Understanding the ‘Allah’ controversy

IKIM VIEWS
By DR MOHD ZAIDI ISMAIL,
Senior/ Fellow Director, IKIM

The established and verified position of Muslims has always been that the term ‘Allah’ is
not an Arabic derivative but is itself revealed by The One and Only God to humankind
through His chosen messengers.

BY NOW, Malaysians are generally aware that there have been disputes between the Muslims
and the Christians pertaining to the use of the term “Allah” by the latter.

Unfortunately, however, it seems that of the whole controversy most Malaysians can be sure only
of that much. The rest, judging from the many viewpoints and contentions raised thus far, seems
convoluted and confused to them.

It is pretty clear that the issue revolves around the use of the term “Allah,” as it has been
understood and used by the Malays in particular to translate the word “God,” as used particularly
in the Bible and as understood by the Christians.

The issue as such pertains to the problem of correct translation and is thus primarily an issue of
the correct usage of a language – in this case, the Malay language in relation to the English
language and, as Islam is also central to the discussion, the Arabic language.

Comes then the next question: What kind of a term is the word “Allah,” on the one hand, and the
word “God” as used in English in relation to the Bible on the other hand?

It is obvious that with regard to the way the Malays have been using the term “Allah” in
accordance with what Islam has taught them, it is the “proper name” for the one and only god
with all the names and attributes necessary and proper for him and, just like any other proper
name, it cannot be translated but rather should be basically maintained as such.

Hence, the sentence “Mr Bush used to be the President of the United States of America,” in
correct Malay translation, is very likely to be “Encik Bush pernah menjadi Presiden Amerika
Syarikat” and not “Encik Belukar pernah menjadi Presiden Amerika Syarikat”.

On that ground, therefore, one is fully justified to query whether it is correct to translate the
respective proper name in the original Bible, if there is any, as “Allah”, let alone if the name
concerned is actually merely an appellative noun or a title or, worse still, a general noun.

Furthermore, the very fact that the Christians themselves have not till today reached a
consensus as to how to use the term “Allah,” whether in their many translations and versions of
the Bible or in their general usage of it, simply demonstrates how contentious and controversial
such a usage – particularly pertaining to God’s proper name – has been among them, totally
unlike the Muslims who, regardless of sects, schools, race or language, have been unanimous in
holding that “Allah” is His Proper Name.
Regarding “Allah” as a proper name, one may further ask whether or not it is derived from any
other more basic Arabic word.

Here, notwithstanding certain views which did not survive the rigorous intellectual tests
throughout Islamic religious and intellectual history, the established and verified position of the
Muslims has always been that the term is not an Arabic derivative but is itself revealed by The
One and Only God to humankind through His chosen messengers, Who knows Himself what His
Name truly is and without Whom so revealing, man would still be in the dark as to how to
correctly call and address Him.

It is therefore pertinent here that one be fully cognizant of the criteria for a term or word to qualify
as a proper name, particularly when it concerns the fundamentals of a religion, especially God:

(1) The term needs to be clearly stated in the primary source of the respective religion (for
example, the Quran and the Prophetic sayings in the case of Islam and with regard to the term
“Allah”);

(2) It does not entertain being plural, both in sense and in reference, in connotation as well as in
denotation (unlike “gods,” for instance);

(3) It has been used as such by all the adherents of the religion concerned (for example, the
Muslims, in regard to the term “Allah”);

(4) It is exclusive to God and never others.

As to the argument that the term “Allah” had been used even before the revelation of the Quran
and the dawn of Islam, the aforementioned position of the Muslims as it is is not necessarily
opposed to such a contention.

Yet, since the contention is primarily historical, one cannot simply rely on logic to prove it. Rather
one should resort to established and authentic historical evidence to support it.

And such historical evidence should at least shed some light on (1) whether or not the term
“Allah” was then used by Christians who shared more or less the same beliefs and practices with
the present-day Christians, particularly in Malaysia, and (2) whether or not the term “Allah” was
then solely used as a proper name.

Otherwise, the only historical evidence one can reliably rely on is the Quran and the sayings of
the Prophet Muhammad in which the term “Allah” is employed purely as a proper name.

As to the many versions of the earlier Malay translations of the Bible, which have been taken to
be among the historical proofs to justify the term “Allah” being used as such in its present-day
translation, it is particularly noteworthy that they were mainly attempted by the non-Malays – to
be more specific, the colonialists.

And to regard as prototypical the usage of a term in a language by a non-native, let alone by one
who colonised, surely calls into question the validity of such a position, to say the least.
Unless the answers to all the aforementioned questions and issues vindicate without any
ambivalence the position which certain segments of the Malaysian Christian community have
been taking, the only sensible way forward in the Malaysian multiracial and multi-religious
context is for the parties who have committed such linguistic errors to correct them wherever
applicable and appropriate.

Moreover, in dealing with such issues, it is indeed important that the parties involved, abide
themselves by the basic rules of correct reasoning which, needless to say, involve the law of
non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, wherever relevant.

And despite some parties claiming that logic or reason has a very limited role in solving the
controversy, on the contrary, I believe that it can play a pivotal role in helping us delineate the
main issues from the non-issues, identify the real problems from the pseudo – albeit distracting –
ones, sort out the primary, secondary and totally unrelated matters, and separate the
fundamental questions from such which are trivial or, at best, non-essential.

The Star, Tuesday 19 January 2010