Malaysia is again at the centre of adverse international publicity despite our tourist promotion of Malaysia as a harmonious and model multi-religious nation and the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s new slogan of 1Malaysia.
In the past few days, the world media like CNN and international press have been giving extensive coverage to the government seizure of 15,000 Bibles in recent months because they refer to God as “Allah” raising concerns and fears of religious intolerance in the country.
A consignment of 10,000 copies of the Indonesian-language Bibles which feature the disputed word “Allah” was confiscated in Kuching, Sarawak in September while another consignment of 5,100 Bibles was seized in March.
The root problem of the seizure of these Bibles is the earlier decision taken by the Cabinet to ban the use of the word “Allah” for religions other than Islam, although this is a most unreasonable, divisive and even unconstitutional decision as:
-
The term “Allah” was in use long before there was the religion of Islam in the world;
-
The term Allah was used to refer to God by Arabic-speaking Christians before Arabic-speaking Muslims existed; and
-
Malaysia is probably the only nation where the use of the term “Allah” by Christians to refer to their God is prohibited, whereas its use to refer to Christian God has never been prohibited in many countries in the Middle-East and the Americas.
The confiscation of the Bibles and the ban on the use of the word “Allah” for religions other than Islam is incongruous with and even inimical to Najib’s 1Malaysia objective to give top priority to foster better inter-racial, inter-religious and inter-civilisational relations among Malaysians.
This is a test whether Najib’s 1Malaysia is to be taken seriously and I call on him to ask the Cabinet to revoke its earlier decision taken under previous administrations to ban the use of the word “Allah” for religions other than Islam.
I hope all Cabinet Ministers, particularly from MCA, Gerakan, MIC and the Sabah and Sarawak component parties of Barisan Nasional can take a bold and united stand on this issue to convince UMNO Ministers to support the revocation of the previous Cabinet ban on the use of the word “Allah” for religions other than Islam, as at issue is the very credibility and legitimacy of Najib’s 1Malaysia slogan and policy.
(Speech at Taiping DAP “Road to Putrajaya” thousand-people dinner at Hua Lian Chinese Independent Secondary Hall, Taiping on Sunday, 1st November 2009)
#1 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 7:06 am
It has become a religious tolerance versus hegemony issue (where a pre-existing right to use a word since time immemorial is suddenly prohibited with no reasonable justification perceived in respect of the official position suddenly changed). That’s what Herald & others fighting over.
#2 by k1980 on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 9:45 am
What NEP looks like if it is applied to birds—-
http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/pictures/2009/todays4.jpg
#3 by k1980 on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 10:14 am
I suggest that Marina Undau ( http://lucialai.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/marina.jpg ) together with the 15 million or so victims start wearing Tshirts emblazoned with the logo and the words “Favouritism- It Sucks” as in http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/pictures/2009/todays4.jpg
The sight of millions of Malaysians displaying the NEP fiasco on their Tshirts will make the umno warlords tremble in fear. Anyway, it is much more attractive compared to the stupid 1malaysia finger sign.
#4 by BoycottLocalPapers on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 10:36 am
45% of Sarawakians and 28% of Sabahans are Christians. Why are they still supporting UMNO instead of DAP?
Weak selfish leaders like Pairin & Jeffrey is the reason why Mahatahi could bring in illegal Muslim immigrants from Philippines and Indonesia to dilute the high percentage of Christian population in Sabah.
#5 by lkt-56 on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 11:53 am
In reply to Jeffrey:
If some stupid politicians think they are big enough to “own A____” then let them continue in their delusion. It is a problem created by their deluded mind.
Why entertain such people in the name of nonsense such as religious tolerance, religious freedom, etc. etc.? It is for this reason that the world is never at peace.
If the Malay bible substitutes every “A” word with a “T” word, any confusion to the readers? Surely it makes sense to move on to more important issues that are truly affecting the livelyhood of the people rather than dwell on upproductive issues that hurts the “egos”.
#6 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 12:38 pm
God is not mocked by UMNO’s recalcitrance, as if God needs any defence, ha!
Now just sit back and watch UMNO receiving their comeuppance and retribution from God.
Just can’t stand all those upstarts and nincompoops trying to bare their fists, kris and breasts at God, ha!
This is no laughing matter. When God chooses to strike, not even GUNUNG TAHAN can tahan!
#7 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 1:55 pm
IKT-56, the problem is that one deflects, accomodates and bends one’s position grounded on principle to relent to some “stupid politicians” pushing their agenda bereft of rational/reasonable justification in violation of our pre-existing rights – if no line is drawn on the sand so to speak – when is this pushing going to stop? Aren’t we going to be accused of being indolent for standing up to our rights, especially pre-existing rights if less than reasonable demands, not based on on what is right but who has got might or the loudest voice, are shuffed down our throats?
#8 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 1:57 pm
☝
#9 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 2:12 pm
“…the world is never at peace…” – thats true but the peace purchased by giving in on some important principle affecting one’s rights will be the peace of the grave/cemetry, is that worth it? Though alot of issues are involving “egos” however will you, in principle, submit to hegemony just because it also involves “egos”? Unless one argues that changing that word to ‘Tuhan’ does not affect at all the pre-existing rights of Christian/those of other Abrahamic faiths reading the Malay version of the bible or you otherwise agree, on balance, that its use really could anger Muslims generally or could facilitate proselytization of some unsuspecting muslims contrary to constitution and law of this country.
#10 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 5:06 pm
OrangRojak is this “?” in #6 the middle finger???
#11 by lkt-56 on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 5:21 pm
Looks like “Satu Malaysia” ;)
#12 by OrangRojak on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 5:21 pm
Jeffrey, if you have Firefox, you can hold the Ctrl key down and roll the top of your scroll wheel away from you (scroll ‘up’)*, and the character should become clearer. It is the index finger. It is the Unicode character U+261D WHITE UP POINTING INDEX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_(typography)
Interesting… although now I won’t be able to look at pictures of Najib and his followers without thinking “he’s giving us the Bishop’s Fist”.
I had a quick look (since you asked) and the other fingers don’t seem to be included in Unicode.
*If you prefer to use just the keyboard Ctrl+ and Ctrl- do ‘zoom in’ and ‘zoom out’, Ctrl0 (zero) resets.
#13 by i_love_malaysia on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 5:34 pm
Rukunnegara Malaysia
Kepercayaan kepada Tuhan
Allah itu Tuhan, Tuhan itu Allah!!!
Dont play play with True God!!! The True God will know whether we are praying to Him or to the devil even when we are calling His name!!!
I Am Who I Am!!!
#14 by Onlooker Politics on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 - 9:39 pm
“I’m just wondering where religion fits in in Uncle Lim’s new Hierarchical Allegiance Ontology (I just thought that up – HAO – good or not?!).” (OrangRojak)
Generally speaking, religion does not fit in in YB Lim’s secular state political principle. However, the core issue involved in this blog is in regard of the human rights issues, such as issue of whether the Christians have basic human rights to use the word “Allah” freely in the Malay Language or in the English Language in order to address the Christians’ God in whatsoever occasion and at whatsoever place. When the issue of the freedom of using word “Allah” is only concerned with the dispute between the Christian Churches and the Malay Islamic preachers, then a piece-meal approach whereby only the smaller groups of the interested parties will get involved in the dialogue discussion may be a much more viable strategy in order to get the controversy settled in a peaceable and mutually compromise manner.
It will make no sense if I ask for the Confucian followers or the Taoist believers from DAP to go hold a dialogue with the “tok guru” of Islamic religion from PAS in order to find a consensus guideline for accepting the use of the word “Allah” by everybody because both Confucian and Taoist never have to use the word “Allah” to address their respective God or gods!
In Malaysia, only two major religious groups are seriously confronting one another about the freedom of using the word “Allah”, namely the Malay muslims and the Christian Church/Catholic Church. If Malaysians are to expect any solution for resolving the long-lingering dispute between these two religious groups on the “Allah” wording issue, the solution will only be acceptable by many, if not all, when the solution has been given the prior consent by these both groups.
#15 by sltiger on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 2:17 am
Just a slogan and nothing more to it, Kit. Just like the word ‘Glokal’ he used couple of years ago. But no body used and it met a natural death. We should not be bothered by Pekan’s 1 Malaysia. We have to know where Private Investigator is before we can consider 1 Malaysia, Kit!
#16 by sltiger on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 2:31 am
As aa ardent spiritualist, I assert that the word ‘Allah’ belongs to all Mankind and not to them only. And Najib should prove his sincerity by retracting the earlier statement by the Cabinet and follow up on PI issue.
#17 by OrangRojak on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 10:05 am
religion does not fit in in YB Lim’s secular state political principle
Sure or not? I thought race didn’t fit into his political principle – until recently!
the core issue involved in this blog is in regard of the human rights issues
‘Human’ is a bigger set than ‘Christian’, and larger even than ‘religious’. If it’s human rights, it’s of concern to all humans. If it’s ‘Christian rights’, that’s an altogether different issue.
It will make no sense if I ask for the Confucian followers
It makes perfect sense. Mediators are usually non-interested parties for a reason. If you’re having an argument with your wife, what sense does it make to shut you both in a small room together to go over the same old issues until death do you part? You don’t have to enter into a polygamous contract with a marriage counsellor before they can help!
Pretending that a minor human rights transgression is somebody else’s business (remember the cowhead?), or that there is a greater issue at hand (invariably financial – where got price tag on religious vocab?) is tacit permission to erode any and all human rights, as long as it’s done piecemeal.
I think trying to portray the establishment of this externally imposed orthodoxy as a ‘Christian problem’ is counter-productive in the long run. Aren’t Christians concerned about attempts to ban the name of a murdered foreign ex-mistress? I should think they are! Would they claim it’s not their problem because she wasn’t a Christian? That wouldn’t be very Christian, as I understand it! Worse than that, it would be difficult for any reasonable person to explain it in a positive way.
It’s only my point of view, Onlooker Politics. If I believed the cowhead was a matter for all reasonable people, but thought the Christian/A||ah ban was ‘their problem’, I just wouldn’t be being reasonable. Would I?
#18 by Onlooker Politics on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 - 7:41 pm
“If I believed the cowhead was a matter for all reasonable people, but thought the Christian/A||ah ban was ‘their problem’, I just wouldn’t be being reasonable. Would I?” (OrangRojak)
The usage ban on the word “Allah” being imposed on the Christians in Malaysia by BN Government was not only Christians’ problem. Indeed, it is the problem of all Malaysians who are concerned about Government’s encroachment upon the citizens’ civil rights and the freedom of religion as promised by the Federal Constitution of Malaysia.
Unfortunately, most Confucian followers, Taoist believers and Buddhism Practitioners will prefer to take up the position of not making an alliance with either Christians or Muslims. The Confucians, the Taoists and the Buddhists will most likely find that it is against the interest of their own to help argue in this case because basically they don’t believe in Monotheism and they also believe in the spiritual value of burning incense to their deities, which neither Christians nor Muslims will agree to do.
In this case, I believe the Confucians, the Taoists, and the Buddhists will choose a political attitude of “standing at the other side of the river and observe on whether the inferno hazard happened at the opposite side will spread further before hastily crossing over to the other side for offering help in order to protect themselves from getting burnt too soon and too abruptly!”
#19 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 12:13 am
LOL thankyou Onlooker Politics, I feel enlightened.
#20 by abdul on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 6:39 am
Saya sudah muak dengan UMNO and my own muslim govt. Govt sudah hancurkan kerharmonian negara berbilang bangsa ini. Ramai kawan kristian saya sudah mula mengasingkan diri sebab kerajaan UMNo yang racist ini. Harap2 pakatan rakyat menerajui negara ini dan mengembalikan balik kemesraan yang kita pernah ada sesama rakyat malaysia.
#21 by taiking on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 9:09 am
By Robert Pigott
BBC News, Religious affairs correspondent, 4 November 2009.
“About two-thirds of Malaysia’s population is Muslim
The Malaysian government has refused to release 10,000 Bibles which it seized because they contained the word Allah to refer to God.
The government, which is dominated by Muslim Malays, claims that the word Allah is Islamic and that its use in Bibles could upset Muslims.
The Roman Catholic Church is challenging the ban in court.
Religion has become highly sensitive in Malaysia, where about two-thirds of the population is Muslim.
Religious minorities have accused the government of undermining their rights.
The government has impounded Bibles before, intercepting 5,000 in March as they were imported from Indonesia.
Church officials say that although the word Allah originated in Arabic, Malays have used it for centuries to refer generally to God, and Arabic-speaking Christians used it before Islam was founded.
The Christian Federation of Malaysia said the religious freedom guaranteed by the Malaysian constitution was meaningless if people were denied Bibles which used their own language.”
I am so not proud of umno and its stupidity.
#22 by OrangRojak on Thursday, 5 November 2009 - 11:27 am
I think relying on the Christian churches (some of whom also burn incense to their deities, OnPol!) to achieve a reasonable outcome in this matter is hopeless. That’s not to mock their efforts – having read some explanations by their members of the relevant points in Malaysian law and tradition, they have my full support in this matter. It’s the reality of the situation – where confused persons believe that democracy means a majority may subject a minority to all manner of deprivations because they are fewer in number, and hence less important.
It’s a pity Farish Noor and his fellows don’t get more explicit support. That ‘two-thirds’ of the BBC report in taiking’s comment above is crushing everything – and it may not even have much basis in fact! I made the 2/3 remark in another forum (a US-based one, topic: HSBB in Malaysian mosques) not so long ago, and a Malaysian answered “I live opposite a mosque. If 2/3 of Malaysians are Muslims, then Malaysia has a population of about 40″ – or words to that effect.
I understand the Constitutional position of (some) Malaysians with regards to (one) religion, but I cannot force myself to imagine that every last qualifying Malaysian cherishes the assignment. Even if they do – do they really think with one mind? It is inconceivable! As is so often heard in the rest of the world, I would like to hear from perfectly sensible Malaysian Muslims (or even any Malaysian who would not normally identify themselves with the plaintiff) who think that word-banning is nonsense. I think they are the ones who are most likely to be able to bring a sensible ending to this mess.