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