Khalimah ALLAH dalam isu pemakaian dalam Bible.

Those who are trained in the field of religion and the social sciences will know that religion, when putin a  social context, will have to take into account historical, social, cultural, linguistic, and educational factors  before interpreting a religious phenomenon. While many have put forth the argument that since the word 'Allah' is not only peculiar to Islam but has been used in the Arabic-speaking world even before the advent of Islam, it follows that the use of the word 'Allah' is not exclusive for Islam alone and that it could be used freely since non-Muslim middle-easterners alo use the word 'Allah' in their respective religion. While this is true in the case of the Arabic-speaking world where the word 'Allah' shares a common cultural and linguistic usage and understanding, the same cannot be said as the use of understanding of the word 'Allah' move out of its native background.

Even in our time where English has become a global lingua franca and Islam is studied, read, and written widely in English, non-Arab English-speaking people, and more specifically non-Arab English-speaking Christians and Jews such as those in America and elsewhere, would immediately identify the word 'Allah'with Islam, and this includes intellectuals and scholars trained in the field of Islamic studies.Surely non-Muslim Arab Christian and Jewish intellectuals and scholars would have no problem with the use and understanding of the word 'Allah' in their conversation and writing and Arab Muslims themselves would have no problem using the word freely in their conversation and communication with their non-Muslim counterparts.

Christians and Jews in the English-speaking world have the word 'God' to refer to the object of their divine reverence and worship. But one hardly finds the word ' Adonai' or 'Yahweh' retained and used by Christians in their daily conversation, or in their Sunday worship, or in the sermons, or even in the English-translated Bible. The word 'God' is instead used. The word 'God' is more comfortable with Christians because of thehistorical link between the English-speaking world and Christianity, and that sounds more Christian-ringing

than Jewish-ringing, despite the fact that Christianity has one foot in the Jewish history and tradition and half the Bible is Jewish Bible, which of course the Jews would not be ready to accept the Christian account of their Bible. The difficult relationship between the Jews and Christians throughout their history could also mean that any use of Hebrew words and especially those of theological significance could cause confusion to the ORDINARY Christian and their subsequent questioning of Christian roots in Jewish religion that could further add tension between the two sides.

In the case of Malaysia, Islam has always been identified with the Malay people so that to speak of a Malay is to speak of Islam. The two are inseparable from one another. Most Malays hardly know any Arabic except the ones they learnt for basic rituals and worship. The Qur'an that they read is the Malay-translated Qur'an from the Arabic. Because the word 'Allah' is central to the Islamic faith, it has become part of the Malay vocabulary when referring to 'God,' although there is another Malay word, called 'Tuhan' that also refers to 'God.' But Malays would rather use the word 'Allah' because of its original tie to the Qur'an as the Word of God, and also because it is said all the time in prayer, and in ritual and  worship. Therefore, 'Allah' has a very deep-seated and special place in the mind and heart of the Malays so that they only identify it with Islam. Outside of prayer, ritual, and worship, the word 'Tuhan' is more casually used, whether in conversation among themselves, or with their non-Muslim counterparts.

Because Islam has dominated the mind and heart of the Malays for centuries and because the Malays were the main inhabitants of the Malay peninsular (not including Sabah and Sarawak in East Malaysia that have a different ethnic composition) without any rivalry, they therefore do not see any reason why now there should be a rivalry in the use of the word 'Allah' when all these while, it has been the exclusive use for Islam in Malaysia alone. Moreover, the coming of the Portuguese in the 16th century with their Jesuit mission led by Francis Xavier, followed by the Dutch in the 17th century, the British with their evangelical mission in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries did not alotogether change the religious landscape of the Malays. Throughout 400 years of European colonialism, they remained Muslim. Even with the arrival of the Chinese and Indian immigrants to the country, Islam remained intact. In fact, the Chinese and Indians who came to the country were non-Muslims. Had the Chinese and Indians who came to the country been largely Muslims, the Malays would have a different mindset altogether by now in the way they see their relationship with Islam. But no, none of these things affected the way they look at their relationship with Islam. Rather, it only deepens their belief that Islam and Malay are one and the same. For them, the Malay language is now an Islamic language,

where the language which was once filled with Hindu and Buddhist connotations have all been replaced with

Islamic ones. The word may be Sanskrited Malay, but the meaning is Islamic. And with Islam, Arabic and Persian words to produce a synthetic Malay language. If for hundred of years, the Malay language has been

Islamicized so that what is Islam is Malay and vice-versa, how do one expect that the Malays can accept that such a fundamental word like 'Allah' that is so central to their religious, cultural, and racial existence, be shared in the name of religious freedom and equality. In fact, to the Malays, such an act could only be construed as snatching away the struggle of more than 400 years against colonialim in defending the fortress of their existence, identity, and pride.

Ironically, the Malays did not prevent the non-Malays to use Malay words in the translation of the Bible. What they disagreed is the use of the word 'Allah.' But they allow the word 'Tuhan' to be used if the translated Bible into Malay wants to do so.

In fact, the word 'Tuhan' for 'God' is acceptable to all the races in Malaysia when everyone wants to speak

of 'God' in Malay. It has become not only a MALAY vocabulary, but a MALAYSIAN vocabulary.  Therefore, such use of the word could facilitate interfaith and interreligious dialogue in Malaysia as the  Malays would feel at ease to engage in such activity that they feel will not offend them.

Moreover, the first pillar of the country's RUKUNEGARA (fundamentals of the nation's allegiance) is KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA TUHAN i.e. belief in God. Had the words been KEPERCAYAAN KEPADA ALLAH, the non-Muslims would have a lot of problem because even they themselves would see this as an infringement of their right to belief because the word 'Allah' for them has always meant 'God' for the Muslims. We are here not referring to the Christians, but to people of other faiths, like the Confucians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, where for them, Islam has alway been identified with the Muslims, and in the case of  Malaysia, the Malays. To use 'Allah' would then be offensive to their religious language and belief.Therefore, the word 'Tuhan' was preferred to reflect the religious sentiment of all the races in the country, and not the

Malay-Muslims alone.

Thus, to demand or ask for something, one has to look into the historical background to that demand,  and also the social conequences that the demand will bring, whether to the betterment or worse of the situation.

Yamin Cheng,PhD(Temple)
(I am writing this response as a student trained in religion and the social sciences. Leonard Swidler is one of my professors. He can judge the substantiality of my writing as his student)

*One should not compare Malayia with Indonesia although they share a common ethnic, religious, and
cultural tie. History has changed all these. Clifford Geertz is a good example to understand the historical
process of the Islamization of the Malays and its consequence

--

Mohamed Morsi: We don't believe in a theocracy. The concept of a theocracy is not one that we hold. We always speak of a civil state. In the Al-Azhar University document, which we all signed (on 20 June 2001, leading Islamic and secular scholars rejected the concept of an Islamic state and instead demanded a civil state. Editor's note), refers to a modern and democratic state, adhering to the rule of law, and where freedoms are guaranteed. It is this concept of a state that we represent. Over the course of Islamic history, we have understood that a theocratic state doesn't exist. We believe in a modern state, in which the transfer of power takes place peacefully, in which democracy and freedom prevail, and where social justice and those holding opposing views are respected. In this state, the people are sovereign and the source of all authority.

Dalam temubual tersebut Morsi menekankan bahawa perlunya persepakatan dalam pentadbiran negara, yang berdasarkan undang-undang, kebebasan dan dalam lunas demokrasi. Ini adalah kerana serangan daripada berbagai pihak termasuk media dalam dan luar negara yang tidak mempercayai sepenuhnya ,M Morsi (parti Ikwanul Muslimin) akan mampu menjalankan pemerintah yang adil bagi semua pihak.

Walaupun ianya tidak melebih 50% berpendapat sedemikian, namun sebahagian besar penyokong Ikhwanul Mulsimin adalah dikalangan luar bandar dan "berpelajaran rendah", manakala dikalangan bandar, middle class group, peniaga dan bijakpandai dilihat menyokong kepada golongan liberal dan demokrat. Ini merupakan cabaran besar bagi Morsi untuk menarik perhatian mereka semula.  Mereka melihat dalam tempoh 2 tahun ini tiada tanda-tanda pemulihan ekonomi, tiada agenda besar, tiada matlamat, daripada kepimpinan Morsi. Apa yang merunsingkan mereka ialah paras kemiskinan semakin meluas, kekecewaan sebahagian besar golongan "middle class", malah dilihat hanya berlegar dengan perlembagaan.

Mesir tidak boleh dilihat lemah dan kemunculan fraksi dalam sesebuah negara selepas berjaya menumbangkan pemerintah diktator, adalah lumrah. Setiap kumpulan merasakan peranan mereka lebih besar dari yang lain, dan layak memerintah,...namun semuanya tertakluk kepada kekuatan kepimpinan Morsi dan jenteranya bagi mendapat kembali keyakinan rakyat kepada beliau pada bulan April ini. Morsi perlu diberi masa untuk membuktikan perubahan boleh dilakukan, dan ianya harus menjadi model perubahan untuk pada masa akan datang bagi kawasan Tanah Arab dan Afrika.

As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13

The survey finds continued widespread distrust in government. About a quarter of Americans (26%) trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time; 73% say they can trust the government only some of the time or volunteer that they can never trust the government.

Public frustration with the federal government is not new. Since 1997, only once has a majority said they were “basically content” with the government – in November 2001, two months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Over this 15-year period, majorities have consistently said they are frustrated with government, with smaller percentages expressing anger.

Dalam sesebuah negara, yang menggelarkan diri mereka sebagai bapak demokrasi, juga mengalami kemerosotan daripada meletakkan kepercayaan oleh rakyat . Kemungkinan besar kerana informasi semakin meluas dan ianya tidak lagi dimiliki sepenuhnya oleh media biasa. Manipulasi media tidak lagi menjadi ukursan dalam mempengaruhi pemikiran rakyat. Rakyat makin bebas dalam mendapatkan maklumat dan juga menyebarkan nya dengan berbagai bentuk dan sensasi.

Kemerosotan nilai ini akan menjadi satu fenomena, trend pada masa akan datang dengan ledakan maklumat ini. Apakah kita akan berakhir dengan tidak mempercayai antara satu sama lain, menghidupkan banyak bentuk anarki yang tidak ada tanggungjawab, menganggap semua semestinya bebas ?