Since when did God need your burning defences?
Filed under Religion
Malaysia church torched amid Allah row
Kononnya Islam itu agama yang mementingkan keamanan dan keselamatan. Kononnya.
…
You know, I'm sorry if this sentence bites, but seriously, the kind of Islam practiced in this country, the one that is propogated by UMNO, the one that has @NajibRazak spouting counter-1Malaysia comments in the light of this crazy, crazy #Allah word controversy, the one that turned it into a controversy in the first place, THAT kind of Islam, is the only kind of religion in the world I know that claims that God, Allah, belongs to them.
Or as far as I know, and have experienced, whereever I've read, even the MOST fanatical of Christian sects, or Buddhist groups, devoted Hindus, and so many normal Muslims I know, any talk of God is always of humility, reverence, respect.
Of belonging to God.
Not the other way around.
But in this country, it is a case of 'Allah' is mine. God is mine. And I will die defending My right to keep Him for myself.
Pencinta keamanan, kononnya.
Share This
Jan08
January 8, 2010 at 10:22 am
umno hope by fanning race/religion fire, they will win back votes
January 8, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Cant agree more. Here is my shouts at http://atlantisian.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-bombing-church.html
January 9, 2010 at 10:34 am
[...] I will refrain from further comments but for more “meat” read this. [...]
January 9, 2010 at 4:31 pm
These bunch of immature selfish souls ought to be caught (IF they don’t cover up) and prisoned for their inconsiderate act!
What has happened to the high tolerance level we once had??!
I was in total shock and sad when they torched my home church, and still am.
Retaliation and judgement is God’s work, not ours to act.
As we christians continue to stay strong and rooted… I look forward to see what’s God’s reaction/ greater plans to this incident in HIS time.
January 9, 2010 at 4:42 pm
im sad Church being burned by “Malay Babi”. So many year in term of economy, social and political we Chinese and Indian has stepped down and done a lot of compromising! But still has certain “Malay Babi” still keep on step in front of us and stoking a racial and insulting our culture, people even our religions!
Why we have to keep on compromising? Wake up !wake up my baby, this time should step up and fight for our right! tell the ” Malay Babi” we are the “Ketuanan” here also!
Vote BN OUT next ellection!!!
January 10, 2010 at 12:56 am
the burning should not distract from the real issue: Should Muslims even have an exclusive right to that name?
January 11, 2010 at 2:50 am
You know what, I’m not one of those who thinks that Muslims should be given exclusive rights to the name Allah.
But your sweeping statement shows that you are no different from those bigots.
Kononnya Islam itu agama yang mementingkan keamanan dan keselamatan. Kononnya.
Someone who lives in Malaysia should clearly know better than to make such statements. You live in a society where we intergrate with others and I am sure you don’t live in isolation from members from other races and religions. Yes it is sad that we see some Muslims doing this but I’m sure you know many practicing Muslims who are appalled at the actions of those people. So please don’t pretend that you are ignorant enough to believe that Islam preaches hatred and tells us to burn down places of worship.
Your ignorant statement is akin to me judging all of Christianity just because some Jehovah’s Witnesses comes to my door and tells me that I will burn in hell because I do not embrace Christ as my savior
Yes you are unhappy about it but so are the rest of us Muslims. I am no supporter of UMNO but part of the reason that this is happening is because they (or rather the courts) allowed for other religions to use the term “Allah”.
Being unhappy with a certain political party is no reason for you to make such ignorant comments. Stop trying to politicize everything. This is about ignorant people doing stupid things, you have no idea which political party they are affiliated to. Lets not forget that PKR has it’s fair share of racists.
January 11, 2010 at 10:01 am
Arina, i totally ignored reading the entire comment you wrote, just like you totally ignored my entire post. if you read my entire post, then maybe you wouldn’t be so fast to call me a bigot.
think before you write please.
January 14, 2010 at 2:14 am
I was touched and troubled by your post regarding the Church burnings in KL.
Indonesia is often held up as a model of democracy and moderation in Islam. The Christians there know otherwise. Islamic Tolerance Alert from modern, moderate Indonesia: “West Java: denial of religious freedom pushes Christians before the human rights commission,” by Mathias Hariyadi for AsiaNews, January 12.
Radical elements within the Muslim world do not tolerate any non-believers. Christian’s, Hindu’s Buddhist and others have been persecuted, harassed, and even killed by islamic extremist, as jihad support and justifies violence against non islamic faiths.
I will not bore you with history, unless you ask for my guidance on this topic.
Most Muslims throughout the world have no problem with Christians, Hindus or others using the word Allah. Allah means God. The word God translates differently among lanuauges.
To surrender use of a word to any group is abandoning freedom of speech and acknowledging that those forcing the issue are in the right.
A minority of islamic radicals are chipping away free speech at the bounderies of langauge, culture and the arena of ideas.
We can live together. Think of how your writings have touched so many in good ways!
However one must be prepared to stand up against intolerance.
I trust and pray you will be spared and kept safe from the violence and evil that religious intolerance brings.
—
David
dlabedz@gmail.com
The practice of forgiveness is our most important contribution
to the healing of the world.
— Marianne Williamson
January 19, 2010 at 11:40 am
For the love of mankind, every one here please read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
January 20, 2010 at 12:33 am
Atheist,
For the love of God, would you please view Jesus: Fact or Fiction” DVD
by Peter Sykes.
David
January 20, 2010 at 9:21 am
Let’s start with the definition of the word “Allah”.Those who are still lost about this issue read this thread 1st:http://news.malaysia.msn.com/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=3780306
Cambridge Advance Learner’s Dictionary:
Allah noun
/Ë?æl.É?/
the name of God for Muslims
Ref:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2155&dict=CALD
Encyclopedia.com:
Al·lah / Ë?älÉ?; Ë?alÉ?/ the name of God among Muslims (and Arab Christians).
Ref:http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-allah.html
Kamus Dewan Edisi Ketiga:
Ar Tuhan(Yg Esa)
Islamic Webpage:
Allah:
God. We prefer to use Allah instead of God because God has plural forms, e.g: Gods, Goddesses, etc, whereas Allah does not so it signifies the monotheistic nature of Islam.
Ref:http://www.al-qaria.net/i2i/glossary.html
Other online definitions by various sources:
http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1DVCA_enMY324MY326&defl=en&q=define:allah&ei=4G9MS_fqFMqGkAX7ltimDQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE
Now that we are clear what we are dealing with, let me just point out its silly for us to argue over a word. Millions of dollars spent to get the right over using the word “Allah”, burning of holy prayer grounds of other religion, sparking a national threat JUST over the right to use the word. Yes, you may argue it was not appropriate for that word to be used in the 1st place, or that word is Islamic ownership or a word is just a word no one have the right to stop others from using it. Forget the arguments aside,look at the big picture, is it worth it to go through so much trouble just over a word?
There are few points i need to point out:
1. Was it really necessary for The Herald newspaper published from a Roman Catholic church to use the word “Allah”? Was it an ABSOLUTE necessary to use that word which holds the meaning of God in general but it means “specially” to the Islam their one and only God? The term “Allah” was defined by an ARABIC site as:”God. We prefer to use Allah instead of God because God has plural forms, e.g: Gods, Goddesses, etc, whereas Allah does not so it signifies the monotheistic nature of Islam.” To the general view it means God, but to them its their One and Only God. To a certain degree, we should respect their point of perception, so was it really necessary to use “Allah” in the 1st place? Is it not possible for the Herald paper to use “Tuhan” instead which also means God for its readers who are Malay Christians?
2. “Allah” is a word, no matter how special it is to you, its only to you. To the others, it means God and they can use it as they see fit. No one have the right to stop another from using a word unless misused or used in an insult. Islams’ , Malays, whoever it is, has no right to claim ownership over the word and not allow others to use. That’s being unfair. Take a chair in a classroom for example. It was a chair you 1st sat during the 1st day of school, its special to you and you absolutely prefer to use THAT chair only. Does that mean the other classmates cannot use that chair? NO! Its public utility,not yours. Same goes for a word who has no owner, do you have any right to stop others from using it?Did you patent the word so its yours to use only? Yes, its special to you and we should not simply use it unless necessary just like your classmate should not take your chair unless he really needed to do so. But does that mean others can’t use the word, others can’t use your chair?
3. If both sides could just step back a little and create a win-win solution is it not a good ending? Why did both sides have to resort to such brute solution? If the Herald paper article absolutely needed to use the “Allah” word, the Islams should be considerate and fair allowing them to use the word. If it was not necessary, and since it holds a “special” meaning to the Islams, the Herald paper should use another word to represent God like example, “Tuhan”. Case solved.
4. No matter how offensive it is to us we should preserver and be patient seeking a peaceful solution. Violence will do more harm to the situation. Do evil to others and you are spreading the seeds of evil to the hearts of your victims. The evil you have done to others will spread anger, vengence, hatred and fear. Malaysia Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein says that the issue is not serious. Right in a way he is right for no lives are lost nor any person was hurt, but look it in the way how this issue can arise such violent reactions that these individuals could be so strongly radical and extremist they resort to violence to solve their the problem. What more if they are defending their religion’s name is it appropriate to use such violent actions when they are still so many other possible solutions to the issue? It show a deep dark poison roots in our society that bears deep hatred to carry out such attacks on holy buildings of other religion. In this angle of view, this is very serious indeed. It is not at all a non-serious issue.
I take no sides in this issue and all information are correct at times sent. If they are any mistake in information or perspective do not hesitate to get back to me by mail(joshuatjx@hotmail.com).
Forward this mail and spread the understanding.
Written by:
TaZMaNiaN KinGS! at 10.20pm,12Jan2010
January 20, 2010 at 9:21 am
Let’s start with the definition of the word “Allah”.Those who are still lost about this issue read this thread 1st:http://news.malaysia.msn.com/photogallery.aspx?cp-documentid=3780306
Cambridge Advance Learner’s Dictionary:
Allah noun
/Ë?æl.É?/
the name of God for Muslims
Ref:http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2155&dict=CALD
Encyclopedia.com:
Al·lah / Ë?älÉ?; Ë?alÉ?/ the name of God among Muslims (and Arab Christians).
Ref:http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-allah.html
Kamus Dewan Edisi Ketiga:
Ar Tuhan(Yg Esa)
Islamic Webpage:
Allah:
God. We prefer to use Allah instead of God because God has plural forms, e.g: Gods, Goddesses, etc, whereas Allah does not so it signifies the monotheistic nature of Islam.
Ref:http://www.al-qaria.net/i2i/glossary.html
Other online definitions by various sources:
http://www.google.com.my/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1DVCA_enMY324MY326&defl=en&q=define:allah&ei=4G9MS_fqFMqGkAX7ltimDQ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE
Now that we are clear what we are dealing with, let me just point out its silly for us to argue over a word. Millions of dollars spent to get the right over using the word “Allah”, burning of holy prayer grounds of other religion, sparking a national threat JUST over the right to use the word. Yes, you may argue it was not appropriate for that word to be used in the 1st place, or that word is Islamic ownership or a word is just a word no one have the right to stop others from using it. Forget the arguments aside,look at the big picture, is it worth it to go through so much trouble just over a word?
There are few points i need to point out:
1. Was it really necessary for The Herald newspaper published from a Roman Catholic church to use the word “Allah”? Was it an ABSOLUTE necessary to use that word which holds the meaning of God in general but it means “specially” to the Islam their one and only God? The term “Allah” was defined by an ARABIC site as:”God. We prefer to use Allah instead of God because God has plural forms, e.g: Gods, Goddesses, etc, whereas Allah does not so it signifies the monotheistic nature of Islam.” To the general view it means God, but to them its their One and Only God. To a certain degree, we should respect their point of perception, so was it really necessary to use “Allah” in the 1st place? Is it not possible for the Herald paper to use “Tuhan” instead which also means God for its readers who are Malay Christians?
2. “Allah” is a word, no matter how special it is to you, its only to you. To the others, it means God and they can use it as they see fit. No one have the right to stop another from using a word unless misused or used in an insult. Islams’ , Malays, whoever it is, has no right to claim ownership over the word and not allow others to use. That’s being unfair. Take a chair in a classroom for example. It was a chair you 1st sat during the 1st day of school, its special to you and you absolutely prefer to use THAT chair only. Does that mean the other classmates cannot use that chair? NO! Its public utility,not yours. Same goes for a word who has no owner, do you have any right to stop others from using it?Did you patent the word so its yours to use only? Yes, its special to you and we should not simply use it unless necessary just like your classmate should not take your chair unless he really needed to do so. But does that mean others can’t use the word, others can’t use your chair?
3. If both sides could just step back a little and create a win-win solution is it not a good ending? Why did both sides have to resort to such brute solution? If the Herald paper article absolutely needed to use the “Allah” word, the Islams should be considerate and fair allowing them to use the word. If it was not necessary, and since it holds a “special” meaning to the Islams, the Herald paper should use another word to represent God like example, “Tuhan”. Case solved.
4. No matter how offensive it is to us we should preserver and be patient seeking a peaceful solution. Violence will do more harm to the situation. Do evil to others and you are spreading the seeds of evil to the hearts of your victims. The evil you have done to others will spread anger, vengence, hatred and fear. Malaysia Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein says that the issue is not serious. Right in a way he is right for no lives are lost nor any person was hurt, but look it in the way how this issue can arise such violent reactions that these individuals could be so strongly radical and extremist they resort to violence to solve their the problem. What more if they are defending their religion’s name is it appropriate to use such violent actions when they are still so many other possible solutions to the issue? It show a deep dark poison roots in our society that bears deep hatred to carry out such attacks on holy buildings of other religion. In this angle of view, this is very serious indeed. It is not at all a non-serious issue.
I take no sides in this issue and all information are correct at times sent. If they are any mistake in information or perspective do not hesitate to get back to me by mail(joshuatjx@hotmail.com).
Forward this mail and spread the understanding.
Written by:
TaZMaNiaN KinGS! at 10.20pm,12Jan2010
January 24, 2010 at 10:50 am
For the love of mankind, every one here please read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
January 26, 2010 at 8:20 pm
TazmanianKingS,
Your response is somewhat misleading. Example- you state “did both sides have to resort to such brute solution?”
One can see the burning of Christian churches being a use of brute force. But what form of brute force did the Herald paper use? Are you implying that using the word allah is brutish? This is not a valid comparison.
You further state- “If the Herald paper article absolutely needed to use the “Allah” word, the Islams should be considerate and fair allowing them to use the word. If it was not necessary, and since it holds a “special” meaning to the Islams, the Herald paper should use another word to represent God like example, “Tuhan”. Case solved.”
The above solves nothing. Nothing that is unless you consider surrendering freedom of speech. There is an implied acknowledgement that Islam is entitled to special treatment by Christians.
Christians should respect other faiths, and indeed are taught to respect other faiths. Memebers of islam should also respect Christians and other faiths.
I would welcome a solution. But the friction between Christians and Islam has existed since members of islam attacked and forced Christians out of the Holy Lands.
Continued with islams attempt to conquer europe, and into the 1800s with the Barberry pirates attacking vessels, taking crews as slave or for ransom.
Last years attacks in Jakarta, and elsewhere in the world show the potential for conflict is greater than the oppotunities for peace.
David
January 28, 2010 at 8:20 pm
My brute force do not mean physical brute force from the Christian side.. Yes,brute force was used by irresponsible parties of the radical ones with arson attacks on prayer grounds.. My brute force is as in going thru the court of law to solve this issue.. Its not a matter that need resort to such extend.. So i call it “brute” action, but then again, the church might just be defending and not the party who 1st resorted to solve this matter by courts of law. Thank you for pointing it out, but i feel such matters should be solved by discussion and understanding, certainly not by court of law.. Religion is a strong attachment, and in such cases the losing party does not accept the judgement passed easily. Especially in RELIGION.
Let me state again i dont stand on any side.
Yes there is freedom of speech, but using that freedom without being considerate of other races is abuse of speech. Mind that its still Malaysia, a young nation with still many self-centered minded races and people. This is not US or other freedom of speech country. In fact we got a law limiting freedom of speech in Malaysia regarding sensitive issues. There is a purpose for it, because Malaysia is not ready for that kind of freedom.
Your statement :
“I would welcome a solution. But the friction between Christians and Islam has existed since members of islam attacked and forced Christians out of the Holy Lands.
Continued with islams attempt to conquer europe, and into the 1800s with the Barberry pirates attacking vessels, taking crews as slave or for ransom.
Last years attacks in Jakarta, and elsewhere in the world show the potential for conflict is greater than the oppotunities for peace.”
This statement is nothing but a limiting factor to our country’s prosper. You think the Christians did not do their fair share of plunder and barbaric attacks on Islams?? I will not be one to judge who is wrong, the history is dead and nothing more than a lesson we should not fight over religion. After all, all true religion promotes peace and love. None requires death of other religion or purifying of any land whatsoever.
What most important is the growth of our country now, not petty words who just mean god in general. There is no harm done in using “tuhan” over “Allah”,not unless absolute need to like i said before. It still means GOD!! Thou it is true the radicals should not claim the word as their own then again this is Malaysia, we give way to peace and harmony 1st. The minds of the radicals will take time to change, and soon they will change and left only a minority of them as radicals. I’m looking at the BIG picture here where it gains the most by this solution for both parties.
So what is your solution? Fight till we get the right to let the church use the word “Allah”? JUST for the “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”?Thats not looking at the big picture!! What do we gain with all the riots and street demos then? Nothing!! And its even more silly if all the Herald paper is trying to convey is GOD(if this is the case)which can just be replaced with the word Tuhan!!
If you still dont get it David, it just proves that you/we will not be any better than the radicals in the way we think. Cause a right thing to do is being tolerant, considerate, calm and loving to all beings. God do not ask anything more that we do for him, but so.
January 28, 2010 at 10:26 pm
742manian KinGS,
You miss much of my point.
The BIG picture involves human freedoms and rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religous expression does not depend on the age of a nation.
The ability for these rights to exist and be practiced by all citizens requires a maturity and tolerance of the populace. If a few islamic radicals want to restrict the use of words and attack other faiths who practice freely, then the right of one group is threatened by the other.
From what I have read most Malayasian Muslims were outraged by the attacks.
An ecuminical dialogue needs to be established, and the mutual benifts from living as Christians or as members of islam should be explored, and developed freely. Then perhaps the basis for peaceful and mutually respectful co-existence can be accomplished.
While history is as you said dead. The lessons learned from history must be studied less those not aware of history go down the road and repeat the same mistakes.
Think of Camobodia’s killing fields, or the holocaust of World War 2.
David
February 1, 2010 at 8:33 pm
David,
To continue to say anything further would only be a drag to me. Its already lenghty and tedious enough and its only suppose to be a comment page.
My final point is just this.I’m not ignoring all the freedom you stated i’m very well in support of all of it in fact. It involves me as a Malaysian here as well and to be denied of by others is not something i like either.
But as i have said its a young country, things need to be paced slowly for the country’s sake. Just like if you have a young child you would not immediately give him/her full freedom to do anything he/she like. It would be slowly but surely process of giving freedom to he/her depending on how he/she handles the responsibility of her life properly. Managing a country is no different. There is a need to limit it now, to a certain extend at least. A refrain we all need to practice about sensitive issues, unLESS it is overboard. That is why like i said, if we need to use the word we use it,no one have the right to stop us, they don’t own it. But if we not need absolutely to use it,don’t. Cause its a sign of respect to others who are sensitive about it.
February 10, 2010 at 5:34 pm
The way I see it, regardless of all dictionary definitions, ‘Allah’ is an exclusive name to Muslims’ god, not a word. So I don’t agree that other religion can lightly use His name to refer to their own god. Just like I won’t use “Yahweh” to refer to my god.
If ‘Allah’ is a word to refer in general, ‘God’, I’m sure Muslims would graciously share it. But it’s not. And all these violent reactions from both sides wld not have happen if people in the ‘higher-ups’ would just take a little time to understand the religion in question.
February 17, 2010 at 12:23 am
Miza, u CLAIM that ‘Allah’ is an exclusive name to Muslims’ god, not a word. If u do some research, note that the word “Allah” was already used even before the existence of muslims. And even in Arab, Christians can use that word to refer to their God. So y is it in Malaysia, muslims are making such a big fuss and trying to “COPYRIGHT’ the word???
February 17, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Miza, I’m not saying we want to use the word Allah as our reference to God.. I’m saying that if we want to talk abt ur religion we should be allowed to use the word.. But we all are not sure what the Herald paper was trying to convey. If it was talking abt Islamic religion discussing abt the good terms we can learn from for example, then we should be allowed to use the word.. That’s why I said if we need absoLUTLy to use Allah word to convey the message then we cannot be stopped, if all the paper was trying to convey was God, we could use Tuhan to not create an issue.. Besides, it’s a word.. No one owns it, its special to you, but it’s not yours.. You have no right to stop ppl fro
using so..Besides that, Muslims did not create the word Allah, they just choose Allah over God for it’s always singular.. Even it olden times Christians use Allah to refer to God.. You are still naive to want domination over a WORD.. It seems the “Ketuanan Melayu” is even influencing your religion’s independency from humans selfish manipulation.
(For the record:We do not mind you Miza or any Muslims or Indians as the matter of fact from using “Yahweh” to refer to your God.. It was ur choice to not use it, no one stop you from doing so.)
March 9, 2010 at 12:26 am
Hi, I was reading about your newborn baby (congrats btw) and was all happy for you but then I found this post.
“Kononnya Islam itu agama yang mementingkan keamanan dan keselamatan. Kononnya.”
That somehow offended me. I’m not a very religious person, I don’t really care about the whole riot because they shouldn’t have done things like that.. just like terrorist who thought being a terrorist/suicide bomber is an act of jihad, it’s not. I’m not going to touch on the whole Allah issue but that statement of yours refers to Islam GENERALLY and it offended me.
Your statement sounds like you’re sarcastically saying EVERYONE who is Islam is supposed to care about peace and safety but actually they don’t. How many Islamic people are there? Are they all the same? If a few people burned the church, does that mean all of Islamic people want to do the same? It’s just these few retards that decided to take things to the extreme but it doesn’t mean all of Islamic people agrees with it. If some objected to the use of word Allah, does that mean all of Islamic people objects it too? My ex is a very religious Christian, sure I do think Allah is an exclusive word to Islam religion but I had no problem when he or other people used it.
So your statement is very offensive.