Categories
Environment Humor

[1482] Of religious conservatives still do not believe in carbon dioxide

Something to start off the day (via):

WASHINGTON—In an unexpected reversal that environmentalists and scientists worldwide are calling groundbreaking, President George W. Bush, for the first time in his political career, openly admitted to the existence of carbon dioxide following the release of the new U.N. Global Environment Outlook this October.

[…]

Because carbon dioxide, which was first described by 17th-century Flemish physician Jan Baptista van Helmont as a gas he referred to as “spiritus silvestre,” has long been denied by the Bush administration, the president’s speech was widely hailed as a victory for advocates of empirically established scientific fact.

[…]

Many of those whom Bush has long considered to be his most loyal followers, however, have expressed disappointment with the development.

“There is nothing about any ‘carbon dioxide’ in the Bible,” said Rev. Luke Hatfield of Christchurch Ministries in Topeka, KS. “What’s next? Claims that so-called ‘fossil’ fuels come from mythical creatures like dinosaurs? This has been a sad step backward for our nation.” [Bush Acknowledges Existence Of Carbon Dioxide. The Onion. December 21 2007]

Categories
Society

[1480] Of god, God, allah, Allah, tuhan and Tuhan

By extension of free speech, I am quite indifferent to the usage of the noun “Allah” by Christian groups[1] and I frown at threats issued by the government partial to conservative Muslims to the Christian groups to desist from using the noun “Allah” in local Christian literature. This issue is not new and has been popping now and then. Yet, it has not been resolved and I think it is because the local Christians do not completely comprehend the typical conservative Muslim Malaysians’ objection to the usage of the noun “Allah” by Christian groups. I believe a review of basic grammar would significantly clear the air surrounding this issue and explain why there is a conflict in the first place.

Language may not be my forte but at least I know enough of the differences between proper and common nouns. In my humble opinion, at the center of the controversy is an unstated confusion or assumption over Malay proper and common nouns regarding god.

Before I move on, I would like readers to give special attention to capitalization. I use it to differentiate between proper and common nouns. Now that that is clear, let us move on at a measured pace.

In Arabic, at least as I understand it, “allah” comes in form of proper or common noun, depending on usage. Because of the noun ability to become a common noun in Arabic, everybody could use the noun “allah” to refer to any kind of god.

In Malay however, “Allah” is a proper noun with specific reference to Islamic God and not a common noun. The Malay noun ”Allah” enjoys a sense of exclusiveness; it refers to the Islamic god as it has been, to the best of my knowledge, until recently.

At the same time, the Arabic noun “allah” is not quite similar to the Malay noun “Allah“. This is a crucial point, at least, again, from what I understand through the reaction of conservative Muslims, or those that sympathize with that groups. The noun underwent an evolution during its importation from the Arabic to the Malay language centuries ago; it lost its ability to become a common noun in Malay during the process. That however does not mean the Malay language does not have a word to describe whatever the Arabic noun “allah” tries to describe. The Malay language has the noun “tuhan“; its usage is exactly similar to the Arabic noun “allah” within the context we are interested in. “Tuhan” unambiguously means god in both proper and common forms.

From conservative Muslims’ point of view, the Christian groups in Malaysia might be mistranslating the word “God” into “Allah” instead of “Tuhan“, by accident or on purpose. In fact, I may even sympathize with the Muslim groups since I am in the opinion that there is a confusion between the Arabic noun “allah” and Malay noun “Allah“.

In Indonesian, such translation may be acceptable but it has to be noted that Malay and Indonesian languages have gone through different paths from a common origin. Whatever true in the Indonesian language is not necessarily true in the Malay language spoken in Malaysia, and vice versa.

On the surface, this situation is silly and I really do not know why I care to make clarification on behalf of religious believers to another. Well, maybe, probably because it is annoying to see how both types of individuals — both Christians and Muslims — that care to raise their voices on the matter refuse to least comprehend what the conflict is all about before jumping into the fight, indulging in polemics rather than understanding. This tendency is affecting other people that simply wish to watch the days pass by peacefully without shouting matches and flying vases.

Underneath these layers of nouns, however is not something so superficial.

There seems to be an evangelical competition between Christianity and Islam for Malay-speaking non-Christians or non-Muslims. Like it or not, Arabic terms with Islamic connotations have been absorbed into Malay with ease. For Christian preachers, it may be easier for them to use these Arabic terms to convert Malay-speaking non-Christians into Christianity. It is easier to deliver a message in terms familiar to somebody. Muslims preachers however would like to have exclusive use of these words which have been traditionally utilized locally to refer to Islamic ideas. On top of that, there are Muslims would like to keep Islam clearly separated and differentiated from any other religion.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: A Catholic weekly newspaper in Malaysia has been told to drop the use of the word “Allah” in its Malay language section if it wants to renew its publishing permit, a senior government official said Friday.

The Herald, the organ of Malaysia’s Catholic Church, has translated the word God as “Allah” but it is erroneous because Allah refers to the Muslim God, said Che Din Yusoff, a senior official at the Internal Security Ministry’s publications control unit. [Malaysian Catholic weekly told to drop use of ‘Allah’ in order to renew publishing permit. AP via IHT. December 21 2007]

Categories
Liberty Society

[1379] Of superficiality is inferior to sincerity

I would have almost forgotten that religious police are patrolling the streets of Malaysia, trying to catch those that abstain from fasting during the month of Ramadan, if I had not caught a piece of news report stating so yesterday. In my mind, there is no confusion that the religious police forget that it is sincerity that matters, not coercion.

This is perhaps but a symptom of how for the Muslim society in Malaysia, specifically the religious conservatives, imposition of their moral values on others has become a favorite pastime instead of self-improvement. Several other issues that lead to the same conclusion are apostasy and moral policing.

Concerning cases of religious freedom in particular, religious conservatives are more interested in forcefully preventing a person from choosing his or her religion rather than understanding why the person is leaving Islam. Indeed, when debates on Lina Joy dominated public domain, some religious conservatives as well as other sympathizers leaned on superficial factor as the main issue — procedure — whereas those that see it pass skin deep know full well that it is about freewill; liberty; freedom.

All this portrays Islam in a bad light to outsiders. Thanks to religious conservatives, many outsiders see the religion as stressing on appearance rather than appealing to the heart. I have always in the opinion that religion is about the inner self, the content of a book, not its cover. This is why freewill is so crucial; sincerity and freewill come together. Without freewill, there can be no sincerity; an unfree conscience knows no sincerity. What is the point of having Muslims that are unwilling to be Muslims? What is the point of forcing somebody to do religious biddings? Looking the issues through Islamic tradition, would the supreme being not know what is the truth?

Religious conservatives fail to understand this. For this reason, religious conservatives will always be ridiculed for their preference for the superficial.

Categories
Liberty

[1345] Of MCCBCHS and free speech

Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) wanted what?

On the front page on Tuesday, the daily printed a picture of Jesus Christ holding a cigarette in one hand and a canned drink (which looked like beer) in the other with the quote: “If a person repents his mistakes, heaven awaits him.”

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism has urged the authorities to take action against the paper for hurting the feelings of the Christian community in the country. [Tamil daily says sorry over Jesus pic. The Star. August 23 2007]

If it wants to criticize the paper, go ahead but for MCCBCHS to urge the authority to take action against the paper is for it to forfeit its moral authority to advocate freedom. At the moment, it might be the case that MCCBCHS is only interested in freedom whenever it is in their convenience. That does not differ from the position of religious conservative Muslims.

The picture however was published by mistake:

S.M. Periasamy, general manager of the Tamil-language Makkal Osai, told The Associated Press that the daily published the controversial photo by mistake. [Malaysian paper apologizes for picture of Jesus holding cigarette. International Herald Tribune. August 23 2007]

If it is a genuine mistake, it is up to the paper itself to punish the responsible staff.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1344] Of fret not of Abdullah Gul

Abdullah Gul is almost certain to be the next President of Turkey. Gul’s Islamist past however is causing great consternation among Turkish secularists. They had rallied impressive public dissent that ultimately failed in the face of democracy. The defeat has further caused the secularists distress. I however believe Turkish secularists are worrying too much and harping on ridiculous issues. They are several reasons why that is so.

First and foremost is Turkey’s eagerness to join the European Union. While there are opposition to Turkey’s accession into the regional grouping, there are those that would look forward to sit together with Turkey as equal in the EU. The fact that Turkey is a secular country is one of few factors that enable such support to exist. As long as Turkey aspires to become part of EU, there is a strong reason to believe that Gul, a firm EU supporter, will work to keep Turkey secular.

Gul himself has been instrumental in booting fundamentalists and attracting moderates, as mentioned by an article at The Economist:

Mr Gul says that, as president, he will reach out to all Turks and that he will remain loyal to the secular tenets of the constitution. His four years as foreign minister leave little room for doubt. He was the driving force behind the many reforms that persuaded European Union leaders to open long delayed membership talks with Turkey in 2005. And it was Mr Gul who engineered the defection of fellow moderates from the overtly Islamist Welfare Party which was bullied out of office by the generals in 1997. [Ready to take office. The Economist. August 21 2007]

This shows that Gul is flexible and accommodating. Furthermore, Gul has promised his critics that he will adhere to the tenets of Turkish secularism:

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has pledged to protect and strengthen the country’s secular principles if he succeeds in a fresh presidential bid. [Turkey’s Gul vows secular agenda. BBC News. August 14 2007]

While I do not subscribe to Turkish secularism due to its statism as well as illiberalness, that should be of some value and comfort to local secularists.

And then, there is issue surrounding the attire of Abdullah Gul’s wife. Turkish secularists are harping at the fact the she wears Islamic headscarf but surely, such issue is too silly to be a major reason why Gul should not be the President of Turkey. While Turkey does have a law against the wearing of such headscarf at civic spaces, it is not Gul himself that is wearing that headscarf. What the secularists are doing is really a logical fallacy: guilt by association. Most of all, I fail to see how his wife’s attire could affect his ability to function as the President of Turkey.

What the secularists should do now is to fully support Turkey’s accession into the EU. Through this, the secularists could hold AKP, the party which Gul is a member, at ransom.

And for many liberals like me, Turkish accession into EU is the ticket to liberalize Turkey away from its narrow nationalistic sentiment. AKP, despite being cited as an Islamist party, is already embarking into that direction. On top of that, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has tried hard to throw away its Islamist image, favoring a more centrist one instead. Under him, AKP has been concentrating on democratic and economic reform rather than on suffocating Islamist agenda.

In any case, AKP has marched forward farther towards liberalism than any secularist party in Turkey had. Therefore, if I were a Turk, I would be happy with AKP; that is especially so with a healthly economy.