What else do you expect these people to do? Can they handle “big and important” things? Are they the least bit capable? That is why these so called government servants are the ones creating problems and interpreting the laws their ways. The purpose is to create opportunities to make RM RM RM and RM!!!!! But in this case is to show their superiority!

The judiciary having fallen victim to executive interference over the years has been interpreting the law to suit the needs of the ruling regime. What rule of law are you talking about? Rather than the rule of law, we have instead, the rule of men.

Non-enforcement of the laws, or their selective enforcement, to suit the political needs of the ruling regime certainly does not amount to observing the rule of law.

Selective prosecution, and more recently the prosecutorial misconduct by the prosecutor surely is no indication of a state that could be described as the rule of law – not by a long shot!!

Of course, I agree with theirs is politics of religion..so how do we counter that, if not by politics of logic (our only resource) as I raised in the most recent thread “Do Malaysian Muslims understand what ‘Allah’ means” by Farish Noor?

I believe the sentence is very clear in english, when the same word God is used. Like somebody said in this blog before, everybody calls his father or mother his own way, and they know perfectly who they are, and who would respond.

In Malay language, the same word Allah can be used in two places, and people would know who they refer to.

Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholders, and Allah lies in the mind of the believers; they can take to believe who they want.

But the issue is not a matter of logic, but politics of religion. The ban on the use of the word Allah is to tell people who write the Bahasa Malasia version that the route to Allah is through the mosque, and not the church. Bolehland observes rule by law, and laws are used to achieve the objectives of the powerful, the community or religion as the case may be.

Will it be “kita orang Kristian pergi ke gereja pada hari Ahad untuk bersembangyang kepada Allah manakala orang Islam pergi ke majid pada hari Jumat untuk bersembayang kepada Allah”?

Would there not be confusion then as we’re talking of 2 different religious groups having a different understanding of their Gods? And when it comes to important matters of faith, would you not agree that there should not be ambiguity and confusion?

Yes we’re all agreed that we should stem religious extremism whenever it rears its ugly head that is if what Johari ruled was motivated by or pandering to extremism but what if he said he was looking at the practical aspects of differentiating terminology in a multiracial society comprising, amongst others, Muslims and Christians abiding by article 11(4) of the Constitution/Merdeka Social Contract prohibiting propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam – and where a muslim (whether by inadvertance or intention) reading and hearing the same expression of “Allah” may get influenced by the teachings?
by which article et

Thanks for the explanation. Pardon my ignorance but if, as what Earnest says, church services are conducted in very disciplined manner – and if conducted in Bahasa, then throughout in Bahasa without rojak mixing of English or other languages – and if further God as in Christianity is referred to as “Allah” throughout, then what is the word used in Bahasa, if a need arises, during such times, to mention about God of the Muslims in Islam? If it also Allah won’t there be confusion when we all agree that the way Christians understand God is different from Muslims?

Allow me to borrow a line from you. This is the practical issue, it is raised it must be addressed.

“…why WOULD they want to use the same word commonly used by Malaysian Muslims here when the understanding of God in Christianity is different in some fundamental aspects from that in Islam, and when there is an available alternative generic word “Tuhan” existing in Bahasa – as stated in the Rukun Negara – for differentiation?…” Jeffrey

To answer your question I would like to refer to the posting by Anbar on December 24, 2007 in which he/she quoted:
[The Rev. Lawrence Andrew, editor of the Herald, said the weekly’s use of the word Allah was not intended to offend Muslims. “We follow the Bible. The Malay-language Bible uses Allah for God and Tuhan for Lord. In our prayers and in church during Malay mass, we use the word Allah,” he told the AP.]

In the Bible the apostles referred to Jesus as Lord and God. If only one word “Tuhan” is allowed to be used then how do you translate accurately verses such as John 20:28?

John 20:28, Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

It is ridiculous to ask why “Allah” is not used by English speaking Christians, or Chinese speaking Christians.

I have attended Christian wedding ceremonies conducted in Chinese (mandarin); not a single word of English or Malay was used. Similarly Chinese church services are conducted exclusively in Chinese. This was because the audience were all Chinese.

I understand from personal communications that Church services conducted in Malay do not use any English word in the same sentence, and Church services conducted in English do not use any Malay word in the same sentence. This is all for the sake of the audience who are either more comfortable with the Malay or English language.

The verses are read in purely one language. There is no such thing as “rojak”.

Church services are conducted in very disciplined manner, not like the former CJ Tun Ahmad Fairuz’s manner of speaking as in an interview where he mooted the abolition of the common law from our legal system a couple of months back. An English sentence of his can be freely and awkwardly interspersed with Malay words, and vice versa. He later denied having said that through Nazri causing him to mislead the Parliament, even though some journalists had already taped recorded the whole interview.

The transcript of the interview which YB Lim had reproduced in this blog a couple of months ago proved that it was possible to murder both the English and Malay languages at the same time.

Murder of languages is strictly prohibited in church services.

And it is dangerous that the most “deeply ignorant” (using Truman Capote’s phrase) among us do not know that they are ignorant. This can lead to the unjustifiable banning of Christian publications in the Malay language where “Allah” has been used to refer to Christian God for hundreds of years.

To be consistent, is there any attempt by our Ministry of Internal Security to ban Malaysians from accessing online Christian publications (see below) in the Arabic language where “Allah” has been used to refer to Christian God for thousands of years?
http://www.waterlive.org/

This is a correct statement.

However what is problematic is nothing that was said suggests or gives a clue who exactly are the extremist elements which played on people’s emotions by raising sensitive religious and racial issues!

If they are not properly identified – and if the forces of democracy are blamed for raising sensitive religious and racial issues instead of the extremists themselves – what’s good in such a general statement?

It may even end up encouraging extremist elements emboldened by their detractors being labeled extremists instead!

World wide Pro-democracy elements are pitched against
extremist elements.

Ironically the latter seem to be gaining upper hand whenever – and also because – they are ever prepared to resort to violence and force to suppress those who are non violent and resort to dialogue and reason as weapons to fight the democratic cause!

The latest casualty is Benazir Bhutto – assassinated/shot by suicide bomber a few hours ago in a campaign rally. [She earlier escaped two bombings by Islamic extremists that killed 136 during her homecoming procession]. Pakistan is now facing the prospect of turmoil.

Extremists should not be appeased or encouraged. If they were, and gain ground, it is difficult to reverse the process.

Malaysia should learn this from the experience of other countries.

No point of just sending condolence to the Pakistani people and condemning the odious act of violence when lessons are not drawn and learnt.

Orthodox Jews in the United States face the same problems involving the need to keep ‘kosher’. Jews and Muslims following the dictates of the Torah and Muslims of the Koran draw their beliefs from the same source i.e. the Old Testament of the Christian Bible:

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

The orthodox and the traditionalists among the Jews shop at stores selling only kosher food (certified as such) and dine at restaurants only serving kosher food.

I once had dinner with a Jewish family. They served themselves only kosher food ;and for their guests they serve non-kosher food which are kept separate. Even dishes on which kosher food was served were separate and are kept separate in the kitchen. They have a maid whose duty among others is to keep kosher and non-kosher food separate always, for example, in different freezers with dishes being cleaned separately.

What were Malays who have always been Muslims, doing during the Tunku’s and Razak’s time. Were the Malays then less Muslims than they are today?

To answer your question I would like to refer to the posting by Anbar on December 24, 2007 in which he/she quoted:
[The Rev. Lawrence Andrew, editor of the Herald, said the weekly’s use of the word Allah was not intended to offend Muslims. “We follow the Bible. The Malay-language Bible uses Allah for God and Tuhan for Lord. In our prayers and in church during Malay mass, we use the word Allah,” he told the AP.]

In the Bible the apostles referred to Jesus as Lord and God. If only one word “Tuhan” is allowed to be used then how do you translate accurately verses such as John 20:28?

John 20:28, Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20071001130229AAnpzJV

or just watch Passion Of The Christ movie by Mel Gibson.

Who gave these the right to limit what people of other faiths call their GOD? It is between them and their GOD.

“My religion is between me and my maker” – Mohandas K. Gandhi

What if we sit together and eat different food?

Is eating the same food a requirement for sitting together? It is trite that somebody’s food is another’s poison. Others’ food cannot become your poison if it is not consumed by you. Similarly food that is not Halal when eaten in front of a Muslim would not make the Muslim less religious. Also, moderate Muslim would not take it as a challenge to his religion when a non-Muslim consumes non-Halal food in his presence. There are Muslims in almost every country, and not all countries maintain separate dining areas for people of Muslim faith. Surely Muslims living in other countries are not considered less religious.

Would the PM be moderate to think that instead of eating the same food, eating different food together would also enhance friendship, degree of tolerance and mutual respect? Obviously the PM is aware that non-Halal food is not served in hostels and colleges of higher learning. Would PM AAB approve non-Halal food to be served in hostels and university colleges where there are non-Malay students, as was the practice in the 1960s? Surely, PM AAB had the experience in sitting in the same dining hall eating with non-Malays who had non-Halal meals in front of him. It did not make PM AAB less Muslim!