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.
9.0 My view – on “whether Christians in the translation of Bible, can they use the term or name Allah?”
[A] Conform to and be consistent with its original intended meaning. We should caution them against abuse, such that they are not to apply it to their objects of worship (“ma’budat”) e.g. applying this name to their idols, deities, human beings, angels, jinns (spirits), animals, trees etc. which may be regarded by them to be divine. To regard these as “Allah” would be a blasphemy. Remember, there is no god worthy of being worshipped except “Allah”, Who Alone is God, without partners or associate and there can be no likeness to Allah – the unseen Creator and Sustainer of the worlds. This is because the name is from "al-Islam" (in the Semitic religion with roots going back to the time of Prophet Ibrahim a.s. based upon Revelation), therefore Islamic interpretation of this name must be given prerogative, and Islamic scholars reserve the right to disallow any attempt at distorting the meaning through any abusive usage.
[b] Must be consistent to linguistic honesty in terms of applying an equivalent with an equivalent. For example, since “Allah” is a proper noun in Arabic, it cannot be used to translate a common noun of another language. Thus the equivalent for “god” or “God” in English, it should be the Arabic common noun “ilah” or “al-ilah” respectively, and not “Allah”. The only instance which perhaps “Allah” may serve as equivalent Arabic translation would be for the similar proper noun of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton “YHWH.” Even then, it would be better to rather retain this Hebrew proper noun since this has not at all been translated into English. To change it and use the Arabic may project a different cultural context, thus may give a wrong idea as to where it is coming from (term which is from the Hebrew not Arab milleu).
Qur’anic exposure of deceit among scripture writers
For us the Muslims, Allah s.w.t. warns us not to follow the dishonest attitudes of some of these ‘people of the Book’ in changing, concealing and twisting the words of the scripture and then dare to claim them as though it comes from God. Allah s.w.t. records this charge:
وَإِنَّ مِنۡهُمۡ لَفَرِيقً۬ا يَلۡوُ ۥنَ أَلۡسِنَتَهُم بِٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ لِتَحۡسَبُوهُ
مِنَ ٱلۡڪِتَـٰبِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ وَيَقُولُونَ هُوَ مِنۡ
عِندِ ٱللَّهِ وَمَا هُوَ مِنۡ عِندِ ٱللَّهِ وَيَقُولُونَ عَلَى ٱللَّهِ
ٱلۡكَذِبَ وَهُمۡ يَعۡلَمُونَ
There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues; (as they read) so that you would think it is a part of the Book but it is not part of the Book; and they say "That is from Allah" but it is not from Allah: it is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
(Qur’an: Aali’Imran: 3: 78)
قُلۡ يَـٰٓأَهۡلَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ لِمَ تَصُدُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ
مَنۡ ءَامَنَ تَبۡغُونَہَا عِوَجً۬ا وَأَنتُمۡ شُهَدَآءُۗ
وَمَا ٱللَّهُ بِغَـٰفِلٍ عَمَّا تَعۡمَلُونَ
Say: "O ye People of the Book! why obstruct ye those who believe, from the path of Allah seeking to make it crooked, while ye were yourselves witnesses (to Allah's Covenant)? But Allah is not unmindful of all that ye do."
(Qur’an: Aali’Imran: 3: 99)
9.1 CRITICISM AND OBJECTION CONCERNING INTELLECTUAL / LINGUISTIC DISHONESTY
Let me also elaborate further another point on the, “Objection of Islam to Christian methodologies.” This pertains to the way, their Biblical scholars undertake translation of scriptures which had caused considerable deviation to the meaning of words from that of the original. Allow me to give one example of such inaccurate and dishonest translations, which tend to go unnoticed amongst Christians, because they do not have recourse to the original text to make comparison. (Unlike them, for the Qur'an, we Muslims have recourse to and can always refer to the original text in Arabic to check any translation directly with the original).
The Example: we are told the oldest New Testament text is in Greek, which were then translated into Latin and then English. Now, when translating into Arabic, did they take it from the Greek or from the English text? It should rightly be from the Greek, since the oldest copy of the New Testament is said to be in this language.
This question is important to determine linguistic honesty. Let us then analyze these translations in English and compare it with the Greek:
Note: I have extracted the following from: [
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Greek NT/Byz. Maj)
John 1:
1 en arch hn o logoV kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeoV hn o logoV
2 outoV hn en arch proV ton qeon
(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT)
John 1:
1 en <1722> {IN [THE]} arch <746> {BEGINNING} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD,} kai <2532> {AND} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} proV <4314> ton <3588> {WITH} qeon <2316> {GOD,} kai <2532> {AND} qeoV <2316> {GOD} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} o <3588> {THE} logoV <3056> {WORD.}
2 outoV <3778> {HE} hn <2258> (5713) {WAS} en <1722> {IN [THE]} arch <746> {BEGINNING} proV <4314> ton <3588> {WITH} qeon <2316> {GOD.}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: from the above there is difference between the Greek words:
qeon = ’ho theos’ = ‘the god’ (God) ....... still this is a common noun with a definite article, and yet not a proper noun. Normal convention allows us to use a capital letter though.
qeoV = ‘ton theos’ = ‘a god’ (god) ....... without a definite article, this is a common noun. By the same convention, we should use the same word but without using capital letter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let us see how this has been translated into English:
(King James Version [KJV])
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
Notice:
To be linguistically truthful, these verses should have been translated by highlighting the difference, i.e. literally it should be as:
1 “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with ‘the god’ (i.e. God), and the word was ‘a god’ (i.e. god).”
2 The same was in the beginning with ‘the god’ (i.e. God).”
That is, it should be rendered as:
1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was god.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.”
COMMENT:
Their use of capital to both terms without differentiating the Greek terms “hotheos” and “tontheos”, is rather deceptive and not in accord with linguistic honesty. Reading only in the English, this important distinction between “the God” and “a god” would be completely lost to readers researching for scriptural basis to theological doctrines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We even detect inconsistency in their using this convention of giving a capital “G” [for hotheos] and small “g” [for tontheos] in the following translations:
(KJV) Exodus 7:1
“And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god [qeoV ] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
COMMENT:
Note: ‘a god’ (here in the Greek is Tontheos [ qeoV ], when used it does not mean to refer to God almighty but just ‘a god’ - a metaphor. This translation is therefore correct).
But why is it then for John 1:1:-
in (KJV)John 1: 1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [ qeon ], and the Word was God.” [ qeoV ].
Note: Here, when the same Tontheos ‘a god’ [qeoV ] was used for the 'Word', yet the translator put a capital letter, equating it to God almighty! Why? Shouldn’t it be a small letter? Is it because there is preconceived bias the “Word” would later be used to refer to Jesus a.s. so that it can be used to prove he is divine? If Moses were referred to as “a god”, this similarly applies to Jesus a.s. Both as Prophets were called “gods” which do not imply that they are divine or equal to God – simply metaphor signifying “godly” or someone specially “authorised by God”.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOW, IN ANOTHER PASSAGE THE TRANSLATOR CHOSE TO APPLY DIFFERENT APPROACH (AS PONTED OUT BY SHEIKH A. DEEDAT r.a.)
2 Corinthians 4:4 “In whom the god [ qeon ] of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ .....”
COMMENT:
Here, the Greek word Hotheos [qeon] was used but yet the translator uses small letter, not capital. Paul here is saying that Satan is 'the God' [qeon] even though it is in reference to the Devil? Was he mistaken? If indeed he meant it, then it tantamount to a blasphemy of sort on the part of Paul, and proves fallibility of scripture.
Biblical Scholars & translators must exercise integrity in the translation and must render exactly what is in the original text [even regarding Paul’s mistakes], and not try to edit it. By using a small “g” knowingly that it should have been capital “G”, is dishonesty. If this is not deception, then what is it? If correction needs to be made, it should not be in the Greek Bible (which is the primary text), but the English ones. To take easier way by changing the Greek Bible instead, would be deception.
Remember : Strong's New Testament Greek definition has numbered for this word Hotheos [qeon] which is <2316>, but instead of using actual word Hotheos [ qeon ], some people may deceptively changed the word Hotheos by using the spelling for Tontheos [ qeoV ] but by adding the definite article “the” before it, thus it is written as [o qeoV ] and it still can be read as “the god”. This it seems, may have been done to the latest Greek Bible – perhaps done to extricate themselves from the difficulty due to criticism raised by Sheikh Ahmad Deedat. It is as though to correct Paul’s inadvertent use of Hotheos [qeon] which was the term reserved for God almighty. If indeed they have done this, it will further prove their tampering with scriptures, unscrupulously. We must insist upon preserving the original text in Greek, as primary reference not the current edition. When Sheikh Ahmad Deedat brought it up, the Bible passage then was using the Greek term Hotheos [qeon].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.1.1 Malaysian context – the Malay language
It is important to note, by the way, that the Arabs historical, socio-cultural and linguistic context is not exactly the same with the Malay-speaking people. To try and conscript false parallel of Malay-speaking people with the Arabs is being deceitful and would only expose unjust intention. For example, the Arabs were introduced to monotheism since Prophet Abraham’s time, a.s., (long before Muhammad’s time s.a.w. and the Qur’anic revelation). The term or name “Allah” has already been in used since then by the Quraysh, the descendants of Abraham from his first-born son Ishmael (Isma-‘il) a.s. The Ka’bah (the house of worship built by Abraham a.s. and Ishmael a.s.) has all along been referred to as “Bayt-Allah” (the house of Allah). Thus, because of this, contextually, the Christians amongst them have to use the name “Allah” in daily conversation, which is only logical. Some evangelists purports that Muhammad s.a.w. may have copied the name "Allah" from a Syriac reference! This is prepostrous, revealing their ignorance of the history of the Semitic people (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac etc. like in Malay "satu rumpun") people sharing common linguistic roots and ancestrry back to the Patriarc Abraham a.s.
This is not the same with the Malay-speaking people, where the use of the name of “Allah” was originally an alien name, and its use is relative to the spread of Islam in this region. Actually in the Malay language, there has been in used many other terms to refer to God – seeing that prior to the coming of Islam, the people were influenced by animism, Hinduism and Buddhism. In the spirit of tolerance and upholding integrity, Muslims have never insisted for others to adopt “Allah” as being the appropriate term to refer to whatever they may be worshipping as god or gods, if they are not Muslim. Nor has there been any attempt to use deception and changed the Qur’anic terms in the Arabic, with terms from other religious worldview which may contradict the Islamic meaning in the doctrine of God which we hold. And in translating ancient religious text of the pre-Islamic period, to impose Islamic terms into them, would be dishonest. Regretably the Christians it seems, do not have such scruples.
Whereas amongst the Arab-speaking Christians, they could not avoid using the name “Allah”, because this has already been entrenched in their historical, socio-cultural context. As I have explained in previous postings, after the Prophet Abraham a.s. some of the Jews and Arabs deviated from adhering to pure monotheism (Tauhiid). Some of those claiming to be followers of Prophet 'Isa (Jesus) a.s. similarly, had deviated (reference: "Early Christian Doctrines" by J N D Kelly and also the Unitarian / Trinitarian schism of Church history). Amazingly, inspite of dominance of Pauline Trinitarian dogma, the Arabs use of the name Allah would always contradict them because, the name Allah rejects any notion of association or attributing of partners to the One Unique Divine Being. Still, the Christian Arabs had to use it, and they knew that without making a qualification, there may be confusion because Christian holds to a different theological doctrines regarding divinity to the Abrahamic Monotheism. The term Allah taught by Islam established by Muhammad s.a.w. is indeed that same Tauhiid (monotheist faith) of the Prophet Ibrahim a.s. whereas Trinitarian Christians would never be able to claim to be following this true monotheism. Thus, an Arab-Christian scholar Dr. Labib Mikhail had to be asked and has to qualify the distinction in his FAQ (quote):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
Dr. Labib, is Allah of the Muslims the God of Christians?
I would say that it can't be that way. There is only one true God, who revealed Himself in the Bible, through His prophets. And if we compare between the God of the Christians, and Allah of the Muslims and of the Quran, we will see a lot of differences. There is a difference in the attributes of Allah, and the Attributes of God of the Christians. There is a difference in the commandment of Allah of the Muslims and the commandments of the God of the Christians. There is a difference in the plan of salvation prepared by the God of the Christians, and the plan of salvation in Islam. And I might say here that the word 'salvation' was never ever mentioned in the whole Quran. Then lastly I would say that the god head in Islam is different than the god head in Christianity.
http://www.thespiritofislam.com/text/Q51.html
Note: Although his explanation contains vague generalization and innuendos which can be responded to, howbeit, the point of our quoting this is simply to show that the Arab-Christians are having this dilemma and had to ask. This supports our contention that Trinitarian concept is in fact alien to the Arabs and the Abrahamic monotheism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
From this, we should ask:
[A] Is the Malay Bible translations from Greek to Malay? English to Malay? Arabic to Malay?
When we know that it is not from Arabic to Malay, then there is no justification for Christians to insist upon using Islamic-Arabic terms for the Malay translation. Arguing that the Arabs have used these name or terms, is irrelevant as we are talking about the Malays. Perhaps we can counter by posing this suggestion: "Would the Christians be permitted to insert the name “Allah” or other Islamic terms into the English, Greek, Dutch or other non-Arabic Bible translation? Wouldn't it be absurd?
[B] So, “Why do the Christians in Malaysia, insist in wanting to use “Allah” as well as other Islamic terms (when these terms are already known to contextually belong to and exclusively used for the Muslims); whereas there are other words in Malay which they can choose from? Also, the Malay-speaking people have already regarded these terminologies to be referring specifically to Islam and its doctrines. Why insist on Islamic-Tauhidic branding when they (Christians) are trying to promote their Christian-Trinitarian doctrine? Is it because the Islamic 'brand' is saleable? Is this not a case of defrauding? And would this not create confusion, even for their own followers?”
My understanding of their (Christians) insistence in requesting for this, has nothing to do with trying to be accurate in translating Bible. Nor is it a fundamental requirement of their religion that these terms must be applied. Rather the real issue is the tendencies of the Evangelists and their obsession with ‘contextualization’ to promote their deceitful agenda. This methodology is deception, so as to facilitate for their ‘church planting’ program. From the Muslim’s perspective, this agenda is akin to inciting sedition, manupulations towards desensitizing Muslims - as admitted by their Evangelists. To think that Muslims are not aware of this is being naive. Yet, tolerance by Muslims has a limit and must not be abused or taken for granted. Thus it is not surprising that in Malaysia, this request may be not be acceded to, but as I have already stated:
“Objection of Islam is not in the use of the word – but the
deceptive method of their evangelism”
Do not therefore twist the argument as though the Christians are being victimised, using this issue as the excuse. Some Christians may try to deny this charge of deception. Yet there are also other Christians who are against this "contextualization" because they knew it is unethical and would only lead to syncretism. Such method does not work towards true proselytization. Just look at practices amongst the South-Central Americans where pagan rites, voodoo and animistic worship are combined with that of Christian practices. Are these people Christians? But these other Christians view may not have much influence on this matter. Thus we have to state our objection and express concern in their reckless pursuits, particularly in their using (or rather abusing) Islamic terminologies, as in doing so, their integrity may be called to question. Can Muslims trust Christians to uphold honesty and integrity? When some of them have been unscrupulous in even translating their Greek to English Bible, Muslims fear that more so would this be done in other translations - in this case in Malay for Malaysians. In fact this has been done in neighbouring Indonesia. Thus allow me to provide another sampling (this time from the Indonesian context) to prove that there is indeed deception and manipulation. Thus what Allah s.w.t. said of some of these people is indeed true.
Sample of: deceptive and dishonest method of translation in the Indonesian Bible.
As in the previous exposé, the same misleading and deceptive translation method was also applied to the Indonesian Bible, which may have been translated from Dutch to Indonesian-Malay. Interestingly, the Malaysian Christian is seeking to applying the excuse that since the Indonesians have allowed the use of some of these Arabic terms in their Bible, why not the Malaysian? In fact they are trying to import this Indonesian-Bible into Malaysia. Now let us see how these translations into Indonesian were done with deception using "contextualization" as the motive (and internal evidence show that this Bible was not directly translated from Arabic Bible):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Terjemahan Al-Kitab : Perjanjian Baru)
Yohanes 1
1:1 Pada mulanya adalah Firman; Firman itu bersama-sama dengan Allah dan Firman itu adalah Allah.
1:2 Ia pada mulanya bersama-sama dengan Allah.
[http://www.bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/indonesian_tb/43_001.htm]
IF THERE IS HONESTY, THE INDONESIAN / MALAY TRANSLATION LINGUISTICALLY SHOULD BE THIS:
1.1. Pada mulanya adalah perkataan (kalimat); perkataan (kalimat) itu bersama-sama (di samping) Tuhan dan perakataan (kalimat) itu adalah tuhan.
1.2. Ia (perkataan / kalimat) pada mulanya bersama-sama Tuhan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
[A] To use the argument that Christian Arabs have been using some of these terms is irrelevant because translation is directly from either English or Dutch Bible, into Indonesian. Thus many of the Arabic terms used in this Bible are rather artificial imposition by translators, meant to desensitise the Muslims – as part of Christians “contextualization” agenda, and these are not terms commonly used by local non-Muslim Indonesians.
[B] Remember that it is an accepted convention in using common noun with common noun; or whenever appropriate to differentiate with using capital letter or without capital for those common noun with or without a definite article 'the' e.g. ”god” and “God” – this method is consistent in the English Bible.
Therefore, for the Malay (Indonesian) Bible, the equivalent should have been “tuhan” and “Tuhan” respectively. To insist in using “Allah” is dishonest, because “Allah” is a proper noun not a common noun. Also, in the Malay-speaking world, there has already been many common nouns which can be the equivalent to the common noun of the English or Greek word.
[C] Also, the usage of “Allah” in the Malay-speaking world was after the coming of Islam and is linked to Islamization, and it being a proper noun – the Arabic has been retained and used whenever reference to God which conform to the doctrine of Islam or compatible with the definition of Tauhiid of Islam. For deities or objects worshipped as divine of pre-Islamization, the terms ‘Tuhan’, ‘Dewa’, ‘Dewata’, ‘Gusti’, ‘Sang Hyang Wedi’, etc., are consistently used instead of ‘Allah’.
[D] Also, to insist in using the word “Firman” in this Indonesian Bible, it only reveals purpose to deceive or confuse the Malay speaking Muslims. This is because, even the Arabic translation of the Bible already uses the term “ الكلمة “(al-kalimat) for “the word”. This word “kalimat” which has already been commonly used and understood among the Malays in their vocabulary, although borrowed from Arabic, using this would have been understandable. Also in Malay, there are several other equivalent words that can be used to translate this term "Word" such as: “perkataan” or “sebutan” or other construct.” So why insist on “Firman” when even in the Arabic Bible itself, it uses “kalimat”? See reference here:
http://www.arabicbible.com/bible/nt/joh/1.htm
يوحنا 1
1 في البدء كان الكلمة والكلمة كان عند الله وكان الكلمة الله.
2 هذا كان في البدء عند الله.
Arabic Bible (Translated by Smith & Van Dyke in 1865)
Where is the linguistic honesty?
This affirms further the contention of a sinister motive linked to deception in the so-called “contextualization” by the Christian evangelists towards the Muslims. Historically, this contextualization had begun a long time ago in Indonesia. Muslims are not unaware of this. The lack of vigilance amongst Indonesian Muslims cannot be misconstrued as though they have consented to this Christian translation, nor can it be a prove of its linguistic accuracy and honesty. Rather, analysis will indicate unscrupulous methods and choice of words that has nothing to do with linguistic honesty. It is prudent to note that as compared to Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, which can pride upon a rather peaceful inter-religious co-existence of its people, Indonesia by far had the worst records on Christian-Muslim conflicts, even in recent times.
Malaysian Christians seeking to use the terms “Allah”, “firman” and other Islamic-linked terminologies, cannot deny that they too may now harbour such motive, for overwhelming evidence seems to indicate this trend. Given the sensitivity and the fact that under the Malaysian Constitution and its laws relating to religion, that it is an offence to proselytize to Muslims; and usage of Islamic terminologies are already understood to exclusively belong to Muslims whereas Christians have all along been able to function without any need to use them; to still insist in pursuing this, is intolerance and blatant disregard to religious sensitivity, and may invite negative perception by the masses. For Christians to be perceived as trying to undermine or circumvent those laws which have direct relevance to Islam – as the official religion of Malaysia - this can lead to dangerous emotional reaction and back-lash from the general Muslim. As it is, this issue as well as other related matters, have already strained inter-religious relations in Malaysia. Do not then take too lightly religious sensitivity.
So, if the Malaysian Islamic religious authority refuse to give permission on this matter; not only are they justified because this “contextualization” is not at all a basic religious requirement of Christians, whereas we have shown that it can rightly be perceived as ‘mischievous’ and deceptive by Muslims. It should be appreciated that they, the Islamic religious authority, are in fact adhering to an important Islamic principle: “Removing harm takes precedence over introducing a benefit” [Daf- ‘u al-mafaa-sid muqad-dimun ‘alaa jal-bi al-ma-swo-lih]. It is in no way an attempt to deprive Christians of any of their religious right but rather to preserve inter-religious harmony that is crucial towards upholding and safeguarding religious freedom for everyone.
WaAllaahu a'lam
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO BE CONTINUED ..............................
9.1.2 Can truth be promoted using falsehood? Where is the honour if it is attained through dishonourable means? Can truth ever be proven by using deception?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment