Adamant about 'Allah'
Why the pursuit for freedom to use 'Allah' must continue
Many well-meaning Christians have asked (some even demanded) that we stop fighting the 'Allah' issue. Many do not understand why the Christian leadership is so adamant that the government has erred in barring non-Muslims from using 'Allah'. In this article, we highlight some of the often-heard remarks to support dropping the case. Berita NECF invited Rev. Loh Soon Choy, a lecturer emeritus at Malaysia Bible Seminari and member of the NECF Research Commission, to respond to the remarks.
It's just a word. Can't the Bahasa-speaking Christians use other words in place of 'Allah'?
It's a bit like asking: "Can't they eat other food than rice - which has been their staple food for generations. Many counter-questions immediately arise. Yes, there are many terms for god as there are many substitutes for rice. But 'Allah' (like rice) is a staple. It is a generic term used all the time in personal and public prayers, worship, preaching and everyday life. Without it, our BM-speaking Christians cannot even pray properly. The other terms (or food) are used for specific occasions. Even 'Tuhan' (Lord) cannot replace 'Allah' (God) as not all 'Lords' are the true 'God'.
Imagine the trauma, when without proper consultation, rice-eating (or the use of 'Allah') is criminalized as a "solution" to prevent some other rice-eating people from being "confused" when the matter has never been an issue for generations, both inside and outside Malaysia! Why now? What's happening? What next? Have the authorities any proof that rice-eating (or the use of 'Allah') has caused any problem to social or national security? Any empirical evidence that the practice has confused people?
In fact, in the very two states of Sabah and Sarawak where 'Allah' is most used by BM-speaking Christians who number many more than our Peninsular Malaysian Christians, JAKIM statistics show that between 1990 and 2001, 11,818 Sabahans and 9,603 Sarawakians converted to Islam. This meant that these two states had the highest number of Muslim converts by far than any of the other states in Malaysia.
The problem affects only the BM-speaking Christians. They're not the majority. So we should drop the case for the sake of the greater good.
Four remarks can be made to address possible wrong assumptions behind the above statements.
- The Sikh religion also uses 'Allah'. They too have 1. protested under the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism.
- BM-speaking Christians may not be the majority in our 2. total Christian population when Sabah and Sarawak are included. If you include Indonesian Christians, then BM-speaking Christians are a majority in our region.
- There is no future for a nation 3. if "majority" arguments are used insensitively and unconstitutionally. It's a basic moral and human right that even minority people must be respected! Of course where there is conflict, there can be proper negotiation and arbitration.
For the very sake of an ultimate "greater good", we should NOT "drop the case" as this case represents much more than the word 'Allah'! When viewed from larger perspectives in this modern world - morally, philosophically, socially and in terms of true nation building (with all the implications for economic and intellectual freedom and development) - Malaysia's diversity of peoples and cultures can accept one another given the chance even when we do not always agree.
Indeed, there are also many Malay or Muslim people of reason, goodwill and adequate learning - as the recent firebombing of churches have further shown - whose views should be respected rather than thugs who forcibly terminated closed-door dialogues and extremists who misuse or even criticized the Constitution. Only then is there hope for some adequate solution(s) or 'middle-ground' when all sides that have real fears and suspicions are allowed to talk to one another and to the government.
Jesus teaches us to "turn the other cheek". Why don't we be gracious and let them win?
Jesus (as with all religious leaders) also uses figures of speech which are not meant to be taken literally. This remark here is figurative language from Matthew 5:39 to define that Christians should be radically different in spirit and attitude from the people of the world. He likewise talks about "going the second mile". They illustrate the "Beatitudes" (Be-these-your-attitudes) earlier in chapter 5:1-11.
When struck on the cheek (John 18:22-23), He maintained a meek, dignified, unresisting attitude but He did not literally "turn the other cheek". Nor did He literally walk an "extra mile" when made to carry the cross. Translated into the modern language of action, the issue is not about winning or losing but about not being arrogant, combative or vengeful even in the face of injustice or mistreatment. Like Jesus, we live and stand by God's fundamental truths but it must be with a spirit or attitude or in a manner worthy of Jesus.
You may even, like Jesus, be seen as stubborn, foolish, arrogant and inviting more trouble. Applied to the 'Allah' issue, it may even be to keep on peacefully pleading for open dialogues within the framework of the Constitution and be prepared for the consequences such as may happen (get more slaps) when you "turn the other cheek"! |
