CAN WORDS BE RELIGIONIZED?

By
K.Siladass


He is Almighty. He is most powerful. He is most Merciful. He is Compassionate. He is Infinite. He is Incomprehensible. He is Indescribable. Even with a million eyes you cannot see Him. You cannot hear Him. He has no name. He did not give Himself a name; yet the fickled minded human race names Him, describes Him in many ways, in many words. Having not seen Him, the human race is fearful of Him, and at the same time beseech His benevolence, seek His protection. They love Him. Extol Him. At times curse Him for all the ills that had befallen them, as if he is solely responsible for every misfortune they encounter. Who is He? No one knows; yet the efforts to reach Him has not ceased. They will not know Him yet the human endeavour to know Him continues with all sorts of stories, myths and legends. Human follies are so fertile, and they never give up conjuring up stories to satiate their own curiosities; they needed these to shore up their confidence. To the human race He is the Supernatural Being.

The verbal portraiture of this formless Supernatural Being varies from language to language but this linguistic variables do not in any way dislodge the popular belief in God, the majority of the human race treasures. Among the believers existence of God is not in issue but the belief may be distorted by virtue of religious beliefs. The term believers is used here with reference to a belief in God without attaching any religious significance.
Atheists do not believe in God. Any debate with them as to His existence will not be rewarding. They are a class apart and they are entitled to their opinion. Even among the believers because of their strait jacketed conceptions they sacrifice the importance of Him and label those who do not belong to their faith as atheists, although the non-adherents of a particular religion believe in God but belong to a difference faith. This writer remembers an incident when he was lying on the surgical table. A nurse who was attending to the preliminaries asked him whether he believes in God. His confirmation of his belief in Him prompted her to ask: “Which God?” The moral of this anecdote is that men and women who belong to a certain religion believe that their God is the only God that is acceptable and the rest are non-believers, meaning atheists. The point is, if you belong to the same religion of your interrogator, then, you are their man and believer in God, but not otherwise.

We also have the agnostics who believe that God or the Ultimate Power can never be fully understood, or they believe that nothing is known, or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomenon, they are uncertain and are non-committal about God.

There is another group of people who believe in God but decline to be identified with any religious persuasion. To them every religion is acceptable and they strive to look for the best in every religion, and to them God is neutral, All Powerful yet independent from any religious affiliation. A formless Supernatural Being who has never revealed Himself. He is in everything, and everywhere. He is the Truth. Unidentifiable, Indescribable-Truth, without beginning or without an end. He was not created, because He is the Super Scientist who created everything in this world. He has no name, and He never evinced an intention that those whom He had created to hopelessly venture into naming Him. He never ordained that people should be divided on account of Him, or quarrel about Him. Who has seen Him? Who has talked to Him? No one. And those who claim to have seen Him or talked to Him either directly or indirectly have had they own motives for claiming so. May be it was for good. May be it was to secure some sense of security and stability among certain people; to achieve some decent orderliness in a world where ignorance was so rampant coupled with brute force often used as the means for survival. The appearance of a few men and women from time to time to teach the people about perfect, decent living had campaigned towards a belief in God which had the effect of awakening the people to realize the importance of the most Powerful Super Being, and find solace in Him, or in the services to Him.

The efforts by the human kind to search and identify this Supernatural Being never ceased: instead they imagined He was in everything hence they worshipped anything and everybody who had given some benefits; or shown a path to save themselves from catastrophe. It is this search to identify the Supernatural Being eventually that led every language of every race to name It. In Hebrew He was called Yahweh. In Sanskrit and in almost all of the Indian languages He is, Easwara, Deivam, Baghawaan, Kadavul, Aandavan. Zeus in Greek; Deus in Latin, Dieu in French; Gott in German; Gudd in Swedish and God in English.

In Japan, the Shinto religion taught that the Japanese people are the descendants of Gods Izanagi and Izanami. Among the Japanese pantheon the most important God was the Amaterasu – the Sun God – whose descendant was Jimmu, the mythological emperor of Japan.

Among some American Indians, especially for the Omaha tribe belief in oneness of man and nature was essential. To them the spiritual being is the object of religious veneration and the spirit Wakonda. To the Mayans Tepeh was the creator, the maker.

Marduk was the chief God of Babylon. He killed Timat, the primordial dragon, in battle. Marduk created earth, sea and heavens from Timat’s body, and from Timat’s consort, Kingu, he created the human race. Every race had a legendary tale to instill the existence of the Supernatural Being.

In Arabic language Allah means God, and there was a time when the Arabs believed in more than one God or Allah. To be precise there were too many idols for them to worship. Arabic people and the Arabic language belong to the Semitic group which consisted of people who spoke Semetic languages. This group includes Arabs, Aramaeans, Jews and many Ethiopians. In the biblical sense, Semites are peoples whose ancestry can be traced back to Shem, Noah’s eldest son.

The word “Allah” in Arabic language is a contraction of al-ilah ie, al-the + ilah – God; in Aramaic it is elah, and in Hebrew - elõah . There are ninety nine names or attributes of Allah. Therefore, it would be observed that Allah could be described in ninety-nine different ways, but the attributes do not mean ninety-nine different gods.

M.R.M, Abdul Raheem in his book Muhammad the Prophet tells us that it is, “the opinion of some that the word Allah was derived from ‘ilah’ which means God and that as a definite article ‘Al’ was added to it, it became Allah. Others are of the opinion that it is derived from ‘lah’ which means the ‘secret one’. But Imam Abu Hanifa contends that Allah is the one full name of the Eternal being and it was not derived from any root word”.

E.H. Palmer in his introduction to Quran touching on the religion of the pre-Islamic Arabs says that their religion “was Sabaenism, or the worship of the hosts of heaven, Seth and Enoch being considered as the prophets of faith. ” “This cult”, explains Palmer, “no doubt came from Chaldea, and the belief in the existence of angels, which they also professed, is traceable to the same source. Their practice of making the circuit of the holy shrines, still continues as part of the “Hagg” ceremonies, probably also arose from this planetary worship . That was not the end of the matter, for, the Sabaens’ “star worship was greatly corrupted; and a number of fresh deities, superstitious practices, and meaningless rites had been introduced.”

Vicissitudes of nature too had a tremendous impact on the desert nomads. Describing their plight Palmer wrote, that the “strange sounds that often break the terrible stillness of the desert; the sudden storms of sand or rain that in a moment cover the surface of a plain, or change a dry valley into a roaring torrent; these and a thousand other such causes naturally produce a strong effect upon an imagination quickened by keen air and the freedom of the desert.”

Steeped in the tradition of dwelling in isolation the Arabs were also swayed by super-natural happenings as they perceived them. “The Arab”, therefore, writes Palmer, “peopled the vast solitudes amidst which he dwelt with supernatural beings, and fancied that every rock, and tree, and cavern had its gin or presiding genius. These beings were conceived to be both beneficent and malevolent, and were worshipped to propitiate their help or avert their harm. From the worship of these personifications of the powers of nature to that of the presiding genius of a tribe or of a place, is an easy transition, and we accordingly find that each tribe had its patron deity with the cult of which their interests were intimately bound up. The chief god of this vague national cult was Allah, and most tribes set up a shrine for him as well as for their own particular deity. The offerings dedicated to the former were set apart for the advantage of the poor and of strangers, while those brought to the local idol were reserved for the use of the priests. If Allah had by any chance anything better that the inferior deity, or a portion of his offerings fell into the lot of the local idol, the priests at once appropriated it; this practice is reprehended by Mohammed in Quran (VI.ver.137).”

Palmer goes on to name “the principal deities of the Arab pantheon,” and they are:

“Allah ta’âlah, the God most high.
Hubal, the chief of the minor deities; this was in the form of a man. It was brought from Syria, and was supposed to procure rain.
Wadd, said to have represented the heaven, and to have been worshipped under the form of a man.
Suwâ’h, an idol in the form of a woman, and believed to be a relic of antediluvian times.
Yaghûth, an idol in the shape of a lion.
Ya’ûq, worshipped under the figure of a horse.
Nasr, which was, as the name implies, worshipped under the semblance of an eagle.
El ’Huzzâ, identified with Venus, but it appears to have been worshipped under the form of an acacia tree.
Allat, the chief idol of tribe of THaqîf at Tâ’if, who endeavoured to make it a condition of surrender to Mohammed that he should not destroy it for three years, and that their territory should be considered sacred like that of Mecca, a condition which the prophet peremptorily refused. The name appears to be the feminine of Allah.
Manât, worshipped in the form of a large sacrificial stone by several tribes, including that of HuDHeil.
Duwâr, a favourite idol with the young women, who used to go in procession round it, whence its name.
Isâf, an idol that stood on Mount Zafâ.
Naïla, an image on Mount Marwâ.
The last two were such favourite objects of worship that, although Muhammad ordered them to be destroyed, he was not able entirely to divert the popular regard from them, and the visitation of Zafâ and Marwâ are still an important part of the ‘Hagg rites.
’Hab’hab was a large stone upon which camels were slaughtered.
El ’Huzzâ, Allât, and Manât are mentioned by name in the Qur’ân, see Chapter LIII, vers. 19-20.
The Kaabah*, or chief shrine of the faith, contained, besides these, images representing Abraham and Ishmael, each with divining arrows in his hand, and a statue or picture representing the virgin and child.”

“The worship of stones”, stated Palmer, “is a very old form of Semitic cult, and it is curious to note that Jacob ‘took the stone that he had put for his pillow, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil on the top of it; and he called the name of the place Bethel’ : and that at Mecca the principal object of sacred interest is a stone, and that the Kaabah has been known, from time immemorial, as Bâit allâh, ‘the house of God’.

During Prophet Muhammad’s time there were altogether three hundred and sixty five idols in the Ka’aba according to Palmer and Karen Armstrong; but M.R.M. Abdur Raheem puts the number at three hundred and sixty. This discrepancy is not explained.

Thus, the history of the Arab people undoubtedly affirms the proposition notwithstanding their idol worship their chief God was called Allah. Karen Armstrong wrote that – “[S]ome had come to believe that the High God of their pantheon, Al-lah (whose name simply meant ‘God’) was the deity worshipped by the Jews and Christians…” Idol worship is not altogether strange or surprising because similar trend had been the fashion in many parts of the world.

Michael Woolfe, a Muslim, writes that: “Allah is simply Arabic for God, used alike by all Arab speakers regardless of religion, and not a separate sacred figure peculiar to Islam.”

Writing about the languages that were widely used in the Middle East Albert Hourani, a Lebanese, acclaimed as the “scholar of unrelenting productivity” explains that:

“Inscriptions in the languages of southern Arabia go back for centuries. The earliest Arabic inscription in Araemaic scripts can be traced to the fourth century BC and later on Arabic script was evolved…”

Albert Hourani goes on to point out that the name used by Muhammad for God is Allah which was already in use for one of the local gods (it is now used by Arabic speaking Jews and Christians as the name of God).

There is no doubt that corresponding word for God in Arabic is Allah. And no one doubts that the word Allah had been in use before the advent of Islam. The most important thing to remember is that Jews and Christians of Arab origin had been living together with pagan Arabs whose idol worship was unchallengeable as they had marshalled three hundred and sixty idols [or three hundred and sixty five idols] in Ka'aba, which had been the house of worship for idolatrous Arabs.

The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims have Abraham as their patriarch. Although the Christians have abandoned some of the practices spelt in the Old Testament and relieved themselves of some of the restrictions, the uniformity of some of those practices between the Jews and Muslims are still intact. So, for example circumcision and restriction on the kind of meat that could be consumed by the Jews and Muslims are largely the same.

In names too we can see similarities but spelt differently eg. Abraham is Ibrahim in Arabic; Moses is Musa, Jacob is Yaakub; Joseph is Yusof, Jesus is Esa. This is not something very strange for similarities in names and their acknowledged references may not change although there can be differences in spelling, an obvious discernible trend in other languages too. Thus in Sanskrit based most Northern Indian languages the names such as Ram, Lakshman, Narayan, Arjun are spelt and pronounced differently as: Raman, Letchumanan, Narayanan, Arjunan in Tamil or Malayalam or in the South Indian languages in general. No one had gone on record to suggest that the spelling of the names differently had conveyed different meanings or refer to different historical or legendary personalities.

The Middle Eastern Arabs have no qualms if the word Allah is used by Jews or Christians because it is a rational and inevitable course of being Arabs. Just because one is an Arab and being either a Jew or a Christian he would call his God in any other name other than his native tongue is unthinkable.

Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, was a Jew. He was born in Roman ruled Palestine. He was a carpenter by profession, although he could trace his ancestry to King David. Jesus did preach the Gospels, and he is therefore said to be a teacher. The Bible therefore contains the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and certain parts in Aramaic. The New Testament was composed in Greek, and the question is: In what language did Jesus preach? It is said that he spoke in Araemaic. Since the New Testament was composed in Greek would it be wrong to say that Jesus spoke or preached in Greek? Or, his birth place being Palestine when the Romans ruled, could he have spoken in Roman tongue? Or Jesus being a Jew is it probable that in addressing his people he was talking to them in Hebrew? These are too speculative.

It is probable that Jesus spoke in Araemaic or it is also possible that he being a Jew he would have preached in his own mother tongue, Hebrew. Following the Jewish tradition although God is Yahweh, it is unlikely that he would have mentioned “Yahweh”. So we are in a tricky situation. Solomon Nigosian, tells us that the [F]irst quotation from Exodus affirms the self-defining of God. “Ehyah-Asher-Ehyeh” is usually translated as 'I am who I am' or 'I am what I am' or 'I will be what I will be'. “ The word 'Ehyeh' derived from the Hebrew word ‘hayah’ ” explains Solomon Nigosian, “means 'life', 'being', and the 'same root is also the antecedent of the word, or name YHWH – four letters of the ineffable name of God, never pronounced by the Jews”. The reason for this is their belief that the self-definition of God as Ehyah-Asher-Ehyeh is understood to mean that God is a Being-an Absolute, Immutable Being, but beyond human comprehension. And this is precisely the reason the Jews refrain from articulating the word YHWH lest by naming the undefinable, they diminish His Being and reduce it to human level. Consequently, whenever the word YHWH (pronounced Yahweh) occurs, Jews pronounce it Adonai; meaning “the Lord”.

The Jews may be justified in their psychological fear in not mentioning Yahweh, but there can be no objection if that Hebrew term is used by non-Jews consistent with the respect and veneration it deserves. Similarly, there can be no objection, and the evidence is that there had been no objection to non-Muslims using the Arabic word “Allah” for the corresponding word God in English or in other languages.
“Allah” the Arabic word is commonly used by Muslims and non-Muslim Arabs, because of the Arabic language history. The age of the Arabic language is ancient but the age of the Muslim religion is 1431 years at the time of writing this essay; thus the word “Allah” predates Islam, which means the religious history cannot supercede the general history of a people and their language.

The thorny question now is whether the word “Allah” an Arabic word for God could only be used by those who profess Islam, or, is the word Allah which had been universalized can be used by others for legitimate purpose of expression without distorting its actual meaning as is historically known and accepted. However, there seems to be an attempt to Islamize the word “Allah” stripping off its historical importance. The emphasis for exclusive Islamization could be gleaned from the current approach by some who prefer to put religion ahead of history. There are some who suggest very strongly that Prophet Muhammad in chosing the word “Allah” he gave a new meaning to it. This is an attempt in a circuitious way of telling the world that the Prophet coined the word with Islamic significance. To say Prophet Muhammad gave a new meaning to the word “Allah” is good as saying that the Prophet discovered Allah and gave a new identity, an Arab identity.

Prophet Muhammad used the word “Allah” to give credence to the fact there is only one God, and He is Great, and in the Arab pantheons he was the Chief God – therefore, by removing all the idols, the Prophet retained the Supremeness of God and that is Allah in Arabic and when translated in other languages, means God, Zeus, Deus or Iraivan respectively in other languages. The Prophet did not alter the meaning of the word “Allah” although it is apparent he extolled Its greatness and Supremeness as do other languages when dealing with God, and he achieved this by removing all the idols except the Black Stone. That, too is symbolic but his emphasis was on one God – one Allah in Arabic.

It would be useful to refer to some of the practices prevailing among Tamil Muslims. They refer to Prophet Muhammad as God’s Messenger, “Irai thoothan”. They seldom use the phrase Allah’s Messenger or “Allahvin thoothan” in Tamil. Erai in Tamil means God, and thoothan means messenger. Similarly, when describing Allah they also describe him as “Ellam valla Iraivan” – meaning, the most powerful God.

This writer came across the translation and transliteration of the Arabic text of the Quran into English, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Oddly, this copy does not have the year of publication except that it was published by the Book House, Lahore, in Pakistan. Abdullah Yusuf Ali was an eminent lawyer and a scholar. He died in London in most disturbing circumstances affected by psychiatric problems. It was later discovered that the Quran he translated was first published in 1934.

Now reverting to Abdullah Yusuf Ali's monumental work, the Quran, surah 5 (Maaa-idah) verses 112 to 113 have some significance especially in the use of the word Allah. For purposes of clarity and understanding the entire verses are quoted here.

Ver. 112 One day will Allah
Gather the apostles together
And ask : “What was
The response ye received
(From men to your teaching)?”
They will say : “We
Have no knowledge: it is Thou
Who knowest in full
All that is hidden.”

Ver. 113 [T]hen will Allah say:
“O Jesus the son of Mary!
To thee and to thy mother
Behold! I strengthened thee
With the holy spirit,
So that thou didst speak
To the people in childhood
And in maturity.
Behold! I taught thee
The Book and Wisdom,
The Law and the Gospel
And behold! Thou makest
Out of clay, as it were,
The figure of a bird,
By My leave,
And thou breathest into it,
And it becometh a bird,
By My leave,
And thou healest those
Born blind, and the lepers
By My leave.
And behold! Thou
Bringest forth the dead
By My leave
And behold! I did
Restrain the Children of Israel
From (violence to) thee
When thou didst show them
The Clear Signs.
And the unbelievers among them
Said: “This is nothing
But evident magic.”

Ver. 114 “And behold! I inspired
The Disciples to have faith
In Me and Mine Apostle:
They said: “We have faith,
And do thou hear witness
That we bow to Allah
As Muslims.”

Ver. 115 Behold! The Disciples said:
“O Jesus the son of Mary!
Can thy Lord send down to us
A Table set (with viands)
From heaven?” Said Jesus:
“Fear Allah, if ye have faith.”

Ver. 116 They said: “We only wish
To eat thereof and satisfy
Our hearts, and to know
That thou hast indeed
Told us the truth : and
That we ourselves may be
Witnesses to the miracle.”

Ver. 117 Said Jesus the son of Mary:
“O Allah our Lord!
Send us from heaven
A Table set (with viands),
That there may be for us-
For the first and the last of us-
A solemn festival
And a Sign from Thee;
And provide for our sustenance,
For Thou are the best
Sustainer (of our needs).'

Ver. 118 Allah said: “I will
Send it down unto you:
But if any of you
After that resistesh faith,
'I will punish him
With a penalty such
As I have not inflicted
On anyone among
All the peoples.”

Ver. 119 And Behold! Allah will say:
“O Jesus the son of Mary!
Didst thou say unto men,
'Worship me and my mother
As gods in derogation of Allah?”
He will say: “Glory to Thee!”
Never could I say
What I had no right
(To say). Had I said
Such a thing. Thou wouldst
Indeed have knowest what is
In my heart, though I
Know not what is
In Thine. For Thou
Knowest in full
All that is hidden.”

Ver. 120 “Never said I to them
Aught except what Thou
Didst command me
To say, to wit: “Worship
Allah, my Lord and your Lord';
And I was a witness
Over them whilst I dwelt
Amongst them; when Thou
Didst take me up,
Thou wast the Watcher
Over them, and Thou
Art a witness to all things.

Ver. 121 “If Thou dost punish them,
They are Thy servants.
If Thou dost forgive them,
Thou art the Exalted,
The Wise.”

Ver. 122 Allah will say: “This is
A day on which
The truthful will profit
From their truth : theirs
Are Garden with rivers
Flowing beneath their eternal
Home: Allah, all-pleased
With them, and they with Allah
That is the great Salvation
(The fulfilment of all desires)


In these verses we see Jesus the son of Mary speaking to Allah, addressing Him as Allah in Arabic.

If we ask a question ignoring the historical link, or outside a set of established facts, the question would turn out to be hypothetical whereby the answer would be warped in conjectures and with irrelevant matters. The answer will be simply unsatisfactory and not to the point. Therefore, it would be a futile exercise to formulate a question such as: In what language did Allah converse with Jesus? We are told Jesus being a Jew must have preached in Aramaic or Hebrew but that information does not help us to come to a conclusion as to the language in which this important discussion took place as stated in Quran. Rather than embarking on a fruitless investigation, accepting the fact that such a discussion took place, the proper course to take is to enquire why Abdullah Yusuf Ali opted to use the word God in the opening chapter of the Quran but used the word Allah in the rest of the Quran. It is reasonable to infer that the eminent scholar did not see any extraordinary distinguishing ground to change the description although in the opening chapter he began with God rather than Allah. To Abdullah Yusuf Ali there was not any difference between God and Allah and both words could be used interchangeably with equal veneration.

Zulhraf – 43 – contains verses where Jesus tells that he had come with wisdom and to clarify disputed points. It is recorded:

Ver. 63 When Jesus came
With Clear Signs, he said:
“Now have I come
To you with Wisdom.
And in order to make
Clear to you some
Of the (points) on which
Ye dispute : therefore fear Allah
And obey me.

Ver. 64 “For Allah, He is my Lord
And your Lord : so worship
Ye Him ; this is
A straight Way.”



Ver. 65 But sects from among
Themselves fell into Disagreement
Then woe to the wrong-doers,
From the Penalty
Of a Grievous Day!


And again in surah 61 verses 6 and 14 we have the following disclosures:


Ver. 6 And remember, Jesus,
The son of Mary, said:
“O Children of Israel!
I am the apostle of Allah
(Sent) to you confirming
The Law (which came)
Before me, and giving
Glad Tidings of an Apostle
To come after me,
Whose name shall be Ahmad.”
But when he came to themselves With Clear Signs,
They said, “This is
Evident sorcery!”

Ver. 14 O ye who believe!
Be ye helpers of Allah:
As said Jesus the son of Mary
To the Disciples, “Who will be
My helpers to (the work
Of) Allah?” Said the Disciples,
“We are Allah's helpers !”
Then a portion of the Children
Of Israel believed, and
A portion disbelieved.


All the references to Allah by Jesus clearly show that God could be described in any language in which a person had been taught, or according to his mother tongue or in a manner he is accustomed to. If the Arabic word “Allah” is used to denote God in another language it does not lose its significance. It is the importance that is attached to the word that must be clearly understood in its original historical context and not by the artificial meaning with religious connotation or bias.

In 1998 Saba Islamic Media Sdn Bhd republished the same Quran with English translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, omitting the transliteration but retaining the Arabic text. Not only that; wherever the Arabic word “Allah” was used by the eminent Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the publishers of the 1998 edition substituted it with God, except the Faatihah – (The opening chapter). There Abdullah Yusuf Ali uses the word “God”: “In the name of God, most Gracious, Most Merciful (1)”; “Praise be to God, the Cherisher and sustainer of the worlds.” From Baqarah [or Al Baqarah] onwards Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his original version used the word “Allah” but in the 1998 edition, the publishers have substituted the word Allah with the word “God” - why this departure? This has not been explained. Without adding too much of speculative nuance, it would seem that the departure from the original was to give linguistic significance, that is, since the Quran is translated into English the equivalent English word God must be used for Allah, although the Arab text and its transliteration retained the Arabic term Allah. This seems to be logical and it would also be equally logical if the Old Testament is translated from Hebrew into Arabic, the Jewish term Yahweh would be Allah, and God in the New Testament would also be Allah, bearing in mind the Quran itself does not make any distinction of the people belonging to the Abrahamic faith. Surah 2 – Al Baqarah, verses 136 to 138 illuminate this point:

We believe in God,
and the revelation given to us,
and to Abraham, Ishamel, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus,
and that given to all prophets from
their Lord: We make no difference
between one and another of them, and we bow to God.

In many parts of the non-Arab speaking world there is an erroneous presumption that Allah is an Islamic word therefore the use of it by others is sacrileges, however, Arabs of the Abrahamic faiths which include Mizrahi Jews, Bahais and Eastern Orthodox Christians use “Allah” when referring to God, and no one feels it is sacrilegious in such a usage.

Arabic speaking people of Abrahamic faiths including Jews and Christians use the word “Allah” to mean God. According to one source the Christian Arabs of today have no other word for “God” than “Allah”.
Malta’s population is almost entirely Roman Catholic. They speak Maltese and it is the only Semitic language in the world which uses Latin alphabet. They use “Allah” for God. Arab Christians use Allah-al-ab meaning God the Father; “Allah al-ibn” meaning God the son; and Allah-al-ruh al-quds meaning, God the Holy Spirit.

It is universally accepted that the English word God, leaving aside as to its origin, is generally accepted as having reference to Almighty, in other languages. Could we then argue that since the word God is used in the Bible, the natural meaning would be that that word has acquired a religious quality. Thus if you are reading the Old Testament the word God appearing therein refers to a Jewish God. And if you are reading the New Testament, then, the reference is to Christian God. This is a fallacy and scholars do not seem to be enthusiastic to religionize a word or a language for the sake of so-called separate identity; for God’s identity is not for human beings to ascertain and they will never be able to do so.

To sum up, whether we call the Formless, the Infinity, the Incomprehensible as God, or Allah, or Eashwer or Kadavul, or Dieu, or Dieux, the immediate understanding is it refers to the nameless, and it is the feeble effort of the human race to label Him, and label Him in a manner or in a language understood by different people but all descriptions mean the same thing. God, Eashwer or Allah.

God has no religion yet the human race is trying to box HIM with religious scruples. And to religionize Him is the gravest mistake the human race has endeavoured.

Words in a language notwithstanding their origin in one country may be universalized because of commerce, science, or religion but it would be an erroneous proposition to say that word could be regionalized and prevent their use by others. This would tantamount to ignoring the historical background of the language. The Arabic word Allah having been universalized it would be sad if restriction is placed on its use for legitimate purpose whether they be Muslims or otherwise. If it is the equation that is being complained, then, Mahatma Gandhi’s song would seem to be a prospective candidate for prohibition; for, what Mahatma Gandhi enunciates is that howsoever you call Him, whether it be Ragupathi, Rajaram, Easwer or Allah is all Him – God. All the names are human endeavour, aspiration to reach the Truth. The song is as follows:

“Ragupathi Rhagave Rajaram
Patit Paaven Sita Ram
Eshwer Allah Tero Naam
Sabko Sanmanti De Bhagwaan”

This world could be a better place to live if all the religions devote themselves to understand each other and understand God rather than embarking on unrewarding arguments thus widening the gulf of difference allowing hatred and distrust to seep in, eventually leading to misery and a mind warped in confusion. God in His Grand design would not have envisa

Views on UPSR and PMR Examinations - A Letter to the Education Minister of Malaysia

His Excellency the Honorable Deputy Prime Minister,
And the Minister for Education, Malaysia,
Block E8, Complex E,
Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan,
62604 PUTRAJAYA, MALAYSIA.
E-mail: kpkpm@moe.gov.my
alimuddin.dom@moe.gov.my


Your Excellency,


Re : A View On UPSR and PMR examinations


It is unlikely that an isolated consideration of the usefulness or unusefulness of the examinations at primary and secondary levels would bring out the inherent defects in the entire education system. There must be a holistic study to look at the operation of the present system and detect the flaws and also a broadminded inquiry held to ascertain whether the current education system had yielded the desired result of seeing quality education, or is it aimed at seeing the growth of a population with so-called education in the numerical sense. The present aim of the examinations at primary and secondary levels appear to be for the sake of shifting the students to another level of education but without any regard to ascertain how much the student has learned; or, absorbed into his or her mental faculty thus forming a strong foundation to further his or her intellectual pursuit.

Beginning with the proposition that education is the life of a nation, the natural question that arises is whether the present system of education had paved the way to nationhood. Sadly, we are yet to coalesce as a nation. This is apparently due to the apparent divisions perpetrated along racial and religious lines which had grown into race-cum-religious polarization.

While it is admitted that nation-building is not an easy task given the fact that Malaysia is a heterogeneous society, the sensible effort, shorn of racial and religious sentiments should rightly begin at primary level and continue at secondary level and also in places of higher learning. This aspect of educationary process requires a thorough investigation.

One might ask what is wrong with the present system.


Briefly, the present education system has been producing narrow-minded, race and religious minded and so-called educated class who look at everything with narrow mindedness primarily imbued with the notion of economic amelioration and status consciousness. This has the effect disrespecting the views of others, culminating in arrogance and non-compromising attitude. Thus, an environment had been created which stifles the growth of the feeling of one Malaysia. The wicked racial polarization is gaining strength at every level of education, because the seed for the cultivation and nurturing of racial polarization had been sowed at elementary levels.

To create the feeling one Malaysia and one Malaysian people the ground work has to begin at Kindergartens, and continue progressively at primary and secondary schools. The present system had systematically helped to widen the gap between the various races not only on racial, but also on religious grounds ignoring the need to promote racial harmony and onenest as human beings.

It may be argued that the present system may not be too perfect yet workable; but, this neglects the ground swell about the quality of the education. How is it that a student of another country could possess better knowledge than the Malaysian student of the same age at primary or secondary level? Why is that students in other countries at a young age are able to articulate their views comfortably but not our students? These are some of the pertinent issues that call for urgent investigation.

Presently there is no evidence to suggest that the examinations oriented course at primary and secondary levels had been beneficial to the students in the preparations for their future, and their capability to meet the challenges ahead. It would have been helpful if a study had been conducted to ascertain how the students who have cleared the primary and secondary examinations had been able to face the exacting regimes at colleges and universities. This brings us to the point whether the foundation laid at primary and secondary levels have had the salutary effect to preparing them to absorb the different kind of education they would receive at Colleges or Universities. A random survey would show that:

• those who excelled at primary and secondary levels foundered at College level;
• those who have managed to clear the College hurdle have foundered at University level;
• those who managed to get through all these levels find that their education so far acquired had not been able to make them perfect human being but have come out with strong racial and religious biasness and sentiments.
The problems that students are inadequately equipped could be traced to their foundation education acquired at the primary and secondary levels. This could be discovered by the attitude of the teachers and parents.

Teacher’s role
The teachers in primary and secondary schools are so immersed in protecting and enhancing the prestige of their schools they are jealously pursuing a course to ensure that their students are prepared to perform well in examinations. Rote learning is encouraged whereby the substance is lost, as a result they do not understand what they are learning or what they have learnt.

Parents
Parents, it would seem are the biggest culprits. Swayed by economic interests they seem to have very little time over the quality of their offspring’s education. To surmount their responsibilities they find refuge in seeing that their offspring are sent to tuitions. This course too prepare the child to be examination oriented and nothing more. Strangely it is the same teachers teaching the same students at regular schools who find time to give tuitions at the tuition centres that had mushroomed all over the country. Besides, the parents seem to be suffering from dignity – neurosis; for, parents are labouring under false illusion that their children passing the examinations with A’s is a prestigious element in their social life. Even social and political organizations had shown their inclination to honour those students who have scored A’s through public receptions. The education system and these organization who are out to gain publicity, have ignored the elementary fact, and that is, only an insignificant percentage of the students score distinctions but a majority of them are unable to score better results because of their family conditions, financial demands or other factors. What should have been done is to enquire why have the majority been unable to score better marks which is more important than mere publicity in honouring the students who have achieved A’s. Leaders are prone to ignore the factors that hurt the society in general and that is the culture we have cultivated and nurtured so far.

The role of Teachers and Parents
The teachers’ determination to preserve and enhance the dignity of their schools, and the parents’ attitude to see their children excelling in examinations alone have not equipped the children to scale better heights in the academic realm or the realities of life. UPSR examination at the end of six years of primary education and PMR examination at the end of form five, altogether some eleven years of education have not adequately prepared the students to pursue further education. Besides, the dropouts after primary level, or streaming, after the UPSR examination had not brought about encouraging results. Similarly PMR examination too had seen significant dropouts. If examinations are the yardsticks to measure the level of education students had achieved, sad to say, this approach had not been helpful. A child could be very good in normal studies but with all the pressures brought about by teachers and parents the students tend to perform hopelessly at examinations.

The question is whether it is a humane to subject the young minds to so much of pressure at one time. Perhaps a better approach would be to have regular assessment [every month or once in two months] to assess the progress made by the student. By this assessment it could be ascertained to what extent and how well the child is progressing to grasp the subjects and understand what had been taught. At the end of each year an examination be conducted to ascertain how much the student has learnt and how well the child is able to express in writing what that has been learnt.

Annual examination on all subjects would be the best solutions as it will help the students to overcome the examination pressure, fear or tension instead of holding at the end of the sixth year for primary students and at the end of the five years for secondary students; only to administer knock-out blows at both levels. Here I would add that compulsory education both at primary and secondary levels should be vigorously implemented, and in this regard the society too has a role to play, society should refrain from employing young children for work with lucrative incentives. Laws must be in place to tackle errant employers whose objective is purely monetary gain.

The current USPR and PRM examinations do not help the students to understand the subjects they are being taught, and do not help them to express what they have learned.

The current UPSR and PRM examinations do not help to bring the best out of the children because their mental aptitude has not been developed to enquire, appreciate and understand. The students are treated like robots. They should be treated as human beings who need educated guidance.

Yours faithfully,

K.Siladass

International Conference on World War II

Published on http://wfol.tv/stop-nato/4460-international-conference-on-world-war-ii-.html

The objective of the International conference on World War II at the KL Convention Centre on 13 May 2010 has been stated to “create awareness that wars are damaging and that lessons learned from World War II events should help contain the outbreak of yet another deadly, devastating war that could become the world war III”. The objective indeed promised a forum to discuss wide range topics relative to the current globalized problems that have emerged since the end of World War II and are likely to prolong in many parts of the world. Apart from this declared objective there was also an indication that Nuremburg Trials would also feature during the conference. Unfortunately there was not much discussion except the passing observation by Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar, in his keynote address. I will deal with this in a short while.

The remarks by the chairperson that Sri Lankan current President Mahinda Rajapakshe should have been awarded the Nobel Prize for bringing an end to the civil war spearheaded by the Tamil Tigers instead of US President Obama, does not go well considering the importance of this conference and the message it planned to convey, presumably, to the world at large. It was an immature remark, insensitive to the real issues facing Sri Lanka. Although the civil war had ended it had not solved the problems faced by the minority Tamils. The end of the civil war has not solved the problems that were the root cause for the conflict resulting in the deaths of thousands and the displacements that had occurred, and these are problems that are still alive thus the Sri Lankan present peace is on thin ice. We are also told that the Sri Lankan Civil War is far from war and there are certain quarters claiming for investigation against Mahinda for war crimes.

History tells us that the victors in a war plunder the vanquished and exert their supremacy whereby the victors are able to continually squander the rich resources of the defeated country. Those responsible for the war were summarily executed or exiled. This was the norm before the World War II. Legal minds did not stir, or steer towards formulating principles to bring to justice those who had violated peace treaty, or who had acted in such a way precipitating breach of world peace or those who had committed war crimes against humanity. This was the state of affair until the end of the Second World War.

Thus we see that nineteenth century Germany, under the leadership of Bismarck Von Otto, the Chancellor, defeated France and subjected it to onerous financial constraints and war reparations under the Treaty of Frankfurt in order to ensure that France will never again be able to wage war against Germany.

Similarly, when Germany was defeated in 1917 it was France which benefited much under the Versailles Treaty. It was said that Britain was not keen in seeing the strict compliance of the terms of the Versailles Treaty that favoured France which were seemed to be unfair.

No one at the end of the First World War considered the necessity to bring those responsible for the war to justice in a civilized manner. The prevailing view was that imposing stringent conditions were adequate so that the defeated country and its leaders would not be inclined to war.

The events of that led to the Second World War would exactly show that Hitler’s main attack had been against the Versailles Treaty and he boldly breached the terms, and Britain did not see the breach as paving the way to another war.

But at the end of the Second war with Germany’s defeat there were new school of thought, for it seemed that the old system of punishing by exacting reparation was insufficient and does not deter the waging of war. On the position of the War criminals Sir Winston Churchill was inclined that they should be shot so soon as they were caught and their identity established.1 Strangely, Joseph Stalin’s position was different prompting Churchill to ask whether “the grand criminals should be tried before being shot,” in other words, that it should be “a judicial act rather than a political act. Stalin replied that “that was so.” But Roosevelt commented that it should not be judicial. He wanted to keep out newspapers and photographers until the criminals are dead.2 Stalin’s stand was a new approach and for the first time in world war history a civilized method was devised to bring those responsible to trial – whether they be individuals or organizations. 3

Therefore, on 8 August 1945 a major breakthrough was made when the Allied Countries signed an agreement in London for the prosecution and punishment of the major criminals of the European Axis.

The first recital of the agreement stated that the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of their intention that War Criminals should be brought to justice. The second recital referred to the Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943 which made specific reference to German atrocities in Occupied Europe of the German officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in atrocities or crimes to be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries and of the free governments that will be created therein.

In so far as to the case of major criminal whose offences have no particular geographical location punishment they will be tried by the joint decision of the Government of the Allies.4

Article 1 of the agreement provided for the establishment of an International Military Tribunal for the trial of war criminals whose offences have no particular geographical location whether they be accused individually or in their capacity as members of organizations or groups or in both capacities.

Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal provided for the establishment of a Tribunal for trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations who have committed any of the following crimes.5

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility :-

(a) Crimes against peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing ;

(b) War crimes : namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners or war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c) Crimes against humanity : namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war ; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”6

According to Article 7 of the Official position of defendants, whether a Head of State or responsible officers in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to orders of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility; but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines justice so requires, according to Article 8.7

It will be seen that it is not only the Head of State but individuals who have played a part in the criminal act would be liable so also organizations which had pursued criminal acts against peace, against humanity, and generally war crimes.

Similar Tribunal was set up for Far East which held the trial in Tokyo, Japan.

Chief of Counsel Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson of the United States of America in his opening speech said that he was privileged in “opening the first trial in history for crimes against the world,”8 and added that the trial “represents the practical effort… to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times – aggressive war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people.”9

The trial was important to show that the world community would not countenance the brutal methods and measures used in war. Besides, the trial also clearly sent signals that those precipitate war crimes against peace and humanity will not have safe haven. The Nuremburg and Tokyo trials against major war criminals opened up a new chapter in World history that war reparations alone would be inadequate punishment to those who plan and execute war, instead they will also be personally held responsible for the deaths and destructions that ensue their criminal acts.

It is true that the introduction of the International Tribunal was aimed at war-mongers that having ravished foreign lands and killing and maiming innocent peoples cannot upon their own defeat be safe in their own country or find refuge in other countries escaping responsibility for the crimes they had committed. On reflection we are posed with the question to what extent in the present so-called peaceful world has this warning of personal responsibility been helpful to avoid war.

We have conflicts all over the world. There are unresolved problems over Palestine, there are troubles on the African Continent, Indo-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir remains unresolved, and the two countries had been engaged in fierce wars since their independence. The two Koreas are seen at loggerheads, Iran had a fair share of pursuing a violent cause, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and other violent conflicts had surfaced after the second world war. Some of these conflicts are the results of the decolonization or self-rule postulated in the Atlantic Treaty.

On a global scale we see inequality, illiteracy, poverty and more importantly we are witnessing the destructive elements of new form of terrorism unleashed in every part of the world. Although technological advancement had made travel swifter, and the world had become small compared to some forty years ago yet the fear that the aircraft would be blown up to pieces with loss of lives is always haunting us. Lockerbie disaster is still afresh in our minds. It is not clear to what extent states are secretly involved in this well organized and executed international terrorism.

After the Second World War Germany and Japan, the former one was the cause for war in Europe and the latter the cause in Far East and both had economically flourished but there are countries who were not in any way responsible for that horrible war where poverty exists and other unspeakable cruelties and committed in the names of religion and race remain. Billions are spent on the arms race because of the fear that the likelihood of war cannot be ignored.

So, one would wonder whether the causes that led to the First Word War – which was mainly fought to preserve the balance of power, and the Second World War fought to defeat the grand designs of the Axis had disappeared or are they there camouflaged in international economic reformation or extreme religious fanaticism or fundamentalism.

The problems that existed before the Second World War were different from those we are now facing. Soon after the Second World War the victorious Allied countries were competing to ensure the liberated countries came under their respective influences. Europe was divided into Iron curtain and Democracy. Germany itself was divided into two countries, subsequently leading to the infamous Berlin Wall until it was brought down after three decades of its raising.

The victorious Allied Forces notwithstanding the meaningful aspirations declared in the Atlantic Treaty were soon after the Second War at odds. Britain, France and United States wanted to contain or destroy communism, and in the pursuit of doing so, they were at loggerheads with Communist Russia, their bed-fellow during the Second World War. In the pretext of containing communism, genuine nationalism was put to severe test and suppressed. And finally when the decolonialsation policy was implemented some of the newly independent countries became the standard bearers of the colonialists.

It is easy to say that all the problems that we face today are the results of the Second World War, an easy way to find soothing balm, forgetting the benefits that had also come about. In fact serious problems surfaced and took root centuries ago when religions began to exert their influence and chose war as a means to subjugate others and bring the invaded countries under their religious persuasion. Invasions and aggressions were the brutal orders of that time. Further, the European Colonisation programme into Asia and Africa had obviously changed the social and cultural mannerism. The Second World War may have seen the end of Nazis’ claim to see the Aryan race supremacy and economic exploration of the minorities, but it cannot be safely said a new form of racial supremacy is being campaigned by the ethnic majority. And clear division is perpetrated along racial and religious likes. If this is not checked its effect will spread to the detriment of peace.

Although the Europeans gave up their colonies their influence had been engrafted into the social and cultural behaviour of the colonialised people, whose way of thinking had changed. The old European greed, their love for power, their authoritiveness, their diplomacy all had become the acceptable pattern for the present leaders to govern and exert their power. Here lies the danger that peace is still at peril. New form of economic aggression is gaining momentum; religious fundamentalism imbued with violent tendencies had emerged. This and other factors may be the disturbing elements; but for the selfish and greedy lots the opulence they enjoy are not things they would like to lose, and if a World War III were to come it would put paid to their enjoyment and grand designs. Nay, they will try to avoid it but their aggressive attitude against their own kind will continue, and that is one of the realities that had emerged since the end of Second World War. The greed of wealthy nations and their leaders want the fear of third world war to linger on so that their interests will not be affected.

The complacency that there is not any inkling that the ungodly third world war would not come is also dangerous; for, this ignores the fact that there is already a growing feeling that war is needed on an international scale in the name of religion by religious fanatics. In my view this type of war could have worst ramifications than that of the second world war. There is a vital difference between declared and undeclared war. Declared wars have certain conventions and limitations as to the manner in which they could be prosecuted. Undeclared wars have no respect for conventions or human values. Sadly, the warning is there yet ignored.