Allah for East Malaysian Christians only: A solution nevertheless

Allah is seen in this Batu Bersurat stones 1303, Christian's earliest Malay manuscript is 1524. To whom does "Allah" belong to here?

Dato Nazri Aziz was sent to East Malaysia last Wednesday for damage control on the Allah issue. Words emanating from there are saying that Allah would be allowed usage in Christian’s Malay publication for East Malaysian circulation.

That may not be the most ideal solution for both parties. It does not feel right. But in the light of the hard stance by both parties, it is a solution nevertheless.

Already political critics from the other side are claiming it is a compromise made out of political expediency. But, it is hardly so.

PAS’s Khalid Samad have been saying that such usage in East Malaysia has been since eternity, or their historical claim is for 300 years. It is already culturally embedded and the Muslims in East Malaysia have tolerate and lived with that reality.

In fact, as my Sarawakian friend told me, such familiarization by non Muslims with Islamic terms has actually favoured the Muslim. It has eased the conversion of Christians to Islam.

The solution could be a realistic closure to an attempt by shit stirrer and PM-at-any-cost Anwar Ibrahim to create a communal division within BN and voters facing up to the Sarawak state general election.

Again, the wrong of 300 years made to deceive Muslim into conversion to Christianity by intentionally mistranslating the word Allah as tuhan can not be justified.

Christian Argument

For the Herald - Catholic Weekly, they would not want any restriction on their publication, which they may not admit but, undeniably targeted for the Semenanjung Malay Muslim.

They would likely argue that it is an infringement on their rights for religious freedom which include the act propagate their religion.

At least, that is what they understand article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution to be, as endorsed by Justice Ban Lee Lian controversial judgement.

They have been arguing that the word Allah was used by Arab Christians and Jews as God. To argue their case that Allah is God instead of the true meaning in Malay word as Tuhan, they referred to the an Indonesian bible and age old dictionary as proof.

Off course, the Indonesian bible and dictionary can be proven to be linguistically flawed. It is not difficult to proof that the Christian Dutch took evangelism seriously to the extent of manipulating translation to serve their propagation purpose.

Muslim Argument

Blogger SatD here was able to dismiss such argument by merely showing historical evidence that Islam has existed more than 400 years based on the Batu Bersurat evidence.

Another blogger, Ktemoc Konsider here asked where in the Bible was Allah used as name of God? He claimed that Yahweh or Elohin was used frequently but Allah.

With those cultural issues cleared, there are two aspect of religious freedom for non Muslim that need to be understood.

Constitutionally, clause (4) of article 11 of the Constitution, limits the freedom of Christians to propagate to Muslims. While in article 3(1), the freedom to practice came with the condition that it be done to maintain general peace and harmony.

Justice Bee Lan Liau missed an important clause (5) that empowers Government with the disgression to ban non Islamic practice that could erupt into public disordera.

Although the court’s decision may not currently be in their favour, Bee Lian Lau’s judgement is seriously flawed and chances are in can be overturned at the Court of Appeal level. Read a criticial analysis of her judgement here and here.

The problem with taking such a hard stance now is that it is not politically correct.

But it is made harder by the fact that there is an unresolved issue in court with the judgement in favour of the Christians and has constitutionally eroded Government's discretionary power that could proof useful for balancing and negotiating between disputing parties.

UEM-Genisys: Federal Court to judge over Gopal Sri Ram RM87 million judgement

LATEST 6:30 PM: Court request postponement of judgement pending for further documents.

In the heat of the Abdullah administration era, they hired a legal barking dog, Zaid Ibrahim to thwart off Dr Mahathir's political attack using the Lingam case with support from the Bar Council to shame his reputation.

At around that time, the legal community were out to get even for the 1986 judicial crisis accused on him. Matthias Chang, Dr Mahathir's former polical secretary countered with an exposure on the Bar Council.

He accussed them of unethical practises and being a politically inclined self interest group. Bar Council was exposed to be in cohort with the British High Commission to lobby for several judges promotion including Gopal Sri Ram.

In his entry to the bench, Gopal also did the unethical act of lobbying the Prime Minister or some other source said was several attempt for an appointment with the PM.

The judge promoted by Bar Council as an examplry judge made a judgement against UEM in a dispute with their joint venture partner, Singapore-based Japanese Genisys. Gopal overturned a High Court judgement that awarded the decision in favour of UEM for a fraud case.

Although it was a 3-0 decision Court of Appeal decision, Gopal seemed to be the dominating judge. He wrote the judgement for himself and Datuk Hasan. Suspiciously, Datuk Zainun Ali's judgement started with the words, "I concur with Justice Gopal ..."

A clear cut case of fraud by Seow Boon Cheng in favour of UEM turned into a dispute over UEM's intended withdrawal from the Joint Venture Agreement with Genisys.

The Star report below:

D-Day for UEM Group on Jan 11

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

SOME RM87 million is at stake for UEM Group Bhd as the government-linked company (GLC) and wholly owned subsidiary of Khazanah Nasional Bhd faces the Federal Court on January 11 in a fight against its former joint venture partner, Singapore’s Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd (GIE).

The impending case follows an appeal made by UEM against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had on Nov 7, 2008 allowed GIE's appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a petition for relief and had ordered that UEM purchase the UEM Genisys Sdn Bhd (UEG) shares from GIE.

In reversing an earlier High Court decision, the Court of Appeal also ordered UEM to pay GIE some RM47 million plus 8 per cent interest per annum from the date of the UEM petition, which was in April 2001. To date, this amount totals some RM87 million.

According to corporate lawyer and strategist, Khairul Anwar, the case has attracted the attention of legal practitioners not ony from Malaysia but elsewhere as well in view of a dispute between companies from two different countries.

"The case in essence is a commercial dispute between two companies, but as it involves two countries, it is now a high profile case that has attracted the attention of many parties following the judgement made by the Court of Appeal," he said.

United Engineers (Malaysia) Bhd, as UEM was previously known, and GIE established a joint venture company in 1993 with a view of undertaking mechanical and electrical contract works, and to this end capitalising opportunities for such work presented by amongst others the UEM group of companies.

The joint venture company was called UEM Genisys Sdn Bhd (UEG) where UEM was a 51 per cent shareholder and GIE had 49 per cent of the shareholding.

UEG was under the management and control of GIE with its Chief Executive Officer being Seow Boon Cheng, the controlling shareholder and director of GIE.

However, things went wrong for the JV in mid-1998 and litigation commenced in 2000 and 2001 following the total breakdown in relations between UEM and GIE.

In 2000, GIE commenced proceedings against UEM under section 181 of the Companies Act. This is a specific provision that empowers a High Court to make appropriate orders on a petition by a shareholder.

These include ordering the company in issue to be wound up as well as to order a buy-out of the shares by the other stakeholders.

In 2001, UEM in turn commenced proceedings against GIE under the same section of the Companies Act.

The case was first heard in the High Court and after 50 days of trial, it had in October 20, 2005 found in favour of UEM where the court had also ordered that UEG be wound up.

GIE then filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals and won the case.

Now UEM will hear the outcome of its appeal with the Federal Court on Jan 11. - Bernama

The Star's column by Errol Oh below:

Many are following UEM court case

By ERROL OH
The Star, Saturday January 9, 2010

IF you are at the Palace of Justice in Putrajaya on Monday morning, you may spot more reporters at the Federal Court than there normally are. If that’s so, it has to do with a case that pits UEM Group Bhd (once known as United Engineers (M) Bhd) against Singapore’s Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd, a former business ally.

Over the week, several news reports and at least one feature story have trained the spotlight on what had begun as essentially a commercial dispute, but has developed into a courtroom battle with the makings of a legal milestone for the business community.

Furthermore, on Friday, a public relations firm has sent an advisory note to media organisations to alert them about the Jan 11 “face-off at Federal Court”. It’s perhaps no accident that the heading reminds you of a boxing match – “Malaysia’s UEM vs Singapore’s Genisys, RM87mil At Stake,” it reads.

The image of two companies, one linked to the Malaysian Government and the other from across the Causeway, slugging it out before the highest judicial authority in the country, with millions of ringgit on the line, is bound to grab our attention.

It has been a while since our business pages had featured a civil case involving non-listed companies. Clearly, there are people who believe that the outcome of the UEM-Genisys feud ought to be highlighted because it could have broad implications. They may be right, and it’s not just about the money.

First, some history. As then Court of Appeal judge Datuk Gopal Sri Ram – he is now a Federal Court judge – wrote in his July 2008 judgement, “This case is about a joint venture gone wrong. There is now litigation about it.”

UEM and Genisys, a mechanical and electrical engineering company controlled by group managing director Seow Boon Cheng, teamed up in 1993 to form a joint-venture company called UEM Genisys Sdn Bhd (UEG), with UEM having a 51% stake and Genisys owning the rest of the shares.

The idea was for UEG to undertake mechanical and electrical contract works, particularly for projects handled by companies in the UEM stable. Seow was also appointed chief executive officer of UEG.

The ties between the two UEG shareholders deteriorated badly for various reasons – it depends on which party you talk to – and both (Genisys in 2000 and UEM the following year) presented petitions for relief under Section 181 of the Companies Act 1965, each accusing the other of acting oppressively.

Under Section 181, a shareholder can apply to the High Court for an order to remedy the situation if it can be established that the company has been run in a way that’s oppressive or prejudicial to the shareholder.

In offering a remedy, the court has the following options:

● direct or prohibit any act, or cancel or vary any transaction or resolution;

● regulate the conduct of the company’s affairs in future;

● provide for the purchase of the company’s shares by other shareholders or by the company itself;

● in the case of a purchase of shares by the company, provide for a reduction accordingly of the company’s capital; or

● provide that the company be wound up.

The two petitions were consolidated and heard together by the Kuala Lumpur High Court, which dismissed Genisys’s petition but granted that of UEM. The High Court also ordered UEG to be wound up. Genisys appealed against both decisions and the matter went to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s decision to dismiss the Genisys petition. At the same time, the Court of Appeal found that UEM had failed to establish a case of oppression under Section 181. Therefore it dismissed UEM’s petition as well and set aside the High Court Order to wind up UEG.

The Court of Appeal also ordered UEM to buy the UEG shares owned by Genisys, with the valuation based on UEG’s audited accounts for the year ended December 1998. UEM is also required to pay interest on the purchase price at 8% per annum from April 13, 2001, the date of the presentation of the UEM petition.

It was reported in May last year that UEM had to deposit RM47.3mil in a stakeholder’s account as a condition to obtain a stay of execution against the Court of Appeal ruling. The amount represented the purchase price for Genisys’s 49% shareholding in UEG.

With the 8% interest worked in, UEM will have to fork out about RM87mil if it has to buy out Genisys. In June, the Federal Court granted leave to UEM to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. This brings us to a decisive Monday, when the Federal Court will hear the appeal.

Business journalists here rarely look at court decisions, but now that the UEM-Genisys dispute has come to our notice, it is a fine opportunity to appreciate the role and impact of the judiciary in our lives, including in how business is structured and conducted.

The outcome of the UEM appeal will be of interest to many in the corporate, investment and legal circles because it is likely to have a bearing on future treatment of shareholder disputes that go to court, particularly those that rely on the Section 181 provisions.

The hope, of course, is to see more clarity and definitiveness to the many issues of the case. Maybe it’s too much to expect a tidy and satisfying conclusion to the long-running legal battle, but at least, because we are paying attention this time, this will be one important court ruling that will not just slip past us.

● This case reminds deputy business editor Errol Oh that some court decisions have a deeper impact on the business world than many of us care to realise.

Further comment will come after the judgement. Something smells really fishy.

This blog have in the past taken UEM to task and is still waiting for the "all-is-settle" claim in the UEM Qatari lawsuit. This time around it is about injustice against UEM.

It is not about managemnt issues or Khazanah management but a legacy issue in which the process of justice system may have been tampered with. It may involved the judges at the Court of Appeal level, in particular Gopal Sri Ram. This judgemnt is not only about UEM and Genisys only but judgement on Gopal Sri Ram.

A piece of crumb from a RM87 million pie could be quite a comfortable size for anyone. Don't you think so?

* Edited 6:30 pm

Khairy mahu kuasai NGO belia untuk dilumpuhkan

Majlis Belia Malaysia sedang mengadakan pemilihan pucuk kepimpinan. Ketua Penerangan Pemuda UMNO yang tidak efektif, Reezal Merican adalah salah seorang dari calun untuk jawatan Presiden. Memilihnya akan menjayakan rancangan Khairy untuk mendominasi pergerakan belia untuk dilumpuhkan, sebagaimana dilakukan ke atas Pemuda UMNO.

PM Mahu Norol Azali Terajui MBM


MalaysiaInstinct.com, Januari 6hb, 2010

Presiden Majlis Belia Pahang, Norol Azali Sulaiman disebut-sebut bakal dipilih sebagai presiden baru Majlis Belia Malaysia (MBM) pada pemilihan pertubuhan belia itu minggu ini, menggantikan Datuk Shamsul Anwar Nasarah.

Difahamkan, Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak sendiri 'merestui' pemilihan Norol Azali dan pada masa yang sama mengharapkan 300 perwakilan menolak Ketua Penerangan Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO, Datuk Seri Reezal Merican Naina Merican yang turut berhasrat merebut jawatan itu yang disifatkan sebagai 'boleh membawa masalah besar'.

Nama Norol Azali yang juga Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (ADUN) Guai, Pahang, muncul pada saat-saat akhir menjelang penamaan calon yang dijadualkan esok dan Jumaat ini, setelah sebelum ini hanya dua calon disebut-sebut merebut jawatan berkenaan iaitu Presiden Majlis Belia Pulau Pinang, Mohamed Maliki Mohamed Rapiee dan bekas Presiden Penaja Gerakan Belia 4B, Shukor Mohd. Yusof.

Bagaimanapun usaha-usaha bagi memastikan tidak berlaku pertandingan bagi merebut jawatan Persiden MBM itu sedang dijalankan sebaliknya semua calon terlibat diminta berkompromi memberi laluan kepada Norol Azali.

Ini memandangkan sebelum ini sudah kedengaran berlakunya perpecahan dalam MBM untuk pemilihan Ahli Jawatankuasa Kerja sesi 2010-2013, apabila Mohamed Maliki dan Shukor yang dikenali sebagai dua 'orang kuat' MBM mahu berentap merebut jalan itu.

Tambah menimbulkan kebimbangan apabila Reezal Merican yang juga bekas Setiausaha Politik Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dan kini bergelar 'Datuk Seri' dalam usia belum mencecah 40 tahun, turut berhasrat merebut jawatan berkenaan.

Norol Azali, 38, yang juga merupakan Ketua Eksekutif Persatuan Francais Malaysia (MFA) dan beliau pernah mengacarakan program Selamat Pagi Malaysia kelolaan Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM) selain menjadi Timbalan Pengerusi Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS) Pahang.

Lepasan Ijazah Sarjana Pengurusan dan Perniagaan dari Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) ini juga bergiat aktif dalam politik kampus apabila memegang jawatan Timbalan Presiden Majlis Perwakilan Pelajar (MPP) universiti tersebut 15 tahun lalu.

Beliau dilihat sebagai antara mereka yang boleh ditonjolkan untuk menjadi pemimpin pelapis dan perlu diketengahkan dalam politik arus perdana dalam tempoh beberapa tahun lagi.

Sebelum ini Presiden Gabungan Pelajar Melayu Semenanjung (GPMS), Jais Abdul Karim berharap Mohamed Maliki dan Shukor dapat mencapai kata sepakat agar tidak berlaku pertandingan dalam pemilihan kali ini.

"Kedua-duanya merupakan pemimpin yang hebat. Sayang sekali jika salah seorang daripada mereka tewas lalu bertindak menjauhkan diri daripada perjuangan belia Malaysia yang kian berkembang.

"Saya ada menghubungi mereka dan berpendapat kesepakatan itu bukanlah sesuatu yang mustahil. GPMS selaku badan gabungan MBM sedia mengambil tanggungjawab sebagai orang tengah bagi menemukan kedua-dua mereka agar berlaku perbincangan dalam suasana muhibah," katanya.

Perdana Menteri akan merasmikan Mesyuarat Agung MBM malam ini.

Kalau tidak mahu Norol, jangan undi Reezal Merican. Asal bukan Reezal.

Jangan sekali memilih seorang yang tidak tahu menghargi budi dan jasa. Reezal adalah pencatur disebalik pemecatan Tan Sri Sanusi Junid dari jawatan Presiden Universiti Islam Antarabangsa. Padahal Tan Sri adalah orang yang meletakkannya sebagai ahli Lembaga Pengarah UIA mewakili bekas penuntut.

Reezal adalah sebahagiand ari kepimpinan Pemuda UMNO yang diketuai Khairy Jamaluddin. Pemimpin UMNO dari akar umbi hingga ke pucuk kepimpinan merungut mengenai Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO yang lumpuh dan tidak efektif dalam menjalankan kerja-kerja parti di bawah Khairy.

Khairy hanya sibuk mahukan jawatan Menteri dan disokong oleh Zahid Hamidi yang selama ini berpura-pura sebagai orang Najib tapi sebenarnya orang Pak Lah. Kata-katanya kepada mana-mana Pemuda yang ada inisiatif untuk menggiatkan Pergerakan, selagi ia tidak diberi jawatan menteri, dia akan terus berdiam.

Sudahlah Pergerakan Pemuda UMNO sunyi sepi, Khairy masih dengan kegilaan kuasa mahu memainkan kerja-kerja di balik tabir untuk menguasai NGO-NGO belia. Pasti tujuannya untuk melumpuhkan NGO-NGO belia yang menyokong UMNO.

Untuk siapa Khairy melumpuhkan Pemuda UMNO dan NGO-NGO Belia? Pasti anda boleh buat perkiraan sendiri.

Kaitkan Khairy dengan Zahid. Turut ada kaitan adalah dengan Kalimullah yang dikatakan kini bekerjasama dengan Raja Petra. Khairy, Zahid, dan Kalimullah adalah orang-orang Tun Lah walaupun Zahid berpura selama ini sebagai orang Najib. Raja Petra dan Zahid Hamidi berkait dengan Anwar Ibrahim. Kesemua ini adalah satu rangkaian yang sudah mula menyerlahkan diri.

Zakat money to Foundation for the Poor; Khalid is one heartless mean bastard

Selangor MB halts RM300m UiTM campus project

Work on new campus in Serendah stopped following refusal to make Khalid chairman of poverty eradication foundation

Yushaimi Yahaya
The Malay Mail
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

PETALING JAYA: Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim is sitting in the centre of a storm that threatens to jeopardise poverty eradication programmes in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur.

It has been revealed to The Malay Mail that the State government, in what is believed to be an unprecedented move, has directed Yayasan Basmi Kemiskinan (Selangor Darul Ehsan), an NGO set up in 1990 to assist the poor in the two States, to install Khalid as its chairman.

We were also informed that the foundation, run by a board of trustees headed by chairman Datuk Zainal Abidin Sakom, had also been told to appoint Batu Tiga assemblyman Rodziah Ismail as a trustee.

The foundation, it has been revealed, has refused to bow to the pressure. But this comes with a price: its subsidiary, Permodalan YBK Sdn Bhd, cannot proceed with developing the multi-million ringgit UiTM campus project on its 448-acre plot in Serendah.

The State government, it is learnt, had used the inability of the foundation to settle quit rent arrears that run into millions of ringgit for portions of its 1,642 land bank as a "bargaining chip" to get Khalid and Rodziah appointed to Yayasan Basmi Kemiskinan's board of trustees.

The project is estimated to be over RM300 million and expected to create spin-off revenues worth over RM1 billion.

The foundation, which has had its numerous appeals to pay off the arrears by surrendering some of its land turned down, had wanted to settle the arrears with its earning from the UiTM project, which is slated to accommodate 5,000 students.

The move to get Khalid and Rodziah appointed is set to be scrutinised as the State government has no stake in the foundation, which is an NGO.

Ironically, the foundation was set up in accordance with the Trustees (Incorporation) Ordinance, 1952, which, among others, stipulates that "the foundation shall not support with its funds any political organisation or society or endeavour to impose on or procure to be observed by its members, or others any regulations, restriction which, if any objects of the foundation would make it a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union Ordinance".

The foundation, set up by former Selangor Menteri Besar Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib, has never had an MB as its chairman prior to this. The seat has been held by Zainal Abidin since its inception. Muhammad and Khalid could not be reached for comment at Press time.

Be gracious Zambery; Neither a NSTP nor a Singapore be

In the midst of the uproar over the court decision to allow use of Allah for the Malay edition of the Herald - Catholic Weekly, another news was taking the attention on Monday.

Perak Menteri Besar, Dato Dr Zambery Abdul Kadir announced he will sue Suara Keadilan for their slanderous fiction of Zambery being held back at the US Immigration under susoicion of terrorism.

He claimed he had initially thought of suing for a nominal amount of RM1 or 5 sen. But decided to emulate Anwar's favourite amount of RM100 million in his string of lawsuits.

That is exactly the point.

Zambery, who used to be Anwar's supporter, benefactor and was even held under ISA for a brief moment during the hey days of Reformasi, should not emulate him.

Neither should he emulate Kalimullah's NST for suing Rocky and Jeff Ooi for defamation. Surprisingly, despite a change in leadership and the corresponsing mainstream media team, NST still insist on pursuing Rocky and Jeff Ooi and trial is expected to begin on January 27th.

With friends such as Ahmad Talib, Zainul Ariffin, Nuraina Samad, Firdaus Abdullah, etc in charge of editorial, why the pursuit? Is the Hindu God and Muslim priest people still holding the helm of leadership in NST?

Since we are talking of Kalimullah, we are also talking of an Singapore intelligence operative that Tun Abdullah allowed in to lead NST and infiltrate into the corridor of power. Singapore is known for surpressing press freedom by suing them to the bone.

That is from where Lim Guan Eng and other DAP politicians get the example to sue Utusan Malaysia. While, the idea to ban Utusan Malaysia from his press conferences was copied from Anwar Ibrahim's ban on Agendadaily and Utusan Malaysia. PAP has a historical sore point with Utusan Melayu.

Having presented all the parties pursuing to sue media, Zambery should not do it and get himself into such unsavory company. Let's not do unto other what we do not wish it to be done unto you.

The argument to sue may perhaps seem justified. Suara Keadilan is not there in the US with Zambery at the Immigration point. How are they to know of such events? It is great to get even and send the right message to Zambery's true nemesis, Nizar.

In the final account, if the event did not happen, it doesn't happen. Zambery can clarify that. He should wait out to see Suara Keadilan print his denial.

Lawsuits by politicians on media does not really tip the Barisan Nasional symbol in the middle. As a Menteri Besar, Zambery have every chance of getting coverage by mainstream media.

What good does suing a media do to press freedom? It is very PAP to supress press freedom.

And, it is very DAP to claim to pursue civil libertarianism and yet supress deviating views. Malaysia Today and The Malaysian Insider takpa?

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

MB To Sue Tabloid For RM100mil

Monday, 04 January 2010 00:52

Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir will file a RM100mil suit against PKR party organ Suara Keadilan over an article which he has described as libel of the extreme kind.

Dr Zambry said he had discussed with his lawyers about taking legal action against the tabloid for publishing the article which was devoid of journalistic ethics and news reporting principles.

He said the newspaper should be more responsible in its reporting to reflect the credibility of PKR, which was said to be fighting for justice and truth.

“This newspaper committed a big lie when it reported that I was hauled up at the San Francis­co Airport in the United States on suspicion of being a terrorist and that I was forced to return to Malaysia.

“I don’t know who their sources are but the report is not true. It’s a total fabrication,” he said.

“Initially, I wanted to sue the newspaper for RM1 or five sen, but considering that the party leader loves to sue people for RM100mil, so why shouldn’t I sue them for RM100mil, too?” he said after participating in a gotong- royong programme with the Ipoh City Council in Kampung Tai Lee, Buntong, Ipoh yesterday.

Dr Zambry said he had never taken any legal action against the tabloid, which had called him names and published false reports to discredit the state government led by him.

“But when the lying became extreme in their latest article, it’s time for me to act,” he said.

* Updated 5:00 pm

Why are you afraid, o yea of little faith?

On my June 17, 2007 posting here, I wrote below:

Resolution to societal differences lies not in dogmatic righteousness of the law of the courts, bureaucracy of government, and narrow interest of politicians and self interest groups, but “silence” engagement in non confrontational and inclusive ways.

I stand to believe that religious dispute should be entrusted to practitioners and wise men of cloth and not be superseded by outliers of fringe groups, deviationist and non practitioners. Let society be involved to resolve its own dispute, and not be constraint and made subservient to the courts, government, politics, and interest groups.

In the wake of the High Court decision on the kalimah Allah, the Catholic Church of Malaysia has failed in their faith to pursue for peaceful co-existent and sensitive to the majority Muslim faith in this country.

Are we to believe that the Catholic Church had been practising the use of the term Allah as God unversally throughout the world? And, are we to accept the argument that since the Iban and Kadazan been misusing the term Allah as God that it become accepted legal interpretation?

The settling of legal dispute which leads to a single winner does not necessary have a winner. The loser lose. But, did the Catholic Church win with them now seen in a bad light of having devious intention to evangelise Malay Muslims?

The Catholic Church of Malaysia should have acted responsibly to find an amicable and peaceful solution with the Islamic religous authority. But instead, they decided to take the adversarial legal way that does not come out with all winners.

If the men of cloth still have such adversarial tendency, what hope is there left for the much needed religous life in modern society?

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

‘Allah’ controversy cannot be resolved through law, says Dr M

The Star, Jan 6 2010

PETALING JAYA: Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohammad disagrees with the Government’s effort to resolve the “Allah” controversy through the courts.

He said the law did not take into consideration sensitivity factors that could provoke tension and animosity between followers of different religions.

“The solution to the controversy will not be achieved by making an appeal to the court. Such a sensitive issue cannot be solved through law,” he wrote on his blog www.chedet.co.cc yesterday.

Dr Mahathir said the controversy started when he was still in office, adding that the Cabinet at that time thought the usage of the name “Allah” in the Bible was a sensitive issue.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s department Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz said the issue was not about the usage of the word “Allah” but the Home Minister’s powers in prohibiting its usage.

“The judge erred. She got it all wrong. She decided on the fact if the word ‘Allah’ could be used or not. That is not the issue.

“The issue is whether the minister has the power to make such decisions because the consideration is towards public interest,” Nazri told newsmen at Parliament House yesterday.

He added that the minister made the right decision because allowing the usage of the word “Allah” in this country under a non-Islamic context would cause confusion and dissatisfaction as 60% of the population were Muslims.

United Pasokmomogun Kada-zandusun Murut Organisation (Upko) president Tan Sri Bernard Dompok said every community should be allowed to use terms that they are comfortable with.

“Historically, the term has been used for a long time, even before Sabah decided to establish Malaysia with Malaya, Singapore and Sarawak in 1963,” said Dompok, who is Plantation Industries and Commodities Minister.

“The term God is used in English, ‘Allah’ in Malay and ‘Kinoingan’ in Kadazandusun,” he said.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Jamil Khir Baharom said steps would be taken to resolve the issue and parties should not use the situation to cause further problems and confusion.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon, who is in charge of national unity, called for attempts to seek a win-win solution on the issue and for everyone to approach this “with a cool head but a warm heart.”

Why not just use "tuhan"?

There were some hue and cries from the Muslims with the High Court judgement on Thursday by judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan to allow the use of the term Allah as God by Catholic publication, The Herald for their Bahasa Malaysia publication.

The Catholic welcomed that decision with a cautious celebration but is already making the claim Allah for All. That could certainly raise temperature. News reported a group of protestors gathered at the Masjid Wilayah after Friday prayers.

Noticably missing are PAS supporters and politicians. And, PAS politicians will be receiving the brunt of this judgement from Muslims. The Dewan Ulama and Erdogan faction agreed with the churches' demand.

UMNO politicians are absent too.

The respondent has within 30 days to apply for stay of excution or appeal the judgement. The legal discussion on the decision will evolve on Article 11.4 of the Malaysian Constitution and culture.

Article 11.4 prohibits propagating other religion to Muslim. Will publishing Christian newsletter using Islamic terms constitute propagating?

Do the normal European derived Christian practise use Allah as god?

Which way PAS?

PAS stand is mixed between politics and religions. The PAS MP and former Masjid Negara Imam, Dato Taib Azamuddin that have expressed strong opposition in Parliament.

For politics sake, the Erdogan faction, namely Khalid Samad and Dr Zulkifli Ahmad stand in favour of the churches in Parliament. The video of their arguments are consolidate in this posting by The Unspinners here.

As early as January 2008, Head of Dewan Ulama PAS, Dato' Ustaz Haji Mohamed Daud Al-Iraqi have stated nothing wrong with Christians and Jews use of the term "Allah" based on the argument they have used it since time immemorial.

The Mursyidul Am, Dato Nik Aziz shed off his conservatism on this issue for political expediency. He is the patron of the Erdogan faction.

Anwar have been liberal on this issue. It is politically convenient for his pursuit to be Prime Minister at any cost. That can wrap up the stand of PKR Muslims, except for Kulim MP, Zulkifli Nordin.

Zulkifli described it as the making of another Natrah, a 1949 riot in Singapore protesting the reconversion to Christianity of a daughter to Dutch war prisoner adopted to a Muslim women.

Can Christian call god as Allah?

Although it is pursued by the Catholics, what is the Christian's theological basis to call God as Allah?

This 2007 news taken from The Christian Post was placed in the commentary section of the blog Zorro Unmasked blog when the issue first surfaced. The President of the Southern Baptist Church finds it inappropriate. The news is reproduced again below:

Is Calling the Christian God 'Allah' Wrong?

By Michelle Vu
The Christian Post, Thu, Aug. 23 2007

One of America’s pre-eminent evangelicals is challenging the advice of a retiring Roman Catholic Bishop in the Netherlands who has raised eyebrows worldwide by suggesting Dutch Christians pray to “Allah.”

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argues that it is inappropriate for Christians to call God Allah based on irreconcilable theological differences associated with the name Allah and core Christian beliefs.

The key condition behind calling the Christian God Allah is that Allah must refer to the same God as the one in the Bible. However, this requirement presents “a huge problem for both Muslims and Christians,” contends Mohler.

The theologian pointed out that the Qur’an explicitly denies that Allah has a son, and Islam considers the idea of a triune God to be blasphemy.

“Thus, from its very starting point Islam denies what Christianity takes as its central truth claim – the fact that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father,” wrote Mohler on his web blog Wednesday.

“If Allah has no Son by definition, Allah is not the God who revealed himself in the Son. How then can the use of Allah by Christians lead to anything but confusion …and worse?”

Last Monday, during an interview with a Dutch TV program, 71-year-old Bishop Tiny Muskens promoted the idea of Dutch Christians calling God Allah, believing that it would ease much of the conflict between the Christian and Muslim faiths. Muskens contended that God doesn’t mind what He is called and the arguments over what to call Him is an invention of man.

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? …What does God care what we call Him? It is our problem,” said Muskens, according to The Associated Press.

The retiring bishop was a former missionary to Indonesia – the most populous Muslim country in the world – for eight years, where he said priests used the name “Allah” while celebrating Mass.

In response, Mohler pointed out that it would be difficult to support the argument that “Allah” can be used as a generic term for God. The theologian said separation of Allah from the language, theology, and worship closely associated with it is difficult. Moreover, even non-Arabic speaking Muslims use Allah when referring to their god.

Another irreconcilable difference is that Jesus commanded his followers to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

“When this command is taken seriously and obeyed, the whole issue is greatly clarified – a Christian cannot baptize in the name of Allah,” stated Mohler.

“So Bishop Muskens is disingenuous at best when he suggests that God does not care about His name. This is not a matter of mere ‘discussion and bickering,’” said Mohler.

“If Allah has no son, Allah is not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ…This is no mere ‘discussion and bickering.’ This is where the Gospel stands or falls,” the theologian concluded.

Bishop Muskens in the past endorsed other controversial ideas which went against the Vatican leadership – such as those who are hungry can steal bread and that condoms should be permissible in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The Catholic Church's Motive?

The arguement by the pro-Allah judgement is that Christians and Jews in the Middle East have been using the term Allah to described God.

But, the real suspicion amongst the Muslim is that there are intentions by The Catholic Church beyond use within the East Malaysian native Christians' community. It is believed to be for devious evangelical work among Muslims. Read this article in the blog Dari Kacamata Melayu here and here.

The legality given for use of the term Allah by The Catholic Church would be deemed as a stubborn attempt by them to insult to the status of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Another article in Malaysiakini.com in February 2009, touched on the practise of other Christians denominations and thus questioned the intention of the Malaysian Catholic Church. Read below:

Other Christian denominations not using 'Allah'

By Saad Hashim
Malaysiakini, Feb 25, 09

With regards to Malaysia's Catholic Church wanting to use the term 'Allah' for God in its mouthpiece, the Herald, I must say that the organisation's intention is far from godly and Muslim organisations have every reason to get angry.

The decision to use the word 'Allah' can only mean that the Church, which is in a competition with other Catholic denominations including America's Church of the Latter Day Saints, or the Mormons to enlist new members, is trying to target Muslims in this country.

My question is does the Catholic Church realise that by insisting on the word ‘Allah’ for God, it is going to get into a deeper muddle.

For instance, since the Catholic Church believes in the 'Trinity' ie, God, the Holy Son and the Holy Ghost, is it going to use the term 'Anak Allah' for the ‘Son of God’?

The Muslims here may find it quite palatable if the Orthodox Church of Russia, Serbia, Greece, Cyprus or Romania want to use the word ‘Allah’ because these churches do not believe in the concept of the Trinity.

I believe the Orthodox Church also believes in the Unitary of God and regards other Catholic denominations as ‘deviant teachings’.

I would also want to ask the Malaysian Catholic Church if whether the word ‘Allah’ is being used by all Catholic countries like Ireland, France, Italy and all the Catholic churches in the US, UK, Australia and those in Latin America. Hello, I don't think so.

If the Catholic Church of Malaysia still wants to pursue this matter, have they consulted other Catholics and also the Pope because all the Catholic teachings must come from the Vatican.

And finally, if the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Southern Baptists, the Mormons, the Lutherans, and the myriad of other Christian denominations are not using the word ‘Allah’ for God, why are Malaysia's Catholics insisting on using it?

Zulkifli Nordin may be correct.

If this issue is not addressed amicably, it could turn out as another Natrah. The Muslim could interpret it as an attempt to convert Muslim.

The Catholic Church have been pushing the envelope with their legal attempt to; first, to by-pass the Syariah court in the conversion of a Muslim Women, Azlina Jeilani to Christianity, and second, the term Allah for their BM publications.

Why must The Catholic Church take this antagonistic route through the adversarial legal approach? After all, the Christian Ibans can easier pronounced the term "tuhan" than "Alah Ta'la".