The AlJazeera programme on the “Allah” controversy:
This entry was posted on Thursday, 14 January 2010, 11:18 am and is filed under nation building, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0.
#1 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:20 pm
The Muslim representative faired very badly in this interview. He wasn’t even answering the question at all. In fact initially he looked confused and aloof. I can imagine the rest of the flock.
I find their claims outlandish. In malacca there are 32 words banned from being used by nonmalays, some words such as masjid cannot be used. I can’t imagine getting fined RM1000 for telling a tourist where the masjid is?
#2 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:28 pm
So far every single video I have seen the protestors talking on this issue repeat the same one liners and its highly noticeable mistakes and broken arguments in ALL of them..
#3 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:52 pm
Malaysia Insider reported on 14 Jan 2010:
“KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 14 — The St Elizabeth Catholic church in Kota Tinggi, Johor, was vandalised this morning, with red paint splashed on its walls. This makes it the ninth church hit by firebombs, arson attempts or vandalism in the past week.”
Why did the terrorists choose such a small town as Kota Tinggi, where the number of Catholics and Christians were very limited, as an attack target? It seems like the terrorists have the malicious intent to let these terrorism to continue happen until the economy of Malaysia has finally collapsed in the hands of weak and incompetent BN leaders such Najib and Hishammuddin!
Perhaps Jemaah Islamiah members just want to expand their battle fields to Malaysia in order to lend their Taliban comrades at Afghanistan a hand to buy some time and some breathing space!
#4 by boh-liao on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:56 pm
Khairul Faiz Morat came out as a pathetic n ignorant speaker (so sorry 4 him)
He had no fact 2 back up his argument but just parroted d words dat only Muslims can use ‘Allah’ n why must Catholics disturb peace by using d term Allah
Typical IGNORANCE of many Muslims interviewed
One even said: All my life, NONE of my friends, Catholics, NEVER used the word Allah regarding to say with God, NEVER
Double negatives, none never – so, he actually said that all his life, his friends, Catholics, used the word Allah as God
So, what’s his beef
LOL they did not know dat Catholics hv been using Allah for a long, long time
N this practice has posed no threat 2 Muslims, as pointed out by Herman Shastri
It’s d DUTY of NR n HH 2 inform n educate all Muslims abt dis harmless universal practice
Inform n educate d rulers too
Ask rice yatim 2 properly inform ppl through msm n warn Utusan M not 2 misinform ppl
Otherwise some of them got excited n worried unnecessarily out of ignorance
N uttered statements that made them a big fat fool, like Khairul (4given 4 his ignorance)
Pls return M’sia 2 d acknowledged model moderate Islamic nation Peace, salaam, and shalom
#5 by Dap man on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:06 pm
Khairul is sounded like an idiot. Not only his English was pathetic he could even answer questions posed to him. He never answered even a single question except to speak from something he had learned by heart.
He had no substance to back his claim. He daren’t even look into the camera.
#6 by daweishine on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:18 pm
The body language and expression of Khairul said it all: the position he was trying to defend and justify is really untenable and unreasonable. I think half way through the interview he really wished that he had not been in it at all. He would probably be now thinking that the interviewer and the others were ganging on him. Let the world, including reasonable Muslims in other parts of the world, be the judge of this matter!
#7 by wanderer on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:41 pm
WHEN YOU GET A HALF BAKED REPRESENTATIVE Khairul, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY, HE WILL ONLY CONFUSED THE ISSUE, “THE RIGHT TO USE THE NAME, ALLAH” FURTHER….RESULTING IN NOT HAVING FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS!!!…. making a blooming fool of himself.
WHAT A SHAME WHEN EXTREMIST FOOLS TRY TO BULLDOZE AN UN-MERITED CLAIM AND DISPLAYING FALSE COURAGE, ATTACKING SOFT TARGETS BEING SHIELDED….
#8 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:51 pm
But i think Khairul does represent people of his caliber. One can safely assume they all think just like him and thus are incapable of logical discussion over the matter.
Another point to be noted, the government should reconsider changing science and maths in schools to malay, because khairul’s basic command of the language was appalling. He could not face the camera and was reading off a piece of paper? till the interviewer had to jolt him with a direct insult.
Rais yatim should also take note that in his plight to advocate the use of bahasa, the country is going to the dogs when most malays can’t even speak proper english. One worthwhile advice would be, why don’t they just ban the use of bahasa melayu amongst nonmalays, that will solve the ‘Allah’ use and save us from the problem of learning a language that won’t put us in the forefronts of the country.
#9 by Godfather on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:58 pm
I think they would fare better with the UMNO apologist who goes by the handle of rjkumar. Then he can say “ayam rjkumar, ayam kambing here to tell you something about troublesome minorities, especially the Chinese….”
#10 by Motorist on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 3:16 pm
Look at Khairul’s eyes. Its mostly to his right & downcast.
NLP body language says “looking to their right indicates more creative thoughts, and this is often interpreted as a potential sign that someone may be being deceitful in some situations, i.e. creating a version of events.” http://www.psychologistworld.com/bodylanguage/eyes.php
#11 by Jong on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 3:20 pm
LOL !!!! Another failed product of NEP all dressed up for his ‘international exposure’; demonstrated his stupidity, incoherent and malufying! Guess no one else wants to be suicidal.
#13 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:09 pm
As bad as Khairul is, its not his argument we have to worry about as Najib and his cousin. The opposition have been nothing but contructive to point the way out of the problem but Najib is instead finding ways to blame the opposition or making it harder for himself to accept the opposition suggestions. He is painting himself AND all of us into a corner..
Khairul failures is nothing in importance compared to Najib administration…
#15 by k1980 on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:36 pm
The St Elizabeth Catholic church in Kota Tinggi, Johor, was vandalised this morning, with red paint splashed on its walls. This makes it the ninth church hit by firebombs, arson attempts or vandalism in the past week.
#16 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:47 pm
Bigots begat bigots. 1Malaysia is rubbish. it’s failed miserably beyond reasonable doubt. Najib can go oh harping on false hopes and a lost cause. We all know what’s going to be the final say of the courts on this case. The judiciary system has been raped countlessly to the extent it’s now legal to commit rape.
#19 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 5:29 pm
Please note that all of the non-muslims in Malaysia must make sure that they can accurately pronounce the word “masaalah” in the Malay Language when giving a public speech. Otherwise, it is possble that they can be maliciously accused by any biased officer from the Home Ministry for using a prohibited word in the public speech simply because the word “masaalah” sounds very similar to the prohibited word “Masya-Allah”, which appears in the ban list of the Malaysian Home Ministry.
The censorship in Malaysia is getting more and more rediculous nowadays! I wonder when the BN Government of Malaysia is going to adopt the ruling method of Si Huang Ti of Ancient China, who issued decree to burn all Confucian books and other so-called fugitive books which tended to promote liberal thinking and democratic ideology among the scholars and who also issued a decree to bury all Confucian followers alive as a form of capital punishment for curbing dissenting voices or dissident voices.
#20 by gofortruth on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 5:33 pm
“by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 – 1:52 pm
Why did the terrorists choose such a small town as Kota Tinggi, where the number of Catholics and Christians were very limited, as an attack target? ”
———————-
It is so obvious that the “mastermind” behind this plot intends to show that this is a “national issue” & not restricted to Selangor only and that the word “ALLAH” indeed has caused wide spread dangerous confusion to Muslims ALL OVER THE COUNTRY so it is a valid reason to claim exclusivity of the word for muslims in Malaysia. This is what they will tell the court that it has become a national security issue.
A typical bulldozer trying to get out of the pit it has dug to frame PAS & DAP during the last general election.
Why can’t they simply educate the people that “ALLAH” is an international word to mean God and has been in use even before there ever was a religion call Islam? Teach the people therefore be mindful of which version of ALLAH (God) when the word is used – Islamic Version? Jewish version ? Christian version? Apa susah nak faham?
#21 by cseng on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 5:58 pm
Now I understand why M’sia needed a closed and seal-off interfaith dialogue. Because if you can’t justify by constitution, you can’t justify thru logic and fairness then justify thru ‘sensitivity’ and “harmony”.
What are sensitivity and harmony means? Is this a justification or a threat? I take it as: don’t mess with the people who can get angry easily, right or wrong is irrelevant, to preserve harmony you have to accept, that’s all.
For how long we can preserve harmony with this ketuanan 1 malaysia model.
#22 by Justitia on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:08 pm
Tenaciousb said: “He wasn’t even answering the question at all. ”
Well, TenaciousB, can’t you see that the guy was rummaging through the papers to see where it is on the Q&A and how to answer. Now, we know that the I.Q. of these people and now I can understand how they can be easily misled. In fact, I think they are doing a good job of confusing themselves without any outside help. I only have pity on them.
#23 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:13 pm
The latest comments by Muhiyiddin in Oxford is amazing. No wonder Najib feel superior to Muhiyiddin..If Muhiyiddin were to have handled this, we would burn a lot quicker..In fact, unless Najib find someone very different from ANYONE in the top leadership of UMNO to replace him, we will burn much quicker..
#24 by rahmanwang on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:30 pm
Please be fair.This Khairol Faiz is not capable to answer the questions.He lost it for the Muslims.In fact Islam is not only the word “Allah”.Its only the UMNO big shots who are afraid, as they fear they have no support from their own Malays.As far as I am concern,they will only get the political support only if the rid of their “corrupt” practices.
#25 by boh-liao on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:40 pm
Alamak, red paint splashed on walls
Sure or not, church otang duit ah
O dear, must learn how 2 say alamak properly
Nanti kena tangkap for insulting someone’s mother
BTW, is alamak banned in any state ah
#26 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:47 pm
As Reverend Herman said, the “word” has been used since 19th century beginning from the time of the missionaries. It is also used by Christians in the biggest Muslim Country in the world, Indonesia. That this does not appear an anomaly there or elsewhere is perhaps due to the fact that both Christianity and Islam share the common Abrahamic traditions tracing back to the Prophet Abraham.
Khairul’s argument that Christians’ use of the word would confuse Muslims was well addressed by the Reverend Herman Shastri who asked how was that possible when Muslims and Christians worshipped in different places of mosques and churches. It is hard to understand how a Muslim not in the church could get confused anymore than a Christian not in the mosque will be!
All these time since the 19th century beginning from the time of the missionaries, is there any empirical evidence that any muslim has been confused by Christians’ use of the word to commit apostasy or become a Christian for the ban to be urged, in so doing, to withdraw a pre-existing right sanctified by custom and usage since time immemorial by those who use it???
It is hard to divine a rational basis for the ban, so to invoke it in the first instance in 2007 and to appeal against Justice Lau Bee Lan’s decision would lend credence to the Professor Zachery/the Moderator’s observation that the ban was politically motivated by the ruling party to galvanise and “maintain its dominance amongst Malay Muslims’ base” in hopeful reversal of the withdrawal of support of a significant section thereof as evinced by the 12th Malaysian General Election’s results in which BN lost 2/3 majority and 5 states.
It is such an unnecessary problem. It is highly irresponsible to manufacture one where none existed earlier to serve expedience of a political objective heedless of inter-community tensions that may or may not spiral out of control, not to mention contradict everything that 1 Malaysia stands for. [According to Malaysiakini’s report (by S Pathmawathy Jan 14) another church, the St Elizabeth Catholic church had been splashed with red paint early this morning].
It is not conceivable that having taken the official position to support the ban the government will ever back-track just because of the attack on the churces. Not even the threat of a substantial loss of support of 900,000 odd Christians in East Malaysia. Maybe the calculation is that the loss may be more than made up with the return of support of those who left in 308 Tsunami, now that the use of that word is a kind of special privilege to be protected as well. It will then look to the Court of Appeal to reverse Justice Lau Be Lan’s decision to give the ban the veneer of legal legitimacy. [After all didn’t the good Reverend say that the Herald and Catholic Church in resorting to court action, would abide by the Court’s decision?]
Whatever decision of the Courts, there will be no solution because we’re way passed the tipping point where there is always one side that will not be happy with that decision however eloquent it might be delivered– that’s for sure.
Even if the Herald accepts the Court decision against it, many people will always wonder whether the recent acts of terrorism on the Churches could have influenced it.
Non Muslims have only dialogue and rationality to put their case. They rely on right based on rationality – not might – to vindicate their case. Correspondingly, if might and not right were perceived foisted upon them, they have no recourse except to look to the ballot box for redress, if at all that could provide the recourse/redress.
#27 by negarawan on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:47 pm
One week has passed and still not a single arrest by the police force. If we turn the situation around, let’s say non-muslims bombing and attacking mosques, I can bet that they’ll be hundreds of arrest by now. Alas, UMNO has destroyed the social fabric of Malaysia. We have reached a point of no return….
When the court decision goes their way, they want to stick to it, otherwise they want out of court settlement. The argument is for harmony and peace which they are ever ready to disrupt. Malaysian government from Najib downwards do not practice rule of law, but rule by law. So Najib appeals for calm while the government get the COA to reverse the decision. That sent the signal that the government did not agree with the High Court decision. Others took the law in the own hands to support government decision.
It was said ‘there was no God but Allah’. Since the Islamic religion comes later than the others which used the term ‘Allah” to refer to the almighty, the God, so that statement can be taken to mean that Allah referred to by Christians was the same Allah Muslims worship. It was not that Allah is the ‘bigger’ God as the man said in the interview. Having borrowed the word used by Christians, Muslims around the world are quite happy not to try to determine whether the Allah worshiped by different religions was one and the same. But Mamakthir decided that non-Muslims should forget their God and use the Malay term Tuhan. Why would not Malays use
their own language Tuhan, and worse why adopt the Arabic word and ban others from using it?
It was mentioned that going to court would provoke Muslims. Does that mean that the citizens now organize their own muscles to settle dispute rather than going to court? Rule of law is a sign of social development. Has Malaysia gone back to stone-age?
It was suggested that the religious leaders should settle the issue. Would they accept the decision of the religious leaders if they chose to have the matter determine by court? They did not accept the Prime Minister call to wait out for court decision. So do the religious leaders have a higher status than the prime Minister? The answer was that so long as the religious leaders accept that status quo before the High Court decision, or even before the case was heard, the interviewee would be willing to not disrupt harmony in the country. That is bully.
In the present life, UMNO would not allow equality for progress under NEP. UMNO now wants to control the afterlife where the God’s identity is also being restricted for non-Muslims.
#29 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 7:09 pm
“Teach the people therefore be mindful of which version of ALLAH (God) when the word is used – Islamic Version? Jewish version ? Christian version? Apa susah nak faham?” (gofortruth)
The biggest problem of Malaysia is not that there are plenty of Malay Muslims out there who are irrational due to poor understanding or misinterpretation of the Islamic teachings, but the problem lies in the uncontrollable ambition of some Umnoputras who try to make use of the religious issue to create an imaginative enemy for the muslims in Malaysia in order to fulfill their self-interested purpose of calling unity of the Malays under the umbrella of Umno which is intended by Umnoputras as the monopolised political party in ruling power. Apparently, the non-muslims, or more specifically the Catholics and the Christians, have become an easy target for use as an imaginative enemy.
The root-cause of the religious intolerance is not that there is lack of knowledgeable preachers who are capable to spread around the healthy religious teachings. Its root-cause indeed lies in the rigid structure of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia on the administrative power of Islamic religious affairs. Such rigidity, as found in the bestowing of religion administrative power only to certain authority in charge of the Islamic affairs, has given breed to a group of politically ambitious Islamic Ulama who have advocated a much tighter legal control to be imposed by the state (political regime) over the freedom of religion permitted to the non-muslims. The ultimate solution for this religious deadlock does not lie in inter-faiths dialogues but it should lie in the much-needed constitutional reform which advocates the concept of “Separation of State and Mosque”, like the constitutional reform which had been carried out by Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew at the early stage of the formation of Republic of Singapore.
The State should not be given too much power to interfere in the personal life of individuals, lest the State will be tyrannic enough to ruin the life of the individuals.
#30 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 7:24 pm
Onlooker Politics, “Separation of State and Mosque”, like the constitutional reform? Firstly Tun Dr Mahathir already declared this an Islamic state – no separation…
But not everyone agrees. Federal Court with Lord President Tun Salleh Abas presiding, in the Che Omar bin Che Soh case of 1999 adjudged Malaysia a secular state (albeit with Islam, the official religion) and so far there is apex court decision to the contrary.
So is there really a need of constitutional reform – what good does it do – when politicians and people who control power push things the other way – making the Islamic State a fait accompli – whatever the judicial interpretation of the constitution to the contrary?
#31 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 8:32 pm
There will be an increase in emigration if these fanatics push for their exclusivity. Malaysia can’t sustain further brain drain or else this will be the end of whatever joke of dream they have.
#32 by rabbit on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 8:37 pm
On respect, thinking and dialogue
Professor Tariq Ramadan is a European Muslim who advocates reform in Islam and promotes interfaith dialogue. Born in Switzerland and the grandson of the
Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan Al Banna, the European academic has been named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most important innovators of the century.
He told ZAKIAH KOYA during his recent visit to Kuala Lumpur that Muslims must make an effort to move from mere formalism – a fixation on ritual – towards
a committed spiritual and social presence.
This diversity is God’s will. The
Quran says that if God wants it
He could have made you one
community.
MUSLIMS say that their religion is perfect and it is because of this many are against interfaith dialogues. What is the point they ask? So why are you promoting
interfaith dialogues among religions?
We have a perfect religion, yes, but we are not perfect. Dealing with other religions means that we are challenging the very meaning of ours. When we have
a dialogue, sometimes when we meet Jews, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics or atheists, the way they are helps you to better your religion as they may make
you see something which you have neglected to see.
For example, when I was in South America, the priests there were talking of love. So, I learnt to also talk of the spiritual dimension of love in Islam
and its importance in life. So the experience of others is helping you to have other viewpoints of your religion.
When we talk about values, when we speak about dignity and solidarity and when we talk about racism, dialogue can be very important because at the end of
the day when dealing with Christians and Buddhists – why do they have to listen to me? – because together we want to change the world for the better. We
want to make our world a better place.
Malaysia cannot have social cohesion if you do not have dialogue. We need this dialogue among religions. There are areas we can explore. For instance why
do we believe what we believe? Is there someone who can believe that Allah is happy with the 100,000 people who are dying of starvation everyday?
Will there be someone who, when we speak of global warming, will convincingly say that God is happy with us? He is not. We know that we are not meeting
the challenges and dialogue can be a meaningful exchange if we do not make it just an exchange of words.
Since Muslims say that their religion is perfect, why are you talking about the need to reform Islam?
I am not saying this. Islam does not need to be reformed and Islam has in itself tools for Muslims to have a true understanding of it. What we need to reform
is the Muslim minds. The texts that the Muslims refer to – the Quran and hadith – are going to stay as text. They are not going to change. We have an immutable
set of principles.
We are facing challenges. Islam is for all times and all situations but who is going to do the job? Our minds of course. And we have to evolve our minds
with our rationality. It is our static rationality that is betraying the text. Active rationality is what makes the text universal.
Whose responsibility is it to bring all this about?
It’s a multiple responsibility. Of course, the first to be mentioned are the Muslim scholars, the ulama and the intellectuals. They have to come with a
vision and they have to deal with the matter of authority. They deal with the text and scriptural sources. So, I would say they have a great responsibility
on that.
I would also say the ordinary Muslims should understand that they are responsible too. Ordinary Muslims should understand that they cannot just blame the
people at the top but understand that they too have power. As a result the ordinary Muslims are too passive, suffering from a mentality of victimisation
and are always blaming others. They must understand that they have their share of responsibility in the whole process to shoulder.
Malaysia is a country with a lot of diversity. It is a plural society. How does Islam view these diversities?
This diversity is God’s will. The Quran says that if God wants it He could have made you one community. He said: We made you tribes and nations so that
you may know one another.
It is God’s will. It is, therefore, not enough to tolerate others. We must respect them. As one prominent scholar said in one conference “who wants to be
tolerant, we want to be respected.”
In Islam the word, therefore, is respect, not tolerate. Who are we to tolerate? This is God’s will for me to be here. So it is for Muslims to understand
that because Allah wanted Christianity, wanted Judaism, and Buddhism and atheists and anarchists to be here it is for them to respect God’s will. To respect
means “I acknowledge the fact that you are here, I acknowledge the fact that you have to be respected – and more than that – I am asked by Allah that I
have to know you, which is a two-way process of acknowledgment. Respect is to acknowledge you and know you that you are different and to know about you.
My knowledge towards you is an act of respect.” So, I think tolerance is not enough. We must remember that diversity is God’s will.
At the same time Muslims must stop the belief in this illusion that we have one and the same thought in Islam. There is diversity among Muslims too. It
is a reality.
Never forget that this diversity is not only a challenge but also a gift. Through dialogue with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, they may make us better people.
Most Muslim societies are guided by their ulama and religious scholars. In time they have become revered people. Whatever they say is accepted without question.
Thus many Muslims grow up with a fear of asking questions. It is unfortunate, don’t you think?
We have to respect the scholars but we should not fear to question them. Especially now. What is said today is not what was said fifteen years ago because
the Muslims are experiencing new situations. The point here is ordinary Muslims should stop acting like blind followers and blaming the scholars for not
doing their jobs when they themselves are not doing their job. What is their job? It is to come with a critical mind – there is no deep faith without a
critical mind. You know there is one principle to be followed when you go to a scholar and you ask him for a fatwa. But when he gives you the fatwa, you
have to ask him or her where does it come from. Give me the evidence. Not only do you get an answer but you have to understand where the answer comes from.
What the Muslims are doing is that they just want answers and very often they are having a “touristic” attitude towards fatwa. They are looking at scholars
and they choose the scholar that they want that gives them the fatwa that they want. In the end they get the fatwa they are looking for. This is not Islamic
– an attitude which is lacking in sincerity. We need more sincerity from the Muslims and more critical minds – and carry out deeper challenges and deeper
questions – not only how do I enter the mosque and such.
The scholars must listen to the community and know what is happening. By definition, a scholar is serving the community – not to be served by the community
– his power or authority is coming from the community he is serving. What we have now is the other way round. We are idolising some of the scholars and
in the process giving them authority over us.
We have to revive the questioning mind. During the time of the Prophet, when he gave an opinion or a ruling his companions questioned him, “Is this coming
from God or is this coming from you?” When he said, “This is my opinion”, they said then we challenge you. They were challenging his authority to find
out how he came up with his opinion. If it is coming from God, no problem.
You must have heard that there is a request by a Catholic publication, the Herald, to use the word “Allah” when referring to God in its articles in Bahasa
Malaysia. The government has objected to this. What is your view on this?
If you travel around the world, in the Arab world, Allah is used by all Christians – Coptics and others. To us, Allah is the one God who sent us the prophets
Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. When we use Arabic, we say “Allah”, when speak in English, we say “God” and when we speak French, we say “Deus”.
The point is the substance and the substance is one God. We are using the language to say it. Some of the scholars coming from the literalist trend, the
Salafiya-al Harfiyat, say that Allah is a very specific name.
The majority of the Muslims are using the word “God” when they speak English and the other words in other languages. Allah is not the God of the Arabs but
Allah is the only God of all human beings. This is what we are saying.
When we speak other languages, you change by knowing what you are talking about and we understand that He is like nothing we can imagine Him to be. Therefore
we cannot describe Him. So when I speak English, I do not have a problem saying “God” and in French I say “Deus” and that’s it.
When the Christian Arabs speak Arabic, in their Bible, they use “Allah” to speak about God. So, you cannot deprive them using this as this has been the
case for centuries and in Arabic, God is Allah.
The Roman Catholics among them do not use “Allah” to describe Jesus. There is no problem there. And my understanding of their general hypothesis is that
the Trinity is Three in One but they are not confusing the three dimensions of One God. If that is not a problem for them neither is it for us.
But we must also be aware that the Christians, depending on traditions that they are following, are promoting the concept of the Trinity. Each group has
its own truth or understanding of it.
Would you describe yourself as a moderate Muslim?
I am not using this vocabulary. This qualification is coming from the colonisers who always had a binary view of the colonised – the good and the bad, the
moderate and the fundamentalist.
All the people who resisted colonisation were bad and fundamentalists and all those with them were the good and the moderate. I think it is silly.
You are aware, of course, there are too many literalists and formalists among Muslims in Malaysia and many parts of the world. Are you saying that it is
wrong for Muslims to be like that and that there is a need for them to be more than that?
The literalists are looking at the Islamic text, the Quran and the hadith, in a very literal way. I am not saying that they are less Muslim, but they are
followers. Maybe in their literal faithfulness, they become less faithful to the objectives of being a Muslim.
I want be very faithful to the meaning of the text but I also want answers for my time. So, the reformist trend here is what we have with the first companions
of the Prophet saw – some of them were looking at the objectives, not only at the literal meaning of the verses. I am following that one.
There are texts – I respect them and there are objectives – I have to reach them. So I am between the objectives I want to reach and the text I have to
understand. Between that, there is the critical thinking – the dialectic process – which is exactly the reformist trend.
We need to go back to the origins to find out what is the creativity and the confidence of the first
companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Today what we lack is confidence when we deal with the text, and we do not have confidence to face the world. Is the
text for us to strictly just read and not change the world? We read whole night and don’t change the world throughout the day.
To change the world we need our critical thinking – the rationality, the understanding. We need to have our heart not sleeping during the night and the
mind never sleeping during the day. This is what we need, this awakening process. It is important.
You are Hasan al Banna’s grandson and because of that many Europeans and Americans do not think you are what you say you are. To them he was a fundamentalist
and an extremist and that what you are doing is to present a friendly face to what they think he was. How do you handle people like them?
I think that a variety of the people who talk of my grandfather never read about him, never knew him. I would never let people judge my grandfather with
superficial perceptions. Only 5% of what he wrote is translated into English. Just try to understand what he did and said. Someone who said no to colonisation
and who created 2,000 schools, half for girls in a time where this was not the trend is just unbelievable.
People questioned my grandparents on how they could send their daughter to school and the daughter in question was my mother. This is the way my grandfather
was. When he was, for example, promoting a kind of Sufi trend –which is spirituality – which sprouted into 1,500 such organisations, shouldn’t I respect
him for this?
So, to all the people today judging him while he was dealing with the world in the 1930s and 1940s, I would say this is unfair. And when you don’t read
someone fully, don’t judge that someone especially based on the words of his enemies (the British colonisers).
I don’t have a problem with people referring to my grandfather wherever I am because this is a fact. But I am trying to present my own thoughts and I am
asking the people to assess my view by reading what I have written.
#33 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 9:03 pm
“So is there really a need of constitutional reform – what good does it do – when politicians and people who control power push things the other way – making the Islamic State a fait accompli – whatever the judicial interpretation of the constitution to the contrary?” (Jeffrey)
Jeffrey,
Indeed, constitutional reform will make some differences. The constitutional reform does not necessarily be enabled only with a constitutional amendment. For instance, the U.S. Constitution did not give the written Supreme Power to the Supreme Court of the United States. However, the supreme power of the U.S. Supreme Court was a power being derived from the conventional practices of judicial independence by the honest founding fathers of the U.S. combined with the interactive actions and reactions caused by political power struggle between two competing political factions throughout a long period of time in the U.S. political history.
To know more about the detail, you may get a book of the Political Science on the development of the U.S. Government.
Below is the excerpt from wikipedia about the early history of the U.S. Supreme Court:
The earliest Courts—under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801)—heard few cases, and the Supreme Court’s first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue. Further, the Court initially lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.
The Court lacked its own building until 1935; from 1791 to 1801, it met in Philadelphia’s City Hall.That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made several important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Court was entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.
#34 by samurai77 on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 9:25 pm
Apparently, Khairul’s level of mentality portrays those UMNO Malay’s mind which they do not have any own opinion and thinking. They just follow and accept blindly whatever given to them, which obviously seen when he always refer to prepared text. We must presume that he should be one of the top notch debater from their group to be sent in for this discussion, so with this kind of display, I wonder the rest of the blockheads in the group. It is very humiliating and a great DISGRACE to the nation that this is indeed a product of the NEP. Keep up the ‘good’ work to produce more ‘distinguish’ leader like him…yeah UMNO needs them very much.
#35 by monsterball on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 10:09 pm
The judgment in favor for the Christians to use the word ‘ALLAH” gave Najib the opportunity an idea..how to use religion in politics.
It is a dangerous game to play…but UMNO BARU is at the weakest political position…..and Najib needs to do something fast to save it.
All slogans exposed…..not worth one sen.
What about this issue?
So many intelligent commentators have said it all.
As a man who have lived and experienced all…this is to be expected…by UMNO BARU…who declared by Chief Minister of Melaka…Rustam..
“UMNO will rule forever”
How to rule forever…if vast majority voters are against UMNO?
Just plan to have Emergency Rule for few years…let Malaysians forget the past..go on with their lives…and give UMNO few more years…to brainwashed…and capture back voters.
First make all suffer…some go hungry…millions out of jobs…then UMNO become Santa Clause..making sure…foodstuffs under control and give aids to thousands…with no favouring one race…all are equally assisted…….with MCA and MIC.
After few years of Emergency Rule…declare election …exactly like after May 13th incident to win again.
That has to be Najib’s only option…to avoid loosing in the 13th GE..as scheduled.
Few years under strict Police Rule…not Military…is what UMNO needs now desperately.
PS: The 23 minutes video have so many stops. I hope it can be reformat to have smooth viewing.
#40 by johnnypok on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 2:03 am
Mass-production of unemployable graduates, 1-tongkat mentality, birth-place of world-famous terrorist, corruption, murder, snatching dead bodies, discrimination, very soon 513 again.
#41 by tenaciousB on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 3:01 am
i think nonmuslims have given in to the big bully for too long. the smart move is to leave but it’s a country nonmuslims helped build too and therfore that would be cowardly.
#42 by tenaciousB on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 3:16 am
This is the 21st century i for one am not going to concede to blatant religious threats made by a bunch of fanatics who could also be terrorists. Wake up Malaysians time to vote this rogue regime that has no respect for the law and rights of their citizens out for good !
#43 by tenaciousB on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 3:26 am
They react like spoiled rotten children, throwing a tantrum and when the parent explains the reasons they continue on with their rantings. This is the product of poor upbringing, in this particular case, the child has been spoonfed for far too long, not taught the value of things and the lack of discipline has caused them to take everything for granted and show utter disrespect to the head of the house. There are certain rules that the child within the household have to abide by and when the child is taught that rules can be bend, that is the day democracy was murdered.(Parables)
#44 by ringthetill on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 5:29 am
I don;t get his gist, that Khairul guy. There is a marked contrast in the intellect of the 3 interviewees and I’m afraid to say that Khairul faired badly. Looks like he can read from a prepared script, over and over again irrespective of what the question entails.
Does this reflect on the products of NEP and all the spoon feeding? How can such an important matter be effectively discussed when the ability to think rationally and being able to communicate effectively get in the way?
#46 by Bigjoe on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 7:44 am
Check out 101East with ABIM President Yusri Mohammad. Those who recall when Anwar was ABIM leader can see WHAT a huge difference in quality of leadership and skills. Compared to Khalid Samad who was amazing. If this is not a condemnation of the NEP and UMNO/BN system and walking away from it., I don’t know what is..
#48 by sotong on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 10:05 am
When you make statement to inflame a situation, you are basically encouraging violence and do not have any authority and credibility to talk about peace, mutual respect and harmony.
#49 by Winston on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 10:34 am
There’s no problem among the people about religious matters until certain “leaders” used it to instigate a certain section of the populace to ferment problems.
We know who these “leaders” are, don’t we?
#50 by boh-liao on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 10:38 am
The AlJazeera video clip is a VERY USEFUL EDUCATIONAL material
Esp 2 those who r teaching mass communication n how 2 b interviewed
1 interviewer n 3 interviewees
C how d 3 interviewees responded, in terms of body language n replies
Spontaneous calm replies versus frantic flipping of notes n reading fr text
Watch d eyes of d three interviewees
Listen 2 their articulation n pronunciation
Ha, ha – such a WONDERFUL n rich teaching material indeed, KEEP d video clip
Learn what 2 do, what not 2 do, n how not 2 make a big fat fool of oneself
Thank you, Khairul, Herman, n Zachary
#51 by Rocky on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 11:07 am
the khairul guy from MIYM was a joke. can i stop here and reading from the paper and just reading from a prepared script regardless of what the question was. I mean this is the only guy MIYM can send out? OMG the quality must be really bad. No wonder some muslims like him can get confused
#52 by artemisios on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 11:21 am
i’m sure a lot of fellow m’sians feel deeply embarrassed N silently shook their heads everytime khairul opens his mouth.. me included
>>He was afraid to even look at the camera
>>I’m guessing he graduated with some kind of degree from some kind of western university under a mega-huge govt scholarship. BUT his English… oh man…
>>Ask him a question – he reads something irrelevant from that script.
>>Ask his opinion – he reads something irrelevant from the script, again.
>>Ask him another question – he repeats something irrelevant.
We’re going to become a high-income nation. We’re going to be internationally competitive.
HOW?
#53 by tenaciousB on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 12:21 pm
A response at malaysia insider’s article on the ban of 32 more arabic words in melaka, this guy is awesome!
Saya juga cadangkan supaya melayu tak guna perkataan Hindu Sanskrit supaya tak terpesong akidah….
1. Syurga
2. Neraka
3. Bumi
4. Putra
5. Bumiputra
6. Jaya
7. Perdana
8. agama
9. bahasa
10. biara
11. buat
12. duka
13. guru
14. hina
15. kepala
16. kuda
17. maha (i.e Tuhan yang Maha esa) tak bole la…
18. manusia
19. nama
20. pustaka
21. puasa
22. purba
23. roti (i.e. mamak! satu roti canai banjir! tak bole lagi la,,,,,)
24. sama
25. sengsara
26. singa
27. suka
28. tali
29. topi
30. unta
31. warna
32. bodoh
Jokers, when will they ever learn that their accussations and claims are absurd!
#54 by superstar48 on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 1:36 pm
It was a co incidence that i bumped in to Aljazeera to hear this interview.Oh my god allah,what a monkey,not even fit to eat the banana skin left over by the people working there,sitting there and giving answers about allah issue.Even, if we have sent a std 6 pupil from an esate school,the child would have saved Najibs 1Malaysia from further embarasment.A most stupid with no knowledge was selected for the interview.Even Apanama is no match to take questions from foreign journalist.
#55 by SMSAM2 on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 1:48 pm
I really dont know if I should laugh or cry…
Malaysia really did herself a great favour by putting a major idiot there, shuffling papers, reading from unrelated notes, and never did he once answered what is being asked by the moderator, and talk like he left his brain at home.
This is 1Stupid at its best.
Actually kudos to the moderator. I dont think I can hide my anger and frustration if I am him.
#56 by Jamesy on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 2:10 pm
Nazri: OK to use ‘Allah’ in East Malaysia
Fri, Jan 15, 2010 – FREE MALAYSIA TODAY.
KOTA KINABALU: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz (picture) has told a local newspaper the word ‘Allah’ is allowed to be used by Christians in Sarawak and Sabah.
This is because the government accepts that the natives in these two states have traditionally been using it in their prayers and religious services and the Muslims there are accustomed to this practice, he was quoted as saying in an interview in Kuala Lumpur with the Borneo Post.
He said: “Christians in Sarawak and Sabah need not worry over this issue because it is a common tradition there. I have been to an Iban church service and I heard the word ‘Allah’ used there.”
However, “Allah is not allowed to be used by churches in Peninsular Malaysia and Christians from the two states have to respect this ruling when they are in the peninsula, Nazri said.
Asked why there are two sets of rules for the nation on the use of the Arabic name for God, he said this was not a unique practice as Malaysia also has two sets of laws on other matters, citing as an example the existence of two court systems, the syariah and the civil courts.
He explained that the situation in West Malaysia was different as the name “Allah” was introduced into Christian worship and publications only a few years ago.
He said: “Muslims here in Semenanjung cannot accept it as ‘Allah’ was never used in Christian preaching until recently and they question the motive behind the substitution of ‘Tuhan’ for ‘Allah.’
“It is clearly stated in our constitution that no other religion can be propagated to Malay Muslims and this article has been enacted in all states headed by a sultan. So this excludes the Federal Territory, Penang, Malacca, Sarawak and Sabah.
“In these states, for the ban on the use of ‘Allah’ to be implemented the Home Affairs Minister can use the Printing Act.”
Nazri added that Christians should recognise that using “Allah” in their worship and publications is sensitive to Muslims and that this was not an issue that could be solved by going to court.
“The government has a duty to stop acts of disrespect and provocation that inflame religious and racial feelings in the nation even if there was no law that stated these acts were wrong.
“For example, there is no law in the country that states stepping on a severed cow head is wrong but when a group of Malays did that in their protests against the building of a Hindu temple we hauled them up and charged them because that act was disrespectful to the Hindus,” he said.
He added that on the same score, the government would have to act if Muslims felt hurt by Christians using “Allah” in reference to God, even if the courts deemed it legal.
If that is the case, why does the government resort to going to the court to resolve the issue?
Nazri replied that it was Archbishop Murphy Pakiam who brought the matter to court and that once the legal process had started it could not be stopped.
Judge Lau Mee Lan, in ruling against the ban on the use of “Allah” by Christians, said there was no evidence to show that it could incite violence.
To this, Nazri said such incidents had not happened when the hearing was on and the government could not produce such evidence.
But, he said, the attacks on churches after the ruling proved the government right.
“Banning the use of ‘Allah’ by Christians was a pre-emptive move to stop outbreaks of religious violence in the nation,” he argued. Asked how the controversy could be solved, Nazri said there had to be a solution soon and he appealed to the public to be “calm and rational.”
————————————–
Shocking statement from a Minister who read law. How could there be two sets of rules/laws? What is the concept of RULE OF LAW to Nazri? What happened if East Malaysians travelled to West Malaysia to conduct/attend church services in Bahasa Malaysia, which they are forced to use from ALLAH to TUHAN?
What a funny way to even suggest two sets of rules/laws!
#57 by gofortruth on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 2:26 pm
Nazri: OK to use ‘Allah’ in East Malaysia
—————-
As expected (mentioned yesterday) that the “hired hands” had to travel the length of the country to produce the so call “evidence of violence” so that the gomen can legitimate the ban on ground of national security.
But it is UNEXPECTED that they say its ok for Sabah & Sarawak to continue to use the word.
Why they fear losing the 2 states more than they fear for “confused muslims” ah?
Effectively this is the end of Najib’s 1Malaysia or the begin of his downfall.
When you seek to defend the indefensible, this is what happens. Any one would have faced the same difficulty in justifying the government’s action against the “Herald” , especially in a directly publicised interview such as this one.
What made it worse is that Khairul is not the best man for this type of interview.
#59 by Evenmind on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 5:47 pm
Noticed that the Aljazeerah host did not thank the MIYM guy , becos i think the latter made a complete idiot and fool of himself , that’s is the product of NEP. On the other hand the host thanked the Reverend and the guy from US.
Isn’t the truth obvious , those protesting against the use of the ‘A ‘ word actually do not know what they are talking about. what morons do we have in this country.
#1 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:20 pm
The Muslim representative faired very badly in this interview. He wasn’t even answering the question at all. In fact initially he looked confused and aloof. I can imagine the rest of the flock.
I find their claims outlandish. In malacca there are 32 words banned from being used by nonmalays, some words such as masjid cannot be used. I can’t imagine getting fined RM1000 for telling a tourist where the masjid is?
#2 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:28 pm
So far every single video I have seen the protestors talking on this issue repeat the same one liners and its highly noticeable mistakes and broken arguments in ALL of them..
#3 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:52 pm
Malaysia Insider reported on 14 Jan 2010:
“KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 14 — The St Elizabeth Catholic church in Kota Tinggi, Johor, was vandalised this morning, with red paint splashed on its walls. This makes it the ninth church hit by firebombs, arson attempts or vandalism in the past week.”
Why did the terrorists choose such a small town as Kota Tinggi, where the number of Catholics and Christians were very limited, as an attack target? It seems like the terrorists have the malicious intent to let these terrorism to continue happen until the economy of Malaysia has finally collapsed in the hands of weak and incompetent BN leaders such Najib and Hishammuddin!
Perhaps Jemaah Islamiah members just want to expand their battle fields to Malaysia in order to lend their Taliban comrades at Afghanistan a hand to buy some time and some breathing space!
#4 by boh-liao on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 1:56 pm
Khairul Faiz Morat came out as a pathetic n ignorant speaker (so sorry 4 him)
He had no fact 2 back up his argument but just parroted d words dat only Muslims can use ‘Allah’ n why must Catholics disturb peace by using d term Allah
Typical IGNORANCE of many Muslims interviewed
One even said: All my life, NONE of my friends, Catholics, NEVER used the word Allah regarding to say with God, NEVER
Double negatives, none never – so, he actually said that all his life, his friends, Catholics, used the word Allah as God
So, what’s his beef
LOL they did not know dat Catholics hv been using Allah for a long, long time
N this practice has posed no threat 2 Muslims, as pointed out by Herman Shastri
It’s d DUTY of NR n HH 2 inform n educate all Muslims abt dis harmless universal practice
Inform n educate d rulers too
Ask rice yatim 2 properly inform ppl through msm n warn Utusan M not 2 misinform ppl
Otherwise some of them got excited n worried unnecessarily out of ignorance
N uttered statements that made them a big fat fool, like Khairul (4given 4 his ignorance)
Pls return M’sia 2 d acknowledged model moderate Islamic nation
Peace, salaam, and shalom
#5 by Dap man on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:06 pm
Khairul is sounded like an idiot. Not only his English was pathetic he could even answer questions posed to him. He never answered even a single question except to speak from something he had learned by heart.
He had no substance to back his claim. He daren’t even look into the camera.
#6 by daweishine on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:18 pm
The body language and expression of Khairul said it all: the position he was trying to defend and justify is really untenable and unreasonable. I think half way through the interview he really wished that he had not been in it at all. He would probably be now thinking that the interviewer and the others were ganging on him. Let the world, including reasonable Muslims in other parts of the world, be the judge of this matter!
#7 by wanderer on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:41 pm
WHEN YOU GET A HALF BAKED REPRESENTATIVE Khairul, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY, HE WILL ONLY CONFUSED THE ISSUE, “THE RIGHT TO USE THE NAME, ALLAH” FURTHER….RESULTING IN NOT HAVING FACTS TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS!!!…. making a blooming fool of himself.
WHAT A SHAME WHEN EXTREMIST FOOLS TRY TO BULLDOZE AN UN-MERITED CLAIM AND DISPLAYING FALSE COURAGE, ATTACKING SOFT TARGETS BEING SHIELDED….
#8 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:51 pm
But i think Khairul does represent people of his caliber. One can safely assume they all think just like him and thus are incapable of logical discussion over the matter.
Another point to be noted, the government should reconsider changing science and maths in schools to malay, because khairul’s basic command of the language was appalling. He could not face the camera and was reading off a piece of paper? till the interviewer had to jolt him with a direct insult.
Rais yatim should also take note that in his plight to advocate the use of bahasa, the country is going to the dogs when most malays can’t even speak proper english. One worthwhile advice would be, why don’t they just ban the use of bahasa melayu amongst nonmalays, that will solve the ‘Allah’ use and save us from the problem of learning a language that won’t put us in the forefronts of the country.
#9 by Godfather on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 2:58 pm
I think they would fare better with the UMNO apologist who goes by the handle of rjkumar. Then he can say “ayam rjkumar, ayam kambing here to tell you something about troublesome minorities, especially the Chinese….”
#10 by Motorist on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 3:16 pm
Look at Khairul’s eyes. Its mostly to his right & downcast.
NLP body language says “looking to their right indicates more creative thoughts, and this is often interpreted as a potential sign that someone may be being deceitful in some situations, i.e. creating a version of events.”
http://www.psychologistworld.com/bodylanguage/eyes.php
See also Eye Movement & Lying
http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies_eyes.php
#11 by Jong on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 3:20 pm
LOL !!!! Another failed product of NEP all dressed up for his ‘international exposure’; demonstrated his stupidity, incoherent and malufying! Guess no one else wants to be suicidal.
#12 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 3:30 pm
What can you expect from village idiots?
#13 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:09 pm
As bad as Khairul is, its not his argument we have to worry about as Najib and his cousin. The opposition have been nothing but contructive to point the way out of the problem but Najib is instead finding ways to blame the opposition or making it harder for himself to accept the opposition suggestions. He is painting himself AND all of us into a corner..
Khairul failures is nothing in importance compared to Najib administration…
#14 by k1980 on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:34 pm
The office of the two lawyers representing the Catholic church in the Herald case has been broken into.
Watergate forced out Nixon in 1973. Will Heraldgate force out bijan?
#15 by k1980 on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:36 pm
The St Elizabeth Catholic church in Kota Tinggi, Johor, was vandalised this morning, with red paint splashed on its walls. This makes it the ninth church hit by firebombs, arson attempts or vandalism in the past week.
1malaysia boleh
#16 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:47 pm
Bigots begat bigots. 1Malaysia is rubbish. it’s failed miserably beyond reasonable doubt. Najib can go oh harping on false hopes and a lost cause. We all know what’s going to be the final say of the courts on this case. The judiciary system has been raped countlessly to the extent it’s now legal to commit rape.
#17 by k1980 on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:48 pm
igp: “Splashed with red paint? Then it is not the work of vandals. The pastor must have owed a lot of money to ah longs”
#18 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 4:49 pm
By the way, after listening the the Muslim dude, i can imagine how they lost their case in the high court. LOL Clowns
#19 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 5:29 pm
Please note that all of the non-muslims in Malaysia must make sure that they can accurately pronounce the word “masaalah” in the Malay Language when giving a public speech. Otherwise, it is possble that they can be maliciously accused by any biased officer from the Home Ministry for using a prohibited word in the public speech simply because the word “masaalah” sounds very similar to the prohibited word “Masya-Allah”, which appears in the ban list of the Malaysian Home Ministry.
The censorship in Malaysia is getting more and more rediculous nowadays! I wonder when the BN Government of Malaysia is going to adopt the ruling method of Si Huang Ti of Ancient China, who issued decree to burn all Confucian books and other so-called fugitive books which tended to promote liberal thinking and democratic ideology among the scholars and who also issued a decree to bury all Confucian followers alive as a form of capital punishment for curbing dissenting voices or dissident voices.
#20 by gofortruth on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 5:33 pm
“by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 – 1:52 pm
Why did the terrorists choose such a small town as Kota Tinggi, where the number of Catholics and Christians were very limited, as an attack target? ”
———————-
It is so obvious that the “mastermind” behind this plot intends to show that this is a “national issue” & not restricted to Selangor only and that the word “ALLAH” indeed has caused wide spread dangerous confusion to Muslims ALL OVER THE COUNTRY so it is a valid reason to claim exclusivity of the word for muslims in Malaysia. This is what they will tell the court that it has become a national security issue.
A typical bulldozer trying to get out of the pit it has dug to frame PAS & DAP during the last general election.
Why can’t they simply educate the people that “ALLAH” is an international word to mean God and has been in use even before there ever was a religion call Islam? Teach the people therefore be mindful of which version of ALLAH (God) when the word is used – Islamic Version? Jewish version ? Christian version? Apa susah nak faham?
#21 by cseng on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 5:58 pm
Now I understand why M’sia needed a closed and seal-off interfaith dialogue. Because if you can’t justify by constitution, you can’t justify thru logic and fairness then justify thru ‘sensitivity’ and “harmony”.
What are sensitivity and harmony means? Is this a justification or a threat? I take it as: don’t mess with the people who can get angry easily, right or wrong is irrelevant, to preserve harmony you have to accept, that’s all.
For how long we can preserve harmony with this ketuanan 1 malaysia model.
#22 by Justitia on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:08 pm
Tenaciousb said: “He wasn’t even answering the question at all. ”
Well, TenaciousB, can’t you see that the guy was rummaging through the papers to see where it is on the Q&A and how to answer. Now, we know that the I.Q. of these people and now I can understand how they can be easily misled. In fact, I think they are doing a good job of confusing themselves without any outside help. I only have pity on them.
#23 by Bigjoe on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:13 pm
The latest comments by Muhiyiddin in Oxford is amazing. No wonder Najib feel superior to Muhiyiddin..If Muhiyiddin were to have handled this, we would burn a lot quicker..In fact, unless Najib find someone very different from ANYONE in the top leadership of UMNO to replace him, we will burn much quicker..
#24 by rahmanwang on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:30 pm
Please be fair.This Khairol Faiz is not capable to answer the questions.He lost it for the Muslims.In fact Islam is not only the word “Allah”.Its only the UMNO big shots who are afraid, as they fear they have no support from their own Malays.As far as I am concern,they will only get the political support only if the rid of their “corrupt” practices.
#25 by boh-liao on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:40 pm
Alamak, red paint splashed on walls
Sure or not, church otang duit ah
O dear, must learn how 2 say alamak properly
Nanti kena tangkap for insulting someone’s mother
BTW, is alamak banned in any state ah
#26 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:47 pm
As Reverend Herman said, the “word” has been used since 19th century beginning from the time of the missionaries. It is also used by Christians in the biggest Muslim Country in the world, Indonesia. That this does not appear an anomaly there or elsewhere is perhaps due to the fact that both Christianity and Islam share the common Abrahamic traditions tracing back to the Prophet Abraham.
Khairul’s argument that Christians’ use of the word would confuse Muslims was well addressed by the Reverend Herman Shastri who asked how was that possible when Muslims and Christians worshipped in different places of mosques and churches. It is hard to understand how a Muslim not in the church could get confused anymore than a Christian not in the mosque will be!
All these time since the 19th century beginning from the time of the missionaries, is there any empirical evidence that any muslim has been confused by Christians’ use of the word to commit apostasy or become a Christian for the ban to be urged, in so doing, to withdraw a pre-existing right sanctified by custom and usage since time immemorial by those who use it???
It is hard to divine a rational basis for the ban, so to invoke it in the first instance in 2007 and to appeal against Justice Lau Bee Lan’s decision would lend credence to the Professor Zachery/the Moderator’s observation that the ban was politically motivated by the ruling party to galvanise and “maintain its dominance amongst Malay Muslims’ base” in hopeful reversal of the withdrawal of support of a significant section thereof as evinced by the 12th Malaysian General Election’s results in which BN lost 2/3 majority and 5 states.
It is such an unnecessary problem. It is highly irresponsible to manufacture one where none existed earlier to serve expedience of a political objective heedless of inter-community tensions that may or may not spiral out of control, not to mention contradict everything that 1 Malaysia stands for. [According to Malaysiakini’s report (by S Pathmawathy Jan 14) another church, the St Elizabeth Catholic church had been splashed with red paint early this morning].
It is not conceivable that having taken the official position to support the ban the government will ever back-track just because of the attack on the churces. Not even the threat of a substantial loss of support of 900,000 odd Christians in East Malaysia. Maybe the calculation is that the loss may be more than made up with the return of support of those who left in 308 Tsunami, now that the use of that word is a kind of special privilege to be protected as well. It will then look to the Court of Appeal to reverse Justice Lau Be Lan’s decision to give the ban the veneer of legal legitimacy. [After all didn’t the good Reverend say that the Herald and Catholic Church in resorting to court action, would abide by the Court’s decision?]
Whatever decision of the Courts, there will be no solution because we’re way passed the tipping point where there is always one side that will not be happy with that decision however eloquent it might be delivered– that’s for sure.
Even if the Herald accepts the Court decision against it, many people will always wonder whether the recent acts of terrorism on the Churches could have influenced it.
Non Muslims have only dialogue and rationality to put their case. They rely on right based on rationality – not might – to vindicate their case. Correspondingly, if might and not right were perceived foisted upon them, they have no recourse except to look to the ballot box for redress, if at all that could provide the recourse/redress.
#27 by negarawan on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 6:47 pm
One week has passed and still not a single arrest by the police force. If we turn the situation around, let’s say non-muslims bombing and attacking mosques, I can bet that they’ll be hundreds of arrest by now. Alas, UMNO has destroyed the social fabric of Malaysia. We have reached a point of no return….
#28 by Loh on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 7:06 pm
When the court decision goes their way, they want to stick to it, otherwise they want out of court settlement. The argument is for harmony and peace which they are ever ready to disrupt. Malaysian government from Najib downwards do not practice rule of law, but rule by law. So Najib appeals for calm while the government get the COA to reverse the decision. That sent the signal that the government did not agree with the High Court decision. Others took the law in the own hands to support government decision.
It was said ‘there was no God but Allah’. Since the Islamic religion comes later than the others which used the term ‘Allah” to refer to the almighty, the God, so that statement can be taken to mean that Allah referred to by Christians was the same Allah Muslims worship. It was not that Allah is the ‘bigger’ God as the man said in the interview. Having borrowed the word used by Christians, Muslims around the world are quite happy not to try to determine whether the Allah worshiped by different religions was one and the same. But Mamakthir decided that non-Muslims should forget their God and use the Malay term Tuhan. Why would not Malays use
their own language Tuhan, and worse why adopt the Arabic word and ban others from using it?
It was mentioned that going to court would provoke Muslims. Does that mean that the citizens now organize their own muscles to settle dispute rather than going to court? Rule of law is a sign of social development. Has Malaysia gone back to stone-age?
It was suggested that the religious leaders should settle the issue. Would they accept the decision of the religious leaders if they chose to have the matter determine by court? They did not accept the Prime Minister call to wait out for court decision. So do the religious leaders have a higher status than the prime Minister? The answer was that so long as the religious leaders accept that status quo before the High Court decision, or even before the case was heard, the interviewee would be willing to not disrupt harmony in the country. That is bully.
In the present life, UMNO would not allow equality for progress under NEP. UMNO now wants to control the afterlife where the God’s identity is also being restricted for non-Muslims.
#29 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 7:09 pm
“Teach the people therefore be mindful of which version of ALLAH (God) when the word is used – Islamic Version? Jewish version ? Christian version? Apa susah nak faham?” (gofortruth)
The biggest problem of Malaysia is not that there are plenty of Malay Muslims out there who are irrational due to poor understanding or misinterpretation of the Islamic teachings, but the problem lies in the uncontrollable ambition of some Umnoputras who try to make use of the religious issue to create an imaginative enemy for the muslims in Malaysia in order to fulfill their self-interested purpose of calling unity of the Malays under the umbrella of Umno which is intended by Umnoputras as the monopolised political party in ruling power. Apparently, the non-muslims, or more specifically the Catholics and the Christians, have become an easy target for use as an imaginative enemy.
The root-cause of the religious intolerance is not that there is lack of knowledgeable preachers who are capable to spread around the healthy religious teachings. Its root-cause indeed lies in the rigid structure of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia on the administrative power of Islamic religious affairs. Such rigidity, as found in the bestowing of religion administrative power only to certain authority in charge of the Islamic affairs, has given breed to a group of politically ambitious Islamic Ulama who have advocated a much tighter legal control to be imposed by the state (political regime) over the freedom of religion permitted to the non-muslims. The ultimate solution for this religious deadlock does not lie in inter-faiths dialogues but it should lie in the much-needed constitutional reform which advocates the concept of “Separation of State and Mosque”, like the constitutional reform which had been carried out by Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew at the early stage of the formation of Republic of Singapore.
The State should not be given too much power to interfere in the personal life of individuals, lest the State will be tyrannic enough to ruin the life of the individuals.
#30 by Jeffrey on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 7:24 pm
Onlooker Politics, “Separation of State and Mosque”, like the constitutional reform? Firstly Tun Dr Mahathir already declared this an Islamic state – no separation…
But not everyone agrees. Federal Court with Lord President Tun Salleh Abas presiding, in the Che Omar bin Che Soh case of 1999 adjudged Malaysia a secular state (albeit with Islam, the official religion) and so far there is apex court decision to the contrary.
So is there really a need of constitutional reform – what good does it do – when politicians and people who control power push things the other way – making the Islamic State a fait accompli – whatever the judicial interpretation of the constitution to the contrary?
#31 by tenaciousB on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 8:32 pm
There will be an increase in emigration if these fanatics push for their exclusivity. Malaysia can’t sustain further brain drain or else this will be the end of whatever joke of dream they have.
#32 by rabbit on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 8:37 pm
On respect, thinking and dialogue
Professor Tariq Ramadan is a European Muslim who advocates reform in Islam and promotes interfaith dialogue. Born in Switzerland and the grandson of the
Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan Al Banna, the European academic has been named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most important innovators of the century.
He told ZAKIAH KOYA during his recent visit to Kuala Lumpur that Muslims must make an effort to move from mere formalism – a fixation on ritual – towards
a committed spiritual and social presence.
This diversity is God’s will. The
Quran says that if God wants it
He could have made you one
community.
MUSLIMS say that their religion is perfect and it is because of this many are against interfaith dialogues. What is the point they ask? So why are you promoting
interfaith dialogues among religions?
We have a perfect religion, yes, but we are not perfect. Dealing with other religions means that we are challenging the very meaning of ours. When we have
a dialogue, sometimes when we meet Jews, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics or atheists, the way they are helps you to better your religion as they may make
you see something which you have neglected to see.
For example, when I was in South America, the priests there were talking of love. So, I learnt to also talk of the spiritual dimension of love in Islam
and its importance in life. So the experience of others is helping you to have other viewpoints of your religion.
When we talk about values, when we speak about dignity and solidarity and when we talk about racism, dialogue can be very important because at the end of
the day when dealing with Christians and Buddhists – why do they have to listen to me? – because together we want to change the world for the better. We
want to make our world a better place.
Malaysia cannot have social cohesion if you do not have dialogue. We need this dialogue among religions. There are areas we can explore. For instance why
do we believe what we believe? Is there someone who can believe that Allah is happy with the 100,000 people who are dying of starvation everyday?
Will there be someone who, when we speak of global warming, will convincingly say that God is happy with us? He is not. We know that we are not meeting
the challenges and dialogue can be a meaningful exchange if we do not make it just an exchange of words.
Since Muslims say that their religion is perfect, why are you talking about the need to reform Islam?
I am not saying this. Islam does not need to be reformed and Islam has in itself tools for Muslims to have a true understanding of it. What we need to reform
is the Muslim minds. The texts that the Muslims refer to – the Quran and hadith – are going to stay as text. They are not going to change. We have an immutable
set of principles.
We are facing challenges. Islam is for all times and all situations but who is going to do the job? Our minds of course. And we have to evolve our minds
with our rationality. It is our static rationality that is betraying the text. Active rationality is what makes the text universal.
Whose responsibility is it to bring all this about?
It’s a multiple responsibility. Of course, the first to be mentioned are the Muslim scholars, the ulama and the intellectuals. They have to come with a
vision and they have to deal with the matter of authority. They deal with the text and scriptural sources. So, I would say they have a great responsibility
on that.
I would also say the ordinary Muslims should understand that they are responsible too. Ordinary Muslims should understand that they cannot just blame the
people at the top but understand that they too have power. As a result the ordinary Muslims are too passive, suffering from a mentality of victimisation
and are always blaming others. They must understand that they have their share of responsibility in the whole process to shoulder.
Malaysia is a country with a lot of diversity. It is a plural society. How does Islam view these diversities?
This diversity is God’s will. The Quran says that if God wants it He could have made you one community. He said: We made you tribes and nations so that
you may know one another.
It is God’s will. It is, therefore, not enough to tolerate others. We must respect them. As one prominent scholar said in one conference “who wants to be
tolerant, we want to be respected.”
In Islam the word, therefore, is respect, not tolerate. Who are we to tolerate? This is God’s will for me to be here. So it is for Muslims to understand
that because Allah wanted Christianity, wanted Judaism, and Buddhism and atheists and anarchists to be here it is for them to respect God’s will. To respect
means “I acknowledge the fact that you are here, I acknowledge the fact that you have to be respected – and more than that – I am asked by Allah that I
have to know you, which is a two-way process of acknowledgment. Respect is to acknowledge you and know you that you are different and to know about you.
My knowledge towards you is an act of respect.” So, I think tolerance is not enough. We must remember that diversity is God’s will.
At the same time Muslims must stop the belief in this illusion that we have one and the same thought in Islam. There is diversity among Muslims too. It
is a reality.
Never forget that this diversity is not only a challenge but also a gift. Through dialogue with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, they may make us better people.
Most Muslim societies are guided by their ulama and religious scholars. In time they have become revered people. Whatever they say is accepted without question.
Thus many Muslims grow up with a fear of asking questions. It is unfortunate, don’t you think?
We have to respect the scholars but we should not fear to question them. Especially now. What is said today is not what was said fifteen years ago because
the Muslims are experiencing new situations. The point here is ordinary Muslims should stop acting like blind followers and blaming the scholars for not
doing their jobs when they themselves are not doing their job. What is their job? It is to come with a critical mind – there is no deep faith without a
critical mind. You know there is one principle to be followed when you go to a scholar and you ask him for a fatwa. But when he gives you the fatwa, you
have to ask him or her where does it come from. Give me the evidence. Not only do you get an answer but you have to understand where the answer comes from.
What the Muslims are doing is that they just want answers and very often they are having a “touristic” attitude towards fatwa. They are looking at scholars
and they choose the scholar that they want that gives them the fatwa that they want. In the end they get the fatwa they are looking for. This is not Islamic
– an attitude which is lacking in sincerity. We need more sincerity from the Muslims and more critical minds – and carry out deeper challenges and deeper
questions – not only how do I enter the mosque and such.
The scholars must listen to the community and know what is happening. By definition, a scholar is serving the community – not to be served by the community
– his power or authority is coming from the community he is serving. What we have now is the other way round. We are idolising some of the scholars and
in the process giving them authority over us.
We have to revive the questioning mind. During the time of the Prophet, when he gave an opinion or a ruling his companions questioned him, “Is this coming
from God or is this coming from you?” When he said, “This is my opinion”, they said then we challenge you. They were challenging his authority to find
out how he came up with his opinion. If it is coming from God, no problem.
You must have heard that there is a request by a Catholic publication, the Herald, to use the word “Allah” when referring to God in its articles in Bahasa
Malaysia. The government has objected to this. What is your view on this?
If you travel around the world, in the Arab world, Allah is used by all Christians – Coptics and others. To us, Allah is the one God who sent us the prophets
Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. When we use Arabic, we say “Allah”, when speak in English, we say “God” and when we speak French, we say “Deus”.
The point is the substance and the substance is one God. We are using the language to say it. Some of the scholars coming from the literalist trend, the
Salafiya-al Harfiyat, say that Allah is a very specific name.
The majority of the Muslims are using the word “God” when they speak English and the other words in other languages. Allah is not the God of the Arabs but
Allah is the only God of all human beings. This is what we are saying.
When we speak other languages, you change by knowing what you are talking about and we understand that He is like nothing we can imagine Him to be. Therefore
we cannot describe Him. So when I speak English, I do not have a problem saying “God” and in French I say “Deus” and that’s it.
When the Christian Arabs speak Arabic, in their Bible, they use “Allah” to speak about God. So, you cannot deprive them using this as this has been the
case for centuries and in Arabic, God is Allah.
The Roman Catholics among them do not use “Allah” to describe Jesus. There is no problem there. And my understanding of their general hypothesis is that
the Trinity is Three in One but they are not confusing the three dimensions of One God. If that is not a problem for them neither is it for us.
But we must also be aware that the Christians, depending on traditions that they are following, are promoting the concept of the Trinity. Each group has
its own truth or understanding of it.
Would you describe yourself as a moderate Muslim?
I am not using this vocabulary. This qualification is coming from the colonisers who always had a binary view of the colonised – the good and the bad, the
moderate and the fundamentalist.
All the people who resisted colonisation were bad and fundamentalists and all those with them were the good and the moderate. I think it is silly.
You are aware, of course, there are too many literalists and formalists among Muslims in Malaysia and many parts of the world. Are you saying that it is
wrong for Muslims to be like that and that there is a need for them to be more than that?
The literalists are looking at the Islamic text, the Quran and the hadith, in a very literal way. I am not saying that they are less Muslim, but they are
followers. Maybe in their literal faithfulness, they become less faithful to the objectives of being a Muslim.
I want be very faithful to the meaning of the text but I also want answers for my time. So, the reformist trend here is what we have with the first companions
of the Prophet saw – some of them were looking at the objectives, not only at the literal meaning of the verses. I am following that one.
There are texts – I respect them and there are objectives – I have to reach them. So I am between the objectives I want to reach and the text I have to
understand. Between that, there is the critical thinking – the dialectic process – which is exactly the reformist trend.
We need to go back to the origins to find out what is the creativity and the confidence of the first
companions of the Prophet Muhammad. Today what we lack is confidence when we deal with the text, and we do not have confidence to face the world. Is the
text for us to strictly just read and not change the world? We read whole night and don’t change the world throughout the day.
To change the world we need our critical thinking – the rationality, the understanding. We need to have our heart not sleeping during the night and the
mind never sleeping during the day. This is what we need, this awakening process. It is important.
You are Hasan al Banna’s grandson and because of that many Europeans and Americans do not think you are what you say you are. To them he was a fundamentalist
and an extremist and that what you are doing is to present a friendly face to what they think he was. How do you handle people like them?
I think that a variety of the people who talk of my grandfather never read about him, never knew him. I would never let people judge my grandfather with
superficial perceptions. Only 5% of what he wrote is translated into English. Just try to understand what he did and said. Someone who said no to colonisation
and who created 2,000 schools, half for girls in a time where this was not the trend is just unbelievable.
People questioned my grandparents on how they could send their daughter to school and the daughter in question was my mother. This is the way my grandfather
was. When he was, for example, promoting a kind of Sufi trend –which is spirituality – which sprouted into 1,500 such organisations, shouldn’t I respect
him for this?
So, to all the people today judging him while he was dealing with the world in the 1930s and 1940s, I would say this is unfair. And when you don’t read
someone fully, don’t judge that someone especially based on the words of his enemies (the British colonisers).
I don’t have a problem with people referring to my grandfather wherever I am because this is a fact. But I am trying to present my own thoughts and I am
asking the people to assess my view by reading what I have written.
#33 by Onlooker Politics on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 9:03 pm
“So is there really a need of constitutional reform – what good does it do – when politicians and people who control power push things the other way – making the Islamic State a fait accompli – whatever the judicial interpretation of the constitution to the contrary?” (Jeffrey)
Jeffrey,
Indeed, constitutional reform will make some differences. The constitutional reform does not necessarily be enabled only with a constitutional amendment. For instance, the U.S. Constitution did not give the written Supreme Power to the Supreme Court of the United States. However, the supreme power of the U.S. Supreme Court was a power being derived from the conventional practices of judicial independence by the honest founding fathers of the U.S. combined with the interactive actions and reactions caused by political power struggle between two competing political factions throughout a long period of time in the U.S. political history.
To know more about the detail, you may get a book of the Political Science on the development of the U.S. Government.
Below is the excerpt from wikipedia about the early history of the U.S. Supreme Court:
The earliest Courts—under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801)—heard few cases, and the Supreme Court’s first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue. Further, the Court initially lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.
The Court lacked its own building until 1935; from 1791 to 1801, it met in Philadelphia’s City Hall.That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made several important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government and the states. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Court was entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.
#34 by samurai77 on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 9:25 pm
Apparently, Khairul’s level of mentality portrays those UMNO Malay’s mind which they do not have any own opinion and thinking. They just follow and accept blindly whatever given to them, which obviously seen when he always refer to prepared text. We must presume that he should be one of the top notch debater from their group to be sent in for this discussion, so with this kind of display, I wonder the rest of the blockheads in the group. It is very humiliating and a great DISGRACE to the nation that this is indeed a product of the NEP. Keep up the ‘good’ work to produce more ‘distinguish’ leader like him…yeah UMNO needs them very much.
#35 by monsterball on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 10:09 pm
The judgment in favor for the Christians to use the word ‘ALLAH” gave Najib the opportunity an idea..how to use religion in politics.
It is a dangerous game to play…but UMNO BARU is at the weakest political position…..and Najib needs to do something fast to save it.
All slogans exposed…..not worth one sen.
What about this issue?
So many intelligent commentators have said it all.
As a man who have lived and experienced all…this is to be expected…by UMNO BARU…who declared by Chief Minister of Melaka…Rustam..
“UMNO will rule forever”
How to rule forever…if vast majority voters are against UMNO?
Just plan to have Emergency Rule for few years…let Malaysians forget the past..go on with their lives…and give UMNO few more years…to brainwashed…and capture back voters.
First make all suffer…some go hungry…millions out of jobs…then UMNO become Santa Clause..making sure…foodstuffs under control and give aids to thousands…with no favouring one race…all are equally assisted…….with MCA and MIC.
After few years of Emergency Rule…declare election …exactly like after May 13th incident to win again.
That has to be Najib’s only option…to avoid loosing in the 13th GE..as scheduled.
Few years under strict Police Rule…not Military…is what UMNO needs now desperately.
PS: The 23 minutes video have so many stops. I hope it can be reformat to have smooth viewing.
#36 by mendela on Thursday, 14 January 2010 - 11:21 pm
http://www.malaysia-today.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29618:indian-illegal-immigrants-in-msia-but-what-about-missing-indonesians-&catid=18:letterssurat&Itemid=100129
#37 by a2a on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 12:47 am
The whole world dictionary translated it as Muslim name for GOD.
or
translate it newly as Muslim’s GOD.
Now, is it one GOD or two GOD for all human?
#38 by a2a on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 1:03 am
Human are selfish, greedy, jealousy and stupid.
They thought they can act on behalf of GOD.
GOD are almighty.
If you can write the word ALL___.
If you can speak the word ALL___.
It is the all mighty GOD give you the rights to use it.
Only the human stupid brain thought they represented the GOD on behalf the rights to stop you to use it.
and created a new division for GOD his children.
#39 by a2a on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 1:18 am
If you can write the word ALL__.
If you can speak the word ALL__.
If you know the word ALL__ refer to GOD.
It mean that the all mighty GOD give you the rights to use it and get close to him.
#40 by johnnypok on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 2:03 am
Mass-production of unemployable graduates, 1-tongkat mentality, birth-place of world-famous terrorist, corruption, murder, snatching dead bodies, discrimination, very soon 513 again.
#41 by tenaciousB on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 3:01 am
i think nonmuslims have given in to the big bully for too long. the smart move is to leave but it’s a country nonmuslims helped build too and therfore that would be cowardly.
#42 by tenaciousB on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 3:16 am
This is the 21st century i for one am not going to concede to blatant religious threats made by a bunch of fanatics who could also be terrorists. Wake up Malaysians time to vote this rogue regime that has no respect for the law and rights of their citizens out for good !
#43 by tenaciousB on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 3:26 am
They react like spoiled rotten children, throwing a tantrum and when the parent explains the reasons they continue on with their rantings. This is the product of poor upbringing, in this particular case, the child has been spoonfed for far too long, not taught the value of things and the lack of discipline has caused them to take everything for granted and show utter disrespect to the head of the house. There are certain rules that the child within the household have to abide by and when the child is taught that rules can be bend, that is the day democracy was murdered.(Parables)
#44 by ringthetill on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 5:29 am
I don;t get his gist, that Khairul guy. There is a marked contrast in the intellect of the 3 interviewees and I’m afraid to say that Khairul faired badly. Looks like he can read from a prepared script, over and over again irrespective of what the question entails.
Does this reflect on the products of NEP and all the spoon feeding? How can such an important matter be effectively discussed when the ability to think rationally and being able to communicate effectively get in the way?
#45 by johnnypok on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 5:59 am
If you are born stupid, or genetically not inteligent, no amount of spoon-feeding can help.
#46 by Bigjoe on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 7:44 am
Check out 101East with ABIM President Yusri Mohammad. Those who recall when Anwar was ABIM leader can see WHAT a huge difference in quality of leadership and skills. Compared to Khalid Samad who was amazing. If this is not a condemnation of the NEP and UMNO/BN system and walking away from it., I don’t know what is..
#47 by undertaker888 on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 7:48 am
{deleted}
[We should refrain from using offensive language so as not to inflame a sensitive subject. Admin]
#48 by sotong on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 10:05 am
When you make statement to inflame a situation, you are basically encouraging violence and do not have any authority and credibility to talk about peace, mutual respect and harmony.
#49 by Winston on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 10:34 am
There’s no problem among the people about religious matters until certain “leaders” used it to instigate a certain section of the populace to ferment problems.
We know who these “leaders” are, don’t we?
#50 by boh-liao on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 10:38 am
The AlJazeera video clip is a VERY USEFUL EDUCATIONAL material
Esp 2 those who r teaching mass communication n how 2 b interviewed
1 interviewer n 3 interviewees
C how d 3 interviewees responded, in terms of body language n replies
Spontaneous calm replies versus frantic flipping of notes n reading fr text
Watch d eyes of d three interviewees
Listen 2 their articulation n pronunciation
Ha, ha – such a WONDERFUL n rich teaching material indeed, KEEP d video clip
Learn what 2 do, what not 2 do, n how not 2 make a big fat fool of oneself
Thank you, Khairul, Herman, n Zachary
#51 by Rocky on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 11:07 am
the khairul guy from MIYM was a joke. can i stop here and reading from the paper and just reading from a prepared script regardless of what the question was. I mean this is the only guy MIYM can send out? OMG the quality must be really bad. No wonder some muslims like him can get confused
#52 by artemisios on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 11:21 am
i’m sure a lot of fellow m’sians feel deeply embarrassed N silently shook their heads everytime khairul opens his mouth.. me included
>>He was afraid to even look at the camera
>>I’m guessing he graduated with some kind of degree from some kind of western university under a mega-huge govt scholarship. BUT his English… oh man…
>>Ask him a question – he reads something irrelevant from that script.
>>Ask his opinion – he reads something irrelevant from the script, again.
>>Ask him another question – he repeats something irrelevant.
We’re going to become a high-income nation. We’re going to be internationally competitive.
HOW?
#53 by tenaciousB on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 12:21 pm
A response at malaysia insider’s article on the ban of 32 more arabic words in melaka, this guy is awesome!
Saya juga cadangkan supaya melayu tak guna perkataan Hindu Sanskrit supaya tak terpesong akidah….
1. Syurga
2. Neraka
3. Bumi
4. Putra
5. Bumiputra
6. Jaya
7. Perdana
8. agama
9. bahasa
10. biara
11. buat
12. duka
13. guru
14. hina
15. kepala
16. kuda
17. maha (i.e Tuhan yang Maha esa) tak bole la…
18. manusia
19. nama
20. pustaka
21. puasa
22. purba
23. roti (i.e. mamak! satu roti canai banjir! tak bole lagi la,,,,,)
24. sama
25. sengsara
26. singa
27. suka
28. tali
29. topi
30. unta
31. warna
32. bodoh
Jokers, when will they ever learn that their accussations and claims are absurd!
#54 by superstar48 on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 1:36 pm
It was a co incidence that i bumped in to Aljazeera to hear this interview.Oh my god allah,what a monkey,not even fit to eat the banana skin left over by the people working there,sitting there and giving answers about allah issue.Even, if we have sent a std 6 pupil from an esate school,the child would have saved Najibs 1Malaysia from further embarasment.A most stupid with no knowledge was selected for the interview.Even Apanama is no match to take questions from foreign journalist.
#55 by SMSAM2 on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 1:48 pm
I really dont know if I should laugh or cry…
Malaysia really did herself a great favour by putting a major idiot there, shuffling papers, reading from unrelated notes, and never did he once answered what is being asked by the moderator, and talk like he left his brain at home.
This is 1Stupid at its best.
Actually kudos to the moderator. I dont think I can hide my anger and frustration if I am him.
Pathetic…
Sam
#56 by Jamesy on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 2:10 pm
Nazri: OK to use ‘Allah’ in East Malaysia
Fri, Jan 15, 2010 – FREE MALAYSIA TODAY.
KOTA KINABALU: Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz (picture) has told a local newspaper the word ‘Allah’ is allowed to be used by Christians in Sarawak and Sabah.
This is because the government accepts that the natives in these two states have traditionally been using it in their prayers and religious services and the Muslims there are accustomed to this practice, he was quoted as saying in an interview in Kuala Lumpur with the Borneo Post.
He said: “Christians in Sarawak and Sabah need not worry over this issue because it is a common tradition there. I have been to an Iban church service and I heard the word ‘Allah’ used there.”
However, “Allah is not allowed to be used by churches in Peninsular Malaysia and Christians from the two states have to respect this ruling when they are in the peninsula, Nazri said.
Asked why there are two sets of rules for the nation on the use of the Arabic name for God, he said this was not a unique practice as Malaysia also has two sets of laws on other matters, citing as an example the existence of two court systems, the syariah and the civil courts.
He explained that the situation in West Malaysia was different as the name “Allah” was introduced into Christian worship and publications only a few years ago.
He said: “Muslims here in Semenanjung cannot accept it as ‘Allah’ was never used in Christian preaching until recently and they question the motive behind the substitution of ‘Tuhan’ for ‘Allah.’
“It is clearly stated in our constitution that no other religion can be propagated to Malay Muslims and this article has been enacted in all states headed by a sultan. So this excludes the Federal Territory, Penang, Malacca, Sarawak and Sabah.
“In these states, for the ban on the use of ‘Allah’ to be implemented the Home Affairs Minister can use the Printing Act.”
Nazri added that Christians should recognise that using “Allah” in their worship and publications is sensitive to Muslims and that this was not an issue that could be solved by going to court.
“The government has a duty to stop acts of disrespect and provocation that inflame religious and racial feelings in the nation even if there was no law that stated these acts were wrong.
“For example, there is no law in the country that states stepping on a severed cow head is wrong but when a group of Malays did that in their protests against the building of a Hindu temple we hauled them up and charged them because that act was disrespectful to the Hindus,” he said.
He added that on the same score, the government would have to act if Muslims felt hurt by Christians using “Allah” in reference to God, even if the courts deemed it legal.
If that is the case, why does the government resort to going to the court to resolve the issue?
Nazri replied that it was Archbishop Murphy Pakiam who brought the matter to court and that once the legal process had started it could not be stopped.
Judge Lau Mee Lan, in ruling against the ban on the use of “Allah” by Christians, said there was no evidence to show that it could incite violence.
To this, Nazri said such incidents had not happened when the hearing was on and the government could not produce such evidence.
But, he said, the attacks on churches after the ruling proved the government right.
“Banning the use of ‘Allah’ by Christians was a pre-emptive move to stop outbreaks of religious violence in the nation,” he argued. Asked how the controversy could be solved, Nazri said there had to be a solution soon and he appealed to the public to be “calm and rational.”
————————————–
Shocking statement from a Minister who read law. How could there be two sets of rules/laws? What is the concept of RULE OF LAW to Nazri? What happened if East Malaysians travelled to West Malaysia to conduct/attend church services in Bahasa Malaysia, which they are forced to use from ALLAH to TUHAN?
What a funny way to even suggest two sets of rules/laws!
#57 by gofortruth on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 2:26 pm
Nazri: OK to use ‘Allah’ in East Malaysia
—————-
As expected (mentioned yesterday) that the “hired hands” had to travel the length of the country to produce the so call “evidence of violence” so that the gomen can legitimate the ban on ground of national security.
But it is UNEXPECTED that they say its ok for Sabah & Sarawak to continue to use the word.
Why they fear losing the 2 states more than they fear for “confused muslims” ah?
Effectively this is the end of Najib’s 1Malaysia or the begin of his downfall.
#58 by good coolie on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 5:33 pm
When you seek to defend the indefensible, this is what happens. Any one would have faced the same difficulty in justifying the government’s action against the “Herald” , especially in a directly publicised interview such as this one.
What made it worse is that Khairul is not the best man for this type of interview.
#59 by Evenmind on Friday, 15 January 2010 - 5:47 pm
Noticed that the Aljazeerah host did not thank the MIYM guy , becos i think the latter made a complete idiot and fool of himself , that’s is the product of NEP. On the other hand the host thanked the Reverend and the guy from US.
Isn’t the truth obvious , those protesting against the use of the ‘A ‘ word actually do not know what they are talking about. what morons do we have in this country.