At the outset let me say that the law has mainly been passed by the predominantly Islamic government because Christian evangelism in these parts is aimed at drawing the mainly indigenous folk away from Islam towards Christianity.
Christian 'propaganda' in east Malaysia has been using (or perhaps abusing) the word Allah for God in their literature promoting the Christian faith amongst the locals in Sarawak and Sabah in remote north Borneo - also part of Malaysia.
Firstly, let me explain that from my early years in Malaysia (and Malaya before that) the word generally used both by Malays (Muslims) and non-Malays for God/Allah, especially in the Malay language, is 'Tuhan'.
The story is that, in subtle fashion, the Christian literature has been using the word Allah and also inferring that whereas Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, the son of Allah is Jesus. A sort of one-upmanship in proselytising. Who would you back - the prophet or the son?
Christians do a great deal of research on how to tackle the gullible, the weak, the naive, into the Christian fold. We Sikhs too are victims.(See http://www.sikhoutreach.org/ ) For example, I know of quite intelligent Sikhs who have been enticed in one way or another and also paid, to become evangelical preachers. They are fully turbanned and bearded and look like Sikhs but use the line, "Nanak showed me the way to Jesus", for their preaching.
So, even as objections mounted from the Muslim clergy, the Christian organisations kept asserting their right to use the term Allah until a court case materialised. Then, the Inter-faith organisation of Malaysia stepped in and defended the right of non-Muslims to use the word Allah.
Here come the Sikhs - as part of the inter-faith movement, being told that they are most threatened because the Guru Granth Sahib has the word Allah within gurbani.
The judiciary and also other Muslim legal folk tried to tell the Sikh 'legal eagles' representing the Malaysian Gurdwara Council at these hearings that it really had nothing to do with them and the term Allah already in the Guru Granth Sahib was not affected as it was written in a few hundred years ago. The objection was the use of Allah in current proselytising literature.
But urged on, mainly by the Christians presumably, they
felt that there would be nothing to stop the Muslims into the future from
insisting that the word Allah also be removed from the Guru Granth Sahib. While
this might seem a valid point, others say that a piece of legislation even
protecting the Guru Granth Sahib would not stop future generations of
fundamentalist Muslims from causing further problems for the Sikhs and Allah in
the Guru Granth Sahib, if they wanted to.
Most importantly, if we as Sikhs go about trying to defend the Guru Granth Sahib, then it also means that the courts can rule one way or the other! SHOULD WE NOT LEAVE THE GURU GRANTH SAHIB ABOVE THE LAW?
Does it need protecting, legally, by its subjects?
In the midst of all this, the president of the Gurdwara Council was pushed into the position of becoming president of the recognised Inter-Faith Council here. So, not only was he putting out statements on behalf of the Sikhs but also fronting statements from the Inter-faith movement. Suddenly the Sikhs were not seen in very good light by Muslims generally and quite rightly so. Even the other non-Muslim faiths appeared to be using a Sikh to spout their grievances stopping them from using the term Allah - which was mainly for their proselytising.
Normally, from personal previous experiences, inter-faith movements never normally allow a Sikh to be president. Sikhism is held as a minority faith and normally even Hindu representatives try to pass off Sikhism as a sub-sect of their faith and do not even like Sikh representation on inter-faith organisations. Here in the midst of a crisis, the Sikh is handed the post of president of the inter-faith movement! Seemed rather convenient for the other faiths but certainly not the Sikhs - more like a scapegoat situation.
Reminds one of the position of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and his having to defend the right of Hindus to practice their faith, and he gave his life for that freedom. Now the president of the Gurdwara Council is playing Guru Tegh Bahadur too. But rather than defending some genuine 'freedom' to practice, here he is defending the mischief of the Christians! Can he not see that it is a 'con' job especially by the Christians?
Suddenly Sikhs do not look good. They are even speaking on behalf of the inter-faith movement! Muslims, who look upon the Sikhs as closest to them amongst all other faiths suddenly see a Sikh, the president of the inter-faith movement speaking out against them.
The issue of 'Allah' in Malaysia is a very delicate one and though on the surface appears to ridicule Malaysian authorities about their rigidity, one needs to look at the underlying issue created by subtle proselytisation mainly by the Christians.
Sikhs should not allow others to make scapegoats of them. There is a Punjabi saying - you wish to fire the gun, but on the shoulder of someone else so that you are only partially blamed or not at all. In this case it will appear that the Christians want to keep firing their guns but they are using the camouflage of the other faiths and the shoulder of their Sikh representative, now thrown into the position of president, to do so. And, the Sikh is allowing that! I think Malaysian Sikhs should wake up to this kind of trickery from other proselytising religious groups who use any tricks they can to further their aim of conversions!
I am always weary of the hidden agendas within the representatives of inter-faith movements and though these movements, I am sure, do a great deal of good in inter-faith and inter-racial harmony, one needs always to be on ones guard especially us Sikhs. We can be very very trusting and dare I say, naive. Remember, we are the one faith which does not look for conversions from others. In fact we frown upon such activities. Not all faiths or rather their representatives can be trusted like that.
Where on the one hand we are and should always be looking for common grounds with other faiths, we should equally voice our disapproval at those aspects of other faiths that infringe on basic universal truths and practices which are against human dignity, for example, the caste system and also discrimination against women.
We should certainly speak out and oppose any form of proslytisation by other faiths. We do not seek converts and others should not either.
--
Dya Singh
5 James Street
Noble Park, Victoria 3174
Exploring the Spirit Thru Music
