Wednesday, October 16, 2013

"Allah" Exclusively for Islam

biru2000
You do not need to do extensive research to determine that the word Allah is not an integral part of the Christian faith. The Pope doesn't use it, the Christian Archbishops, Cardinals and Priests in the western world do not use it and they will never use it. None of their original Bibles and Scriptures have mentioned Allah as their god. So we fail to understand why the Malaysian Christians are so obstinately adamant to use the word. 
They say they have been using the word for more than 100 years. So what? Have they ponder for once, that maybe, they have been using the wrong word to refer to their god. Have the East Malaysian Christians do extensive research to find out why their forefathers somehow or other got attached to this word? Maybe at that time their forefathers are blinded by the Christian missionaries who are so desperate to spread the Christian faith, that they do not care what name the natives refer to their god, as long as they embrace the religion? 
I suggest that the Malaysian Christians organize an international conference inviting all the learned Christian scholars and leaders in the world and debate among themselves what name they should call their god. Unless they have decided on one, they should not be talking about constitutional rights.
The above is a reader's response to the debate in Malaysia where the Appellate Court has ruled that the word "Allah" is strictly for use by Muslims and that the weekly Catholic paper is banned from using "Allah" to refer to God in their Malay language section of the paper.

"Allah" is used to refer to God in the Malay language Bible as well as in the Bibles of some native languages of Malaysia in the same way that the English Bible uses the term "God" to refer to the Almighty.

It is hard to argue with the likes of biru2000.  Allah, as used in some Christian Bibles, is merely a term to refer to God. It is a name that came into the Arabic language from the Syriac.  Allah is not the name of  the God of the Bible.

The Allah of the Bible may share the same name as the Allah of the Quran, the Allah in the Sikh scriptures, and the pagan Allah of the Kaa'bah in the city of Mecca, but are they one and the same? Of course not! Each of them does not share the same attributes and neither the same message. The message of the Allah of the Bible is grace and salvation through the death and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus Christ!




References:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2013/10/14/allah-remains-exclusive-for-muslims/
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/court-of-appeals-findings-on-allah-issue-unnatural-says-malaysian-bar/

Saturday, May 01, 2010

We are too easily pleased

Of all places, I found the following quote by C.S. Lewis at a photography forum. It was a tag line of one of the participants.

"We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us.... We are far too easily pleased." C.S. Lewis

Isn't that so true!

We look for today's gratification of the flesh, something that satisfies us momentarily. And then we wonder if there is more to life then the drinking, the eating, the quest for a better paying job, the desire to be liked and approved ...

God promises that He will be found if someone seeks him with all his heart. And to the person who finds Him, He promises

  • guidance Psalm 32:8
  • deliverance in the day of trouble Psalm 50:15
  • help Isaiah 41:13
  • to show great and mighty things Jeremiah 33:3
  • showers of blessings Ezekiel 34:26
  • the person will find what he seeks, and receives what he asks for Matthew 7:7-8
  • rest and refreshment Matthew 11:28-29

There are many more promises to the person who surrenders himself to God, and these promises from Matthew 6:31-33 are a good reminder why eternity should be our focus while we live this short life on this earth.

So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

First translations of the Malay Bible


Source:Here.

To the willfully ignorant, facts do not matter.

When the Bible was translated into the Malay language as far back as 1612, the term "Allah" was used to describe Almighty God.

And yet today, many Malaysian Muslims are accusing the Catholic Church in Malaysia as having a hidden agenda when they insist that they have the right to use the term "Allah". These Muslims do not understand that the Catholic Church is not the only one that uses the term. Christians from other protestant denominations in Sabah and Sarawak too use the term "Allah" in Bibles written in their native languages.

Just think about it. Is it an issue in the Arab speaking world when Christian Arabs use "Allah" in their publications and worship? Is it an issue in Indonesia, the country with the most Muslim population, when Christians use the term "Allah" in their worship?

Only in Malaysia is it an issue! An issue drummed up by the religious, political and race-baiting opportunists.

The fact is, the term "Allah" has never been the sole domain of Islam's and it will never be.

So deal with it! evil

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

"Allah" as used in the Bible

“This is because ‘God’ in other religions is translated as “Tuhan” in Bahasa Melayu or Arabic, not ‘Allah’. Allah’ specifically referred to God in Islam. If they understand that, they would use the word ‘Tuhan’, not ‘Allah’. “I accept the term ‘Allah’ had been used in Sabah and Sarawak before the two states joined Malaysia, but it is difficult to stop them from doing so now ... but in the peninsula, we have not heard of such practice.” .. Mahathir Mohammad as quoted in the Malaysian Insider.
Mahathir Mohammad is merely expressing what many ingnorant Malaysian Muslims believe about the usage of "Allah" by Christians in Malaysia, especially used by Christians in Sabah and Sarawak. 

Those who understand the context and concept of "Allah" as used by Christians know that the word predates Islam and has been used by Christians in the Middle East long before the dawn of Islam. It is a term with definite meaning and not easily substituted with the word "Tuhan" which also means God (but used differently in the Bible) as suggested by Mahathir Mohammad. 

I doubt many Malaysian Muslims, and that includes Mahathir Mohammad, know that the word "Allah" has been in continuous use in the Malay language "first, in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malay (Ruyl, 1629); then, in the first complete Malay Bible (Leijdecker, 1733), and in the second complete Malay Bible (Klinkert, 1879) and the translations since." (Bible Society of Malaysia)

Christians in Malaysia are not trying to inflame the sensitivities of Malaysian Muslims, as charged by certain Muslim quarters, when they insist on maintaining their right to use the term "Allah" in their Bibles and publications. It is the Muslims themselves, who are only now aware that the term "Allah" (a term that has been used for over 400 years in that part of the world!) is being used by people other than Muslims, and are getting all worked up and making accusations against Christians that have no basis in facts! 

Accusations of the term being misused for proselytizing. Accusations of denigration of Islam. Claims that by allowing the term "Allah" to be used by non-Muslims as endangering the sanctity and status of Islam in the country! Oh my.

When a Christian uses the term "Allah" to refer to Almighty God, there is clearly no confusion in his/her mind that he/she is worshiping the Christian God and not the Muslim God. 

There are people who suggest that both Christians and Muslims worship the same God "Allah" and why quibble over the name of the God that both are worshiping? But for many Christians, especially in the Western world, the use of "Allah" to refer to the Christian God is an abhorrence because to them Allah the Muslim God is a false God. But using the term "Allah" to refer to Almighty God, the Father of heaven and earth is not an issue in the Arabic speaking world and neither is it an issue in Indonesia.
Muslim writers have been using Allah in their quotations of the Christian Bible since the ninth century. Jewish scholars have also been translating elohim and elah as Allah since the earliest known Arabic translations of the Torah in the ninth century until today. (Joshua Massey in Allah in Bible Translations)
In Malaysia, through ignorance and politicking by political and religious opportunists, the usage of the term "Allah" has become a source of religious and racial tension. Should Malaysian Christians be the ones to pay the price for easily inflamed ignoramuses and political opportunists? I say, "NO!". In the words of Rev Hermen Shastri, general secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, "Malay has borrowed from Arabic, just as it has from Sanskrit and Portuguese. We have maintained the community has the right to use the word [Allah]."

Saturday, May 16, 2009

The Sanctity of Life

This weekend, President Obama will deliver the commencement speech at, and will receive an honorary law degree from Notre Dame University, a Catholic university, in South Bend, Indiana.

Obama's presence at the university has caused quite a controversy because of his stance on abortion. To practicing Catholics, abortion is not merely a sin but an injustice as well. An injustice to the unborn who has no say in the evil that is done to it.

Protecting the unborn and preserving the sanctity of life, should be one of the top social issues for anyone who calls himself/herself a Christian. The abortion debate is a difficult one for many Christians and one of the best resources I have found for compelling arguments for protecting the life of the unborn can be found at Stand to Reason.
Abortion involves killing and discarding something that's alive. Whether it's right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations.

Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

That quote from Gregory Koukl of Stand to Reason sums up the crux of the abortion issue.

Where do YOU stand on this issue?

****

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Psalms 139:13-16:

Thursday, May 07, 2009

National Day of Prayer 2009


May your unfailing love rest upon us, O Lord,
even as we put our hope in you.
Psalm 33:22

Friday, April 24, 2009

Pengawa Ngerembaika Pengarap

Sebedau Jesus angkat ke serega iya bisi ninggal siti pesan ke berat ngagai bala murid iya. Ku iya, "Aku udah diberi semua kuasa di serega enggau dunya. Nya alai bejalai kita ngagai semua bansa orang di sebarang endur lalu ajar sida nyadi murid aku: baptisa sida dalam nama apai, enggau Anak, enggau Roh Kudus, lalu ajar sida ngasi ke utai ti udah dipesan aku ngagai kita. Kingatka! Aku seruran deka enggau kita datai ke pemadu dunya." (Matthew 28:19-20) 

Jaku pesan tu besai endar reti ba kitai ke ngumbai diri Kristian. Dua iti jalai gereja tauka serakup Kristian ngerembaika Berita Manah tu iya nya ngena jalai radio enggau TV . Ba menua kami ditu, mayuh amat stesen radio enggau TV ti mina naburka program pasal pengarap Kristian. 

Lebuh aku ngenangka penyamai orang ninga/meda/macha pasal Berita Manah Allah Taala ari radio, TV tauka ari bup ba menua kami ditu, sinu ga aku ngenang pendiau kitai di Malaysia. Kitai enda ulih ngaga stesen radio tauka TV ti mina ngemansangka pengarap kitai. Kitai enda ulih nyual bup pengarap kitai ba sebarang kedai bup. Kitai enda tau ngeluar surat kabar ti ngundan sekeda leka jaku. Kitai enda tau bekunsi pasal pengarap kitai ngagai orang ke udah megai pengarap Islam. 

Taja pia, barangsapa ti bebendar ngiga Allah Taala, tetap tetemuka Iya. Barangsapa ti ka ngisi ati sida enggau pemendar Allah Taala tetap tulihka iya. Pasang aja short wave radio, dia kitai ulih tetemuka radio pasal pengarap Kristian. Enda ibuh sebut agi enti ngena internet. Enti bisi penanggul, ati kitai aja ke nyadi penanggul. 

 Aku deka bekunsi ditu kesaksian sekeda orang ke udah nerima pengelepas ari Tuhan Jesus. Anang kitai ngumbai kategal pengawa ngerembai pengarap kitai ngagai orang ke udah megai pengarap Islam disekat perintah, sida enda ulih ditegu agi. Enti kitai mina ngena kuasa mensia sigi enda ulih pan tang kuasa Allah Taala besai agi ari kuasa ke ba dunya tu. Jesus tau negu pengidup orang ke endang amat-amat ngiga iya, lalu Iya tau ngayanka diri Iya ari mimpi, ari malikat iya, ari radio enggau TV, ari kaban belayan orang nya empu, tauka ari kunsi orang ke enda dikelala iya. 

 Siku orang ke udah ditegu Allah Taala iya nya Mark Gabriel, bansa Arab ari menua Egypt. Saksi iya amat meransang aku, laban munyi ku aku tadi kuasa Allah Taala enda ulih diperagam kitai mensia. 

Siti program TV ti udah negu mayuh orang bansa Arab ke megai pengarap Islam iya nya Al Hayat. Program tu dipanchar ari America, ngajar pasal pengarap Kristian lalu endang dituju ngagai bansa Arab ke megai pengarap Islam. Aku bekunsi siti video alai siku lelaki bansa Arab ari Algeria nerima pengelepas ke diberi Tuhan Jesus ngagai samua orang ti arap ke iya. Pelaba aku enti program baka Al Hayat ulih diterima ba menua Malaysia tentu mayuh orang ti megai pengarap Islam tetarit hati mega.

Sapa kitai ke diau ba Malaysia enda kala ninga nama Lina Joy? Lina Joy semina siku aja orang bansa Melayu ke udah ninggal pengarap lama iya lalu nerima pengelepas ke diberi Tuhan Jesus. Siku agi indu Melayu ke bisi mega nerima pengelepas ari Tuhan Jesus benama Maria. Cherita iya tau dibacha ditu. Enti kita enda kala ninga pasal lelaki Melayu benama Benjamin Stephen, giga aja nama iya ba YouTube. Dia kita tetemu mayuh video mantah Benjamin Stephen kategal iya ka bekunsi kebuah iya ninggal pengarap iya alu nyadi orang ke nitih Tuhan Jesus. Kitai mina kala ninga sida ke disebut ditu laban sida tampak agi rita tang lebih mayuh ke enda ditemu kitai, ti belalai ngembuan pengarap sida. 

Kitai mina ulih meri puji ngagai Tuhan laban mina iya aja ti ulih negu ati siku-siku lalu mai sida ngagai jalai ke bendar. Ku Jesus, "Enti dunya begedi ngagai kita, kita enda tau enda ingat ke iya ti udah dulu begedi ati ngagai aku. Enti kita endang enggi dunya, iya deka rindu ke kita. Tang aku udah milih kita ari dunya tu, lalu kita ukai enggi iya; nya kebuah dunya begedi ngagai kitai." (John 15:18-19)

Friday, April 17, 2009

The Power of Jesus' Name

Did you read the story about how Christian signs and symbols at Georgetown University had to be covered,at the request of Obama's people, when Obama spoke about his economic policies at the university? Among the signs that were covered was the monogram IHS, a symbol for the name of Jesus.

Why is Jesus' name either honored or derided? Let's see what the Bible says about the name of Jesus.

1. We are commanded to believe in the name of God's Son, Jesus Christ. 1 John 3:23

2. Those who believe that Jesus is the Christ, have life in his name. John 20:31

3. Believers are washed, sanctified and justified in name of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 6:11

4. Even demons listen to commands in Jesus' name. Acts 16:18, Mark 5:10

5. Jesus' name has the power to heal. Acts 3:16, Acts 4:30, Acts 16:18,

And most importantly,

6. Jesus' name is above all names, and every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth at the name of Jesus and every tongue will confess that He is Lord. Philippians 2:10

Is it any wonder that the name of Jesus is honored by those who put their faith in Him, and derided and used as a curse word by others who refused to acknowledge his Lordship?

Those who use Jesus' name as a curse word know that, whether they acknowledge it or not, there is power in that name. Have you heard anyone use the name of Buddha, or Krishna, or even Mohammad as a curse word? Why not? Because none of those names has the kind of power that Jesus' name has.

Personal Application:

Am I a worthy ambassador for Christ? (2 Corinthians 5:20). Does my conduct bring honor or dishonor to God?

Help me, Lord, to never knowingly take your name in vain!

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

"Allah" Ban Part Trois

The following article is a reproduction from Herald Malaysia Online. Prof Dzulkifli's original article can be found here. My comments to this article appear at the bottom of this post.

***********

A response to Prof Dzulkifli by Fr Martin Harun
Published on April 03 , 2009

Inconsistent, insensitive translations of ‘Allah’?

By: Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (Wed, 11 Mar 2009)
Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak in his article in The Sun on Mar 11, wrote about the Christian Bible and its translation in Bahasa Indonesia (Alkitab). Unfortunately he manifested not only his lack of understanding in the specified field of bible translation but also an inadequate knowledge of basic Christian concepts. Hence we have asked Fr Martin Harun, OFM, a biblical scholar, to respond to his article. Fr Martin is a member of the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia. Please note that we have not altered the original article of Prof Dzulkifli. The response of Fr Martin is in bold beneath those statements that are inaccurate or which do not measure up to good scholarship.

Prof Dzulfikli Abdul Razak: The use of the term ‘Allah’ has captured the attention of the media again. Of late, even a newspaper from down south carried a commentary on the issue. The slant is usually political, and not religious, and does not throw any new light on the issue. It also does not appeal to the intellect; instead, it seems to border more on emotions that further confuse the issue.

[We disagree with the above sentence. In our response to what follows we challenge the subjective views of the author. Our statements are based on historical facts and intellectual objectivity. (Editor’s Note)]

To all Muslims the term ‘Allah’ is laden with the concept of Tauhid — that ‘Allah’ is “the One and Only” as defined in the Quranic language, which happens to be Arabic. ‘Allah’ cannot be understood without this concept of his oneness. Any attempt to do so will amount to a vulgarism of sort, and an affront to Muslims.

Fr Martin Harun: All Christians in the Arabic world and Indonesia and Malaysia who use the word ‘Allah’ for God, confess ‘Allah’ yang Esa. Christian Trinitarian belief is monotheistic, although not in the same sense as Muslim monotheistic belief. Each religion has of course its own specific definitions, as has been acknowledged by Muslims and Christians from the very beginning.

Prof Dzulkifli: Moving forward, let us briefly try and understand the reasons for Muslim misgivings by using the Bahasa Indonesia version which is translated from the English New King James Version and authorised by Konperensi Waligerja Indonesia (Edition, 2004). Let us randomly take The Gospel according to Luke, translated as Injil Lukas, to briefly illustrate the point.

Fr Harun: Alkitab Terjemahan Baru and Alkitab Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari both are translated not from any other modern language like English but from the original Hebrew and Greek text. When translating Elohim and Theos with ‘Allah,’ the translations follow an already long established translation tradition. Since the seventeenth century bible translations in Malay have used the word ‘Allah’ as the best word available in the Malay language to express the monotheistic concept of Elohim and Theos.

Prof Dzulkifli: In Luke, ‘God’ is generally substituted by ‘Allah’, whereas ‘Tuhan’ is commonly used to substitute ‘the Lord". Note the article ‘the’ applies to ‘Tuhan,’ but not to ‘Allah’. Hence, where there is ‘the Lord God’ in the English version, it becomes ‘Tuhan Allah’. ‘The Lord their God’ becomes ‘Tuhan, Allah mereka’. Note the use of a comma!

Fr Harun: Alkitab is not translated from English, but from Hebrew and Greek. ‘Allah’ is not chosen as an Arabic word, but as an already Malay/Indonesian word that best expresses the meaning of Elohim and Theos in the biblical texts, and Tuhan best expresses the meaning of Adonai / Kurios in the biblical language. So every comparison with English and also Arabic is irrelevant and highly confusing.

Prof Dzulkifli: On some occasions though, ‘God’ is also translated as ‘Tuhan’, though ‘God’ in this example does not carry the article ‘the’ as in ‘the Lord’. So does it mean there is a time when ‘God’ is not ‘Allah’? Or that ‘Tuhan’ is ‘Allah’ after all?

Fr Harun: This happens only in the Old Testament, more often in the book of Ezekiel when the Hebrew text says Adonai YHWH (pronounced Adonai Adonai, harfiah Tuhan Tuhan). In many bible translations in many languages, starting from the Latin Vulgate this repetition has been avoided by translating ‘Tuhan Allah’, ‘Dominus Deus’, ‘Lord God’, ‘Herr Gott’, ‘Seigneur Dieu’. The Indonesian Alkitab Terjemahan Baru follows this old use, but could also opt for a different way, e.g. ‘TUHAN Yang Mahatinggi’ (BIS), ‘like Sovereign LORD’ (NIV).

Prof Dzulkifli: Yet, on other occasions, ‘Allah’ is used as substitute for ‘the LESUS.’ But then, ‘the LESUS your God’ is rendered as ‘Tuhan, Allahmu’ — note again the comma!.

Fr Harun: There is no word as ‘the LESUS.’ Prof Dzulkifli may have meant ‘the Christ’ meaning ‘the Lord.’ The word ‘Allah/Theos’ is never used for Jesus in his earthly existence, but some times in liturgical contexts for either the preexistent Logos, Word (John 1:1) or the Christ (John 20:28) as Thomas said to the risen Jesus, “My Lord, My God”, ‘Tuhanku, Allahku’, so always in celebrating his unity with the One God.

Prof Dzulkifli: Just from these few random examples, one can already sense the complexity and confusion in the use of ‘Allah’ in the translated version. To make matters even more confusing, the biblical name ‘Mary’ is rendered as ‘Maria’ — when the Quranic equivalent would have been ‘Maryam’; And ‘John’ as ‘Yohanes’ instead of ‘Yahaya.’ Or for that matter ‘Gabriel’ is not even translated but kept as it is. The Quranic ‘Jibrail’ as an equivalent is not even considered! How about ‘Jesus’ himself? Why is this rendered as ‘Yesus’, rather than ‘Isa’? In the Quran both are the sons of Mary or Maryam.

Fr Harun: Names are a different question. They are not translated, but can be transliterated from the original language in different ways according to the use of the receiving language group. The confusion is 100 per cent created by Prof Dzulkifli himself who keeps on forgetting the Bible is not translated via English or Arabic, but from Hebrew and Greek direct into Malay/Indonesian language. Not knowing Hebrew and Greek Prof Dzulkifli should not judge any translation from those languages, as I myself not knowing Arabic would not dare to judge any Indonesian translation from Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: If the worry is that the use of the word ‘Isa’ in the Quran is limited only to him being the son of man and not of ‘Allah’; unlike what is understood for the biblical ‘Jesus’ — then should not the same consideration and sensitivity for Muslim feeling be shown when ‘Allah’ is used in the translation, without any concern for the Quranic Tauhidic concept. This inconsistency, indifference and arrogance is rather obvious when it comes to the biblical ‘the Son of God’ and the use of ‘Anak Allah’ as an equivalent in the translation — something which is conceptually outright not acceptable to Muslims. In fact, it tantamounts to the denial of the concept of ‘Allah’ as explained in the Quran, Surah Al- Ikhlas 112: 3 that “He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable to Him”.

Fr Martin: In any language the same common word for God is filled with different concepts, since the users of this same language have different religious convictions. These differences are to be respected, without anyone claiming monopoly to the common language. The more so in this case, since the use of the word ‘Allah’ in early Christian circles precedes its use in the Quran.

Prof Dzulkifli: The consequence of this translation will be that Muslims will be confronted with blasphemous ideas that ‘Allah’ has a son; that ‘Allah’s son was born in the manger; that ‘Allah’s son was crucified; that ‘Allah’s son died for all of us. This may have public order implications under section 298 of the Malaysian Penal Code which forbids the wounding of religious feelings.

Fr Martin: Such a statement could amount to forbidding the presence of Christianity altogether. Prof Zulkifli forgets that Bible and Biblical Literature are intended for Christian readers.

Prof Dzulkifli: As it stands, the use of ‘Allah’ the way it is can only arouse suspicions as to why an Arabic word is used for an Indonesia- Malay translation of the Gospel. Why not use the Hebrew or Armenia (Should it not be Aramaic? Editor’s Note) equivalents, instead?

Fr Martin: In a bible translation Hebrew and Greek words have to be translated, and — as said — the best and most enduring translation for the concept of Elohim and Theos has been the Malay/Indonesian word ‘Allah’. In our language ‘Allah’ is no longer an Arabic word with Arabic grammatical and syntactic rules, but has already for centuries become a Malay/Indonesian word that listens to our own language rules. E.g. we can say “Tuhan, Allah kita” which is impossible in Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: To add on to this suspicion is why there is no insistence that examples in the fore-mentioned names be substituted with the Arabic equivalent, including places like ‘Jerusalem’ which is substituted by ‘Yerusalem’ which is not the name in Arabic either.

Fr Martin: Once again, our bible translation is not a translation from Arabic or into Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: On the contrary, there are biblical names that are readily rendered to the equivalent Arabic in the translation. The examples are numerous, for instance: David as Daud; Zacharias as Zakharia; Aaron as Harun; Joseph as Yusuf; Moses as Musa; law of Moses as Taurat Musa (though, more appropriately it should have been ‘hukum Musa’, since there is the specific term ‘Torah’ for ‘Taurat’).

Fr Martin: Malay and Indonesian languages are enriched by the influence of many languages, Sanskrit, Portuguese, Arabic, Dutch, English, bahasa daerah, etc. Any of these originally ‘loanwords’ or name transliterations can be used by the translating community if it sounds familiar to them and is an adequate rendering. There is no rule that all should be taken from one background, or none from another. Language is a living and always developing mixed reality. The community itself has to decide about choices that fit best. Translation cannot be decided by outsiders with rigid consistency rules.

Prof Dzulkifli: The final straw is when the patriarch ‘Abraham’ who is the fountain head for Judaism, Christianity and Islam is also not rendered to Arabic ‘Ibrahim’ — but left as ‘Abraham’. Here, the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and insensitivities in the use and misuse of the word ‘Allah’ become even clearer. And this must be the concern of all.

Fr Martin: Abraham is a close transliteration of the Hebrew and the Ancient Greek (Abraam). No need for intervention from transliteration in a third language, and no dictionary forbids one language to have several transliterations that function in different communities or subcultures.


*******


When a politician speaks foolishly or in an inflammatory fashion, I am often not surprised because people who enter politics are often not the brightest except at peddling influence and their ability to line their pockets.

However, when an academician speaks, we normally try to pay attention, especially when he speaks on a subject that he is an expert at.

In this instance, Prof Dzulkifli takes his title of professor too seriously, and deigns to write on a subject he knows very little about, i.e. biblical concepts and the science of biblical translation. His arguments against the use of the term "Allah" and other borrowed Arabic words used in the Malay language bible, not only reflect his ignorance but his knee jerk response to things that he perceives as an attack on the sovereignty and sanctity of Islam.

Is it any wonder that non-Muslims in Malaysia think that, when it comes to religious tolerance, it seems to only flow one way?

Recommended Reading:

Allah in Translations of the Bible

A Bird's Eye View of the History of the Malay Translation Bible

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

"Allah" Ban Part Deux

Pas lawmakers divided over who is allowed to use the word “Allah”

By Adib Zalkapli

KUALA LUMPUR, March 5 — The heated debate in Parliament today over the the usage of the word “Allah” showed a division within Pas as some of the Islamist party MPs explicitly supported the use of the word by non-Muslims.

During his winding-up speech for the motion of thanks to the King, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi reiterated the government’s stand that the word Allah cannot be used by non-Muslims, citing state enactments and gazetted decrees by Islamic authorities.

The matter was brought up by Sri Gading MP Datuk Mohamad Aziz who said that the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims was an attempt to insult Islam.

Kuala Selangor MP Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad of Pas later cited the Quran to show how the word “Allah” was used by the non-Muslims.

He was supported by another Pas lawmaker Shah Alam’s Khalid Samad, who argued that the word “Allah” is Arabic for God.

Zahid then asked the duo whether it was the official stand of the Islamist party, to which Khalid said it was the decision made by the party’s Islamic scholars’ wing.

Baling MP Taib Azamudin, however, disagreed with his party colleagues saying that he was more interested to defend the sanctity of Islam.

“It is illogical to argue based on the language point of view, others cannot use the word ‘Allah’,” said Taib.

In his reply, Zahid said Taib’s stand on the matter is consistent with the government’s.

“What was said by Baling is the stand of the government of Malaysia, it is the stand of Jakim (Islamic Development Department),” said the de facto Islamic Affairs minister.

The use of the word Allah by non-Muslims has been a contentious issue in Malaysia after the Catholic weekly, The Herald, challenged the government’s directive banning the publication from using the word “Allah”.

Source: Here.


Religious freedom: 'Allah' part of Iban prayers
By : TAN SRI LEO MOGGIE ANAK IROK, Kuala Lumpur


VIEWS attributed to influential personalities, including Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, prohibiting the use of the word "Allah" by non-Muslims are very disturbing -- including for those of us whose mother tongue is Iban.

Islam is the official religion of this country. No one questions that. Similarly, the Constitution guarantees the right of religious freedom.

Followers of different faiths worship in their own ways and there is always some sensitivity attached to religious issues. Thus, I will not touch on matters of theology or religious doctrine. Moreover, this is more a question of language.

I am told that "Allah" is a standard Arabic word for God and is also widely used in the Middle East by non-Muslims.

Datuk Daud Abdul Rahman, assistant minister in the Chief Minister's Department (Islamic Affairs) in the Sarawak government, noted that the word had been used by the followers of the Sidang Injil Borneo in Sarawak for more than 50 years.
Furthermore, the Majlis Islam Sarawak does not think that Muslims in Sarawak are confused when non-Muslims use the word "Allah" in their liturgy (Borneo Post -- March 9).

My parents and family members were baptised into the Catholic faith in 1947. As a 6-year-old boy, I was taught to pray to "Allah Taala". The Creed, the acclamation of faith in the Christian prayer, when rendered in Iban begins as follows: "Aku arap ke siko aja' Allah Taala, Apai Ke besai Kuasa, Ke ngaga Seruga enggau dunia."

In my own immediate family, through inter-marriage, there are Muslims, Christians and Hindus. Once a year, at Gawai Dayak, we visit the family longhouse. When the prayer leader reads excerpts from the Iban translation of the Bible, the words "Allah Taala" are an integral part of the prayers.

After the Gawai, when we return to Kuala Lumpur, the grandchildren continue to attend mengaji lessons. There is no hint of confusion among the Muslim members of the family.

Ahmad Zahid is no ordinary individual. He received the highest number of votes among the three newly elected vice-presidents in Umno. Going by tradition, it may be expected he will be appointed to a senior and important portfolio in the new cabinet line-up.

One hopes when he is given wider responsibility, as different from aspiring to a post in Umno, he will recognise that those of us who use the word "Allah" or "Allah Taala" in our Christian prayers and publications have no other agenda but to practise our faith in our own language.

How can that be made illegal?

As published on NST and The Star.

*********


What I find most objectionable in this whole issue is how an elected representative can even utter words like " the use of the word “Allah” by non-Muslims is an attempt to insult Islam"!

It's either a sign of his foolishness or worse, ignorance, and like that proverbial "katak di bawah tempuroung" who in his narrow little world, assumes that the word "Allah" should only be used by Muslims, while totally oblivious to the fact that "Allah" is a word that is used by Christians in many parts of the world as well. And as far as I know, no Muslim in these other countries has indicated that the use of the word is insulting to Islam or seen as a challenge to the sanctity of Islam!

Personally, I am in favor of abandoning the use of "Allah" when refering to our Almighty God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not because the Malaysian government has banned the use of the term in any publication using the Malay language, but because I feel that it is time that we use the most accurate name to call our Almighty God.

Let's start using Yahweh, the Hebrew word to refer to Almighty God, because it is the most accurate name for Almighty God, a name that occurs over 6000 times in biblical manuscripts.

It should be noted here that ArabBible.com has started replacing the name "Allah" with the name "al-Ilaah" on their online version of the Van Dyck Arabic Bible. The name "al-Ilaah" means "the god", and that term does not introduce a foreign word into the Arabic language.

Since the translated Bibles used by the indigenous groups in Malaysia is using "Allah" which is a borrowed word to refer to God Almighty, I see no reason not to, nor difficulty in, replacing the borrowed word with another, in this case a more accurate one, which is Yahweh. For the Christian, no matter what native tongue he/she is speaking, Yahweh is a familiar name.

For all the gods of the nations are (worthless) idols:
but the LORD (YHWH) made the heavens.
Psalm 96:5

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday, June 08, 2008

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'.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

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.




Friday, March 28, 2008

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?

Saturday, March 22, 2008

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

Friday, March 21, 2008

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

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

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.

Monday, December 24, 2007

The Birth of Jesus Christ


Luke 2

The Birth of Jesus

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Shepherds and the Angels

8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ[a] the Lord. 12This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger."

13Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14"Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

15When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let's go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about."

16So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Malaysian Catholic weekly told to drop use of 'Allah' in order to renew publishing permit

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: A Catholic weekly newspaper in Malaysia has been told to drop the use of the word "Allah" in its Malay language section if it wants to renew its publishing permit, a senior government official said Friday.

The Herald, the organ of Malaysia's Catholic Church, has translated the word God as "Allah" but it is erroneous because Allah refers to the Muslim God, said Che Din Yusoff, a senior official at the Internal Security Ministry's publications control unit.

"Christians cannot use the word Allah. It is only applicable to Muslims. Allah is only for the Muslim god. This is a design to confuse the Muslim people," Che Din told The Associated Press.

Full story here.


Che Din Yusoff needs to go for further education. He is making himself and the predominantly Muslim majority government of Malaysia a laughing stock.

Have you ever heard Arab Muslims in the Middle East forbidding the use of the word Allah in the Arabic Bible or by non Muslims?

Does Che Din Yusoff not know that the word Allah the name for God is not only used in Islam? The word Allah was used by Arab Jews in Saudi Arabia long before the advent of Islam.

The Internal Security Ministry's publications control unit banned the Iban Bible over the same issue .. the use of Allah in the Iban Bible. That ban was lifted after an outcry by the Ibans in Sarawak.

It is dispiriting for me to read this news during this Christmas season. Malaysia loves to promote herself as a tolerant multi-racial, multi-religious society to the world but when issues like this arise, one has to wonder if the image is just a sham.

Monday, December 10, 2007

What Marriage is Not

  1. Marriage is not a dictatorship. The Bible does not give the husband permission to set up an autocracy in the home. Husbands are not to lord their authority over their family, but exercise it with humility.

  2. Headship does not mean that the husband is superior. Men and women have an equal standing before Christ. (see Gal 3:28)

  3. Headship does not mean that the husband must make all the decisions. Husbands are told to manage their households. (1 Tim.3:12)

  4. Headship does not mean that the husband is always right. It does mean that he is responsible for the decisions that are made.

  5. Headship is not to be demanded. Husbands are commanded to love their wives, not to make them submit by lecturing and haranguing them.
Howard Hendricks


Role of Men in Marriage

* Lover
  • The command is not to "Love your wife when she submits to you."
  • Love that is not conditional but continuous
  • A Love that is willing to die for someone - a sacrificial love as Christ loves his church


*Leader
  • The Husband is responsible for the Spiritual well-being of his wife (family)
  • To present his wife in all her glory as Jesus does his Church.
  • To cherish and Nourish his bride


Relevant Bible Passages:

1 Peter 3:1-6

1Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

Ephesians 5:25-33

25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[b] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.


Horizon Community Church - Sermon on 12/2/2007