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

[Finer]

If you do agree that the Christian God and the Islamic God are the same, then there should be no problem
using "Allah" for any Christian.
If you believe that they are not the same, then using "Allah" by Muslims living in (nominally) Christian
countries should be banned because the Christians refer to their God as "the Creator", and "Allah" is
just a translation into Arab of that word.
"The Creator" should be reserved for the Christian God, and not be allowed to be used in any language by Muslims.

Hope you see how ridiculous this is.

You are using Islamic religious theory to govern how Christians should behave.
Just agree, that Malaysia is repressive towards non-Muslims, then we are done.


I'll do better than that, I'll press the ignore button on your username...

Not That, It is A CREATOR insinuating there is ONLY ONE CREATOR. That is important to understand as ONENESS OF GOD means ALLAH; not plural which deter any association with ALLAH.

The definition of God in Christianity is different than the definition of God in Islam.

In Islam;

• THERE IS ONE GOD, ALLAH AND THERE IS NONE LIKE HIM.
• ALLAH CANNOT BE BEGOTTEN NOR ALLAH HAS BEGOTTEN ANYONE
• Prophet Isa (PBUH) is Messenger of God; revealed Final Messenger for the whole mankind. [Old Testament].
• In Aramaic language of Old Testament, ELLAH means the same as ALLAH - ONE GOD

In Christianty;

• GOD AND HIS SON meaning there is more than one; already assigning his son as partner of God totally defies the meaning of ALLAH.
• God begotten son which totally defies the meaning of ALLAH in the first place.
• Prophet Isa (PBUH) treated as son of God while totally violating the definition of ALLAH; even refusing to acknowledge the language of Old Testament revealed in Aramaic language which the followers used to involve using the word, "ELLAH" which means the same as ALLAH - ONE GOD AND NONE LIKE HIM [NO SON]

There is no prohibition in invoking the name of Allah in Arabic, better yet, Aramaic word will be better as well considering the language of Old Testament was originally revealed in Aramaic. ELLAH. But invoking the name of ALLAH/ELLAH with understanding of 'Christian definition of God' totally defies the definition of ALLAH; infact, this begets contradiction which may confuse the naive community for the proper understanding of ALLAH/ELLAH.

 

[Developereo]

Says the guy that is advocating discrimination against Christians like i said look up the definition of bigot since you are hopelessly confused to its meaning.







Oh boy, you dug yourself a hole. Many catholics do not even like to be called Christian, protestant Christians such as pentecostals, baptists, adventists, ect and catholics share fundamental different beliefs, the one thing that Catholics and generic Christians agree on is Jesus or Christ, in that sense a Catholic can call themselves Christian as in they believe in Christ but that is where the similarities end. I will refer to most Christian denominations excluding Catholics as just Christian.

For one Catholics worship and pray to Marry, Christians reject this because they feel it is not in scripture.

Catholics worship the pope and admire him and even pray to dead Popes, Christians find this to be blasphemy.
Catholics use statues in prayer, Christians see this as idolatry.
Catholics refer to to men as 'fathers' Christians see this as a violation of scripture.
Catholics pray to 'Saints' Christians pray only to the father.
Catholics believe in purgatory, Christians reject this and argue it is not in scripture.
Catholics attend mass.

There are dozens more major differences but the picture is clear, protestant denominations and catholics don't even pray to the same beings, don't confuse the two.









You mad? The first sign of weakness and an inability to debate someone is to start name calling. I think everyone can see who the idiot here is









That is a serious accusation, quote me saying this. You should be banned for making up accusations.

@Aeronaut i have endured his foul language but outright lies such as the above are outright cheap and completely inappropriate. My post are here for the world to see, i told him to quote me, he will not be able to, nor will he even be able to loosely imply that i ever said anything similar.









No i am dismissing him because, one he is not a missionary and two he gives no reference to his claims. Lastly he is Catholic and not a protestant Christian, the two should not be confused, and i am not choosing sides, simply pointing out that they can not be lumped together.








Or you can't even read your own sources. The article gave counter argument by people claiming that the camel method is not deceitful. The article is objective, different people have different views, you place your opinions as hard facts.








Selective reading. From your own source Davis Garrison which argued as to why the camel methods is not deceitful is a phD, theologian, author, and a missionary. How is he any less credible? Just because you disagree with him does not make him wrong, this is opinion based, all parties have their viewpoints and arguments.













Wrong, i challenged you to provide evidence for your accusations. You posted a link in which Caner stated his opinion in which he believes some missionary 'tactics' are deceitful, a phD educated missionary made strong and valid points as to why certain tactics are not deceitful.

Your blabbering only digs YOU deeper in the hole. YOUR words are crystal clear where you dismiss anyone who doesn't share your denial mode. The people quoted are academics who are knowledgeable about the history of Christian missionary work. Just because you, as a bigot, don't accept their authority is a reflection on YOU, not them.

YOU claimed that Catholics are not Christian and their word is worthless => YOU are a despicable bigot. The fact that you are digging a deeper hole for yourself, trying to justify your bigotry by explaining why Catholics are not Christian is icing on the cake.

YOU claimed that Christian missionaries do not engage in misconduct. When showed your cluelessness, you started sticking your head in the sand and insulting the people who showed otherwise.

YOU have reading comprehension problems. The New York Times article shows clearly that, contrary to your denials and hallucinations, Christian missionaries DO engage in deceitful conduct. The NYT articles presents both sides of the debate, and the people making chrages of deceit are basing their arguments on history, theology and actual admissions by missionaries. You can continue to stick your head in the sand and refuse to believe, but it won't change reality.

The fact is that Christian missionaries call themselves 'muslim' and use 'pray to Allah' as tactics to deceive their victims.

 

[ephone]

Still do not understand why it is an issue. Nobody else uses it anyway.

 

[Developereo]

You support a law which says that Christians cannot use Allah for their God.
You have said that ordinary Christians are collateral damage.
That is admitting that the law is repressive.
Conclusion: You fail at logic.

The purpose of the law is to stop missionaries to lure "gullible" persons into Christendom.
That is bigottery in its clearest form.

Your opinion that people must be protected against knowledge about other religions,
is degrading to possible converts, and is again an example of bigottery.

I support each religions right to spread their word without restrictions by government.
I do not consider it harmful to be exposed to the thinking of other people.
Therefore I do not see that anyone is harmed by what you call deceitful missionaries.
Some may be annoyed, but that is no reason to restrict religious freedoms of people
which are not even accused of anything.

Please explain what kind of harm even a "deceitful" missionary could create.

Your ignorance of English and logic in this thread matched your incompetence on the matter of the UN.

Just like the UN debate, you are a glutton for punishment. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again, as if you can wear down English and logic, by force of pure repetition.

First, the law is a reaction to the deceitful conduct of Christian missionaries. For a Christian missionary to say "I am a muslim, let's pray for Allah" is deceitful. If a PhD in history said, "I am a doctor, pay me money to heal you", he would be put in jail.

The fault for this law lies with the Christian missionaries.

Secondly, you are not fooling anybody with your fake concern for Malaysian Christians. You don't give a damn about them.. You are only using it to justify persecution of Muslims in Europe.

Don't think for one second that you are fooling anybody. Bigots like you are a dime a dozen and, luckily, none too bright.

hahahah yea carry on in your denial

These guys don't give a damn about Malaysian Christians.

This whole hyped up drama is to justify the oppression of Muslims in Europe. One of their less-subtle colleagues even admitted as such in an earlier post.

Did the Malaysian court restrict Christians from erecting steeples, as the bigoted Swiss have done?
Did the Malaysian court restrict the dress code of Christians, as the bigoted French have done?
Does the Malaysian media constantly demonize and stigmatize their Christian community, as the bigoted media in many Western countries does?

These bigots are just trying to stir up fake outrage so they can justify their own bigotry against European Muslims.

 

[Jayhawk]

So many retards on this thread. Who the hell are we to say who can and cannot call out the name "Allah". If the missionaries using the name Allah to other Muslims and converting them to Christianity, then those Muslims faith is weak. Its not up to us to say what the missionaries can and cannot say. If your faith is strong then nothing in this world can change your belief.

 

[Developereo]

1 sad reason is they are stuck in that time when some missionaries came to Malaysia and distributed pamphlets with ALLAH written on it

It is worse than that.

These deceitful missionaries explicitly say "I am a muslim" (lower case 'm' meaning servant of God). There is absolutely no doubt that their intention is to deceive people. That's why the Malaysian court had to act.

Malaysian Christians and Malaysian Muslims coexisted well enough all these years. It is these cashed up Western missionaries who caused all this trouble.

 

[ptldM3]

Your blabbering only digs YOU deeper in the hole. YOUR words are crystal clear where you dismiss anyone who doesn't share your denial mode. The people quoted are academics who are knowledgeable about the history of Christian missionary work. Just because you, as a bigot, don't accept their authority is a reflection on YOU, not them.

Once again you are demonstrating your inability to understand your own source not to mention you are ignoring the counter view in your own source. You quoted one academic that claimed that the camel method was deceitful yet in the very same source that you provided another academic, a phD at that, disagreed and gave counter arguments. You are taking a topic that is subjective, as in different parties have different views and claiming that your view point is right while everyone else is wrong.

YOU claimed that Catholics are not Christian and their word is worthless => YOU are a despicable bigot. The fact that you are digging a deeper hole for yourself, trying to justify your bigotry by explaining why Catholics are not Christian is icing on the cake.

Read what i wrote, let me quote myself because you obviously didn't bother reading my entire post:

"i am not choosing sides, simply pointing out that they can not be lumped together."

In your source you claimed that even missionaries as well as Christians admitted to their "dirty tricks". I pointed out the fact that Dr. Reynolds is not a missionary nor is he a Christian but rather a Catholic, Catholicism and Christianity are lumped together by the ignorant that don't know any better much like yourself. Protestants do not pray to the Virgin Marry, nor do they pray to saints, Catholics and Christians agree on almost nothing besides the trinity.

So no that does not make me a bigot, it just means that you once again don't know what a bigot is, you have poor reading comprehension, you falsely implied that Dr. Reynolds was a missionary/Christian, and you don't know the difference between Catholicism and Christianity.

YOU claimed that Dr. Reynolds word is worthless because he is a Muslim => YOU are a despicable bigot.

Again don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed he was Muslim, i claimed he was a Muslim theologist. In fact i even stated he was a Catholic, so now wipe the egg off your face and invest in some ESL classes.


I put an emphasis on Dr.Reynolds being a Muslim theologist because you claimed the people in your source which included Dr, Reynolds were missionaries and or Christians. Dr. Reynolds was neither a missionary nor was he a Christian but a Catholic.

YOU claimed that Christian missionaries do not engage in misconduct. When showed your cluelessness, you started sticking your head in the sand and insulting the people who showed otherwise.

Wrong again, i asked you to provide a source for your claim that Christians use or admit to using the word allah to lure in Muslims. In your source Urgun Caner describes the camel method as deceitful he then gives his reasoning as to why, he stated that the the seeds of Christianity can not be found in the koran, concluding that missionaries are deceitful when that point to Jesus in the bible. Nothing is said about Christians using allah by him.

Moving on, your entire argument was Christians "luring" Muslims into Christianity by using the phrase allah. The only time your source talked about Christians missionaries using the word allah in front of Muslims was by Dr. Reynolds and he never admitted to it being deceitful. In fact, he gave arguments as to why it is not deceitful.


So to some it up your link proved nothing, i also stated that some missionaries probably do use questionable tactics . The point is you gave no proof of missionaries admitting to luring in Muslims by using the word allah.

I don't think i can make it any more clear, but i expect you to ignore these important facts and blindly repeat your false arguments/accusations.

 

[Developereo]

I don't think i can make it any more clear, but i expect you to ignore these important facts and blindly repeat your false arguments/accusations.

Luckily, other readers don't suffer from the reading comprehension problems or logic deficiencies that you have.

First, you are a BIGOT because you claim that Catholics are not Christian. Your pathetic attempts to justify your bigotry only make you dig deeper in the hole. The fact that you still don't understand your bigotry and continue to justify it is all the more entertaining.

Secondly, your English skills need improving. Get yourself a dictionary and read the New York Times article again.

On the one hard, you have an unscrupulous missionary justifying his use of 'Allah'.

On the other hand, you have historians (who explain the history of missionary misconduct), theologians (who explain why the unscrupulous missionary's excuses don't add up), and missionary organizations who admit that they encourage their missionaries to use the word 'Allah'.

That is how debates work in the real world. Unlike your imaginary world, the real world relies on analyses by academics and experts in the field. People who know the history, background and tactics relevant to the subject.

YOU can continue to stick your head in the sand but the real world will ignore you.

P.S.

The only time your source talked about Christians missionaries using the word allah in front of Muslims was by Dr. Reynolds and he never admitted to it being deceitful. In fact, he gave arguments as to why it is not deceitful.

Perhaps you can demonstrate your reading skills and show us all where in the NYTimes article Dr. Reynolds specifically defends the use of the word 'Allah' by missionaries.

 

[ptldM3]

Luckily, other readers don't suffer from the reading comprehension problems or logic deficiencies that you have.

You would have difficulty understanding a children's book, you should be the last person talking about reading comprehension considering that you are confused to the point of miss-understanding your own sources.

First, you are a BIGOT because you claim that Catholics are not Christian.

Wow, once again you are making yourself out to be ignorant and that is an understatement. Catholicism and Christianity are two different things, that does not make me a bigot, that just make you a fool.

Secondly, your English skills need improving. Get yourself a dictionary and read the New York Times article again.

Instead of empty rants why not quote me and then quote the New York Times article to prove me wrong? I pointed out some damning facts in your own article that discredits your argument. Now Show the readers where in the article do any missionaries actually admit to using the word allah to lure in and mislead Muslims.

Go ahead pull that fantom quote up, you can't so now you resort making petty insults while tap dancing around parts of the article that disprove your claims.

On the one hard, you have an unscrupulous missionary justifying his use of 'Allah'.


On the other hand, you have historians (who explain the history of missionary misconduct), theologians (who explain why the unscrupulous missionary's excuses don't add up), and missionary organizations who admit that they encourage their missionaries to use the word 'Allah'.

Very good, you finally admitted you were wrong, missionaries did justify using the word allah and they never claimed they did it to deceive anyone as you have falsely claimed many times. Very good, now to address the second point; you claim that missionaries have a history of missionary misconduct, the only time that history is spoken of in the Yew York Times article was when Dr. reynolds said the following:


Gabriel Said Reynolds, who teaches Islamic theology at the University of Notre Dame, said that Christians in eighth-century Baghdad defended their faith by pointing to passages in the Koran. “But that was never with an eye toward converting Muslims,” Dr. Reynolds said. “Such a thing would have been unthinkable. It was only a way of gaining legitimacy in intellectual conversations.”


This is totally contrary to what you have claimed but just as important he speaks about regular Christians and not missionaries, and Reynolds states that Christians mentioning the Koran never had the intent to convert Muslims . So who is dishonest? Now in your last claim you say that missionaries are encouraged to use allah when speaking to Muslims. Again i am impressed, this is one of the few times you correctly quoted your article. This also coincides with what i have said about Dr. Garrison, Garrison never denied using the word allah, in fact he made a strong argument as to why it is appropriate to use.

That is how debates work in the real world. Unlike your imaginary world, the real world relies on analyses by academics and experts in the field. People who know the history, background and tactics relevant to the subject.

YOU can continue to stick your head in the sand but the real world will ignore you.

Are real debate starts with actually understanding what you are debating, understanding your sources and understanding what your opponent is saying. You have not demonstrated a proficient understanding in any of the three components of a debate.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

First, the law is a reaction to the deceitful conduct of Christian missionaries. For a Christian missionary to say "I am a muslim, let's pray for Allah" is deceitful. If a PhD in history said, "I am a doctor, pay me money to heal you", he would be put in jail.

The fault for this law lies with the Christian missionaries.

This whole hyped up drama is to justify the oppression of Muslims in Europe. One of their less-subtle colleagues even admitted as such in an earlier post.

Did the Malaysian court restrict Christians from erecting steeples, as the bigoted Swiss have done?
Did the Malaysian court restrict the dress code of Christians, as the bigoted French have done?
Does the Malaysian media constantly demonize and stigmatize their Christian community, as the bigoted media in many Western countries does?

These bigots are just trying to stir up fake outrage so they can justify their own bigotry against European Muslims.

"For instance, it took more than twenty years for the local council in Shah Alam to allow a church to be built there, with an additional condition that the church must look like a factory and not a more conventional church appearance. "

How many Churches are there in Saudi-Arabia?
Do Iran restrict the Dress Code of Women?
Are Christians beeing persecuted in Iraq and Syria?
Is the use of the word Allah being restricted in Europe?

Talk about throwing stones in a glass warehouse.

And here is a link to Chandra Muzaffar, one of the most prominent scholars in Malaysia,
naming you and your likes a bigot.

Portland State College of Liberal Arts & Sciences: Sociology of Islam & Muslim Societies | Chandra Muzaffar on the Controversy About the Word "Allah"in Malaysia

Amnesty International condemning the attack on Free Speech

Malaysia asked to lift ban on use of 'Allah' by non-Muslims, Latest News - Mathrubhumi English News Online

 

[Developereo]

"For instance, it took more than twenty years for the local council in Shah Alam to allow a church to be built there, with an additional condition that the church must look like a factory and not a more conventional church appearance. "

How many Churches are there in Saudi-Arabia?
Do Iran restrict the Dress Code of Women?
Are Christians beeing persecuted in Iraq and Syria?
Is the use of the word Allah being restricted in Europe?

Talk about throwing stones in a glass warehouse.

And here is a link to Chandra Muzaffar, one of the most prominent scholars in Malaysia,
naming you and your likes a bigot.

Portland State College of Liberal Arts & Sciences: Sociology of Islam & Muslim Societies | Chandra Muzaffar on the Controversy About the Word "Allah"in Malaysia

Amnesty International condemning the attack on Free Speech

Malaysia asked to lift ban on use of 'Allah' by non-Muslims, Latest News - Mathrubhumi English News Online

Once again, YOU demonstrate your desperation by bringing in Iran, Iraq and Syria to make your point.

The fact that Malaysian Muslims are even debating this issue shows they are more tolerant than bigots like YOU who continue to defend the oppression of Muslims in Europe.

Once again, no one denies that this is a restriction on speech. The fact that a history PhD cannot open a medical clinic as a "doctor" is also a restriction on their speech. But such restrictions are imposed when unscrupulous individuals or groups abuse the freedom of speech to commit fraud.

The fault, ultimately, likes with the Western missionaries.

 

[Dubious]

So many retards on this thread. Who the hell are we to say who can and cannot call out the name "Allah". If the missionaries using the name Allah to other Muslims and converting them to Christianity, then those Muslims faith is weak. Its not up to us to say what the missionaries can and cannot say. If your faith is strong then nothing in this world can change your belief.

Still do not understand why it is an issue. Nobody else uses it anyway.

It is called deceitful and lying...

What is being done in Malaysia is not being shown in media...People come up to you and 1st talk to you how God of Islam and Christianity is the same so can I call him ALLAH we go yes...then they take it up a step further (a little too quickly if you ask me) by bringing in Jesus then saying Jesus is son of ALLAH...which mind you goes directly against Quran and Quran warns of it...

Its called disgusting lies! Why? Coz you have the Bible 100% in Malay but when it comes to GOD they change it to ALLAH ...just 1 word from the whole Malay bible...Its not like the Malay language does not have a word for God...it very well does and it is Tuhan! Why a whole bible in Malay gets choked on Tuhan and jumps to ALLAH....this is the only question which no one has been able to answer but have been beating in circles!

Malay Bibles using Tuhan are easily found in Malaysia!

Its like you are saying ALLAH who has 99 atributes and is clearly written in the Quran does not beget!

And then you are equating HIM to god in bible with a father- son relationship and trying to shove it as ALLAH

 

[Developereo]

You would have difficulty understanding a children's book, you should be the last person talking about reading comprehension considering that you are confused to the point of miss-understanding your own sources.

Once again, you demonstrate your difficulty with English and Logic. Since your comprehension difficulties are clouded by your bigotry (you again claimed that Catholics are not Christian), I can walk the readers through what the New York Times article talks about.

The whole article is about the tactics used by Christian missionaries, specifically in the context of the ongoing controversy about the use of 'Allah'. The 'Allah' issue is the backdrop to the whole debate. It is stated clearly in the first paragraph in plain English.

The debate is as follows:

The unscrupulous missionaries claim their use of 'Allah' is justified and present their case. There is no dispute that they use 'Allah'; the only dispute is whether it is justified.

The experts on the other side point out that

a) missionary organizations encourage their operatives to use 'Allah'

b) the missionaries' use of 'Allah' is semantically and theologically incorrect, since the Muslim concept of 'Allah' is fundamentally different from the Christian concept.

The question then becomes whether the missionaries are just misguided or deliberately malicious. That's where the experts point out that the missionaries have a history of misconduct and deception. Such misconduct includes calling themselves as 'muslim' to deceive people.

The NY Times article, in the interest of fairness, lets both sides tell their point of view. It does NOT change the fact that missionaries engage in misconduct, including calling themselves 'muslim' and using 'Allah' in a way that is theologically inaccurate.

And I notice you still haven't answered my question about your idiotic allegation that Dr. Reynolds defended the use of 'Allah'. Go ahead and demonstrate your intellectual (in)competence by showing us where Dr. Reynolds does that.

 

[Dubious]

Oh boy, you dug yourself a hole. Many catholics do not even like to be called Christian, ...

I found this rather amusing!

 

[The SC]

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.

So now, let us assume that some catholics start distributing some of their pamphlets concerning sexuality, praying to the saints and the the Pope in some majority protestant neighborhoods, what do you think the reaction will be?