the home minister, the mufti of perak, zulkifli nordin & others tells you that the muslim faith is weak
Post on Mar.01, 2009
what a laugh! 
our flip flop govt. is at it again! (the latest flip flop was the highway toll increase).
just few days ago that botak homey minister said herald is allowed to use ‘allah’ but with conditions, then yesterday suddenly he said had made a mistake. this is not the first time the minister flipped flopped. on this same issue, on 16 jan, i had blog about him going flip flop too.
apparently, our dear home minister was running scared, methink and kow-tow to the malaysian islamic da’wah foundation (yadim) who called on the govt. to withdraw the conditional use of the word ‘allah’ in christian publication. well, not only yadim but other muslim groups too and the extremist, fanatical, bigot mufti of perak. think he was shtting in his pants after the call from all these groups so he don’t mind eat humble pie to admit he made a mistake. what a laugh! 
can you believe what the yadim chairman said?
Its chairman Datuk Mohd Nakhaie Ahmad said the government had not acted wisely in allowing the use of the word in Christian publications which he said could anger Muslims not only in the country but also throughout the world.
"anger muslims not only in the country but also throughout the world". excuse me while i go ROTFL.
…
…
…
my dear, dear, dearest nakhaie, who made you the muslim spokesman to speak for all muslms not only in the country but elsewhere? are you so sure this will anger the muslims in our country? all my muslims friends had told me otherwise!
i would have only go LOL if not for the "… throughout the world" remark which pushed me to ROTFL instead. come lah, dearie nakhaie, muslims in other countries are not as fanatic as you (or the likes of your ilks). e.g. in indonesia, all christian publications had been using allah for years and years and years and the indonesian muslims were not a bit angry… now do we hear of the indonesian muslims suddenly converting to christianity after reading the word ‘allah’ in the christian publication.
oh dear i can’t continue anymore as i have severe stomach ache after laughing so much at what nakhaie said… AND also at homey MINIster’s flip flop. my usual mantra, you can find it in the heading already. remember to read the comments at the malaysian insider.
——————————————-
FOOTNOTE:
From The Catholic Encyclopedia:The notion of Allah in Arabic theology is substantially the same as that of God among the Jews, and also among the Christians, with the exception of the Trinity, which is positively excluded in the Koran,
From Godallah:
The word "Allah" is the perfect description of the "One God" of monotheism for Jews, Christians and Muslims!
Is "Allah" only for Islam and Muslims?
[No! It is for All Three Abrahamic Faiths.]
"Allah" is the same word used by Christian Arabs and Jewish Arabs in their Bible, centuries before Islam came.
The Arabic word for "God", used in Islam and Christianity.
Chapter 29:46
‘And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).’
Filed in christian, government, humour, islam, malaysia, politics
March 1st, 2009 on 12:15 PM
meh. i see it as about the same level as those who say that people who utter ‘god damn’ and such are taking god’s name in vain, are being blasphemous etc, even though that person isn’t religious.
but one can argue from a wittgenstein-ish philosophical viewpoint that the word ‘allah’ has come to symbolise and has become an identity of the faith, just as one can say that the cross, bearing very little actual significance to the faith itself, is to christianity. it’s a focal point of faith, not the faith itself. it’s like using an altar cross as a make-shift tent-rope stud. it demeans the symbol by bringing the object from the realm of the pure, in the style of bataille, into the realm of the impure, and thus the religion by proxy.
to be absolutely fair, such symbolisms have played a large part in all religions. we look at the chinese paganic superstitions, about brooms and feng shui and whatnots; african rites and taboos; even at one point the use of the concept zero (0) was banned by the catholic church for its symbolic representation of nothingness, which was theologically linked to the devil.
March 1st, 2009 on 4:41 PM
The Indians, British, Dutch, Portuguese, Chinese should also ban the Malays from using such words as suka, teh, sistem and the like, according to the website below.
http://www.101languages.net/malay/borrowed_words.html
March 2nd, 2009 on 1:35 AM
empyreal
you have good points there but are you in a way saying the word ‘allah’ symbolise the muslim faith, thus the muslim are so fearful of others using it?
wakakakaka
yes i understand that there are lots of malay words that are not original at all but comes from other languages/countries. some malay words even originate from chinese words.
March 2nd, 2009 on 4:51 AM
in a way, yes. however, i dont think that they ‘fear’ other people using it, they fear other people misusing it – in this case, ascribing alternate meanings to the object. again, it’s like the cross. i’m sure many people don’t mind the spread of many cross-like objects, but some do take offense at people who use the cross as a mere fashion accessory – thus separating the object with its holy meaning – or even worse desecrating it, which denegrates the holiness ascribed to it.
if we look at the bible, however, there’s no such punishment or retribution for the crime of ‘desecrating crosses’. it’s a human invention, and it’s cross-cultural. in a way, it’s strange that believers get touchy about things which don’t really matter to non-believers (its like how a chinese statue of an idol does not hold any meaning to a western christian, for example) but to the believer, it’s a focal point of faith.
to clarify, the word does seem to be an identity to their faith, but not just the one. the symbol with which we identify an object as a red flower is not simply its redness. red is only part of the identity, but an integral part.
and additionally, on the malay language, i believe that the language evolved from sanskrit thus having the same root as hindi and other indian language, just as english and french are bonded by its latin heritage.
March 3rd, 2009 on 12:41 AM
well, they shouldn’t fear other people misusing it because when other people use it, they will using it in their own context (faith), if you know what i mean.
March 3rd, 2009 on 7:55 AM
basically, what im saying is this: the insistence of using such a word is provocative, in light of the feeling that it brings up. it’s like a hindu insisting that he use the altar cross that he bought off e-bay as a coathanger, despite his christian friends telling him they’re uncomfortable with it, or a moslem using a bible to balance a wobbly table. both are using each object in their own context, but can any christian say that they’re not offended by it?
in aa way, its hypocritical to say that one faith is weak simply because of this. if that’s the case, then there’s plenty of weak cristians out there, who protest insults to god or the pope.
i am quite sad to see that your more recent posts are getting shallow. one cannot speak about tolerance when you yourself deride the religions of others without stepping into their shoes and look back at our own. that is hypocrisy. shame on you.
March 4th, 2009 on 2:06 AM
==”basically, what im saying is this: the insistence of using such a word is provocative, in light of the feeling that it brings up. it’s like a hindu insisting that he use the altar cross that he bought off e-bay as a coathanger, despite his christian friends telling him they’re uncomfortable with it, or a moslem using a bible to balance a wobbly table. both are using each object in their own context, but can any christian say that they’re not offended by it”==
bad comparision. the cross and the bible specifically are symbolism of christianity. many muslim wouldn’t even want to touch the cross… not to say all the hoo haa they made when a cross-shaped structure was on top of a public building.
whereas allah is not a symbolism of the muslim. why the word ‘allah’ was in use long before islam was born. ‘allah’ does not belongs to muslim only. thus anyone can use it without one party getting offended or getting fearful.
i really can’t understand why people insist that herald’s use of ‘allah’ is provocative when there’s so much evidence that it had been used all along… decades ago in malay bible, malay worship and prayers. we just want our right to use a word that is not copyrighted to malaysian muslim.
==”in aa way, its hypocritical to say that one faith is weak simply because of this. if that’s the case, then there’s plenty of weak cristians out there, who protest insults to god or the pope.”==
true. but then if you want me to bring up examples…. you don’t see many christians who went all out to protest. e.g. the danish cartoon saga, muslims protest like mad, even killing innocent people. the da vinci code movie which clearly undermine christian teachgs, we don’t see christians protesting like mad.
anyway ask the other many moderate muslim out there. they themselves feel the action of the home minister and these few muslim NGO insisting that NOONE should use the word ‘allah’ because it will CONFUSE the muslim, as insulting to them. they themselves said it it is shameful as it was very telling that the authorities/muslim groups don’t trust them, think their faith is weak. it comes from them first… then i picked it up.
in fact it started ages ago… more than 20 years ago when the christian ship ‘floating library’ nv doulus was here. why they had only 10% christian books. maybe it was because the staff distributed christian pamphlets then the govt. disallowed muslim to visit the ship! my muslim friends cried foul and was very angry at the govt. saying the govt. was insulting them!
if we want to talk about being hypocritical, all of us are… one time or another…. one way or another. of course me also… i wouldn’t call myself a human if i’m not hypocritical at times.
==”i am quite sad to see that your more recent posts are getting shallow. one cannot speak about tolerance when you yourself deride the religions of others without stepping into their shoes and look back at our own. that is hypocrisy. shame on you.”==
“their shoes”? these people who talked so much about non muslim should not use ‘allah’ are only a handful. the home minister, the islamic religious groups etc, dont’ speak for ALL muslim.
no, i rarely speak about tolerance. i don’t like the word tolerance because tolerance means “i don’t like it but i am bearing with it”. the key word is “don’t like it” but really if you want to talk about tolerance, why can’t the govt., the islamic religious groups tolerate non muslim use of ‘allah’ then?
ok thank you for your opinion of me… that my posts are getting shallow and that i’m a hypocrite. as i respond to one anon, you are entitled to your own opinion.
my posts are getting shallow? well, that’s your own opinion… which i will take into consideration. maybe if 3 other people said that, then i believe and try to change. but then again it’s all a matter of perception so i guess i’ll blog whatever i feel right, whatever i want to speak up,