View the Allah controversy in context - Abdullah Ismail

I refer to Nehali’s article “Brahma instead of Allah?” [The Malaysian Insider, February 17, 2014]. It was in response to my reply in The Star, February 8, 2014, to Dr Patricia A. Martin Martinez’s comment on the Allah issue.

I shall ignore his sarcasm, arrogance and baseless statements and focus on the core issues.

The reason Muslims in Malaysia object to the description of God as Allah in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible and their liturgy is that over 1.2 billion Muslims in every corner of the world use the word to believe in God who is one, unique, and neither begets nor is begotten, which is in direct conflict with the Christian concept of God as Trinity. The Christian belief that Jesus is God in flesh and blood whom God the Father sent to humankind to atone for the sin committed by Adam would be sacrilege to Muslims.

Contrary to what Nehali writes, Muslims do not understand the Trinity as God physically giving birth to a son called Jesus.To them, it does not make sense to believe in one God, at the same time embrace the Trinity, that is, three in one doctrine. 

Interestingly, many Bible scholars also share the same view. They have been questioning the doctrine of Trinity which was adopted as dogma only in 325 A.D. by the Nicene Council with a strong dissenting view, and affirmed in 381 A.D. by the Council of Constantinople. According to late Professor Geza Vermes of Oxford University, Jesus of Nazareth never believed, or taught, that he was the second person of a divine trinity. Vermes was a distinguished scholar and translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Even the physicist Isaac Newton had a problem with the Trinity doctrine.

Nehali claims that “the consensus among world experts is that Allah is the most appropriate translation for God since time immemorial”. Who are these “world experts” and when was the consensus reached? If his claim is correct, why do the Bibles in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, English and Dutch not refer to God as Allah? 

In the original Hebrew Bible, God is called “Elohim” and the Son of God “Ben Elohim”. In the original Greek Bible, God is called “Theos” and in the Latin Bible as “Deus”. According to accounts by Munshi Abdullah, the Jakun had used the word “Deus” for God, which was also used in Portuguese churches in rural Malacca. The original Hebrew and Greek Bibles were translated into other languages. So why not use “Elohim”, “Theos” or “Deus,” instead of Allah for God in the Malay Bible since they will have a direct link to the original Bibles?

The argument that 'Allah' is used in the Indonesian and Arabic Bibles and that there is no objection to it is irrelevant to the issue of what concept of God the term embodies and the impact it would have if it is freely used in publications, talks and lectures in Malaysia, a multi-religious country. Absence of objection does not mean consent. For a long period the colonised people did not stand up and resist colonial rule. That does not mean they consented to it.

The Indonesians and Arabs may be indifferent and careless about infringements to their religion. Just look at the lack of any effective response from the Muslim world to the aggression, violation of human rights, indignities and abuses committed against Muslims in Palestine, United States, Europe, Afghanistan, and India. Thus, some Muslims’ indifference to the misuse of the term 'Allah' for God in the Malay Bible is no justification for permitting it.

Calling God as “Elohim”, or “Theos” or “Deus” instead of Allah in the Malay Bible will not in any way prevent or interfere with the right of Christians to practise their faith. So why are certain Christian groups stubbornly refusing to drop Allah for God in the Malay Bible and use a name closer to the original Bible? Is there a hidden agenda, some Muslims ask?

The Allah controversy is of recent origin. When the Malay Bible with God referred to as Allah was confined to churches and Christian homes in East Malaysia, Muslims were not interested in the issue since it hardly impacted them. But when attempts were made to bring it to West Malaysia, and disseminate widely in the public domain in East Malaysia, Muslim suspicions were aroused. 

Almost 25 years ago, Professor Naquib Al-Attas had a meeting with the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur and representatives of the Christian community, including Ministers. They told him that they, as patriotic citizens, wanted to pray in Bahasa Malaysia and use the word 'Allah' for God.

He advised them not to use it as it does not fit into their idea of God as Trinity. He told them 'Allah' belongs to the language of Muslims all over the world and not to any particular national language. His advice was ignored and Christian books and publications began to use Allah for God of the Bible. Then, Muslim groups objected and the authorities took action to stop it.

Muslim concern about this issue must be viewed in the context of the project of the rich and powerful neo-evangelical movement centred in the United States to evangelise the whole world in preparation for the arrival of Jesus Christ. The well-researched and documented book 'Armies of God' by the scholar Ian Buchanan reveals the strategy and tactics of this project. It exposes the link between the United States Government/leaders, the corporate sector and the neo-evangelist movement and their goal of global hegemony for the church and the US.

Two major churches in Malaysia have strong ties with the Islamophobic Christian-Zionist network known as the International Coalition of Apostles. Also, Sidang Injil Borneo, formerly Borneo Evangelical Mission, was in 1975 absorbed into the Colarado-based Overseas Missionary Fellowship (OMF), whose mission includes evangelisation of Muslims, China and the tribal groups.

Neo-evangelists are not averse to practising deception in their missionary work. On this aspect, Buchanan writes: “The business of converting Muslims has become the fastest growing branch of the evangelical movement … And deception is the essence of the task.”  The Allah controversy has to be seen in this context.

Muslims have no problem with Christian missionary work which has been going on for hundreds of years. We have had very good relations with Christians until recently when aggressive neo-evangelism became active. What we object to is the link between neo-evangelist churches and foreign powers and churches with an agenda for control, domination and hegemony of the world. - February 21, 2014.

* Abdullah Ismail is secretary-general of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organisations (MAPIM).