We must work to make sure Malaysia becomes a true liberal democracy. The Executives must be bound by the Constitution, and they must not be given a freehand to amend the Constitution wily nilly. That means ensuring that no one gets a 2/3 majority.

Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob is a trained lawyer and Malaysian political commentator. He writes for numerous international newspapers and online journals as well as hosts Face to Face, an interview segment of Malaysian/regional issues and personalities hosted on Malaysia Today. He also serves as Foreign Correspondent for foreign news organisations.

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is the Director General of the Malaysia Think Tank (www.malaysiathinktank.org) based in London. He served in the Conservative Party’s research department and prior to that at the think tank - Commonwealth Policy Studies Unit. In May 2007, he contested local elections as a Conservative Party Candidate. Face to Face talks to this settled overseas Malaysian in the heat of battle for the hearts and minds of the Rakyat in the 12^th General Elections.

1.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: Are you satisfied with the current administration’s performance? Should the BN be given another fresh mandate?

     Wan Saiful Wan Jan: The first part of the question is easier to answer than the second. No, I am not happy with the current administration’s performance. There has been a lot of effort, or should we say a lot of talk? about developing the country’s physical infrastructure, and this is good. But our freedom and liberty are still being curbed and central planning is rampant. So, no, I am not happy with the way things are going.

     But the second part of your question requires us to look at the alternatives. Our opposition is too divided and it is not possible to see how they can work together in a unified government. The DAP talks to PAS only through Keadilan as the middle-man. And I doubt if they will be talking at all if Anwar was not there. Building all our political hope around one man is not very wise, nor does it indicate a sustainable coalition. At the same time, the main opposition parties are also quite left-leaning. This makes me ask myself, if they do get into power, can we be sure that they are not just going to plan and control from the centre just like what is happening now, albeit perhaps with a different “flavour”?

     So, am I satisfied? No. But will the BN be given a fresh mandate? I am sure they will be.

2.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: Abdullah Badawi seems confident of retaining BN’s two-third’s majority in Parliament. What’s your projection?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: He is likely to be right. But this is not good for liberal democracy.

3.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: It appears as if the Chinese and Indian communities are unhappy over a host of issues. If they were to vote against BN, would that have the real effect of denying the two-thirds of the ruling coalition?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: I agree with you that more Chinese and Indians may not be very happy with the BN. But that does not necessarily mean they will vote opposition.

          There may indeed be some post-election changes. The BN may not have as many seats any more, but they will still be quite comfortable. As I said earlier, this is unfortunate for liberal democracy in Malaysia because a stronger opposition is necessary to balance the Executive power.

          Having said that, it would be better if one day we can move away from the discussion about “the Chinese are unhappy about this, the Indians are unhappy about that, the Malays want this, and the non-Malays want that”. I do hope that one day it will be possible for us to speak of Malaysians not on the basis of ethnicity or religion, but as Malaysians, full stop.

4.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: There appears to be a chasm in political perspectives and legitimate concerns with that of rural Bumiputeras and that of the professional class/urbanites of Bumiputeras. How will this play out in terms of support for the BN?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: This is interesting. You are right. When you talk to urban Bumiputeras, particularly professional Malays, you can feel the change. Nowadays, it is not difficult to find Malays who feel that it is time to get rid of positive discrimination and to go for meritocracy. It is no longer difficult to find Malays who want to be treated as equals to the non-Malays. And it is no longer difficult to find Malays who dream for a one-nation Malaysia. These are all good. It may not be so widespread in the rural areas yet, but change takes time and I am very hopeful.

          In terms of support for the BN, it would be interesting to see what happens in areas with majority Malay professionals. I don’t think there will be much difference in rural areas, though. Information is just not flowing freely enough to them due to the biased nature of our media.

5.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: You are a member of PAS, but you recently released a book entitled “Who Needs an Islamic State?”. You have also been quite vocal in criticising PAS. Please elaborate….

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: Well, I think any serious political party should welcome internal debates, and that those debates should be done in the open so that both members and the public know that the party is not afraid of debating difficult issues. This is a sign of a strong and confident party. You can see that very openly happening in America now. Look at the process that both Democrats and Republicans have to undergo in order to choose a presidential candidate. The candidates would go all out to highlight how they are different from each other, but they are still from the same party and they all want their party to win. There is nothing wrong with open debate about policy issues.

          If you disallow internal debate, be you PAS or UMNO, what is the difference between you and the communist in China or Putin in Russia or even Saddam when he ruled Iraq?

          As to the issue of the Islamic State, the Malaysia Think Tank published the book “Who Needs an Islamic State?” (www.my-islamic-state.com) as part of our bigger programme to look into democracy in Malaysia. The book argues strongly for Islamists to simply abandon this idea of “Islamic State” and focus on creating a liberal democracy.

6.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: Najib Razak, was of the view that a resulting backlash could have occurred if not for the swift action of the Government in detaining certain HINDRAF leaders. The question is whether this will in turn cause a unifying impetus to the Muslim-Malays in support of Umno and BN.

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: Most certainly! I think what HINDRAF did must have given additional confidence to the Prime Minister to call the elections now. He knows that when people feel threatened, they will seek refuge where they feel “safe”. It may sound ironic, but UMNO and BN will gain electoral brownie points as a result of HINDRAF’s actions.

          I want to also say that HINDRAF was trying to do a good thing, which is highlighting the plight of a minority group in Malaysia, and the neglect that they have suffered. But the way they do it is questionable. The aims do not justify the means. The Indian community has been neglected because of the ethnic-based politics currently practised in Malaysia. But HINDRAF is also another ethnic-based group, and they call for more ethnic-based policies, only this time they want to make sure the Indians are included. You cannot change a wrong by repackaging the same wrong. If they were to work together with the poor of all ethnic and religious backgrounds, they would have received wider support.

7.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: An informal grouping of bloggers has declared cyber-war on BN and some unfortunate candidates. To what extent, if any will these cyber-troopers have on the electorate?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: The bloggers can reach a certain group of audience – mainly urban IT-savvy voters. So, if any, the impact would be in urban areas. And we have to remember that there are also bloggers who are with the BN. It is not going to be a one-sided “cyber-war”. I think the key issue is how to convey your message to voters on the ground, who may not be regular readers of blogs, and the pakcik and makcik in kampung areas. Unless the message can trickle down to the masses, it will not have that big an impact.

8.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: What’s your verdict on Anwar Ibrahim’s make-or-break political comeback?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: This is not going to be a very popular answer, I am afraid. I am not quite an “Anwarista”, but we have to call a spade a spade. I have long felt that we have in Anwar a very talented politician beaming with charisma and is respected at the international arena. Whatever grouses there may be previously, the government cannot ignore who he is and what he has to offer, not just to Malaysia, but also to the world. I think Anwar should put himself above Malaysian politics and go to the international arena instead. The government must also appreciate that they have a role to play in supporting Anwar.

          But I do understand the difficulty he faces. When he was imprisoned, many Malaysians rallied for him and they fought tooth and nail to free him. He cannot ignore those who sacrificed themselves for him, who are now calling for him to lead them politically. So, maybe now he feels that he has to “pay back” the support he has received. I remember when Anwar was previously travelling the world. Some of his supporters were very critical of him, calling him kacang lupakan kulit and many more.

          This is a classic case of us Malaysians looking for a leader, found a leader in Anwar, but unfortunately our expectations of him is actually holding him back.

9.    Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: Malaysia is thought to have one of the world’s largest ministerial cabinet in terms of its population. Many of these ministers, for example Syed Hamid Albar, have served for about twenty years in some Ministerial position or other. Would a change for younger Ministers with new ideas bode well, particularly when Malaysia has such a big young population? Will this election see the end of the careers of some top officials?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: I don’t know if the careers of some long-serving cabinet ministers will come to an end, but I do feel that an overhaul is called for. When a minister stays on for a very long time, his or her “power” within that ministry will be more consolidated, making it difficult for civil servants to properly “advice” the minister.

          The size of our cabinet is also worthy of mention. If I remember correctly, we have about 35 cabinet members. But our population is only about 25 million. The United Kingdom has 60 million people but less than 25 cabinet members. Surely more can be done to streamline the number of people claiming ministerial salaries!

          In terms of changing the line-up to accommodate a bigger number of younger people, yes, and not just at ministerial level. We should aim to have younger and more female MPs too.

10.                       Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: What’s your opinion on former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir’s call for the Rakyat to carefully consider the eligibility of the candidate and not to just blindly vote the party? Do you believe that on the ground UMNO stalwarts will adopt this new approach in voting?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: Well, I applaud him for saying that, but I don’t think it is going to have any effect. The reality is, in a DAP area, if DAP puts a kettle as candidate, the kettle will win. In an MIC area, if a different kettle was put by MIC, that kettle will also win. Ditto UMNO, PAS, and all other main parties. Unfortunately for Malaysia, we are too attached to party-politics.

          For liberal democracy to be healthy, we need smaller political parties and more “pengundi atas pagar”. Democracy is, if you like, akin to a market system. In Malaysia now, we have several political parties who command votes regardless of what policy they offer. So, what we have in Malaysia now is a dysfunctional political market – voters will pay money to the party even when they do not know what the party is actually selling.

          The majority, either in BN or in Barisan Rakyat, are loyal without really knowing what policies they are loyal to. I bet you that a big number of members in some political parties in Malaysia haven’t got a clue what are the policies of the parties that they support. Does a typical UMNO member know what UMNO’s policies are to improve hospitals? Does a typical PAS member know what PAS’ policies are vis a vis ASEAN?

          Additionally, we work in a party-based democracy. Regardless of what individual MPs say, they cannot go against party decision in the current system. So, no matter how good an individual MP is, it is the party that counts.

          Of course, all these need to be changed. But, to strictly answer your question, I think the answer is no. Tun Mahathir’s statement will not have much impact on voters in this election. And, even if voters do follow his advice, I am afraid it will not have much impact on our parliament because of the extremely strong grip that parties have on MPs.

11.                       Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: There is a lot of speculation that BN will increase oil and diesel prices soon after the elections. Put it the other way, can BN avoid from doing so in any event?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan : Fuel prices will have to go up regardless of what happens at the elections. In the UK, the price has been going up by about 1-3 pence (circa 6-18 sen) per litre every quarter for the last couple of years. It is now £1.05 (RM6.50) per litre whereas about a year ago it was around £0.80 (RM5.20). It is inevitable, and in fact, only logical, that the price will go up.

12.                       Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: What’s your latest info in the grapevine in Penang? It appears as if the voters in the Pearl of the Orient are unhappy. Issues like Penang’s lacklustre economic future, the scaled down Penang Global City Centre project and etc.

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: I heard the same from several friends in Penang. But I must admit I do not know the details.

13.                       Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: What would be the most likely outcome/scenario for Abdullah Badawi at the Umno General elections to be held later this year if BN is ‘taught a lesson’ by those who are disgruntled?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: This election would be crucial for Abdullah Badawi. Many, including from within UMNO and BN, have been very critical of him and he has to show that he can deliver. He does have a very difficult task, though. He set a very high standard by winning a landslide in the last election. I don’t think he can repeat that this time.

          It is difficult to judge now if he will be challenged in the UMNO AGM. If it does happen, the likely challenger would be Najib. Does Najib have the courage to do what his father did in affecting a coup against the Tunku? I don’t know. But, I have also heard that Tengku Razaleigh’s friends have been “talking” for quite a while.

14.                       Imran Imtiaz Shah Yacob: Any message for the Malaysian people before they cast their votes?

          Wan Saiful Wan Jan: We must work to make sure Malaysia becomes a true liberal democracy. The Executives must be bound by the Constitution, and they must not be given a freehand to amend the Constitution wily nilly. That means ensuring that no one gets a 2/3 majority. We have seen in Kelantan that it is possible to govern even when you do not have 2/3 majority. So, the argument that such a big majority is needed to govern effectively is rubbish.

          If you want to see Malaysia as a liberal democratic country, if you love democracy, if you want democracy to flourish, the aim must be to reduce the 2/3 majority held by BN.

          Face to Face interviews are conducted by way of e-mail unless otherwise stated.

Such maintenance of the status quo is merely preserving and defending existing rights and a lot still has to be done to restore our constitutional right to freedom of religion lost as a result of several Federal Court decisions such as the Lina Joy case and the recent Subashini case. The Lina Joy case barred the right to freedom of conscience and religion by Muslims to convert back to their original religion effectively making a Muslim or a convert a Muslim for all eternity.

The Subashini decision is more pernicious in that it allows a Muslim parent who has just converted to convert his or her children without the consent of the other non-Muslim parent. This is a great step backward that not only denies the right of freedom of religion but also the constitutional and biological right of a parent over their children.

This is a great step backward that will only encourage a divorcing couple fighting over custodial rights of their children to convert to Islam to gain an advantage in securing custodial rights over the other parent. Despite such negation of the rights of non-Muslim parents, DAP is shocked that MCA has openly endorsed supported and welcomed the Federal Court ruling.

What is the point of civil court having jurisdiction to hear and decide on matrimonial disputes involving a spouse who has converted to Islam when it will take no action to prevent that converted spouse to also convert their children. Ong Ka Ting should read the judgement in full and realize that the impact of allowing such unilateral conversion by any parent regardless of objections from the other parent. The other non-Muslim parent will not be able to re-convert the child out of Islam. The child will also be deprived of its right to convert out of Islam at the age of 18.

By changing a child’s religion without the consent of both parents will cause much heartbreak. Worse is that Subashini’s case has effectively lost custodial rights of both hers sons (where one is converted whereas the other remains unconverted with the mother) if the father proceeds with the conversion. Under Islamic law, a non-Muslim parent has no rights over a Muslim child.

DAP unreservedly condemns such support by Ong and MCA in denying the biological right of Subashini as a mother. All non-Muslims should open their eyes and realize that in support of UMNO’s Islamic state, Ong and MCA are willing to sacrifice the parental rights of non-Muslims just to preserve their government positions. Ong should retract his support and demand in Cabinet decision barring any conversion of a child to Islam unless consent is obtained from both parents.

LIM GUAN ENG
       DAP

Do not be surprise if eight out of ten do not know what it is. One could say actually say civilisational islam and the likelihood is he or she could not explain it. We’ll need a sharp knife to cut up the remaining one person to represent the proportion of people who really understand Islam Hadhari.

Should the answer be able to regurgitate the 10 Principles of Islam Hadhari, the subsequent question to be asked: Is that principle about building a nation or civilisation? In fact, it is seen as close to an Islamic rebranding of the 9 challenges of Vision 2020 nation building.

Civilisational Islam is a conceptual idea that needs a realistic and quantifiable preposition for governance. The word civilisation means differently to different people. Civilisation is derived from the word civil. Early English described civil as “of or related to citizenship” and naturally to mean statehood. It could also mean process towards civility, or polite virtue.

In a bigger sense, civilisation conveys a sense of dynamism. Social scientist view civilisation as a more complex political and economic structure than a state or country. This para from Wikipedia provide a simple cultural description of civilisation:

“Civilization can also describe the culture of a complex society, not just the society itself. Every society, civilization or not, has a specific set of ideas and customs, and a certain set of items and arts, that make it unique. Civilizations have even more intricate cultures, including literature, professional art, architecture, organized religion, and complex customs associated with the elite. Civilization is such in nature that it seeks to spread, to have more, to expand, and the means by which to do this.”

Enough said, civilisation basically transcend above the state and society.

From the strategic perspective, vision and mission must be based on something specific, tangible and achievable. Only then could it conceive the specific objectives, and formulate the strategy and implementation plan. The important ingredient to the whole process of visualising, planning and implementation is leadership, structure and communication to effectively drive all resources and energy.

I don’t think we can look at so-called religions for the answer. And with respect to the Muslims, we have to reject most of what we have been told as the rules and regulations have been handed down by dictators and rulers with their own agenda.

Most of you may have had trouble accessing our site the whole day yesterday. That was because we were hit by massive DDOS attacks which practically rendered our site inaccessible to all. We were trying the whole day to block the attacks and at the same time trying to trace the source of the attacks which came from a Singapore data-centre. The previous attacks, which closed us down for about six to seven hours a day, almost the entire week, came from Europe.

Now, onto the next subject, the current controversy surrounding the use of the word ‘Allah’. On Wednesday, Malaysia’s Cabinet ruled that those not of the Muslim faith are prohibited from using the word ‘Allah’ in reference to God. This is to avoid ‘confusion”, whatever that means. I can only assume this is to avoid Muslims from thinking that Muslims and non-Muslims share the same God or that we all pray to the same God. Or maybe it is to prevent Muslims from praying to the ‘wrong’ God, the God of the non-Muslims. (And I was led to believe that there is only one God who made all of us).

In Passion of the Christ that starred Mel Gibson, ‘Jesus’ was shown as speaking Aramaic and he used the Aramaic word ‘Alla’ to address God. Allah, in Arabic, is rooted in the word Ellah, which means a god (any god). The word ‘Allah’, therefore, simply means ‘God’, be it in Judaism, Christianity or Islam. ‘Allah’ was also the word that Arabs during the pre-Islamic period used in reference to God. Therefore it can be said that ‘Allah’ is a word that all religions share, including those considered pagans, and is not exclusive to Islam, which in the first place ‘lifted’ the word from others.

Muslims appear to focus more on rhetoric rather than the substance of the religion. This is not only true for Malay Muslims but inflicts Muslims the world over. Take this news item below as an example.

—————————–

Row over abortion right for rape victims in Egypt

By Ramadan Al Sherbini, Correspondent

Cairo (1 Jan 2008): With an estimated 20,000 cases of rape annually, some Egyptian lawmakers are pushing for giving rape victims the right to abortion. According to the semi-official newspaper Al Ahram, an MP has presented a draft bill to the parliament demanding an amendment to the Egyptian law to allow pregnant women, who have been raped, to go for abortion. The aim, according to MP Khalil Qouta, is to curb an increasing number of children of unknown parents in Egypt.

“Any girl or woman, who is subjected to rape, has the right in Islam to have abortion at anytime, and she would not commit a sin for doing this,” said Egypt’s top Muslim cleric Mohammad Sayed Tantawi. Giving his blessing to the pro-abortion bill, Tantawi, who is the Grand Shaikh of Al Azhar, demanded that women given the right to abortion should have done their best to resist the rapist.

His fatwa (religious edict) has drawn opposition, though. “Endorsing the right to abortion in the cases of rape has several risks,” said Fawzia Abdul Sattar, a professor of criminal law. “In the first place, this bill deals with the aftermath of the crime, but not the crime itself,” she told Gulf News. “Legalising abortion for rape victims may well encourage immoral behaviour on the part of girls involved in illicit affairs, who would manipulate the code and claim they were raped.”

Abdul Sattar also warns that some ‘unscrupulous’ medical professionals could take advantage of the bill to perform illegal abortion on immoral women. “Rather, we need to promote ethics and religious piety in order to encounter the crime of rape,” she said.

Pro-life supporters like Mohammad Rafaat, a professor of Sharia (Islamic Law), believe that abortion for the raped women should be conducted only in the first days before a foetus forms. “There is a consensus among Muslim scholars that the abortion is not permissible 120 days after the conception occurs.” Rafaat urges the government to set up medical centres to treat victims immediately after they are raped. “This can help remove the effects of rape before the foetus is formed,” he said.

While supporting the right to abortion for raped women, Nehad Abul Qumsan, the chairperson of the Egyptian Centre for Women’s Rights, balks at the suggestion that abortion can be carried out at any time. “Many women give birth to premature babies in the seventh or eighth month after conception. Should they be allowed to have abortion at this time?” she asked. “I think the issue should be resolved from the beginning and abortion restricted to cases when the foetus is not formed,” she said.

——————————-

Yes, while ‘liberal’ Malaysia argues whether non-Muslims should be allowed the use of the word ‘Allah’ in reference to God, those in ‘liberal’ Cairo (where drinking liquor is not frowned upon and some smoke during the month of Ramadhan because they consider that smoking does not nullify the fast) are arguing whether abortion for raped women should be allowed in the event ‘immoral’ women use this ‘loophole’.

Yusuf Estes rightly said that he loves Islam but he hates Muslims. Many prominent converts to Islam in fact share his view. And I, who in a way ‘converted’ to Islam later in life though I was ‘officially’ born a Muslim, do not differ in this view. Who in heaven’s name, you may ask, is this dude Yusuf Estes? Is he someone important or an authority on Islam? Well, let me put to rest any anxiety you may harbour on who this dude is.

Yusuf Estes, PhD., is an American convert to Islam and Chairman of The Muslim Foundation International, an Islamic promotional and missionary organisation dedicated to spreading the message of Islam. He was brought up as a Protestant Christian and was a member of The Disciples of Christ.

From 1962 until 1990, Estes had a varied career as a music minister, preacher, and the owner of the Estes Piano and Organ Company. He was born in 1944 and lived in Texas and Florida. In 1991, Estes ‘discovered’ Islam and converted to Islam that same year along with his wife, father, and step-mother. He has since pursued Arabic language and Quranic studies in Egypt, Morocco and Turkey.

Estes has been regularly appearing on Peace TV, which is a 24/7 Islamic channel broadcasting to many countries around the globe. Estes’ Islamic activities include:

1) Volunteer Imam in a Texas military installation.

2) National U.S Chaplain for the Federal Bureau of Prisons since 1994.

3) Delegate to the United Nations Peace Summit for Religious Leaders in August of 2000.

4) University guest speaker.

5) Television preacher, syndicated television programs on satellite and cable networks.

6) Maintaining Islamic websites.

Estes is also well-known for his website motto which he regularly uses at the end of his speeches and interviews: ‘Visit Islamalways.com. We’re open 24 hours a day and there’s always plenty of free parking’.

Another prominent convert from the West sent me this e-mail which I thought I just have to share it with you. Unfortunately I do not have permission to identify the writer so the person will have to remain anonymous. But rest assured that this is a genuine message from a prominent convert whom I personally know and have met.

———————————–

I am writing you today as I have read ‘Fruit From A Poisonous Tree Will Be Poisonous‘ and wanted to give you my take on the matter.

You ask, how can a good religion make people bad?

To answer this question we have to understand what religion is. Religion is man-made. If we look at the early generations of Muslims, the first two Caliphs for instance, we see a pretty just system. But from there it goes downhill. We have Muslim fighting Muslim, rules and regulations implemented based on frail human understanding and often with less than pious motives, and we see Muslims seeking power rather than Imaan.

Islam is no different from Judaism and Christianity in this respect – they have all lost their way as ‘religions’. Faith is one of the most powerful motivators – it can lead men to murder, to corruption and to all sorts of horrific acts, and it is often used by tyrants to accomplish these things. But at the core of it is one human trait that we must always struggle to suppress and that is our desire to be better than others.

We all want notoriety and often ‘religion’ is used as a way of separating us, as making us think we are better than others, that we somehow are the ‘chosen’ ones. Look at the division within the Muslim Ummah and the fights over who is the ’saved sect’. Is there a man on earth who really knows for sure how to secure a sacred place in the hereafter?

I don’t think we can look at so-called religions for the answer. And with respect to the Muslims, we have to reject most of what we have been told as the rules and regulations have been handed down by dictators and rulers with their own agenda.

Islam has no Pope. As Muslims, our relationship with Allah is direct. Instead, we look to scholars and leaders as if they have some inside track to God. In Pakistan and Egypt, the Muslims kiss the hands of the Sheikhs, throw money at them and elevate their status. While surely we can gain knowledge from learned men, we need to filter out personal motives and validate so-called ‘knowledge’.

Travelling the world as I have, I can tell you that Islam in Malaysia and Turkey, for instance, is drastically different. Look at Saudi Arabia as another example. Women there are not allowed to drive. Yet, in Islam, women are equal and are not restricted from working or achieving skills! Many cultural things have found their way into the ‘truth’. How can that be when there is only one truth? I conclude that much ‘truth’ is man-made!

I have great compassion for your current situation having gone through a similar thing myself. The more I understand, the more I reject organised religion. It seems to me that we are focusing on man-made details while totally side-lining the source of faith.

The Quran is a book for all time, as are the other Holy Books. Yet Islam, today, is based more on Hadith and the life of the Prophet (pbuh), Fatwas, Islamic precedence, cultural traditions, etc., than on the Quran. Let’s face it – you can get a Fatwa to justify anything these days. If we find a ruling we don’t like, presto – we find a Sheikh who will endorse it. We really have to make sure that our own arrogance does not cloud our vision, and that is something I am constantly trying to keep in check.

In Malaysia, the situation is more complex as there are religious differences and a hefty amount of racism that magnifies the differences. You have so-called Muslim leaders using their position to condone their own behaviour and condemn those they choose. And they do this in the name of religion. But the obvious question is - where is the justice?

Allah said do not take the Christians and the Jews as (CLOSE) friends. This only makes sense – it’s logical. Ultimately, a different faith will eventually limit those relationships but that does not mean we must abuse Christians and Jews or that all of them are ‘evil’ – that goes against what Allah tells us in the Quran. Allah tells us to wage war against the OPPRESSORS within His LIMITS and to respect the People of the Book but somehow we let this get twisted by men with personal agendas.

Brother, as a Royal son of Selangor, I think you have your priorities upside down. You have worked tirelessly for your country and I know the country’s problems trouble you a great deal and you put a lot of effort into trying to instigate change. This, no doubt, is also partly expected of you. But you cannot condone bad Muslim behaviour because you are Muslim and you cannot turn a blind eye to Allah’s justice because of your patriotism.

The world map is changing even as we speak and there is no guarantee that Malaysia, as we know it, will even remain. We need to hold onto those things that pass the test of time like divine truth and justice even if it makes us unpopular. Working tirelessly at deciphering truth will reap much greater rewards for mankind and in the hereafter.

I no longer take what other Muslims tell me as truth. I too am at the stage of my life where I see hypocrisy everywhere and, for me, I don’t buy a lot of the interpretations of Islam as they are now presented. I come back to the Quran and the guiding principles and contemplate these at the source. That often puts me at odds with other Muslims but I really think we must each travel our own path to truth. Is this not the purpose of life?

Faith is an individual journey, not a ‘religion’, and Allah gave us a brain, a conscience and freewill to choose right from wrong. I think we must focus internally before we act externally and we must be cautious that we don’t get caught up in the politics of the day or ‘religious’ trends that will be long gone tomorrow. Faith is not a coat we put on and instantly we are pious. We must come to know that we know that we know. It’s a learning process.

There will never be peace without justice. We need to stand on the side of justice whether that is with the Muslims or non-Muslims, believers or unbelievers. We are so busy sweating the details that we often miss the real truth. We know deep down what is right as long as we let Allah be our guide, and once we are at peace with what is right, we need to act. Knowledge is useless unless we use it. We need to get our eye off men and onto Allah because with Allah we have hope, guidance and mercy and with man, our future is futile.

You are a very blessed individual brother. Allah tests those He loves – often relentlessly. It seems to me you have reached the point that Allah is requiring you to make a choice. Love of your country or love of Him. That does not mean that you will not be able to help your country nor does it mean that you have to stand with the so-called Muslims who are using Islam for their own purposes. Allah is asking you to put Him first. Our requirement is only to submit and leave the outcome to Him and let us never underestimate His capability. He’s got you covered!

That’s my two bits brother.

May Allah help and guide us. Ameen.

Wa salam.

By Janadas Devan

The Straits Times

DOES it matter what one calls God? Would he answer to Allah but not X, Yahweh but not Y, Brahman not Z? Would he be confused if Christians called him ‘Allah’, Hindus ‘Yahweh’ and Muslims ‘God’? Is he a linguistic chauvinist? Would he say: ‘Call me ‘God’ as in English, not Gott as in German; Theos as in Greek, not Deus as in Latin; Allah as in Arabic, not Alaha as in Aramaic or Syriac?’

These are, of course, inane questions. Idiotic humans might ask them; God, if he exists, cannot possibly abide such silly questions.

Neti, neti, the Buddha would say when pressed by over-eager disciples to describe the nature of ultimate reality - ‘not this, not this’.

Jews are reminded of the utter incapacity of language to encompass God by the Tetragrammaton - the four Hebrew consonants (Yod Heh Vau Heh) designating God, usually transliterated as YHWH in English. So sacrosanct is the name of God, observant Jews do not vocalise the Tetragrammaton, preferring instead to refer indirectly to Yahweh as Adonai (’my Lord’) or Elohim (’God’) or by means of euphemisms such as hash-Shem (’the Name’) or Shem Hameforash (’the ineffable Name.’).

Muslims are told by scripture that ‘God has ninety-nine names’ - among them ‘the King, the Holy One, the Perfect Peace, Granter of security, Giver of protection, the Omnipotent, the Overwhelming, ‘ and so on. ‘In congregate, (these names) affirm God’s supreme perfection and cultivate deeper understanding of his beauty and majesty,’ writes Dr Umar Faruq Abd-Allah, a Muslim scholar, in an article aptly titled One God, Many Names. They also affirm that the transcendent cannot possibly be fully encompassed by language.

Mystical literature illustrates the point. Here is a list of some phrases that one scholar culled from 17th century Christian mystical writings describing the experience of God: ‘Inflaming transubstantiations ; super-essential unions; abyssal liquefactions; deific confrications; meridian holocausts in a visceral and medullar penetrability.’

The extravagance of these phrases illustrates how every attempt to describe religious experience has to be, of necessity, ‘a raid on the inarticulate, ‘ as the poet T.S. Eliot put it. If God is ineffable - and all the religions are agreed that he is - a degree of linguistic modesty ought to figure among the prime religious virtues.

It is a lesson the religious, of all faiths, are apt to forget. Consider, for instance, how Reverend Pat Robertson, the American evangelist, spoke once of the names of God. Speaking of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, he said: The conflict is about ‘whether Hubal, the moon god of Mecca known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah, God of the Bible, is supreme.’

Almost every word in that statement is nonsense. Firstly, Hubal was a pre-Islamic pagan god that Prophet Muhammad rejected. Secondly, ‘Jehovah’ is not a name that appears anywhere in the Jewish Bible. It is an English mistransliteration of the Jewish Tetragrammaton, YHWH. Most scholars now believe the Tetragrammaton is better vocalised in English as ‘Yahweh’. And thirdly, ‘Allah’, far from being un-Christian, is related to the word that Jesus Christ himself - who spoke Aramaic, let us not forget, not English, Greek or Latin - would have used to refer to God: Elah or Alah.

Which brings us to the nonsense uttered on the other side - by the Muslim Pat Robertsons of Malaysia. Christians, they have ruled, cannot use ‘Allah’ to refer to God in Malay translations of the Bible. The word is unique to Islam, they insist. It would confuse Muslims - and presumably God too - if Christians used the same word. These assertions make no sense whatsoever - culturally, historically and linguistically.

A section of my family on my mother’s side are Chitti Melakas, the Indian version of Baba Chinese. For as long as I can remember, they have always referred to God, when speaking in Malay, as Tuan Allah or ‘Lord God’, though they are Hindus.

They are not the only ones. To this day, hundreds of thousands of Arab Christians call God ‘Allah’. Arabic-speaking Jews do the same. There is no indication Arabic-speaking Muslims have been confused as a result.

Arab scholars and Imams would know what linguists have established beyond a shadow of doubt: The words for ‘God’ in Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic, all Semitic languages, are so closely related as to be virtually indistinguishable. The Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - may have different conceptions of God, but etymologically- speaking, they all call God by the same name.

The Arabic Allah shares the same root as the Hebrew Elohim and the Aramaic Alaha. Elohim derives from eloh (Hebrew for ‘God’), Alaha is an emphatic form of alah (Aramaic for ‘God’), and Allah is linked to ilah (Arabic for ‘God’).

‘All three of these Semitic words for ‘God’ - eloh, alah and ilah - are etymologically equivalent,’ as Dr Abd-Allah notes. ‘The slight modifications between them reflect different pronunciations conforming to the historical pattern of morphological shifts in each tongue.’

How would it be possible to say Christians cannot say ‘Allah’ when Christ himself - who walked the face of the Earth six centuries before Prophet Muhammad did, and is accepted by Muslims as a prophet - would have said Alah, Elah or Alaha?

There are reasons why the Quran calls Jews and Christians ahl al-kitab - ‘People of the Book’. They share the same religious texts as Muslims; they share similar revelations; and the Semitic languages they spoke are more closely linked than are Sanskrit, Latin, English and the other Indo-European languages.

There are two ways in which this linguistically meaningless argument in Malaysia may be resolved.

One, Malaysia’s Islamic authorities might consider what word for ‘God’ the Prophet would have used when speaking to his wife’s cousin Waraqa ibn Nawfal, a Christian. For two years after he first received God’s revelations, the Prophet spoke of his experiences to nobody other than his wife Khadija and her cousin.

Would he have told his Christian relative: No you can’t say ‘Allah’; say ‘Tuan’ or ‘God’ or ‘Deus’?

If the Malaysian authorities can confirm this could not possibly have been the case, then the matter might be closed: All Christians, like the Prophet’s relative, may be allowed to say ‘Allah’.

But if the authorities still insist that what was admissible for the Prophet’s relative should be inadmissible now, for whatever reason, then they might consider another option. Denied the right to use ‘Allah’, Christian Malaysians may be allowed to go back to their linguistic roots, and use the Aramaic Alah or Alaha as Christ would have.

One letter ‘l’ less or one syllable ‘a’ more than ‘Allah’ - that should be enough to prevent the impossible and non-existent confusion of Islam and Christianity in Malaysia.