USING THE NAME "ALLAAH" (Part 7)

A REFLECTION AND RESPONSE TO ISSUES ON ISLAMIC DA’WAH, CHRISTIAN EVANGELISM, INTER-FAITH DIALOGUE, CONTEXTUAL USE OF ISLAMIC TERM, APOSTASY, REFUTING ALLEGATIONS AND CLARIFICATION ON PREVAILING MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISLAM AND IT’S APPROACHES ON DA’WAH

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

Question:
“I am referring to the recent controversy (May 2008) in Malaysia regarding the request by the Catholic Church, for their use of the term ‘Allah’ in their translation of the Bible and other religious tracts for their congregation (in Bahasa Malaysia) and the objection of the Malaysian Islamic Authorities. The court there has now allowed the matter to be forwarded for a judicial review in the civil court.

My question for you is: ‘Does Islam have any objection for others of different faith from using this term? If it does object, (it seem obvious for most people to interpret from the Malaysian case that imply that only Muslims can use the name Allah), why is this so? And if Islam does not object to this, how would you then explain the basis for their objection? Are they wrong? Or perhaps there are other plausible explanations to this issue which may not have been considered.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CONTINUATION ..........

8.0 Objection by Islam is not in the use of the word – but the method of their evangelism

In the dissemination of any teachings, whether it is religion or ideology, we, as well as any ethical person who uphold justice, would be opposed to any dishonest means, deceptions, half-truth, arbitrary or selective usage of information, suppression of facts, distortions, misinformation etc. Yet, there are some people who may claim justification in what they are doing, adamantly holding to their interpretations that their method is not deception even though others may take exception to it and would be able to provide basis for their objections. In such instance, an impartial evaluation of both sides’ arguments have to be evaluated and these should be put to scrutiny for all to see - as to who is lying and who deceives.

Although there are still many Christians who do not regard many of these ‘contextualization approaches’ as being honest, sensing it as forms of deception and would also never condone it, unfortunately many Crusading Evangelists have no such qualms, and are adamant to using it ... ‘for the greater good of their Holy mission’.

This is not surprising because many such Evangelists sought to justify, even unethical approaches in spreading the Gospel, with Paul’s oft-quoted (Holy lie) statement:

“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?”

(Bible: KJV Romans: 3:7).

Remember that these are not the words of Jesus a.s. but of Paul’s admission of his willingness to lying (to bear false witness, to defraud etc.), for the glory of God! And who was Paul actually? Was he amongst the original followers of Christ? Or was he not originally the persecutor of followers of Jesus a.s.? Historically, he appeared upon the historical scene long after Jesus a.s. departure. Do we not remember that Jesus a.s. had made a cautious statements which (as recorded in the Bible), in which he warned:

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

(Bible: KJV Mathew: 7: 15).

And also note from this, how the view by Paul deviates far away from the ethical teaching which Jesus a.s. himself commanded his followers to uphold. Jesus said:

“Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not …”

(Bible: KJV Mark: 10: 19).

Muslims have the right to ask: "Are the Christians following Christ a.s. or Paul? Can honour be achieved by dishonourable means!?" Alas, people are known to reject morality when it does not suit them. And how should we reason with such people?

It was from such “twisted morality” that mayhem in the past was committed in the name of religion, justifying the Crusades and inquisitions. And in fact, it may even be currently applied by certain powers to spread their hegemony in the world. It was also with such twisted argument that certain misguided Muslims tried to spread blind fanaticism and inciting wanton hatred, which has no basis in the sublime teachings of al-Islam. This or any forms of injustice committed by anyone, even if done by our own people, have to be opposed by us as to do so is commanded by Allah:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٲمِينَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِ شُہَدَآءَ لِلَّهِ

وَلَوۡ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِكُمۡ أَوِ ٱلۡوَٲلِدَيۡنِ وَٱلۡأَقۡرَبِينَ‌ۚ إِن يَكُنۡ

غَنِيًّا أَوۡ فَقِيرً۬ا فَٱللَّهُ أَوۡلَىٰ بِہِمَا‌ۖ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ ٱلۡهَوَىٰٓ

أَن تَعۡدِلُواْ‌ۚ وَإِن تَلۡوُ ۥۤاْ أَوۡ تُعۡرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ

كَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ خَبِيرً۬ا

“O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts) lest ye swerve and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.”

(Qur’an: an-Nisa: 4: 135)

How sad! it seems that the virtuous saying: “Ends cannot be used to justify the means” is no longer held to be valid by these people. But we hope sincere people, whether they be Muslims or others, i.e. those whose conscience does not allow for such diabolical interpretations should not hesitate to calling a spade, a spade! A deception, by any or whatever name, is still a deception! We need to expose these, and we appeal to all good people, including many other Christians with conscience, who may be sincerely trying to seek after the truth, to do likewise. The more these methods are exposed, the clearer and distinct would the right way be from falsehood, if our concern is to sincerely seek after Truth. For truth will inevitably triumph!

وَقُلۡ جَآءَ ٱلۡحَقُّ وَزَهَقَ ٱلۡبَـٰطِلُ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱلۡبَـٰطِلَ كَانَ زَهُوقً۬ا

And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished:
for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

(Qur’an: Isra’: 17: 81)

8.1 Refutations – “Original Islam uses contextualization method?”

One of their arguments trying to justify their use of contextualization was in fact an accusation that purports a lie. They unashamedly assert: “Islam may be viewed as originally a contextualization for the Arabs of the monotheism inherited directly from Jews and Christians or indirectly through Arab monotheists.” (J. Dudley Woodberry)

If they mean that Muhammad s.a.w. was successful in his Da’wah because he was willing to tolerate whatever truth that was already present in previous traditions – this is true and showed the Wisdom of God’s guidance to him. After all Islam as a revealed religion did not begin with Muhammad, but has also been given to previous prophets. It is all based upon revelation from the One God - not what anthropologists purport religion as purely human creative works, insinuating perhaps he had partly borrowed from previous existing works. The prove that it was not purely human creative work, is that Muhammad s.a.w. was able to sift-out, distinguished and refutes every lies, fabrications, conjectures, innovations, falsehood which had crept into these earlier traditions - i.e. things introduced by subsequent generations, or innovations made up by men subsequently and had caused them to deviate away from the straight way. And regarding such concocted traditions which his Message came to correct and replace, Muhammad s.a.w. would never pretend to agree with them nor conveniently compromise truth, but would be consistent in his opposition towards these falsehood throughout. This prophetic method of Muhammad s.a.w. is not 'contextualization' as purported by them, and no where is it similar to what these Evangelists are trying to do. For them to try suggesting that their contextualization has ‘similarity’ with Islam itself is another attempt at deception – “a strawman” - hoping that Muslims would simply buy into it and agree with their suggestion, unknowingly! Also, this reveals and exposes their pretension as though they have knowledge, but in fact they are relying on mere guess work and may in fact be totally ignorant of Islam.

Note: A ‘strawman’ is a false interpretation of Islam which someone puts up (concocts) as though it really represents Islam (albeit, which purposely contains suggestions of some flaws or weakness) so that they would then easily criticise and attack it. Unwary Muslims, thinking that ‘Islam’ is being attacked would instinctively defend that ‘strawman’ (that false interpretation, not the real Islam). And being concern of defending Islam Muslims would overlook to check whether what was attacked is truly that of the teaching of Islam or not. Thus they (Muslims) would have inadvertently conceded that this false interpretation (suggested by them) of Islam is valid. Such is their method – mere trickery and diabolical entrapment – without regard for fairness because they would only insist that only their interpretation of Islam is the only right one (even though they admit to being biased). They would not even consider the Muslims explanation (or try to conceal it from readers these arguments given by Islam). What has Islam and Muslim scholars presented as proof of its claim? Surely one has the right to listen to all the arguments - but these (Muslim's view) usually are omitted in their discourse. Most criticism of Islam by Orientalists and Christian Evangelists are of this nature – i.e. they are in fact attacking their own false interpretations of Islam, and then unashamedly claimed objectivity for their 'research'?!

8.1 Refutations – “Muhammad s.a.w. copied or borrowed from existing tradition?”

Another somewhat similar false accusation (favourite of theirs) is to repeat the charge: “that Muhammad copied or borrowed from existing tradition.” They tried to support this thesis as though credible, by citing their own academicians or Orientalists, known for being bias and inimical towards Islam e.g., Hamilton A. R. Gibb, J. Fueck, Merlin Swartz, Montgomery Watt, etc. These people always use anthropological approach in their study which already surmised that religion is merely a human phenomenon, i.e. religion or religious ideas are products of history and they do not accept any claim to divine source outside of man. So, with this bias and driven by their inimical attitude towards Islam, their main argument it seems was that whenever there are similarity in the teachings of Muhammad s.a.w. with that of the previous prophets in the Jewish / Christian tradition, they would conclude as though this proves that therefore Muhammad had copied them – whereas, every Muslim knows (with proof and substantiated by verifiable evidence – Qur’an, Sunnah & Seerah) that Muhammad was unlettered (neither can read nor write) and was guided by revelation from God. Even his enemies during his time could not deny this fact, and were even challenged to try and disprove his claim, that his source is the revelation from God – and none of them could disprove his claim. Allah records this:

وَبِٱلۡحَقِّ أَنزَلۡنَـٰهُ وَبِٱلۡحَقِّ نَزَلَ‌ۗ وَمَآ أَرۡسَلۡنَـٰكَ إِلَّا مُبَشِّرً۬ا وَنَذِيرً۬ا

وَقُرۡءَانً۬ا فَرَقۡنَـٰهُ لِتَقۡرَأَهُ ۥ عَلَى ٱلنَّاسِ عَلَىٰ مُكۡثٍ۬ وَنَزَّلۡنَـٰهُ تَنزِيلاً۬

“We sent down the (Qur'an) in Truth, and in Truth has it descended: and We sent thee (O Muhammad) but to give Glad Tidings and to warn (sinners). (It is) a Qur'an which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it by stages.”

(Qur’an: al-Isra’:17: 105-106)

وَمَا كَانَ هَـٰذَا ٱلۡقُرۡءَانُ أَن يُفۡتَرَىٰ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ

وَلَـٰكِن تَصۡدِيقَ ٱلَّذِى بَيۡنَ يَدَيۡهِ وَتَفۡصِيلَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ

لَا رَيۡبَ فِيهِ مِن رَّبِّ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِينَ

“This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book― wherein there is no doubt from the Lord of the Worlds.”

(Qur’an: Yunus: 10: 37)

وَكَذَٲلِكَ أَنزَلۡنَآ إِلَيۡكَ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبَ‌ۚ فَٱلَّذِينَ ءَاتَيۡنَـٰهُمُ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبَ

يُؤۡمِنُونَ بِهِۦ‌ۖ وَمِنۡ هَـٰٓؤُلَآءِ مَن يُؤۡمِنُ

بِهِۦ‌ۚ وَمَا يَجۡحَدُ بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَآ إِلَّا ٱلۡڪَـٰفِرُونَ وَمَا كُنتَ تَتۡلُواْ

مِن قَبۡلِهِۦ مِن كِتَـٰبٍ۬ وَلَا تَخُطُّهُ ۥ

بِيَمِينِكَ‌ۖ إِذً۬ا لَّٱرۡتَابَ ٱلۡمُبۡطِلُونَ بَلۡ هُوَ ءَايَـٰتُۢ بَيِّنَـٰتٌ۬

فِى صُدُورِ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلۡعِلۡمَ‌ۚ وَمَا يَجۡحَدُ

بِـَٔايَـٰتِنَآ إِلَّا ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ

“And thus (it is) that We have sent down the Book to thee (O Muhammad). So the People of the Book believe therein, as also do some of these (pagan Arabs): and none but Unbelievers reject Our Signs. And thou (O Muhammad) wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came) nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: in that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted. Nay, here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs.”

(Qur’an: al-Ankabut: 29: 47-49)

وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ ٱلۡهَوَىٰٓ إِنۡ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحۡىٌ۬ يُوحَىٰ

عَلَّمَهُ ۥ شَدِيدُ ٱلۡقُوَىٰ

"Nor does he (Muhammad) say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one mighty in Power”

(Qur’an: Najm: 53: 3-5)

WaAllaahu a'lam

-------------------------------------------------------------------

TO BE CONTINUED ..................

9.0 My view – on “whether Christians in the translation of Bible, can they use the term or name Allah?”