Friday, October 25, 2013

The word Allah that has been used since pagan times before Islam came into being!

Much ado about nothing


The issue here is: who has the right over the name Allah? Is it exclusive to Muslims or can Christians also share this name? And since we are using logic and applying common sense to argue this case (as many have done, Tommy Thomas included) then we need to first of all determine the existence of the name, which we will have to fall back on Genesis to do that.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
The court ruling forbidding Christians from using the Allah word is still a hot issue. Many religious and legal experts have given their expert opinion on the matter. You can read one such opinion by constitution lawyer Tommy Thomas HERE.  
I must admit that most opinions are rather logical and make a lot of sense. But then we assume that matters of religion are logical and make a lot of sense. If not then you are attempting to use logic and talk sense in a matter that defies logic and does not make sense.
Some of what the religious and legal experts argue is as follows:
1. Allah was the name of God since long before the coming of Islam. In fact, Allah was the name of the pagan God of Mekah. Hence Islam does not ‘own’ the name ‘Allah’ and, in fact, actually ‘stole’ that name from the pagans of pre-Islamic Mekah.
2. The Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians also use Allah as the name of God until today. Hence not only Arabic-speaking Muslims use Allah as the name of God (the Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians do as well) and hence, also, Allah is not exclusive to only the Arabic-speaking Muslims
3. The Malay-speaking Christians of East Malaysia have been using Allah as the name of God since long before Sabah and Sarawak became part of Malaysia and this has never been a problem until now. So why is it a problem only now?
4. Under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, the practitioners of the non-Islamic faiths are free to practice their religion without any restrictions and interference. So, to restrict what the non-Muslims can and cannot do (such as what to call God) is a violation of the Constitution.
Those are just some of the arguments and, as I said, are good arguments on top of that. They are very logical and make a lot of sense. But that, of course, would be if logic can be applied to religion and if common sense can prevail in matters of religion. If not then your arguments will get demolished.
The Muslim mind is a very complex animal to comprehend. That is why many governments walk on eggshells when dealing with the Muslims, even in the more ‘progressive’ west. You never know when you might accidentally say or do the wrong thing to upset the Muslims.
You may inadvertently say or do something that would be viewed as an insult to Islam or a challenge (cabaran) to the Muslims. And Muslims, when challenged, would rise to the challenge and respond accordingly -- most times with a physical and violent response.
Muslims would defend their actions by saying that Islam is the most misunderstood religion. That may be partly true. But then how do you understand Islam? That is the crux of the matter and the problem with most people not being able to understand Islam is because Muslims themselves do not understand Islam. So how can non-Muslims attempt to understand Islam when Muslims themselves do not?
Islam is one of the three branches of the Abrahamic faiths. This means Islam’s roots are from the beliefs and teachings of Abraham. And the other two and earlier branches of the Abrahamic faiths is Judeo-Christianity. As I have said before, which many Muslims are not happy with, is that Abraham’s belief and teachings is Version 1.0 while Judaism, Christianity and Islam are Versions 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 respectively.
Hence, to understand Islam you must first fall back on Judaism and understand Judaism before attempting to understand Christianity and Islam (the two branches of the Abrahamic faiths that are fighting over ownership of the word ‘Allah’).
How did the Abrahamic faiths first emerge? To know that you must read Genesis because Genesis explains how humankind first came about and, therefore, why we are here today and why most of us believe that there is a God that created us (if not then we will not be here) and that the name of this God is Allah (in Arabic and Bahasa Malaysia, even for Christians).
Genesis explains that God created Adam from mud and then, later, created Eve from Adam’s rib. Genesis then tells us that Adam and Eve had three sons (Cain, Abel and Seth). Genesis also tells us that Adam and Eve also had a few daughters but we are not told their names or the number of daughters that they had.
Those of the Abrahamic faiths believe that Adam and Eve must have had daughters (even though Genesis is vague about who they are) or else how could we be here? Adam’s and Eve’s sons must have married their sisters for us to be born. But Genesis is silent on these details other than giving us details about the three sons and their names.
Ten generations later, Noah was born through the lineage of Adam’s and Eve’s third son, Seth. Then the Great Flood came and everyone got wiped out other than Noah and his immediate family. Hence the world started afresh with Noah and his family.
Genesis, however, is silent on so many details. We are just told that all this (the creation of humankind) happened around 6,000 years ago. Hence there were no humans before 6,000 years ago. But scientists and archaeologists have discovered evidence of advanced settlements that existed 12,000 years ago (just after the Ice Age) that engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry. These were not nomads or hunter-gatherers but communities that were very advanced and had a system of government.
Basically, these were the post-Ice Age communities. Hence we can assume that all these advanced activities stopped during the Ice Age -- for obvious reasons (the entire world was covered with ice).
Then they discovered evidence of pre-Ice Age communities that were as advanced as those of the post-Ice Age era. And these communities date 600,000 years ago. Hence humankind was quite advanced 600,000 years ago, and then time stood still for 100,000 years when ice enveloped the world, and then humankind continued after that. So how could humankind have started just 6,000 years ago when evidence shows an advanced human race as long as 600,000 years ago?
We are told that the world went through the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, the Ice Age, and so on. The Ice Age of about 110,000 years ago wiped out a lot of creations but humankind continued and survived for a hundred thousand years and then sprang back with global warming when earth, again, became conducive to agriculture and animal husbandry 12,000 years ago.
But all this was supposed to have happened before the creation of humankind 6,000 years ago. We must also remember that Noah was supposed to have lived in the Mesopotamia region around the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. It does show that a great flood did occur around that region but if you were to dig deep enough, below the evidence of the flood, you will find evidence of earlier and more advanced societies that go back tens of thousands of years.
Hence, did the whole world become flooded, as what Genesis tells us, or was it only that small area of 400 miles by 100 miles that was flooded? The stories in Genesis contradict the evidence that is being revealed since the 1800s and 1900s. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered more than 2,000 years after Genesis tells a different story. One extremely glaring contradiction is that the early Abrahamic faith, before the time of Moses or Jesus, believed not in One God (Allah) but in many Gods.
And this is the fundamental belief or doctrine of the Abrahamic faiths -- that there is only One God and that the name of this God is Allah. But the Dead Sea Scrolls does not support this doctrine.
One more point I wish to make is the argument about freedom of choice (which is what the Federal Constitution upholds). Many (especially non-Muslims) always quote this verse of the Quran that says there is no compulsion in religion.
If this is true then why did God (or Allah) bring about the Great Flood (as related in Genesis) to wipe out the entire world except for Noah and his immediate family? Does God not allow freedom of choice? And if freedom of choice is allowed why did God wipe out all those who chose not to follow Noah?
God wiped out the whole population because the fallen angels have interbred with mankind or 'womankind'  thus not only polluted the human race but since they are of huge stature they will eventually overwhelmed the normal or smaller sized race.
In any case God cannot allow an abnormal race to exist alongside his creation.   


Hence, according to Genesis, freedom of choice is not allowed. In fact, the Greek word for ‘choice’ is ‘heresy’ (hairesis: αἵρεσις) -- or ‘shirik’ in Islam. Heresy or shirik is a great sin for both Christianity and Islam. In days gone by, Christians and Muslims who commit heresy or shirik were put to death.
Hence both Christianity and Islam do not believe in freedom of choice. Freedom of choice (heresy or shirik) is a crime and is punishable by death.
So, is it logical and does it make sense to apply logic and use common sense to argue matters of religion such as whether Christians, too, have a legal and constitutional right to use Allah as the name of God? To do that we must first dissect the story in Genesis regarding the creation of humankind and that a God called Allah created humankind. And if that story is wrong (that the first man was Adam and the first woman was Eve and that they were created 6,000 year ago) then the entire Genesis is wrong.
And it is important to first determine whether Genesis is right or wrong because the very foundation of the three Abrahamic faiths is tied to Genesis. If Genesis is wrong then Judaism, Christianity and Islam are equally wrong about when and how humankind first came about and about this Creator called Allah.
The issue here is: who has the right over the name Allah? Is it exclusive to Muslims or can Christians also share this name? And since we are using logic and applying common sense to argue this case (as many have done, Tommy Thomas included) then we need to first of all determine the existence of the name, which we will have to fall back on Genesis to do that.
And if we do that (we fall back on Genesis) then our entire argument would get demolished because Genesis is fundamentally wrong about the history of humankind and hence about humankind’s Creator as well (never mind whether Christians can or cannot use Allah as the name of this Creator).
And with that, your honour, I rest my case.

No comments: