View the Allah controversy in context
Abdullah Ismail, The Malaysian Insider
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.
