What's new

'Allah' for Muslims only: Malaysia's top court

The fraud was on the word and it was dealt with only 1 word not the language even!

Malaysian Christians say both Tuhan (Malay word for god) as well as ALLAH but none go as far as using it for lying ...

Christian missionaries have been coming in distributing bibles in Malay (no problem they are allowed hence they manage to distribute) whole bible is in Malay and then they change 1 word god = ALLAH....

and suddenly this goes against the very essence/definition/ attribute of ALLAH which is not to beget...and they go around hurting the sentiments and plus this was taken into account after many Malaysian Muslims did peaceful protest through sit ins not going around murdering the missionaries...so I guess its relatively fair decision to curb a fire before it starts!

Lets say security measures for 60% of the nation before the peaceful vibe turns ugly?!

Sorry, I still don't understand. Christians say "Jesus Christ," not "Yehoshua the Annointed," even though "Jesus Christ" is not English. Christians use "Jehovah," and "Yahweh" when referring to G-d, even though those are not English words. For Malaysia to ban the Arabic equivalent of the indirect reference to G-d is beyond justification.

As far as security measures for 60% of the population, no. Do you realize what you could justify using such reasoning? Have you considered that such measures will only further fracture society, whereas the use of "Allah" before was an attempt at assimilation?

This does not reflect well on Malaysia. I would expect the Muslim world to come out against this, given its apprehension about the way Muslims are treated in Europe. We wouldn't want accusations of hypocrisy and double-standards, would we?

Missionary affairs and their evictions from some north African states became parliamentary affairs in Europe, See the Dutch Parliament and the eviction of dutch missionaries from Morocco. the same happened with France.
In most European Parliaments you'll find Political parties with the Christian connotation; the Christian democratic party, the Christian this, and the Christian that.
This should explain the link for issuing visas. It is politico-religious and tries to exploit any weakness in the Muslim world, mostly economic weaknesses for the purpose of conversion. So it is obvious from the start that these conversions are not for religious purposes, but rather for political purposes like "war on Islam", a desperate move by some non-practicing/non-believing Christians in their attempts to counter the spread of Islam in the the "Christian" West.

This would be more credible if Malaysia, though these actions, were not transparently countering the spread of Christianity in Muslim Malaysia.
 
Sorry, I still don't understand. Christians say "Jesus Christ," not "Yehoshua the Annointed," even though "Jesus Christ" is not English. Christians use "Jehovah," and "Yahweh" when referring to G-d, even though those are not English words. For Malaysia to ban the Arabic equivalent of the indirect reference to G-d is beyond justification.
Please answer my single question is regarding their deceitful act...Why change 1 word into Arabic in a non-Arab country? Freedom of expression and words comes with a price when you cross the border
As far as security measures for 60% of the population, no. Do you realize what you could justify using such reasoning? Have you considered that such measures will only further fracture society, whereas the use of "Allah" before was an attempt at assimilation?
The courts ruling was only against 1 magazine (Harold) not whole of Christianity! Try browsing the thread or doing a quick google search...
This does not reflect well on Malaysia. I would expect the Muslim world to come out against this, given its apprehension about the way Muslims are treated in Europe. We wouldn't want accusations of hypocrisy and double-standards, would we?
Their country their laws?

In Europe there are laws where you cant even talk about Hitler or the Holocaust so as not to hurt someone's sentiments...

In Europe you have moral values taken from the Catholic church as the Catholic church does have an office and is advisory to law making...

In Europe you have a democracy and have such subtle problems...Malaysia is already bending backward alot accommodating Non Muslims considering how many laws have been changed...like Europe is also doing so...


However 1 thing that is not tolerated is deceitful means of propagating your msg! If your msg is truth then use the truth to propagate it! Why hide behind such ways?

Would it have killed them to have a 100% bible in Malay and use Tuhan (the Malay word for god) or use god in their English bible instead of using ALLAH?

It's like @Developereo said having a PhD (Dr. title) in Physics and trying to run a clinic or do an operation- misuse of the doctor title!
 
Dont see anyone screaming about this:
Article 52 of the European Constitution Briefing Paper

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither has the right to convert in their constitution :pop: Just right to practice...and in EU church pushed it further.

The Vatican wanted five points to be included in the Constitutional Treaty. The three central ones were:

The recognition of the “institutional dimension” of religious freedom. The Vatican argued that full religious liberty comprises three dimensions: the individual dimension, namely the right to choose one’s system of beliefs; the collective dimension, or the right to associate with others to live out the precepts of one’s faith; and the institutional dimension, meaning the constitutional recognition that religious faith communities are also political actors in their own right, but in a specific form differing from other actors in civil society. According to the Vatican, the religious dimension embraces the whole range of human preoccupations and lends competence to the church in almost all matters, justifying a specific status, different from other civil society organizations. The main advocate of this point, besides the Vatican, was the German Catholic church, which already enjoys this status at the national level and would like to gain similar status within the EU.


The recognition of an exemption from European law and regulations that the church considered to violate its teachings. Religious freedom already grants the church the right to administer itself as a faith community, according to its teaching. This new right would institutionalise on a European level an exemption that grants the church the right to implement employment practices without having to comply with European policies and regulations that the church considers a violation of its teaching. This means that Catholic-run or affiliated hospitals, schools and social service projects would not have to respect EU principles and laws on non-discrimination. In the name of “institutional religious freedom” and “subsidiarity” Catholic-affiliated projects could refuse to hire and could fire gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, and divorced and re-married people as well.
They could also refuse to hire or fire people who publicly express disagreement with church positions on key policy issues, like contraception or abortion. Helmut Kohl, then Christian Democrat chancellor of Germany and an ally of the German bishops, succeeded in overcoming the resistance of the French delegates to have this right recognized and added to the Treaty of Amsterdam, the 1997 compact between the EU member nations outlining the foundations for an expanded EU in the 21st century. The Vatican’s desired language was annexed in Declaration No. 11—the first mention of the church in a European legislative document—and it allows for all organisations recognised as a church or a community of faith or conviction to be exempt from Article 13 of the treaty, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion or sexual orientation. The Vatican sought to have this declaration promoted from an annex to an integral part of the new constitution.


- I see a loophole in this freedom yet not 1 crying it out!

The institution of a specific consultative status for the church. This would provide for the Catholic church to be consulted in the pre-drafting stage of legislation on a wide range of matters where the church feels it has expertise and for regular consultations at the highest level of the various EU institutions. The Catholic church wished to have a constitutionally granted voice in state affairs and demanded a permanent liaison office within the European Commission.

So much for secularism! :agree:
Only recently, a doctrinal note to Catholic policy makers released in January 2003 by Cardinal Ratzinger declared that the separation of religion and politics did not mean a separation of morals and politics. It asserted that the Catholic church has the divine, ultimate and legitimate authority to define the truth on morality and what is right in politics. It exhorted Catholics active in politics to defend the church’s positions without compromise, in particular on issues related to the family and to sexual and reproductive health and rights.

So whose drilling the morals...Of course the Catholic church :agree:

The Catholic church is the only religious community to be represented in Brussels and, like Saudi Arabia, the United States, China or any other foreign country, is represented in person by an ambassador, the apostolic nuncio. Apostolic nuncios represent the Holy See, as a foreign political authority, not only in Brussels but also in each one of the member countries of the EU and of the accession countries as well. And each member country has its own diplomatic relationships with the Roman Catholic church through an ambassador at the Holy See

And you can read all of the rest:

Article 52 of the European Constitution Briefing Paper

It's clear you misunderstand these proposals, which are for the Catholic community to practice its religion internally. When the state forces a Catholic-funded hospital to hire abortionists, that is a violation of the freedom of religion. If the abortionist doesn't like that, why doesn't the abortionist work at a non-denominational or state-funded hospital? This issue is far more complicated than you have represented it to be.
 
It's clear you misunderstand these proposals, which are for the Catholic community to practice its religion internally. When the state forces a Catholic-funded hospital to hire abortionists, that is a violation of the freedom of religion. If the abortionist doesn't like that, why doesn't the abortionist work at a non-denominational or state-funded hospital? This issue is far more complicated than you have represented it to be.
Not at all...It has been blown out of proportion by media lately as everything related to Islam has!
You still failed to answer my question why change 1 word into Arabic (ALLAH) while the whole bible remains either in English or Malay esp when Malaysia is not an Arabic state?
 
Please answer my single question is regarding their deceitful act...Why change 1 word into Arabic in a non-Arab country? Freedom of expression and words comes with a price when you cross the border

Good question. Why do Muslims in Malaysia who don't speak Arabic refer to G-d as Allah?


The courts ruling was only against 1 magazine (Harold) not whole of Christianity! Try browsing the thread or doing a quick google search...

Understood, but is this not a slippery slope? A precedent has now been set. Expect to see further action in the future along these lines.


Their country their laws?

In Europe there are laws where you cant even talk about Hitler or the Holocaust so as not to hurt someone's sentiments...

In Europe you have moral values taken from the Catholic church as the Catholic church does have an office and is advisory to law making...

In Europe you have a democracy and have such subtle problems...Malaysia is already bending backward alot accommodating Non Muslims considering how many laws have been changed...like Europe is also doing so...


However 1 thing that is not tolerated is deceitful means of propagating your msg! If your msg is truth then use the truth to propagate it! Why hide behind such ways?

Would it have killed them to have a 100% bible in Malay and use Tuhan (the Malay word for god) or use god in their English bible instead of using ALLAH?

It's like @Developereo said having a PhD (Dr. title) in Physics and trying to run a clinic or do an operation- misuse of the doctor title!

Europe (except for France) does not regulate religious practices within each community, as far as I am aware. The various communities are left to set up their own regulatory systems internal to the community, as long as such systems do not conflict with the country's laws. This is clearly not the case in Malaysia, and such thinking is alien to most Westerners; so the PhD/MD comparison doesn't work for the West.

I don't think the use of "Allah" by Christians is problematic if both Muslims and Christians believe it refers to the same deity. Especially considering that "Allah" is not a native word to Malaysia, and Malaysia is dominated by the Muslim community. Why doesn't the Malaysian Muslim community use the word Tuhan instead of Allah?

Not at all...It has been blown out of proportion by media lately as everything related to Islam has!
You still failed to answer my question why change 1 word into Arabic (ALLAH) while the whole bible remains either in English or Malay esp when Malaysia is not an Arabic state?

I don't know. Why do Malaysian Muslims who don't speak Arabic refer to G-d as Allah?
 
This would be more credible if Malaysia, though these actions, were not transparently countering the spread of Christianity in Muslim Malaysia.
No one is countering that Missionaries are still given visa...no stricter laws against that!

Good question. Why do Muslims in Malaysia who don't speak Arabic refer to G-d as Allah?
Many do...even those who dont speak it as a language pray in Arabic...



Understood, but is this not a slippery slope? A precedent has now been set. Expect to see further action in the future along these lines.
Depends...if more lies a churned!



Europe (except for France) does not regulate religious practices within each community, as far as I am aware. The various communities are left to set up their own regulatory systems internal to the community, as long as such systems do not conflict with the country's laws. This is clearly not the case in Malaysia, and such thinking is alien to most Westerners; so the PhD/MD comparison doesn't work for the West.
Well the example works esp when you have a product called Religion and you are being deceitful esp since ALLAH is well understood as one who begets not and then you bring in Jesus was son of ALLAH....What was wrong with saying Jesus is son of god (we have Greek /Norse/ Roman gods with kids) or son of Tuhan (since the whole bible is already in Malay)...why turn a blind eye on what the magazine was doing?
I don't think the use of "Allah" by Christians is problematic if both Muslims and Christians believe it refers to the same deity. Especially considering that "Allah" is not a native word to Malaysia, and Malaysia is dominated by the Muslim community. Why doesn't the Malaysian Muslim community use the word Tuhan instead of Allah?
Same deity yes...but not the same when it comes to trinity as in ALLAH is clearly stated in the Quran the attribute of ALLAH is one who begets not! But Christian god has a son called Jesus...see the difference? If yes see how the word was used against its meaning = lie
Yes Malaysian Muslims use both ALLAH and Tuhan...ALLAH when praying in Arabic or even when doing zikir Tuhan when doing personal doa..

I don't know. Why do Malaysian Muslims who don't speak Arabic refer to G-d as Allah?
Because we pray to ALLAH the one who begets not!
 
Last edited:
No one is countering that Missionaries are still given visa...no stricter laws against that!

Many do...even those who dont speak it as a language pray in Arabic...



Depends...if more lies a churned!



Well the example works esp when you have a product called Religion and you are being deceitful esp since ALLAH is well understood as one who begets not and then you bring in Jesus was son of ALLAH....What was wrong with saying Jesus is son of god (we have Greek /Norse/ Roman gods with kids) or son of Tuhan (since the whole bible is already in Malay)...why turn a blind eye on what the magazine was doing?
Same deity yes...but not the same when it comes to trinity as in ALLAH is clearly stated in the Quran the attribute of ALLAH is one who begets not! But Christian god has a son called Jesus...see the difference? If yes see how the word was used against its meaning = lie
Yes Malaysian Muslims use both ALLAH and Tuhan...ALLAH when praying in Arabic or even when doing zikir Tuhan when doing personal doa..

Because we pray to ALLAH the one who begets not!

Good information, thank you. Can you please clarify two things:

1) How do Malaysian Christians differentiate their deity from Allah if both Christians and Muslims use the word Tuhan?
2) Are there any regulations to restrict Muslim missionary activity against Christians in Malaysia?

Most Malaysian Christians use the word Tuhan, but some used 'Allah' . It was all innocuous and informal -- there was no malice or fraud intended -- and no one was too bothered.

The malice and fraud came from systematic abuse of the word by Western missionaries and, unfortunately, the Malaysian Christians are now caught in the crossfire.

What percent of a group needs to be abusive before it is acceptable to sanction the entire group? I'm sure you see where I am going with this.

My claims were from some mostly french written rticles, and they dated to at least 10 years ago, but I have found something that might help exlpain the allegations (a link), it goes for the EU too:

The Religious Worker Path to a Green Card


If you work for a recognized religious organization, either as a minister or a religious worker, you might qualify for a green card as a special immigrant. You can apply for your green card as a minister or religious worker from inside the U.S.—if you are in lawful status and not working without authorization—or from abroad. You start the process by filing an I-360 petition on your own or through your employer. Whether you or your employer files the petition, the prospective U.S. employer must submit certain documentary evidence, including an attestation showing that certain requirements have been met regarding the organization, its history of filing this type of petition and the position and salary.

Now, the immigration regulations define a “minister” as someone who is fully authorized by a religious denomination to conduct religious activities, such as a minister, priest, rabbi, imam, ordained deacon, or Buddhist monk. A “religious worker” is defined as someone who is in a religious vocation or occupation and is authorized to perform normal religious duties, such as religious instructors, religious counselors, missionaries, religious broadcasters, workers in religious hospitals and cantors. Purely non-religious workers and volunteers are not included in this definition. Over the years the regulations defining religious occupations have changed and there has been litigation over varying interpretations. Someone attempting to immigrate under this category would be well advised to consult with an immigration attorney about their specific circumstances.

Seattle Immigration Lawyer Blog: The Religious Worker Path to a Green Card

This fact means nothing on its own, only when it is combined with the missionary tactics and the needs and aims of poor people that it takes full significance. I am proving here that missionaries can hire people, convert them and help them get an entry visa to any western country as religious workers. Would this be a trap? I'll let the readers decide.
I will try to find the articles and translate some if it is possible.

Here are at least 10 articles about the Visa relation to conversions (In French).

des visa pour les nouveau converti au christianisme - Google Search

Good information. How many cases of such fraud have been discovered?
 
Last edited:
Good information, thank you. Can you please clarify two things:

1) How do Malaysian Christians differentiate their deity from Allah if both Christians and Muslims use the word Tuhan?
2) Are there any regulations to restrict Muslim missionary activity against Christians in Malaysia?

1) There is no problem coz Tuhan (its like the word god) does not have any attributes like ALLAH does not beget....

2) Muslim missionaries? I know they banned a few groups some yrs back...so far the only Muslim missionaries you freely find are at Masjids or Surau or at Islamic centers....

Well there are always court cases of silly Muslim extremists here is 1 example of a lie by them:

Muslim group questions motive of Christian missionaries in giving out Bahasa leaflets in Subang Jaya - The Malaysian Insider

State religious exco Datuk Abdul Malik Kassim, however, revealed that the allegations were found to be false after the department conducted its investigations.

He said the allegations were brought on by "extremists" who wanted to create tension among the various races in the country.

"Extremists, including racial and religious extremists have no place in any society. It has to be curbed before the seed grows and affects the whole nation," he had said. – February 24, 2014.

- See more at: Muslim group questions motive of Christian missionaries in giving out Bahasa leaflets in Subang Jaya - The Malaysian Insider

Actually I have not seen Muslim missionaries in Malaysia going door to door...mostly you would see them in a funfair, mosque, surau (smaller mosque) or islamic center...Whoever wants to look for them usually approaches such places...However, I do know some Malaysian Muslim missionaries do go to Europe but even there they dont go to the streets but are mostly in mosque, islamic centers or in summer fairs or in public parks!

Neither uses interchanged language...however many have said that Jesus Christ is the same as Prophet Isa and the name of Jesus was Esau...but that is probably wrong in some ways since Jesus is said son of god while Prophet Isa was a prophet!

Maybe there should be an international declaration that Christian god is not the same as Jewish and Islamic god...
 
Last edited:
1) There is no problem coz Tuhan (its like the word god) does not have any attributes like ALLAH does not beget....

2) Muslim missionaries? I know they banned a few groups some yrs back...so far the only Muslim missionaries you freely find are at Masjids or Surau or at Islamic centers....

Well there are always court cases of silly Muslim extremists here is 1 example of a lie by them:

Muslim group questions motive of Christian missionaries in giving out Bahasa leaflets in Subang Jaya - The Malaysian Insider

State religious exco Datuk Abdul Malik Kassim, however, revealed that the allegations were found to be false after the department conducted its investigations.

He said the allegations were brought on by "extremists" who wanted to create tension among the various races in the country.

"Extremists, including racial and religious extremists have no place in any society. It has to be curbed before the seed grows and affects the whole nation," he had said. – February 24, 2014.

- See more at: Muslim group questions motive of Christian missionaries in giving out Bahasa leaflets in Subang Jaya - The Malaysian Insider

So Muslim missionaries are allowed to use the word Allah when attempting to convert Christians, even though Muslims do not believe that the Christian deity and the Muslim deity share the same attributes?
 
So Muslim missionaries are allowed to use the word Allah when attempting to convert Christians, even though Muslims do not believe that the Christian deity and the Muslim deity share the same attributes?
Oops soorry I misread

Well....its not as simple as that...they are allowed to use the word ALLAH if they want to refer to god...A god in general because there is no objection there as Malaysian Christians have used it few times before...no objections there...

So when a Muslim missionary approaches they usually start with Tuhan not jump into ALLAH....thy literally talk that the GOD in Islam is ALLAH...and then his attributes...

The objections come when you publish a book/ pamphlet or whatever and say ALLAH is the same god but Jesus is son of ALLAH...when clearly ALLAH is one who begets not...

Causing confusion as well as lying is not exactly the right way to spread a religion...Maybe many countries have relaxed laws and allow lying to be equated to religious preaching but I agree such things should not be allowed!

Other lies are already mentioned on the thread! A little browsing will help ask @Developereo he mentioned in details how and what they lie about!
 
Oops soorry I misread

Well....its not as simple as that...they are allowed to use the word ALLAH if they want to refer to god...A god in general because there is no objection there as Malaysian Christians have used it few times before...no objections there...

So when a Muslim missionary approaches they usually start with Tuhan not jump into ALLAH....thy literally talk that the GOD in Islam is ALLAH...and then his attributes...

The objections come when you publish a book/ pamphlet or whatever and say ALLAH is the same god but Jesus is son of ALLAH...when clearly ALLAH is one who begets not...

Causing confusion as well as lying is not exactly the right way to spread a religion...Maybe many countries have relaxed laws and allow lying to be equated to religious preaching but I agree such things should not be allowed!

Other lies are already mentioned on the thread! A little browsing will help ask @Developereo he mentioned in details how and what they lie about!

I've read the entire thread, thanks. @Develepereo is too close to the issue to judge it objectively, so I would rather deal with a level-headed person like you, if you don't mind.

My issue is this:
1) The justification for the ban is that the use of the word "Allah" is deceptive, since the Christian deity and the Muslim deity are essentially different, and Muslims would be confused when Christians speak of Allah.
2) There is now a law that bars Christian missionaries from using the word "Allah" in their missionary work against Muslims.
3) There is no parallel law which bars Muslim missionaries from using the word "Tuhan" in their missionary work against Christians, even though Christians could misunderstand "Tuhan" as referring to the Christian deity, instead of the intended "Allah"
4) There is no law which bars Muslim missionaries from using the word "Allah" in their missionary work against Christians, even though Christians already believe Allah refers to the same deity that they believe in.

If all four points are correct, then this can only be interpreted as asymmetrical repression. Are all four points correct?
 
Last edited:
My issue is this:
1) The justification for the ban is that the use of the word "Allah" is deceptive, since the Christian deity and the Muslim deity are essentially different, and Muslims would be confused when Christians speak of Allah.
Not really...The ban is when you say Jesus is son of ALLAH...because there ALLAH does not beget...You can use god/ Tuhan/ Bhagwan whatever you feel those which dont have a direct opposite attribute/ essence/ definition/ whatever you want to name it!
Plus you should not go around saying ALLAH is the same in Christianity and Islam (fine till here until this line is added) but Jesus is son of ALLAH ...Like lady/ man/ missionary do you even know what you just said its like saying men cant give birth but this one is pregnant!

2) There is now a law that bars Christian missionaries from using the word "Allah" in their missionary work against Muslims.
Only if they use deceptive clauses!

3) There is no parallel law which bars Muslim missionaries from using the word "Tuhan" in their missionary work against Christians, even though Christians could misunderstand "Tuhan" as referring to the Christian deity, instead of the intended "Allah"
Tuhan has no attributes like the word god...even atheist says we dont believe in god ...


4) There is no law which bars Muslim missionaries from using the word "Allah" in their missionary work against Christians, even though Christians already believe Allah refers to the same deity that they believe in.
We cant judge the believe...But the Muslims believe ALLAH begets not while Christians believe Jesus the son of god...so basically it cant be the same god...and it is rare to see Muslims say ALLAH to Christians...Usually they say Tuhan...I am not sure is it out of being humble or attributing ALLAH only to Muslim god...
If all four points are correct, then this can only be interpreted as asymmetrical repression. Are all four points correct?
No they are not really...Because I told you the definition of ALLAH ...ALLAH is 1 and nothing like HIM, HE begets not nor is begotten...If Tuhan fits this fine...God of Christianity has begotten a son called Jesus if Tuhan fits in this ...fine!

You've not called other users idiots and bigots, or at least not that I've seen. The TTA vetting process continues to confuse me.
I have mimicked one about an hr ago :agree:
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom