阿拉......

马来西亚基督教联合会新闻稿 2013年10月14日
事项：法庭再度忽视作为少数的基督徒群体的权益

上诉法院裁决部长有权禁止前锋报业使用阿拉字眼，在马来西亚的基督徒群体针对此决定表达深切的失望。此决定势必广泛影响所有的国语福音出版业。法院注明“’阿拉‘之名不是基督信仰与实践的内在部分”，此举完全忽略东马土著基督徒及原住民基督徒的处境，他们使用国语，占马来西亚教会的六成。

明显地，强调‘个人及群体福利必须配合社会’，而将此原则套在宗教自由上，此决定再次侵蚀宪法给予宗教群体自主，自由宣告及实践信仰的保障。
在重新释读联邦宪法第3(1)条之下，少数宗教似乎只能在不触犯多数宗教的‘平静和谐’的情况下在马来西亚宣告及实践信仰。

国语教会历来使用阿拉字眼，包括马来亚独立前後以及马来西亚成立之後。在那些年里，马来西亚教会使用阿拉字眼并不构成问题。然而，本国各权力单位炒作此事及选择性的采取行动或采取禁止行动，势将进一步催化穆斯林及基督徒群体之间的误会，误解及分裂。这只会继续抹煞马来西亚的全民合一。

鉴于此负面发展，马来西亚基督教联合会呼吁马来西亚教会持续仰望，向神寻求智慧与引导，愿相关人士下一步做出合理的措施。

我们对上诉法院此裁决并未禁止国语圣经使用‘阿拉’字眼表示欣慰。
我们期许可敬的首相及议会继续推行十点解决方案保障国语圣经。我们也将持续在我们的敬拜，圣餐仪式，祷文及教会的教材使用阿拉字眼。
作为马来西亚基督徒，我们效忠挚爱的国土，我们对马来西亚的爱持续坚定，我们将继续以爱而非仇恨来面对这连串的考验。

您诚挚的，
尤方成牧师(博士)
(Rev. Dr. Eu Hong Seng)
马来西亚基督教联合会主席兼执行委员

Appeal Court Inept Judgment Based on Internet Research

October 15, 2013, 9:49 am

The Court of Appeal in Putrajaya on 14/10/2013 over-ruled the earlier decision by Justice Lau Bee Lan in the Kuala Lumpur High Court to allow Christians (Herald) to use the word Allah. The wide ramifications of the Appeal Court decision calls for careful analysis to ascertain whether it is based on accurate facts which are foundational for a coherently argued and impartial judgment. I shall focus on the judgment delivered by one of the three judges, Justice Mohd Nawawi bin Salleh, since it ostensibly examines the facts pertaining to the legitimacy of Christians (the Herald) using the word Allah.

Justice Mohd Nawawi notes that Justice Lau Bee Lan in her High Court judgment concluded that “it is apparent that the use of the word “Allah” is an essential part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.” [2]

He then refers to some earlier court judgments which ruled that the wearing of the purdah and the serban was not integral to the practice of Islam. More importantly, he cites the principle that was used by a court in India to decide whether a dance involving public display of skulls and knives was integral to the practice of the sect in question. “Test to determine whether a part of practice is essential to the religion is to find out whether the nature of religion will be changed without that part or practice. If the taking away of that part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part.” [6]

This should have been a straight forward test. Dressing and dance change as fashions come and go. They would not be considered as constituting the essence or core of a religion. In contrast, the concept of God is THE defining centre for any religion. This being the case, Justice Lau’s judgment which affirms the word Allah is an integral part of Christian faith and practice would have been self-evident.

Justice Mohd Zawawi seems to think otherwise and proceeds to lay out the grounds for his decision to set aside the judgment of Justice Lau. The judge reiterates the claim made by the Muslim appellants that the word Allah is not found in the original Hebrew and Greek Bible, and as such, it cannot be integral to the practice of the Christian faith. However, the Muslim appellants’ assertion is disputed by the respondent for the Herald who emphasizes that the word Allah has been used for years by the majority of the Catholics to translate the Hebrew word elohim.

We should not miss the judge’s acknowledgment that “This debate does not exist for Arabic-speaking Christians who had continually translated “Elohim” and “Theos” (the primary terms for “God” in Biblical Hebrew and Greek), as “Allah” from the earliest known Arab Bible translations in the eight century till today.” [16]

But despite this acknowledgment, the judge opines the case might be different for non-Arabic speakers which he as a judge proceeds to adjudicate. Citing Lord Sumner, he explains this role would mean he “can be called upon to receive and to act upon either from his general knowledge of them, or from inquiries to be made by himself for his own information from sources to which it is proper for him to refer.”

How then does the judge proceed in his inquiry? Essentially, he offers a series of cut and paste, piecemeal quotations which he deems to have a decisive bearing on his judgment.

[17] “…One person who has written a book arguing against the use of the word “Allah” by Christian is a Nigerian, G.J.O Monshay. In his book, “Who is this Allah?”, Ibadan, Nigeria: Firelines Inst., 1990, he writes at page 8: “for long we had assumed that Christians and Muslims serve the same God, and that it is only in the language of expression and mode of worship that they differ.”. But he concludes that they are not. …”

It is telling that judge leaves out the sentence which follows immediately, “This assumption can no longer continue with the popular clichés of political correctness. What we believe must be according to facts from the original sources of the religion” (p.11-12. I am citing from the newer Chick Publications 2008 edition). The fuller context shows that the author rejects any facile identification of the God of Christianity and Allah if it is based on political correctness that is pervasive in the West. The judge would have regrets citing Monshay since the author in the newer edition argues that Christians cannot believe in the same God as the attackers of September 11 who were motivated by the belief that they were serving Allah. The judge would be appalled should he read further and find Monshay asserting that the Allah of Islam as “A lie engineered by the devil cannot be defeated by hazy and vague ideas” (p. 13).

Perhaps the judge should have made a wiser choice and cites a more balanced approach from Kenneth Cragg who is also mentioned in the book, “Those who say that Allah is not “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” are right if they mean God is not so described by Muslims. They are wrong if they mean that Allah is other than the God of the Christian faith” (p. 15).

It is evident that the judge has been both selective and careless in using his source. More significantly, he deliberately ignores other evidence from the book when it contradicts his view.

[18] “…In arguing that “Allah” is not the God of the Bible, Brutus Balan, an Australian, advances the following reasons:-

“The word ‘Allah’ no matter the origin pre Muhammad is understood in the Islamic context today as the Quranic deity. It is not a word that depicts the Trinitarian Yahweh-Elohim (Lord God) of the Bible. It is wrong for any translation of the Bible in any language to use this word ‘Allah’ to refer to the God of the Bible.”

The quotations seem to suggest that the judge has been diligent in doing internet research. A simple search with Google would instantly locate this comment in the site belonging to Daniel Pipes, a political commentator whom Muslim extremists love to hate. The quotation was merely a response to an internet post. Given the utmost importance of the Court judgment, I would have expected the judge to rely on authoritative sources. However, he does not refer to original sources and scholarship. Why in the world would a learned judge rely on someone who has no academic credentials? Apparently, the learned judge considers an Internet comment would suffice for a robust intellectual argument.

The judge must be desperately grabbing at straws for evidence. Amazingly, he cites the next paragraph without any critical comment and caveat, “the word Allah that pre-dates Islam, a word that was and is a non Hebrew word for a pagan deity, the “Moon-god” of the pre Muhammad Arabs was Christianized and retained among the Middle Eastern Arab Christian converts finding its way in the Arabic Bible translation. Post Muhammad this same “Moon-god” is now appropriated and identified with the Islamic Quran by Muhammad” [17(2)]

Does the judge agree with Brutus Balan that the Allah whom Muhammad preached was the pagan “Moon-god”?  I can safely assume that by now he would echo Shakespeare, “Et tu, Brute?”

[19] “…a Roman Catholic in Netherland, Tiny Muskens, called for all Christians to use the word “Allah”. However, the call was objected by the Protestant Christian as well as the Catholic Christians. The President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights disputed the idea…”

It is unclear why the judge cites this incident. Perhaps he wants to demonstrate that Christians are still disputing with one another over whether they should use the word Allah.  It is telling that the judge can only refer to an isolated dispute involving an aged and retiring Bishop to buttress his claim that Christians are confused. The judge would have been more persuasive if he manages to offer cases of unresolved disputes between major Christian leaders. Obviously, he fails to provide a suitable example. Then again, is it the case that the judge considers internet research to be of such reliable quality that it provides credible support for a compelling court judgment?

In the light of his ‘impressive’ internet research, the judge confidently declares,

[24] From the above research, it can be seen that in spite of the word “Allah” is not the same as Elohim and Theos in the Bible, translators involved in translations of the Bible or revisions of the Bible in languages used by the majority Muslim community had used the word “Allah”…

This is an embarrassing declaration: The judge doesn’t realize that he is contradicting what he cited earlier in paragraph [16] – “This debate does not exist for Arabic-speaking Christians who had continually translated “Elohim” and “Theos” (the primary terms for “God” in Biblical Hebrew and Greek), as “Allah” from the earliest known Arab Bible translations in the eight century till today.”

I can only conclude that the judge does not read the sources with due diligence and care. Perhaps he simply does not understand what he is quoting. He then summarizes,

[25] In summary, judging from the many viewpoints and contentions that I have alluded before, we can conclude that the Christians themselves have not reached a consensus as to how to use the word “Allah”, whether in their many translations and versions of the Bible or in their general usage of it and this simply demonstrates how contentious and controversial such a usage.

This is the conclusion that the judge desperately seeks after and stubbornly asserts in the face of contrary evidence. For this reason, he cites academic pretenders at the fringe of the church rather than verify his facts with the most authoritative institutions for Bible translation in the Malay speaking world, The Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia and the Bible Society Malaysia. He ignores the fact that the Malaysian Church leaders have consistently spoken with one voice in affirming the use of Allah to refer to God in the Malay Bible/Alkitab.

The judge asserts that using the word Allah will bring confusion to Christians.

[28] If the word “Allah” is to be employed in the Malay versions of the Herald to refer to God, there will be a risk of misrepresentation of God within Christianity itself, since the Christian conception of God as symbolised by the trinity is absolutely and completely dissimilar to the conception of Allah in Islam; in other words, the potential for confusion is not confined only to Muslims but also to Christians.

Ironically, it is the judge who is personally confused. The discussion so far shows him to be someone who is unable and unwilling to acquire a sound understanding of the Christian faith. But this does not stop him from going ahead to define for Christians what should or should not be integral for their faith.

[29] The upshot from the foregoing discussion is that the usage of the word “Allah” in the Malay version of the Herald to refer to God is not the essential or integral part of the religion of Christianity… It is also doubtful whether the opinion of the Respondent on the usage of the word “Allah” reflects that of Catholic majority.

But who is this judge who arrogates to himself the power and authority to decide unilaterally what is or is not an integral part Christianity? Christian doctrine is a sacred treasure to the Christian community of faith. No individual, not even a venerable Bishop dares to make any alteration without the consensus of other leaders. As a Muslim, he should have been wary of pronouncing how other religionists should profess their faith, lest he inadvertently commits blasphemy against their God! Does the judge presume to teach Christians because he deems them to be confused. The judge’s assertion that Christians are confused is indefensible given the unanimous declaration on the Allah issue by CFM and the authoritative Bible societies.

An ill-informed judgment can only result in loss of public confidence in the integrity of the Judiciary. People have reasons to wonder if justice is poorly served by an Appeal Court judgment based on inept internet research.

References:

You can download the 3 Appeal Court judgments at http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/en/node/1491

Judgment by Mohamed Apandi bin Haji Ali

Judgment by Abdul Aziz bib Abdul Rahmin

Judgment by Mohd Zawawi bin Salleh

Summary Media Statement

http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2013/10/appeal-court-inept-judgment-based-on-internet-research/

張清水‧“阿拉＂案件起因

2013-09-06 09:43

1980年，以巫統為首的登嘉樓州政府成了第一個頒佈法令以控制或約束其他宗教向穆斯林傳教的州屬。登州政府發佈了一份列有25個阿拉伯詞彙和10個詞組的名單，他們認為這些詞彙和詞組是伊斯蘭專屬的。“阿拉”字眼便是其中之一。其他的州屬也有樣學樣。

翌年，當局援引1960年內安法令（現稱2012年國家安全罪行（特別措施）法令（SOSMA））查禁內含“阿拉”字眼的馬來文版聖經（Alkitab），理由是：它對國家安全構成威脅。馬哈迪於1981年7月16日出任首相的5個月後頒佈了這項禁令。

後來，馬來文版聖經獲准只能在教會裡限制使用，實則不然，這項禁令即便到了今天仍然有效。然而，關稅局和內政部持續在港口、機場和一般書店充公的不僅是馬來文版聖經，其他的馬來文版基督教刊物也是如此。進口商因而蒙受了巨大的虧損，馬來文版聖經和馬來文版的其他基督教出版物也面臨嚴重的短缺。

充公行動並非援引內安法令或相應的州伊斯蘭法令，而是1984年出版與印刷法令展開的。各項禁止非穆斯林使用“阿拉”字眼的法令或內閣決議接二連三地被頒佈。近30年來，這一切不過是為了加強管制“阿拉”字眼的使用而已。

其實，在憲報上頒佈諸如此類的法令與1982年內閣的決定——內含“阿拉”字眼的馬來文版聖經並未被禁止，只是限制基督徒使用——相抵觸。

幾年前，當內政部針對天主教週報《先鋒報》每年的印刷准證施加附帶條件，以禁止在其馬來文版裡使用“阿拉”字眼時，此事進入了白熱化的階段。

各造對印刷准證引發的爭議僵持不下，《先鋒報》出版人吉隆坡總主教將此事帶上法庭，要求法庭裁決禁止使用“阿拉”字眼是否符合憲法。

就在高庭准許《先鋒報》使用“阿拉”字眼後，7個州屬的伊斯蘭宗教局旋即決定插手，原因是此事涉及伊斯蘭與馬來統治者，因此，民事法庭沒有權力審理此案。

高庭以審理此案與伊斯蘭或馬來統治者毫無關係為由拒絕了宗教局的干預，並表明，政府是否作出了不當的法律決策，或針對《先鋒報》的印刷准證施加附帶條件以禁止在其馬來文版裡使用“阿拉”字眼是否無理才是關鍵。此案涉及的是聯邦法律，而非州法律。

高庭於2009年12月31日作出不利於政府的裁決令舉國上下震驚不已。隨之發生了教堂襲擊案，但來得快去得也快，因此，一些人在觀察後得出的結論是，這類暴行也許有幕後黑手，而非像一開始時推測的，有人企圖威脅公共秩序。

無論如何，馬來人和穆斯林之間並沒有一致的看法。伊斯蘭黨和公正黨支持基督徒使用“阿拉”字眼的權利。即便巫青團也贊成允許基督徒使用“阿拉”字眼。

同時，政府立即針對高庭的裁決向上訴庭提出上訴。兩起有關“阿拉”字眼的類似案件也被帶到法庭上。其中一起是沙巴婆羅洲基督教會（Sidang Injil Borneo）針對他們從印尼引進的基督教教育出版物於2007年運至沙巴時遭充公一事訴諸法律。另一起案件同樣發生在2007年，砂拉越馬蘭諾土著基督徒吉兒愛爾蘭（Jill Ireland）因她內含“阿拉”字眼的音樂光碟在吉隆坡廉價航空終站（LCCT）遭沒收的事情告上法庭。兩起案件都已進入了審訊階段。

我國200萬的基督徒人口中有大部份是口操馬來語的沙巴、砂拉越原住民。他們使用的是馬來文版聖經。他們肯定會繼續以“阿拉”來意指上帝。對他們而言，除了“阿拉”，沒有其他字眼可以用來意指上帝。再者，歷史、禮拜儀式、詞源學及神學都偏愛使用“阿拉”字眼，因為沒有其他的字眼可以取代得了。

（“阿拉”字眼二之一）（譯：曾慧金）（星洲日報／直面現實‧作者：張清水‧媒體人）