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

[Developereo]

But has there been wide spread abuse of missionaries "luring" Muslims with questionable tactics? There is no information or statistics available, even your source stated that Christian missionaries use questionable tactics in "extreme" cases.

I will address this separately.

Also do Muslims not use the word Jesus when speaking to Christians even though Jesus is not Arabic? The Arabic word for Jesus is Isa, many Christians know this, many more Christians know that Jesus is referred to as Yeshua by many including Arab Christians, so why use Jesus?

You use the word in the language of discourse. If the conversation is being conducted in English, you use the Anglicized word 'Jesus'. In Arabic or Urdu, Muslims would use the word 'Isa'.

Compare now to the Malaysian situation: the Malay word for God is Tuhan, not Allah. So why would someone talking in Malay suddenly use an Arabic word for God? Why would you have an entire Bible in Malay but use the Arab word Allah for God?

 

[IamBengali]

i just cant believe that ..... LOLZ

dont we believe in the same god ? what the difference between using "allah" or "lord" or "God" ?

jesus

Allah is not the name of God. Its the Arabic word for God. It simply means 'The God'.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I don't know how much experience you have with deceitful missionaries. They are one thousand times more cunning and devious than you imagine. The proselytizing is not as straightforward as you believe. It is slow, insidious, and indirect, taking months, not days.

Instead of blabbering, show us where there is a national law in Malaysia restricting Christians from erecting steeples. Show us where Christian women are restricted from wearing religious clothing.

The rest of your post justifying repression of Muslims in Europe best serves to expose your bigoted agenda.

Like a clueless schmuck, you keep spouting stock phrases like 'freedom of speech' without having the faintest clue what it means.

The restriction on the word 'doctor' is a restriction on free speech in order to protect the public from fraudsters. Similarly, due to the fraudulent activities of Western missionaries, the restriction on the word 'Allah' had to be imposed.

It has already been shown that you cannot build a traditional church, but you are to busy blabbering
instead of reading.
As for religious clothing, there is no need, since there is noone forcing Christians to wear any specific
clothes. Priest and Nuns wear their clothes as a sign of their position, and are free to leave
and then wear other clothes, if they so desire. Priest only wear offical clothing when preforming religious acts
nowadays.

What you call repression of Muslims, I call resisting repression by Muslims.
Bigoted Muslims like yourself, are repressing other Muslims by forcing them to wear veils.
Bigoted Muslims like yourself, want to limit religious freedom, by killing people who see the light.
Bigoted Muslims like yourself, cannot stand not trying to dominate other people with their religion.
Luckily there are other Muslims.

Millions of Muslims move to the West to be repressed, that is really surprising.
You live in Australia. If you feel alienated, then I suggest you move to Western Iraq and join ISIS.
You would fit perfectly.

As others point out, you are clueless about free speech, bringing up your doctor example a million times,
which has nothing to do with free speech, it is related to proven capability.

The one making you an analyst, must be either crying or rolling on the floor laughing. You are a joke.

it is exactly buyer beware, that is why governments (at least here in North America) have or finance consumer protection agencies.
Some schemes are just too overwhelming for the weak and less educated, and this is in the most advanced societies, the less advanced or the third world countries offer a much bigger pool of these education-weak people, hence a good opportunity for praying cons.

Is there anyone in Malaysia which is protecting the weak and less educated against Islam?
(Except missionaries of course)

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I will address this separately.



You use the word in the language of discourse. If the conversation is being conducted in English, you use the Anglicized word 'Jesus'. In Arabic or Urdu, Muslims would use the word 'Isa'.

Compare now to the Malaysian situation: the Malay word for God is Tuhan, not Allah. So why would someone talking in Malay suddenly use an Arabic word for God? Why would you have an entire Bible in Malay but use the Arab word Allah for God?

Asked and answered, Christians believe that Tuhan and Allah are the same, and using the word Allah
explains this belief. As pointed out, Muslims believe they are not the same, but Christians should act according to
their own beliefs, and not according to Islam.
Now, You don't have to ask this question EVER again.

 

[IamBengali]

I have heard Arab Christians use the the salutation "Asalaam O Alaikum" quite often

Jews in Israel and all over the world use 'Shalom O Alaikum' or 'Shalom'.

 

[Developereo]

difference between Catholicism and Christianity

The New York Times did not feel it necessary to distinguish between Protestants and Catholics when presenting the Christian scholars, and neither do I. They present the views of different scholars on the matter of Christian missionaries in Malaysia, and you may decide to ignore some, for whatever reason, but it doesn't mean others will do so.

Congratulations! You have just said what i have been saying in every post.

Uh no.

You kept denying that missionaries were doing anything wrong. When I pointed out misconduct by missionaries, you kept saying, what does this have to do with Allah?

I reminded you that the whole discussion (and the NYTimes article) is about the abuse of that word by Christian missionaries in Malaysia.

In that case then Muslims should not be allowed to use the word 'Jesus' when speaking to Christians since the Muslim concept of Jesus is fundamentally different from the Christian concept.

See what i did there? Your concept is bigotry in its purest form, you are not only advocating suppression of free speech by trying to mask it as differences in concept but you are also advocating the discrimination of Christians which is brushed off as collateral damage.

As I explained elsewhere, talking about Jesus the individual is legitimate for anyone.

The comparable example to abuse of the word Allah by Christian missionaries would be if Muslim missionaries started talking about the Holy Spirit or Trinity, since these concepts are not present in Islam and any use of them by Muslim missionaries would be deceitful.

One person has said this and not expert(s).

The NYTimes article quotes three individuals: one defending the missionaries and two opposing their tactics.

The point is that even Dr. Reynolds states that it happens in "extreme" cases. It is also rare for Muslims to use violence in the name of Islam against other, so just because 1% of Muslims do use violence against other people how fair would it be to impose discriminatory practices against all Muslims? Not very.

What matters is not how many people do something wrong, but how widespread is the impact. If a handful of rich Western missionary organizations distribute millions of Bibles or pamphlets to deceive people, then that becomes an issue.

The important thing about Dr. Reynold's report is that missionaries do engage in misconduct which is quite clearly intended to deceive their victims. Remember, all this is being discussed in the context of the 'Allah' controversy.

i inadvertently wrote Dr. Reynolds when i meant to say Dr. Garrison

Readers can go back and see that you used his name to claim that even critics of missionaries accept the use of 'Allah'. That is simply not so. The only person in that article defending the usage is the missionary advocate.

Asked and answered, Christians believe that Tuhan and Allah are the same, and using the word Allah
explains this belief. As pointed out, Muslims believe they are not the same, but Christians should act according to
their own beliefs, and not according to Islam.
Now, You don't have to ask this question EVER again.

In an ideal world, everybody should be able to use whatever words.

However, cashed up Western missionaries have abused this word to the point where innocent Malaysian Christians have become collateral damage.

The blame for this mess lies squarely with the fraudulent Western missionary organizations and, until you have the intellectual honesty to study the background of this controversy and admit their wrongdoing, you won't come to grips with this situation.

 

[Finer]

This thread about why Allah, the word, cannot used by the followers of Polytheism endoring anti-Monotheism environment which totally defies the definition of the word, Allah, in Arabic.

Suddenly, this thread is sidetracked into generalizing every Muslim as bigoted Muslim in result of retaliation for not able to understand the whole point of this thread or nor wanting to understand noting the influence of certain religion's missionaries indulging in certain manner that bring this thread in the first place, even by unwarranted reason , Allahu Alim [Allah knows best].

That being said, honesty is best method to spread the religion; not by exercising deception ways and then justifying for the mistreatment meted out on minority people in overseas, that being said we should stand united against certain factors that involves dirty tactic of undermining other religions while endoring anti-peace method that can threaten the united multicultural community in overseas.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Someone who says that Catholics are not Christians is a bigot.

YOU may find it acceptable and, if so, that says more about you.

It's cases like this that it's important to approach the situation calmly. It's especially important for you as a Think Tank staff member and a representative of defence.pk, but lately I feel that no one on this site cares about a reputation for professionalism but me.

To address your specific point, you assume a universal conclusion incorrectly. Here, in the United States, I have been corrected by Catholics when I have called them Christian, and I have been corrected by Christians when I have referred to Catholics as Christian. I am neither, so I do not know what explains this schism, and it doesn't make sense to me. But if that's the way they want it, I will respect it, much in the same way that I had to learn that the word Oriental is considered offensive by Asians for some inexplicable reason, so I must refer to that grouping as Asian. It is not for to me to call one group or another bigoted if they tell me that is the preferred descriptor.

You would do yourself a service by calming down. If your adversary doesn't listen to reason, then ratcheting up the emotion level will not convince them--just ignore them instead of lashing out. If your adversary is willing to listen to reason, then ratcheting up the emotion merely undermines your case and makes the logic look weak.

The question isn't what percent of a group, but how widespread is the impact.

If a handful of rich Western organizations distribute millions of Bibles throughout the country, or open up deceitful conversion centers around the country, then it will have a big enough impact to be taken seriously.

What proof was delivered in the court case that the use of the word Allah was used as deceit to trick gullible Muslims?

 

[Jibe]

well.. **** the usage of 'allah'. People can come up with different term for God.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

In an ideal world, everybody should be able to use whatever words.

However, cashed up Western missionaries have abused this word to the point where innocent Malaysian Christians have become collateral damage.

The blame for this mess lies squarely with the fraudulent Western missionary organizations and, until you have the intellectual honesty to study the background of this controversy and admit their wrongdoing, you won't come to grips with this situation.

Basically you want to "copyright" a word which is already in use.
As other people have mentioned, "Allah" was in use before Islam existed.
Thus, Islam has no exclusive right to the word, and You would be thrown out of an unbiased court,
if you wanted to claim that right.

Since the word should not have any exclusivity attached, everyone can use it as they see fit,
in any language they choose.

You have explained the background in detail, and that still does not cut it.

While You may not like that people denounce your faith, that is none of your business.
You have the right to argue with them, and make them realize their "mistake", but not more.

To change faith involves a lot more than saying "I am worshipping Allah as well".
It involves long discussion and weighing alternatives.

 

[gambit]

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.

How do you KNOW your Islam is the 'true' religion ? You do not. No more than the Pope himself KNOW his religion is the 'true' religion. In essence, unless the universal creator revealed Himself, all of us have nothing but faith that my religion is the true religion, same as yours, same as the gent down the street.

From that perspective, any attempt to convert someone of one religion into another can be interpreted as acts of deception. You point out, if not flaws, then inadequacies of my religion compare to yours. And since neither of us have any definitive physical proof of the 'true-ness' of our respective religions, anything you say about the superiority of yours over mine are speculative at best and insulting at worst. Same goes for me about yours.

That mean we can regulate the Muslims in our lands any way we see fit. We can force the Muslims to be honest according to the rules and regulations of their religion. For example...If a Muslim drink alcohol, we can imprison him for fraud. If a Catholic drink, no big deal.

 

[Black Mamba1]

So now Lata Mangeshkar's great song "Allah tero Nam---" will be banned in Malaysia and she will be arrested on entering that country? Just curious.

<

>

 

[gambit]

Someone who says that Catholics are not Christians is a bigot.

Who said a Catholic is not a Christian ? A Catholic is a Christian. But if you call a Catholic a Christian, he is perfectly within his denominational perspective to correct you.

 

[Developereo]

Who said a Catholic is not a Christian ? A Catholic is a Christian. But if you call a Catholic a Christian, he is perfectly within his denominational perspective to correct you.

I did not accuse Catholics of not being Christian. Another poster dismissed the comments of an expert quoted in a New York Times article because, according to him, that expert was a Catholic and not qualified to comment on Christians.

How do you KNOW your Islam is the 'true' religion ? You do not. No more than the Pope himself KNOW his religion is the 'true' religion. In essence, unless the universal creator revealed Himself, all of us have nothing but faith that my religion is the true religion, same as yours, same as the gent down the street.

From that perspective, any attempt to convert someone of one religion into another can be interpreted as acts of deception. You point out, if not flaws, then inadequacies of my religion compare to yours. And since neither of us have any definitive physical proof of the 'true-ness' of our respective religions, anything you say about the superiority of yours over mine are speculative at best and insulting at worst. Same goes for me about yours.

That mean we can regulate the Muslims in our lands any way we see fit. We can force the Muslims to be honest according to the rules and regulations of their religion. For example...If a Muslim drink alcohol, we can imprison him for fraud. If a Catholic drink, no big deal.

The issue is this: I have stated this in plain English before but you guys fail to read plain English.

It's one thing for a missionary to say, "please come in and hear about Christianity".
It's deceptive from them to say, "I am an muslim, let's pray for Allah".

I am not debating the right to proselytize; I am specifically talking about the deceptive tactics used by missionaries to deceive people into thinking they are talking about one religion when, in fact, they are talking about another.

Basically you want to "copyright" a word which is already in use.
As other people have mentioned, "Allah" was in use before Islam existed.
Thus, Islam has no exclusive right to the word, and You would be thrown out of an unbiased court,
if you wanted to claim that right.

Since the word should not have any exclusivity attached, everyone can use it as they see fit,
in any language they choose.

You have explained the background in detail, and that still does not cut it.

While You may not like that people denounce your faith, that is none of your business.
You have the right to argue with them, and make them realize their "mistake", but not more.

To change faith involves a lot more than saying "I am worshipping Allah as well".
It involves long discussion and weighing alternatives.

Nobody's talking about denouncing any faith

Please avail yourself of an English dictionary before using words you clearly have no clue about. Just spouting words without context doesn't make your case.

The debate here is about deceiving people into thinking they are talking about another religion.

And spare me your parroting about 'free speech'. It's clear your understanding of that concept matches your cluelessness about the UN security council.

Once again, free speech stops when you use it to commit fraud and deceive people.

 

[Developereo]

To address your specific point, you assume a universal conclusion incorrectly. Here, in the United States, I have been corrected by Catholics when I have called them Christian, and I have been corrected by Christians when I have referred to Catholics as Christian. I am neither, so I do not know what explains this schism, and it doesn't make sense to me. But if that's the way they want it, I will respect it, much in the same way that I had to learn that the word Oriental is considered offensive by Asians for some inexplicable reason, so I must refer to that grouping as Asian. It is not for to me to call one group or another bigoted if they tell me that is the preferred descriptor.

Again, you miss the point entirely.

It's OK for a Catholic to say he is not Christian, but it is bigoted for a non-Catholic to make that claim about Catholics.

In the same way that African-Americans sometimes use the n-word amongst themselves, but it is not OK for others to use it.

What proof was delivered in the court case that the use of the word Allah was used as deceit to trick gullible Muslims?

I am not here to second guess the Malaysian court. You may decide to do so because you don't trust the legal system of third worlders in Malaysia.

You can search the net for this history of this conflict, which centers around abuse of that word, specifically in recent years, by cashed up Western missionaries. The New York Times article gives some context to the dirty tricks used by missionaries in Muslim countries. Some of them go as far as to call themselves 'muslim' to deceive people.

The Malay word for God is Tuhan. These missionaries publish the Bible in Malay language but change one word: Allah instead of Tuhan.