Malaysian Maverick: Mahathir Mohamad in Turbulent Times

Who is Mahathir Mohamad?

Review By :
Mr. Hill is the H.W. Arndt professor of Southeast Asian economies at Australian National University.

Dr. Mahathir's personal story, as recounted in Barry Wain's "Malaysian Maverick," tracks the country's broader post-war history. The prime minister's origins wouldn't necessarily have augured a great political future. Born in 1925 to parents of modest means, he grew up on the "poor side of the river" that bisected the town of Alor Star, in northern Malaysia. Of mixed Indian and Malay ancestry, he was a member of neither the Malay aristocracy nor the ethnic Chinese business class in a country where race did, and still does, significantly determine a person's prospects.

As a child, he was driven, impatient, energetic and intelligent. His teenage years were overshadowed by war and the Japanese occupation, when he became a street hawker to eke out a living. Returning to school after the war, he excelled and found his way to Singapore to study medicine in 1947. He was stunned by the relative wealth and sophistication he found on the island, a stark contrast with colonial Malaya.

Returning home in 1953 to practice medicine, it was only a matter of time before politics beckoned. Dr. Mahathir entered Parliament in 1964, representing a local Kedah constituency for the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO). The '60s were turbulent for the newly independent country: "Malaysia" was officially birthed in 1963 by combining Malaya with Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah, but in 1965 Singapore broke off as an independent city-state. Following the general election in May 1969, brief but vicious conflicts broke out between the Chinese and Malay communities. Dr. Mahathir also lost his seat at that election and, following some bitter political infighting, was expelled from UMNO.

His retreat from politics provided an opportunity to reflect more deeply on national issues. He penned "The Malay Dilemma," arguing that the country's ills resulted from the country's extreme ethnic imbalances. The book was immediately banned, but it became an influential political document. It asserted that the Malays were the country's original "definitive race" and that this should be embedded in national institutions and policies.

Malaysian Maverick

Dr. Mahathir was by now a national figure, and the departure of Malaysia's founding prime minister, Tunku Abdul Rahman, with whom he frequently quarreled, opened the way for his re-entry into politics in 1974. He quickly rose through the ranks, winning the premiership in 1981—the first "commoner" to hold the post. He quickly set about implementing his vision of modernization: developing a vibrant Malay business class while also embarking on a "Look East" strategy of heavy industrialization.

Dr. Mahathir saw himself as a nation builder and a champion of third-world causes. He liked to think big, whether it was the construction of the nation's north-south highway stretching from Thailand to Singapore or the new capital he started at Putra Jaya. Inevitably, these and other projects became entangled within the complex web of UMNO money politics. They tended to be very expensive, rely on nontransparent bidding and favor contractors with ties to UMNO. But the book presents little evidence that Dr. Mahathir saw these projects as vehicles for personal enrichment—even if it is alleged some of his cronies and family apparently did.

More than his economic program, however, Dr. Mahathir's personality has attracted attention. As Mr. Wain makes clear, he displayed a well-developed authoritarian streak and a propensity to lock up dissidents. The most infamous of these was the jailing of his former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, in September 1998 on charges of financial and sexual improprieties, an event that deeply shocked the nation. Dr. Mahathir has denied the charges were politically motivated, and Mr. Anwar was later acquitted. The international media were also targeted, including this newspaper, which was banned for a period for its articles about the economy and then Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin.

This new biography contends that Dr. Mahathir cemented his rule in part by weakening institutions like the judiciary, media and professional civil service that could have challenged him. Although Dr. Mahathir contests that claim, he did introduce press controls, bypass the civil service with his own direct appointments and dismiss the lord president of the Supreme Court during the constitutional crisis of 1988. His personalization of power "cut Malaysia adrift institutionally," Mr. Wain writes, rendering more difficult the country's transition to modern statehood.

Mr. Wain's book is biography at its best. The author, a former Journal editor and Malaysia bureau chief, builds on extensive interviews with Dr. Mahathir, his family and close associates. But Mr. Wain also gives plenty of airing to the critics, and he has meticulously sifted through the Malaysian press, the scholarly literature and "underground" commentary, offering no fewer than 1,236 footnotes to support his rich narrative. The result is a balanced, comprehensive and nuanced study that apportions praise and criticism in equal measure. It replaces a much earlier work, Khoo Boo Teik's 1995 "Paradoxes of Mahathirism" as the seminal study of Dr. Mahathir.

Yet Mr. Wain could have stepped back a little more and asked whether Dr. Mahathir fundamentally changed the course of Malaysian economic development. Under his leadership growth was no more impressive than under his three predecessors or two successors. Arguably, Malaysia's growth record is attributable more to the country's consistent openness and prudent macroeconomic management—it has never suffered the fiscal crises, hyperinflation, financial collapses that have afflicted other developing countries—combined with its rich natural resources.

While this debate deserves more attention, Mr. Wain's important biography sheds light on a fascinating character. As the winds of reformasi and the inexorable rise of the Internet pry open the country's controlled print and television media, there will likely be further revelations about the tight nexus between politics and money that flourished under his rule.

My sincere thanks to my friend Hornbill-Hornbil..

Mupok Aku

Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban

Judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan Gives Reasons on her Controversal Decision on the Use Of Word Allah By Christians

Judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan...Acted Professionally

High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan’s controversial ‘Allah’ ruling that rocked the nation over who had rights to the term cited that the Home Minister and government’s actions had been illegal, unconstitutional, irrational and had failed to satisfy that it was a threat to national security.

She also wrote about the apparent conflict in the matter between the Federal Constitution and the various state enactments apart from claims by Muslim groups that the matter cannot be taken to a civil court.

The judge released the written grounds of her Dec 31 judgment late on Friday while the increasingly acrimonious public debate over who has the right to use the word “Allah” continues to rage on.

The Malaysian Insider obtained a copy of her 57-page judgment where the judge lays out the reasons and the laws behind her oral pronouncement.

In laying out her judgment, Justice Lau ruled that the Home Minister and the Government of Malaysia, who were named as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, has the discretion under Section 12 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act to issue or revoke a permit to the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam (the Applicant) to publish the Church’s newspaper, Herald — The Catholic Weekly.

But, she stressed, the respondents had made decisions that were illegal, unconstitutional and irrational when they barred the Catholic newspaper from publishing the word “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

The case was brought by the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam on February 16 last year when he filed for a judicial review against the Home Minister for barring it from using the word “Allah” as part of conditions for getting a publishing permit.

Pakiam is officially the Herald’s publisher.

The Home Ministry has successfully applied for a stay of execution in the ruling pending an appeal.

Below are excerpts highlighting the main disputes.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is illegal

“The Applicant submits the 1st Respondent has failed to take into account one or more of the relevant considerations...

Is this the Spirit of 1Malaysia that the UMNO's  Muslim intends to Potray? Surprisingly they are not charge on Contempt Of Court.

1. The word “Allah” is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” and in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, “God” is translated as “Allah” and “Lord” is translated as “Tuhan”;

2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking countries have been using the word “Allah” in reference to the One God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater majority of other Christian denominations hold that “Allah” is the legitimate word for “God” in Bahasa Malaysia;

3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;

4. The word “God” has been translated as “Allah” in the “Istilah Agama Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia” first published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;

5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated “Deus” (the Latin word for God) as “Alla” as the Malay translation;

6. The Christian usage of the word “Allah” predates Islam being the name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;

7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word “Allah” has been used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru and the Alkitab;

8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he translated the word “God” as “Allah”;

9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in existence before 1957 which translation was carried out by the British and Foreign Bible Society where the word “Allah” was used;

10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word “Allah” was used;

11. There was also a publication entitled “An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine” published in 1895 where the word “Allah” was used.

12. Anther publication entitled “Hikajat Elkaniset” published in 1874 also contains the word “Allah”

13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for generations;

14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word “Allah” for generations and the word “Allah” is used in the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught Malaysia;

15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein the word “Allah appears;

16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is not for sale or distribution outside the Church;

17. The said publication is not made available to members of the public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;

18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant’s use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

19. In any event the word “Allah” has been used by Christians in all countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these countries;

20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a state matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such matters of Islam save in the federal territories

21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church uses the word “Allah” for worship and instruction and that the same is permitted in the Al-Kitab.

“The Applicant further submits that none of the above-mentioned factual considerations were ever disputed or challenged by the 1st Respondent as factually incorrect. I am incline to agree with the Applicant as the response of the 1st Respondent to the factual averments is a feeble denial in paragraph 41 of the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent which reads “Keseluruhan pernyataan-pernyataan di perenggan-perenggan 50, 51 and 52(i)-(xxii) Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon adalah dinafikan...” (Emphasis added)

“Therefore I find the 1st Respondent in the exercise of his discretion to impose further conditions in the publication permit has not taken into account the relevant matters alluded to above, hence committing an error of law warranting this Court to interfere and I am of the view that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 ought to be quashed,” she ruled.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is unconstitutional

Justice Lau also said the applicant’s grounds for the reliefs of certiorari and declaratio is premised on the unconstitutional acts and conduct being inconsistent with Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution...”

“Applying the principles enunciated in Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak (supra) to the instant case, there is no doubt that Christianity is a religion. The next question is whether the use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. In my view there is uncontroverted historical evidence allueded to in paragraph 52 (i) to (xxii) alluded to above which is indicative that use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. From the evidence, it is apparent the use of the word “Allah” is an essential part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and is integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.

“The next consideration is the circumstances under which the “prohibition” was made. The circumstances to my mind would be the factors which the Respondents rely on to justify the impugned decision which have been alluded to in paragraph 9(i) to (ix) above.

“As to the ground in paragraph 9(i) in my judgment, this is unmeritorious for the reason which has been dealt under the issue of whether the use of the word “Allah” endangers public order and national security. As to the ground in paragraph 9(ii), (iii), (v) and (ix), I have shown unchallenged evidence that there is a well established practice for the use of the “Allah” amongst the Malay speaking community of the Catholic faith in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak and the origin of the word and its translation...

“Considering all the factors, in my judgment, the imposition of the condition in the publication permit prohibiting the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication, “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s exercise of powers under the Act contravenes the provisions of Articles 3(1), 11(1) and 11(3) of the Federal Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional,” she added.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is irrational

“The Applicant challenges the impugned decision under this head of irrationality/ Wednesbury unreasonableness which applies to “a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it...”

(a) It is utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents on the one hand not to prohibit the congregation of the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and instruction in their faith and in the AL-Kitab and on the other hand to state that the same word cannot be used in the said publication which serves to assist these persons in their worship and provide a medium of instruction in their faith and to disseminate news and information (see paragraph 52(xxii) of Applicant’s Affidavit).

(b) It is also utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents to require the Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church to use another word to denote the Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” instead of the word “Allah” when such is and has always been the word used for the word “God” in the Catholic Church and throughout the Bahasa Malaysia speaking community of the Church in Malaysia...

“In relation to the 2 additional grounds mentioned in paragraph 17.1 above, the Respondents responded —

1. Merujuk kepada perenggan 20 Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon, Responden-Responden menegaskan bahawa Pernyataan YAB Perdana Menteri tersebut yang telah dikeluarkan melalui media cetak “The Star” pada 20/4/2005 adalah amat jelas mengarahkan agar di kulit “Bible” dalam versi Bahasa Melayu dinyatakan secara jelas bahawa ianya bukan untuk orang Islam and ianya hanya dijual doi kedai-kedai orang Kristian. Walau bagaimanapun saya sesungguhnya mempercayai dan meyatakan bahawa kenyataan media yang dirujuk itu adalah berhubung dengan Al-Kitab (Bible) sahaja dan tidak relevan kepada isu permit Herald – the Catholic Weekly yang mana syarat yang dikenakan adalah amat jelas dan perlu dipatuhi oleh Pemohon (paragraph 22 of the 1st Respondent’s Affidavit); and

2. the circulation of the Al-Kitab vide P.U.(A) 134 dated 13.5.1982 was made subject to the condition that its possession or use is only in churches by persons professing the Christian religion, throughout Malaysia.

“I find the 2 additional grounds submitted by the Applicant in paragraph 17.1 above to be of substance. It is to be noted that a common thread runs through like a tapestry in the Respondents’ treatment of restricting the use of the word “Allah” which appears in the Al-Kitab are (i) that it is not meant for Muslims; (ii) to be in the possession or use of Christians and in churches only. In fact, these restrictions are similar to that imposed as a second condition in the impugned decision save for the endorsement of the word “Terhad” on the front cover of the said publication. Relying on the chapter on maxims of interpretation at paragraph 44 p.156 of N.S Bindra’s Interpretation of the Statute, there is a maxim “Omne majus continet in se minus” which means “The greater contains the less”. One would have thought having permitted albeit with the usual restrictions the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and in the Al-kitab, it would be logical and reasonable for the Respondents to allow the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication drawing an analogy by invoking the maxim “The greater contains the less”. Indeed I am incline to agree with the Applicant that the Respondents are acting illogically, irrationally and inconsistently and no person similarly circumstanced would have acted in a like manner...

“I find there is merit in the Applicant’s contention that when viewed on its merits, the reasons given by the Home Ministry in the various directives defies all logic and is so unreasonable,” Justice Lau wrote in her judgment.

On the seeming conflict between the Federal Constitution and the state enactments to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine among Muslims

She also wrote that, “Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, ten States have enacted laws to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. The laws are –

(i) Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1980 (State of Terengganu Enactment No.1/1980)

2. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1981 (Kelantan Enactment No.11/1981)

3. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Malacca Enactment No.1/1988)

4. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Kedah Darulaman Enactment No.11/1988)

5. The Non Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 (Selangor Enactment No.1/1988)

6. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Perak Enactment No.10/1988)

7. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1989 (Pahang Enactment No.5/1989)

8. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1991 (Johor Enactment No.12/1991)

9. The Control and Restriction (The Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Amoing Muslims) (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Negeri Sembilan Enactment NO.9/1991); and

10. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Religious Belief and Doctrine which is Contrary to the Religion of Islam Enactment 2002 (Perlis Enactment No.6 of 2002)

“It is not disputed that s. 9 of the various State Enactments provide for an offence relating to the use of certain words and expression listed in Part 1 or 11 of the Schedule or in the Schedule itself as the case maybe of the State Constitutions and which includes the word “Allah”. Further, all these State Enactments are made pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution which reads “State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added)...

“Mr Royan drew to the Court’s attention (i) that Article 11(4) which is the restriction does not state that State law can forbid or prohibit but “may control and restrict”; does not provide for State law or for any other law to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing a religion other than Islam...

“I find there is merit in Mr Royan’s submission that unless we want to say that s.9 is invalid or unconstitutional to that extent (which I will revert to later), the correct way of approaching s.9 is it ought to be read with Article 11(4). If s.9 is so read in conjunction with Article 11(4), the result would be that a non-Muslim could be committing an offence if he uses the word “Allah” to a Muslim but there would be no offence if it was used to a non-Muslim. Indeed Article 11(1) reinforces this position as it states “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”. Clause 4 restricts a person’s right only to propagate his religious doctrine or belief to persons professing the religion of Islam. It is significant to note that Article 11(1) gives freedom for a person to profess and practise his religion and the restriction is on the right to propagate.

“I find Mr Royan’s argument is further augmented by the submission of Mr Benjamin Dawson, learned Counsel for the Applicant which I find to be forceful stating that this rule of construction is permissible in the light of the mischief the State Enactments seek to cure and the provision has to be interpreted to conform to the Constitution. … For completeness I shall now spell out the preamble in full “WHEREAS Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that State law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. AND WHEREAS it is not desired to make a law to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added) …

“Applying the said test to the factual matrix of the present case the Court has to bear in mind the constitutional and fundamental rights of persons professing the Christian faith to practise their religion and to impart their faith/religion to persons within their religious group and in this case, the Catholic Church comprises a large section of people from Sabah and Sarawak whose medium of instruction is Bahasa Malaysia and they have for years used religious material in which their God is called “Allah”; for that matter there is a large community who are Bahasa Malaysia speaking from Penang and Malacca. On the other hand the object of Article 11(4) and the State Enactments is to protect or restrict propagation to persons of the Islamic faith. Seen in this context by no stretch of the imagination can one say that s.9 of the State Enactments may well be proportionate to the object it seeks to achieve and the measure is therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“As to the concern of the Respondents there is no guarantee that the magazine would be circulated only among Christians and it will not fall into the hands of Muslims, I agree with Mr Royan there is no requirement of any guarantee be given by anyone in order to profess and practise an even to propagate it.

“In my view if there are breaches of any law the relevant authorities may take the rleevant enforcement measures. We are living in a world of information technology; information can be readily accessible. Are guaranteed rights to be sacrificed at the altar just because the Herald has gone online and is accessible to all? One must not forget there is the restriction in the publication permit wich serves as an additional safeguard which is the word “TERHAD” is to be endorsed on the front page and the said publication is restricted to churches and to followers of Christianity only,” she added.

On the claim that the Home Minister’s ban was to safeguard public security and order

“There is merit in the Applicant’s argument that the Respondents in paragraph 45 of his Affidavit (also in paragraphs 6, 25 and 46) sought to justify imposing the condition in purported exercise of his powers under the said Act on a mere statement that the use of the word “Allah” is a security issue which is causing much confusion and which threatens and endangers public order, without any supporting evidence. A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was necessary on the ground of national security without adequate supporting evidence is not sufficient in law....

“I find there is merit in Mr Dawson’s argument that the Court ought to take judicial notice that in Muslim countries even in the Middle East where the Muslim and Christian communities together use the word “Allah”, yet one hardly hear of any confusion arising (see paragraph 52(xix) of the Applicant’s Affidavit which is not rebutted). Further, I am incline to agree that the Court has to consider the question of “avoidance of confusion” as a ground very cautiously so as to obviate a situation where a mere confusion of certain persons within a religious group can strip the constitutional right of another religious groiup to practise and propagate their religion under Article 11(1) and to render such guaranteed right as illusory,” Justice Lau said.

On claims from the Muslim groups that “Allah” cannot be challenged in court

On this, she wrote, “I had on 31.12.2009 dismissed the applications of the Majlis Agama Islam (MAI) of Wilayah Persekutuan, Johore, Selangor, Kedah, Malacca, the MAI and Adat Melayu Terenggganu and MACMA to be heard in opposition under O.53 r.8 of the RHC (It is to be noted that the MAI and Adat Melayu Perak and MAI Pulau Pinang did not file any applicatio under O.53 r.8). That being the case, their submission contending the issue of whether any publication in whatever form by a non-Muslim individual or body or entity that uses the scared word of “Allah” can be permitted in law is one that is within the absolute discretion of the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) (in respect of Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories) as the respective Heads of Islam and is therefore non-justiciable is irrelevant at the substantive hearing of the judicial review application and need not be considered by this Court.

“I adopt the following responses of the Applicant contending the application is justiciable and I am of the view there is substance –

1. the Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions clearly provide that the Rulers and the YDPA as the Head of Islam in the States and the Federal Territories have exclusive authority only on Islamic affairs and Malay customs;

2. subject to Articles 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution, the control and regulation of all publications and matters connected therewith are governed by federal law namely the Act and only the Minister for Home Affairs is involved in the implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Under this Act, only the Minister can decide what is permitted to be published and in this regard the Rulers and the YDPA have no role whatsoever under the scheme of this Act;

3. the present judicial reiew is not a judicial review of the decision of the Rulers or the YDPA as Head of Islam concerning the exercise of their duties and functions. It is only a judicial review of the 1st Respondent’s decision to impose a prohibition on the use of the word “Allah” by the Applicant in a publication. Since the Rulers or the YDPA cannot make any decision in respect of any publications and matters connected therewith, the issue of non justiciability does not arise.

On what the Court really ordered

She also listed out the orders from the court in the landmark case, “ In conclusion in the circumstances the Court grants the Applicant the following order:

1. an Order of Certiorari to quash the decisio of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter;

2. Jointly the following declarations:

(i) that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter is null and void;

(ii) that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applica’ right that religions other than Islam may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation;

(iii) that Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation does not empower and/or authorize the Respondents to prohibit the Applicant from using the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly”;

(iv) that pursuant to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of speech and expression;

(v) that pursuant to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s freedom of religion which includes the right manage its own religious affairs;

(vi) that pursuant to Article 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s right in respect of instruction and education of the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion.

Mupok Aku

"Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban"

Anti-Christian Violence Erupts in Egypt and Malaysia

The notion that Malaysians will somehow wander into a Church by accident and become Christians is, of course, laughably absurd. As in Egypt, Christians make up a small minority of the population of Malaysia: about nine percent.

New American

Although the Christmas day “underwear bomber” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has been the focus of a great deal of media attention, and his plot the enabling action for a new round of security measures, attacks on Christian congregations in Egypt and Malaysia have not received similar levels of attention.
In Egypt, where the Coptic Church celebrated Christmas on January 7 (following the old Julian and Coptic calendars), seven people were murdered following midnight Mass. According to press reports, riots then erupted during the funeral processions for six of the seven victims of the massacre. Six of the seven victims were Coptic Christians; the seventh victim was a Muslim.
Coptic Christians make up a mere 10 percent of the population of Egypt, and anti-Christian violence has long been a fact of life for the suffering minority. Attacks on the Coptic community are carried out with the slightest of provocations. As the MSNBC.com report notes,
In 2000, the deadliest Christian-Muslim clashes in years left 23 people dead. All but two of the 23 were Copts. The clashes were touched off by an argument between a Coptic merchant and a Muslim shopper in the southern village of el-Kusheh.
However, the Christmas massacre was different than much of the persecution that Copts regularly suffer: It appeared to be a planned assault with many victims. Again, according to the MSNBC report:
The latest attack, however, was unusual because it appeared to have been planned, rather than the customary spontaneous violence that arises from misunderstandings or disputes between Muslims and Copts....
 Egypt's Interior Ministry said it suspected that Wednesday's attack was in retaliation for the alleged November rape of a Muslim girl by a Christian man in the same town. The man is in custody awaiting trial.
But the account takes an even darker turn when it is revealed that not only was the attack possibly a carefully planned assault, but that the bishop of the Nag Hammadi diocese may have been the intended victim. According to Asianews.it:
Coptic bishop Anba Kirollos was the real target in last Wednesday's drive-by shooting against a Coptic church in Nag Hammadi. Meanwhile, police [have] found one of the car[s] used by gunmen in the attack on the Eve of Orthodox Christmas, but thousands of Christians attending the victims' funeral slammed law enforcement and pelted police cars with rocks.
"I was the one intended to be assassinated by this plot, and when it failed the criminals turned round and started shooting and finishing off the young ones," Bishop Kirollos of the Nag Hammagi Diocese told Middle East Christian Association (MECA) today in an interview.
In the evening of 6 January, at the end of the Christmas vigil, at least three gunmen began spraying bullets from two cars against people filing out of the church.
A security guard and six Christians were killed, mostly young men in their early 20s. A young couple and a 14-years-old boy were also among the dead.
Bishop Kirollos said there had been threats in the days leading up to the Christmas Eve service, a reason he decided to start Mass an hour earlier than normal. "For days, I had expected something to happen on Christmas Eve," he said.
The bishop left the church minutes before the attack. "A driving car swerved near me, so I took the back door," he said. "By the time I shook hands with someone at the gate, I heard the mayhem, lots of machine-gun shots."
According to a Canadian Press account on January 10, three suspects have been taken in to custody:
Three men suspected in the drive-by shooting that left six Christians and one Muslim dead in southern Egypt have denied they were behind the bloody attack on Coptic Christmas Eve, officials said Saturday.
The attack was the worst to target Christians in Egypt in nearly a decade. Gunmen sprayed a group of Coptic Christians leaving a local church after mass on Wednesday night. Six worshippers and a Muslim guard died, and nine people were wounded.
The shooting touched off two days of rioting in which 40 people were arrested, and underscored sectarian tensions in the town of Nag Hamadi, some 40 miles (64 kilometres) north of the famed Luxor ruins.
On Saturday, Christian residents of Bahjora, a village near Nag Hamadi, inspected damage from overnight arson that charred their homes. They blamed Muslims for the attacks.
The three suspects in the Christmas Eve attack surrendered to police on Friday after security forces closed in on their hideout in sugar cane fields outside the town.
Whether or not the men who have been arrested were involved in the massacre, and regardless of whether they constitute the entirety of those who allegedly plotted and executed the attack, the Christmas massacre cannot be viewed in isolation from a systematic pattern of anti-Christian violence that the Egyptian government is either unwilling or unable to stop.
At the same time, Christians in Malaysia are also suffering open persecution following a court decision over a question of translation. According to January 8 Associated Press story:
Religious tensions in Muslim-majority Malaysia turned violent Friday with firebomb attacks on three churches following a court decision that allows Christians to translate God as Allah.
"Allah is only for us," said a poster waved at one of at least two protests outside mosques in Kuala Lumpur on Friday, the Muslim holy day.
Many Muslims are angry about a Dec. 31 High Court decision overturning a government ban on Roman Catholics' using "Allah" for God in the Malay-language edition of their main newspaper, the Herald.
The ruling also applies to the ban's broader applications, such as Malay-language Bibles, 10,000 copies of which were recently seized by authorities because they translated God as Allah.
"We will not allow the word Allah to be inscribed in your churches," a speaker shouted over a loudspeaker at the Kampung Bahru mosque.
The Herald says its Malay edition is read mainly by Christian indigenous tribes in the remote states of Sabah and Sarawak.
But the government contends that making Allah synonymous with God may confuse Muslims and ultimately mislead to them into converting to Christianity, a punishable offense in Malaysia despite a constitution that guarantees freedom of religion.
It suggests using "Tuhan," but Christians say Tuhan is more like "Lord," and can't replace "Allah."
The notion that Malaysians will somehow wander into a Church by accident and become Christians is, of course, laughably absurd. As in Egypt, Christians make up a small minority of the population of Malaysia: about nine percent. Unlike in countries where substantially larger Christian communities seem unwilling to assert their legal rights, Christians in Egypt and Malaysia are not prepared to just acquiesce to such discrimination and persecution, and they are receiving support from other Christians living under Muslim rule. Thus, according to the AP article:
Bassilius Nassour, a Greek Orthodox bishop in Damascus, called the Malaysian government's position "shameful."
"It shows Malaysia to be a backward, pagan state because God teaches freedom for everyone, and the word 'Allah' is for everyone," he said.
The extent to which Christian leaders in the nations formerly known as “Christendom” will also speak out to denounce such anti-Christian violence remains to be seen

Mupok Aku

Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban

List post titles in alphabetical

Grab this

Alleluia! Allah Taala is Allowed In Sabah and sarawak

KUALA LUMPUR
Friday, 15th January 2010

Alleluia!Thanks to Tuhan Allah for allowing us in Sabah and Sarawak to still  praise our god in Allah Taala.

This decision was told by Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri, the minister in the Prime Minister's Department to a group of KTS journalists from The Borneo Post, Oriental Daily and Utusan Borneo at his office in Kuala Lumpur yesterday, Thursday, 14th January 2010.

According to the minister, the word Allah is allowed in sabah and sarawak because the government accepts that the natives in these two states have traditionally been using it in their prayers and religious services, and the Muslims in the two states are accustomed to this practices.

"Christians in sarawak and Sabah need not worry over this issue because it is a common tradition there. I have been to an Iban church services and I heard the word Allah used there", he said.

Christians in sarawak BEWARE, this decision could by BN strategy to win Sarawak state election which is due in 2011!..Bukittunggal.com

Looking back at this issue, it all started because the government and UMNO political leaders did not make any effort to stop it from broiling. UMNO leaders like Muhyiddin, Wanita chief Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, Jerlun MP Mukhriz Mahathir and former Selangor mentri besar Khir Toyo slammed the court ruling. The action of these UMNO leaders has instigated the extreme Muslims in the country to take violence actions against the Christians' churches in the country.

A Group of journalists from Sarawak that met Datuk Nazri in his Office 

So far 9 churches have been attacked by the  "extremist Muslim" in Malaysia. The latest attack occurred in Johore on Thursday, 14th January 2010 when the St Elizabeth Catholic Church in Kota Tinggi was splashed with red paint.

The way how the UMNO lead government handle this  delicate issue is also questionable. They allowed the muslims to protest on the High Court decision by demonstration but did not allow the Christians in Penampang Sabah to do the same thing. Some desperade UMNO Muslims (Who hide behind 13 NGO who are mostly Muslims) even asked the Yang DiPertuan Agong (King) and  the Malay Sultans to interfere with High Court decision. So far Najib (our beloves Prime Minister...1Malaysia) has done nothing to difuse the tension while at the same time wasting government monies on 1Malaysia Promotion Program nationwide.

In Sarawak and Sabah, the leaders in these two states blame the Muslims in Semenanjung for their disagreements with the court decision and their violence actions to the christian churches. Both leaders in the two states condemned the attack of the churches in Peninsular. But the leaders in Peninsular Malaysia keep blaming and accused the Catholic Herald responsible for what is happenning now in Malaysia. Some of them, to name one of them Brigadier General (Rtd) Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department  even asked the Catholic Herald/Christians to drop the word Allah and said the word should be reserved for Muslim use in Malaysia.

Today, I want to share with the readers of this blog, the personal opinion of one of the Christian follower from Malaysia about this  issue. Being the christian myself, and I believe many of the Christians in Malaysia also share the same opinion with him, please read his opinion below :-

UMNO TRULY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RECENT ATTACKS ON PLACES OF WORSHIP!!!

WHAT HAPPEN TO THE AL-ISLAM CULPRITS?

It all started when the UMNO led government decided to Ban the Herald Weekly from using the word Allah in it`s publication recently. For generations Christians in Malaysia have been using this word to refer to God in the Bahasa Malaysia Language. Bibles and Christian religious materials containing the word Allah has been confiscated and barred from entering the country.

The attack is on the Christians by the UMNO Government. UMNO is lack of Muslim Teachings. I think UMNO only calls them self-Muslims but they do not practice their Faith. Because if they did, they would know from the very beginning that Islam does not Prohibits other religion from using the word Allah. This is proven in the Holy Quran of Islam. There are many incidents in the Holy Quran where non- Muslims professes the word Allah. This whole issue is not about religion but about politics. It`s about power crazy. It`s about gaining the supports of the Malay by a cheap way.

UMNO is so desperate to gain back all the states that it had loose in the last General Elections, thus they will create issues and create problems in the country in order to portray them self’s as hero`s of the Malays. There is nothing sensitive about the Issue. Religion is something to be shared about and it must involve dialogs and personal sharing. It is UMNO whom all this while had made this issue a sensitive issue and played the race cards.

This is a special gift to the Sabahans and Sarawakians. A special gift for voting them in during the last General Elections. This is UMNO`s way of Saying thank you. Ban you from using the word Allah and confiscate all your religious materials containing the word Allah.

When Bersih, HINDRAF and GMI organised peaceful street demonstration, Najib says this is not our Culture and we would arrest all those involved. But last week when the court declared that the order of the ban on the word Allah by the home ministry is null and void, Najib says it`s ok to protest and that he can’t stop people from protesting.

With no shame they change their tune of speaking. This is because they think Malaysians are stupid. They know Malaysians forget very fast. They think Malaysians are dumb and will support their government even thou they are corrupted and racist.

Their actions brings shame to their religion. They are rots that will tarnished their religions name. I salute those from PAS recently whom had made visits to the Catholic Churches and explain their stand on the Issue. The Party Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) supports the court ruling conditionally to allow non- Muslim to use the word Allah.

This stand is based on the Islamic teaching of their Prophet Muhammad.

Kita tidak boleh melarang mereka menggunakan perkataan Allah di kalangan mereka sendiri, dalam ibadat mereka dan amalan mereka...Tuan Guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang

Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim recently had also declared that it is not wrong for the non-Muslims to use the word after clarifying with religious expert worldwide.

Prophet Muhammad’s Promise to Christians

In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, The document below is reproduced in its entirety.

“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.

Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.

Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.

No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

This document clearly states the understanding that the Prophet had on the Christians. But what do we see today in Malaysia?

Churches being bombed and vandalised by paint and stones. This is truely not the teaching of Islam, and a true Muslim whom knows his faith well will not conduct such a barbaric act. Please take away your wrong perception on Islam and instead focus on the people itself whom conducts such acts.

The PR government which consist of PAS, Keadilan and DAP has condemned the attacks and also told all its supporters to not take part in the protest held nationwide. But UMNO has been using it`s media to create tensions among the races in Malaysia. Now who to blame? UMNO or ISLAM?

Definitely not Islam because Islam does not teaches such acts. It was UMNO from the very beginning whom created this issue. Look at our Christians Schools today. Most of the Crucifix has been removed. Our rights in this country has been taken away. What 1 Malaysia is UMNO talking about.

WHAT HAPPEN TO THE AL-ISLAM CULPRITS?

It has been day`s since the attack on churches had occurred and till now, no one has been arrested or charged. The police and the Government keeps on lying and makes the Rakyat a fool by it`s propaganda and gives stupid reasons.

This was what that happen during the Al-Islam Issue when two Muslim Spy from the Utusan Group entered the Church, received the Holy Communion and spat it out. Report was lodged by Me and Joachim. Till today, no action is taken against the journalist. There is enough prove to charge both of them in court.

Why has there been still no action taken against the culprits. When we question the Police, they say that investigations are completed and the papers has been submitted to the AG Chambers. So what is the AG waiting for? Waiting for another Church to be bombed?

Till today the culprit whom is responsible for the false SMS in the issue on the convert of Muslims in Silibin Church has not been brought to justice. The government is supporting all this act, but when in public talks crap about the 1 Malaysia concept.

If true1 Malaysia why has there been no action taken against all those involved in this incidents across the country?

Enough is enough! Enough of your grandma and grandpa stories. Enough of fooling the rakyat.

You are power crazy. You will do anything to hold on to power. You will even kill to gain control of that seat. The time will come when you will be striped of your powers and titles. The day will come when victory will be upon the good.

You will be defeated until dust and there will be nothing left for you. This is prophecy! There will be no UMNO heard, but the spirit of Bangsa Malaysia will flood every streets in this country.

I thank all my Muslims brothers and sisters whom have come forward to show your love and care towards us. We the Christians and other Malaysians truly have not hurt feelings against your religion. We respect and understand you all.

We must be united in the Malaysian Spirit and fight against all kind of racism and religion politics. You and we are from the decedents of Adam, Eve and Abraham. It is that same one God that has created you and me. All of us will on the last day be revealed the truth and there after meet Allah in Heaven.

Lets unite together at this moments and obey the teachings of our own faith sincerely.

Why Muslims in Malaysia Do Not Allow Christians to Use Word Allah

During a briefing to a group of  96 representatives of foreign missions in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday, 12th January 2010, home ministry secretary-general Mahmood Adam told the diplomats that the use of the word 'Allah' is exclusive to Muslims in Malaysia.
He added that the conditions are different in Malaysia from those in neighboring Indonesia or in Arab nations where “Allah” is the common term for God.

So the only reason is ....Malaysia is different from other countries.....the KETUANAN MELAYU=ISLAM.

Mupok Aku

Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban

Peninsular Malaysia Don’t tell us how to pray,’ Borneo states say

KUALA LUMPUR
Tuesday, 12th January 2010

Is this the image that our Peninsular Malaysia Muslim try to potray? The feeling of hatret and intolerance?

The battle might be between the Roman Catholic Church and the government over the right to use “Allah” but the ones most affected are those in Sabah and Sarawak.

As Sabah leader Tan Sri Bernard Dompok pointed out, they worship in Bahasa Malaysia as its the national language and Bibles are in that language because it is not feasible to print or translate it to their various dialects.

More importantly, “Allah” is their word for God, the same as for the Malays, who borrowed it from the Arabs.

Semantics aside, the people in Borneo do not see the fuss or problem over the name of God.

The Muslims in Sarawak, Jack (who asked that only his first name be used) reasoned, were not just tolerant of other faiths. They have accepted non-Muslims as a daily fact of life the same way parents accept that their children have different personalities.

A government servant, he had earlier said he hoped the spate of attacks against churches in the peninsula would not spill over into Sarawak.

In 1981 I was sponsored  by Yayasan Sarawak to continue my study in one of the secondary School in Tapah Perak, peninsular Malaysia. During the religious class we, the non-muslim students were allowed to stay in the class. First time attending the Islamic Class , I was shocked and felt humiliated when the ustazah called us kafir. Being Sarawakian, such experienced was a shocked to me. If the government is serious about 1Malaysia slogan, first they must look at any matter that can distrup religious harmony such as matter like this, where the religion teacher calling the non-muslim students kafir. While in Sarawak at that time and until now,   I had never been called by my Malay/muslims kafir .....Bukittunggal.com

Although he was upset over the broken windows of the Anglican Good Shepherd Church in Lutong, Miri, Jack’s faith in Sarawak’s Muslims has not been shaken.

“I hugely believe that this is an isolated case, and most Sarawakian Muslims and also Sarawakians are surprised that such an incident could happen at all in Sarawak,” said Jack. Many of the people interviewed for this article asked that their names be changed due to the volatility of the topic.

It is this renowned bond between the non-Muslims and Muslims of Sarawak and Sabah that has often been held up by peninsula politicians as the ultimate model of race-relations.

Yet while these politicians speak highly of East Malaysia’s ethnic unity, they seldom make any serious attempt to get peninsular Malaysians to emulate it.

Conversely, says Sabahans and Sarawakians interviewed by The Malaysian Insider, the insular race, religion and language politics of the peninsula have often been imported and forced upon East Malaysians for as long as the states have been part of the federation.

And this is what unsettles them when it comes to the turmoil about who gets to use “Allah”: that again, the peninsula-centric Federal government is telling them to change an elemental aspect of their lives that has never before been a problem.

In other words, says a Sabah Government officer, it was never a problem until the “Semenanjung” people made it a problem.

NO FURORE HERE

When his friends greet him with the salaam, Mujahid, 20, is never confused as to whether the person is a Muslim or not. Nor does it matter to him.

Neither does he or the Sarawakian Muslims he knows think to ask why Christians in the state use “Allah” in their prayers or sermons.

“It is very condescending to me when someone tells me that I will be confused when non-Muslims use ‘Allah’ because my faith (in Islam) is not weak … Me and my family are extremely disappointed by the uproar and all these attacks on churches,” says Mujahid, a university student.

Sarawakians and Sabahans are saddened by how an age-old community norm of theirs has suddenly turned into a fractious issue by those who do not understand the history of the practice.

Dayak community leader Dr John Brian Anthony explains how when Christianity was being propagated to the East Malaysian natives roughly 100 years ago, the texts that were used were imported from Indonesia.

These texts used the term Allah and were in Bahasa Indonesia, which was similar to the Melayu Kuno used by the natives.

“My elders and me use the same text till today because that is the language we know. If someone tells me that my language is wrong, then I say ‘Why?’ Is it about Aqidah (faith) or is it about form?”

The Home Ministry banned the use of Allah in The Herald’s Bahasa Malaysia section. Yet it is this version which is widely read by Catholics and other Christians in East Malaysia.

When the High Court overturned the ban in Dec 31 last year, it caused an uproar among peninsula-based Muslim groups.

However, Anthony says, East Malaysian Muslims have never opposed the use of “Allah” by Christians and other non-Muslims.

Political scientist Dr Faisal Syam Hazis of Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) puts it another way: “The use of Allah by non-Muslims has already been embedded in East Malaysian society for more than 100 years. It has never been an issue. So why are these peninsular Muslims suddenly jumping up and down over it?”

CONFUSION

For Dr Zaini Othman of Universiti Malaysia Sabah, the “confusion” that is being felt by the Muslims he meets in the state is why the issue is being raised now.

“Based on my daily experience with Sabahans, this is what they are asking. They feel that there is a hidden political agenda behind it.”

Though the Federal government has been at pains to stress that the issue is not about political mileage, Kuching-based blogger Norman Goh doubts that the violence it has spurred is being tackled seriously.

“First you allow the protests (by Muslim groups). Then when the attacks happen, you say [you] ‘might’ use the ISA (Internal Security Act). When Hindraf, Bersih and Bar Council rallies occurred, you did not hesitate to use the ISA,” says Goh, 23.

Faisal’s colleague, Dr Andrew Aeria, was unequivocal in his reading of the debacle.

“The view here is that Umno has fanned all of this. They seek to impose their racist imaginings on the rest of Malaysia without realising that Malaysia also contains Sarawak and Sabah.”

What Aeria is referring to is the fluid, non-communal approach to ethnic relations in East Malaysia, where groups do not seek to impose their norms or beliefs onto others.

It is helped by the fact that in the historical memory and the demographics of these two states, no group has been dominant.

The ethnic demarcations are also not enforced by politics, says Aeria, where political parties are not formed just to serve one group.

“Some parties have many members of one group but they are intrinsically multi-racial. This is where you see parties like SUPP (Sarawak United People’s Party) that looks like a Chinese party but it fields Bumiputera candidates.”

PENINSULA ‘RACIST’?

Unimas’ Aeria and Faisal also dispute the views of a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) race-relations expert who contended that for Sarawak Muslims, religion was not as important as tribal identity.

In a previous The Malaysian Insider article, Prof Dr Mansor Mohd Noor of UKM Inter-ethnic Studies Institute gave an opinion that peninsular Muslims were less tolerant when it came to questions on Islam than their Sarawak and Sabah brethren.

“For Muslims in East Malaysia, the use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims is not a problem because their identity is tied to a tribe rather than to a religion,” Mansor has said in the article titled “Allah unites some and divides others”.

“Saying that is almost like saying we Sarawak Muslims are less Islamic than the ones in the peninsula just because we can tolerate Christians using ‘Allah’,” says Faisal.

East Malaysians of all creeds are passionate about their faith and identity but they were more accepting of each other, says Aeria.

“If you are saying that peninsular Muslims cannot be as tolerant as the ones in East Malaysia, are you saying that peninsular Muslims want to remain racist? What is wrong with emulating East Malaysian tolerance?”

Conversely, since the debate over whether to allow non-Muslims to use “Allah” is currently being determined in the peninsula, it seems that West Malaysians have no problems imposing their beliefs on East Malaysians.

And that, says those interviewed, would be very unfortunate for Sarawak and Sabah.

Mupok Aku

Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban

Christians Reject Muslim Minister Proposal To Drop Word Allah

KUALA LUMPUR
Monday, 11th January 2010

Mind your own religion. How could you as a government servant  advised us to make decision not in our favour! General sir..SHUT-UP you and all your UMNO bigots!

Church representatives here today rejected a minister’s call to drop the claim to use the word “Allah” in the Christian sense.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom earlier today urged church leaders to adopt the same approach as a lay Sabah leader who reportedly said the word “Allah” should be reserved for Muslim use in Malaysia because they have been using it longest.

“Will we or the church, if we don’t use the word Allah, suddenly lose or increase followers in the Christian faith 10-fold?” Utusan Malaysia reported Datuk Clarence Bongkos Malakun, president of the Sabah Justice of the Peace Council, saying in a statement from Kota Kinabalu last night.

“It is time for us, the Christian community, particularly the Catholic make an evaluation based on the present situation for security and public peace and drop the word Allah to calm our Muslim brothers.

“Rather than insisting on the right to use the word Allah it is better if Catholics only use the word ‘Tuhan’ or ‘Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa’,” said Bongkos Malukun.

Unlike the muslim where non-religious scholar can make decision on religious matter, in Christianity, religious matter only can be decided by the religious scholar. Who is Datuk Clarence Bongkos Malakun that proposed catholic to drop the word Allah? His comment was political mooted and made in dilusion. If we have to do so, means we have to rewritten the Iban's bible!...Bukittunggal.

He added that Christians in Malaysia should stick to the Federal Constitution and not follow those in Indonesia on the use of “Allah”.

Pastor Danil Raut, the president of the Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) church in the peninsula, was highly critical of Bongkos Malukun’s statement and claimed it was not representative of the Christian community.

“He’s got the right to say his opinion but I definitely cannot agree with him,” Raut told The Malaysian Insider.

“So many people have been using the word before Merdeka. In the language of our people, the Lunbawang and Lundayeh, ‘Allah’ means God,” he added.

“This is stated in the Lundayeh Bible, not the Malay Bible,” he stressed.

Pastor Richard Samporoh agreed.

“I think his statement is very political,” Samporoh said. He noted that Bongkos Malukun used to be a state assemblyman and is a Christian but not a church minister and does not have the authority to speak for all Christians.

“Many people, including the politicians, have misunderstood the whole issue,” said Samporoh, who heads the SIB church in Shah Alam.

“We’re not demanding to use the word. We have been using it for almost 300 years. The case was only filed because of the ban from the Home Ministry,” he added.

Samporoh said he has been a pastor for over 30 years and the controversy only erupted recently, after the federal government banned the Catholic church from publishing the word “Allah” to refer to the Christian God in the Bahasa Malaysia section of its weekly paper.

Samporoh further claimed that there was an agreement between the federal government and the church in the 1980s that Christians be allowed to use the word in their worship.

“We can use the word ‘Allah’ in our Bible, but it cannot be sold in public bookstores,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

“I’m not very sure if there was a written agreement but it was during Musa Hitam’s time,” Samporoh replied when asked.

The Sabah-born pastor is also the adviser to the SIB church in the peninsula and strongly supports inter-faith dialogues.

“Understanding each other is the best way to resolve problems. I don’t think the Muslims understand what is going on,” he said.

Father Lawrence Andrew who edits the Catholic paper, Herald, was reluctant to comment on the issue.

“My official position is this: the case is in the courts. Let the court decide. I cannot comment on it,” he reponded when contacted.

But The Malaysian Insider understands that in the Roman Catholic church, only officials holding the rank of the bishop onwards have the authority to make decisions.

The Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur, Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam, who is the publisher of Herald, could not be reached for comment.

He is currently away in Johor for meeting of bishops with the Vatican’s representative who is based in Singapore.

Pakiam is also the president of the Malaysian Bishops Conference

Mupok Aku

Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban

Confirmed Eighth Church Attack - But Christians In Sarawak Still Not Ready To Retaliate

The primarily East Malaysian Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) church in Seremban, Negri Sembilan was attacked today with an arson attempt , leaving scorch marks on its front doors.

The attack did not affect the church interior and was believed to have occurred early this morning.

Rasah member of Parliament, Loke Siew Fook visited the church soon after and confirmed the incident.

“The worship hall was not affected, the attack only affected the front door,” Loke told The Malaysian Insider.

They attacked our church in Miri..we did not do and say anything. This morning they attack our church in Seremban, yet we still do not know what to do. Until today, these extremists had  attacked  Eight (8) of our churches....But do se still want to keep quiet ??..Bukitytunggal.com.

Meanwhile, Negeri Sembilan deputy police chief Datuk Abd Manan Mohd Hassan said a team sent to the church had found signs of attempted arson.

“A team of police officers, together with the forensic unit and the Fire and Rescue Department went to inspect the incident and found the front entrance door damaged.

“We believe assailants used petrol to set fire to the door but fortunately, the fire did not spread,” he told reporters at the scene of the incident.

He said police believe the incident took place between 1.30am and 8.30am as a police unit had patrolled the area at 1.30am and found everything in order.

He added that he had directed all police patrol cars and all police officers on duty to monitor places of worship, especially mosques and churches, to ensure their safety.

“I urge the people to stop such activities. Do not do anything that can disrupt peace and harmony of the country. We will take stern action against those found responsible,” he said.

The first church attack took place on Friday, amid dispute over the use of the word “Allah” by the Catholic Church’s Herald to refer to God in the Malay language.

The SIB church conducts it service regularly in the national language.

Both the government and opposition have moved to defuse tension, with Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announcing financial aid of RM500,000 for the worst hit church — the Metro Tabernacle.

How long can the Christians wait for retaliation?

Separately, opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim held a dialogue with the Christian community yesterday.

Mupok Aku

Agi Idup Agi Ngelaban

Perbuatan Membakar Gereja Mungkin Didalangi Oleh UMNO Serta Elemen Luar

Sabar itu separuh daripada Iman!
Itu adalah merupakan perkataan yang biasa di dengar di kalangan orang Islam Malaysia terutamanya apabila berdepan dengan perkara yang boleh menggugat kesabaran seseorang.
Tetapi pada pagi Jumaat, 8 Januari 2009, Malaysia telah dikejutkan dengan kebakaran tiga buah gereja iaitu gereja Metro Tabernacle yang terletak di Desa Melawati, gereja The Life Chapel yang terletak di Seksyen 17 Petaling Jaya dan gereja Catholic Assumption yang juga terletak di Petaling Jaya. Pada malam Sabtu, 9 Januari 2009, pembakaran gereja telah merebak ke utara Semenanjung di mana All Saints’ Church dan Sekolah Convent Convent l telah dibaling dengan bom molotov tetapi gagal meletup.

Semua perbuatan khianat membakar gereja di atas adalah dipercayai dilakukan oleh orang-orang Islam yang dijangka tidak berpuas hati dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang membenarkan Gereja Katolik menggunakan perkataan "Allah" di dalam edisi Bahasa Malaysia Majallah the Herald, pada 31 Disember 2009.

Pengaruh Luar Mungkin Terlibat

Pembakaran rumah ibadat merupakan perkara yang jarang berlaku di Malaysia selepas peristiwa 13 Mei 1969. Kebanyakan orang Islam di Malaysia adalah terdiri daripada kaum Melayu walaupun ,1% daripada mereka menganut agama Kristian. Kebanyakan mereka mengamalkan sikap toleransi terhadap penganut agama lain seperti Kristian, Hindu dan Buddha.

The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in southwest Kuala Lumpur was the latest target. There were no reports of injuries. -- PHOTO: AFP

Peristiwa pembakaran gereja yang berlaku sekarang merupakan peristiwa yang harus di ambil berat oleh semua pihak. Daripada pemerhatian saya, peristiwa pembakaran gereja ini mungkin dipengaruhi oleh apa yang berlaku di Pakistan, Mesir dan juga Indonesia. Sebab kedua, mungkin merupakan perbuatan yang berunsur politik, yang pada jangkaan saya didalangi oleh UMNO yang telah kehilangan sokongan kaum Melayu yang majoriti beragama Islam. Adalah dipercayai perbuatan ekstrim ini akan mengembalikan sokongan kaum Melayu terhadap UMNO.
Orang Melayu seperti yang saya ketahui merupakan orang yang baik dan berbudi bahasa. Tetapi mereka mungkin telah terpengaruh oleh laporan media -massa atau internet tentang perbuatan kejam penganut Islam terhadap orang-orang Kristian di seluruh dunia yang majoriti penduduknya Islam, terutamanya di ketiga-tiga buah negara Pakistan, Mesir dan negara jiran Indonesia. Di antara kekejaman terhadap orang kristian di negara berkenaan adalah seperti berikut :-

Di Pakistan, yang mana 1.5% daripada penduduknya adalah Kristian merupakan negara yang mengamalkan kekejaman terhadap orang Kristian. Di antara kekejaman yang dilakukan adalah seperti menjatuhkan hukuman bunuh terhadap orang Kristian yang deidapati menghina Islam, menyerang secara kejam seperti mengebom, membakar dan menembak kumpulan Kristian tatkala mereka berada di gereja-gereja.

Di Mesir, kekejaman terhadap orang Kristian memang merupakan perkara biasa yang berlaku. Di anatara kekejaman yang dilakukan adalah melakukan serangan oleh orang Muslim terhadap Coptic Christians.

Di negara jiran Indonesia, walaupun majoriti daripada penduduknya lebih sederhana  ajaran Islamnya terutamanya selepas kejatuhan rejim Suharto kalau dibandingkan dengan di Malaysia, tetapi kekejaman oleh penduduk Muslim terhadap penganut Kristan masih berlaku. Di antara kekejaman yang dilakukan adalah seperti membakar gereja, serta pembunuhan secara berleluasa  penganut Kristian.

Contoh-contoh di atas adalah di antara kekejaman yang dilakukan di Pakistan, Mesir dan Indonesia. Walaubagaimanapun kekejaman terhadap orang Kristian bukan hanya berlaku di ketiga-tiga buah negara Islam berkenaan tetapi turut juga berlaku di negara-negara  di seluruh dunia yang penduduknya kajoriti adalah beragama Islam .

Mungkinkah Ada Pengaruh Dalaman Yang Mempengaruhi Tindakan Pelampau Ini?

Perkara yang amat membimbangkan kita adalah sekiranya perbuatan khianat ini dipengaruhi oleh anasir politik. Semua maklum bahawa undi Melayu telah berpecah kepada dua, iaitu kepada PAS dan juga UMNO. Perkara ini dapat dibuktikan pada PRU12 pada tahun 2008 di mana BN serta UMNO telah hilang majoriti 2/3.

PAS bersama Pakatan Rakyat, telah menyuarakan bahawa mereka bersetuju dengan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi yang  membenarkan penganut agama Kristian menggunakan perkataan Allah. Malahan Tuan Guru Nik Aziz sendiri telah menyuarakan pendapatnya lebih terbuka berkenaan dengan perkara tersebut pada 3 Januari 2010. Manakala UMNO telah tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan ini. Perkara ini dapat dibuktikan dengan keputusan Jabatan Perdana Menteri yang telah berjaya menangguhkan perlaksanaan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi pada 6 Januari 2010.

Sma ada sedar atau tidak, UMNO tidak akan berjaya memerintah Malaysia tanpa sokongan penganut agama lain. Oleh itu untuk menentang keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi, kalangan penyokong UMNO yang ekstrim ini telah bertindak dengan menggunakan nama NGO. NGO ini telah terang-terang menentang keputusan mahkamah tetapi yang peliknya kenapa mereka ini tidak dikenakan tindakan menghina mahkamah? Saya ada jawapannya dan saya percaya pembaca lain pun tahu tentang sebabnya.

Apa Akan Jadi Sekiranya Kejadian Merebak Ke Sabah dan Sarawak.

Semasa masih di dalam peringkat perancangan penubuhan Malaysia, di antara perkara yang sangat dikhuatiri oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Sarawak terutamanya Dayak/Iban adalah supression oleh Malaya terhadap agama Kristian, yang merupakan agama yang  dianuti oleh majoriti penduduk Sarawak. Dan nampaknya apa yang dikhuatiri berlaku telah benar-benar berlaku.
Perbuatan yang tidak bertanggungjawab oleh penganut yang beragama Islam di Semenanjung ini dikhuatiri akan merebak ke Sarawak. Sekiranya ini berlaku, ianya akan mendatangkan kasualti yang lebih besar. Ini kerana sekiranya kekacauan merebak ke Sarawak, ianya akan melibatkan kaum Iban/Dayak yang mempunyai semangat kayau yang tinggi. Sebagai contoh, Kekacauan etnik yang berlaku di KALBAR di antara kaum dayak dan Madura yang telah mengorbankan korban yang banyak,  mungkin akan berlaku di sini. Walaupun isunya agak berbeza tetapi cirinya adalah sama, iaitu orang Iban/Dayak beragama Kristian, menentang kaum Melayu yang beragama Muslim.

Di Sabah, sejarah telah membuktikan bahawa hubungan antara Orang Kristian dan Islam di sana lebih vulnerable, ini dapat dibuktikan dengan kejadian di mana pada 6 Januari 2010 sekumpulan penduduk beragama Kristian di Penampang telah dihalang daripada berdemontrasi secara aman olek KPD Penampang (Yang peliknya orang Islam di Kuala Lumpur telah dibenarkan berdemontrasi pada 9 Januari 2010). Selain daripada itu, hubungan agama di Sabah telah tercemar semnenjak daripad konflik USNO-PBS dahulu.

Orang Kristian Harus Rasional Dan Jangan Mengikut Rentak Islam

Daripada apa yang berlaku di seluruh dunia, didapati bahawa penganut atau negara-negara Kristian mempunya tahap teloransi yang lebih tinggi daripada penganut Islam atau negara-negara Islam . Penganut agama Kristian di Malaysia adalah diingatkan agar mengikut seruan Kitab Injil yang menyeru umatnya supaya bersifat memaafkan. Sekiranya orang Kristian mengikut rentak orang pengikut Islam , nescaya  keamanan yang telah kita kecapi sekian lama akan berakhir di dalam sekelip mata.

Kepada UMNO, ingatlah jangan berselindung di sebalik NGO di dalam memperjuangkan hak orang Melayu/Muslim.

Khas kepada penganut Kristian di Sabah dan Sarawak, bersabarlah sebab apa yang berlaku kepada kita pada hari ini adalah atas kesilapan pemimpin kita yang lepas, yang bersetuju untuk menyertai Malaysia. Oleh yang demikian, kepad pemimpin Kristian di Sabah dan sarawak pada hari ini...saya ingin ingatkan agar semua sekeliannya beranilah untuk bercakap serta bertindak sebab keputusan yang dibuat oleh pemimpin pada hari ini akan mempengaruhi masa depan orang Kristan Malaysia pada masa hadapan! Jadilah pemimpin yang diingati kerana perjuangan dan bukan kerana pengecut dan mengikut telunjuk UMNO...

Thank You.