which was imported in a very specific context.

The comparable example would be if Muslim missionaries used the words 'Holy Trinity' to deceive Christians into thinking they were talking about Christianity.

There is no laws that i am aware of that restrict people from calling themselves doctors, i can go around and call myself a doctor, even a cosmonaut. As long as i don't operate on people or break into a soyuz rocket i think i will be just fine.

Like I wrote, IF this becomes a widespread phenomenon where random people go around charging the public as medical doctors, then the state would have to intervene.

The reason you can go about calling yourself a doctors and get away with it is because there hasn't been widespread abuse of that word.

 

[ptldM3]

Like I wrote, IF this becomes a widespread phenomenon where random people go around charging the public as medical doctors, then the state would have to intervene.


The reason you can go about calling yourself a doctors and get away with it is because there hasn't been widespread abuse of that word.

But has there been wide spread abuse of missionaries "luring" Muslims with questionable tactics? There is no information or statistics available, even your source stated that Christian missionaries use questionable tactics in "extreme" cases.

Also do Muslims not use the word Jesus when speaking to Christians even though Jesus is not Arabic? The Arabic word for Jesus is Isa, many Christians know this, many more Christians know that Jesus is referred to as Yeshua by many including Arab Christians, so why use Jesus?