The elephant in the room

Continuing my take on the Allah-word controversy which I blogged on in my previous post Alamak, the Allah-word again? I believe the Appeals Court ruling has been specifically on the legality of the Home Minister's decision to prohibit The Herald, the Catholic Church weekly newsletter (or paper) in Malaysia, using the word 'Allah' to refer to the Christian god in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

Let's put the microscope directly over the relevant specifics of the Appeals Court ruling again, namely:

• The Home Minister can rule
• That The Herald cannot use the Allah-word
• in The Herald's Bahasa Malaysia section

Read my lips - Home minister can rule (Court won't intervene/interfere) that The Herald cannot use the Allah-word in its Bahasa Malaysia section!

Both sides of the bloody political fence plus various other 'interests' have been equally unscrupulous in exploiting this Court's ruling to the most preposterous, outrageous and disgraceful n-th degree for their own gains - political, religious or whatever - by ignoring the specifics of the ruling.

Instead they have expanded and reinterpreted the Court's ruling to cover every nook and corner of Malaysia and Malaysian lives, and even talked of pending implications for the Islamic and non-Islamic world - a sad case of booming that all doom and gloom are looming.

The 4 horses of Apocalypse may even appear, wakakaka

F* it man, the previous Home Minister hasn't ruled that the Allah-word cannot be used by non-Muslims, but only by The Catholic Herald and even then, only in its Bahasa Malaysia section. And that's what the Appeals Court has ruled on, namely the Home Minister's right in prohibiting The Catholic Herald from using the Allah-word in its (now very carefully read this) Bahasa Malaysia section.

That's precisely what former Perlis Mufti, Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin, had said, that it was 'not a big issue' because of the specific ruling, advising both Muslim and Christian groups not to exaggerate the matter as both the (previous) Home Minister's decision and the Appeals Court ruling on it were only confined to the Malay language section of The Herald.

He said: "Maybe the ruling was made to avoid any sort of provocation and it is not based on Islam because Islam has no restrictions on Christians using the word Allah."

But many Muslim leaders have ignored his good and fair advice, people like Mohd Nooh Gadut, the Johor Mufti, who warned Muslims against questioning the Court of Appeal ruling on the 'Allah' word issue, and that by doing so they risk being deemed a kafir or an apostate.

Brilliant, isn't he, making a ruling of the secular Appeals Court into a Islamic fatwa. Eat your heart out, Ayatollah Khomeini (dead as you might be).

And talking about fatwa, Dr Abdul Shukor, chairman of the National Fatwa Council, went into orgasmic delight on hearing the Court’s ruling, claiming beyond the boundaries of the judicial ruling that it was in line with a 2008 fatwa which stated the word ‘Allah’ was sacred and specific to Islam and the Muslim community, and should not be used by non-Muslims.

Apart from his obvious hijacking and creative reinterpretation of the Court's ruling, I just wonder how an Islamic fatwa would apply to non-Muslims?

Then we get the loony right in Ikatan Muslimin Malaysia (ISMA) telling Christians to emigrate if they cannot accept the sovereignty of Islam and the king in Malaysia after the Courts's ruling, in which they (ISMA), not unlike Dr Abdul Shukor, claimed that the word 'Allah' is exclusive to Muslims.

Dumbos, that's exactly what Sabah pollie Jeffery Kitingan wants, except our Jeffery boy thinks even bigger, like emigrating the entire states of Sabah and Sarawak, especially the former, out of Malaysia, wakakaka.

Thus why should we be surprised to hear him, in reality a political insignificant in the overall Malaysian political landscape, talking about secession because of the Court's ruling and its feral and unnecessary bigoted wake caused by ultras like ISMA, which (the secession) if realized may make him presumably more significant - methinks he wishes, wakakaka.

He must have been grinning when he suggested to Ah Jib Gor that should the PM accept the calls of a Muslim-based NGO (presumably the moronic ISMA, wakakaka) for Malaysian Christians to leave the country if they cannot bear to accept the sovereignty of Islam, it would then be time to start disengagement talks and allow Sabah and Sarawak to depart Malaysia, wakakaka.

He pontificated openly: "There is no point in retaining Sabah and Sarawak within the Federation of Malaysia when the ultra-Malays in Malaya keep trying to break it up and without any appropriate response or with the silent acquiescence from the federal government."

Also read my post Will Sabah secede?

Sabah's flag in 1963, when it was actually independent
for two weeks prior to 16 September 1963

Will it fly again?

Those ISMA idiots in making their bigoted comments didn't even know what the Court's ruling has been about, and which didn't mention anything about the sovereignty of Islam nor that of HM the Agong, nor about the Allah-word being exclusive to Muslims.

Wakakaka, then PAS-reject Nasharuddin Mt Isa pushed his (note 'his' and not 'the') Islamic envelope by suggesting (hopefully or provocatively?) that the Court's ruling would set a legal precedent that could be applied to Sabah and Sarawak, where the Christians there currently have the right to use Allah in their Malay-language Bible.

This is despite the government stating the Home Minister's or Court's ruling does not apply to Sabah and Sarawak, though unsurprisingly Pakatan politicians are insisting it does, thus indirectly agreeing with Nasharudin, wakakaka.

Needless to say, we have the Mufti of Kelantan, Mohamad Shukri Mohamad, eagerly joining the right wing bandwagon to warn non-Muslims in his state from using Allah in their worship as they could face action under the Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1981, and in typical ketuanan hooliganism, threatened [as in his, "… did not rule out the possibility of …"] a backlash from Muslims if non-Muslims continued to use the word Allah.

This bloke is a wee too fond of quoting from this or that Enactment to threaten people. Recall seven years ago in 2006, when he (then only the deputy mufti of Kelantan) told Berita Harian that wives would be deemed to be unjust and abusive if they cannot satisfy their husbands' sexual needs.

Abusive in sexual needs?

In his (note ‘his’ and not 'the') most brilliant exposition of Islamic doctrines, he explained that in a marriage, it's not always the wives who were abused as it could also happen to the husbands. He advised that Islamic laws protect both women and men.

He warned: "Thus wives who do not provide proper care for their husbands, including not fulfilling their sexual needs, can be considered as being unjust and abusive towards their husbands."

"These women can be charged under Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002, which provides for a fine of RM 1,000 or jail of up to six months or both upon conviction."

But in a manner not unusual to either important big shots (CEOs, etc) or impossible big bullshitters, he skipped the details, yup, by neglecting to elaborate on how the courts would determine any husband’s claims of his wife failing to satisfy his sexual needs as per, wakakaka, Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002.

As we know, some men/husbands may have excessive sexual needs, so the poor wives could be required to perform to super-human standards, you know, 'above and beyond' the call of duty.

Dahleeng, use a Kryptonite to 'soften' his super sex needs, wakakaka 

If their wives cannot satisfy their super sexual needs, would those poor wives be still deemed as unjust and abusive as per, wakakaka again, Section 128 (1) of the Kelantan Islamic Law Enactment 2002 by this mufti?

But truthfully, I would be very interested in how he would impartially gauge that a husband has attained sexual satisfaction in his legal act of consummation. I've been informed that in the West it's supposedly measured by how loud the man (or woman) screams 'OH GOD', wakakaka again.

perhaps inspiring the drafting of an Enactment, wakakaka

Or would he just rely on the hubby's say-so, that the undutiful wife should be jailed for 6 months while hubby gets a new young doll of a wife, wakakaka again.

Can this bloke really expect us to take him seriously on a far loftier issue, namely the use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims, than a literally-f**king matter such as Muslim wives abusing husbands through not satisfying the hubbys' sexual needs?

But then, such a sensitive issue in Myrmidon Mafulat-ish Malaysia opens the door for the loony right as well as the loony left to exploit the matter for their own interests.

The politicians from both sides are having a gala time though I would say Pakatan and the not-pro-BN NGOs are having the better end of the stoush in driving UMNO into a corner especially with regards to Ah Jib Gor's 'fixed deposit' states.

But UMNO and its allies (including some PAS people) have also been very vocal, especially in their usual arrogant bullying and threatening behaviour. It throws a timely life-line to some used-by politicians like Nasharudin Mt Isa, Ibrahim Ali, Zulkifli Noordin, Hasan Ali, etc, and hey hey hey, even across the political fence, to Pakatan's Chua Jui Meng, wakakaka.

Strangely we have yet to hear from Harussani Zakaria, the Perak Mufti, he of the sms notoriety in spreading seditious nonsense about a non-event, the so-called proselytizing of hordes of Muslims. Though of course we can easily predict what he would say, wakakaka.

Lamentably, as a supporter of DAP politics and policies, I have to confess I've been deeply disappointed by Uncle Lim Kit Siang for raising the question What if the Allah issue had happened 50 years ago? because the Home Minister's decision was only to prohibit the Catholic weekly newsletter, The Herald, from using the Allah-word as a Malay equivalent to the Christian god in its Bahasa Malaysia section. Thus the ruling on the Home Minister's prohibition does not extend to Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians' use of the Allah-word.

Look mate, there are certain national interests like social peace and stability that should be above partisan politics politicking.

And we could again argue that the current acrimonious situation has been brought about by The Herald's obdurate intention to use an Arabic word that's widely known to be used in Peninsula Malaysia (Malaya) by Muslims for the Islamic god, and (I dare say) never by Peninsula Malaysia Christians. I challenge anyone to advise otherwise.

And why have I described The Herald’s intention as obdurate?

As I had written in a previous post, it seems that Father Lawrence Andrew, The Herald’s editor, had been dead set on using the Arabic word Allah to refer to the Christian god, in spite of the superior pedigree (in the Judeo-Christian context) of its god’s other names as revealed in the Bible, and their ready availability and extensive variety.

To remind us of the Christian god’s name as mentioned in the Bible, the first revelation of this god’s personal identity has been in the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) Book of Genesis 1:1 which says:

"In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth."

So, why did Father Andrew consider Elohim a foreign name as if it's alien to Christianity, while to him, strangely Allah is not? Hey, aren't we talking about the God of the Judeo-Christian faith? Or, are we discussing the God of the Islamic faith?

with so many choices (& much more), why insists on the Islamic 'Allah'?

The second name of the Judeo-Christian Divine One as revealed to Moses was YVWH or Yahweh (later modified to Jehovah) which means 'I AM WHO I AM' or 'I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE'.

Yahweh is mentioned 6823 times in the Old Testament, while Elohim scores 2570 times. Can anyone please tell me how many times is Allah mentioned in the Tanakh or the Christian Old Testament as used in Peninsula Malaysia (Malaya)?

For your info, kaytee studied one for 13 years in MBS and several years after school. I have several copies of the Bible (of various versions) and still read selected chapters from time to time, wakakaka.

So, hasn’t The Herald or in the person of Father Lawrence Andrew been obdurate in insisting on using Allah (apart from Tuhan) as the Malay equivalent of the Christian god?

More importantly, why? Make that a big bold WHY?

This brings us to the heavyweight opinion on the Court's ruling, namely that by the Malaysian Bar Council.

The Bar sees fault in the Appeals Court finding that the word 'Allah' was not an integral part of the Christian faith, stating (if I may add) correctly that "It is for a party asserting exclusive rights to the use of the word 'Allah' to establish that they have such exclusive rights, rather than for others to have to establish that the use of the word is integral to their faith."

But because that's almost impossible though there's a very high potential of Peninsula Muslims being misled/confused by the Allah-word in al Kitab and consequentially converted into Christians, with the ensuing social-religious conflagration and social upheaval, that's precisely why the Home Minister has prohibited The Herald from using the Allah-word in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

Yes, someone argued that the government shouldn't deny the Christians of their right to use the Allah-word because of the possibility of some Malays being confused. That may be idealistic but not security-practical, especially in a country like Peninsula Malaysia.

Just recall the far more simple and very tragic affair of one mere individual, Maria Hertogh.

Maria Hertogh

In 1950 after the (British) Singapore court returned her to her Dutch biological parents, Muslims saw photos of Maria kneeling before a statue of the Virgin Mary, and went berserk.

Muslim rioters in the Maria Hertorg incident

Riots broke out for 3 days and 18 people were killed while 173 were injured with many properties damaged.

This is exactly the sort of Christian-Muslim clashes that we don't want.

Now, much as my Christian friends like DAP's Ong KM, who assured us that there is no such sinister Christian intent (and I believe Christians like him don't have such bad intentions), may hate me for saying so, I'm afraid I have to agree with the prohibition, bitter as it may be to freedom of expression and human rights, as I know all too well the missionary-evangelistic nature of the Christian Church. 

Note that I draw a distinct difference between the sincerity of the general Christian population in Malaysia (like Ong KM, Susan Loone, Lucia Lai and a few sweeties that I know, wakakaka) against that of the missionary-evangelistic doctrine of the Christian Church.

My dislike of religious proselytizing policies, plans and programs extends also to those by the Islamic church.

Continuing with the Bar, it disagrees with the Court that allowing such an application [ie. for Christians (presumably in Peninsula Malaysia) to refer to their god as Allah in a Bahasa language Bible] would cause confusion in the Muslim community.

The Court (one of the judges, Apandi) had stated: "It is my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religions to the followers of Islam.”

"It is our common finding that the name Allah was not an integral part of the Christian faith and practice."

I believe Justice Apandi could have been more specific in the above 2nd paragraph and stated (note yellow-highlighted phrase that I inserted): "It is our common finding that the name Allah was not an integral part of the Christian faith and practice in Peninsula Malaysia."

And in his 1st paragraph above, I would have like to see him state his findings in terms of national interests rather than the Islamic religion, as (note my strikeouts in red highlights): "It is my judgment that the most possible and probable threat to Islam, in the context of this country, is the propagation of other religions to the followers of Islam.”

This in fact is the bloody elephant in the Peninsula Malaysia (Malaya) room.

there's more value in not noticing it lah, wakakaka