in the name of ‘Allah’
December 31st, 2007
It was so refreshing to read a sensible article on religious affairs in Malaysia by a Malaysian political scientist and historian by the name of Farish A. Noor. What can be more poignant then when a fellow-Muslim points out the non-existent logic of a cabinet minister’s argument for not allowing the Malaysian Catholic Herald publication to publish its Malay-language edition if it continues to use the word “Allah” for the ‘Christian’ God. The scholar wrote:
Yet in Malaysia at the moment yet another non-issue has been brewed to a scandal for no reason: The Malaysian Catholic Herald, a publication by and for Catholics in the country, has been told that it can no longer publish its Malaysian language edition if it continues to use the word “Allah” to mean God. Worse still, the country’s Deputy Internal Security Minister Johari Baharum recently stated that “Only Muslims can use the word Allah” ostensibly on the grounds that “Allah” is a Muslim word. The mind boggles at the confounding logic of such a non-argument, which speaks volumes about the individual’s own ignorance of Muslim culture, history and the fundamental tenets of Islam itself.
For a start, the word ‘Allah’ predates the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad and goes way back to the pre-Islamic era. Christians had been using the word long before there were any Muslims, in fact. Furthermore the word is Arabic, and is thus common to all the peoples, cultures and societies where Arabic - in all its dialects - is spoken, and is understood by millions of Arabic speakers to mean God, and little else. One could also add that as “Allah” is an Arabic word it therefore has more to do with the development and evolution of Arabic language and culture, and less to do with Islam. It is hard to understand how any religion can have a language to call its own, for languages emerge from a societal context and not a belief system. If one were to abide by the skewered logic of the Minister concerned, then presumably the language of Christianity (if it had one) would be Aramaic, or perhaps Latin.
The Minister’s remark not only demonstrated his shallow understanding of Muslim culture and the clear distinction between Arab culture and Muslim theology, but it also demonstrated his own lack of understanding of the history of the Malays, who, like many non-Arabs, only converted to Islam much later from the 13th century onwards. Among the earliest pieces of evidence to indicate Islam’s arrival to the Malay archipelago are the stone inscriptions found in Malay states like Pahang where the idea of God is described in the sanskrit words ‘Dewata Mulia Raya’. As no Malay spoke or even understood Arabic then, it was natural for the earliest Malay-Muslims to continue using the Sanskrit-inspired language they spoke then. Surely this does not make them lesser Muslims as a result?
The ruckus that has resulted thanks to the threat not to allow the publication of the Malaysian language edition of the Christian Herald therefore forces observers to ask the simple question: Why has this issue erupted all of a sudden, when the word Allah was used for so long with narry a protest in sight? At a time when the Malaysian government is already getting flak as a result of the protests by Malaysian Hindus who insist that they remain at the bottom of the economic ladder despite fifty years of independence, now it would appear as if the Malaysian government cannot get enough bad publicity.
This article was first written in www.othermalaysia.org and later published in the Straits Times on Friday 28 December 06.
Entry Filed under: Society
The megalomanic human ego and the ignorance of popularist politicians with access to power is detrimental to all countries. In a multi cultural and ethnically mixed population like Malaysia, insentive, ignorant, corrupt and inompetent politicans are disasterous. The fragile standardof economic well being is just one race riot away from becoming Zimbawae like!
Pray that competent and Allah/God fearing people acquire leadership positions in our neighbouring countries.
Lord, let 2008 be a watershed year where your anointed will have a rein on the leadership leading the region to contentment and prospersity.
Lord, keep your followers who blog here from the snares of life and anoint them with wisdom, tolerance and love that we may each fulfill your will for us.
Amen to that prayer!
Oh dear I don’t want to be a party pooper but I think that the Internal Security Minister maybe right.
Allah is the proper noun for the Islamic god. Muhammad recieved a revelation about Allah that is specific to Muslim understanding of their god. The catholics are using Allah as a common noun. The malay term for God is Tuhan. Hence we say Puji Tuhan. Christians using Allah to describe God is like Mormons using the term “Trinity” to describe their god (they do this by the way). The same term is used but the content is very very different.
Farish Noor’s analysis of the term in its historical development assumes the affinity between Elohim and Allah. Its a weak argument and does not have much scholarly support. And even if he is right, the term Allah is NOW universally recognized as the muslim god. IMHO Christians should stick to Tuhan.
Christians and Muslims dont worship the same God. Using the term Allah to describe God opens the doorway to syncretism. And neither the christian nor the muslim revelation of God welcomes syncretism. We should respect Muslims. Read my link below
http://bolivianbeat.blogspot.com/2006/10/are-christians-and-muslims-praying-to.html
Welcome back Bolivian Beat, we have missed your voice.
I wonder what were in the minds of the translators of ALKITAB when they chose “Allah” instead of “Tuhan” for God. What were the rationale behind their final choice of “Allah”? Was it in the spirit of what Paul said in his sermon to the Athenians: “…the One whom you worship without knowing (”THE UNKNOWN GOD”) I now proclaim to you…” i.e. did the translators give more weight to the advantages of contextualization than to the dangers of syncretism?
Can anybody enlighten? I have an ALKITAB but cannot understand the Indonesian preface. Is there an explanation for the choice of “Allah”.
Seems that Christian groups and churches are trying to use the word Allah in their description of God. Hmm…maybe they are right in their attempts to redeem the term. More power to them if it is the right thing to do in their context.
Interesting view point but nor supported by ’scientific evidence” - general concensus from the rational scientific community is “ALLAH” predates Islam -
The Archeology of The Middle East
The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of “Allah.” The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was “Allah” the biblical God or a pagan god in Arabia during pre- Islamic times? The Muslim’s claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if “Allah” is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre- Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted. Religious claims often fall before the results of hard sciences such as archeology. We can endlessly speculate about the past or go and dig it up and see what the evidence reveals. This is the only way to find out the truth concerning the origins of Allah. As we shall see, the hard evidence demonstrates that the god Allah was a pagan deity. In fact, he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.
Sorry for this poop on your party pooper…………
Who cares what you you want to call him, he just wants to be your ultimate BOSS!
Hi BB,
BTW,
Muslim, Jews and Christians do worship the same God - only our practise is different and seems abomiable to each other of different hue but still a Sinful Man, certainly no more and no less!!.
We have been childishly trying to decide on who God has annointed to be his one and only messenger?
Can God be different for different individuals or is he as predictable and rational as sinful Man??
Are we so, so egotistical and megalomanic to believe that we have the only divine charter like the Pope and the one from St Peter himself - this leads to xenophobia and wars as the ultimate solvation for this vexing question.
Know that His ways are higher than ours and that we do not have the remotest idea about the trinity of eternity, infinity and origin - the perfect knowledge of love.
Dear Journeyman,
I think I can accept Allah being a generic term for God. And thats why the malay and indonesian translations use the word Allah. I stand corrected on this. A generic understanding of God as Allah however does not mean that the Allah of the muslims is the Allah of Genesis in the malay and Indonesian translations. The Allah of the Muslims is One, The Allah of the Christians is Trinitarian.
You are however mistaken when you say that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. They don’t. This has got nothing to with the pride of man. Its got everything to do with believing the revelation that one has recieved. There are many humble and peaceful followers from both religions who believe that the revelation they’ve recieved is final. They don’t go around arrogantly deriding other religions but they hold on to their beliefs without compromise.
Muhammad had a clear and final revelation of God as Allah. His revelation according to him was final and he was the last prophet.
Jesus however claimed final revelation concerning God and claimed attributes of Deity. Which is why the early church worshipped Jesus. He also revealed God as Trinity. Which is why we are Trinitarians and Muslims are monotheists
The scriptures are absolutely flooded with the dynamic of the Trinitarian God. Re-read the gospels and the epistles.
If we follow your reasoning journeyman then Jesus was a prophet, a fallible man just like Muhammad.
Dear BB,
Not being a theological scholar but just a simple scientist, I concluded following:
Abrams = Abraham = Ibrahim?
The Father of Jesus = God of Abraham?
Jews, Christians and Muslim worship the same God? No?
Our perception is eloquantly summerized:-
Of the 99 names of God in Islam, not one is “Father†or has a personal connotation. The difference is not to be overlooked. The God of the Bible is personal and wants an ongoing friendship with each of us. Islam portrays God as one who expects us to do our religious duty or He angers. There are rules to be obeyed and one can only please him but not know him personally. No Muslim would ever consider being able to have a personal relationship with him, by talking to him, and loving him. Jesus instead taught Christians to pray “our Father in heaven†(Matthew 6:9).
I do think we should not try to justify another crusade. to defend our awesome BOSS. Seeing all I have to offer is my Faith, I will be well contented to love my Father and my neighbour as myself.
Yes, the early Church worshipped Jesus in their personal was but they were hardly Holy.
We still do the same?
In a general sense God’s sovereignty covers everyone from all religions, including the living ones which claim historical revelation, like Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. We all share a common history. We all claim Abraham as our religious ancestor. And thats where the similarity ends.
In terms of revelation however we find differences between the major religions. The promise of Abraham according to Galatians is fulfilled finally and uniquely ONLY in Jesus Christ. Abraham’s faith and significance only makes sense in Christ Jesus (Romans 4). Judaism and Islam look to Abraham only as a dynamic religious figure. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the God of Islam and Judaism because He finally reveals himself as the Trinitarian God. Muslims read back into Abraham’s faith, the revelation of Muhammad. Judaism speak of Abraham NOT as a forerunner to Christ (Romans 4) but as a stellar example of monotheistic faith. Claiming Abraham as a common ancestor is not wrong…proclaiming a common faith amongst the Judaism, Christianity and Islam is however not tenable.
This does not mean that the Christian revelation is superior to other religions. We are saved not by our superior intellect to grasp the truth but through grace. The christian revelation humbles those who suscribe to it. Those use their faith to draw lines between themselves and others of other faiths, especially in the civil sphere have distorted their faith.
Dear BB,
Using intellectual tools developed by the “OxBridge Mob” - the still contempory like Dawkins, Lewis, Huxley, Darwin, Lewis, Tolkien, Carroll with rainbow beliefs ranging broadly from communist to christian with all hues in between (Aetheist, Agnostics, BigBang, Cyclical etc).
This common GOD ancestry means we believe in the same entity but the practise of our Faith is different due to our cultural belief system - this limits the practise of free will through questioning to determine if there is truism in our value system.
Muslims Christians and Jews are denied this by “accepted and established Orthodoxy.” hence all the ills of our sins are still the same after 2000 years.
If we continue searching for Truth, we will find our beloved God there. Christians have an advantage in that there have a in dwelling guide.
No idea on how the Jews and Muslims are going about their own journeys.
Methinks “Grace” allows me to continue the journey without penalty providing I am humble to admit the failures along my way. A friend told me this is called “santification,” - a euphemism for “breaking down to the basic clay for reshaping?” - often a humbling and ego brusing step. This sharing of my theological ignorance is one such by product.
We should meet for dinner with our families (and BPastor) in the near future so that we can continue to help straighthen each other’s path.
Have a blessed and productive time ahead.
Dear Journeyman,
You are an interesting dialogue partner. God bless you on your journey.
BB
BolivianBeat,
Amen to all that you have written. Agree completely with you.
Rom 1:9-12 - What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
Whether Muslim, Jews or Greek, if they are not saved by putting their faith (trust) in Christ as their saviour and do not repent of their ways, they do not worship the God. of the bible. There is not one that seeks God. They seek a God that they make in their own image - a violation of the second commandment.
As for the term Allah, I do not see anything wrong with it being used as a generic term for God. As already stated, the Malay bible uses the word Allah for that reason. I do not see why only Muslims should be entitled to use the term for their religion only. The pre-islamic Arabic use of the word Allah was used to refer specifically one of the 360 pagan gods that was worshiped in pagan religion at that time - the moon “god”.
Some Christians when speaking of Islam would appeal to this pagan usage to say that Islam is a modified version of the moon-god worship that Mohammad changed. The standard Muslim apologist would say that it is irrelevant as pre-islamic pagan worshippers were mistaken in their idolatry, and that the same use of the term Alah does not equal Islam with moon-god worship. In other words, the Muslim apologists would say that the pagans worshipped a different God, even if the same term was used.
If that is the case, then the same thing can be said of the Christian’s use of the word Allah. Just because they use the word Allah in the Christian bible does not mean that it refers to the same god of Islam. Islam does not have an exclusive right to use the term “Allah”. The very argument that Muslim apologists use to show that their worship of “Allah” was not the same “Allah” of moon-worship, can also be used against them to say that the Christian use of the word Allah to refer to God is different from the Islamic use of the word.
For the Muslims to reject that and claim monopoly of the term “Allah”, would shot themselves in the foot in defending against the claim of moon-god worship.
The article in the Strait Times is excellent.
Hey Joel,
Great to have you back. I really dont see the harm in using Allah to describe a generic understanding of God. The problem is when folks, be they Christian or non Christian, begin to read this generic understanding on the same level as God’s revelation in Christ.
What article in the Straits Times are you referring to?
Blogpastor mentioned that this article was posted on the Straits Times on Friday 28 December 06.