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

[The SC]

Europe is mostly secular, missionaries operate on their own free will, they do not fulfill some hidden agenda that is passed onto them by parliaments. Moreover, Missionaries have no special abilities to grant visa's as you have falsely implied. Embassies are contacted if a missionary might find themselves in legal trouble.







And how does this at all correlate to missionaries and these fantom visa's? Are you implying that European parliaments are sending missionaries abroad on their orders? I will ask you to provide a link but i don't expect anything to materialize.







No one will issue a visa to someone just because they are a certain religion or because they convert to another religion, there has to be grounds for this such as religious prosecution, no one gets any favors or special treatment based on their religion. It's silly that you would even say such a thing.






Please stop, read what you just wrote and then think about it from a point based on reality and laws. At best this is a conspiracy theory, and a bad one at that.

I did before I posted it, and you, did you do any search before giving unwarranted advice?

 

[ptldM3]

I did befor I posted it, and you, did you do any search before giving unwarranted advice?

You did what? You have not provided any sources for your claims.

 

[The SC]

Yes, and the top posts when you are googling, is all about missionaries getting visas for visiting other countries
to do missionary work. Not for missionaries issuing visas for possible converts.
The Dutch apparently got evicted for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity (something they denied).
Moroccan Law apparently forbids conversion.
So it is really a good example of repression of non-Muslims (and Muslims which does not get a chance to make up their own opinion, whether convert or stay)

You should do more search on it, inticing young unemployed north african youth to convert by offering them visas for Europe, where thousands were trying to cross too for work and most o them paying with their lives in the process. These are facts no one can deny. Today with better conditions in North Africa, the problem became an African one (African migrants), with North africa as the main point of crossing. Those missionaries tried to take advantage of the situation and they have failed.
You said:

The Dutch apparently got evicted for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity (something they denied).

So what this has to do with Dutch parliement, where it was raised and the Morrocan Ambssador was called to justify that. You still can not see the politics behind it !?
In Most muslim countries you have freedom of religion, but not freedom of covert action, be it behind religious veils or other things.
No one needs visas to visit North African countries or malysia, so think about it.

You did what? You have not provided any sources for your claims.

You said:

Please stop, read what you just wrote and then think about it from a point based on reality and laws. At best this is a conspiracy theory, and a bad one at that.

I said:
I did before I posted it, and you, did you do any search before giving unwarranted advice?

Now:
You keep trolling...

 

[ephone]

What is wrong???

Nobody else use it anyway.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: Malaysia's top court on Monday upheld a government ban forbidding non-Muslims from using "Allah" to refer to God, rejecting an appeal by the Roman Catholic Church that argued that the ban failed to consider the rights of minorities in the mostly Muslim nation.

In a 4-3 decision, the federal court ruled that the church's newspaper has no grounds to appeal a lower court decision last year that kept it from using "Allah" in its Malay-language weekly publication.

Although the Malaysian constitution guarantees freedom of religion, the ruling is expected to reinforce frequent complaints from Christians, Buddhist and Hindu minorities that non-Muslims do not always get fair treatment from the government and courts — accusations the government denies.

"We are disappointed. The four judges who denied us the right to appeal did not touch on fundamental basic rights of minorities?," said Rev. Lawrence Andrew, editor of The Herald, the newspaper at the center of the controversy.

"It will confine the freedom of worship," he added. "We are a minority in this country, and when our rights are curtailed, people feel it."

Allah is the Arabic word for God and commonly used in the Malay language to refer to God.

The government says Allah should be reserved exclusively for Muslims — who make up nearly two-thirds of the country's 29 million people — because if other religions use it that could confuse Muslims and lead them to convert.

Christian representatives deny this, arguing that the ban is unreasonable because Christians who speak the Malay language have long used the word in their Bibles, prayers and songs before authorities sought to enforce the curb in recent years. The eastern states of Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo Island have a significant number of Christians, who make up about 9% of the population.

Over the years, the controversy has provoked some violence.

Anger over a lower court ruling against the government ban in 2009 led to a string of arson attacks and vandalism at churches and other places of worship. A 2013 judgment by the Court of Appeals reversed that decision, which the Catholic church appealed to the federal court.

'Allah' for Muslims only: Malaysia's top court - The Times of India

 

[ptldM3]

You said:


I said:
I did before I posted it, and you, did you do any search before giving unwarranted advice?

Now:
You keep trolling...

Yes, but what you said about visa's was not true.

 

[The SC]

Yes, but what you said about visa's was not true.

It is very true, I won't do the search for you, Iicame asross the information long time ago, the visa inticement happened in North Africa, I am not talking about Malaysia now, the latter just shows the extent of the missionary secret service throughout the Muslim world.

 

[ptldM3]

It is very true, I won't do the search for you, Iicame asross the information long time ago, the visa inticement happened in North Africa, I am not talking about Malaysia now, the latter just shows the extent of the missionary secret service throughout the Muslim world.

That is not how honest debating works, you can't make a claim and then when asked to prove that claim casually tell the other party to do their own research, or that you came across the information a long time ago, or that it's all over the internet.

I have done a quick search and nothing came up, if you claim this information is so easily found why not strengthen your case and post a link? I may sound passive aggressive but in reality i like a good debate and like with any good debate i would like links to support the claims of missionaries handing out visa's.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You should do more search on it, inticing young unemployed north african youth to convert by offering them visas for Europe, where thousands were trying to cross too for work and most o them paying with their lives in the process. These are facts no one can deny. Today with better conditions in North Africa, the problem became an African one (African migrants), with North africa as the main point of crossing. Those missionaries tried to take advantage of the situation and they have failed.
You said:

So what this has to do with Dutch parliement, where it was raised and the Morrocan Ambssador was called to justify that. You still can not see the politics behind it !?
In Most muslim countries you have freedom of religion, but not freedom of covert action, be it behind religious veils or other things.

Freedom of Religion involves the right to convert and the right to teach others about your religion.
Any country which, like Morroco, makes this illegal does not have Freedom of Religion.
A missionary living in a country with Freedom of Religion does not have to act covertly.

It is the job of any parlament/government to protect their citizens. Especially if they
are subjects to false accusations by dictators and the likes.
In this case where the laws are repressive and unjust, it is doubly needed.
The way a parlament works, any member can raise a question and have it discussed
so arguing that anything beeing discussed shows a policy shows lack of understanding
of parlamentary methods.

I wont do searches for you, provide a link, or I will just treat your comments as the lies, I believe they are. To be valid, you need to show more than a single instance. If anything happened
like this, it is likely to involve bribery of embassy officials, and not officially approved activities.

The persons that are "paying with their lives" are visa-less refugees.
You are using poor souls to bolster a false argument, which I find detestable.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

1 sad reason is they are stuck in that time when some missionaries came to Malaysia and distributed pamphlets with ALLAH written on it which Muslims kept in their homes without reading properly (or even understanding) the pamphlet referred to Jesus as SON OF ALLAH...this was the 1st and only strike which agitated the Muslims and I believe @Developereo was referring to this...

So those who do not even know the basics have no reason to show their concern coz if you were concern you would have done a little bit of background reading instead of jumping into a thread about a country that you might not visit in your lifetime regarding a situation you have no idea of its history (wonder how many tried to tell me history of Hinduism in S.E.Asia but refuse to read this simple 1 para history)!

Islam, Christianity and the Jews have a single God, and it is the same God.
Claiming Jesus is the son of the Allah, makes sense in a society where this God is known as Allah.
I see nothing deceitful in this, and I hope that accusations are based on more than these trivialities.

 

[Dubious]

Islam, Christianity and the Jews have a single God, and it is the same God.
Claiming Jesus is the son of the Allah, makes sense in a society where this God is known as Allah.
I see nothing deceitful in this, and I hope that accusations are based on more than these trivialities.

No one is asking for your opinion...Mind you, if you say Jesus is son of God it is fine for Malaysians (esp some who dont really know that ALLAH is also used by Christians) but the min you say he is the son of ALLAH ...it goes against the Quranic verse...People were asking the reason so I was talking about how it lead to this!

 

[Dubious]

Freedom of Religion involves the right to convert and the right to teach others about your religion.
Any country which, like Morroco, makes this illegal does not have Freedom of Religion.
A missionary living in a country with Freedom of Religion does not have to act covertly.

It is the job of any parlament/government to protect their citizens. Especially if they
are subjects to false accusations by dictators and the likes.
In this case where the laws are repressive and unjust, it is doubly needed.
The way a parlament works, any member can raise a question and have it discussed
so arguing that anything beeing discussed shows a policy shows lack of understanding
of parlamentary methods.

I wont do searches for you, provide a link, or I will just treat your comments as the lies, I believe they are. To be valid, you need to show more than a single instance. If anything happened
like this, it is likely to involve bribery of embassy officials, and not officially approved activities.

The persons that are "paying with their lives" are visa-less refugees.
You are using poor souls to bolster a false argument, which I find detestable.

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 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!
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

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

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

No one is asking for your opinion...Mind you, if you say Jesus is son of God it is fine for Malaysians (esp some who dont really know that ALLAH is also used by Christians) but the min you say he is the son of ALLAH ...it goes against the Quranic verse...People were asking the reason so I was talking about how it lead to this!

Noone is asking for any particular opinion in a Forum.

In a country, claiming to have Freedom of Religion, you are not limited by the faith of any particular religion.

Allah and "God" is the same, and Christians believe that Jesus is the son of "God", so logically
they also believe that Jesus is the son of Allah.
To not allow them to say so, is limiting their religious freedom, and this is the core
of the religion, and no deceit.

 

[Dubious]

Noone is asking for any particular opinion in a Forum.

In a country, claiming to have Freedom of Religion, you are not limited by the faith of any particular religion.

Well...it is not limited but it is leaning towards Islam due to majority

Allah and "God" is the same, and Christians believe that Jesus is the son of "God", so logically
they also believe that Jesus is the son of Allah.

Language wise yes ALLAH and God is the same but not believe wise. What do I mean? Not 1 Jew calls his god as Jesus (those claiming Christianity was in Hebrew... Or even coz Jesus was himself a Jew) so basically religion wise Jesus is questionable name!

To not allow them to say so, is limiting their religious freedom, and this is the core
of the religion, and no deceit.

Well, in Malaysia everyone associates ALLAH with Muslim god and not 1 church does what these Christian missionaries are hitting (many of them not even with Arab routes but just picking this issue up to bully their way through!)

It is deceitful when you are not even Arab and are pushing this agenda that in Arab Christians do it so must Malaysian Christians?!

Why must Malaysian Christians do what Arab Christians do? That is the question no one raised! Christianity is not an Arab religion...so why arent they adhering to their main sources of Latin/ Greek and should be Hebrew?

@A.P. Richelieu
I noticed you ignored dealing with what is close to home (EU) rather are jumping to a country (Malaysia) that is neither in EU nor follows their definition of what to do and what not to...While EU constitution itself is skewed towards Catholism and claiming to be secular!

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 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!
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

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

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

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 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!

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

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

The Vatican is a sovereign state, and it is the Vatican that has representatives,
so a lot of your comments is redundant.

What is important is if laws are designed to repress religions or not.
If a new state if formed in Europe based on a religion, and it is recognized
by the rest, there will be ambassadors there as well.

As for not hiring non-Christians, you normally have a clause that allows employers,
to fire disloyal employees. Since the church is "selling" faith, not sharing that faith
is questioning the main product, and thus disloyal, and cause for dismissal.

The view on sexuality differs between Catholic and Protestant countries.
I do not see any of the problems you mention here and the Pope
has no authority whatsoever over Protestant countries.
His authority over Catholic countries is immense, and based on people
supporting him out of free will.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Allah, Rab ul Aalameen not Rab ul Muslimeen. Remember that.