I appreciate Professor Dr Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi’s attempt at finding a solution to this escalating and indeed, serious issue that besets our nation over the use of the word ‘Allah’ by Christians.

However, I would like to point out the following which contradict the purpose of his noble intention:

1. Christians have indeed turned the other cheek already. The demonstrations outside the Court of Appeal in Putrajaya and elsewhere and the threat by Umno of a mega-demonstration in the future, the Umno road-shows to ‘explain the Allah issue to the ‘ummat Islam’ which falsely and conveniently targets a single Christian - Father Lawrence Andrew (when it is all Christians who are standing up for our constitutional right of freedom of religion), the taunts to burn the alKitab, the false accusations, police reports by the hundreds, threats, the use of the ‘Allah’ issue to demonise the political opposition and make the ridiculous claim that Christians want to turn Malaysia into a Christian state (Utusan Malaysia), the burning of the effigy of Fr Lawrence Andrew and his photographs.. Over a period of two years... have elicited no similar response whatsoever from Christians.

2. At the most, the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) and the heads of the churches in Sabah and Sarawak have merely issued statements. So indeed, Christians have endured, and have already ‘turned the other cheek’ for the peace that we hold as our highest teaching, and for the harmony of our beloved nation.

Indeed, Muhammad Tajuddin’s allusion to “safety” of Christians indicates he is aware of just how much danger we have and are facing... with no retaliation of any sort whatsoever except for appeals for calm, rationality, and prayer.

3. Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr are invoked by Muhammad Tajjudin as examples. Neither of these heroes of peace ‘turned the other cheek’. They taught the world the word “civil disobedience” and went on to protest the injustice meted out to them by carrying on with doing what was banned, but without violence, against an unjust coloniser (Gandhi) and an unjust law (segregation - Martin Luther King Jr).

For example, African Americans in huge numbers occupied ‘all white’ sections of buses, restaurants and walked in peaceful protest marches. They did not continue back into racial segregation and 'turn the other cheek'.

4. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), by Muhammad Tajuddin’s own inadvertent admission, “did not turn the other cheek” ultimately; he formed an army and went after the Quraysh and took Mecca from them.

5. The author of the letter suggests Christians use ‘Tuhan’ instead of ‘Allah’. The CFM fact sheet (in three languages) which is widely available on all the on-line media and from the CFM, explains this among other significant issues. The alKitab – translated into Malay four centuries ago, uses both Tuhan and Allah.

In passages where God refers to God’s self as ‘Lord’, then the passage reads, “Saya adalah Tuhan dan Allah kamu”. “I am your Lord and your God”. To replace God with ‘Tuhan’ would mean writing “Saya adalah Tuhan dan Tuhan kamu” which would make us polytheists, when Christians are monotheists like Muslims.

The theology of the Trinity notwithstanding, as Muslims in even the heartland of Islam understand, ‘Allah’ is simply a linguistic referent for God from the language, culture and geographical region of the three Abrahamic faiths. And Christianity predates Islam...

Significant perspectives

As this issue about the use of the word ‘Allah’ malingers, there are significant perspectives which are not being articulated, or often enough, and I would like to clarify some key points.

1. The status quo for centuries was that BM-speaking Christians who constitute 64 percent of all Malaysian Christians and who only have BM as their common language and for their alKitab... has been its peaceful use until very recently. If all Christians are asking for is to maintain the status quo or centuries, what is there ‘to give in’, and ‘compromise’ about? Surely by logic it is for those who changed the goal posts to do so?

2. Who changed the status quo? Religious authorities banning the word ‘Allah’and even other words like 'Haji' and 'surau' by non-Muslims!

And the then-home affairs minister who decided that an in-house, by-subscription-only newsletter of the Catholic Church, ( The Herald ) could not use the word ‘Allah’ in its BM section since the Herald is distributed in Sabah and Sarawak. This is the source of the ‘Allah’ issue but it not highlighted at all, especially for Muslims.

3. After years of negotiating, pleading, providing evidence etc behind closed doors ended unsuccessfully, the Catholic Church had no choice but to take the home affairs minister to court over the ban. This final step is the logical and ultimate recourse for Malaysian citizens who are protected by the constitution’s pledges including freedom of religion and the freedom to manage one’s religious affairs. So, do note, the Christians dis not start this ‘Allah’ issue.

4. The Catholic Church happened to own the first publication that the ministry chose to ‘ban’ - any other Christian publication could have been chosen. Thus the struggle to maintain the status quo for the rights of 64 percent of Malaysian Christians is a struggle for all Christians. It is not a Catholic Church “fight” and Fr Lawrence Andrew, a Catholic Jesuit priest and editor of The Herald, is not the villain of the “plot”.

5. Nowhere else in Christian services or the Bible in English, Tamil or Chinese, does the word ‘Allah’ appear, and Christians have no intention to change ‘God’ to ‘Allah’ in these Bibles. This is one of the biggest lies circulating, with the addendum that Christians are now trying to usurp Malay and Muslim ‘rights’ - a ‘sensitive’ issue for those who propound ‘ketuanan Melayu’.

6. Ever since the Court of Appeal judgment banning Christians from using the word ‘Allah’, distinguished Muslim scholars from all over the world as well as imams have all disagreed or even poured scorn, or said they are “embarrassed” about the Malaysian Muslim version of protecting ‘Allah’ (featured in the alternative media).

In similar vein, as have the media of the heartland of Islam - the Middle East; and Turkey, Pakistan, as well as our neighbour Indonesia which is the largest Muslim nation in the world, and whose headline in the Jakarta Post was ‘Since when do Muslims own God?’... inferring precisely the argument that Christians make: that ‘Allah’ is simply a linguistic referent for God. No big deal.

7. Christians are peace-loving and not aggressive, we would be happy not to retaliate and ask the agressors in this issue to turn any cheek. We just ask that Malaysia reverts to the peaceful status quo that was disrupted and then manipulated, distorted and threateningly demonised for what we believe is for any other agenda except Islam. The wonderful world religion Islam is being deployed for other - including political - agendas.

8. There is nothing in the Qu’ran that stipulates Christians cannot use the word ‘Allah’. Christians are described as People of the Book and the closest to Muslims. Yes, there are both positive (more) and negative (much less) passages in the Qur’an about Christians and Jews.

The theory of Naskh or abrogation of these positive verses does not come into consideration here. Naskh is used largely for jurisprudential issues since the Shari’a is taken from the Qur’an. And the verses subject to naskh have been reduced from just 270... to approximately 20. And none of the positive verses on Christians have been abrogated.

I write the above with the hope of clarification that brings rationality to this issue which is getting out of hand dangerously – largely by manipulation, deceit, genuine ignorance, and even political expedience. And I write with the utmost respect for Islam, the religion of peace, which is being distorted and sullied in the process of this ugly disruption of the peaceful status quo for 64 percent of Malaysian Christians.

DR PATRICIA A MARTINEZ is a Malaysian who reads Malaysiakini .