A flawed judgment leaves Umno in a pickle
Odin TajuePublished: Oct 22, 2013 2:40 PM | Updated: Oct 22, 2013 2:43 PM
The Allah-in-The-Herald case is one of considerable import, one that affects some 2.6 million Christians and presumably 16+ million Muslims in Malaysia.
When you are about to adjudicate on such a major issue, one expects you to conduct beforehand a proper research on matters alien to you in order for you to be adequately, appropriately equipped.
But it is clearer than crystal that Justice Mohamed Apandi Ali has not done this.
The essence of paragraph 51 of his judgment points to an enquiry conducted so quickly that the information gleaned is misleading instead of enlightening.
For your convenience, paragraph 51 is reproduced immediately below
51. For completeness, I note that from a quick research on the history of the language of the Bible, it is clear that the word ‘Allah’ does not appear even once as the name of God or even of a man in the Hebrew Scriptures. The name ‘Allah’ does not appear, even once in either the Old or New Testaments. There is no such word at all in the Greek New Testament. In the Bible world, God has always been known as Yahweh, or by the contraction Yah. That being the historical fact it can be concluded that the word or name ‘Allah’ is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity, in particular that of the Roman Catholic Church.
1. The word ‘Allah' would not be found in any of the books mentioned, unless they are made in Arabic and in certain languages used in these parts, for the utterly simple reason that they were initially compiled to cater to peoples who spoke Hebrew (ca 900BC), Greek (ca 150BC till 200AD), Latin (380AD) and Old English, Middle English and Early Modern English (ca 7th Century till 1611AD).
There was no need to use any Arabic words in those compilations to refer to God, as there are appropriate ones in the languages used. Why has the judge chosen not to look into the Arabic version of the Holy Bible?
2. The differentiation of the ‘Hebrew Scriptures’ from the Old Testament clearly illustrates hardly any knowledge as to the nature or types of the two compilations of holy texts.
The ‘Hebrew Scriptures’, which are also known as the Hebrew Bible, and the Old Testament refer to the same thing.
3. Compiling of the scriptures found in the Hebrew Bible began before 900BC, on the order of King Solomon.
This compilation was translated into Greek and was called Septuagint. The translation was completed in around 150BC.
The New Testament and the Greek New Testament are the same, except that the latter is written in Koine Greek, in the first and second centuries after Jesus’ death.
In 380AD, the Old Testament and the New Testament were translated into Latin, and the whole was called Vulgate, the forerunner of the present Holy Bible.
4. Now we refer to the statement In the Bible world, God has always been known as Yahweh, or by the contraction Yah.
In the Holy Bible made in Arabic, the word ‘Allah’ and not ‘Yahweh’ nor ‘Yah’ is used to refer to God.
In the Holy Bible made in English, the word ‘God’ (beside ‘Lord’ and ‘Lord God’) and not ‘Yahweh’ nor ‘Yah’ is used to refer to Him.
In the Holy Bible made in a few of the languages spoken in these parts, the word ‘Allah’ (besides ‘Allah Taala’, ‘Tuhan’ and ‘Tuhan Allah’) and not ‘Yahweh’ nor ‘Yah’ is used to refer to Him. These Bibles were made long before Umno and never mind Malaysia came into existence.
It is obvious to us that the judge has poked - shallowly, of course - into a few wrong places.
What exactly ‘Yahweh’ is
The Hebrews did not want to mention the name of God, in the fear that in they doing so it might be profaned. Thus they devised a sacred tetragrammaton consisting of four consonants to denote Him. You could add vowels to the consonants.
‘Yahweh’ is not a name (proper noun) as such. It is simply one of the forms of the sacred tetragrammaton. The other forms are Yah, Yahu, YHWH (JHVH) and Yo. Incidentally, the misinterpretation of JHVH gave rise to ‘Jehovah’.
The last sentence in paragraph 51 shows that the judge is either incapable of writing in a manner to make for clarity or he has intentionally obfuscated meaning.
The sentence reads: That being the historical fact it can be concluded that the word or name ‘Allah’ is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity, in particular that of the Roman Catholic Church.
We shall ignore the fact that the judge’s fact is not fact but falsity. We shall also ignore that he is clearly totally ill-qualified to determine what is or what is not integral to Christianity.
We shall, instead, ask this. If something is not integral to Christianity, then nor is it to the Roman Catholic Church as the Church is part of Christianity, and so what purpose does the phrase ‘in particular that of the Roman Catholic Church’ serve or what is it supposed to mean?
We also ask this. Are you saying that ‘Allah’ may not be used by Christianity as a whole or only by the Roman Catholic Church? and Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church may not use the word in any way spoken or written? or Do you mean that the Church may not use the word only in its publication called The Herald?
Textual diarrhoea, id est, verbosity, is acceptable if it forestalls any doubts; it is unacceptable if it adds no information; it is downright condemnable if it confuses.
In paragraph 52, the implied pronouncement is that Yahweh and Allah are two different deities and, as such, Christians may not use the latter word. This leads us to wonder why these two supposedly different deities created this same universe and all it contains and used to contain such as the famous couple Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc.
All this and the fact that several parties learned in matters of law have pointed out the highly unusual manner in which the judges concerned in this farce have interpreted certain Articles in the federal constitution to suit their pronouncements point to a seriously flawed judgment, to perversion of justice.
For more than a century even before the existence of Malaysia, Christians in the country have been using the word ‘Allah’ without any problems. Only yesterday, so to speak, Umno manufactured excuses - very lame ones, at that - to prohibit them from doing so. And now Umno is in a pickle, while the judges concerned strike us as anything but learned, and everyone else is confused.
How now?
When you are about to adjudicate on such a major issue, one expects you to conduct beforehand a proper research on matters alien to you in order for you to be adequately, appropriately equipped.
But it is clearer than crystal that Justice Mohamed Apandi Ali has not done this.
The essence of paragraph 51 of his judgment points to an enquiry conducted so quickly that the information gleaned is misleading instead of enlightening.
For your convenience, paragraph 51 is reproduced immediately below
51. For completeness, I note that from a quick research on the history of the language of the Bible, it is clear that the word ‘Allah’ does not appear even once as the name of God or even of a man in the Hebrew Scriptures. The name ‘Allah’ does not appear, even once in either the Old or New Testaments. There is no such word at all in the Greek New Testament. In the Bible world, God has always been known as Yahweh, or by the contraction Yah. That being the historical fact it can be concluded that the word or name ‘Allah’ is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity, in particular that of the Roman Catholic Church.
1. The word ‘Allah' would not be found in any of the books mentioned, unless they are made in Arabic and in certain languages used in these parts, for the utterly simple reason that they were initially compiled to cater to peoples who spoke Hebrew (ca 900BC), Greek (ca 150BC till 200AD), Latin (380AD) and Old English, Middle English and Early Modern English (ca 7th Century till 1611AD).
There was no need to use any Arabic words in those compilations to refer to God, as there are appropriate ones in the languages used. Why has the judge chosen not to look into the Arabic version of the Holy Bible?
2. The differentiation of the ‘Hebrew Scriptures’ from the Old Testament clearly illustrates hardly any knowledge as to the nature or types of the two compilations of holy texts.
The ‘Hebrew Scriptures’, which are also known as the Hebrew Bible, and the Old Testament refer to the same thing.
3. Compiling of the scriptures found in the Hebrew Bible began before 900BC, on the order of King Solomon.
This compilation was translated into Greek and was called Septuagint. The translation was completed in around 150BC.
The New Testament and the Greek New Testament are the same, except that the latter is written in Koine Greek, in the first and second centuries after Jesus’ death.
In 380AD, the Old Testament and the New Testament were translated into Latin, and the whole was called Vulgate, the forerunner of the present Holy Bible.
4. Now we refer to the statement In the Bible world, God has always been known as Yahweh, or by the contraction Yah.
In the Holy Bible made in Arabic, the word ‘Allah’ and not ‘Yahweh’ nor ‘Yah’ is used to refer to God.
In the Holy Bible made in English, the word ‘God’ (beside ‘Lord’ and ‘Lord God’) and not ‘Yahweh’ nor ‘Yah’ is used to refer to Him.
In the Holy Bible made in a few of the languages spoken in these parts, the word ‘Allah’ (besides ‘Allah Taala’, ‘Tuhan’ and ‘Tuhan Allah’) and not ‘Yahweh’ nor ‘Yah’ is used to refer to Him. These Bibles were made long before Umno and never mind Malaysia came into existence.
It is obvious to us that the judge has poked - shallowly, of course - into a few wrong places.
What exactly ‘Yahweh’ is
The Hebrews did not want to mention the name of God, in the fear that in they doing so it might be profaned. Thus they devised a sacred tetragrammaton consisting of four consonants to denote Him. You could add vowels to the consonants.
‘Yahweh’ is not a name (proper noun) as such. It is simply one of the forms of the sacred tetragrammaton. The other forms are Yah, Yahu, YHWH (JHVH) and Yo. Incidentally, the misinterpretation of JHVH gave rise to ‘Jehovah’.
The last sentence in paragraph 51 shows that the judge is either incapable of writing in a manner to make for clarity or he has intentionally obfuscated meaning.
The sentence reads: That being the historical fact it can be concluded that the word or name ‘Allah’ is not an integral part of the faith and practice of Christianity, in particular that of the Roman Catholic Church.
We shall ignore the fact that the judge’s fact is not fact but falsity. We shall also ignore that he is clearly totally ill-qualified to determine what is or what is not integral to Christianity.
We shall, instead, ask this. If something is not integral to Christianity, then nor is it to the Roman Catholic Church as the Church is part of Christianity, and so what purpose does the phrase ‘in particular that of the Roman Catholic Church’ serve or what is it supposed to mean?
We also ask this. Are you saying that ‘Allah’ may not be used by Christianity as a whole or only by the Roman Catholic Church? and Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church may not use the word in any way spoken or written? or Do you mean that the Church may not use the word only in its publication called The Herald?
Textual diarrhoea, id est, verbosity, is acceptable if it forestalls any doubts; it is unacceptable if it adds no information; it is downright condemnable if it confuses.
In paragraph 52, the implied pronouncement is that Yahweh and Allah are two different deities and, as such, Christians may not use the latter word. This leads us to wonder why these two supposedly different deities created this same universe and all it contains and used to contain such as the famous couple Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, etc.
All this and the fact that several parties learned in matters of law have pointed out the highly unusual manner in which the judges concerned in this farce have interpreted certain Articles in the federal constitution to suit their pronouncements point to a seriously flawed judgment, to perversion of justice.
For more than a century even before the existence of Malaysia, Christians in the country have been using the word ‘Allah’ without any problems. Only yesterday, so to speak, Umno manufactured excuses - very lame ones, at that - to prohibit them from doing so. And now Umno is in a pickle, while the judges concerned strike us as anything but learned, and everyone else is confused.
How now?
View Comments0