CHRISTIAN TRANSLATION OF THE TRIUNE GOD USING THE TERM ALLAH: A CASE OF A WORD WRONGLY USED

http://akhienaim.blogspot.com/2010/01/christian-translation-of-triune-god.html

I. The Importance of Language in Connection with Mind and Religion

It was reported that Peter Lombard’s Four Books of Sentences recorded the following concern of Jerome, on “heresy arises from words wrongly used”.

Those remarks by St Jerome of Stridonium (d.420), who was regarded as the most learned of the Latin Fathers, clearly reflected how paramount the importance of language was for him, particularly in relation to theological matters.

The fact is, that there is a profound connection between language and reason, as words and term connote what is conceptualized or understood by the mind.

To quote Prof. Dr Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas’s latest work Tinjauan Ringkas Peri Ilmu dan Pandangan Alam (Penang:USM,2007), “bahasa merupakan alat akal fikri yang sekaligus juga mempengaruhi pemikiran si penggunanya.” That is to say, “language is the instrument of the reasoning of its users.”

For one may well ask, what is the purpose of language if not to make true meanings of words  to become intelligible to the mind? And as such, what is the fundamental purpose of language if not to project the worldview of its users in a faithful manner?

Because using language correctly is a cognitive action, it is imperative for its users to be meticulous in its “correct usage” as well as in the pursuit of its “authentic meaning.”

As far as fundamental religious matters are concerned, to use language incorrectly introduces confusion to the mind of its users. Words wrongly used will inevitably impinge upon semantic change in theological concepts and the way one views reality and truth.

Hence, the pressing need to exercise constant vigilance in detecting erroneous linguistic usage.

II. The Grammar of Christian Triune God

In the Christian context, it is in order to avoid such heresy arising from the erroneous use of words and terms that St Thomas Aquinas (d.1274) said this in his Summa Theologica: “when we speak of the trinity we must proceed with care”.

As if anticipating detractors who would argue that the quest for the right words in divine matters is “toilsome”, Aquinas insisted that it was well worth the effort. St Augustine (d.430), who was arguably the most important Christian thinker after St Paul, said that in comparison to the wrong usage in theology, “nowhere is error more harmful.”

Following another eminent doctor of the Western Church, St Hilary of Poitiers (d.c 367), Aquinas advised Christians to shun the term the “singular” God, as that would exclude their notion of God whose essence their notion of God whose essence is common to the three distinct Hypotheses.

Likewise, Aquinas advised Christians to avoid the term the “only” God, as the adjective “only” (Latin unici) would take away their notion of the number of Divine Persons. In Aquinas’s words, “We do not say ‘the only God,’ for Deity is common to many”: referring to their belief that deity is common to the co-eternal Persons: the Father, the only-begotten Son, the Holy Ghost.

III. Translation of the Triune God using the term Allah: A Case of A Word Wrongly Used

Naturally, I find that there are many contradictions between what was advised by Aquinas, who was the foremost Western theologian of the Church, with the concerns of a few Malaysian Christian leaders recently highlighted in our media. While Aquinas advised his coreligionist to exclude from God the idea of “singularity” or “uniqueness”, a few Christians in Malaysia (or in any country for that matter) insist on translating their notion of a triune God by using the term ‘Allah’.

IV. “He is Allah, the Absolute One…”(al-ikhlas, 112), etc.

But there a fundamental issues that they have to address first without confusing themselves and creating linguistic anarchy, because among the firmly integral purports of the term Allah are al-Ahad (the Absolute One), al-Wahid (the Absolute Unique) and al-Witr (the Absolute Singular, the Unequalled) Who has no son, nor father, nor partner, nor likeness.

These purports have been mentioned by way of describing who Allah is in the Qur’an as well as in its interpretation by the authentic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, who is, for that matter, considered by experts as the most eloquent of the Arabs.

In order for us to see how those worldviews are contrasted to each other, and hence to be careful in our translation, it is sufficient to compare the abovementioned statement on God by Aquinas with the following.

Commenting on the meaning of al-Wahid al-Ahad, Muhyiddin Ibn al-‘Arabi (d.1240) had simply this to say in his Futuhat Makkiyyah: “Allah is Unique, the Absolute One with respect to His godhead, there is no God (Ilah) except He.”

As far as the authentic meaning and correct usage of the term Allah throughout the ages are concerned, the Tahdhib of al-Azhari (d.980) and the Lisan al-‘Arab of Ibn Manzur (d.1311) have documented that, excepting Allah, there is no being to whom the purports of al-Wahid and al-Ahad are applicable together, or to whom al-Ahad is applicapble alone. ”Verily,I,-I alone-am Allah: there is no God (Ilah) but I: therefore worship Me” (the Qur’an, Ta Ha, 20:14).

V. Allãh is a Proper Name; God is a Common Name

That is why the term Allah is a proper name which is never shared by others throughout the history of language. The term Allah is not “communicable both in reality and in opinion”, if we want to use Aquinas’s technical terminology.

On the contrary, such terms as Ilah (God in Arabic), Tuhan (God in Malay) or God (in English) are communicable, and have indeed been used to others. Earlier, we have noted Aquinas’s assertion that the term God is common to the three Summa Theologica which explains the statement an eastern theological doctor of the Greek and Latin Churches.

VI. Allãh is a Proper Noun; God is an appellative Noun

Now, according to St John of Damascus, the term God in Greek as well as in Latin (theo) is a derivative, from either of these three root-words. It is either from a particular word which means “to cherish all things”, or from another word which means “to burn” (for the Christian God is “a consuming fire”, according to St John), or from another word which means “to consider all things”.

Marshalling his argument on that premise, Aquinas concluded that the name God in this context is not a proper noun. On the contrary, it is an appellative noun, or a title, for it signifies the divine nature in the possessor, either in the sense that He is the “Cherisher”, the “Taker of account of everything”, or the “Comprehender of everything”, and so on.

VII. Allãh Has No Plural; God’s Plural is Gods

Aquinas also corroborated his significant conclusion by the fact that the term God has plural (Gods), as in the Biblical text “God presides in heavenly council; in the assembly of the Gods he gives his decision… I have said, You are Gods” (Psalms 82.1,6).

Here, the argument on the right to translate a common noun God using the proper noun Allah crumbles; it is only correct to translate God using Tuhan. As far as the proper noun Allah is concerned, it has absolutely no plural, reflecting the notion on the One and Only God whose Essence absolutely excludes the purport of consisting of three distinct co-eternal persons, whether in the imagination, in actuality, or in supposition.

“Do not say:’Trinity’.Desist [from this assertion] it is better for you! Allah is but the Only God (Ilah Wahid); Glory be to Him-that He should have a son!” (The Qur’an, al-Nisa’,4:171)

VIII. The Proper Noun Allãh Neither Belongs to Any National Language Nor a Derivative

Furthermore, the fact that it is a proper noun alone renders erroneous the critical assumption that the term Allah belongs to a notion language and is an Arabic derivative. Indeed, for those who care enough to check the truth, such an absurd claim has long been debunked as inconsistent with the rules of the Arabic language itself by authorities like Ibn al-Barri, a-Layth and al-Khalil (d.160/777) in his Kitab al-‘Ayn.

Al-Zabidi, in his Taj al-‘Arus, remarked that “the most sound view on the name Allah is that it is a proper noun given by the Essence, the Necessary Being. The name Allah combines the attributes of Perfection altogether, it is a non-derivative word.”

Then, al-Zabidi (d.1790) quotes he authority of Ibn al’Arabi (d.1240), who stated that “the term Allah is a proper name denoting the real and true God (al-Ilah al-Haqq), a denotion that comprises all the Unique most beautiful Divine Names.”

Last but far least on the “correct usage” and “authentic meaning” of the term Allah, al-Tahanawi (d.1745), in his dictionary of the technical terms relating to metaphysics, the Kashshaf Istilahat al-Funun, stated that “it is inspired to His servants that the real name Allah is a proper name of the Essence… The verifiers (al-Muhaqqiqun) holds that the name Allah is a non-derivative word; indeed, it is an extemporized proper name (ism murtajal) as it can be described but does not describe.”

Prepared by:
Dr. Mohd. Sani Badron
Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (IKIM)

Posted by Akhie Naim at 9:23 PM

January 2, 2010 | Filed Under Featured MBA Blogger

Leave a Comment 

PENGHAKIMAN KES KALIMAH ALLAH MEMBERI KESAN TERHADAP AGAMA PERSEKUTUAN OLEH : ZAINUL RIJAL ABU BAKAR

Keputusan Hakim Datuk Lau Bee Lan 31 Disember 2009 lepas yang membenarkan Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur menggunakan kalimah Allah dalam penerbitan mingguannya, Herald –The Catholic Weekly merupakan suatu tamparan yang hebat kepada usaha memartabatkan agama Islam sebagai “ Agama Negara”.

Masyarakat Islam arus perdana melihat penghakiman ini sebagai suatu perkara yang akan menimbulkan kekeliruan dan kegusaran di kalangan umat Islam.

Penghakiman ini juga dilihat menghakis keistimewaan agama Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan.

Saya sendiri mendapat banyak panggilan telefon , emel dan surat bertanyakan kesan penghakiman tersebut terhadap kedudukan agama Islam di Malaysia khususnya.

Dalam beberapa hari sahaja penghakiman tersebut dikeluarkan keluhan dan ketidakpuasan hati umat Islam ini telah dizahirkan di dalam media-media arus perdana dan media alternatif.

Sebenarnya pendirian umat Islam bukanlah hendak memadam kalimah Allah di dalam kitab-kitab suci agama lain tetapi hanyalah berkisar di sebalik undang-undang yang berkuatkuasa di dalam negara dan keluhuran Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Perkara ini jelas kerana agama Sikh umpamanya yang menggunakan kalimah Allah di dalam bahasa asal kitab suci mereka tidak pernah dihalang daripada membaca ataupun mengamalkan ajaran di dalam kitab asal mereka.

Malah pendirian yang diambil oleh umat Islam bukanlah “peperangan antara kitab suci” tetapi lebih kepada memberi makna dan tafsiran yang jelas kepada peruntukan yang ada di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang disanjung oleh segenap warganegara Malaysia.

Permasalahan yang timbul ialah penerbitan Herald- The Catholic Weekly ini boleh digapai oleh orang ramai termasuklah orang Islam. Ia sudah tentu diedarkan dan tiada jaminan ia tidak akan sampai kepada orang Islam.

Walaupun usaha beberapa Majlis Islam negeri-negeri seperti Selangor, Wilayah Persekutuan, Trengganu, Johor, Melaka, Pulau Pinang, Perak dan Kedah serta Malaysian Chinese Muslim Association (MACMA) gagal mencelah di dalam kes ini, namun usaha ini haruslah diberi penghargaan yang tinggi kerana khususnya Majlis Agama telah menjalankan tanggungjawab statutori mereka di dalam mempertahankan agama Islam dan MACMA yang merupakan NGO tunggal berbuat demikian. Namun persoalan lain pula, di manakah Majlis-Majlis Agama Islam negeri lain?

Adakah mereka juga bersekongkol dan bersetuju kalimah Allah ini boleh digunakan oleh pihak Gereja di dalam penerbitan mereka?

Majlis-Majlis Agama mempunyai tanggungjawab statutori menasihati Sultan di dalam hal ehwal agama malah menjaga agama juga diletakkan di bawah tanggungjawab Majlis Agama.

Hanya Islam sahaja satu-satunya agama yang disebut di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Tiada agama lain disebut secara spesifik di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan melainkan hanya disebut sebagai boleh diamalkan dalam keadaan aman dan harmoni dalam negara sahaja.

Ini adalah jaminan Perlembagaan bahawa pengamalan agama lain oleh orang bukan Islam dibenarkan tertakluk kepada Perkara 11(4) iaitu berkaitan sekatan penyebaran agama bukan Islam kepada orang Islam.

Umat Islam adalah umat majoriti di negara kita. Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan Agama Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana bahagian Persekutuan.

Makna ‘boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai’ ialah agama lain selain agama Islam boleh diamalkan di mana-mana bahagian Persekutuan selagi ia tidak menghakis kedamaian dan keamanan agama bagi Persekutuan iaitu Islam. Inilah kedudukan istimewa Islam.

Kedudukan istimewa Islam ini bolehlah di fahami kerana terdapat peruntukan-peruntukan yang lain yang memberi kelebihan kepada Islam sebagai agama Persekutuan sebagaimana yang termaktub di dalam Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan, antaranya:

a) Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang memperuntukkan bahawa negeri-negeri boleh mewartakan undang-undang menghalang orang-orang bukan Islam menyebarkan dakyah agama mereka kepada orang Islam Undang-undang Negeri dan mengenai Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur dan Labuan, undang-undang persekutuan boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa iktikad atau kepercayaan ugama antara orang-orang yang menganuti ugama Islam.;

b) Perkara 12(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang memperuntukkan Kerajaan Persekutuan diberikuasa untuk mengurus dan menghulur bantuan kepada institusi Islam seperti masjid, sekolah agama dan juga bagi tujuan pembagunan syiar Islam;

c) Perkara 74(2) Perlembagaan Persekutuan pula memperuntukkan Kerajaan Negeri berkuasa membuat undang-undang bagi mentadbir urusan agama Islam.

d) Perkara 121(1A) Perlembagaan Persekutuan juga telah memberi pengiktirafan kepada Mahkamah Syariah untuk mendengar kes-kes dan persoalan mengenai agama Islam dan Mahkamah Sivil tidak boleh campurtangan, membatalkan ataupun tidak menghiraukan keputusan Mahkamah Syariah.

Penghakiman Hakim Datuk Lau Bee Lan itu memberi kesan yang amat ketara terhadap orang Islam.

Ini bermakna orang bukan Islam bebas menggunakan kalimah Allah di dalam penerbitan mereka tersebut selagi ianya adalah di edarkan di kalangan orang bukan Islam.

Persoalan yang timbul pula apakah jaminan ianya tidak akan diedarkan kepada orang Islam?

Penerbitan tersebut tidak hanya diedarkan di gereja sahaja. Kenapakah pihak gereja begitu beria-ia mahu menggunakan kalimah Allah ini?

Tidakkah dengan menggunakan kalimah Allah ini ia akan menggugat kedamaian dan keamanan agama bagi Persekutuan?

Malah keujudan Enakmen Kawalan Pengembangan Agama Bukan Islam Di Kalangan Orang Islam yang digubal berdasarkan Perkara 11(4) juga tidak mempunyai signifikan secara realitinya.

Enakmen yang telah ujud di beberapa negeri sejak berpuluh tahun masih tidak dilaksanakan. Malah ada negeri yang telah meluluskan enakmen ni masih tidak mewartakan dan memberi tarikh pelaksanaannya.

Empat buah negeri pula iaitu Wilayah Persekutuan, Pulau Pinang, Sabah dan Sarawak masih belum menggubal undang-undang yang sama walaupun mantan Perdana Menteri Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sendiri semasa menjadi Perdana Menteri telah berjanji dan mengarahkan negeri-negeri ini menggubal undang-undang tersebut.

Sememangnya kepentingan agama Islam seringkali dipinggirkan semasa membuat sebarang tindakan oleh pelbagai pihak. Kenapa kita terlalu abai dalam perkara ini?

Dalam keadaan yang agak tegang ini saya menyeru kepada pihak kerajaan supaya dengan kadar yang segera memfailkan rayuan terhadap keputusan Hakim Lau Bee Lan ini serta memohon menggantung perintah yang dikeluarkan itu.

Saya juga menyeru supaya pihak Kerajaan melaksanakan segera Enakmen Kawalan Pengembangan Agama Bukan Islam di Kalangan Orang Islam dan bagi negeri-negeri yang belum menggubal undang-undang tersebut hendaklah berbuat demikian dengan kadar segera.

Majlis Raja –Raja Melayu sebagai ketua agama negeri-negeri juga perlu membuat ketetapan yang tegas berkaitan dengan perkara ini selaras dengan sumpah jawatan baginda mempertahankan Islam pada setiap masa.

Malah Yang Di Pertuan Agong menurut Perkara 130 Perlembagaan Persekutuan juga boleh merujuk ke Mahkamah Persekutuan bagi pentafsiran Perkara 3 tersebut.

Perkara 130 tersebut menyebut Yang di-Pertuan Agong boleh merujukkan kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan untuk pendapatnya apa-apa soal tentang kesan mana-mana peruntukan Perlembagaan ini yang telah berbangkit atau yang tampak padanya mungkin berbangkit, dan Mahkamah Persekutuan hendaklah mengumumkan pendapatnya tentang apa-apa soal yang dirujukkan sedemikian kepadanya itu di dalam mahkamah terbuka.

Oleh yang demikian jika Yang di Pertuan Agong merujuk kepada Mahkamah Persekutuan berkaitan isu ini mungkin akan meredakan ketegangan yang dihadapi oleh umat Islam sekarang.

Tindakan Kementerian Dalam Negeri melarang pihak Gereja menggunakan kalimah Allah adalah kerana KDN sebagai salah sebuah organ kerajaan perlu mempertahankan ikrar Yang Di Pertuan Agong semasa menaiki tahkta iaitu mempertahankan Islam pada setiap masa. Oleh itu segala tindakan yang dibuat oleh pihak kerajaan perlulah sejajar dengan ikrar mempertahankan Islam ini. Secara mudahnya, setiap urusan kerajaan adalah disifatkan sebagai Urusan Seri Paduka Baginda (sebagaimana tertera di dalam sampul surat jabatan kerajaan). Oleh yang demikian adalah tidak masuk akal, urusan tersebut mencabul ikrar yang dibuat oleh Seri Paduka Baginda itu.

Kementerian Dalam Negeri perlu segera merayu keputusan kes ini kerana ia melibatkan kedudukan agama Islam di Malaysia apatah lagi keputusan mahkamah tertinggi di dalam negara perlu bagi menyelesaikan kedudukan ini secara muktamad.

Penulis adalah Presiden Persatuan Peguam-Peguam Muslim Malaysia dan boleh dihubungi di zainul.rijal@abubakar.my.

January 2, 2010 | Filed Under Syariah Issues, Ummah Issues

Leave a Comment