By Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani - The Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 11 — Charles Santiago has blamed the Umno-led Barisan Nasional (BN) for the spate of arson attacks on churches in the country, which have been linked to protests against the recent “Allah” ruling.The Klang Member of Parliament also believes the attacks will alienate East Malaysia because the majority of the country’s Catholics are from Sabah and Sarawak.
“In this cunning manipulation by Umno and BN, East Malaysia would become more alienated from West Malaysia as more than half of Malaysia’s Catholics are from indigenous groups who mostly live in the Borneo island states and mainly speak Malay.
“The row over the use of the word ‘Allah’ is among a string of religious disputes that have strained relations between Malays and minority Chinese and Indians who fear rising Islamisation in the country,” he said in a press statement.
The Sidang Injil Borneo (SIB) church in Seremban, Negri Sembilan was attacked today with an arson attack, leaving scorch marks on its front doors.
There have been eight attacks against churches over four days thus far.
Yesterday, a stone was thrown against a church in Miri, Sarawak.
This is the first reported attack in East Malaysia, where a large part of the population are Christians who worship in Bahasa Malaysia and also considered the ruling Barisan Nasional’s “fixed deposit” of votes and parliamentary seats in Election 2008.
“The fire-bombing of the four Christian churches in Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya amidst rising tensions over the High Court ruling allowing a Catholic weekly to use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God finally brings to the surface the institutionalised racial and religious intolerance in the country.
“I strongly condemn these cowardly attacks on the churches which are totally unacceptable. These acts are despicable, shameful and certainly go against the very grains of Islam and all other faiths which teach its followers to be respectful of other religions,” he said.
He stressed that the arson attacks are aimed at creating fear among the public and to exert “subtle pressure” on the Court of Appeal to reverse the current decision.
“We have felt the undercurrents of rising racial and religious intolerance over the last one decade. Instead of working towards an acceptable resolution, Umno and BN had fanned further segregation and disunity for its own political agenda.
“The infamous cow head rally and church burning are clearly strategies designed by Umno to save itself from further becoming irrelevant to the people. But in this manoeuvring, the country has been divided down the middle and people are living in fear of possible racial clashes,” he said.
He also urged the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammudddin Hussein to take responsibility for failing to prevent the church attacks.
“Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein must take responsibility for failing to prevent the arson attacks on the churches and creating a climate of fear that is threatening to ruin the racial fabric in the country even further.
“I am making an urgent call to the prime minister to urgently convene an inter-faith meeting together with political parties and civil society to restore calm and alleviate fear and anxiety in the country. The meeting should formulate an acceptable strategy based on equal citizenship in resolving the current national crisis,” he said.********
Asia Sentinel
| Making Sense of the God Question |  |
| Written by Marina Mahathir | |
| Friday, 08 January 2010 | |
 A prominent voice speaks out for moderation on the Allah issue in Malaysia With Malaysia embroiled in racial tension over the use of the word "Allah" in a Catholic publication, there are few voices on either side breaking through the static. The following is by Marina Mahathir, the daughter of former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. It appeared on her blog, "Rantings by MM." (http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com/) We reproduce it here in the hope that a moderate voice will be heard by a few. I found by chance this article the other day: "Prophet Muhammad’s promise to Christians". The document is not a modern human rights treaty but even though it was penned in 628 AD it clearly protects the right to property, freedom of religion, freedom of work, and security of the person, says Muqtedar Khan. Muslims and Christians together constitute over 50 per cent of the world and if they lived in peace, we will be half way to world peace. One small step that we can take towards fostering Muslim-Christian harmony is to tell and retell positive stories and abstain from mutual demonization. In this article I propose to remind both Muslims and Christians about a promise that Prophet Muhammad made to Christians. The knowledge of this promise can have enormous impact on Muslim conduct towards Christians. Muslims generally respect the precedent of their Prophet and try to practice it in their lives. In 628 AD, a delegation from St Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammad and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possesses a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1,400 years under Muslim protection. The Promise to St Catherine: "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)." The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that Muslims are with Christians near and far, straight away rejecting any future attempts to limit the promise to St Catherine alone. By ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges. These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with violating God’s covenant. A remarkable aspect of the charter is that it imposes no conditions on Christians for enjoying its privileges. It is enough that they are Christians. They are not required to alter their beliefs, they do not have to make any payments and they do not have any obligations. This is a charter of rights without any duties! The document is not a modern human rights treaty but even though it was penned in 628 AD it clearly protects the right to property, freedom of religion, freedom of work, and security of the person. I know most readers must be thinking so what? Well the answer is simple. Those who seek to foster discord among Muslims and Christians focus on issues that divide and emphasize areas of conflict. But when resources such as Muhammad’s promise to Christians are invoked and highlighted it builds bridges. It inspires Muslims to rise above communal intolerance and engenders goodwill in Christians who might be nursing fear of Islam or Muslims. When I look at Islamic sources, I find in them unprecedented examples of religious tolerance and inclusiveness. They make me want to become a better person. I think the capacity to seek good and do good inheres in all of us. When we subdue this predisposition towards the good, we deny our fundamental humanity. In this holiday season, I hope all of us can find time to look for something positive and worthy of appreciation in the values, cultures and histories of other peoples. (Dr Muqtedar Khan is director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.) Now, when that delegation from St Catherine's monastery came to meet with Prophet Mohamad (pbuh), I suppose it's fair to assume that they spoke Arabic to one another. And when they were conversing, surely the word "God" must have come up. As in "May God Be With You" and such like. What word did the Prophet use for "God" I wonder? And what did the St Catherinians use in return? For monotheists like them, was there a "your God" and "my God" type of situation, or did they understand that they were both talking about the same One? While some idiots are mourning over the "loss" of the word "Allah" and therefore basically telling the world that they are people easily confused by nomenclature, and others are predicting riots over what is basically a "copyright" issue, let me define what I think a confident Muslim should be: 1. A confident Muslim is unfazed by the issue of God's name. God speaks to all of humankind in the Quran and never said that only Muslims could call him by the name Allah. 2. A confident Muslim has 99 names to choose from to describe that One God. My favourites are Ar-Rahman (The All-Compassionate) and Ar-Rahim (The All-Merciful). 3. A confident Muslim never gets confused over which is his/her religion and which is other people's. For instance, a confident Muslim knows exactly what the first chapter of the Quran is. And it's not the Lord's Prayer. 4. A confident Muslim will not walk into a church, hear a liturgy in Malay or Arabic where they use the word "Allah" and then think that he or she is in a mosque. A confident Muslim knows the difference. 5. A confident Muslim is generous, inclusive and doesn't think that his or her brethren is made exclusive through the use of a single language. The confident Muslim is well aware that in the Middle East, all services of ANY religion are in Arabic because that's what they all speak. 6. A confident Muslim knows the basis of his/her faith are the five pillars of Islam and will not be shaken just because other people call God by the same name. 7. A Muslim believes in only One God. Therefore it makes sense that other people should call God by the same name because there is no other God. ART THOU NOT aware that it is God whose limitless glory all [creatures] that are in the heavens and on earth extol, even the birds as they spread out their wings? Each [of them] knows indeed how to pray unto Him and to glorify Him; and God has full knowledge of all that they do: (Surah Nour, Verse 41) (Asad). So I would ask those people demonstrating against the court decision, have you no pride? Are you saying you're easily confused? And before anyone says I have no qualifications to say these things, read what Dr Asri Zainal Abidin (who does have qualifications no matter what JAIS says) has written about this very subject here. And here's something interesting. In 2007, the Majlis Agama Negeri Perlis, which is a large majlis filled with people very learned in Islamic religious knowledge, discussed the question of the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims. Their unanimous decision? They issued a fatwa to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with non-Muslims using the word at all. (This was told to me by Asri but I cannot find the fatwa anywhere online because all the religious departments' websites are so useless.) Are we now going to excommunicate the whole of Perlis? |
No comments:
Post a Comment