But I Thought Muslims Said We Worship The Same God
I guess not, given
this ruling in Malaysia.
The Malaysian government has reiterated that non-Muslims cannot use the word "Allah," sparking concern Friday among Christians who use it to refer to God in their Malay-language Bible and other publications.
Abdullah Zin, the de facto minister for Islamic affairs, told reporters Thursday that the Cabinet is of the view that "Allah" refers to the Muslim God and can only be used by Muslims, who comprise about 60 percent of Malaysia's population.
"The use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims may arouse sensitivity and create confusion among Muslims in the country," Abdullah said.
Do you see that, folks? Allah refers ONLY to the Muslim God, not the God of the Christians and the Jews. That would mean that Muslims themselves are declaring that their Allah and our God are two different beings. And since this is coming not from a government generally seen as extreme, but is usually described as moderate and relatively secular, it cannot be argued that this is a voice of extremists who have hijacked the faith.
Of course, Malaysia has a history of allowing all sorts of atrocities to take place in the name of Islam.
More at Michelle Malkin
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, , Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
03:38 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 4 kb.
1
That's a pretty good argument for keeping government free from the influences of religion based opinion.
Posted by: bob at Sat Jan 5 07:20:17 2008 (jhHVv)
2
Except for the minor detail, Bob, that what you suggest is impossible.
My sense of morality, which I wish to see reflected in the law, is firmly rooted in religious belief. The same is true of most people, I think you will concede. Unless you wish to argue that religious believers should be barred from participation in government, there will always be a pronounced religious influence upon public policy.
But then again, even the founders recognized that our rights come from our Creator. Would you care to exclude that religion-based opinion, too?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jan 5 09:23:17 2008 (Ke9lM)
3
The Declaration of Independence does state that our liberty is inherent and recognizes a creator. And for the next 100+ years, that religion based opinion was excluded from the actions of government. Much later, we started printing "In God We Trust" on money, and in the 1950s, God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance.
It's gone to far.
Now we recognize specific religions and subsidize them via tax exemptions, while those that don't fit certain criteria are sometimes excluded.
It's really none of the government's business.
I accept that we will be governed by people who are religious, and I don't have a problem with that. But when the reach of government becomes so extreme that they are telling people what they can and can't say, or coercing kids to say "under God" or teaching "creationism" in a science classroom, they have infringed on everyone's freedoms.
The problem isn't that they are religious, it's that they use the powers of government inappropriately.
Posted by: bob at Sun Jan 6 04:13:28 2008 (jhHVv)
4
However, isn't have 'endowed by our Creator', 'In God we Trust', and 'Under God' all essentially equivalent in their intent.
The framers implicitly and explicitly indicated that this country was to be founded on Christian principles. Historical Revisionists may want to forget that, but it doesn't change the truth.
Personally, while I hope that a Christian influence remains in the government, neutrality of the government is the best course of action.
That comes to your subject of teaching 'creationism' in schools. Isn't Atheism/Naturalism/Humanism just as much a religion as any deity-believing entity?
Forbidding the discussion of concerns about evolution's failure to explain even the most basic aspects of biological life is just a form of entrenching Atheism as the 'official religion' of the country.
Posted by: Steve at Mon Jan 7 08:27:01 2008 (+lD7/)
5
Frankly, i find you both to be wrong, operating at opposite extremes.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jan 7 11:00:35 2008 (Ke9lM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
11kb generated in CPU 0.005, elapsed 0.0121 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.009 seconds, 34 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
