Malaysia withholds 'Allah Bibles'

[Uthman]

The Malaysian government has refused to release 10,000 Bibles which it seized because they contained the word Allah to refer to God.

The government, which is dominated by Muslim Malays, claims that the word Allah is Islamic and that its use in Bibles could upset Muslims.

The Roman Catholic Church is challenging the ban in court.

Religion has become highly sensitive in Malaysia, where about two-thirds of the population is Muslim.

Religious minorities have accused the government of undermining their rights.

The government has impounded Bibles before, intercepting 5,000 in March as they were imported from Indonesia.

Church officials say that although the word Allah originated in Arabic, Malays have used it for centuries to refer generally to God, and Arabic-speaking Christians used it before Islam was founded.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia said the religious freedom guaranteed by the Malaysian constitution was meaningless if people were denied Bibles which used their own language.

About two-thirds of Malaysia's population is Muslim

Source

[Uthman]

Faith Diary: Whose God is Allah?

[Uthman]

This comes up every once in a while. I don't understand. Wasn't the name 'Allah' used by the Arabs before Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) anyway? They too believed in Allah but they claimed that they were using the idols as intermediaries.

If this is the case, how can we say that the name belongs exclusively to Islam?

[Supreme]

This is a disgraceful act of persecution by the Malaysian authorities, and is going to do no justice in a country where 40% of the population is non Muslim. These Christians have every right to feel victimised, and the worse thing about it is, the Christians are absoloutely right. Allah is the same God in Christinaity and Islam, and Christians used the name first. I only hope the Malaysian authorities see common sense is such a stupid act of persecution.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[syilla]

Heresy Arises From Words Wrongly Used

Dr. Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas/ Dr. Mohd Sani b. Badron
Ketua Pengarah/ Fellow Kanan

20/02/2008

It was reported that Peter Lombard's Four Books of Sentences recorded the following concern of Jerome, on "heresy arises from words wrongly used".

Those remarks by St Jerome of Stridonium (d. 420), who was regarded as the most learned of the Latin Fathers, clearly reflected how paramount the importance of language was for him, particularly in relation to theological matters.

The fact is, that there is a profound connection between language and reason, as words and terms connote what is conceptualized or understood by the mind.

To quote Prof. Dr. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas's latest work Tinjauan Ringkas Peri Ilmu dan Pandangan Alam (Penang: USM, 2007), "bahasa merupakan alat akal fikri yang sekaligus juga mempengaruhi pemikiran si penggunanya." That is to say, "language is the instrument of reason which influences the reasoning of its users." For one may well ask, what is the purpose of language if not to make true meanings of words become intelligible to the mind? And as such, what is the fundamental purpose of language if not to project the worldview of its users in a faithful manner?

Because using language correctly is a cognitive action, it is imperative for its users to be meticulous in its "correct usage" as well as in the pursuit of its "authentic meaning".

As far as fundamental religious matters are concerned, to use language incorrectly introduces confusion to the minds of its users. Words wrongly used will inevitably impinge upon semantic change in theological concepts and the way one views reality and truth. Hence the pressing need to exercise constant vigilance in detecting erroneous linguistic usage.

In the Christian context, it is in order to avoid such heresy arising from the erroneous use of words and terms that St Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) said this in his Summa Theologica: "when we speak of the Trinity we must proceed with care". As if anticipating detractors who would argue that the quest for right words in divine matters is "toilsome", Aquinas insisted that it was well worth the effort. St Augustine (d. 430), who was arguably the most important Christian thinker after St Paul, said that in comparison to the wrong usage of words in theology, "nowhere is error more harmful".

Following another eminent doctor of the Western Church, St Hilary of Poitiers (d. c. 367), Aquinas advised Christians to shun the term the "singular" God, as that would exclude their notion of God whose essence is common to the three distinct Hypostases.

Likewise, Aquinas advised Christians to avoid the term the "only" God, as the adjective "only" (Latin unici) would take away their notion of the number of Divine Persons. In Aquinas's words, "We do not say ‘the only God,' for Deity is common to many"; referring to their belief that Deity is common to the three co-eternal Persons: the Father, the only-begotten Son, the Holy Ghost.

Naturally, I find that there are many contradictions between what was advised by Aquinas, who was the foremost Western theologian of the Church, with the concerns of a few Malaysian Christian leaders recently highlighted in our media.

While Aquinas advised his co-religionists to exclude from God the idea of "singularity" or "uniqueness", a few Christians in Malaysia (or in any country for that matter) insist on translating their notion of triune God using the term Allah.

But there is a fundamental issue they have to address first without confusing themselves and creating linguistic anarchy, because among the firmly integral purports of the term Allah are al-Ahad (the Absolute One), al-Wahid (the Absolute Unique) and al-Witr (the Absolute Singular, the Sole, the Unequalled) Who has no son, nor father, nor partner, nor likeness. These purports have been mentioned by way of describing who Allah is in the Qur'an as well as in its interpretation by the authentic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, who is, for that matter, considered by experts as the most eloquent of the Arabs.

In order for us to see how those two worldviews are contrasted to each other, and hence to be careful in our translation, it is sufficient to compare the abovementioned statement on God by Aquinas with the following.

Commenting on the meaning of al-Wahid al-Ahad, Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 1240) had simply this to say in his Futuhat Makkiyyah: "Allah is the Unique, the Absolute One with respect to His godhead, there is no God (Ilah) except He."

As far as the authentic meaning and correct usage of the term Allah throughout the ages are concerned, the Tahdhib of al-Azhari (d. 980) and the Lisan al-‘Arab of Ibn Manzur (d. 1311) have documented that, excepting Allah, there is no being to whom the purports of al-Wahid and al-Ahad are applicable together, or to whom al-Ahad is applicable alone. "Verily, I,-I alone-am Allah: there is no God (Ilah) but I: therefore worship Me" (the Qur'an, Ta Ha, 20: 14).

That is why the term Allah is a proper name which is never shared by others throughout the history of language. The term Allah is not "communicable both in reality and in opinion", if we want to use Aquinas's technical terminology.

On the contrary, such terms as Ilah (God in Arabic), Tuhan (God in Malay) or God (in English) are communicable, and have indeed been used to others. Earlier, we have noted Aquinas's assertion that the term God is common to the three Persons of Trinity; now we will study another crucial passage in his Summa Theologica which explains the statement by an Arab Christian Yahya ibn Mansur al-Dimashqi (d. 749), who was an eastern theological doctor of the Greek and Latin Churches.

Now, according to St John of Damascus, the term God in Greek as well as in Latin (theo) is a derivative, from either of these three root-words. It is either from a particular word which means "to cherish all things", or from another word which means "to burn" (for the Christian God is "a consuming fire", according to St John), or from another word which means "to consider all things".

Marshalling his argument on that premise, Aquinas concluded that the name God in this context is not a proper noun. On the contrary, it is an appellative noun, or a title, for it signifies the divine nature in the possessor, either in the sense that He is the "Cherisher", the "Taker of account of everything", or the "Comprehender of everything", and so on.

Aquinas also corroborated his significant conclusion by the fact that the term God has a plural (Gods), as in the Biblical text "God presides in the heavenly council; in the assembly of the Gods he gives his decision...I have said, You are Gods" (Psalms 82.1,6).

Here, the argument on the right to translate a common noun God using the proper noun Allah crumbles; it is only correct to translate God using Tuhan. As far as the proper name Allah is concerned, it has absolutely no plural, reflecting the notion of the One and Only God whose Essence absolutely excludes the purport of consisting of three distinct co-eternal persons, whether in the imagination, in actuality, or in supposition. "Do not say: ‘Trinity'. Desist [from this assertion] it is better for you! Allah is but the Only God (Ilah Wahid); Glory be to Him-that He should have a son!" (the Qur'an, al-Nisa', 4: 171).

Furthermore, the fact that it is a proper noun alone renders erroneous the critical assumption that the term Allah belongs to a national language and is an Arabic derivative. Indeed, for those who care enough to check the truth, such an absurd claim has long been debunked as inconsistent with the rules of the Arabic language itself by authorities like Ibn al-Barri, al-Layth and al-Khalil (in his Kitab al-‘Ayn).

Al-Zabidi, in his Taj al-‘Arus, remarked that "the most sound view on the name Allah is that it is a proper noun given by the Essence, the Necessary Being. The name Allah combines the attributes of Perfection altogether, it is a non-derivative word."

Then, al-Zabidi (d. 1790) quotes the authority of Ibn al-‘Arabi, who stated that "the term Allah is a proper name denoting the real and true God (al-Ilah al-Haqq), a denotation that comprises all the Unique most beautiful Divine Names."

Last but far from least on the "correct usage" and "authentic meaning" of the term Allah, al-Tahanawi (d. 1745), in his dictionary of technical terms relating to metaphysics, the Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun, stated that "it is inspired to His servants that the name Allah is a proper name of the Essence....The verifiers (al-muhaqqiqun) hold that the name Allah is a non-derivative word; indeed, it is an extemporized proper name (ism murtajal) as it can be described but does not describe."

quoted from ikim

[syilla]

CHRISTIAN TRANSLATION OF THE TRIUNE GOD USING THE TERM ALLAH: A CASE OF WORLD WRONGLY USED

I. The Important of Language in Connection with Mind and Religion

It was reported that Peter Lombard’s Four Books of Sentences recorded the following concern of Jerome, on “heresy arises from words wrongly used”.

Those remarks by St Jerome of Stridonium (d.420), who was regarded as the most learned of the Latin Fathers, clearly reflected how paramount the important of language was for him, particularly in relation to theological matters.

The fact is, that there is a profound connection between language and reason, as words and term connote what is conceptualized or understood by the mind.

To quote Prof. Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’s latest work Tinjauan Ringkas Peri Ilmu dan Pandangan Alam (Penang:USM,2007), “bahasa merupakan alat akal fikri yang sekaligusjuga mempengaruhi pemikiran si penggunanya.” That is to say, “language is the instrument of the reasoning of its users.”

For one may well ask, what is the purpose of language if not to make true meanings of words become intelligible to the mind? And as such, what is the fundamental purpose of language if not to project the worldview of its users in a faithful manner?

Because using language correctly is a cognitive action, it is imperative for its users to be meticulous in its “correct usage” as well as in the pursuit of its “authentic meaning.”

As far as fundamental religious matters are concerned, to use language incorrectly introduces confusion to the mind of its users. Words wrongly used will inevitably impinge upon semantic change in theological concepts and the way one views reality and truth.

Hence, the pressing need to exercise constant vigilance in detecting erroneous linguistic usage.

II. The Grammar of Christian Triune God

In the Christian context, it is in order to avoid such heresy arising from the erroneous use of words and terms that St Thomas Aquinas (d.1274) said this in his Summa Theologica: “when we speak of the trinity we must proceed with care”.

As if anticipating detractors who would argue that the quest for right words in divine matters is “toilsome”, Aquinas insisted that it was well worth the effort. St Augustine (d.430), who was arguably the most important Christian thinker after St Paul, said that in comparison to the wrong usage in theology, “nowhere is error more harmful.”

Following another eminent doctor of the Western Church, St Hilary of Poitiers (d.c 367), Aquinas advised Christians to shun the term the “singular” God, as that would exclude their notion of God whose essence their notion of God whose essence is common to the three distinct Hypostases.

Likewise, Aquinas advised Christians to avoid the term the “only” God, as the adjective “only” (Latin unici) would take away their notion of the number of Devine Persons. In Aquinas’s words, “We do not say ‘the only God,’ for Deity is common to many”: referring to their belief that deity is common to the co-eternal Persons: the Fether, the only-begotten Son, the Holy Ghost.


III. Translation of the Triune God using the term Allah:
A Case of Word Wrongly Used

Naturally, I find that there are many contradictions between what was advised by Aquinas, who was the foremost Western theologian of the Church, with the concerns of a few Malaysian Christian leaders recently highlighted in our media. While Aquinas advised his co-religionist to exclude from God the idea of “singularity” or “uniqueness”, a few Christians in Malaysia (or in any country for that matter) insist on translating their notion of triune God using the term Allah

IV. “He is Allah, the Absolute One…”(al-ikhlas, 112), etc.

But there a fundamental issues they have to address first without confusing themselves and creating linguistic anarchy, because among the firmly integral purports of the term Allah are al-Ahad (the Absolute One), al-Wahid (the Absolute Unique) and al-Witr (the Absolute Singular, the Unequalled) Who has no son, nor father, nor partner, nor likeness.

These purports have been mentioned by way of describing who Allah is in the Qur’an as well as in its interpretation by the authentic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, who is, for that matter, considered by experts as the most eloquent of the Arabs.

In order for us to see how those worldviews are contrasted to each other, and hence to be careful in our translation, it is sufficient to compare the abovementioned statement on God by Aquinas with the following. Commenting on the meaning of al-Wahid al-Ahad, Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi (d.1240) had simply this to say his Futuhat Makkiyyah: “Allah is Unique, the Absolute One with respect to His godhead, there is no God (Ilah) except He.”

As far as the authentic meaning and correct usage of the term Allah throughout the ages are concerned, the Tahdhib of al-Azhari (d.980) and the Lisan al-‘Arab of Ibn Manzur (d.1311) have documented that, excepting Allah, there is no being to whom the purports of al-Wahid and al-Ahad are applicable together, or to whom al-Ahad is applicapble alone. ”Verily,I,-I alone-am Allah: there is no God (Ilah) but I: therefore worship Me” (the Qur’an, Ta Ha, 20:14).

V. Allãh is a Proper Name; God is a Common Name

That is why the term Allah is proper name which is never shared by others throughout the history of language. The term Allah is not “communicable both in reality and in opinion”, if we want to use Aquinas’s technical terminology.

On the contrary, such terms as Ilah (God in Arabic), Tuhan (God in Malay) or God (in English) are communicable, and have indeed been used to others. Earlier, we have note Aquinas’s assertion that the term God is common to the three Summa Theologica which explains the statement an eastern theological doctor of the Greek and Latin Churches.

VI. Allãh is a Proper Noun; God is an appellative Noun

Now, according to St John of Damascus, the term God in Greek as well as in Latin (theo) is a derivative, from either of these three root-words. It is either from a particular word which means “to cherish all things”, or from another word which means “to burn” (for the Christian God is “a consuming fire”, according to St John), or from another word which means “to consider all things”.

Marshalling his argument on that premise, Aquinas concluded that the name God in this context is not a proper noun. On the contrary, it is an appellative noun, or a title, for its signifies the divine nature in the possessor, either in the sense that He is the “Cherisher”, the “Taker of account of everything”, or the “Comprehender of everything”, and so on.

VII. Allãh Has No Plural; God’s Plural is Gods

Aquinas also corroborated his significant conclusion by the fact that the term God has plural (Gods), as in the Biblical text “God presides in heavenly council; in the assembly of the Gods he gives his decision… I have said, You are Gods” (Psalms 82.1,6).

Here, the argument on the right to translate a common noun God using the proper noun Allah crumbles; it is only correct to translate God using Tuhan. As far as the proper noun Allah is concerned, it has absolutely no plural, reflecting the notion on the One and Only God whose Essence absolutely excludes the purport of consisting of three distinct co-eternal persons, whether in the imagination, in actuality, or in supposition.

“Do not say:’Trinity’.Desist [from this assertion] it is better for you! Allah is but the Only God (Ilah Wahid); Glory be to Him-that He should have a son!” (The Qur’an, al-Nisa’,4:171)


VIII. The Proper Noun Allãh Neither Belongs to Any National Language Nor a Derivative

Furthermore, the fact that it is a proper noun alone renders erroneous the critical assumption that the term Allah belongs to a notion language and is an Arabic derivative. Indeed, for those who care enough to check the truth, such an absurd claim has long been debunked as inconsistent with the rules of the Arabic language itself by authorities like Ibn al-Barri, a-Layth and al-Khalil (d.160/777) in his Kitab al-‘Ayn.

Al-Zabidi, in his Taj al-‘Arus, remarked that “the most sound view on the name Allah is that it is a proper noun given by the Essence, the Necessary Being. The name Allah combines the attributes of Perfection altogether, it is a non-derivative word.”

Then, al-Zabidi (d.1790) quotes he authority of Ibn al’Arabi (d.1240), who stated that “the term Allah is a proper name denoting the real and true God (al-Ilah al-Haqq), a denotion that comprises all the Unique most beautiful Divine Names.”

Last but far least on the “correct usage” and “authentic meaning” of the term Allah, al-Tahanawi (d.1745), in his dictionary of the technical terms relating to metaphysics, the Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun, stated that “it is inspired to His servants that the real name Allah is a proper name of the Essence… The verifiers (al-Muhaqqiqun) holds that the name Allah is a non-derivative word; indeed, it is an extemporized proper name (ism murtajal) as it can be described but does not describe.”

NOTE

Dr. Mohd Sani Badron
Senior Fellow / Director,
Centre for Economics & Social Studies
Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM)

[ardianto]

The government has impounded Bibles before, intercepting 5,000 in March as they were imported from Indonesia.

There is no problem if Indonesian Christian writes "Allah" in their Bible.
In Indonesia, Muslim and Christian say "Allah" in different pronunciation. But usually Indonesian Christian says it as "Tuhan Allah" (God Allah) for differentiate it from "Tuhan Yesus" (God Jesus).

[Ummu Sufyaan]

:sl:

This comes up every once in a while. I don't understand. Wasn't the name 'Allah' used by the Arabs before Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) anyway? They too believed in Allah but they claimed that they were using the idols as intermediaries.

If this is the case, how can we say that the name belongs exclusively to Islam?

true and also, Arab Christians call god "Allah."

[aadil77]

they might be doing this to prevent christians doing dawah in the country

[Ummu Sufyaan]

^fair point.

[GreyKode]

they might be doing this to prevent christians doing dawah in the country

I suspect that too.
Even here in egypt they use the word ALLAH, yet they are very reluctant and prefer saying alrab.

[Khaldun]

:sl:

The only reason I would be worried is because of the possible confusion it might bring.

The Christians worship Allah but their Allah has a son.

People might come after a few hundred years and say this is Allah in the bible and this is Allah in the Qur'aan it is one and the same, which is not true. Because our Allah is one, Allah the Samad, He begets not nor is He begotten and none is like Him.

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[112.1] Say: He, Allah, is One.
[112.2] Allah is He on Whom all depend.
[112.3] He begets not, nor is He begotten.
[112.4] And none is like Him.

[titus]

they might be doing this to prevent christians doing dawah in the country

That certainly doesn't excuse this, nor make it acceptable, does it?

[Supreme]

they might be doing this to prevent christians doing dawah in the country

Oh well, as long as the people who have their religious rights being slowly taken away from it were evangelising, that makes it fine...

Well, why didn't you say so?

That certainly doesn't excuse this, nor make it acceptable, does it?

Absoloutely not, and the fact that some people are justifying the Malaysian Government's actions with mere speculation, not fact, is even worse. I fear the rights of my brothers in Malaysia are being slowly destroyed thanks to a small number of influential yet radical clerics.

[Alim Apprentice]

The semantics of things does make sense if one reads syilla's posts. In the Malay language, the word "Tuhan" is used to refer to God in general. Trying to generalize "Allah" will create a lot of confusion for the majority of people in Malaysia.

This issue could be highlighting a key problem, or it is being blown out of proportion for the wrong reasons. Knowing a couple of Malaysian-Chinese christian friends here, they would probably shrug indifference because that would never really use "Allah" as a reference to the God they believe, let alone use the Malay language in the first place when they congregate together.

With the issue of apostasy going on, I suspect a possible intention of this sort of enforcement is to avoid the Malay Muslims themselves to get their hands on this book rather than impinging on the rights of the minorities.

[titus]

With the issue of apostasy going on, I suspect a possible intention of this sort of enforcement is to avoid the Malay Muslims themselves to get their hands on this book rather than impinging on the rights of the minorities.

So it's to keep the Muslims from reading the Bible? Or to keep the Muslims from being confused when they read the Bible?

[Alim Apprentice]

So it's to keep the Muslims from reading the Bible? Or to keep the Muslims from being confused when they read the Bible?

The latter, most likely. Bibles in English are readily available. If I had lacked some Islamic education, I could probably confuse Allah of Islam and the "Allah" that would be stated and portrayed differently in the translated bible. In Malaysia, "Allah" in de facto is the God of Islam. "Tuhan" is already used for general usage, such as the in National Principles. So its wise to stick to that.

I know its not a lot to play on with such limited information from the news, but the distinction is still important, especially with the semantics of the word.

In engineering context, its like the distinction with metric ton and short ton. We know "ton" is a some very heavy and measure in thousands of some sort of units (be it pound or kilograms). But when you build something, you must be clear what you mean or else it'll lead to a lot of issues.

[Sampharo]

Arabic is not the first language of Malays, and there has been systematic efforts below to convert Malays out of Islam using many tools, including confusion. The catholic church never used the word Allah and therefore it is a bit obvious there is a reason why they just happen to want to start now.

So it's to keep the Muslims from reading the Bible?

Bibles are freely available and no one cares if a muslim in Malaysia gets a copy and reads it, otherwise they wouldn't be sold openly in all bookstores. So it is obvious that it's only regarding manipulating phonetics to make something seem like something else.

[Supreme]

Arabic is not the first language of Malays, and there has been systematic efforts below to convert Malays out of Islam using many tools, including confusion. The catholic church never used the word Allah and therefore it is a bit obvious there is a reason why they just happen to want to start now.

Speak for yourself. Catholics in the Holy Land have been using 'Allah' since the beginning of Christianity itself.

[Sampharo]

Catholics in the Holy Land...

You mean the ARAB christians who lived in Palestine and today referred to as Copt orthodox, completely unrelated to Catholic church?!?!?! You are surely dense to try that colonial propaganda and zionist garbage here, or what was it that first established its doctrine 250 years after the passing of the events and built a church based on latin rituals and for centuries forced everyone to learn it to perform the prayers?

You have the credibility of a scientology tabloid and it just keeps getting worse.

[Supreme]

You mean the ARAB christians who lived in Palestine and today referred to as Copt orthodox, completely unrelated to Catholic church?!?!?! You are surely dense to try that colonial propaganda and zionist garbage here, or what was it that first established its doctrine 250 years after the passing of the events and built a church based on latin rituals and for centuries forced everyone to learn it to perform the prayers?

You have the credibility of a scientology tabloid and it just keeps getting worse.

Oh sorry! By mistakingly calling Arab Orthodox Christians Catholics, I'm somehow promoting colonial propaganda and zionist rubbish! You know, religion may not be logical, but please try your best to at least make your posts logical...

[Sampharo]

^ By calling orthodox Arab christians as catholic, yes you're misinforming the people here about which christians used to say Allah. By referring to Palestine as Holy Land, you're promoting colonial propaganda and zionist garbage indeed, and apparently trying again to dig your way out to save face by wasting everybody's time with useless arrogant anti-islamic posts, or useless arrogant attack-someone-else posts.

[Supreme]

^ By calling orthodox Arab christians as catholic, yes you're misinforming the people here about which christians used to say Allah. By referring to Palestine as Holy Land, you're promoting colonial propaganda and zionist garbage indeed, and apparently trying again to dig your way out to save face by wasting everybody's time with useless arrogant anti-islamic posts, or useless arrogant attack-someone-else posts.

Oh, touche touche! I didn't know that Eastern Orthdoxy was a denomination of Islam now, but I apologise if I've offended your Eastern Orthodox Christian brothers and insulted Islam by calling them Catholic (both are essentially the same, as both are Apostlistic churches.) I also didn't know one could get so offended by the phrase Holy Land. But let me confirm. The Holy Land is not just Palestine, but Israel, Syria, Lebanon and some of Egypt. This land is considered sacred by Christians. So by assuming that Palestine alone is the Holy Land, you're somehow promoting zionist filth and anti Christian sentiment and racism, and let's throw homophobia in the mix for good reason.

I'd suggest someone learnt what terms mean next time. I mean, for the love of Boris, you've got the largest resource in human history right in front of you. Use it.

[Sampharo]

Yes, of course, so desperate to have the last word you are willing to just post garbage and continue wasting people's time. Like I said, you must be really dense as well as desperate to save face.