‘Allah’ & Freud’s Borrowed Kettle
Alwyn Lau
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Not long after, Man messed it up. Somehow we managed to produce greed, pollution, bad music and value meals. We also started parties like UMNO which gave birth to bigger groups like Barisan Nasional – and now even God is in trouble.
What’s the name of God if not the name for truth, love and power which over-shadows the pain of the world? What’s the on-going controversy over the name of God – ‘Allah’ – if not a game of shadows?
East Malaysian Christians have been calling God ‘Allah’ since creation; therefore any suggestion that they should now be disallowed to do so is akin to cronies telling the orang asli their forest homes are now up for grabs.
Barisan Nasional is getting desperate, so why not churn up some friendly-fire? Why not strike at the heart of Pakatan’s “Odd One In”, PAS? Of course, many are wondering: Why couldn’t PAS’ Syura Council wait till May to throw cold water over the Sikhs and Bornean Christians? What a divine mystery. Then again, maybe we shouldn’t discredit God. For surely He is pragmatic enough to not fling a spanner into an election that may potentially topple an unjust government, whatever His approved name(s)?
Also, the whole fiasco sounds like Freud’s story of the borrowed kettle. A man borrowed a kettle from his neighbour. Later when he returned the kettle, the neighbour complained that it’s broken and there are cracks. The man vehemently denied it – in three ways. First, by insisting that he didn’t borrow that particular kettle at all. Second, by claiming the returned kettle is in perfect condition. Finally, by explaining that the cracks were already there when he borrowed it. Even the pot would conclude that something isn’t right. The very contradictories of the replies prove the falsity of the man’s denial.
Does this not resemble PAS’ response? At first, it was no problem : Non-Muslims can use ‘Allah’ (which, really, is like telling an American it’s fine to call his mother Mum). This later evolved to Okay, non-Muslims can use it as long as they don’t abuse it (which is like telling a Brit that he has the right to call his PM ‘David’ as long as he doesn’t insult other perspectives of ‘David’). Then the u-turn came and suddenly the word is exclusively for Muslims (which is like a theologian disagreeing with Webster Dictionary’s definition of the word ‘the’). But in the latest twist it became: Okay, non-Muslims can use it as long as they believe in one God (which is like telling A&W they can continue serving Coney Dogs as long as this doesn’t violate the ‘one sausage’ rule).
Does the above sound like a ‘borrowed kettle’ argument to you? Doesn’t the form of PAS’ responses render suspect their whole argument? Probably the two most confused parties here are the average atheist and God Himself.
Finally, fretting over who can or cannot use ‘Allah’ sounds like the biggest red herring in Malaysia, given our many problems – like too many cars, too little water, and some folks saying ‘listen’ too many times. On this point, it is interesting to note how nobody grabbed the mike from Sharifah Zohra Jabeen and how, in fact, many in the auditorium applauded her berating of law student, KS Bawani. Why didn’t someone stop Sharifah? Doesn’t this remind you of the case in the United States where a crime was taking place and, despite many people watching through their windows, nobody helped? Why not? Because they believed someone else would.
The parallel between the UUM fiasco and the ‘Allah’ controversy is how, even right now, no one from within the government dares to ‘grab the mike’ from the Islamic authorities (including the Sultan) regarding this issue. Why? Because ‘Allah’ is exclusively for Muslims. Because Islam doesn’t restrict the use of ‘Allah’ to Muslims, but the word shouldn’t be abused. Because the Christians believe in three gods and thus shouldn’t use ‘Allah’ in their Bibles.
Do we see the broken kettle? Or are we waiting for someone else to point it out?
