there has been much debate about the use of the word 'allah' in malaysia. and tensions are running high and that there are people throwing things into churches etc. and when i read about postings in the internet sites about people talking about it issue, it is actually quite heartening that sensible people are aplenty.
to me, it is not a conceptual issue. i think it's simply a presentation issue. regretfully, some people wants to make it into a conceptual issue just to gain political brownie points. it is dangerous and it divides the society. let's take a look at the issue. conceptually both sides agree that there is only one god. and that both side share similar views about the origins of their believes. so, this is already a good starting point. but the muslims cannot agree to the christians using the word `allah' in christian publications as it might confuse them. but the christian's argument is that they have been using it for centuries and that the word in arab simply means god, which both side agree is universal and that there is only one god. so? is there is middle ground? i say yes. and the answer lies in how things are packaged - a presentation issue i call it.
how do we present this concept call `god'? personally, i think there is only one variable we need to agree on - language. well, of cos, and a lot of common sense.
first and fundamentally the crux of the issue, acknowledge that the word `allah' is arabic for `god'. it is not copywrited. it cannot be. and if we can agree on this, then christians should be allowed to use it in their publications provided the publications is written in arabic (language remember?). but if their publication is written in english, then the word `god' should be used. this is consistent with all other english christian publications worldwide. however if it is written in malay, then impose the ruling that they should use `tuhan' (which mean `god' in malay). as for muslims, given the historical use of `allah' in their language to depict 'god' in their publications, they could continue to use `allah' in malay publications... however, if this is unacceptable to the christians based on the argument that `allah' has also been used for centuries in malaysia in malay christian publications (ie, accepted in the malay language that allah = god), then one way out could be to continue to use `allah' but that this publication should carry the necessary words to inform people that this is a christian publication. and to ensure there is no downstream issues with other faith also starting using the word `allah', the authorities should restrict that this term could only be used only to depict `god' of the abrahamic-origins. maybe there could also be a clearer definition of this term in the malay dictionary? hmmm, back to the fact that it can be tackled by being clearer about it at the language level... :-)
seemed quite easy rite? no?
hmmm... i think it is. but i supposed when politics gets into the way and unscruplous politicians want to use it to garner support, or when there is no guts by the political leadership to want to get it rite (at the language-level) or to show any leadership in this matter, then things can only get awfully wrong...
my thoughts on this...
ps: using the historical argument, it reminded me of how sikhs are excused from shaving their beard when serving national service, as well as wearing safety helmets when riding motorbikes. but this is where common sense and agreeing not to disturb the status quo must prevail.
to me, it is not a conceptual issue. i think it's simply a presentation issue. regretfully, some people wants to make it into a conceptual issue just to gain political brownie points. it is dangerous and it divides the society. let's take a look at the issue. conceptually both sides agree that there is only one god. and that both side share similar views about the origins of their believes. so, this is already a good starting point. but the muslims cannot agree to the christians using the word `allah' in christian publications as it might confuse them. but the christian's argument is that they have been using it for centuries and that the word in arab simply means god, which both side agree is universal and that there is only one god. so? is there is middle ground? i say yes. and the answer lies in how things are packaged - a presentation issue i call it.
how do we present this concept call `god'? personally, i think there is only one variable we need to agree on - language. well, of cos, and a lot of common sense.
first and fundamentally the crux of the issue, acknowledge that the word `allah' is arabic for `god'. it is not copywrited. it cannot be. and if we can agree on this, then christians should be allowed to use it in their publications provided the publications is written in arabic (language remember?). but if their publication is written in english, then the word `god' should be used. this is consistent with all other english christian publications worldwide. however if it is written in malay, then impose the ruling that they should use `tuhan' (which mean `god' in malay). as for muslims, given the historical use of `allah' in their language to depict 'god' in their publications, they could continue to use `allah' in malay publications... however, if this is unacceptable to the christians based on the argument that `allah' has also been used for centuries in malaysia in malay christian publications (ie, accepted in the malay language that allah = god), then one way out could be to continue to use `allah' but that this publication should carry the necessary words to inform people that this is a christian publication. and to ensure there is no downstream issues with other faith also starting using the word `allah', the authorities should restrict that this term could only be used only to depict `god' of the abrahamic-origins. maybe there could also be a clearer definition of this term in the malay dictionary? hmmm, back to the fact that it can be tackled by being clearer about it at the language level... :-)
seemed quite easy rite? no?
hmmm... i think it is. but i supposed when politics gets into the way and unscruplous politicians want to use it to garner support, or when there is no guts by the political leadership to want to get it rite (at the language-level) or to show any leadership in this matter, then things can only get awfully wrong...
my thoughts on this...
ps: using the historical argument, it reminded me of how sikhs are excused from shaving their beard when serving national service, as well as wearing safety helmets when riding motorbikes. but this is where common sense and agreeing not to disturb the status quo must prevail.
No comments:
Post a Comment