Saya membaca dalam Malaysian Insider tentang judgement Hakim Lau berkaitan kes penggunaan nama Allah dan saya dapati hujjahnya sangat tidak consistent. Contohnya Alasan nama Allah telah digunakan oleh orang sebelum ini maka ia boleh diguna sekarang adalah tidak betul kerana salah dan betul terletak pada ugama yang terlibat ia itu Islam dan Kristian Katolik.Contoh lain , Mengatakan Munsyi Abdullah mengguna Allah untuk mengganti perkataan tuhan dalam injil Melayu maka ia adalah betul adalah dangkal dan tidak logik.Adakan amalan seorang agen British saperti Munsyi Abdullah boleh di ambil sebagai betul dari segi ugama? Sudah tentu tidak. Berikut adalah rumusan Lau dalam pembicaraan dan saya cuba memberi komen kelemahannya walaupun judgement sudah di putuskan dan dalam proses rayuan. Semua ini di buat atas dasar akademic discussion.The Applicant submits the 1st Respondent has failed to take into account one or more of the relevant considerations...
1. The word “Allah” is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” and in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, “God” is translated as “Allah” and “Lord” is translated as “Tuhan”;
Komen: Perkataan tepat bagi god ialah tuhan bukan nya Allah. Bahasa bukan berlandaskan dictionary tetapi berlandaskan pengunaan harian.
2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking countries have been using the word “Allah” in reference to the One God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater majority of other Christian denominations hold that “Allah” is the legitimate word for “God” in Bahasa Malaysia;
Komen: Kristian di arabic speaking countries adalah dari Eastern Orthordox Church bukan nya Roman Katholik , ugama pihak surat khabar Herald. Kedua ajaran ini adalah dua entity berlainan dan tidak boleh di samakan. Penggunaan bahasa Arab tidak boleh di samakan dengan penggunaan bahasa Melayu kerana semantic meaning berbeza kepada loan word arab ke dalam bahasa Melayu.
3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;
Komen: Masaalah yang dalam perbincangan ialah nama Allah bukan penggunaan bahasa Melayu untuk menterjemah kitab ugama. Portugis Melaka tidak boleh digunakan sebagai mereka yang berautoriti dalam ajaran Roman Katolik rom. Francis Xavier pun belum tentu boleh mewakili jurucakap Roman Katolik.
4. The word “God” has been translated as “Allah” in the “Istilah Agama Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia” first published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;
Komen: Catholic Bishop Conference tidak ada hak dalam soal bahasa Melayu
5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated “Deus” (the Latin word for God) as “Alla” as the Malay translation
Komen: Ini lah statement paling bodoh . Adakah satu dictionary boleh menentukan satu bahasa yang sudah wujud beribu tahun
6. The Christian usage of the word “Allah” predates Islam being the name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;
Komen: Kristian arab bukannya Roman Katolik. Mereka adalah Eastern Orthodox Church of Elaxandria
7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word “Allah” has been used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru and the Alkitab
Komen: Bahasa Melayu tidak boleh di tentukan oleh mereka yang tidak layak membuat keputusan berkaitan satu satu perkataan.
8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he translated the word “God” as “Allah”;
Komen: Munshi is a stupid Malay who work with colonial power who try to disrupt the harmony of Malays Kingdom
9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in existence before 1957 which translation was carried out by the British and Foreign Bible Society where the word “Allah” was used;
Komen: British and Foreign Bible society tidak ada hak dalam perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word “Allah” was used;
Komen: Prayer Book Singapore tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
11. There was also a publication entitled “An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine” published in 1895 where the word “Allah” was used.
Komen : Buku itu tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
12. Anther publication entitled “Hikajat Elkaniset” published in 1874 also contains the word “Allah”
Komen: Buku itu tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for generations;
Komen : Buku itu tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word “Allah” for generations and the word “Allah” is used in the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught Malaysia;
Komen : Buku itu tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein the word “Allah appears;
Komen : Buku itu tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is not for sale or distribution outside the Church;
Komen : Buku itu tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
17. The said publication is not made available to members of the public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;
Komen : Buku itu tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant’s use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;
Komen : Buku itu tidak adalah hak dalamd perterjemahan bahasa Melayu
19. In any event the word “Allah” has been used by Christians in all countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these countries;
Komen : Malay language is a sovereign language and we dont have to follow arabs
20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a state matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such matters of Islam save in the federal territories
Komen: Freedom of religion that infringe others and cause civil unrest is against the constitution
21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;
Komen: Anything that contravene the bigger law is wrong
22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church uses the word “Allah” for worship and instruction and that the same is permitted in the Al-Kitab.
Komen : Sabahan use god in english prayer. The right word for god is tuhan even in prayer
“The Applicant further submits that none of the above-mentioned factual considerations were ever disputed or challenged by the 1st Respondent as factually incorrect. I am incline to agree with the Applicant as the response of the 1st Respondent to the factual averments is a feeble denial in paragraph 41 of the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent which reads “Keseluruhan pernyataan-pernyataan di perenggan-perenggan 50, 51 and 52(i)-(xxii) Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon adalah dinafikan...” (Emphasis added)
“Therefore I find the 1st Respondent in the exercise of his discretion to impose further conditions in the publication permit has not taken into account the relevant matters alluded to above, hence committing an error of law warranting this Court to interfere and I am of the view that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 ought to be quashed,” she ruled.
Tiada ulasan:
Catat Ulasan