|
|
 Copyright 'Allah'
|
The Malaysian government has banned non-Muslims from using the word 'Allah'. It is a sign that political Islam has got out of hand - and time for a pluralist response
Ali Eteraz
The Guardian
December 29, 2007 8:30 AM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/12/copyright_allah.html
just read that a Catholic newspaper in Malaysia is not being allowed to refer to God as "Allah" as it has always done. I guess the government thinks that Muslims have a monopoly over the word
The Church has, quite appropriately, sued the government for this absurd pronouncement, arguing that the word "Allah" is merely an Arabic word for God, which has been used by members of many faiths, long before Islam was even founded
This is yet another instance (do they ever stop?) where Islam is being used by conniving leaders to advance political agendas. Leaders in Malaysia promote supremacist, dominionist versions of Islam, because it makes political sense for them to do so. Sixty per cent of the country is Malay-Muslim; the rest are Chinese Buddhists, Tamil Hindus and animists. So, if you can control the Muslims, you will control the government. Therefore, ever since Malaysia's independence in 1957, Islamocentric ideas have been utilised by politicians thirsty for political power
This Islamist programme has gone through two stages
In the first stage, it simply sought to apply Islamic laws to Muslims, making comforting gestures to non-Muslims that Islamic laws would not be applied to them. In this stage, Sharia courts, which are separate from the secular legal system, were created. This occurred in the 1980s, specifically under an amendment of Article 121(A) of the constitution which said that civil courts (which apply secular law) had no jurisdiction over matters under the control of a Sharia court. This produced some absurd results. I recall a story (via Farish Noor) where at a club non-Muslims were told by the PA system "to enjoy themselves" while the Muslims were told to segregate themselves on the basis of gender
However, it looks as if the second stage has now taken off. In this stage, Islamist laws are being applied to non-Muslims (the curse of self-replicating fundamentalism). A Christian publication cannot use the word "Allah" for God. A Hindu Muslim couple with six children was forcibly separated on the basis of Sharia (which reminded me very much of the racism of the American South when miscegnation was legally prohibited). A Hindu woman was forced to bury her husband as a Muslim because a secular court judge (who is, surprise surprise, a Muslim) stated that his court could not challenge the ruling of the Sharia court which, in an ex parte ruling no less, had declared the Hindu man a Muslim. Obviously, Islamism wouldn't be complete without some completely assinine rulings, like when a fatwa targeted genies, mermaids, vampires, phoenix birds and ghouls
There are, of course, some voices against the spread of Islamism, but as always, they are both under-recognised and under-valued
A Hindu Rights Force has been created, composed of 30 Hindu organizations. The group Sisters in Islam, is still chugging along having opposed Islamisation for years (though I'm sure they could use some donations)
The writer Farish Noor has been on a tireless crusade (can we call it a jihad?) against Islamism for as long as I can recall, fighting "the fascism in our midst." Mr Noor's commentary on the use of the word "Allah" is at his blog
Anwar Ibrahim, who was previously finance minister for Mahathir Mohammad's Islamist party and almost became prime minister until he was framed in a sexual scandal in 1998, has gone after the government by challenging the corruption of judges. Ibrahim's approach might be successful. Recently there was news of a Sharia court judge being sacked for all sorts of corruption (imagine that: a corrupt Islamist). I have been in touch with Ibrahim's assistants, and they are both western educated and more importantly, liberal-minded
Even Marina, the daughter of Mahathir bin Mohammad - as he likes to be called in Arab fashion - has discussed the "apatheid" of Malaysian women
Finally, for the boring, as I am often accused of being, there is the work of Afghan-Malay scholar, Muhammad Hashim Kamali, such as his book, Freedom of Expression in Islam
In the Malaysian case, theoretical anti-Islamist programmes are useful, but the fundamental point is that there have to be more Malay-Muslims who have to be willing to put aside their racial preference (for Malay), and join the Chinese (Buddhists) and Tamil (Hindus). This is, in fact, what Farish Noor is often agitating for. Historically, this has been difficult to do because Malays have felt resentful towards the wealthier Chinese, and taken out their aggression against the weaker (and smaller) Hindus. Yet, if Malaysia is going to stymie the Islamist push, which - make no mistake - it is clearly suffering from, this reconciliation must happen, and soon
In this context, I can't help but think of Naipaul's book, Among the Believers, from 1980, specifically the section on Malaysia, where he describes meeting some Islamist activists:
"The second document that Mohammad left me with was a pencilled paper he had prepared for our meeting. It was an outline of what he had said about the restructuring of Malaysia; and it was just as abstract [as the first document]
"Mohammad's last paragraph, on the 'political system' of his ideal state, called for 'Imam-like leadership: Khalifah is God's representative on earth'. It called, in fact, for someone like Ayatollah Khomeini. Khomeini ruled in Iran as God's representative. It was Mohammad's wish that someone like that should rule in Malaysia. It was his only concrete proposal.
"That was where his Malay and Muslim passion, his knowledge of history, the beginning of self-awareness and intellectual life, had led him. He had no idea of reform or any ameliorative process. It was his only concrete proposal."
There is something instructive in that passage - about dealing in the concrete - which is an important lesson not just for Malaysians, but anyone who is coming face to face with Islamist supremacism
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/12/copyright_allah.html
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Copyright 'Allah' (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Malaysian row over word for God
A church and Christian newspaper in Malaysia are suing the government after it decreed that the word "Allah" can only be used by Muslims
In the Malay language "Allah" is used to mean any god, and Christians say they have used the term for centuries
Opponents of the ban say it is unconstitutional and unreasonable
It is the latest in a series of religious rows in largely Muslim Malaysia, where minority groups claim their rights are being eroded
A spokesman for the Herald, the newspaper of the Catholic Church in Malaysia, said a legal suit was filed after they received repeated official warnings that the newspaper could have its licence revoked if it continued to use the word
"We are of the view that we have the right to use the word 'Allah'," said editor Rev Lawrence Andrew
'Unlawful'
The Sabah Evangelical Church of Borneo has also taken legal action after a government ministry moved to ban the import of religious children's books containing the word
In a statement given to Reuters news agency, the church said the translation of the bible in which the word Allah appears has been used by Christians since the earliest days of the church
There has been no official government comment but parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang said the decision to ban the word for non-Muslims on security grounds was "unlawful"
"The term 'Allah' was used to refer to God by Arabic-speaking Christians before Arabic-speaking Muslims existed," he said
Religious issues are highly sensitive in Malaysia, which has a 60% Muslim population
Religious freedom is guaranteed in the law but minority groups have accused the Muslim Malay majority of trying to increase the role of Islam in the country
Story from BBC NEWS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7163391.stm
Published: 2007/12/28 17:51:23 GMT
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Copyright 'Allah' (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
In God's name
The mainstream media should take a closer look at whose agenda they are following when they use the word 'Allah' to mean God
Brian Whitaker
The Guardian
January 22, 2007 2:45 PM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007...llah_versus_god.html
Reporting last week on the construction of a new mosque in Atlanta, Georgia, the local newspaper noted:
"By year's end, more than 1,500 worshippers will profess their faith in Allah here. They hope the mosque will help bridge the crater of suspicion created after the 2001 terrorist attacks."
In Australia, where remarks by a Muslim cleric have been causing controversy, Associated Press reported that the man in question, Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, had been "urging children to become 'soldiers defending Islam' and sacrifice their lives for Allah"
At a terrorism trial in Britain last week, a court was told that notes found in the home of one of the accused included (according to the Press Association) "a description of the components of fertiliser, while 'In the name of Allah' was also written on one of the pages "
These news items - a random sample from the last few days - reflect a silly but increasingly common practice of referring to God as "Allah" when talking about Muslims. There is no logical reason for this. Why use an Arabic word in English-language news reports when there is a perfectly good English word that means exactly the same thing?
Various Arabic words - "jihad" and "sheikh", for example - have crept into everyday usage because no precise equivalent exists in English, but "Allah" is not of that type. It is simply is the normal word that Arabic speakers use for "God" - whether they are Muslims or not. Arab Christians worship "Allah" too, and the first verse of the Arabic Bible informs us that "In the beginning Allah created heaven and earth."
The God-or-Allah question has been generating debate recently on the Internet, most notably at the Aqoul blog, where writer Matthew Hogan concludes:
Translators should translate "Allah" as "God". Period. Else it's incompetent and misleading.
Amen to that
Some readers may think this is a minor, nit-picking point, but it is not. The English-language media's use of "Allah", rather than "God", when talking about Islam falsely implies that there is some theological distinction. Also, more importantly, it provides yet another example of the subtle ways that news organisations can influence people's attitudes, perhaps unintentionally and probably without realising they are doing it
By opting for "Allah" they are aligning themselves, in effect, with those who view international politics in terms of a clash of civilisations and even seek to bring it about
Essentially, this is a modern version of the orientalism that Edward Said wrote about in the 1970s, where western portrayals of Arab and Muslim culture highlight its "otherness" in order (Said argued) to control it more effectively
Since Said wrote his influential book, however, we have also seen the rise of another phenomenon which might be called "reverse orientalism", where Arabs and Muslims deliberately "other-ise" themselves in order (they hope) to better resist western influence
Consequently, the pressure to turn God into "Allah" when writing about Muslims comes from two opposing but equally suspect directions
On one side are the Christian jihadists and American rightists who like to regard "Allah" as some pagan upstart with no theological resemblance or historical connection to the God of Christianity and Judaism. An alarming number of people who ought to know better appear to believe this
"I knew my God was bigger than his," US general William Boykin famously declared in 2003, recounting his battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia. "I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."
On the other side are English-speaking Muslims of a fundamentalist persuasion who sprinkle their discourse with Arabic religious terms just to sound more exotic and frightening. The really extreme ones "other-ise" themselves further by replicating the long and short Arabic vowels in English; they write "Allaah" instead of "Allah" and give stern lectures about all the pleasurable things in life that are haraaaaaaaam (forbidden)
This is not so much a clash of civilisations as a collision of bigotries, and news organisations should not play along with it. If they are referring to God, then "God" is what they should say
"The fact that Allah and the Biblical God are identical is evident from Biblical etymology," Dr Umar Abd-Allah of the Chicago-based Nawawi Foundation writes. "From the standpoint of Islamic theology and salvation history, it is simply unacceptable to deem the Biblical God and that of the Qur'an to be anything but the same
"Muslims, Christians and Jews should have no difficulty agreeing that they all turn to the God of Abraham, despite their theological and ritual differences. Historical arguments between their faiths have never been over what name to call Abraham's God."
He also criticises English-speaking Muslims who insist on talking about "Allah" instead of "God". That, he says, "serves only to reinforce the groundless claims of the religious right". He continues:
It is natural for English-speaking Muslims to have a special attachment to the word "Allah" ... but it rarely has that same effect on non-Muslim, non-Arab listeners .
"Allah" continues to evoke a wide range of deeply ingrained cultural prejudices and negative associations, conscious or subconscious. On the other hand, "God" creates an immediate associative response in most non-Muslim native speakers of English that would be virtually impossible for "Allah" to evoke even after years of positive exposure
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2007...llah_versus_god.html
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Copyright 'Allah' (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Malaysia: Islamism in Malaysia by Farish Noor
(1)
2/03/2005: The second part of Malaysia’s home-grown Taliban: is this the future of ‘moderate’ Islam in Malaysia? (Islam Interfaith)
During the recent OIC meeting held in Putrajaya, the Prime Minister Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself pointed out that “It is our duty to demonstrate, by word and by action, that a Muslim country can be modern, democratic, tolerant and economically competitive.” (BBC, ‘Islam must help curb extremism’, 28 Jan 2005)
However such sentiments, laudable though they may be, sound hollow when the host country itself Malaysia is witnessing the rise of an increasingly un-Modern (even anti-Modern), un-democratic and intolerant brand of scripturalist normative religiosity whose spokesmen and self-appointed ‘defenders’ go around disrupting parties and public events, arresting Malay-Muslim youths who have committed no crime apart from hanging out together, and then proceed to abuse them in the most degrading, humiliating and dehumanising manner
Such actions do little to promote the image of ‘Islam Hadari’ that the present political administration is keen to foreground. How, pray tell, has the actions of the officials of JAWI served to promote the image of Islam as a creed of love, compassion and humanity?
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Copyright 'Allah' (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Malaysia: Islamism in Malaysia by Farish Noor
(2)
In part one of this series of articles we have argued that what we are witnessing in Malaysia today is nothing less than the rise of authoritarianism disguised behind the cloak of religiosity. Parallels have been drawn elsewhere from the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the religious purists of some Arab states to the right-wing religio-political fascists that we have seen in places like India and America, and this was meant to illustrate that the problem of religious authoritarianism is not unique to Malaysia, or to Islam
Both analytically and phenomenologically, this trend can be categorised as ‘fascism’ of the textbook variety. But the real question is how, and why, have we come to this? That is what we shall turn to now
Before we proceed, let us begin with some basic historical facts: During the much-appraised ‘Golden Age’ of Islam, there was no such thing as a policing apparatus of the state. Darius Rejali’s study of pre and post-revolutionary Iran is one of the works that come to mind, and in his book ‘Torture and Modernity’ he shows that in early Iranian history (as was the case elsewhere in the world) social order was maintained by society itself
‘Policing’ as we know it today is basically a modern phenomenon, which arises with the advent of the Modern state. We have argued elsewhere that the conundrum of governmentality (imarat) is not unique to Islam or Muslim societies. The history of western political philosophy, from Hobbes to Locke to Rousseu to Kant have all grappled with the same problem: namely, how does a regime govern (i.e. control and manage) a society while at the same time ensure that it does not end up suffocating, dominating and imprisoning the society it is trying to serve? Muslim political theorists like al-Ghazali and ibn Khaldun have been grappling with the same question, and overall we see in both the Western and Muslim worlds the appeal for balance, justice and ethics to be brought to the fore
All these scholars agree that while the need to maintain social order and stability in order to avoid anarchy (fawdawiyyat) is a real political necessity, it should NEVER be used as a justification for authoritarianism, coercion (jabr) and tyranny (istibdad)
The problem, however, arises when there emerges regimes and elites who wish to expand the sphere of state control to its fullest maximalist potential for the sake of purely political ends. If and when such fascistic regimes appear, the tendency to expand the sphere of the state’s power grows accordingly
Today all over the Muslim world we have seen the emergence of right-wing neo-fascistic tendencies that aim towards a totalised control of society. The same fascistic tendencies were evident in the rise of the Nazis and Fascists in Europe, as well as the Communist regimes under Stalin and Mao, and even in the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia. In all cases, the creation of a ‘morality police’ is the first step towards the state’s penetration into the most private, intimate (and therefore vulnerable) aspect of the citizenry’s lives: Here again George Orwell’s bleak warnings in his novel ‘1984’ come to mind
This is why I have argued, time and again, that such ‘morality’ and ‘decency’ campaigns have little to do with standards of morality and decency, but rather everything to do with state power and control. And in any case, if these ‘moral guardians’ are so obsessed with morality and public decency, they should focus their attention on other genuine moral problems in our society, from the levels of corruption to the ‘surat layang’ culture of Malaysian politics, from detention without trial to the alleged killing of prisoners under custody
Here in Malaysia it is evident that the process and practice of social policing is intended primarily towards one particular constituency: The Malay-Muslims
The reason for this is obvious: Demographic factors dictate that whoever controls the Malay-Muslims of Malaysia will be able to control the rest of the country by extension. (As the Malay-Muslims make up an estimated 60% of the population.) Winning the Malay vote is therefore the key to winning power in Malaysia, but this can only be done if you control the Malay-Muslims as a whole
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-119988
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Copyright 'Allah' (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Malaysia: Islamism in Malaysia by Farish Noor
(3)
The origins of this process go back to the 1940s, when it was discovered that the Malay-Muslims were only the majority community by the narrowest of margins. The results of the colonial census of the 1910s, 30s and 40s indicated that the Malays were hardly in a position to dominate Malayan society. The immediate result of this was the creation of the UMNO party (United Malay National Organisation), which brought together forty-odd Malay organisations under the banner of Malay ethno-nationalism. During the 1940s to the 1960s, the quest for Malay political dominance was the major factor that shaped the contours of Malayan politics. Even then, campaigns at ‘policing’ the Malays were already going on in earnest, following the earlier debates over who was a ‘true Malay’ and who were the ‘hybrids’ and ‘mongrels’ whose blood was no longer pure
Parallel to this was the emergence of an authoritarian political culture that began to erode the fundamental rights of citizens, rendering certain issues like the discussion of ‘ketuanan Melayu’ (Malay dominance) as seditious and politically unacceptable. Laws were used to stifle dissenting opinion and the mainstream media was brought under control of right-wing ethno-nationalist groups
The net result was of course the gradual slide towards authoritarianism and a politics of majoritarianism. But what the elites failed to note was the fact that their brand of exclusive communitarian ethno-nationalism was also being challenged by another set of ideas: namely a political vision of religion that eventually developed into a theocratic oppositional ideology
By the 1970s and 80s, Malaysian politics became more and more convoluted with the politicisation of religion, particularly Islam. The main Malay-Muslim political groupings in the country were all competing for the support of the Malays but on Islamic, rather than racial, grounds. Islam was politicised as a result of the Islamisation race between UMNO and PAS (Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party). Throughout this period, there were hardly any Muslim groups in Malaysia that dared to challenge the narrow and ultimately self-defeating logic of this Islamisation race, save for a handful of intellectuals and activists, such as Sisters in Islam
The dominant Muslim groups in Malaysia proceeded heedlessly, in their race to show off their Islamic credentials and to ‘out-Islamise’ the other. While both UMNO and PAS claimed that theirs was the ‘correct’ version of Islam, neither side has ever really shown any willingness to concede that differences of opinion and interpretation do exist in the Muslim world. (The persecution of the Darul Arqam movement, and the current harassment of the mystic Ayah Pin (Ariffin Mohammad) are cases in point)
Where has this got us - the Malaysian nation - thus far? Is Malaysian society any more ‘decent’ or ‘moral’ as a result of this moral-religious policing? Far from it, judging by the plethora of corruption cases that we see in the press. And has it made Malaysia’s Muslims any more open or progressive in their thought and actions? Far from it, judging by the numbers of books on Islam that are regularly banned and the constant harassment of Muslim academics, intellectuals and activists
The dream of creating a modern, tolerant, pluralist and democratic Islam in Malaysia seems to be receding, as the spectre of religious communitarianism, fundamentalism and even militancy casts its long shadow on the ASEAN region
But worst of all, the policing of the Malay-Muslim community threatens to undermine the most sensitive project of all: nation-building itself. For what kind of a Malaysian nation are we indeed building today, when there is one set of laws for Malay-Muslims and another for the rest? While the Malay-Muslim parties like UMNO and PAS continue to out-do each other in the Islamisation race, they are in danger of entrenching deeper mistrust and misunderstandings between the communities at the same time. What began as a Malay-Muslim issue has now become a matter of national concern, and this writer would argue that this is now a Malaysian problem
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-119988
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Copyright 'Allah' (Re: Mohamed Omer)
|
Malaysia: Islamism in Malaysia by Farish Noor
(4)
Let us return to the events of that fateful night when more than a hundred Malaysian citizens were harassed by the authorities: According to the media reports we have been given, ‘an announcement over the club’s PA system instructed the non-Muslims to proceed to another part of the club ‘to enjoy themselves’ while the rest, about 100 Muslims, were told to form two separate groups, men and women.’ (Sunday Mail, 23 January)
This begs the most obvious, embarrassing and painful question of all: What were the non-Malay/non-Muslim Malaysian citizens doing when their friends (I am assuming that they did have some friends among the Malay-Muslims) were being harassed thus? The report remains silent on this question, but one dreads to think of the prospect that while more than a hundred Malaysians were being arrested and harassed so publicly the rest who were present simply ‘proceeded to another part of the club to enjoy themselves’
IF that was what actually happened, then the JAWI raid on the club in KL has brought to the surface an extremely ugly and unpalatable aspect of Malaysian society
Now before I get accused of non-Malay/non-Muslim baiting/bashing here, allow me to reiterate the main point: The real issue is that a group of Malaysians (regardless of their race/religion) were harassed while others failed to help or simply turned away. ‘Islam’ is not the issue here, nor is ‘Islam’ at fault; but rather authoritarianism disguised behind the cloak of religiosity
Imagine a hypothetical situation where a group of extreme right-wing Hindus, Buddhists or Christians decided to act as self-appointed ‘moral guardians’ of their community, and then went around policing and harassing members of their faith community. Confronted by such a group I would not hesitate to defend the rights of my fellow Malaysians, despite the fact that I am not a Hindu, Buddhist or Christian. The bottom line is that the emergence of such groups is a threat to the cohesion and harmony of Malaysian society as a whole, and such a group would be a threat to the fundamental rights and liberties of fellow Malaysian citizens
The apparent silence of the non-Muslims is the result of decades of divisive communitarian politics here in Malaysia. For so long, right-wing Malay-Muslim groups, parties and organisations have cowered the non-Malay/Muslim section of society by telling them that they have no right to comment on matters Islamic, and that they have no right to protest against the increasingly repressive laws and regulations that have been passed in the name of Islam. Needless to say, this has engendered a climate of fear and apprehension among many otherwise-decent Malaysians who might want to comment on such matters, but have been reduced to silence instead
But as this writer has said and written time and again: ‘Islam’ is simply too important to be left to Muslims alone. And if the powers-that-be in this country wish to make Islam the leitmotif of Malaysia’s national culture, then as a consequence Islam becomes a relevant concern for ALL Malaysians, and not the Malay-Muslims only
The non-Muslims of Malaysia have every right to comment on the conduct, practice and development of normative Islam in Malaysia as it has a direct impact on both their private lives as well as their daily conduct and relations with Muslims. Again I make the comparison: If I was living in Hindu-majority India at the time when the extreme right-wing Hindu fundamentalists of the BJP/RSS were rising in power, I would feel that I have every right to comment on the development of normative Hinduism in the country, as it would affect me as well. I don’t have to be a Hindu scholar to condemn what I see as the deliberate distortion of the creed by a bunch of extremist Hindu fascists, any more than a non-Muslim Malaysian citizen has to be a Muslim scholar to condemn the politicisation of Islam that will have an immediate impact on him/her
If it be the case that Malaysians are now terrified to talk and discuss about religion and politics, then Malaysian society has reached an impasse of its own making. For silence on such matters is the first step towards the consolidation of fascism in our midst. This is the real danger that we face: In the absence of a sense of shared destiny, identity and social responsibility, we are in danger of balkanising our Malaysian nation and by doing so opening the way for fascism to take over, one step at a time
There is, however, one way out of this impasse- though it would be a courageous step for some. It would entail going back to the universal, humanist fundamentals of Islam which is a common feature of all religions, and it would mean trying to develop an open, dynamic and pluralist approach to the faith that rescues it from the clutches of narrow communitarian politics. But this gesture also requires that ephemeral quality that is so difficult to pin down, yet whose power is strong enough to shake governments and shape nations: Love
http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd%5B157%5D=x-157-119988
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Mohamed Omer
doma
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست