SEEKING FOR TRUTH: POLITICAL GAME OR RELIGIOUS CONFUSION?

22 Responses to “SEEKING FOR TRUTH: POLITICAL GAME OR RELIGIOUS CONFUSION?”

1. necll on January 15th, 2010 3:57 am

   Those who want powers and control will secretly instigate all these conflicts. The followers on either side will agreed like bleating sheep. Singapore is laughing all the way to the banks as more money will leave Malaysia and go to Singapore.

2. arah on January 15th, 2010 7:31 am

   Who wrote the OT,NT(Gospel) and FT (Final Testament or Al Quran)?

   Each of the three monotheistic religions possess its own collection of Scriptures. For the faithful-be they Jews, Christians or Muslims-these documents constitute the foundation of their belief. For them they are the material transcription of a divine Revelation; directly, as in the case of Abraham and Moses, who received the commandments from God Himself, or indirectly, as in the case of Jesus and Muhammad, the first of whom stated that he was speaking in the name of the Father, and the second of whom transmitted to men the Revelation imparted to him by Archangel Gabriel.

   If we take into consideration the objective facts of religious history, we must place the Old Testament, the Gospels and the Qur’an on the same level as being collections of written Revelation. Although this attitude is in principle held by Muslims, the faithful in the West under the predominantly Judeo-Christian influence refuse to ascribe to the Qur’an the character of a book of Revelation.

   Such an attitude may be explained by the position each religious community adopts towards the other two with regard to the Scriptures.

   Judaism has as its holy book the Hebraic Bible. This differs from the Old Testament of the Christians in that the latter have included several books which did not exist in Hebrew. In practice, this divergence hardly makes any difference to the doctrine. Judaism does not however admit any revelation subsequent to its own.

   Christianity has taken the Hebraic Bible for itself and added a few supplements to it. It has not however accepted all the published writings destined to make known to men the Mission of Jesus. The Church has made incisive cuts in the profusion of books relating the life and teachings of Jesus. It has only preserved a limited number of writings in the New Testament, the most important of which are the four Canonic Gospels. Christianity takes no account of any revelation subsequent to Jesus and his Apostles. It therefore rules out the Qur’an.

   The Qur’anic Revelation appeared six centuries after Jesus. It resumes numerous data found in the Hebraic Bible and the Gospels since it quotes very frequently from the ‘Torah’ [ What is meant by Torah are the first five books of the Bible, in other words the Pentateuch of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy).] and the ‘Gospels.’ The Qur’an directs all Muslims to believe in the Scriptures that precede it (sura 4, verse 136). It stresses the important position occupied in the Revelation by God’s emissaries, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Prophets and Jesus, to whom they allocate a special position. His birth is described in the Qur’an, and likewise in the Gospels, as a supernatural event. Mary is also given a special place, as indicated by the fact that sura 19 bears her name.

   The above facts concerning Islam are not generally known in the West. This is hardly surprising, when we consider the way so many generations in the West were instructed in the religious problems facing humanity and the ignorance in which they were kept about anything related to Islam. The use of such terms as ‘Mohammedan religion’ and ‘Mohammedans’ has been instrumental-even to the present day-in maintaining the false notion that beliefs were involved that were spread by the work of man among which God (in the Christian sense) had no place. Many cultivated people today are interested in the philosophical, social and political aspects of Islam, but they do not pause to inquire about the Islamic Revelation itself, as indeed they should.

   In what contempt the Muslims are held by certain Christian circles! I experienced this when I tried to start an exchange of ideas arising from a comparative analysis of Biblical and Qur’anic stories on the same theme. I noted a systematic refusal, even for the purposes of simple reflection, to take any account of what the Qur’an had to say on the subject in hand. It is as if a quote from the Qur’an were a reference to the Devil!

   A noticeable change seems however to be under way these days at the highest levels of the Christian world. The Office for Non-Christian Affairs at the Vatican has produced a document result. from the Second Vatican Council under the French title Orientations pour un dialogue entre Chrétiens et Musulmans[Pub. Ancora, Rome.].

   (Orientations for a Dialogue between Christians and Muslims), third French edition dated 1970, which bears witness to the profound change in official attitude. Once the document has invited the reader to clear away the “out-dated image, inherited from the past, or distorted by prejudice and slander” that Christians have of Islam, the Vatican document proceeds to “recognize the past injustice towards the Muslims for which the West, with its Christian education, is to blame”. It also criticizes the misconceptions Christians have been under concerning Muslim fatalism, Islamic legalism, fanaticism, etc. It stresses belief in unity of God and reminds us how surprised the audience was at the Muslim University of Al Azhar, Cairo, when Cardinal Koenig proclaimed this unity at the Great Mosque during an official conference in March, 1969. It reminds us also that the Vatican Office in 1967 invited Christians to offer their best wishes to Muslims at the end of the Fast of Ramadan with “genuine religious worth”.

   Such preliminary steps towards a closer relationship between the Roman Catholic Curia and Islam have been followed by various manifestations and consolidated by encounters between the two. There has been, however, little publicity accorded to events of such great importance in the western world, where they took place and where there are ample means of communication in the form of press, radio and television.

   The newspapers gave little coverage to the official visit of Cardinal Pignedoli, the President of the Vatican Office of Non-Christian Affairs, on 24th April, 1974, to King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. The French newspaper Le Monde on 25th April, 1974, dealt with it in a few lines. What momentous news they contain, however, when we read how the Cardinal conveyed to the Sovereign a message from Pope Paul VI expressing “the regards of His Holiness, moved by a profound belief in the unification of Islamic and Christian worlds in the worship of a single God, to His Majesty King Faisal as supreme head of the Islamic world”. Six months later, in October 1974, the Pope received the official visit to the Vatican of the Grand Ulema of Saudi Arabia. It occasioned a dialogue between Christians and Muslims on the “Cultural Rights of Man in Islam”. The Vatican newspaper, Observatore Romano, on 26th October, 1974, reported this historic event in a front page story that took up more space than the report on the closing day of the meeting held by the Synod of Bishops in Rome.

   The Grand Ulema of Saudi Arabia were afterwards received by the Ecumenical Council of Churches of Geneva and by the Lord Bishop of Strasbourg, His Grace Elchinger. The Bishop invited them to join in midday prayer before him in his cathedral. The fact that the event Was reported seems to be more on account of its unusual nature than because of its considerable religious significance. At all events, among those whom I questioned about this religious manifestation, there were very few who replied that they were aware of it.

   The open-minded attitude Pope Paul VI has towards Islam will certainly become a milestone in the relations between the two religions. He himself Mid that he was “moved by a profound belief in the unification of the Islamic and Christian worlds in the worship of a single God”. This reminder of the sentiments of the head of the Catholic Church concerning Muslims is indeed necessary. Far too many Christians, brought up in a spirit of open hostility, are against any reflection about Islam on principle. The Vatican document notes this with regret. It is on account of this that they remain totally ignorant of what Islam is in reality, and retain notions about the Islamic Revelation which are entirely mistaken.

   Nevertheless, when studying an aspect of the Revelation of a monotheistic religion, it seems quite in order to compare what the other two have to say on the same subject. A comprehensive study of a problem is more interesting than a compartmentalized one. The confrontation between certain subjects dealt with in the Scriptures and the facts of 20th century science will therefore, in this work, include all three religions. In addition it will be useful to realize that the three religions should form a tighter block by virtue of their closer relationship at a time when they are all threatened by the onslaught of materialism. The notion that science and religion are incompatible is as equally prevalent in countries under the Judeo-Christian influence as in the world of Islam-especially in scientific circles. If this question were to be dealt with comprehensively, a series of lengthy exposes would be necessary. In this work, I intend to tackle only one aspect of it: the examination of the Scriptures themselves in the light of modern scientific knowledge.

   Before proceeding with our task, we must ask a fundamental question: How authentic are today’s texts? It is a question which entails an examination of the circumstances surrounding their composition and the way in which they have come down to us.

   In the West the critical study of the Scriptures is something quite recent. For hundreds of years people were content to accept the Bible-both Old and New Testaments-as it was. A reading produced nothing more than remarks vindicating it. It would have been a sin to level the slightest criticism at it. The clergy were priviledged in that they were easily able to have a comprehensive knowledge of the Bible, while the majority of laymen heard only selected readings as part of a sermon or the liturgy.

   Raised to the level of a specialized study, textual criticism has been valuable in uncovering and disseminating problems which are often very serious. How disappointing it is therefore to read works of a so-called critical nature which, when faced with very real problems of interpretation, merely provide passages of an apologetical nature by means of which the author contrives to hide his dilemma. Whoever retains his objective judgment and power of thought at such a moment will not find the improbabilities and contradictions any the less persistent. One can only regret an attitude which, in the face of all logical reason, upholds certain passages in the Biblical Scriptures even though they are riddled with errors. It can exercise an extremely damaging influence upon the cultivated mind with regard to belief in God. Experience shows however that even if the few are able to distinguish fallacies of this kind, the vast majority of Christians have never taken any account of such incompatibilities with their secular knowledge, even though they are often very elementary.

   Islam has something relatively comparable to the Gospels in some of the Hadiths. These are the collected sayings of Muhammad and stories of his deeds. The Gospels are nothing other than this for Jesus. Some of the collections of Hadiths were written decades after the death of Muhammad, just as the Gospels were written decades after Jesus. In both cases they bear human witness to events in the past. We shall see how, contrary to what many people think, the authors of the four Canonic Gospels were not the witnesses of the events they relate. The same is true of the Hadiths referred to at the end of this book.

   Here the comparison must end because even if the authenticity of such-and-such a Hadith has been discussed and is still under discussion, in the early centuries of the Church the problem of the vast number of Gospels was definitively decided. Only four of them were proclaimed official, or canonic, in spite of the many points on which they do not agree, and order was given for the rest to be concealed; hence the term ‘Apocrypha’.

   Another fundamental difference in the Scriptures of Christianity and Islam is the fact that Christianity does not have a text which is both revealed and written down. Islam, however, has the Qur’an which fits this description.

   The Qur’an is the expression of the Revelation made to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabriel, which was immediately taken down, and was memorized and recited by the faithful in their prayers, especially during the month of Ramadan. Muhammad himself arranged it into suras, and these were collected soon after the death of the Prophet, to form, under the rule of Caliph Uthman (12 to 24 years after the Prophet’s death), the text we know today.

   In contrast to this, the Christian Revelation is based on numerous indirect human accounts. We do not in fact have an eyewitness account from the life of Jesus, contrary to what many Christians imagine. The question of the authenticity of the Christian and Islamic texts has thus now been formulated.

   The confrontation between the texts of the Scriptures and scientific data has always provided man with food for thought.

   It was at first held that corroboration between the scriptures and science was a necessary element to the authenticity of the sacred text. Saint Augustine, in letter No. 82, which we shall quote later on, formally established this principle. As science progressed however it became clear that there were discrepancies between Biblical Scripture and science. It was therefore decided that comparison would no longer be made. Thus a situation arose which today, we are forced to admit, puts Biblical exegetes and scientists in opposition to one another. We cannot, after all, accept a divine Revelation making statements which are totally inaccurate. There was only one way of logically reconciling the two; it lay in not considering a passage containing unacceptable scientific data to be genuine. This solution was not adopted. Instead, the integrity of the text was stubbornly maintained and experts were obliged to adopt a position on the truth of the Biblical Scriptures which, for the scientist, is hardly tenable.

   Like Saint Augustine for the Bible, Islam has always assumed that the data contained in the Holy Scriptures were in agreement with scientific fact. A modern examination of the Islamic Revelation has not caused a change in this position. As we shall see later on, the Qur’an deals with many subjects of interest to science, far more in fact than the Bible. There is no comparison between the limited number of Biblical statements which lead to a confrontation With science, and the profusion of subjects mentioned in the Qur’an that are of a scientific nature. None of the latter can be contested from a scientific point of view. this is the basic fact that emerges from our study. We shall see at the end of this work that such is not the case for the Hadiths. These are collections of the Prophet’s sayings, set aside from the Qur’anic Revelation, certain of which are scientifically unacceptable. The Hadiths in question have been under study in accordance with the strict principles of the Qur’an which dictate that science and reason should always be referred to, if necessary to deprive them of any authenticity.

   These reflections on the scientifically acceptable or unacceptable nature of a certain Scripture need some explanation. It must be stressed that when scientific data are discussed here, what is meant is data definitely established. This consideration rules out any explanatory theories, once useful in illuminating a phenomenon and easily dispensed with to make way for further explanations more in keeping with scientific progress. What I intend to consider here are incontrovertible facts and even if science can only provide incomplete data, they will nevertheless be sufficiently well established to be used Without fear of error.

   Scientists do not, for example, have even an approximate date for man’s appearance on Earth. They have however discovered remains of human works which we can situate beyond a shadow of a doubt at before the tenth millenium B.C. Hence we cannot consider the Biblical reality on this subject to be compatible with science. In the Biblical text of Genesis, the dates and genealogies given would place man’s origins (i.e. the creation of Adam) at roughly thirty-seven centuries B.C. In the future, science may be able to provide us with data that are more precise than our present calculations, but we may rest assured that it will never tell us that man first appeared on Earth 6,786 years ago, as does the Hebraic calendar for 1976. The Biblical data concerning the antiquity of man are therefore inaccurate.

   This confrontation with science excludes all religious problems in the true sense of the word. Science does not, for example, have any explanation of the process whereby God manifested Himself to Moses. The same may be said for the mystery surrounding the manner in which Jesus was born in the absence of a biological father. The Scriptures moreover give no material explanation of such data. This present study is concerned With what the Scriptures tell us about extremely varied natural phenomena, which they surround to a lesser or greater extent with commentaries and explanations. With this in mind, we must note the contrast between the rich abundance of information on a given subject in the Qur’anic Revelation and the modesty of the other two revelations on the same subject.

   It was in a totally objective spirit, and without any preconceived ideas that I first examined the Qur’anic Revelation. I was looking for the degree of compatibility between the Qur’anic text and the data of modern science. I knew from translations that the Qur’an often made allusion to all sorts of natural phenomena, but I had only a summary knowledge of it. It was only when I examined the text very closely in Arabic that I kept a list of them at the end of which I had to acknowledge the evidence in front of me: the Qur’an did not contain a single statement that was assailable from a modern scientific point of view.

   I repeated the same test for the Old Testament and the Gospels, always preserving the same objective outlook. In the former I did not even have to go beyond the first book, Genesis, to find statements totally out of keeping With the cast-iron facts of modern science.

   On opening the Gospels, one is immediately confronted with a serious problem. On the first page we find the genealogy of Jesus, but Matthew’s text is in evident contradiction to Luke’s on the same question. There is a further problem in that the latter’s data on the antiquity of man on Earth are incompatible with modern knowledge.

   The existence of these contradictions, improbabilities and incompatibilities does not seem to me to detract from the belief in God. They involve only man’s responsibility. No one can say what the original texts might have been, or identify imaginative editing, deliberate manipulations of them by men, or unintentional modification of the Scriptures. What strikes us today. when we realize Biblical contradictions and incompatibilities with well-established scientific data, is how specialists studying the texts either pretend to be unaware of them, or else draw attention to these defects then try to camouflage them with dialectic acrobatics. When we come to the Gospels according to Matthew and John, I shall provide examples of this brilliant use of apologetical turns of phrase by eminent experts in exegesis. Often the attempt to camouflage an improbability or a contradiction, prudishly called a ‘difficulty’, is successful. This explains why so many Christians are unaware of the serious defects contained in the Old Testament and the Gospels. The reader will find precise examples of these in the first and second parts of this work.

   In the third part, there is the illustration of an unusual application of science to a holy Scripture, the contribution of modern secular knowledge to a better understanding of certain verses in the Qur’an which until now have remained enigmatic, if not incomprehensible. Why should we be surprised at this when we know that, for Islam, religion and science have always been considered twin sisters? From the very beginning, Islam directed people to cultivate science; the application of this precept brought with it the prodigious strides in science taken during the great era of Islamic civilization, from which, before the Renaissance, the West itself benefited. In the confrontation between the Scriptures and science a high point of understanding has been reached owing to the light thrown on Qur’anic passages by modern scientific knowledge. Previously these passages were obscure owning to the non-availability of knowledge which could help interpret them.

   http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/2introd.htm

   http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm

3. Suntat on January 15th, 2010 9:56 am

   IN THE BORNEO POST TODAY.

   The Minister in the Prime Minister`s Department Datuk Mohd Zazri Abdul Aziz said the word `Allah` is allowed to be used to Christians in Sarawak and Sabah because the government accepts that the natives in these two states have traditionally been using it in their prayers and religious services and the Muslims there are accustomed to this practice. However, `Allah` is not allowed to be used by Churches in Semenanjung Malaysia and the Christians from this two states have to respect this ruling when they are in Semenanjung, Nazri said.

   My points of view on this ruling.
   ———————————

   If the ruling is materialized there will be two sets of Malaysians, namely West Malaysians and East Malaysians. Where does 1Malaysia concept stand? On West Malaysia or on East Malaysia?

   With the government`s ruling, it seems that the East Malaysians have to change their skins if they are working or visiting West Malaysia. Can this promote inter racial harmony and unity in our multi-racial country?

   It means that for the West Malaysia Christians, if they want to use the word `Allah` in their prayers they have to go either to Sabah and Sarawak every Sunday, or migrate to East Malaysia to implement the government`s policy on integration.

   As it is now, that is only the government`s proposal, but whether the `fatwas` will agree to it? Which is overriding which, we will see?

   For Ustaz arah, you have no say to ban other religions in Malaysia to use the word `Allah`.

4. Iban Abroad on January 15th, 2010 10:05 am

   Arah,

   Once again I remind you on the world conducted a forum and debate between Christian and Muslim. The conclusion are very clear. Pls stop your deny.

   Mr. Rody can answer your baseless comment without proper sourch of fact.

   Does Allah permit his Rasul spread the Allah religioun with Pedang and a man Married four wives?

   These are some questions that are not properly answered by Muslim side in the forum.

   I am not going to make it detail, cos if you are proffesional Muslim, you should know very well about this forum or otherwise you are free thinker that are being paid to influent Christian compromise the ban of Allah.

5. Suntat on January 15th, 2010 10:28 am

   My Christian Brothers,

   Just ignore the comments posted by arah. It is his own opinions far from true in Christians` belief.

6. Suntat on January 15th, 2010 10:30 am

   My Christian Brothers,

   Just ignore the comments posted by arah. It is his own opinions far from the truth in Christians` belief.

7. steelpen13 on January 15th, 2010 10:41 am

   WHY YOUR ALLAH IS NOT MY ALLAH?

   Got this from a friend, hence decided to share with more friends….
   **************************************************

   Erna Mahyuni, a Sabahan, is a Malaysiakini team member and she wrote this.

   As an East Malaysian, I am neither surprised nor angry about Malay/Muslims being up in arms over the ‘Allah’ High Court ruling.

   It was to be expected, really.

   What does anger me is getting comments from West Malaysian Christians that it is ‘silly’ for Christians to lobby to use the word ‘Allah’.

   One rather un-enlightened Christian said that “Allah is also a word used to describe one particular god in a pagan religion…so for Christians to use ‘Allah’ is strange and silly.”

   The whole ‘Allah’ debacle highlights a bigger, more endemic problem in the Malaysian, or should I say West Malaysian mentality: General ignorance of how the ‘others’ or ‘lain-lain’ live.

   It seems very hard for most West Malaysians to understand that:

   * Not all bumiputeras are Malay.

   * Not all bumiputeras are Muslim.

   It isn’t just West Malaysian Muslims who have a very limited worldview but Christians as well.

   They don’t understand that in East Malaysia, with its high population of indigenous Christians, Bahasa Malaysia is used in services.

   Most of these Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians have spent their whole lives thinking, praying and referring to their God as Allah Bapa (Father God). And now the government says they can’t. That only Muslims can use the word ‘Allah’ when that isn’t true in other countries.

   Look at Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, which allows the printing and dissemination of bibles in Bahasa Indonesia that refer to God not as ‘Tuhan’ but as ‘Allah’.

   The Indonesian Muslims don’t worry that their brethren will be ‘confused’ by these bibles. So why is our Home Ministry and all these religious groups up in arms?

   The answer to that is politics. Religion is, unfortunately, something as mixed up with politics as is race. Political parties unabashedly use religion as a tool to win debates, with Umno often accused of trying to ‘out-Islam’ PAS.

   Religion is not a private matter in this country and is, instead, aired like so much dirty laundry. What other Southeast Asian country has officially sanctioned civilian peeping Toms who consider it their civic duty to weed out fornication?

   Malay is our language, too

   Despite the many varied ethnicities in Sabah, they have managed to get along without bloodshed or May 13-like incidents.

   How have we managed it when West Malaysia’s three main races mostly give each other a wide berth? It’s called tolerance, people.

   All Sabahans speak a slightly modified version of Malay with the funny little suffix ‘bah’ tagged behind a lot of words or sentences..

   In rural areas, this heavily-accented version of Malay is the only means for most people to communicate with each other. They speak, think, dream and yes, even pray in the language.

   Sabahan Michelle Quek asks: “Is it more important to recognise that some Muslims lay claim to the word as being exclusive to their faith, or recognise that a practical need for the word exists for East Malaysian Christians?”

   Christian faith embodies the difficult balancing act that Malaysia has in attempting to address the needs of its varied peoples as well as the gulf between East and West Malaysia.

   Kavin Ch’ng, who is married to a Sabahan says that locally, for many generations, Malay-speaking Christians have always referred to Allah and Tuhan in the same breath.

   “Why only now does the government kick up such a fuss?” he asks. What is important, Ch’ng says, is mutual respect.

   “I think there is a way to co-exist – if only our government can actually wrap its head around the concept of context.”

   Sarawakian El’Bornean finds it disturbing that West Malaysians now want to dictate how one’s personal faith is practiced.

   “The true Malaysians are here in Sabah and Sarawak,” he says, citing examples of his Muslim friends who have no qualms sitting with friends in non-halal stores and visiting churches.

   Despite being surrounded by Christians, East Malaysian Muslims do not consider their faith easily shaken, he asserts.

   Sabahan Dusun Zara Kahan has a humorous, if facetious, solution.

   “If (some) Muslims insist on ownership of the term ‘Allah’ then Christians must do the same with the term ‘Tuhan’. Do you know how many Hari Raya songs will be in jeopardy? End of issue!”

   No, we don’t want to convert you

   In West Malaysia, technically Christian worship services in Malay are illegal. But Sabahan and Sarawakian students ask for them anyway.

   Many of these Malay-speaking East Malaysians feel uncomfortable attending worship services in English because the terms are unfamiliar. Muslims often cite the 99 names of Allah and for Christians in East Malaysia as well as Lebanon and Syria, Allah is their name for God.

   All this talk about ‘confusion’ is really the product of West Malaysians not mixing with their East Malaysian brethren.

   If you visit the Dusuns in Ranau, you could well meet locals as fair as highland Chinese with slanted eyes who would greet you with the traditional Muslim salam.

   Wander into an East Malaysian Chinese coffee shop and you would see tanned, Malay-looking locals happily digging into char siew or other pork dishes

   In East Malaysia, you can’t easily tell what faith someone professes or what race his forefathers were just by looking.

   This is very disturbing to the West Malaysian psyche. I have met West Malaysians who get very agitated when I refuse to tell them either what religion I profess or what race I am.

   They don’t know what to do with me because they can’t categorise me. I don’t fit into their safe little boxes which decide how they will treat me.

   What annoys me as well is this West Malaysian paranoia that Christians have a secret ongoing campaign to convert Muslims on the sly.

   Let us be honest. If converting Muslims to Christianity was as easy as pouring holy water into your drinking water or putting the word ‘Allah’ in all available religious literature, the Pope would have sanctioned it years ago.

   Christians don’t get ‘brownie points’ by forcibly converting unwilling Muslims.

   I suppose all the Malay-looking Christian East Malaysians really confuse the locals to the point they rabidly proclaim that churches are succeeding in their nefarious campaign to take over Muslim souls.

   In East Malaysia, Christians and Muslims come in various sizes, shapes and colours. Even huge extended families often have different religions, sometimes staying under one roof.

   It is not unusual for an East Malaysian to have not just Christian, but Buddhist, Muslim and animist relatives. A friend of mine says it is a convenient excuse to celebrate the many public holidays with more gusto.

   When told that someone is marrying a person of another race, the common reaction is: “Oh, your kids will be cute!” No heated discussion about traditions or religious differences because the unspoken assumption is that the couple will work them out.

   Because they do.

   Be Malaysia, not 1Malaysia

   A well-known comedian talked about the recent Al-Islam undercover foray into churches. Its so-called investigative journalists entered churches on false premises and desecrated the communion wafer.

   Did the Christians protest? asked the comedian.. Did they declare bloody war? Did they have angry sermons and plan noisy demonstrations outside churches on Sunday?

   No. What did the Christians say? “Forgive them-lor. Pray for them-lor.”

   The comedian mused that the incident was actually excellent public relations for the church.

   Despite our annoyance with West Malaysian intolerance, do you see East Malaysians picketing?

   We gripe, we grumble, we send politely worded statements. Yet we still believe in the Malaysia that our Tourism Ministry tries to sell, but which seems to be a myth in West Malaysia.

   Do you want to know why? Deep in the heart of most East Malaysians, we truly believe in tolerance. We believe in the ideals of Malaysia.

   We don’t have to give ‘muhibbah’ a name because we live it. Since 1963, we have lived as Malaysians, believing in true tolerance and that race or religion matters little.

   We truly do believe that West Malaysians can and should get over us using ‘Allah’ to worship God. Isn’t Allah the God of all mankind? Isn’t your Malaysia our Malaysia too?

8. Manang Empangau on January 15th, 2010 10:51 am

   Tuan Arah,

   Pada mulanya surga dan bumi dicipta Tuhan dan Tuhan itu adalah satu. Tuhan itulah mencipta manusia Adam dengan daya kreativitinya tanpa mengandungkan mana mana pompuan/isterinya. Begitu ajaib, kan?

   Ya, Nah! Bagi manusia sekarang seperti pemikiran Yang Amat Berbahagia Tn Arah, adalah begitu susah Tuhan nak menjelma sebagai manusia. Dianggap itu sajalah mujizat yang tak dapat dilakukan oleh Tuhan mu. Kalau ikut kebolehannya mencipta Adam malah mencipta langit dan bumi, adalah begitu senanglah Tuhan menjelma sebagai manusia. Tetapi amat susahlah dia menjadi manusia walaupun melalui seorang perawan. Adakah Tuhan itu pondan?

   Aku ingin percaya kepada Tuhan yang serba boleh, iaitu, dia boleh wujud sebagai roh dan juga sebagai manusia atau mana mana dia suka untuk mendekati umatnya. Tuhan yang tak ada kuasa untuk menjelma sebagai manusia nampaknya Tuhan yang tidak berkemampuan mujizatnya.

   Puji Tuhan Jesus Kristus Juruselamat Kristin dan umat manusia yan rela menerimanya sebagai Tuhan kehidupan mereka.

   ME

9. mabong on January 15th, 2010 10:53 am

   Please don’t forget that Lee Kuan Yew was crying when they leave Malaysia….

10. John Hock on January 15th, 2010 10:59 am

    DB Readers,

    We are now bz with the word Allah. Please don’t forget the outstanding issues:

    1. NCR Land
    2. Dayak Education
    3. Dayak Employment (in public/private sector)
    4. Dayak Equity in the national economy
    5. Dayak Poverty
    6. Rural Development (with regard to Dayak Community)
    7. Dayak Participation in business & development programs
    8. Basic infrastructure for Dayak community
    9. Unity of Dayak under one “umbrella”.

    Just let ustaz arah post as many comments as he wish for. It doesn’t matter, coz his comments in this blog are of no use in the court of appeal (in the case of Allah).

    But beware of his postings, because his attention might be to spread Islam to Dayak through DB blog.

    Cheers,

    John Hock

11. Kerani Opis Welfare on January 15th, 2010 1:23 pm

    Buddy Arah,

    You comments are quite interesting.

    have you ever thought of spreading the teaching of Islam to your fellow citizens, which are the americans i presumed. if not than i suggest you should start from Western USA, California, Arizona, Utah,Idaho, and Oregon.

    if , yes, then may be you can tell us, how do they accept the Islamic’s teaching in north america, particularly the USA.

    no offence again buddy arah, i m saying these, since most of the negative thing come from your country, such, wife swapping culture, gay,lesbain,prayer to the satan promoted by rock groups mostly from usa, violence, crime including crime of passion and many more negative culture which are not suitable to the eastern culture, such as malaysia.

    honestly, buddy arah may be you can shade some lights here?

12. gkm2020 on January 15th, 2010 2:11 pm

    Jangan bimbang, kata Nazri

    by Lichong Angkui
    January 15, 2010, Friday

    Kerajaan beri jaminan kepada rakyat Sarawak dan Sabah berhubung isu kalimah Allah

    KUALA LUMPUR: Rakyat di Sabah dan Sarawak tidak perlu bimbang terhadap apa juga keputusan mahkamah berhubung isu larangan penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh agama lain selain Islam.Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz, ketika memberi jaminan itu menegaskan bahawa tidak ada peruntukan dalam undang-undang negeri yang mengharamkan perkataan itu.

    “Kedua, berasaskan budaya bahawa rakyat di Sabah dan Sarawak sudah biasa dengan keadaan di sana dan apa yang dilakukan sejak puluhan tahun.., teruskanlah,” katanya dalam temuramah eksklusif bersama Utusan Borneo, The Borneo Post dan Oriental Daily News di pejabatnya di Bangunan Parlimen di sini semalam.

    Temuramah itu diketuai oleh Pengurus Besar Operasi The Borneo Post, Utusan Borneo dan See Daily News, Phyllis Wong dan disertai bersama Pengarang Berita Utusan Borneo Sabah, Lichong Angkui; Editor Eksekutif The Borneo Post Sarawak, Francis Chan dan Timbalan Ketua Editor Oriental, Ding Lee Leong.

    Mohd Nazri berkata Sabah dan Sarawak tidak mempunyai enakmen melarang penggunaan perkataan Allah sebagaimana di Wilayah Pesekutuan, Melaka dan Pulau Pinang, berbanding negeri-negeri lain yang mempunyai sistem beraja.

    Oleh itu, katanya, perkara berkenaan sebenarnya tidak menjadi isu di Sabah dan Sarawak, justeru rakyat di kedua-dua negeri berkenaan tidak perlu bimbang.

    “Tetapi saya tidak bersetuju kalau atas asas bahawa di Semenanjung ini juga sudah mempunyai orang Iban dan Kadazan, maka mereka mahu kita ikut cara mereka, itu saya tidak setuju.”

    “Masuk kandang kambing, kita mengembik. Seperti juga apabila saya ke Sabah dan Sarawak, saya dituntut untuk menghormati budaya di sana. Maka saya juga minta mereka dari Sabah dan Sarawak, bila datang ke Semenanjung, mereka kena ikut cara di sini.

    “Ini soal menghormati antara satu sama lain. Bila kita nak orang ikut cara kita saja, itu yang jadi masalah,” katanya lagi.

    Beliau berkata demikian sebagai mengulas kontroversi yang tercetus berikutan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur pada 31 Disember lalu, yang membenarkan Herald-The Catholic Weekly menggunakan kalimah Allah.

    Pelbagai pihak membantah keputusan itu atas alasan ia tidak selaras dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan dikatakan bertentangan dengan Enakmen Ugama Bukan Islam (Kawalan dan Perkembangan di Kalangan Orang Islam) 1988 yang digubal berasaskan Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Negara.

    Berikutan itu, berlaku insiden serangan ke atas beberapa gereja di seluruh negara dan ia dikaitkan sebagai lanjutan daripada keputusan mahkamah itu.

    Kementerian Dalam Negeri sudahpun memfaikan rayuan berhubung keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi itu.

    Sambil berharap semua pihak menunggu keputusan mahkamah berhubung rayuan yang difailkan, Mohd Nazri yakin bahawa akan ada penghujung dan penyelesaian terhadap kontroversi yang tercetus.

    “Ya..mesti ada penghujung. Kita tunggu keputusan mahkamah. Kita tidak ada pilihan sebab perkara ini telah dibawa ke mahkamah.

    “Tetapi dalam konteks Sabah dan Sarawak, saya kata tak payahlah (jadi isu).., penggunaan perkataan itu merupakan sebahagian daripada cara orang di sana, lagipun orang Islam di Sabah dan Sarawak telah terbiasa dan bagi mereka, tidak ada apa-apa masalah sebenarnya, cuma di Semenanjung ini saja yang berlaku,” katanya.

    Mohd Nazri juga berkata saranan supaya digugurkan rayuan terhadap kes berkenaan, sebaliknya ia diselesaikan menerusi perbincangan bagi mengelak kemelut terus berpanjangan, sudah terlambat.

    “Untuk menghentikan proses undang-undang ini sudah terlambat. Ini kerana kes ini sudahpun berada di mahkamah, justeru biar mahkamah menentukan penyelesaiannya. Kita sebuah negara yang mempunyai sistem perundangan, maka kita hendaklah mematuhi proses ini.

    “Bagi saya sebagai menteri undang-undang, perkara ini sudah berada di mahkamah, saya rasa mahkamah mesti selesaikan,” katanya.

    Dalam pada itu, beliau menegaskan bahawa kerajaan tetap bertindak tegas terhadap mana-mana pihak yang melanggar undang-undang.

    “Undang-undang tetap undang-undang. Mereka yang melanggar undang-undang akan dikenakan tindakan sewajarnya,” katanya sebagai merujuk tindakan pelbagai pihak yang boleh menjejaskan keselamatan dan ketenteraman awam.

    Mohd Nazri juga meminta semua pihak termasuk pemimpin politik supaya mengurangkan bercakap mengenai isu itu kerana ia tidak membantu menyelesaikan masalah, sebaliknya boleh mengeruhkan lagi keadaan.

    Katanya, sememangnya ada pihak-pihak tertentu yang cuba menanguk di air keruh berhubung isu tersebut, justeru kerajaan tetap bertegas menanganinya.

13. Antubaruhdagu on January 15th, 2010 2:38 pm

    “SEEKING FOR TRUTH:POLITICAL GAME OR RELIGIOUS CONFUSION?” Was written by gkm 2020.

    Good topic to discuss among us,so we must thinking for the truth as well.

    Ba aku,dua iti perkara tu sama 50/50.That mean it almost looked like double trouble.
    TROUBLE #1:POLITICAL GAME.
    The truth,orang pemesai nyentok ka anembiak redak ngereda baka nama ba semenanjung din ngasuh orang kristian anang ngena nama “ALLAH”.Now,we looked toward political issue:
    Bala pemerintah BN kelebih agi UMNO diatu serba salah dalam ngiga cara ti pemadu manah kena ngemadu ka penyarut tu.Nya ke dikumbai baka sempama,bediri tepantup pala,ka dudok tampun tuga.Kati ko enda pia,enti sida lebih menitikberatkan sabotaj orang islam di semenanjung din ari ti nanah ka kristian di Sarawak tauka Sabah,perintah BN deka meda penyokong kuat BN ngalih ke parti sepiak taja pan sida enda sanggup meda utai tu nyadi.Laban sida ngira di Sarawak tauka sabah majoriti pengundi BN di menua sarawak tauka Sabah orang ka kristian kelebih agi maioh tauka “source of supporting to BN”.Sanggup ke enda sida BN “kehilangan” dua buah negeri tu?Tentu ia enda.O.k..diatu kitai meda enti sida nanah ke orang kristian.Kati ko orang melayu islam di semenanjung din?Tentu sida ringat ngujong ke ngalih parti ngagai parti Pkr tauka PAS ke chunto.Penyokong kuat BN tauka UMNO enggau bala YB lompat parti sekaligus.Sapa ke belak belak leka mata meda rakyat ngalih ngagai parti bukai?Tentu ia bala Najib,sida Hissammudin.Dalam kontek ke baka tu,sapa untung?Tentu ia bala penyakal, sida Anwar.Enda iboh bejaku sida ia…peda aja.PEMULIH!!Enda iboh disebut enti bala penyakal nyukong bala melayu ke ngetan ke nama “ALLAH” sida,tentu bala fanatik buta islam di semenanjung din engkecit ngenyit ngagai penyakal enda ngira nama penyadi pagila lusa.Tang…,kitai patut bepikir enggau rasional,anang ketegal ka menang,kampung tegadai.Pikir meh kaban…

    Trouble #2:RELIGOUS CONFUSION.
    Sapa orang ti saru ke batang ia?Nadai sapa saru ngelamatu.Ni enda pia,bepuluh taun udah lalu kitai ngena cara kristian lalu sida islam pan bakanya.Empai kala tuboh aku meda pak haji tauka bala melayu tekeranjur singkang salah masuk nyau masuk gereja ka sembahyang,nadai enda?Enti sema ia masuk gereja pan angka ia buta…Pia mega orang kristian,sigi enda saru nyau tama masjid.Bangsa bukai,kelimpah ari islam enti ia masuk masjid pan ketegal ia udah jadi enggau orang islam,ukai saru.Betul akih?Sida ia ke sigi sengaja ngaga utai tu saru.Nyerang gereja ngena cara muntang cara pengecut.Baka tu ulah sida ia ka ngetan ke “kesucian kalimah Allah”munyi ko sida ia.Ukai ngetan ka ia enti bakanya,”mencemar” ke ia agi bakanya.Cara indah enda baka bala taliban,al qaaeda,sanggup meletup ke tuboh diri laban kenu ko cara nya mati shahid.Kati sida ia nemu nya mati syahid?Aku pan enda nemu.

    Conclusion:
    Ila kitai sama meda pengujong ia,takut enggai ka ila untung sekarung,rugi seguni.Enda alah kitai baka sempama ;Menang jadi abu,kalah jadi arang.

    Antubaruhdagu.

14. Antubaruhdagu on January 15th, 2010 2:45 pm

    Correction on error article:

    Conclusion:
    Ila kitai sama meda pengujong ia,takut enggai ka ila untung sekarung,rugi seguni.Enda alah kitai baka sempama;MENANG JADI ARANG,KALAH JADI ABU.

15. Bratak on January 15th, 2010 5:59 pm

    Arah..
    Your comment is so irritating.. im not good in giving nor delivering religous talk but at least i can adapt the meaning in every words that i read in my Bible.. My Lord Jesus came 200yrs ahead Of Prophet Muhammad.. 200yrs..can u see how far is the distances.. Why u never think about it.. 50 or 40 years ago, did your parent carrying LAPTOP all the time or do they have one.. 200yrs to come our cucu-cicit might drive a flying car not a cwheel car anymore.. Please laa.. Dont differentiate or condemmed other religions. It should be “I respect you,and you respect me”.. we are Human.. We live and die.. Wait till our time come then we’ll know the truth..We are no “Highlander”… Live forever.. All religion are HOLY.. If it’s not, why it Exist???.. Even God Say so,” Seek Then you’ll find”.. We’ll Find the truth only when we are already death.. If We won Externally, Do you think that we will also win Internally????.. Angels / Malaikat can show thenselves to anyones of us, But do you think they’ll tell their Names???.. None Human is holy..If you are really good in analysing Bible and Quran, You should keep it yourself. Talk only with your fellow muslim if you surely found out that Our Holy Bible is Fake.. If really what we believe is fake.. Let us be.. We are the one that will be Thrown in hell, not you.. As i said, We Live and die..Only God knows The Thruth.. We( Me &You )only have one Allah..As we Called ALLAH Bapa..Pencipta langit dan bumi.. Lainlah if your thought is different..
    So, Why dont we respect each other and not trying to make other confused.. Keep strong faith in our heart in what we believe.. Jangan goyah goyah.. Dont keep faith half half in our religion. Be the pure ones.. Sorry for the miserable and poor English. Thank you..
    Peace Upon you..

16. paku lawang on January 15th, 2010 6:48 pm

    Saudara Arah,

    Saya nak tanya satu soalan saja, harap anda boleh jawab dengan Ikhlas.
    Ada tak dalam agama yang mengatakan haruan boleh memakan anak sendiri atau bapa boleh merogol anak sendiri? Selalu keluar dalam news kes rogol anak sendiri, kebiasaan nya terdiri daripada mereka yang sembahyang lima waktu. Mengapa? Adakah kah itu memang prinsip hukum agama anda?

17. Sambek on January 16th, 2010 12:31 am

    Ustaz Arah,

    Manah agik nuan ngiga ‘allah’ utk malay muslim ari ka membandingkan ngau kristian..kasih ka bala malaya keliru enda nemu tuhan sida.

18. acit saratok on January 16th, 2010 9:55 pm

    ARAH…. U MAKAN BABI, MINUM ARAK DAN HIDUP DENGAN HASIL JUDI SECARA TIDAK LANGSUNG, KERANA DARI HASIL CUKAI TIGA PRUDUCT INI.

19. Manang Empangau on January 17th, 2010 6:04 pm

    Enti Tn Hj Arah nya diau ba Sarawak enggau Sabah ditu, iya sigi ampit ga ngena chukai ke ulih ari nyual Magnum, TOTO, Sweep, loteri etc. Our muslim citizen in EM sigi ampit ngena duit judi nya lana chukai diimpose perintah Taib Mahmud nya 10%, ie, 10 sen setiap seringgit tiket dijual. Ba Sabah din, chukai 15%, kaban. Pelaba aku, even a little portion of that tax is also channelled to WM too.

20. Manang Empangau on January 17th, 2010 6:09 pm

    CORRECTION:

    Enti Tn Hj Arah nya diau ba Sarawak enggau Sabah ditu, iya sigi ampit ga ngena chukai ke ulih ari nyual Magnum, TOTO, Sweep, loteri etc. Our muslim citizen in EM sigi ampit ngena duit judi nya LABAN chukai KE diimpose perintah Taib Mahmud nya 10%, ie, 10 sen setiap seringgit tiket dijual. Ba Sabah din, chukai 15%, kaban. Pelaba aku, even a little portion of that tax is also channelled to WM too. NYA ALAI SEMUA URANG BA MALAYSIA TU AMPIT NGENA DUIT CHUKAI JUDI KE HARAM NYA GA. SIDA BERJAYA GROUP KE NGEMPU OUTLET JUDI TOTO PEN TENTU BISI KENA CHUKAI GA LABAN KE MAIN JUDI NYA AMAT MEH SHAREHOLDER DIA MAYUH NON-MUSLIM. NADAI PERINTAH DEKA NGEMENDARKA LESEN JUDI NYA ENTI SIDA ENDA DIBERI SYARAT MAYAR CHUKAI DEH. KUMBAI KITAI MEMIMIT UNTUNG AKTIVIT JUDI NYA IGAT!!

21. tyran on January 17th, 2010 6:12 pm

    not only through blog but law that insist convert 2 islam when marry 2 one muslim,that i say should should never happen in sabah n sarawak .

22. paku lawang on January 17th, 2010 7:24 pm

    Tyran,

    That one is another issue. Why should we convert if we married with them? That mean we must follow what ever they want if we deal something with them. Can say they a selfish!!!

    The best way to deal with islam girl is ..hit and run…

Leave a Reply