One must wonder if Anwar Ibrahim and his Pakatan Rakyat had chosen go after the Bangladeshis because of their smaller numbers and weaker political clout, or whether Anwar made a calculated move to go after the Bangladeshis knowing that there would be a lesser fall-out than if he were to go after the Indonesians. 

Stephen Doss 

Malaysia’s 13th General Elections must rank as the most heated and disputed ever, even more so than Malaysia’s 1969 elections.

For the first time ever, vigilante individuals and groups took it upon themselves to patrol the streets and detain people who they felt were not eligible to vote.   

According to the Asia Pacific Human Rights Information Centre, Malaysia a multi-ethnic multi-religious country of about twenty-nine million, has about two million documented migrant workers, and at least two million undocumented migrant workers.

In 2010, it was reported that there was about 1.8 million foreign workers spread across sectors such as manufacturing (688,886), construction (288,722), plantation (256,382), domestic workers (224,544), services (180,890), with the rest being in agriculture. Majority of these workers come from the following countries ranked according to number of workers: Indonesia (917,932), Bangladesh (307,366), Nepal (175,810), Myanmar (140,260), India (113,797), and Vietnam (74,842).

It is common knowledge that the largest bloc of undocumented migrant workers numbering over two million are Indonesians, most probably for the simple reason being that they are our nearest neighbours among the list of undocumented migrant workers.

It would therefore make sense that if the Barisan Nasional wanted to commit fraud through alien voting, they would have turned to the Indonesians, and not Bangladeshis. In fact a lot of Indonesians who have been living in this country probably speak the local language even better than a lot of Malaysians making such a plan if it existed virtually fool proof.  It therefore makes little sense that Anwar Ibrahim and the Pakatan Rakyat chose to make scapegoats of the Bangladeshis.

Which begs the questions why, why did Anwar Ibrahim and Pakatan Rakyat go after the Bangladeshis when it would have made more sense to go after the Indonesians.

One must wonder if Anwar Ibrahim and his Pakatan Rakyat had chosen go after the Bangladeshis because of their smaller numbers and weaker political clout, or whether Anwar made a calculated move to go after the Bangladeshis knowing that there would be a lesser fall-out than if he were to go after the Indonesians, political repercussions from the Indonesians both in this country and from his carefully cultivated Indonesian friends from abroad.  

As it turns out, Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s mouthpiece the Suara Keadilan and a DAP politician have been forced to make public apologies to dark skinned Malaysians whom they accused of being Bangladeshis.

KIMMA, the Indian Muslim political party too has made numerous police reports claiming that their members have been harassed by vigilantes across the country because of their skin colour.

In a Post GE13 Forum last week, a panellist who is a local academic recounted how three of his research assistants, all Malaysians of Indian descent were detained for 5 hours in Kuala Trengganu by vigilantes who accused them of being Bangladeshis and trying to vote; they subsequently lodged police reports because they were not able to vote as they were only released after 5pm.

So far, despite all these revelations, neither BERSIH the self-appointed polls watch dog nor the Bar Council which often speaks up on behalf of the Malaysian Bar on matters related to human rights abuses have failed to make any comment with regards to this criminal targeting of a migrant community.

They have been quick to add their voice to that of the Pakatan Rakyat in claiming that there have been allegations of fraud in the last elections, but nothing so far on the issue of vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

Lest we forget, Article 8 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia provides that "All persons are equal before the law and is entitled to equal protection of the law." By using the term "person," as opposed to “citizen,” the constitutional provision makes it most clear that this guarantee of rights extends to all persons, including migrant workers.

Stephen Doss is political observer, Advisor to the Social Media Chambers of Malaysia and can be found on tweeter @stephendoss

Don’t choose to be blind over abolishing vernacular schools. 

Navin Karan 

Having a one education system is a good platform to cultivate real multiracialism for kids from the beginning and not during the teenage years (13) where commonly they prefer to mix among their own community. It is worse when they have to enrol into remove class (Peralihan - a discrimination for kids who couldn’t master Bahasa Malaysia after 6 years). 

PR, don’t be opportunists by slamming the govt as being racist or that this is a kind of punishment to the voters, please. We Malaysians have been agreeable with PR for most of their govt agendas but don’t assume we are always ‘YES BOSS’. Actually, PR should encourage us and also work together with the govt, especially on how to make an effective “Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK)” since the BN govt seems to be always dry on brilliant ideas.

And MIC, to win the Indians’ heart doesn’t mean you have to be Vijayakanth to going against it to fight for Tamil schools. Right now MIC says they are fighting for Indian rights but in actual fact they are drama kings!! You, MIC/ MCA/Gerakan/PPP/IPF/AMMA/TAM/KIMMA should propose to instate vernacular language in SK syllabus and to have it made a compulsory subject under the mother tongue category. Non-Indian and non-Chinese students should be given a choice to choose a preferred language. No excuse should be tolerated when the student or parents refuse or make the process difficult.

Ultimately, the govt is to ensure Bahasa Malaysia dikuasai oleh semua kaum as well as proficiently mastering English since the world made this language a good communication platform and it is the govt's duty to protect mother tongue languages. 

Most parents or scholars prefer the upcoming generation to master certain languages according to demand. This is not a wrong perception but ‘taraf apa’ to know your own mother tongue. The mindset should be tuned; learning a language isn't to help the economy but you risk losing one's identity. They will fail to know the history of their own ancestors, the culture, the morale, the scriptures about god; all these are mostly available in their own mother tongue language. Yes, no doubt all these are available in English but how original can it be? Can you get 100% chicken curry taste in vegetarian chicken curry? 

Primary school is the first 'parent' for the children and if under the same roof is shared by the same ethnicity, the bonding with just one particular ethnic group would become too strong. Thereafter in secondary school, half of the teenagers find difficulty in breaking the wall to mix around. The gap worsens when insensitive words are used ‘Cina apa lagi mau’, ‘pariah’, ‘belacan’ (examples only, don’t attack me pls!). Now look at 2 scenarios: when kids use such wrong words, the parents'/teachers' involvement is a must to correct the KIDS. We may successfully correct them with a probability of 9/10; in the same scenario, if a secondary school student uses offensive words, when the parents/teachers try to correct them, they will come up with a lot of excuses (‘dia mula dulu cikgu’, ‘dia yang kutuk kaum kerabat kita abah’, ‘depa satu geng challenge kita orang’), the probability to change is 5/10. The best way to educate the pupil about unity starts in primary schools, at a tender age without knowing their background.

I am a father of two, who is torn between wanting his children to learn their heritage but wary that sending them to a Tamil school will not give them a smooth journey from child to teenage years. I want to look forward to seeing them celebrate Raya by bersalam-salaman for maaf, zahir & batin, CNY by performing the lion dance, Deepavali with lighting the lamp around the SK schools. I wish SK will be ready with vernacular as compulsory and protected. The mindset of children to accept 1Malaysia is more open at a tender age as compared to the teenage period.

So let’s work for it, my fellow politicians.

Who are the leaders in BN? They are ordinary human beings that were made leaders by the same citizens that are shouting for Ubah now. We elected them, then put them up on altars and bribed them, corrupted their minds with all kinds of gifts, we made them multimillionaires, and we gave them luxury vehicles, money for luxury bungalows, all paid holidays, jewellery and many many more. After doing all these crappy things we want to change the government. What assurances that when PR comes to power we will not repeat the same thing?

M. Gunasekar

Finally after two weeks we are slowing regaining our conscience and gradually becoming less racist, levelheaded and able to visualize the reality of life. Most of the 51% Malaysian citizens who voted for PR are coming to terms that the mother of all elections in the history of Malaysia is over and their dream for change is all gone.

We have ever seen such euphoria during the days leading to the general election. Many Malaysians who never cared about elections openly voiced their concerns and the need for change. But many of these first timers did not realize that cries of corruption, marginalization, discrimination, oppression actually started when on 25 Nov 2007 thousands of Indian Malaysians converged at the KLCC area, in front of the British Embassy and had a standoff with the Police for four hours.

The police shot water jets laced with chemicals and tear gas at the people, but the Indians stood steadfast and only dispersed when the police stopped. The aftermath saw hundreds arrested, and five heroes were made. The almost 50,000 crowd on Nov 25, 2007 at the KLCC area converged because of only one factor, the motivation of 1 million pounds for each Indian in Malaysia. The new Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister Department Waythamoorthy promised to sue the British Government for about 4 Trillion pounds for bringing the Indians (Tamils) to then Malaya as labourers and then leaving them high and dry, they reneged on their promise. What a pity, Indians in this country are so naïve that they easily became prey to the new BN mandore Waythyamoorthy.

He convinced everyone that he will sue the British Government and get its dues, but the BN Government tried stopping them unnecessarily and created a blunder by tear gas, arrests and spraying the people with chemical-laced water. This action by the Police had given the opposition a boost when the Indians totally rejected MIC and BN in GE 12.

Yah, I totally agree with you that the struggle during GE 13 is different from GE 12. The 51% of the citizens that voted for PR wanted change of government and for most of them, they didn't care who the future PM is, and just want change. They are fed up with our country going down the drain. Even some of them said, “Let me reassure you whoever takes over the country the Chinese will still do well.”

We want change! What does it actually mean? Change of government, throw out the UMNO-led BN and bring PR to power. Why suddenly after 56 years are we now asking for change? You mean BN started screwing Malaysians just after GE 12?

Come on lah, face the reality of life. We have been living comfortably under the UMNO-led BN government and been enjoying life to the maximum, able to save money to buy properties, able to go for holidays, buy cars, send children abroad for tertiary education, throw millions on gambling tables in Malaysia, Singapore, Macau and other parts of the world, engage the services of prostitutes and massages, eat exotic foods by killing endangered animals, wear branded clothing and accessories, drive around in luxury vehicles that the poor can’t effort, eat a single meal that is equivalent to a cleaner's or factory worker's one month salary and many more that the rural people can’t afford.

What made us so pissed off to the extent that we are willing to sleep with the alleged angel rather than the known devil? Suddenly we feel the need for good governance, transparency, accountability, a serious clampdown on corruption and crime.  

Who are the leaders in BN? They are ordinary human beings that were made leaders by the same citizens that are shouting for Ubah now. We elected them, then put them up on altars and bribed them, corrupted their minds with all kinds of gifts, we made them multimillionaires, and we gave them luxury vehicles, money for luxury bungalows, all paid holidays, jewellery and many many more. After doing all these crappy things we want to change the government.

I know you are getting upset with me now. Ok Lah, I agree with the 51%, we change the government come the next GE.

So what next?

What assurances that when PR comes to power we, I mean the citizens, will not repeat the same thing? Do you think the corrupt mind of the citizens will not try to do the same thing? Can we Ubah ourselves first before we Ubah the government? In today's age, pretty much most of us have a 'corrupted mind' to some extent. You can deny it all you like, but each and every one of us knows deep down that it's the truth.

Some proudly proclaim that their race is superior to others - they are mighty, rich, proud of their roots, even to the extent they proclaim they can survive if you tie them to a 100kg boulder and throw them into the deep ocean. So why do you need to Ubah? Live with it lah. We are proud of ourselves as Chinese, Indian, Malays, Iban, Kadazan, Dayak, Murut and so on but if we are not proud to address ourselves as Malaysians then why the need to Ubah? Race, religion, roots, status in society, living standards and education differentiates each and every Malaysian.

A writer mentioned in one article, “It is Malaysia’s greatest tragedy that despite being home to people of diverse faiths, mutual respect for one another’s religious beliefs is increasingly being compromised.” I totally agree with what is written as racial and religious segregation is a constant and will always exist in our mind whether we admit it or not. When the mind attends to something…it considers. When the mind does not attend to something…it dismisses. When the mind attends to something continuously…it believes.

Famous reggae singer-songwriter and musician Bob Marley said this “ Life is one big road with lots of signs. So when you riding through the ruts, don’t complicate your mind. Flee from hate, mischief and jealousy. Don’t bury your thoughts; put your vision to reality. Wake Up and Live!”

My personal view for a change would involve mandatory voting. We all cast a vote or get penalized for not voting. I believe that this would have an enormous, energizing effect upon the whole system as more people would seek more involved choices in how our nation is run. If a person has to vote, that person would be more inclined to look into the issues. Also, with more people voting there would be a bigger push to capture their votes. We have to pay taxes, how come we don’t have to vote?

1³ : 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 

The Father is God above us, the Son is God beside us, and the Spirit is God within us. 

Douglas Jacoby

What is the Trinity?

The OED (Oxford English Dictionary) defines trinity: 

Being three; group of three. From Latin trinitas, "triad.'' Surely they are not distinct persons as are the Three Musketeers, the Three Stooges, the Three Tenors, or the Three Little Pigs. On the other hand, we aren't simply dealing with one person in three roles, like a person who functions as mother, wife, and professional. The first error to be avoided is tritheism - three separate gods; the second is modalism - where God "morphs" from one form to another according to the need of the hour. 

Part of coming to terms with the doctrine is grasping what theologians mean when they discuss the "persons" of the trinity. In modern English "three persons" strongly implies a triad of gods. But the theological term "person" is from the Latin persona, which means mask, part, character, as in the characters of a play. This of course does not mean that God is somehow "pretending," like an actor. In brief, the holy trinity is the three-in-one. 

C.S. Lewis - "People already knew about God in a vague way. Then came a man who claimed to be God; and yet He was not the sort of man you could dismiss as a lunatic. He made them believe Him. They met Him again after they had seen Him killed. And then, after they had been formed into a little society or community, they found God somehow inside them as well: directing them, making them able to do things they could not do before. And when they worked it all out they found they had arrived at the Christian definition of the three-personal God."

Biblical Basis 
Often the Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned together in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 13:13, Matthew 28:19, John 14:17-23). They are three in personality but one in nature or essence. Again, Father, Son and Spirit are each God (in essence), but none can be identified with the other. 

Again, we must guard ourselves against false understandings of trinity, or we will drift into the errors of "unitarianism" (which roundly rejects the trinity) or tritheism. (The Qur'an mistakes belief in the Trinity for tritheism when it condemns "Those who say Allah is three." )

In short, all three persons are divine. Obviously our heavenly father is God. In addition, many verses state that Christ is divine (2 Peter 1:1; Titus 2:13; John 1:1, 14), not to mention the indirect proofs of his deity, such as his forgiveness of man's sins (Mark 2), and claiming as his own the name of God (John 8:58). But how can Christ have two natures simultaneously? An illustration may help.

Lemonade is 100% wet, and yet it is also 100% citrus. It isn't somehow half wet and half citrus - it's wholly both at the same time. In the same way, Jesus is human and God.6

Finally, it is also clear from the Scriptures that the Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, or the "Spirit of God," is divine. Let's check out the OED definition of the Spirit: "The active essence or essential power of the Deity, conceived as a creative, animating, or inspiring influence." Now this may be an accurate definition, but how does it help us be closer to God? It makes a difference in our lives only when we sense and appreciate that God, through his Spirit , is living within us (John 14). The Spirit in nature is God; all members of the Trinity are equally divine. 

Trinity in Church History 
The earlier "ecumenical councils" strove to define and describe the relationships between the members of the godhead (Nicea in 325, Constantinople in 381, and Chalcedon in 451, to mention a few). Yes, many believers in the early Christian era spent generations hammering out the doctrine of the trinity, investigating the intricacies of the Spirit. Even in the Middle Ages, interest in the Trinity was strong. Aquinas produced the most thorough treatise on "The Blessed Trinity."9 In the Restoration movement, especially in the 19th century, there was a reaction against trinitarian language. The famous hymn 'Holy, holy, holy' mentions "God in three persons, blessèd Trinity!" And yet in the overreaction to "traditional" doctrines, these words were changed to "God over all and blessed eternally." Was this really necessary? Is it not true that Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine? 

Analogies Good and Bad
While it is true that Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, we cannot correctly say that the Father is the Son, or that Spirit and Son are interchangeable. Analogies therefore need to be carefully selected, lest we inadvertently support false doctrine through our attempts to refute it. 

The analogy I have most often used to explain the trinity is the analogy of the amorphous forms of H20. Ice = water, liquid water = water, and steam = water (in essence), but ice is not steam, etc. Though I like the water analogy, its shortcoming is that it implies the false doctrine of modalism - that God appears in one form now, another at another time. I have heard worse analogies: time (past, present and future), even an egg (shell, white and yolk)!

Or explain the Trinity by way of an atom: An atom is a single unit of matter, and yet is comprised of three components; protons, neurons and electrons. The atom IS because of those three, and yet those three are an atom because they are one.

A better analogy involving water is a river, which consists of a source, stream, and current (Father, Son, Spirit). Or how about the sun? This consists of the star (sun) itself, sunbeams, and the sunshine as it falls on the earth.

Trinitarian triangle [figure]

Opponents of trinity ask, how can 1 + 1 + 1 = 1? But the mathematics is all wrong. Really it's a case of 1³ : 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. Moving from simple math to geometry, the triangular illustration may better encapsulate the truth about the relations among the persons of the Trinity: 

As someone put it more academically, "A better illustration based in human nature would be, as suggested earlier, the relation between our mind, its ideas, and the expression of these ideas in words. There is obviously a unity among all three of these without there being an identity. In this sense, they illustrate the Trinity." 

No single analogy captures the divine mystery, though the various pictures will be more convincing to different people. 

Gossip on Broadway http://gossiponbroadway.com/

Malaysia’s first kopitiam in North-West England

No. 2 Broadway, New Moston, Manchester

We are looking for Malaysian students to work part-time 20 hours a week as waiters/waitresses/kitchen porters.

Expected launch: 1st June 2013

Contact: Raja Azmir Petra/Marina Lee at 075 8000 7891

The objective of this document is to explain briefly to those Christians who do not understand when, why and how Churches in Malaysia use the word ‘Allah. It is also for Christians who are confused about how to respond, when confronted by the ignorance of non-Muslims about the Christian use of the word ‘Allah’. 

Christian Federation of Malaysia 

Introduction and Background 

The objective of this document is to explain briefly to those Christians who do not understand when, why and how Churches in Malaysia use the word ‘Allah. It is also for Christians who are confused about how to respond, when confronted by the ignorance of non-Muslims about the Christian use of the word ‘Allah’. 

There are many (misleading) statements by non-Christians who claim that we should not use the word, because it is an exclusive Muslim term for the God of Islam and can be used only by Muslims. This is a situation peculiar to Malaysia, as elsewhere in the Muslim world, Arabic-speaking Christians use the word ‘Allah’. 

Christians themselves are sometimes ignorant, because unless we pray in Bahasa Malaysia, we pray to ‘God’ in our own language. In English services, for example, nowhere do we use the word ‘Allah’. 

However, more than 60% of Malaysian Christians only speak Bahasa Malaysia, and the word used for God in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible (Al-Kitab) since its translation in 1731, is ‘Allah’. The word is used by Bumiputera Christians who only have Bahasa Malaysia as their common language in Sabah, Sarawak and peninsular Malaysia, and by the Baba community in Malacca. 

Historical Usage and Meaning 

1. The word ‘Allah’ was a term used for the supreme God in a pantheon of gods, before the revelation of Islam. The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam ed., H. A. R. Gibb & J. H. Kramer and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, ed. John L. Esposito, both affirm and support this contention. 

2. Historically, Malay-speaking Christians in South-East Asia have used ‘Allah’ to refer to God. The proof is as follows: 

• The Kitab salat as-sawai or Christian catechisms in Malay written in 1514 and published around 1545, 

• The printed version of the Gospel of Matthew in Malay by A.C. Ruyl in 1629, 

• Malay-Latin Dictionary was printed in Rome in 1631 (The Dictionarium Malaicum-Latinum and Latinum - Malaicum) 

• The translation of Genesis by D. Brouwerius (1662), 

• M. Leijdecker’s translation (1733), 

• H.C. Klinkert’s translation (1879),  

• W.A. Bode’s translation (1938), and 

• The complete Malay Bible of 1731-1733 containing the word ‘Allah’ for God. 

3. Therefore, from the very beginning, the word ‘Allah’ has been used in the liturgy, prayers and worship of those Christians who speak Bahasa Malaysia. 

But for centuries, there has been no opposition or uproar about their use of ‘Allah’. 

Language 

Objections to the use of the word ‘Allah’ comes mostly from political discourse, or those who argue that the translation and usage of the word is a recent decision. This is not true for the following reasons: 

1. In Semitic languages, the word ‘Allah’ has been widely used in the Middle East dating back to the 5th century BC and up to the time of the expansion of Islam and the spread of the Arabic language in the 7th century AD. 

2. The translation of the Al-Kitab is not from the English translation but based on the Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible. In the Hebrew language, the word ‘God’ has the same root form as the Arabic language. So, when the word ‘God’ was first translated into Bahasa Malaysia, the translators merely followed the Arabic Christian usage and retained the word ‘Allah’. 

3. As stated earlier, the word ‘Allah’ pre-dates Islam. It is not a creation of the Muslims and its existence does not begin in the Al-Quran. 

Should Christians Substitute the word ‘Allah’ with ‘Tuhan’? 

This is not possible for the following reasons : 

1. In the Malay language, ‘Allah’ means ‘God’ and Tuhan means ‘Lord’. As is obvious when we read the Bible, both God and Lord are used in the Bible, and both have different connotations. Therefore ‘Allah’ cannot be substituted by ‘Tuhan’. 

2. The word Tuhan has been applied to Jesus Christ and read as Tuhan Yesus. If Christians are to substitute the word ‘Allah’ for Tuhan, it will render many Biblical references to God and Jesus incoherent because: 

• The meaning of ‘Allah’ and Tuhan are different. 

• This is obvious in just one example. In Isaiah chapter 41 and verse 13; also 43 : 3 and 51 : 15. "For I am the LORD, your GOD..." is translated as "Akulah TUHAN, ALLAH kamu...". (ALKITAB : Berita Baik. 2001. 2nd edition. Published by the Bible Society of Malaysia). 

• It creates an absurd situation if Christians have to translate the biblical phrase ‘Lord God’ as Tuhan Tuhan. The repeated words Tuhan Tuhan indicates plural in Bahasa Malaysia, and creates the impression that Christians believe in many Gods, which is unacceptable. 

• Bahasa Malaysia-speaking Christians will not be able to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ and teach the doctrine of the Trinity as these two 3 foundational words are essential to maintain and communicate these truths. 

Consequences of Banning the Word “Allah” 

1. Being denied the use of the word ‘Allah’ disregards the constitutional right of Malaysian citizens to freedom of religion under the Federal Constitution. 

Article 11 of the Federal Constitution safeguards the right of each Malaysian to profess and practice one’s religion of choice. Article 11(3) expressly provides that every religious group has the right to manage their own religious affairs. 

2. In 2011, the High Court handed down a judgement allowing the Catholic Church to use the word ‘Allah’. The government (of all Malaysians, including Christians) is appealing the judgement and it is pending. 

3. There have been other infringements on the right to use words imperative in the Bahasa Malaysia Bible. See the directive of 5 Dec 1986 from the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that, in addition to ‘Allah’, the words: Al-Kitab, Firman, Rasul, Iman, Ibadah, Injil, Wahyu, Nabi, Syukur, Solat and doa are not to be used in the Al-Kitab. In addition, making such prohibitions through fatwa render them only relevant to Muslims as the Shari’a does not apply to non Muslims. 

4. Prohibiting the use of the word ‘Allah’ and these other terms is unjust. Bumiputera Christians should be given the respect and freedom to call God in the only language they have in common. This is important to their religious and cultural identity. 

5. If Churches in Malaysia agree to stop using the word ‘Allah’, it means that the right to edit the Scripture of a major world religion has been given over to a secular government. This would be a shameful and an unprecedented development for any religion and government. 

Conclusion 

Some Muslims have claimed repeatedly that Christians in Malaysia refuse to stop using the word ‘Allah’ because they want to confuse and convert Muslims, thereby posing a threat to national security. The claim is groundless as there has been no evidence offered of any threat to security. These remain unfounded accusations. 

On the contrary, such an assertion is made in ignorance of the fact that when Christians use the Al-Kitab, it is simply for Bahasa Malaysia-speaking Christians. 

Malaysian Churches have never suggested changing the words ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ to ‘Allah’ and ‘Tuhan’ respectively, in the other languages of the Bible. 

PREPARED BY THE CHRISTIAN FEDERATION OF MALAYSIA 

(Persekutuan Kristian Malaysia)  

********************************************

BILA, MENGAPA DAN BAGAIMANA KRISTIAN MENGGUNAKAN KATA ‘ALLAH’ 

Pengenalan dan Latarbelakang 

Tujuan dokumen ini adalah untuk menjelaskan secara ringkas kepada orang-orang Kristian yang tidak faham bila, kenapa dan bagaimana Gereja-gereja di Malaysia menggunakan kata ‘Allah’. Ia juga untuk orang Kristian yang keliru tentang bagaimana harus bertindak apabila berhadapan dengan orang bukan Islam yang jahil tentang penggunaan kata ‘Allah’ dalam agama Kristian. 

Terdapat banyak (tidak tepat) kenyataan bukan Kristian yang mendakwa bahawa kita tidak boleh menggunakan kata ‘Allah’ kerana ia adalah istilah eksklusif untuk agama Islam yang merujuk kepada Tuhan Islam dan hanya boleh digunakan oleh orang Islam. Ia merupakan masalah pelik di Malaysia kerana di negara-negara Islam yang lain , di negara Arab – penganut Kristian berbahasa Arab menggunakan kata ‘Allah’. 

Umat Kristian sendiri kadang-kadang jahil kecuali jika kita berdoa dalam Bahasa Malaysia, kita berdoa kepada 'Allah' dalam bahasa kita sendiri. Sebagai contoh, dalam Bahasa Inggeris, kita tidak menggunakan kata ‘Allah’. 

Walau bagaimanapun, lebih 60% daripada Kristian di Malaysia hanya bercakap dalam Bahasa Malaysia, dan perkataan yang digunakan untuk Tuhan di dalam kitab Bahasa Malaysia (Al-Kitab) sejak terjemahan pada tahun 1731, adalah 'Allah'. Kata ini digunakan oleh Bumiputera Kristian yang menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia sebagai bahasa pengantara mereka terutama di Sabah, Sarawak, Semenanjung Malaysia, dan masyarakat Baba di Melaka 

Sejarah Makna dan Penggunaan 

1. Kata 'Allah' adalah istilah yang digunakan bagi Tuhan yang tertinggi di antara tuhan-tuhan, sebelum wahyu Islam. The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, ed. H.A.R. Gibb & J. H. Kramer dan The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, ed. John L. Esposito, menyokong dan mengesahkan pernyataan ini. 

2. Dari segi sejarah, penganut Kristian berbahasa Melayu di Asia Tenggara telah menggunakan 'Allah' untuk merujuk kepada Tuhan. Buktinya adalah seperti berikut: 

• Wujudnya Kitab salat as sawai atau Katekismus Kristian di dalam Bahasa Melayu telah ditulis pada tahun 1514 dan diterbitkan sekitar 1545, 

• Telah ada versi cetakan Injil Matius di dalam Bahasa Melayu oleh A.C. Ruyl pada tahun 1629, 

• Kamus Melayu-Latin telah dicetak di Roma pada tahun 1631 (Dictionarium The Malaicum-Latinum dan Latinum - Malaicum) 

• Terjemahan Kitab Kejadian oleh D. Brouwerius (1662), 

• Terjemahan M. Leijdecker (1733), 

• Terjemahan H.C. Klinkert (1879), 

• Terjemahan W.A. Bode (1938), dan 

• Pada tahun 1731-1733, telah wujud Al-Kitab Bahasa Melayu lengkap mengandungi kata ‘Allah’ iaitu terjemahan untuk ‘God’. 

3. Oleh itu, sejak awal lagi, kata ‘Allah' telah digunakan dalam liturgi, doa-doa dan ibadat orang-orang Kristian yang bertutur dalam Bahasa Malaysia. Tetapi selama berabad-abad itu, tidak ada bantahan atau kegemparan mengenai penggunaan kata 'Allah'.  

Bahasa 

Bantahan terhadap penggunaan kata 'Allah' kebanyakannya berpunca dari wacana politik, atau di kalangan mereka yang membantah dengan tuduhan bahawa penterjemahan dan penggunaan kata ‘Allah’ baru sahaja berlaku. Ini tidak benar kerana sebab-sebab berikut: 

1. Dalam bahasa-bahasa Semitik, kata 'Allah' telah digunakan secara meluas di Timur Tengah sejak abad ke-5 SM, sehingga masa perkembangan Islam dan penyebaran Bahasa Arab pada abad ke-7 M. 

2. Penterjemahan Al-Kitab bukan menterjemah dari Bahasa Inggeris tetapi berdasarkan teks-teks dari Al-Kitab Ibrani dan teks Yunani. Dalam Bahasa Ibrani, kata 'Allah' mempunyai bentuk akar yang sama seperti Bahasa Arab. Jadi, apabila kata 'Allah' pertama kali diterjemahkan ke dalam Bahasa Malaysia, para penterjemah sebenarnya mengikut penggunaan Bahasa Arab Kristian dan mengekalkan perkataan 'Allah'. 

3. Seperti yang dinyatakan sebelum ini, kata 'Allah' digunakan sebelum kedatangan Islam. Ia bukan ciptaan umat Islam dan kewujudannya tidak bermula di dalam Al-Quran. 

Haruskah Kristian Menggantikan kata ‘Allah’ dengan ‘Tuhan’? 

Ini tidak mungkin atas sebab-sebab berikut : 

1. Dalam Bahasa Melayu, 'Allah' bermakna ‘Tuhan’ dan ‘Tuhan’ bermaksud ‘Lord’. Ini jelas apabila kita membaca Al-Kitab, ‘Allah’ dan ‘Tuhan’ digunakan di dalam Al-Kitab, dan kedua-duanya mempunyai konotasi yang berbeza. Oleh itu 'Allah' tidak boleh digantikan dengan 'Tuhan’. 

2. Kata Tuhan telah digunakan untuk Yesus Kristus iaitu Tuhan Yesus. Sekiranya Kristian menggantikan kata 'Allah' untuk Tuhan, ia menimbulkan banyak kekeliruan dan tidak keruan yang merujuk kepada Tuhan dan Yesus 

kerana: 

• Makna ‘Allah’ dan Tuhan adalah berbeza. 

• Ini sangat jelas melalui satu contoh sahaja. Di dalam Yesaya, Bab 41 dan Ayat 13; 43:3 dan 51:51. “For I am the LORD, your GOD...” diterjemahkan sebagai “Akulah Tuhan, Allah kamu...”(ALKITAB : Berita Baik. 2001. Edisi Kedua. Terbitan The Bible Society of Malaysia). 

• Ia akan mewujudkan situasi tidak masuk akal jika orang Kristian perlu menterjemahkan frasa alkitabiah 'Lord God’ sebagai Tuhan Tuhan. Pengulangan kata Tuhan Tuhan menunjukkan jamak di dalam Bahasa Malaysia, ia seolah-olah memperlihatkan bahawa agama Kristian percaya akan banyak tuhan, ini adalah sesuatu yang tidak boleh diterima. 

• Umat Kristian berbahasa Malaysia tidak akan dapat mengesahkan ketuhanan Yesus Kristus dan mengajar doktrin Tritunggal kerana dua perkataan ini adalah kata-kata asas  

Kesan-kesan Larangan Kata ‘Allah’ 

1. Dinafikan untuk menggunakan kata ‘Allah’ adalah melanggar hak perlembagaan kebebasan beragama rakyat Malaysia di bawah Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Perkara 11 Perlembagaan Persekutuan melindungi hak setiap rakyat Malaysia untuk menganut agama dan amalan pilihan masing-masing. Perkara 11 (3) jelas memperuntukkan bahawa setiap kumpulan agama mempunyai hak untuk mengurus hal ehwal agama mereka sendiri. 

2. Pada tahun 2011, Mahkamah Tinggi memberikan penghakiman yang membenarkan Gereja Katolik menggunakan perkataan 'Allah'. Kerajaan (semua rakyat Malaysia, termasuk Kristian) membawanya ke Mahkamah Rayuan dan ia masih belum selesai. 

3. Selain itu, terdapat juga pelanggaran hak menggunakan kata-kata penting dalam Al-Kitab Bahasa Malaysia. Lihat arahan 5 Disember 1986 daripada Kementerian Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri menyatakan bahawa, sebagai tambahan kepada 'Allah', kata-kata : Al-Kitab, Firman, Rasul, Iman, Ibadah, Injil, Wahyu, Nabi, Syukur, Solat dan doa adalah tidak boleh digunakan dalam Al-Kitab. Di samping itu, membuat larangan melalui fatwa hanyalah relevan dengan umat Islam sahaja dan tidak terpakai kepada bukan Islam. 

4. Melarang penggunaan kata 'Allah' dan istilah-istilah lain adalah tidak adil. Kristian Bumiputera perlu diberi penghormatan dan kebebasan untuk memanggil Tuhan dalam satu-satunya bahasa yang mereka. Ini adalah penting bagi identiti agama dan budaya mereka.

5. Jika gereja-gereja di Malaysia bersetuju untuk berhenti menggunakan kata 'Allah', bermakna hak untuk mengedit Kitab Suci agama utama dunia telah diberikan kepada sebuah kerajaan sekular. Ini akan menjadi satu perkara memalukan dan kejadian yang belum pernah berlaku pada mana-mana agama dan kerajaan. 

Kesimpulan 

Sesetengah umat Islam mendakwa berulang kali bahawa orang Kristian di Malaysia enggan berhenti menggunakan kata 'Allah' kerana mahu mengelirukan umat Islam dan memurtadkan penganut Islam, sekali gus menimbulkan ancaman kepada keselamatan negara. Tuntutan itu adalah tidak berasas kerana tiada bukti penggunaan kata ini membawa ancaman keselamatan negara. Tuduhan ini kekal sebagai tidak berasas. 

Sebaliknya, keadaan sebegitu dibuat kerana jahil dengan hakikat bahawa apabila orang Kristian menggunakan Al-Kitab, ia adalah khusus untuk umat Kristian berbahasa Malaysia. Gereja-gereja di Malaysia tidak pernah mencadangkan untuk mengubah kata 'Allah' dan 'Lord' kepada 'Allah' dan 'Tuhan', begitu juga bahasabahasa lain dalam Al-Kitab.

DISEDIAKAN OLEH PERSEKUTUAN KRISTIAN MALAYSIA 

(The Christian Federation of Malaysia) 

According to the Taoist world view, the birth of the "mother of all" things is a sure sign of the the two extreme Yin and Yang forces are at its peak. 

Kuo Yong Kooi 

In a short period of just over a month, Malaysia went through a festivity of ‘mother of all things political’. Just after the parliament was dissolved, the opposition declared that GE13 is the ‘mother of all elections’. In the period leading up to the May 5 election day, new records were set in the numbers of ceramah attendees night after night. On election day, we had the ‘mother of all voter turnouts’ with 84.4 percent, a new record.

Adding in BR1M 1 and BR1M 2, GE13 is undoubtedly the ‘mother of all amounts of money’ spent on buying votes compared to any other elections.

We also have the ‘mother of all number of independent candidates’ participating in the recent general election.
 
Anwar Ibrahim has publicly declared that the GE13 is the ‘mother of all fraudulent elections’.

We had the ‘mother of all post-election gatherings’ in Kelana Jaya stadium on May 8. We also saw a series of after-shocks in Batu Kawan, Penang; Ipoh, Perak; Kuantan and Johor Baru; with large turnouts but not as impressive as the one in the Kelana Jaya Stadium.

Depending on the outcome of the coming Umno general assembly, Najib Abdul Razak’s head might roll and that would be the ‘mother of all heads rolling’, adding to the recent head-rolling of Gerakan’s Koh Tsu Koon. MCA’s Chua Soi Lek’s head will purportedly roll at the end of this year as he stated. 

The opposition PAS might also do some blood letting in the coming PAS muktamar as the progressive ‘Erdogan’ faction suffered losses at the last GE13. We will have to see if Mat Sabu’s head is going to be rolling, too.

Uncle Kit Siang has seen cabinet line-ups since the sixties. He labelled the current new cabinet as the most (mother of all) unimpressive cabinet in Malaysia’s history. East Malaysians had just witnessed the ‘mother of all number of East Malaysians’ in the current cabinet line-up.

The winner of the ‘mother of all political illusionists’ is P Wathaymoorthy. Many did not take him seriously when he demanded a few seats from Pakatan in negotiations prior to the election. I was really touched when he did his 21-day fast. He even got Karpal Singh’s attention and sympathy.

I guess many Indians went along with his call to vote for BN and that contributed to the “technical” survival of MIC in the recent polls. That was really a class act. He worked hard and honestly to get sympathy from the Indian community to vote for BN as a free agent/NGO. 

Whereas BN openly and utterly disregarded the sanctity of a “free and fair” election campaign. Its secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said, “There is nothing wrong with flying in voters to vote”, and the caretaker PM Najib Razak was quoted to have said that there will be more BR1Ms to come if BN is re-elected during the campaign.

Of course Wathaymoorthy deserves the position as a deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s department as far as the prime minister is concerned. I think he might have a future in Bollywood after this stint at the Prime Minister’s Department.

The progressive forces in Malaysia are now split. This election result has pushed the radicals out of the woodwork. We will have to see the turn out in the ‘one million people’ protest march in the next week or so. If the group manages to attract a big turnout like all other previous post GE13 ‘aftershock’ rallies, we will be witnessing the ‘mother of all stalemates’ in the history of Malaysia’s politics. 

This group will surely thumb their noses at the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Najib administration and ask for Anything But Umno (ABU).

According to the Taoist world view, the birth of the "mother of all" things is a sure sign of the the two extreme Yin and Yang forces are at its peak. We are living in an interesting time indeed in the context of Malaysia's political history.

The BN government should stop beating around the bush and just plainly say that it needs to raise another RM27 billion from GST, which is the equivalent to about RM1,000 per person per year, to cover the ballooning national debt which have been increased partly by the various Santa Clause programs to fish for votes in the recent general elections.

Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan 

 “The people of Sabah and Sarawak should be exempted from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) that appears imminently to be implemented by the BN Federal government at any time” said Datuk Dr. Jeffrey Kitingan, STAR Sabah Chief.

Foremost, the PM needs to practice what he says and start implementing his transparency programs by not “testing the people” by using mouthpieces for feedback on the intended GST implementation.   

The BN government should stop beating around the bush and just plainly say that it needs to raise another RM27 billion from GST, which is the equivalent to about RM1,000 per person per year, to cover the ballooning national debt which have been increased partly by the various Santa Clause programs to fish for votes in the recent general elections.

The BN government should not treat the people as fools anymore. People can understand the need to increase revenue to cover the national debt but whether the need to tax and burden the people is another matter altogether. The government should pay attention to reduction of economic leakages and to wipe out corruption which is probably the biggest cause for any unjustified increase in the national debt.

As for the GST itself, the federal government should exempt Sabah and Sarawak from its implementation. The GST will burden Sabahans and Sarawakians who are already poor.

Sabah and Sarawak are more than justified in being exempted from the GST implementation.

Firstly, Sabah and Sarawak, both with riches and wealth have been robbed and are now suffering from being made the two poorest states in Malaysia. In 2012, RM17.88 billion in oil revenue were siphoned by Petronas from Sabah and another RM35 billion from Sarawak. Sabah lost another RM24 billion in federal taxes and revenues collected from the state.

Secondly, the crippling cabotage policy is not only increasing the living costs of Sabahans but is stifling Sabah’s economy and making Sabah an uncompetitive investment destination. Thus, depriving our youths of further job opportunities.

If the PM is serious with his “Rakyat Didahulukan” slogan, the PM should immediately abolish the cabotage policy. There are no two ways about it. Yet, the federal and state governments are deaf to the pleas of the people to have the cabotage policy abolished.

Thirdly, rural Sabahans and Sarawakians have low household incomes and this is made even worse by the federal government’s minimum salary level which has fixed a lower minimum of RM900 for Sabah and Sarawak and discriminates against them compared to West Malaysians with a threshold level of RM1,000.

Last but not least, instead of imposing the GST on Sabah and Sarawak, the PM should stop the marginalization of Sabahans and Sarawakians and implement programs in both states to increase the income levels and improve their livelihoods, consistent with his “Rakyat Didahulukan” slogan.

If the PM fails to exempt Sabah and Sarawak from the GST implementation, he should be wary of the consequences of being the last Umno Prime Minister.

The people in Sabah and Sarawak have awoken to the concept of Sabah and Sarawak being the kingmakers and can topple the BN federal government at any time. This “kingmaker” role and leverage can be seen in the increased composition of Sabah and Sarawak lawmakers in the new Cabinet and demands for more.

“I will personally be meeting further with Sabah and Sarawak leaders and work on bringing this kingmaker role to the next level. We need to work towards the restoration of our rights and autonomy if it means toppling the current BN regime” concluded Dr. Jeffrey.