We are presumed to be a nation of highly educated people. A large proportion of us are capable of deepening our knowledge and shaping our mind with the use of the internet. Knowledge is abound on the internet. With one click of the mouse we could obtain a wealth of information. Conversely with such facilities being readily at our disposal we can secure information and genuinely make a transformation of our mind, when our knowledge or skill veers into new and uncharted territory.

So why has a legal battle to be waged in a court of law over a “generic” term Allah?

This is owing to the fact that the Ministry of Home Affairs has barred the Roman Catholic Church from using the word “Allah” in its weekly publication The Herald. The Federal Constitution states that Islam is the religion of the federation. It does not prohibit the use of the word “Allah.” But the Home Ministry (HM) claims that it is a threat to national security. How could it be so?

The Quran at chapter XXIII AL-Muminun, or The Believers at verse 91 categorically states: “No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to him!”

So, since the Quran itself states that there is only one God, how does the HM claim that there is a threat to national security?

Could it be that the HM has an original formation of mind that is still like that of a young child which is only capable of conceiving ideas without understanding the composition and the motions of this world?

Or does the HM need an adult education course to contrast and understand history and evolutionary psychology?

If only the HM were to use the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) facilities their lawyers would not have made fools of themselves for having had raised such scandalous, frivolous and vexatious arguments in court that by the use of a generic term, the word “Allah” would be a threat to national security.

Why would it be so?

There are many scholars who have carried out research papers on this generic word “Allah.” Many scholars conclude that “Allah” is derived from a compound of an Arabic word, AL + ILAH = Allah. They confirm that “ILAH” in Arabic is “God” and “AI” in Arabic is a definitive article like our word “the”.

Therefore, from the English equivalent the word “Allah” comes from “The + God”. There is also another theory that the word “Allah” was borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic.

The are historians like Vaqqidi  who state that Allah was actually the chief of 360 gods, that is, one god for each day of the year being worshipped in Arabia at the time Muhammad rose to prominence

Ibn Al-Kalbi gave 27 names of pre-Islamic deities. Interestingly, not many Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka’ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Muhammad came. Some Muslims become angry when they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side. Pre-Islamic literature has proved this.

In order to obtain a better understanding of the word “Allah” it is suggested that the reader do make an effort to go the following links and read up the information for their own understanding and knowledge.



We all know that common sense dictates that God has not appointed any mortal soul to regulate our religious belief. In the same vain Hawkins has pointed out that religion spreads like a virus and inflicts the young when they are depressed and feel hopeless. It also inflicts individuals who are weak emotionally and intellectually. But not thieves, robber barons and murders, like the Jet engines, PKFZ scandal or the C4 murder of Altantua.

The HM should of all institutions of the government understand that we are a secular nation. We have our rights enshrined in the constitution. Religion is a way of life. And each one of us gives our veneration to God in our own way. The last thing that any government should ever think of doing is to regulate our belief in God as it is a personal matter between each and every one of us and God.

Therefore the act of banning the Herald from using the word “Allah” is in itself an unconstitutional act under the provisions of Article 3, 10  and 11 of the Federal Constitution. As such, the Freedom to practice ones religion is premised on a person’s  belief and based on such a belief the use of the choice of words to express the belief cannot under any circumstance whatsoever be regulated.

If it was ever permitted, then it would cause violence to the constitutional rights of the people who have a belief in that faith. Of course an elected government has the mandate to formulate policies for the common good of all its citizens. But it has no power to determine as to how to direct or dictate to its citizens on how, what, where, why and in what form or manner they are to believe and to think about their religious beliefs.

Therefore our government should not forget the basic question of why it was elected and it should not lose sight of the mandate it has been given to govern but should always understand that its role to manage the nation is inauthentic as it does not have any power to manage our thoughts and our faith in God.



  1. boscopa Says:

    Yes. I am the author of this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: