Bumiputra Christians And The Use Of "Allah"

The Christian community in Malaysia by and large is aware that there are two legal suits pending in the High Courts to determine whether we have the right to use the word "Allah". 9 July 2008 is a very important date. The latest development now witnesses Sikh's participation in the fray. Four State Islamic Councils have already applied to be the respondents in this case. They are Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Perak (MAIAMP), Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (MAIWP), Majlis Agama Islam dan Adat Melayu Terengganu (Maidam) and Majlis Agama Islam Pulau Pinang (MAIPP). Its outcome has far reaching implications over the missio praxis particularly among the Malay-speaking congregations who mostly are bumiputera of Sabah, Sarawak and Orang Asli of Semananjung Malaysia. In this context, our church leaders (ordained, lay and including politicians) are in the forefront to battle it out for us so to speak in the court of law. They are exercising their roles and responsibilities as church leaders. We thank God for them and we are grateful to them for doing what they are doing. Frankly speaking, making the final judgment is not going to be easy for the judges who will preside over the two cases.

As I searched the internet on the universal usage of the word "Allah" with particular reference to its currency in the Malaysian contexts, I came across Micah Mandate. I salute Mr Goh for interviewing Tan Sri Bernard Dompok in Putrajaya on major issues, among other things, religious freedom - the use of "Allah" by the Christian community in particular. I do not know Tan Sri very well but I do know one or two politicians who are close to him and through them I know he is a man of principle. Therefore, I BELIEVE in his words. Another contributor in the same site described the turn of events leading to the two court cases (I mentioned earlier) on the word "Allah": one was filed by the Roman Catholic Church (RC) and the other suit was filed by Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB).

The use of "Allah" in our Alkitab, kebaktian kudus, khotbah, latihan perlengkapan, perbualan, etc is long established. It may not be used every second of our daily lives but it is certainly used right through the rites of passages from the day one is baptized as an infant to the day of his or her funeral. It is used in Sunday or weekday services in churches as well as in our homes, in our daily prayers, teachings or cell group meetings. We continue to praise God in heaven and I believe God would accept our praises and worship containing the word "Allah" if we were to use it to address and worship him (see Rev 7:9-12). In short, it is impossible to cease the use of Allah from our communal and religious life.

We have used this word even before Malaysia was formed on 16 September 1963. In fact the Malaysia Bible Society authority would affirm that the word "Allah" has been used in the Malay translation of Mathew's Gospel in 1612 some 350 years before the idea of Malaysia was ever conceived. When Malaysia was formed and proclaimed Bahasa Melayu (now Bahasa Malaysia) became the national language and Islam the official religion. Other religions were freed to exist, express and propagate their faiths. For us, the freedom enshrined in the Constitution also included the free use of words, phrases, terms and terminologies including the word "Allah". I do not think that from that day onward Christians were no longer allowed to use "Allah" in their community? I am interested to find a specific clause in our Federal Constitution spelling out that beginning 1963 Christians no longer can use "Allah" because it would confuse the Muslims and only Muslims can use the word. What has happened I suggest is rather an afterthought pronouncement so to speak, and if so, what other proactive approach could be taken to rectify it? For example, it is far effective to educate Malaysians regarding the use of Allah than legislate its use.

The word has become part of our story telling very early in our struggle towards nation building If we were to delete this most central and fundamental word from our vocabs; we would create huge vacuum in our Christian education programs. It impedes our understanding and teaching of who our God Almighty is. Our prayer language is devoid of the most fundamental truths and understanding of our God who became man, died and rose again and to whom we now make petitions. Charting this path of removing the word in our story telling may seem to others an effortless task - just a delete and forget processes. Or, just use another word - Tuhan. But we cannot underestimate the power of words. Nor can we easily brush aside history and the attachment associated with the word. This Allah word, when rightly taught and correctly understood evokes feelings of intimacy, love, fear, respect, honour and worship of God. It is intrinsic to our ecclesiastical, religious, linguistic and spiritual landscape. We are proud to use a foreign word that has become our national language and ecclesiastically proper when used to address and worship our God. Now we might face the possibility to forget it? The concern that we will lose this privilege to use the word "Allah" is real.

We must also allay the fear among Muslims that we might use the word to confuse or win them over. It is a legitimate concern, especially in the context of Malaysia. I sincerely believe the Christian community will not resort to this scheme. We know we cannot evangelise Muslims and that we can be prosecuted when doing so. What is the difference between our Allah and their Allah? I have sisters and many relatives who are married to Muslims by choice and converted to Islam. If they ask me to explain my "Allah" I will reply that my "Allah" is he who is righteous, loving, compassionate and forgiving. He hates sin but loves the sinner. No one has ever seen Allah because he is spirit but he became human and lived among humans. He died for everybod and rose to heaven. Whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. That is my "Allah". Period.

In Malaysia's multi-religious framework it is well and good to settle things amicably in the spirit of musyawarah. Musyawarah is considered a vital tool in problem-solving. However, going by the present situation we might as well allow the court to help settle this case once and for all. Let us pray that the judgment favours us. If the judgment does not favour us this scenario will take place; we cannot use the word "Allah" anymore in our daily conversation, religious or community activities. The reason is because we might "confuse" the followers of the official religion of this country. As a pastor-teacher-preacher and theologian in the local church I naturally follow this event with interest and anticipation because it has far reaching implications in the way we treat our literature, liturgy, songs, ministry and mission enterprises, etc. What will be our next option (I am not answering this question in this article, yet)?

By the way, in the context of the universal declaration of human rights, does one has the right to require an adherent of another religion not to use a specific word because that specific word belongs only to his religion? The two judges shoulder a heavy responsibility in interpreting the law when they preside over the two pending and separate court cases over a common issue - the right to use the word "Allah" We trust in God and pray that the court will deliver a favourable judgment to us.

(By LIDIS SINGKUNG/ MySinchew)
-----------------------------------------------
Lidis Singkung is an Anglican clergyman and also a Kadazandusun. Presently
he serves in St Patrick's Anglican Church in Tawau). Used by permission of
www.themicahmandate.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Husband

A HUSBAND COMES HOME FROM CHURCH; HE GREETS HIS WIFE AND LIFTS HER UP. HE THEN CARRIED HER AROUND THE HOUSE.

THE WIFE WAS SO SURPRISED AND SHE ASKED 'DID THE BISHOP PREACH ABOUT BEING ROMANTIC'?

THE HUSBAND SAID, 'NO, HE SAID WE MUST CARRY OUR BURDENS AND SORROWS'.

National Day of Prayer

The first Thursday in May is National Day of Prayer. President Harry S. Truman signed a bill proclaiming the National Day of Prayer into law on April 17, 1952.

My church was open all day today for anyone who wanted to come in and pray.

The National Day of Prayer also coincided with my weekly Bible Study with a group of church ladies. After our regular study we spent about 10 minutes praying together over the prayer items listed in the National Day of Prayer leaflet.

*****

2008 Prayer for Our Nation

Dr. Ravi Zacharias
2008 Honorary Chairman, National Day of Prayer Task Force



Holy Father, in a world where so many are hungry,
You have given us food in abundance;

In a world where so many are hurting,
You offer to bind up our wounds;

In a world where so many are lonely,
You offer friendship to every heart;

In a world longing for peace,
You offer hope.

Yet, we are so stubborn and resistant.
Have mercy upon us, Lord.

Our nation is at a crossroads this year;
we look to you to be our strength and shield.

Please give us the guidance to elect one who will honor you
and to respond to the wisdom from above
so that our hope may be renewed and our blessings be treasured.

In God's holy name.

Christianity without Christ

That triumphal barnburner of an Easter hymn, Jesus Christ Has Risen Today – Hallelujah, this morning will rock the walls of Toronto's West Hill United Church as it will in most Christian churches across the country.

But at West Hill on the faith's holiest day, it will be done with a huge difference. The words “Jesus Christ” will be excised from what the congregation sings and replaced with “Glorious hope.”

Thus, it will be hope that is declared to be resurrected – an expression of renewal of optimism and the human spirit – but not Jesus, contrary to Christianity's central tenet about the return to life on Easter morning of the crucified divine son of God.

Generally speaking, no divine anybody makes an appearance in West Hill's Sunday service liturgy.

There is no authoritative Big-Godism, as Rev. Gretta Vosper, West Hill's minister for the past 10 years, puts it. No petitionary prayers (“Dear God, step into the world and do good things about global warming and the poor”). No miracles-performing magic Jesus given birth by a virgin and coming back to life. No references to salvation, Christianity's teaching of the final victory over death through belief in Jesus's death as an atonement for sin and the omnipotent love of God. For that matter, no omnipotent God, or god.

Ms. Vosper has written a book, published this week – With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important than What We Believe – in which she argues that the Christian church, in the form in which it exists today, has outlived its viability and either it sheds its no-longer credible myths, doctrines and dogmas, or it's toast.

She is considered one of the bright, if unconventional, minds within the United Church, Canada's largest Protestant Christian denomination. She holds a master of divinity degree from Queen's University and was ordained in 1992. She founded and chairs the Toronto-based Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity.

Full story here.

Ms Vosper should stop deceiving herself and her followers and just call themselves atheists or anything they like. Anything but Christians.

They do not believe in Jesus Christ or God. So what is the point of calling themselves Christians? Progressive or otherwise?

Resurrection? Prove it to me

"Raised from the dead? Sure. Right. And I have a bridge I'd like to sell you."

That's how Thomas might have responded if he had lived in our day. "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands, and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."¹ He'd seen dead people before. And Jesus was dead. He sounds like sophisticated rationalists of the Twenty-first Century. "It isn't plausible," they would contend. "It didn't happen."

But what if it did happen?

Thomas was convinced when Jesus appeared to him, reached out his hands to Thomas, and said, "Put your finger here."

Thomas dropped to his knees. "My Lord and my God!"²

It was self-hypnosis, you counter. The disciples wanted to believe that their Lord was not dead, so they just invented it out of whole cloth.

Really? Let's look at some of the evidence.

1. Jesus' body was missing. If the Jews could have found it, they could have stilled the preaching of Jesus' resurrection that filled Jerusalem. But they could not.
2. The body wasn't stolen. The Romans had no motive. The Jews had no motive. Ah-ha, you say, the disciples stole it. There is the matter of the Roman guards, and the disciples' initial disbelief when the women brought them the news early that Easter morning. This brings me to my third point.
3. If the disciples had stolen the body, you wouldn't expect them to risk their lives. People don't die for what they know is not true. But the disciples put their lives on the line, and nearly all were eventually martyred for their faith. They certainly believed it.
4. The church mushroomed size in Jerusalem, the very place he was crucified. Followers of Jesus in the city of Jerusalem grew from a few dozen to thousands upon thousands soon after Jesus' resurrection. They believed it was true.
5. Contemporary documents refer to the event. Thallus the Samaritan, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny contain references to Jesus. Jewish historian Josephus writes about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. They knew something had happened.

Jesus' resurrection from the dead is actually more plausible than any other explanation. That's why we Christians make such a big deal about Easter. That's why we celebrate.

Jesus' resurrection means that death is not the end. That though my body may lie mouldering in the ground, Jesus, whom the Father raised from the dead, gives me eternal life. Ultimately, we Christians believe, our bodies, too, will be raised from the dead.

And since Jesus is not dead, people can encounter him today. You can know him through a personal relationship. I could point to lots of people who can testify what Jesus has done in their lives to bring them from the brink of disaster to peace and meaning and joy. He changes people for good.

If you're not sure can't really say you've met this risen Jesus, this Easter Sunday why don't you slip into church to seek him. And perhaps in the midst of our celebration, you'll find him for yourself.

He's alive, you know. That's what Easter is all about!

By Dr. Ralph F. Wilson

A Soldier's View of the Tomb

Cassius stood at rigid attention in front of the commanding officer of Jerusalem's military cohort. "Centurion," the officer barked, "explain yourself! One of your squads was assigned to guard a tomb, a dead man. What could be so hard about that? Now I'm hearing rumors that the body is missing? Tell me this is all a mistake!"

"Sir, may I be frank, one old soldier to another?" asked the Centurion. He and the Tribune went back a long way, though the Tribune was of the equestrian class, and he a mere commoner.

"Please, Cassius," he said somewhat more gently, and motioned for the Centurion to take a seat.

"I must beg your indulgence, sir," Cassius began. "The story actually begins weeks ago."

"Take your time," the Tribune said, relaxing somewhat.

"Ever since this Jesus began preaching around Jerusalem, we thought he might be some kind of revolutionary bent on stirring up the populace with his talk of the Kingdom of God. But I went and listened to him, sir. He was no threat. Thousands would sit in rapt attention as he would talk about his Father, and loving your neighbor, forgiveness from past sins, and beginning a new life. It was fascinating, sir. Made you feel like he cared about you personally, he did."

The Tribune was resting his chin on his hand. "Go on, soldier."

"The next I saw him, we had been ordered to stand guard outside the Governor's official residence. The crowd was getting ugly. Pontius Pilate was sitting up there on the judgment seat and Jesus stood before him. Someone had roughed him up a bit, sir.

"What did you expect, Centurion?"

"Finally," Cassius continued, "Pilate motioned for silence. 'I find no crime in this man,' he called out. Then he tried to set Jesus free. He asked them to choose between Barabbas--a known murderer and rebel--and Jesus."

"And now that criminal Barabbas is walking free again."

"Jews from the ruling Sanhedrin were shouting, 'Crucify him! Crucify him!' The rabble took up the cry. It was touch and go for a minute there, sir. Then Pilate called for a basin, and began to wash his prissy little hands ...."

"Centurion, I'll allow no disrespect," the Tribune said sharply.

"Yes sir, but you know Jesus was innocent, pure and simple. He had just offended some powerful priests. But when Pilate saw how the wind was blowing he went along. I thought Rome was about law and justice, not expediency."

"Ruling is sometimes dirty business, Centurion," interjected the Tribune.

"So is soldiering, sir. On your orders one of my squad was picked to scourge the man."

"Oh, they enjoyed it well enough," said the Tribune. "That tall soldier ... Publius, wasn't it? He flogged like a madman, as I recall, with the metal tips of the scourge biting into his back until the skin lay in tatters and blood ran free."

"Few times in my career have I been sickened by blood," commented Cassius, "but to see an innocent man treated with such cruelty...."

"I don't recall you stopping them from dressing him in a purple robe with a reed for a scepter and a crown of thorns. Oh, they were having fun, all right."

"I've crucified hundreds in my time," Cassius replied, "but this man was different. He didn't curse. He didn't whimper. He was half-dead already from the beating Publius gave him, and he fell on the way to Golgotha."

"Fell?"

"He was just too weak to carry the cross, so we conscripted a strong Cyrenean to carry it. Then we crucified Jesus."

"All men die the same."

"Not like he did," replied Cassius. "We spiked him to the cross-bar and hoisted it onto the upright, but I'll never forget his prayer: 'Father forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing.' Sir, I was responsible for killing him, and he forgave me."

"Haven't you been a soldier too long to be troubled by a guilty conscience, Cassius?"

"Then the thief crucified next to him asked to be remembered when Jesus came into his kingdom."

"His kingdom!" the Tribune sneered.

"But listen to his answer: 'Today you will be with me in paradise.' Amazing! About noon, Tribune, the sky grew dark. Everyone saw it, and felt the cold chill when he cried, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?' He sounded like the loneliest man in the world, hanging in the darkness. He spoke scarcely a word until three in the afternoon when he shouted, almost triumphantly, 'It is finished!' And, if you listened closely, you could hear him whisper, 'Into your hands I commit my spirit.'

"At that very moment the ground began to tremble and roll," said Cassius. "Knocked me to the ground for a moment. And then the darkness began to lift. I tell you, Tribune, that was no mere man we crucified, he was the Son of God."

"A few freak coincidences and you're willing to declare him divine? He's just as dead as anyone."

"No, Tribune, he's not."

"He's not?"

"The chief priests and Pharisees insisted that Pilate guard the tomb so Jesus' disciples wouldn't steal the body."

"I know. I ordered it."

"We posted three men around the clock, relieved every eight hours as regulations call for. I sealed the tomb before they began. It was secure."

"So, what's this rumor that the body is gone?"

"It is gone, sir."

"I'll have your hide, Centurion!" the Tribune shouted, rising to his feet.

Cassius stood, too, but went on. "About seven o'clock Sunday morning, sir, the three soldiers on duty came running into the barracks like they'd seen a ghost. 'Centurion! Centurion!' they shouted. 'He's alive!' I got them calmed down, and made them tell me every detail.

"Their shift had begun about midnight," he said. They had been wide awake all night--telling stories about their girlfriends back home most of the time, I understand. Then, just before dawn, they said the garden tomb lit up as if it were high noon, and an angel with garments like lightning came and rolled the stone away from the tomb. They just sat there trembling. Then one of them got up-- Publius, I think they said--and looked in the tomb. The body was gone, and the graveclothes were lying on the limestone shelf wrapped round and round, but no body in them."

"You expect me to believe that?" the Tribune responded disdainfully.

"I questioned them closely. Each looked. Each saw the same thing. The body was gone."

"They must have fallen asleep, and told a story to cover themselves."

"They were battle-hardened veterans, sir, not some green troops. I know those men. Besides, sir, you'd think the sound of people trying to roll a huge stone would awaken sleeping soldiers. No, they were telling the truth, all right."

"What do you expect me to tell people, Centurion? That he rose from the dead?"

"I don't know what you're going to tell them, Tribune, but that's what happened. He's alive. I tell you, he's alive!"

"We'll tell the soldiers to say they fell asleep and his disciples stole the body," suggested the Tribune.

"What soldier is willing to say he fell asleep?" asked Cassius with a thin smile on his face.

"We'll pay them to say it," said the Tribune. "The chief priests owe us. They'll come up with a goodly sum to bury this story.... I'll take care of it from here on out, Centurion. You didn't see anything. You don't know anything. Got it?"

"But I do know, and I did see, Tribune. I can't change what happened. Jesus is out there alive. More than alive."

"Forget this ever happened, Cassius."

"Forget it if you can, sir. But with all respect, Jesus is alive, and that changes everything."

Source: Joyful Heart

Sherif Girgis: The Audacity of Hope

This morning, on The Laura Ingraham Show, I heard a very articulate Princeton University student talk about the open letter he had written to Senator Obama.

Today was the first time I had heard of Sherif Girgis. I do not know how I could have missed this bright young man because I am, afterall, a subcriber of National Review.

This following is the letter Sherif Girgis wrote to Senator Obama, and reproduced from NRO.

~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~

The Audacity of Hope
A second-generational query.

By Sherif Girgis

Dear Senator Obama:

As an immigrant from Kenya, your father found new hope in America’s noble principles and vast opportunities. The same promise brought my parents here from Egypt when I was still too young to thank them. Now you have inspired my generation with your vision of a country united around the same ideals of liberty and justice, “filled with hope and possibility for all Americans.”

But do you mean it?


As a legislator, you have opposed every effort to protect unborn human life. Shockingly, you even opposed a bill to protect the lives of babies who, having survived an attempted abortion, are born alive. Despite your party’s broad support for legal abortion and its public funding, most Democrats (including Senator Clinton) did not oppose the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. You, however, opposed it. Your vision of America seems to eliminate “hope and possibility” for a whole class of Americans: the youngest and most vulnerable. You would deny them the most basic protection of justice, the most elementary equality of opportunity: the right to be born.

As a prerequisite for any other right, the right to life is the great civil-rights issue of our time. It is what slavery and segregation were to generations past. Our response to this issue is the measure of our fidelity to a defining American principle: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.”

You have asked me to vote for you. In turn, may I ask you three simple questions? They are straightforward questions of fact about abortion. They are at the heart of the debate. In fairness, I believe that you owe the people you would lead a good-faith answer to each:

1. The heart whose beating is stilled in every abortion — is it a human heart?

2. The tiny limbs torn by the abortionist’s scalpel — are they human limbs?

3. The blood that flows from the fetus’s veins — is it human blood?

If the stopped heart is a human heart, if the torn limbs are human limbs, if the spilled blood is human blood, can there be any denying that what is killed in an abortion is a human being? In your vision for America, the license to kill that human being is a right. You have worked to protect that “right” at every turn. But can there be a right to deny some human beings life or the equal protection of the law?

Of course, some do deny that every human being has a right to life. They say that size or degree of development or dependence can make a difference. But the same was once said of color. Some say that abortion is a “necessary evil.” But the same was once said of slavery. Some say that prohibiting abortion would only harm women by driving it underground. But to assume so is truly to play the politics of fear. A compassionate society would never accept these false alternatives. A compassionate society would protect both mother and child, coming to the aid of women in need rather than calling violence against their children the answer to their problems.

Can we become a society that does not sacrifice some people to help others? Or is that hope too audacious? You have said that abortion is necessary to protect women’s equality. But surely we can do better. Surely we can build an America where the equality of some is not purchased with the blood of others. Or would that mean too much change from politics as usual?

Can we provide every member of the human family equal protection under the law? Your record as a legislator gives a resounding answer: No, we can’t. That is the answer the Confederacy gave the Union, the answer segregationists gave young children, the answer a complacent bus driver once gave a defiant Rosa Parks. But a different answer brought your father from Kenya so many years ago; a different answer brought my family from Egypt some years later. Now is your chance, Senator Obama, to make good on the spontaneous slogan of your campaign, to adopt the more American and more humane answer to the question of whether we can secure liberty and justice for all: Yes, we can.

— Sherif Girgis of Dover, Del., is a senior philosophy major at Princeton University and a 2008 Rhodes Scholar.