Skip to content

PAS’ Ulama ‘Disunited’ Stance on ‘Allah’ – 2 sides of the same coin?

January 22, 2010

Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad, Member of the Central Working Committee of PAS.

I have been asked to explain and rationalise, why there are 2 seemingly opposing positions or 2 schools of thought, taken by PAS’ top ulama leaders. It is no small feat and I have never been more uncomfortable.

Tok Guru Dato’ Nik Aziz (TGNA) the Mursyidul Am of PAS and the President of PAS DS Hj  Abdul Hadi Awang (DSHA) present the proponent for ‘permssibility’ of the usage of the name of Allah by adherents of other faiths namely the Abrahamic religions (Chriatianity and Judaism), while Dato Dr Harun Din (DDHD), as the Deputy Mursyidul Am of the Majlis Syura Ulama ( and incidentally a number of Muslim NGOs and some academics), taking an opposite stance ie making it not permissible to be used by others.

My position on this issue remains as briefly expressed in recent articles that I’ve written, one in BM entitled “Allah Untuk Semua” and the other “Can PAS remain steadfast?” My latest is an Open letter to the “Mr 1-Malaysia-Prime Minister” venting my frustration to the many unending crises of the nation. They are all in my weblog ( and elsewhere in cyber and print media.

I wanted to write this piece earlier but was willing to wait and read from others especially those religiously-trained ulama. As it is not so forthcoming, I now grudgingly pen this piece, after being requested to do so.

For brevity and serving the interest of my lay brethren and also friends of other faiths, I’m simplifying many complicated theological discourses. Sorry, I can’t avoid using some Arabic terminologies. Perhaps it is a good exposure to some.

Simply put, the opposing stance has come to be arrived because both ‘schools’ have taken to treat the subject from a different methodological approach, premised on two different perspectives. Little wonder of the apparently diverging conclusions.

More interestingly, despite seemingly diverging stance and consequences, they are both within the Islamic worldview and to a large extent ‘right’ in their own perspectives. If that is mind-boggling or baffling enough for a start, let us make it simpler by using the analogy of describing ‘two sides of the same coin’. I’m trying to be fair and objective.

The images of the ‘head’ and ‘tail’ of the coin is surely different, but it is describing the same coin, nonetheless. You don’t have to spill blood on that debate of establishing which side is right or more important. It is not about the right or wrong position, but the appropriate one ie of determining which is the relevant and pertinent position or perspective to take, given a certain context of space and time.

For simplicity, Islam as ad-Deen or A Way of Life is premised on two main pillars:  

1. Aqidah – theological matters pertaining to Faith and Conviction in Allah (and other articles of Faith eg Prophethood, Revelation etc) and

2. Ibadah – matters pertaining to worships ie relationship of man with the Almighty Allah.

Both pillars being the main thrusts of the Dakwah or ar-Risalah (the Message) of the all Prophets and as well of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Dakwah is the raison deter or ‘reason of being’ of all prophets and indeed of Prophethood (Nubuwah).

If the above assertions are understood, we could now proceed in understanding both arguments.

Dato’ Haron Din (DHD) argues from the perspective of Aqidah, while both Tok Gurus have taken a perspective of Dakwah (and the bigger domain of Siyasah Syar’iah – Politics from the prism of Syariah), notwithstanding the importance of the earlier.

From the discipline of Islamic Aqidah (Usuludin), Allah is a specific name of Al-Ilah or The God (Lafzul Jalalah), with the 3 aspects of ‘Unity of the Godhead’ namely: of being the Creator and Sustainer (Tauhid Rububiyah) and the Law-Giver (Tauhid Uluhiyah). Besides, there are 20 Attributes (Sifat – Al-Wujud, Al-Baqa’, Al-Wahdaniyah etc) of Allah enshrined in many verses of the Quran and 99 Names (Asma’ – like Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim, Al-Malik, Al-Quddus etc) describing these attributes (Tauhid Asma’ wa Sifat).

The verses in the Surah (Chapter) of Al-Ikhlas (Purity) exemplified the Uniqueness of the Oneness of Allah. Allah says in Al-Ikhlas (verse 1-4):

“Say: He is Allah, The One,

Allah, the Eternal, the Absolute,

He begets not, Nor is He begotten,

And there is none, Like unto Him”.

Based on the above deliberation, it would be safe to conclude that Islam places as cardinal principle the Unity of Allah (Monotheism) that none of the creations is like unto him. Ever since men, from time immemorial since Adam (may peace be upon him), committed the various sins of ascribing partners, in the forms of gods, lords or even sons unto Him, prophets were sent to purify the belief of Unity of Godhead.

The discipline of Usuludin is a particular branch of the Islamic thought that serves the objective of maintaining purity and soundness of faith in the Unity of Godhead (Tauhid-Monotheism) and the other articles of faith. Within the community of believers (Ummah), a profound knowledge of Usuludin is regarded desirable and commendable as it is a safeguard against deviationist beliefs and practices.

Up to this juncture, the argument for an emphasis of studying Usuludin particularly the various aspects of Aqidah, including the names and attributes of Allah is both convincing and cogent.

Entrenched in this methodology, it logically follows that the name of Allah is concluded and perceived as belonging exclusively to the believers of the Islamic Faith. As it is only Muslims and Muslims alone that subscribe and profess the faith and conviction in Allah as Al-Ilah or The God, only Muslims are deemed deserving and worthy of using the name of ‘ALLAH”, much as it is also a Lafzul Jalalah, a special or specific name (nama khusus) of Allah besides the 99 names as mentioned above.

It is going forward from juncture that the aberration begins to show up. From the perspective of this school of thought, the usage is not only disallowed by others, but now seems sure that it must be outlawed by an enactment of laws of the state.

As the word is allegedly sacred or sacrosanct in Islam, it couldn’t be possibly used by others. Similarly ‘sacred’ or ‘holy’ words like Kaabah, Syariat, Mufti, Ulama, etc, have also now been outlawed and made exclusively for Muslims in some states in the Federation. That has become the bone of contention. The assault on reason seems more pronounced in a world of information and knowledge.

Coupled with the fear of misuse, abuse and threats of Christian proselytizing on Muslims, the outlawing of the use of the name of Allah becomes a logical progression. A perusal of the edict or fatwa of the National Fatwa Council in May 2008 depicted these underpinning and overarching reasons. The case of the banning by the Home Ministry of the name of Allah in the Malay edition of Catholic Church Herald weekly has now occupy centre-stage national controversy.

Let us peruse the position taken by the Central Working Committee of PAS ie that of TGNA and DSHA, insofar as the usage of the name of Allah vis-à-vis the bigger mission of Dakwah of the Prophet Muhammad– spanning across 13 years in Mecca and 10 years in Medina.

The Quran has in no uncertain terms documented that the community during the advent of the final prophet, Muhammad (may peace be upon him) had similarly used the word ‘Allah’. Allah says in the Holy Quran:

 “If you ask them, who it is that created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say, “Allah”. Say: “Praise be to Allah”. But most of them understand not.

(Luqman,  verse 25). Similar verses could be quoted from the Chapter of Al-Ankabut:  verse 65.

Theologically, the idol-worshippers of Mecca even as they accepted Allah as Rabb (God), ascribed idols and others as gods. The reason for this polytheistic practice is clarified in the Quran in the Chapter of az-Zumar (The Groups) verse 3. “We only serve them (other deities) in order that they may bring us nearer to Allah”. They nonetheless accepted Allah as the Sustainer and Creator.

More explicitly of the other Abrahamic religions, the mention of the word Allah is seen in the verse in the Chapter of Hajj (Pilgrimage) verse: 40. Allah says:

“Had not Allah Check and Balance the aggression and excesses of one set or group of people by means of another, there would surely have been destruction of monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundance….” (Hajj, Chapter 22, verse 40).

From numerous other verses, it is abundantly clear, argued the ulama of exegesis (tafseer-commentaries of the Holy Quran) that the name of Allah is not an exclusive right of the Muslims. Al-Qurtubi (1214-1273) an expert in exegesis of the Quran, concluded that in verse 40 above, Allah is not only commemorated in mosques but as well in the others places of worship of the Abrahamic faiths namely Christianity and Judaism.

It would be imperative to note of the jurisdiction of two of the most outstanding contemporary scholars in the Muslim world, namely Sheikh Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Sheikh Dr. Wahbah Az- Zuhaili who recently visited Malaysia, concerning this issue.

Both not only endorsed it as permissible but indeed commendable as a mean to unite the Brotherhood of Humanity, though not of the Brotherhood of Faith. It is the best opportunity for us to prove that Islam and religion per se should unite and not divide us.

Again, very clearly the permissibility of the usage of ‘Allah’ is enshrined in the Quran. That should supersede other arguments of Islamic Legal maxims as they are subservient to and couldn’t override the provision of the Quran texts and Prophetic tradition (in the methodology of Al-Istidlal).

More importantly, it must be always reminded that the entire Quran is in fact an embodiment of the Dakwah and the Risalah of the Prophet Muhammad in the effort to establish the true meaning of “Islam as a Mercy to Mankind” – Rahmatan Lil ‘Alamin.

Quite evidently, the thought of DDHD et al results in exclusivity and disengagement while the latter stresses on the need of Islam and Islamists to be ‘inclusive’ and ‘engaged’ in the bigger agenda of Islamic Dakwah and Islamic Political Advocacy.  Engaging rather than disengaging, should be the overarching consideration of policy-makers in legislative and think-tanking position of Islamist institutions.

While the approach of Usuludin emphasises the importance of purity of faith within the Muslim Ummah, very unfortunately it unconsciously assumes a ‘siege mentality’ when it relates to others.

It invariably reduces Islam and namely ‘Allah’ together with other ‘sacred’ words, into an exclusive right of Muslims and must be protected from any intrusion from adherents of other faiths. You simply couldn’t engage when you are ‘exclusive’. On the contrary, you in fact marginalise hence alienate others.

Much as it breeds contempt, it also serves as convenient fodders for distrust between religions, a situation totally contrary to the supreme purpose of Dakwah and ar-Risalah. It many sense, it has become untenable and ludicrous.

The position of TGNA and DSHA, representing the mainstream PAS has made it categorically clear that ‘based on the Quran and the Islamic principles, the use of the word Allah by the people of the Abrahamic faiths such as Christianity and Judaism, is acceptable.

In this regard, both have again emphasised the usage of Allah must not be misused or abused or it will affect racial and religious harmony in the country. Incidentally, the former Mufti of Perlis has also stressed on the need to have clear guidelines. He said that the word ‘Allah’ could only be used to refer to the one true God and not to be ascribed to stones and idols.

DSHA has also objected to politicising the emotive issue as this could threaten the peace among the different religious groups in the country. PAS now strongly condemns the act of intimidation and violence as a mean of cowing down the citizenry to passively submit to a new form of ‘gang-sponsored terrorism’. Very positively, both TGNA and DSHA advocated a solution of dialogue and discourse as the basis of enhancing mutual respect and understanding between religions and cultures in nation rebuilding.

In all fairness, it must be said that PAS has finally out of age to present herself as an Islamist party that understands the need of a plural politics in the new democratic landscape of national politics.

It must be equaly said that this position hasn’t been taken simply to appease and to win more votes from the non-Muslims constituencies. We in fact risk marginalising our core Islamist supporters from our stronghold Malay belt. Could our political nemesis, Umno stand up to say the same?

As an Islamist Party we have to do what is first and foremost “Right” in the eyes of the Holy Quran and strive hard (making ijtihad) at contextualising it to our unique demography of a truly plural and mixed society. Yes we have to wind the middle-ground. Yes we have to win the Malay-Muslims vote. But we first seek to win the pleasure of the Almighty Allah. We seek to establish ‘Justice for All’.

If by so doing we enjoy the trust, mandate and support of the electorates, Praised be unto Allah, The Lord of the entire Universe.

Alhamdulillah! Allahu Akbar!


46 Comments leave one →
  1. Faisal permalink
    January 22, 2010 2:42 am

    Cadangan penyelesaian isu perkataan Allah

    Pertama: Dari sudut undang-undang.
    Melarang penggunaan perkataan yang boleh mengelirukan umat Islam.

    Undang-undang Malaysia tidak boleh mengubah amalan agama lain walaupun ia jelas bersalahan dengan akidah Islam. Ya, walaupun ada sesetengah pandangan di dalam Islam yang mengatakan tidak boleh mengungkapkan Allah merujuk kepada makna God di dalam agama kristian ia tidak boleh diselesaikan menerusi pintu undang-undang.

    Kalau kita memutuskan bahawa mereka tidak boleh menggunakan perkataan Allah disebabkan pluralism, sesat, kufur dll yang semua itu bercanggah dengan akidah Islam, maka semua amalan yang dilakukan oleh bukan Islam semuanya bercanggah dengan Islam. Perlu dihalang. AKhirnya ia akan membawa kepada menghalang kebebasan beragama.

    Sekali lagi diingatkan bahawa,
    Membenarkan mereka bukan bererti mengiktiraf kebenaran mereka.
    Membenarkan mereka bukan bererti secara mutlak. Ia juga tertakluk kepada undang-undang atau peraturan yang jelas (kena gubal) agar tidak mengelirukan.

    Dengan cara ini, kita tidak mencampuri urusan agama mereka dan Alhamdulillah Perlembagaan Malaysia memperuntukkan agama lain tidak boleh disebarkan kepada umat Islam.

    Kedua: Dari sudut dakwah.

    Membenarkan mereka menggunakan perkataan Allah nya bukan lah bererti membiarkan mereka. Dari sudut dakwahnya, kita perlu kerap mengadakan dialog antara agama antara Islam dan bukan Islam.

    Umat Islam pula perlu didedahkan dengan asas agama lain agar menerusi perbandingan ini umat Islam akan semakin mengukuh akidah mereka. Kita mendapati, amat jarang sekali orang Islam masuk kristian disebabkan pembelajaran akidah mereka sebaliknya umat Islam murtad disebabkan oleh charity, cinta dan kurangnya program pembentukan akidah kepada umat Islam.

    Tingkatkan lagi usaha dakwah.

    Apabila diputuskan bahawa tidak boleh disebut perkataan Allah kepada umat Islam, kenapa harus diberi keistimewaan kepada Sabah dan Sarawak? Kenapa mereka boleh sebut? Apakah kebenaran itu disebabkan oleh pernyataan akidah atau pun orang sana sudah tidak keliru?

  2. Hippopocritimus permalink
    January 22, 2010 4:43 am

    You HAVE my vote in next GE, again !

    With morons like them , who need national enemy!

    • watchdog permalink
      January 22, 2010 1:30 pm


      This is difficult to explain given the ‘siege’ mentality of many malaysians but more of such writeups are welcome.

      Also difficult to compromise from entrenched positions but at least people are now discerning the intent of the heart of proponents.

  3. Umar Rentaka permalink
    January 22, 2010 6:00 am

    thanks for this beautiful explanations. Bravo PAS!!

  4. The Scarlet Pimple permalink
    January 22, 2010 6:06 am

    Dear Sir,

    Subject: Al-Islam journalists.

    Quote “20th January 2010
    Ref: Al-Islam Journalists yet to be Charged in Court

    Police Report No : Dato Keramat/003607/09

    Date of Report: 08/07/2009

    Police Station: Jalan Patani/ Timur Laut

    Dear Prime Minister,

    With regards to the matter above, we are deeply concerned about your administration because till today, the two journalists from the Al-Islam Magazine who entered the Catholic Church to spy on our rituals, received the Holy Communion and then later spat it out to be photographed for publication purposes in their magazine, is yet to be charged in court despite solid evidence the police has gained.”

    Imagine, if you will, what would happen if a ‘kafir’ did this type of thing in a mosque? Would there be riots? Bloodshed? unmerciful wholesale slaughter by the Muslims of christians and other kafirs, because THEIR Muslim sensivities have been violated?

    These two so-called journalists behaved in a most stupid, racially insulting manner, trying to make themselves appear great. Unfortunately, for those two, they made a mistake, they were acting against GOD. There is only one GOD, yes, that same one you call ALLAH and kafirs are not allowed to use that word.

    On a different but no doubt same matter, what is PR going to do about moving forward in a most professional manner, as current opposition, to win over the votes of ALL people, and bring harmony to all Malaysians?

  5. MUSLIM permalink
    January 22, 2010 6:48 am


  6. Bigjoe permalink
    January 22, 2010 6:49 am

    Nice argument but as someone who have seen these kinds of argument in many religion, Haron Din is just a fuddy duddy and Nik Aziz is just cooler…Bottom line…

  7. Iskandar Abdullah permalink
    January 22, 2010 6:50 am

    Excellent writing, sensible position, factual, and honest.

  8. saya permalink
    January 22, 2010 7:01 am

    rasanya saudara perlu buat statistik berapa ramai orng non muslim di msia dah masuk islam, dan berapa ramai org melayu yg nk convert kristian atau yg dah goyang akidah..dari situ baru adil utk kita judge mana aulawiyatnya …saya khuatir, PAS sendiri gagal dlm misi mengkonvertkan non muslim selama mereka memerintah di neger2 berkenaan

    • admin permalink*
      January 22, 2010 3:48 pm

      tengok dari istilah yg digunakan mcm sdra faham ttng Islam dan gerakan islam. Tapi bila sdra berckap tentang statistik ‘conversion’ maka jelas sdra tak tahu tentang ‘aulawiyat’.
      RasulAllah (saw) pernah di’itab (tegur) Allah kerana pernah terlalu ghirah mahukan sasaran dakwahnya memeluk akan islam, lalu turun firman Allah “Afa anta tukrihun nas hatta yukminu” – “apakah kau akan membenci manusia sehingga mereka beriman?” dan banyak lagi ayat2 Allah yg mengingatkan baginda bahawa tugas baginda adalah menyampaikan…
      Hari ini, penting bagi kita faham bahawa Islam perlu ditampilkan sebagai deen yang memerdekan ummat manusia dan memberikan manusia keadilan dan kesejahteraan hidup, sehingga mereka punya kebebasan dan kemerdekaan untuk membuat pilihan atas dasar ilmu, maklumat dan pengetahuan atau free-will selaku makhluk yang diberikan aqal dan ikhtiyar.
      Misi PAS bukan untuk ‘convert’ non-muslim kpd Islam, tolong fahami asas fikrah Islam. Misi PAS adalah untuk mengizinkan manusia memilih kebenaran dan keadilan sebenarnya tanpa ada unsur paksaan, ugutan dan ketakutan. Misi PAS adalah untuk membebaskan manusia dari segala bentuk kezaliman penindasan sekelompok manusia ke atas manusia lain.
      Misi PAS adalah memakmurkan muka bumi ini dengan keadilan Islam dan kebenaran supaya di dalam sistem hidup itu manusia bebas menyerlahkan potensi mereka menjadi hamba Allah yang hebat dan banyak jasa kepada semua mahkluk Allah yang lain.
      Bukan kerja Pas nak ‘convert’ orang bukan Islam kpd Islam. Ini pemikiran sempit ‘dakwah’ yang sebaliknya melahirkan mindset ‘siege’ dan sentiasa takut untuk ‘engage’ kerana takut di”convert’ pulak oleh agama lain, kononnya.
      Kesian pemikiran lama Melayu-Islam sprti sdra ini. Hijrahkan pemikiran sdra dalam abad hijrah baru ini!

      • Zainal permalink
        January 23, 2010 1:51 pm

        Excellent rebuttal!
        The Malays ( I emphasize the word Malay, and not the word Muslim) have the siege mindset as a result of low self-esteem and lack of confidence. Yes…these Malays need to “Hijrah” to a more open mind set.

  9. mano permalink
    January 22, 2010 7:10 am

    Sir, I sincerely agree with the point made by former Mufti of Perlis. To me, ALLAH is THE GOD who created the whole universe. SYABAS AND THANK YOU SIR.

  10. tunsrilanang permalink
    January 22, 2010 7:11 am

    The DANGER of Ignorance:

    All this talk about the issue on the usage of the word “Allah” is a non-starter in the 1st place. I’m actually one of those (and I am quite sure there are many more out there) who are very annoyed (in actual fact, really pissed-off!) by anyone who even dare to think that any “true” Muslim in this country can be that easily swayed in their religious beliefs just merely bcoz of a word?… as intimated by the ‘powers-that-be’ including the “so-called” religious scholars. Come on! Pls don’t ever insult our intelligence you “religious” morons & bigots! (but who can blame them?…coz in the 1st. place morons are actually born with pea-sized brains that limit their powers of reasoning!) ehehehhee!!

    To the ’so-called’ Muslims out there who think they are so “righteous”, pls remember that it is very ‘clearly’ stated in the Holy Quran that: “… the closest friends of the believers are those who say, ‘we are Christians’…” and to our Christian friends, pls also know that the Holy Quran devoted the WHOLE Chapter: 19 (Maryam) on the story of Jesus Christ (p.b.u.h.) besides being mentioned on numerous occasions in various other chapters (too many to be mentioned here).

    Come to think of it, I believe this (Quran) is The ONLY Holy Book in the World from time immemorial that mentioned Jesus (p.b.u.h.) and all his many miracles & IRREVOCABLY CONFIRMED his missionary on this earth (whilst this IS The Holy Book of the Muslim)!!! Now, I wonder why would the Quran do that? Interesting huh?… I mean there is No Way a HOLY BOOK of any other religion would go all the way to sing praises about the “Messiah” of “another” religion in it’s very own Holy Book! Unless… Come on Muslim & Christian bros & sis, put on your thinking caps… I stand to be corrected.

    Now, for the real eye-opener for the uninitiated Christian friends: Do you people know that It Is THE “sacred obligation” of all true Muslim believers in this World to firmly believe (without protest!) that Jesus (p.b.u.h.) will also be the 1st. & ONLY Prophet to return to earth before the coming of the “end of days”, coz it’s also stated unequivocally in the Holy Quran! And that the penalty for any Muslim to ever even doubt about this will be the same as NOT believing in the Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) himself! Coz the Holy Quran was narrated by him in the 1st. place!!

    Now if all these have not stirred some interesting food for thoughts (or even stirred some hornet’s nest), I don’t know what else could. Ehhehehe!! I rest my case.

    • hutan mari permalink
      January 23, 2010 3:33 am

      May be you can ponder also on the meaning of this verse:
      AlBaqarah: 120 (translation) “Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad Peace be upon him ) till you follow their religion. Say: “Verily, the Guidance of Allâh is the (only) Guidance. And if you were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’ân), then you would have against Allâh neither any Walî (protector or guardian) nor any helper.

  11. mohd permalink
    January 22, 2010 7:26 am

    what a beutiful writting

  12. Madil permalink
    January 22, 2010 8:00 am

    Clear and conclusive…

    Allahu Akbar!

  13. Mohd Sani Badron permalink
    January 22, 2010 8:04 am

    Sekiranya PAS membenarkan Kristian menggunakan istilah Allah, maka Kristian akan menggunakannya sebagai perkataan yang sangat umum.

    Oleh kerana dalam agama Kristian tiada in-built mechanism untuk mengawal mereka menggunakannya khas kepada Tuhan, istilah Allah akan digunakan sama seperti istilah God yang mempunyai jamak dan sebagai sifat.

    Pertama, ‘allah’ akan ada bentuk jamak, digunakan kepada para malaikat: ‘“Allah berdiri dalam sidang ilahi, di antara para allah Ia menghakimi”. (Mazmur, 82.1)

    Kedua, ‘allah’ akan digunakan kepada ramai manusia: “Aku sendiri telah berfirman: Kamu adalah allah, dan anak-anak Yang Mahatinggi kamu sekalian”. (Mazmur 82.6)

    Ketiga, ‘allah’ digunakan dalam bentuk banyak, untuk berhala: “Sebab segala allah bangsa-bangsa adalah berhala, tetapi TUHANlah yang menjadikan langit.” (1 Tawarikh 16.26)

    Keempat, istilah yang sama digunakan kepada Tuhan dan bukan Tuhan, “TUHAN adalah Allah yang besar…mengatasi segala allah.” (Mazmur 95.3); “Akulah TUHAN, Allahmu….jangan ada padamu allah lain di hadapan-Ku.” (Keluaran 20.2-3); “mereka beribadah kepada allah lain”. (Yosua 24.2); “Dan rumah yang hendak kudirikan itu harus besar, sebab Allah kami lebih besar dari segala allah.” (2 Tawarikh 2.5); “Bersyukurlah kepada Allah segala allah!” (Mazmur 136.2)

    Kelima, istilah tersebut disamakan dengan Yesus: “…Yesus Kristus, yaitu Allah Mahabesar dan Raja Penyelamat kita”(Titus 2:13); “Tomas berkata kepada Yesus: ‘Tuhanku dan Allahku!’” (John 20:28); “Kita hidup bersatu dengan Allah yang benar kerana kita hidup bersatu dengan Anak-Nya Yesus Kristus. Inilah Allah yang benar…” (1 John 5:20); “Yesus Kristus: pada dasarnya Ia sama dengan Allah” (Filipi 2:5-6);

    Keenam, ‘Allah’ digunakan sebagai sifat, “sebab dalam Dialah [iaitu dalam Kristus] berdiam secara jasmaniah seluruh kepenuhan ke-Allahan” (Collosians 2:9);

    Ketujuh, ‘allah’ digunakan kepada semua perkara. Seorang Kristian telah menulis “Allah cemburu kepada allah-allah yang bukan Allah. Tuhan tidak mau anak-anakNya mengikuti allah-allah yang bukan Allah. Zaman ini ada beragam allah yang menguasai manusia, seperti: populariti, harta dunia, jawatan, ilmu pengetahuan, ideologi, dan sebagainya. (cari di

    Kelapan, seperti yang nyata di atas, istilah Allah digunakan sebagai istilah yang tarafnya lebih rendah daripada istilah Tuhan.

    Untuk perkara pertama hingga keenam, terkandung dalam Alkitab Terjemahan Baru 1974 (cetakan ke-65, 2006), iaitu versi yang masih berterusan digunakan di Malaysia.

    Soalan saya, adakah PAS mem”benar”kan penggunaan istilah seperti yang tersebut, dalam Alkitab, kepada berhala, manusia, malaikat, Yesus dan lain-lain perkara? Yes or No?

    • admin permalink*
      January 22, 2010 4:17 pm

      Sdra Mohd Sani,
      Hanya orang Islam sahaja yang diperkenlkan akan Allah dengan Tauhid yang sejahtera lengkap. Itu pun tak semua yang tahu sungguh2 – makrifatuLlah.
      Maka kalau begitu hujjahnya, maka hanya orang Islam sahaja yg layak menggunakannya kerana yg lain tak akan dapat membawa maksud, sifat dan tauhid yang betul.
      Lihat kembali ayat-ayat yg sebut di atas dan banyak lagi, yg Allah sendiri menyebutkan bahawa golongan musyrikin mekkah, dan ahli kitab, juga mengiktiraf Allah, sementara mereka menyembah berhala dan ahli kitab sejak sebelum Rasulallah pun telah menyebutkan UzayrubnuLlah dan IsaibnMaryam ibnuLlah..Tetapi tetap Allah masih menyatakan dalam ayat surah hajj:40, tempat2 ibadat mereka menyebutkan akan nama Allah secara banyak.
      Kalau jelas nasnya membolehkan, siapa sdra, saya dan yang lain untuk ‘mengharamkan’ penggunaannya?
      Article saya pun dah menyebutkan bahawa penggunaan Allah mesti dimaksudkan Tuhan yang Esa itu, The God, dan tidak tuhan2 lain, sprti yg Allah gambarkan dalam surah az-zumar ayat:3 dia atas.

      • Mohd Sani Badron permalink
        January 25, 2010 3:16 am

        SATU: Tuan menyatakan penggunaan Allah mesti dimaksudkan Tuhan yang Esa (The God), dan tidak tuhan-tuhan yang lain.

        Tetapi dalam 13 contoh ayat-ayat Alkitab yang saya berikan tadi, Kristian TELAH menggunakan “Allah” pada berhala, manusia, makhluk syurga, Yesus, dan lain-lain perkara dan benda.

        Soalan saya kepada pihak Tuan: sila jelaskan bagaimana Tuan akan mengatasi keadaan berikut?

        Beberapa contoh mudah, masyarakat Kristian mendakwa kerana ia terdapat dalam Alkitab, maka mereka ada hak kebebasan beragama untuk bertindak seperti berikut.

        Pertama, orang Kristian melukis gambar syurga dan menamakan para penghuninya “para allah”, dengan memetik kitab Mazmur. Kedua, seorang paderi Kristian berucap, dan memetik Alkitab, melaungkan kepada para hadirin, “Kamu manusia sekaliannya adalah allah”. Ketiga, orang Kristian menamakan berhala-berhala itu “allah-allah” dalam percakapan, penulisan, lukisan dan sebagainya, dengan beralasankan kitab Tawarikh/Chronicles. Keempat, di ikon (patung) Yesus, orang Kristian menyatakan secara lisan atau meletakkan label tandanama yang dipetik dari Alkitab, Titus 2:13, “Yesus, yaitu Allah Mahabesar”, atau dari Collosians 2:9, “Yesus, yang dalam jasmaniahNya berdiam ke-Allahan”.

        DUA: Tuan menyatakan nas-nas membolehkan. Saya tidak bersetuju dan akan menjelaskannya; tetapi baiklah, Tuan perlu jelaskan yang berikut.

        Hukum “boleh” bukanlah hukum yang dituntut untuk seseorang Islam melaksanakannya. Ia bukan hukum yang berciri talaban; sebaliknya, ia hukum yang berciri takhyiran.

        Maksudnya, kalaupun betul hukumnya adalah boleh, maka seseorang Islam perlu memilih, adakah lebih baik melaksanakannya, atau lebih baik meninggalkannya.

        Apakah hujah tuan lebih baik melaksanakannya?

        Pada hemat saya lebih baik meninggalkannya, kerana (sila jawab tiap-tiap satunya):

        Pertama, ia membuka ruang yang tidak mungkin ditutup untuk orang-orang Kristian menggunakannya secara yang sangat umum (lihat kembali bukti dari alih-bahasa kitab suci mereka sendiri di atas)

        Kedua, bukti-bukti di atas jelas, sama ada disedari atau tidak, Kristian telah mempersenda dan mempermainkan makna dan pengertian nama “Allah/allah”.

        Ketiga, memilih untuk melaksanakannya sama dengan membenarkan pelaksanaan kezaliman, yang bermaksud meletakkan sesuatu pada tempatnya yang salah, iaitu meletakkan nama Allah/allah pada makna dan pengertian yang salah

        Keempat, sikap Kristian yang tidak boleh dipercayai untuk dipegang dalam kes ini. Perhatikan cara mereka berhujah, sekejap kata nak guna bahasa Melayu; kemudian kata nama Allah dalam bahasa Melayu datangnya dari zaman Arab Jahiliyyah lagi; kemudian kata Arab Jahiliyyah pun ambil dari bahasa Ibrani. Kenapa pemimpin PAS tidak bertanya dulu kepada mereka, kalau istilah Allah itu dari bahasa Ibrani, kenapa bahasa asal Kristian itu tidak mempengaruhi bahasa Inggeris, Cina, Tamil, Belanda dan vernakular lain yang Kristian turut gunakan? Kenapa enggan kalau tiada tujuan tersirat?

        Kelima, ini sekadar penerusan agenda kolonialis dan misionaris. Masalah ini bukan berpunca daripada keadaan di mana Kristian membaca al-Qur’an dan tertarik untuk menggunakan istilah Allah. Yang memulakan masalah ini ialah Penjajah yang berniat menyebarkan Kristian dari zaman kolonial, bermula dengan terjemahan Matius yang dicetak di Belanda dalam tahun 1629, oleh seorang Prostestan, Albert Ruyl (bukan Kristian Arab atau Hebrew!), diikuti dengan banyak lagi misionaris penjajah yang lain yang menyeludupkan makna asing kepada istilah ”Allah”. Di Malaysia, ia diputuskan dalam mesyuarat Ketua-Ketua Gereja 1985, walaupun mereka boleh menetapkan yang lain.

        Keenam, kajian teliti menunjukkan, Kristian sendiri mempertikaikan penggunaan istilah Allah ini, termasuk di Belanda, Arab, atau Indonesia. Menyokong hanya satu pihak tanpa mendengar pihak Kristian yang satu lagi bukanlah satu sikap yang saksama.

        Ketujuh, sesuatu itu dinilai selaras dengan maksudnya. Matlamat Kristian sangat mencurigakan, kerana mereka enggan menggunakan istilah yang sama dalam bahasa Inggeris, Cina, dan Tamil vernakular contohnya.

        Kelapan, ia sama dengan membenarkan orang-orang Kristian memaksakan makna asing kepada istilah Allah/allah dalam bahasa Melayu Islam (bukan Melayu Jahiliyyah!), sedangkan bahasa itu jiwa bangsa, rosak bahasa rosaklah roh bangsa Melayu.

        TIGA: Nas-nas al-Qur’an tidak menyatakan hukum membolehkan, dengan alasan berikut:

        Pertama, hukum membolehkan hanya boleh disimpulkan daripada jurusan yang bersifat prescriptive.

        Dalam konteks hujah Tuan, ayat-ayat tersebut bersifat descriptive, mengkhabar atau melaporkan (bukan membenarkan!) mengenai golongan Musyrikin dan Kristian menggunakan istilah Allah.

        Bahkan ayat-ayat mengenai Musyrikin dimulakan dengan “lain sa’altahum” atau “IF you ask them”. Jadi isu dalam ayat itu isu “SEKIRANYA kamu (Nabi Muhammad) menyoal mereka” bukan isu membenarkan penggunaan istilah.

        Kedua, dari segi prescriptive adalah sebaliknya. Cuba teliti ayat-ayat berkenaan Kristian. Bukankah secara konsisten dinyatakan, sungguh telah berdusta (laqad kafara…). Cuba teliti ayat-ayat berkenaan Musyrikin Arab. Bukankah secara konsisten dinyatakan kecaman (tawbikh).

        Natijahnya, dari segi hukum, dari segi prescriptive, al-Qur’an mendustakan dan mengecam penggunaan istilah Allah oleh mereka.

        Sama ada hukum ini perlu diterjemah dalam Undang-Undang Masyarakat, itu perlu diteliti kebijaksanaannya (telah diberikan kriteria-kriterianya di atas).

        Surah Al-Hajj, 22: 40, menyebut rumah ibadah. Memang orang-orang Islam tidak mungkin menyerang sebarang rumah peribadatan. Pembacaan yang teliti kepada ayat tersebut perlu memerhatikan “the name of Allah”, mudaf-mudaf ilayhi, merujuk kepada fakta mereka memanggil nama yang diperikan atau digelarkan kepada Allah; bukan merujuk kepada mereka menggunakan istilah “Allah”; ismullah, bukan ism ‘alam li Allah.

        Wallahu a‘lam.

        Terima kasih.

    • bob permalink
      January 22, 2010 4:27 pm

      No, tidak setuju. Kan Lagu Negaraku ada ayat tuhan kurniakan….. dan Rukunegara ada ayat kepercayaan kepada tuhan.

      Perhatikan ayat-ayat ini digubal oleh orang Melayu dan di luluskan oleh Raja raja dan sultan sultan, dan kerajaan dulu.

      Tidak kah menunjukkan sebelum ini orang islam juga percaya bahawa tuhan atau allah org bukan islam dan orang islam adalah sama . ” Only one god.

      Jangan lah pula katakan allah mesti memenuhi satu syarat, bukan lah tempat kita untuk menyoali allah dan kemahuan dia. Lagi pun, kalau kita membuat sekatan kepada perkataan ini di gunakan oleh orang yang lain sebab pemuda-pemuda islam sendiri akan terkeliru.
      bahawa memang ada lebih dari satu atau satu jenis tuhan.

      Akhirnya, penyekataan ini tidak bezanya dengan semangat apartheid yang di amalkan di Afrika Selatan. bacalah buku buku Martin Lurther King dan Nelson Mandela.

  14. Kak Long permalink
    January 22, 2010 8:08 am

    Pertanyaan kepada pemimpin Pas yang bersetuju:

    Mana lebih penting, akidah atau dakwah? Kalau akidah semua umat Islam di negara ini dah tergelincir jangan cakap pasal dakwah lah.

    Kadang kadang pada anak menantu pun kita tak dapat berdakwah

    Semua boleh ambil pandangan dari dua aspect, bila orang beri kita sesuatu boleh sebut hadiah, atau rasuah. Tetapi dapatkah diterima akal jika pemberian itu package naik haji kepada ketua negeri yang bernilai RM65,000×4?

    • admin permalink*
      January 22, 2010 3:20 pm

      Kak Long,

      Tidak ada makna dakwah kalau aqidah tidak kukuh dan sejahtera, dan tidak ada makna Aqidah yang kukuh, kalau ia tidak didakwahkan dengan bijak dan berkesan! Jawablah sendiri, Allahu ‘Alam.

  15. January 22, 2010 8:19 am

    Don’t forget these two other surahs :-

    “Praise God who has never taken a son for Himself, nor does He have a partner to rule, nor does He need anybody to protect Him from humiliation.” (17:111)


    “And We have sent down to you the Book with truth, authenticating what is present of the Book and superseding it. So judge between them by what God has sent down, and do not follow their desires from what has come to you of the truth. For each of you We have made laws, and a structure; and had God willed, He would have made you all one nation, but He tests you with what He has given you; so strive to do good. To God you will return all of you, and He will inform you regarding that in which you dispute.” (The Message 5:48)

    The Qur’an gave a huge emphasis to being just and righteous. Anybody who goes along this road, will have me as tagging along.
    Those who oppose the usage of “Allah” by non-muslims, are arrogants. The God will inform all of us about matters that we dispute in the next life.

  16. musalman33 permalink
    January 22, 2010 8:42 am


    Kenapa PAS tak boleh berterus terang. People are not questioning the right for anybody to use the word Allah. People are questioning kenapa nanti nama Allah nak dibenarkan dikaitkan dgn unsur2 sekutuan.

    So, adakah izin/setuju PAS ini adakah pada penggunaan: –
    1. Allah sahaja atau
    2. Allah Bapa, Allah Anak atau Allah Hantu?

    Perlu diingat, sedangkan org Katolik meminta utk menggunakan ganti nama Tuhan dgn Allah bkn utk item 1 tetapi lebih kepada item 2 diatas. Itu yg ramai org Islam tak setuju, sebab Allh itu Tuhan tetapi Tuhan itu bkn Allah. Dari segi bahas arab pun Allah itu bermaksud “Satu2nya Tuhan yg Layak Disembah dgn sebenar2nya”.

  17. Sunshine permalink
    January 22, 2010 9:04 am

    Hadi Awang presented powerful argument based on the quran that the word “Allah” is indeed the name of God. Within the context of islam Allah is, without a doubt, sacred and precious.

    Similarly there are uncontrovertible facts of history that the word “Allah” and other linguistic derivatives are also used by other religion as the name of god/Gods. The word “Allah” is again sacred and precious within the context of these other religions. The name “Ala” for god could be found in the upanishad. And within this context the word “Ala” is indeed sacred and precious to the hindus. Not all hindus subscribe to this name of god.

    I believe that real problems arise when we shift context. Language and history always derive meaning from context and if we shift the context the meaning changes. If we say that the word “Ala” in upanishad is an abuse of the name of God in islam what are we really saying ?

    The good name of God does not only reside within the word nor in the sound of the word. The good name of God is derived from the good works of his followers and from those that claim to uphold his name.

    Does violent and aggressive posturing and actions draw us closer to God and his message ? Will such flagrant violation of all that is good and decent draw non-muslims to Allah’s teachings ?

    If the answer is no to both these questions then what is the sensible and wise course of action that is viewed favourably by Allah ?

    • daun hijau permalink
      January 23, 2010 6:14 am

      Dear Mr/Ms Sunshine,
      The issue here is not only the good name of Allah, but also the attributes of Allah that is being challenged. To the Muslims it will be not an issue if the Catholic Church use the name of Allah according to surah Alkhlas 112 of the Holy Quran. But once you ascribed alien attributes of Allah, different from that which is revealed through Prophet Muhammad, that is where the problem starts.

      Please understand that for the Muslims, the good name of Allah starts from ascribing to Him, the correct attributes, then followed by good deeds. In Islam, if a Muslim ascribed foreign attributes to Allah, and dies unrepentant then all his good deeds, no matter how good and how much, will all go to waste in the hereafter. That is why for the malay Muslims, the Allah issue is very serious and sensitive.

      And I also disagree with the author’s comment, that we a have a ‘siege mentality’. We are just normal Muslims who want to preserve the original attributes of Allah, from being corrupted now and in the future, even if we are going to displease the non-Muslims. We have seen what has happened to the Muslims in Indonesia and we do not want the same thing to happen here.

      The other thing is, this issue to most malay Muslims is not a political issue, but a religious issue. The malay Muslims are not that stupid not to understand UMNO’s injustices, corruptions and gross excesses in their administration. Don’t worry, we are not easily duped by any political parties who are out to win votes.
      Come next election, I will still vote for PAS if the party’s candidate in my constituency has the same stand as me, in this issue.

  18. i-am-me permalink
    January 22, 2010 9:29 am

    assalammualaikum dr,
    terima kasih, panjang lebar penjelasan dr tentang hal ini..ada benarnya jika diteliti. Namun begitu, saya juga ingin berkongsi pandangan saya mengenai apa yang dikatakan dr dan saya minta maaf kerana saya tidak bermaksud untuk menyakiti sesiapapun..

    Amat menarik jika kita kembali kepada zaman anbiya’. Allah SWT pernah mengingatkan kita supaya tidak mencontohi perbuatan keji umat Bani Isra’il yang terkenal dengan tabiat menyelewengkan kebenaran. Seperti yang dijelaskan dalam Surah Al Maidah, ayat 13: “dengan sebab pengkhianatan mereka (kaum Bani Isra’il) terhadap perjanjian (mithaq) yang mereka buat Kami melaknat mereka dan jadikan hati-hati mereka keras-mereka menyelewengkan makna-makna kalimah, akibatnya mereka lupa sebahagian besar dari peringatan yang diberikan untuk mereka.”

    Kalimah “Allah” seperti yang difahami dan digunakan oleh kita selama ini tidak pernah merujuk kepada tuhan seperti yang disembah oleh orang Kristian. Justeru, menterjemahkan “God” dengan “Allah” adalah merupakan terjemahan yang tidak boleh diterima. Selain daripada itu, hak menggunakan kalimah hanya sah jika makna yang dirujuk oleh kalimah itu tidak lain dari makna yang dimaksudkan oleh kalimah. Allah sepatutnya hanya merujuk kepada Allah yang Esa (Satu). Oleh itu, penterjemahan “God” sebagai “Allah” bukannya melibatkan pertukaran ejaan, perkataan dan sebutan sahaja, tetapi juga memberi kesan kepada akal dan fikiran. Bantahan masyarakat Melayu atau Islam tidak bermaksud mereka mahu memonopoli kalimah itu. Sebaliknya, mereka ini adalah antara mereka yang sedar akan kepentingan mempertahankan kalimah Allah.

    Kalimah Allah hanya milik Allah yang Esa dan bukannya merujuk kepada tuhan-tuhan yang lain. Lagipun, mereka yang berfikiran singkat gagal untuk melihat kepada impak penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh agama lain. Apakah bezanya menterjemahkan God kepada Allah, dan agama kristian kepada agama Islam? Beza besar bukan?

    Amatlah pelik juga bagi suatu agama yang benar dan ditanzilkan tetapi tidak mempunyai nama bagi tuhan yang mereka seru manusia untuk menyembahnya. Kenapa tidak guna sahaja nama tuhan Hindu atau Buddha? Kenapa Allah? Pendakwahan mubaligh Kristian amat sistematik dan mereka sanggup berkorban nyawa dan harta untuk menarik individu kepada agama mereka. Saya membawa perkara ini kerana melihat kepada konteks masyarakat Malaysia kita yang nilai-nilai murninya yang semakin terhakis. Lihat sahaja kepada media massa yang memaparkan tingkahlaku sosial anak bangsa kita. Janganlah kita cuba menimbulkan kekeliruan anak-anak muda kita di kemudian hari.

    do share your opinion on this.


    • grub permalink
      January 22, 2010 11:29 pm

      I am not dr dzulkefly but I was intrigued and felt rather compelled to reply to your comments. I hope you do not think me rude but please know that it is not my intention to be.

      It seems your argument on this whole issue is that you cannot comprehend or your word that you find it ‘pelik’ that the christian faith have no name for their own God. And added why don’t they use Buddha or a Hindu God’s name? I think it has been established why they used Allah. It is because they used it before Islam or are you still not aware of that? Why translate God to Allah? Answer: They didn’t translate it because it was there the whole time and has been used for generations by their ancestors!

      The dear Dr is trying to explain that he understood that there are two opposing views or two sides of the coin in this issue and both sides do have valid points. However, PAS had made an unpopular stand not because they want to win more votes, as they will not be in this case but because it is the right thing to do for this multi-racial country. They first looked and contemplated on all the facts that was laid out before them before making their decision. If you read the article and understand it then you would know how they have come to this decision and indeed it was not made lightly as some may believe or prefer to think. I doubt all Muslim Malays understand this article at all before they start making their arguments against it.

      Their arguments are mostly on the basis of unsupported beliefs that future young malay muslims will be queing up to convert into christianity if we allow christians to use the word Allah. And I guess the fact that non Muslims have used it before muslims is a fact that is without a leg to stand on.

      Now in this case who is being rude and insensitive?

    • Sunshine permalink
      January 23, 2010 12:17 am

      The word “Allah” had been used to mean god even before islam came to being. The fact that islam used “Allah” as the name of God does not in anyway remove the generic meaning of allah. Whether the name of God or the meaning of god the context in which the word is used will make clear.

      A hindu bowing in front of a statue calling on “ala” (the name of his god as found in the upanishad) is calling on his god as he understood it to be. Anyone in his right mind could see that he is not calling or mocking the name of “Allah” given this context.

      On the other hand a known muslim calling “Allah” and bowing to a statue or some representation of God would make a mockery of the name. Such mockery lies within the context of islam and its understanding of God.

      Problems arise when we try to cross boundaries to establish new and expanded meaning or usage of the word.

      The real problem is not linguistic but political. The word on the street is that umno is trying to fish in troubled waters that they had artificially created. Do not be easy prey to such manipulation.

  19. January 22, 2010 9:38 am

    Dear Dr. Dzulkefly, I salute you for having explained the issue of “Allah” in simple terms that even a non-muslim can understand. From your explanation, I have come to understand that even the Quran has stated that the word Allah can be used by the Christians and Jews. Since it is stated by the Quran, those who chose to interpret the word Allah differently for political reasons should be damned and when the date of judgment comes, be punished accordingly. Keep up the great work that you are doing and educating all of us so that together, we will live in a Malaysia that truly embraces diversity as strength and uniting, rather than weakness and divisive. Cheers!

  20. Law Thim Fook permalink
    January 22, 2010 10:03 am

    Much thanks for taking the time and effort to clarify this issue, YB Dzulkefly. Good to see that there are Muslims like you who stick by the Islamic laws and will not bend the rules of God for personal gain, unlike we all know who or what.

    Fyi, both you, and Tok Guru have my highest respect in this regard on justice.

    Peace, Love & Happiness.

  21. Philip Chong permalink
    January 22, 2010 10:47 am

    Well said, but that’s not enough, you have to preach to your lay peoples, so that they understand.

  22. azhari hamzah permalink
    January 22, 2010 11:20 am

    Dear YB .

    Well written. I hope the political demagogues on the other side will read and digest every word explained.No untowards will befall this great country if they all try to be more sensible and start knowing Islam as what the prophet PBUH wants us to know and learn. Allahhuakbar.

  23. Non-partisan permalink
    January 22, 2010 2:01 pm

    Simply put, “Allah” being used pre-Islamic period is enough justification for use by non_muslims.

  24. January 22, 2010 9:25 pm

    I those jahil people can spent time delving the “Scroll of the Dead Sea”, for sure there are word Elah which of course refer to Allah..

  25. soul survivor permalink
    January 23, 2010 12:09 am

    clear and conscice.however since day one this was never an issue but simply umno narrow-desperado-political Quran Allah warned those who took NAFSU,SATAN (Yaasin) and OTHER HUMANs as God!and umnos 50 over years in power have turned our societies into taking the three as new humans can take other humans as God has been clarified by Prophet Muhammad pbuh…’when Allah says something is wrong,but Those-In-Power,says otherwise,then it means,u are taking Those-In-Power as yr God!!!…when Corruption is clearly forbidden by Allah,but Those-In-Power (read UMNO) says ok and even succeeded entratching that as an acceptable values in our societies….then the corruptors are taking UMNO as their God!…….believe me that umno will certainly reach their dead-end soon.all these while they been playing fool with other-beings.but now their desperate corrupted souls are so so desperate that they are playing fool with The Almighty.

  26. January 24, 2010 9:35 am

    YB Dr Dzul,

    I must commend you for your INTELLECTUALLY EXCELLENT writing. However, INTELLECTUALLY EXCELLENT writing may only be useful in MENARA GADING, but may not be relevant in REAL LIFE.

    You gave all kind of justifications to allow the Christians using the term ALLAH, but have the MAJORITY of Christians been demanding the use of the word.

    You know very well that the Christians at the Vaticans do not use ALLAH, the Christians in Canterbury Cathedral do not use the term ALLAH.

    Oldest bibles in Hebrew and Greek did not use the term ALLAH. English-version bibles also do not use ALLAH.

    If the HEARTLAND of Christianity do not use ALLAH, why are you as Muslim activist being SO STUPID to fight for the use of ALLAH in Malaysia.

    And both PKR and PAS support the use of ALLAH by Christians, with a condition that the word ALLAH IS NOT MISUSED. Can you give some examples of instances whereby the term may be misused.

    The way I see it, without STRONG STAND taken by Muslim NGOs and UMNO, the interior of Churches in Malaysia will be decorated by KHAT WRITINGS of the term ALLAH, as we normally find in mosques, intertwined with CROSSES. The cars of Christians will also be decorated with the KHAT WRITING of ALLAH, perhaps in the centre of CROSSES.

    YB Dr, you are a politician, and political considerations can not escape your calculations. But do not forget, your stand may be instrumental of massive CHRISTIANISATION of our youth in the near future, should the High Court ruling is upheld.

  27. January 24, 2010 11:40 am

    YB Dr Dzul,

    May I re-emphasize my point of contention.

    PAS, PKR and a few so-called scholars take a stand that the word ALLAH can be used by the Christians, WITH CONDITIONS that it is not being MISUSED.

    Unfortunately, none of PAS and PKR leaders, and the so-called scholars give any specific example as to under what circumstances the use of the word ALLAH can be connsidered being MISUSED.

    It looks to me, to fight legal battle over the MISUSE is more tedious than fighting to use or not to use the term ALLAH.

  28. james permalink
    January 24, 2010 7:42 pm

    “air” in English word is different with “air” in Malay word, For any kindergarden children it may confuse them , especially when going to Petrol station, you can easily find this word, is it “Air” for Tyre or “Air” for drinking ?

    So to avoid confusion (and “protect” Anak Malaysia), Should Malaysia ban using “Air” in all Petrol station too ?

    Also, shall we go very deep to argue who invented this word “Air” and who have the right to use it ? Malay or White People ?

    If there is confusion, we just need to clarify it , NOT to ban it.

    Just like you educate your children to differentiate “air” in Malay and “air” in English. Teaching them to know “Air” in English is differ with “Air” in Malay will eventually not confuse them, but lead them to understand The English language and Malay language better.

    (interestingly, “Air” in Malay and “Air” in English is somehow interelated in many aspects. They are also important elements for people to survive )

    • January 26, 2010 5:56 pm


      By bringing ‘kindergarten’ level of analogy to the ALLAH discussion, it underlies your SHALLOW understanding of the issue.

      For those who do not understand the Arab-Israeli conflict, they may ask, WHATS THERE IN A MOSQUE.. Why fight for the Masjidil Aqsa. Why don’t just build similar or even bigger mosque somewhere else, and end the conflict.

      Whilst, issue of MOSQUE is nothing in comparison to the ONENESS OF ALLAH.

      • james permalink
        February 1, 2010 4:23 pm

        I think it just a people like you that want to make the things complicated and take advantages from it.

        Sometime a simple example is worth than thousands of non-sense words which just for backing for the hidden agenda.
        No, I am NOT just saying you, but ALL people who agree/object the use of word “Allah”, The people who agree to use the
        words “Allah” also have the hidden agenda/personal interest, so do you ?

        It reminds me a chinese proverb “blind people touch elephant” – Everyone who touch a body part of an elephant saying their own claim is correct.

        if you don’t know this story, read here

        I think the elephant will laugh if he knows the blinds people giving it different name and description.

        Also, I never say I agree/object use of “Allah” , but without put yourself in other shoes, without communicate, learning and repect each others
        and straight away “Ban” it, is definately not the right way in either Christian or Muslim religions.

        And this is a all the consequences of your boss – UMNO who did it in first place to ban it without any communication with others.

        oh yes, they are your boss, of course you have your own agenda 🙂

  29. i-am-me permalink
    January 25, 2010 3:52 am

    Dear Grub & Sunshine,

    I cannot agree more with you guys on this issue. I am not trying to be rude nor do I being insensitive. Far from it.

    Penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh Kristian memang diketahui umum telah digunakan sekian lama, namun hanya dibolehkan di dalam gereja sahaja semasa paderi menyampaikan khutbahnya. Tetapi jika ingin disebarkan melalui akhbar secara terang-terangan, adalah bertentangan dengan apa yang dijelaskan dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan Majlis Fatwa Kebangsaan.

    Allah menegaskan melalui Surah Al-Ikhlas yang bermaksud, “katakanlah (wahai Muhammad) Dia Allah adalah Tuhan yang Esa. Allah itu tempat tumpuan segala. Dia tidak beranak dan dia tidak diperanakkan. Dan tidak ada bagiNYA bandingan.”

    Saya merujuk kepada ayat ini yang menyatakan kalimah Allah yang dimaksudkan oleh Kristian berbentuk perbandingan yang merujuk kepada Allah trinity.

    All we want is peace and harmony and I feel, why can’t we just be the way that we were before? We talk about respect, and we respect the fact that this kalimah is used in church. So be it. Tak payahlah nak mempersoalkan penggunaan kalimah ini di akhbar. Further, I feel that the bottom line that we have to get back to is that, we only try to defend the kalimah from being used formally as a mean to achieve an end…

  30. sang kancil permalink
    January 25, 2010 6:42 pm

    I agreed. However, what is happening now is a political ploy by UMNOS and its goons trying to derail whatever community we still have. It is very obvious that UMNO is running scare and it is trying its utmost to do whatever it takes to hold on to power.

  31. james permalink
    February 1, 2010 4:22 pm

    I think it just a people like you that want to make the things complicated and take advantages from it.

    Sometime a simple example is worth than thousands of non-sense words which just for backing for the hidden agenda.
    No, I am NOT just saying you, but ALL people who agree/object the use of word “Allah”, The people who agree to use the
    words “Allah” also have the hidden agenda/personal interest, so do you ?

    It reminds me a chinese proverb “blind people touch elephant” – Everyone who touch a body part of an elephant saying their own claim is correct.

    if you don’t know this story, read here

    I think the elephant will laugh if he knows the blinds people giving it different name and description.

    Also, I never say I agree/object use of “Allah” , but without put yourself in other shoes, without communicate, learning and repect each others
    and straight away “Ban” it, is definately not the right way in either Christian or Muslim religions.

    And this is a all the consequences of your boss – UMNO who did it in first place by banned it without any communication with others.

    oh yes, they are your boss, of course you have your own agenda 🙂

  32. November 30, 2010 5:29 pm



  1. Top Posts —

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: