"Jesus Rifles" get the boot

Dubbed the "Jesus rifles", in what was a very embarassing episode for the US military, US gunsight maker Trijicon have decided to stop inscribing biblical references onto gunsights used by US soldiers - who are coincidentally also deployed in Irqa and Afghanistan. To make it worse, these weapons are used to train Muslim Iraqi and Afghan security forces and perhaps later supplied to them. The fear is that this fuels the notion that USA and its allies are waging a religious war against the Muslim world. Even if there was no official "religious war", religious insensitivity can spark off anger (lots of it) and perhaps in this case even lose a war. Check out this post for examples of insensitvities in America war against terror, it's appaling.

There is no biblical text on the sights, only numerical references to passages. The Bible references carry the common theme of Jesus being the light of the world. One, JN8:12 – chapter eight, verse 12 in the Book of John – reads: "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.'" The other inscription is from the Second Corinthians, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

A Church of England spokesman best sums up the episode, "People of all faiths and none are being killed and injured in these ­conflicts, on all sides, and any suggestion that this is being done in the name of the Bible would be deeply worrying to many ­Christians. The meaning of the Bible is to be found in reflective reading and prayer, not in sloganising and soundbites."

For us, it is important that we keep our public instituitions secular. It would be disastrous to be carrying out our military/police training in the name of a religion, or even appear to carry out in the name of any religion. Any troop tainted with any hint of favouring any religion would not be able to enforce law and order in our multi-ethnic society. Too much baggage and suspicions. But have we found the balance between secularism and the rights to practice one's religion? Are these two always a dichotomy and in conflict? Is secularism oppressive? Would it be ok for a soldier to inscribed his own weapon?

The tension rises over use of "Allah"

The tensions have increased since I last blog about this issue with the burning and attempted arson of churches in Malaysia. Evidently, this is not doing any good for Singapore as we are geographically and ethnically intertwined, like how the troubles spilled over in the 1960s. But I am glad that we have managed to stay out of the troubles up north, which, in my opinion, may have more links to politics and racial bigotry. Singapore is obviously more edgy about our Doraemon figures not having the Chinese Zodiac Pig to complete the Lunar New Year celebratory from MacD. It might also be the fact that we have been conditioned over the decades that a multi-racial-religious society can only stay cordial and integrate when religion is kept separate from politics. Afterall, an explosion is only expected when a spark meets with petrol.

Perhaps it is times like this that I am glad we have separated from Malaysia...not because they're a less developed country but because they have chosen to organise their politics along racial lines, and inevitably religious lines as well. In fact, most other times, I think I might be happier there with a slower pace of life and cheaper cost of living. Combustible is the word to describe the racial-religious politics in Malaysia and increasingly so since Barisan Nasional/UMNO less than authoritative showing in the 2006 general elections. Even the mainstay of past decades, the New Economic Policy and affirmative action for Malays, are being debated by UMNO themselves.

One can only wonder why the Malaysian leaders allow the "Allah" saga to see the light of the courts and the media. Not that I am anti-liberty, or anti-freedom of press, but such sensitive issues should be thoroughly discussed or amicably settled between the various religious leaders and government before it is released to public and spun mercilessly by negative elements with the masses aroused. With a cauldron of oil one only needs a spark to start a fire. Maybe the various religious leaders up north don't have tea together regularly. Can have teh tarik and kueh kueh this week, then next week we have chinese tea and vegetarian snacks?! Ease up dude...I will pray for peace and understanding.

The use of "Allah" in Malaysia

A Malaysian’s High Court ruling to allow the use of “Allah”, to mean Christian God, in the Malay language version of the Catholic newsletter, The Herald, has ignited the Malaysian cyberspace as various camps began to take sides. There is a Facebook group against the High Court ruling that has more than 66,000 members! Here are some of the latest news but just search “Malaysia+Allah” and boy…

http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=466416
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/malaysia/2010/01/05/239372/Malaysia-Allah.htm
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1148778&lang=eng_news

The Malay version of The Herald reaches out to Malay speaking Catholics in Sabah and Sarawak and it has long and widely been used by them to denote the Christian God. Even the High Court judge acknowledged this when she ruled that it was the constitutional right of the non-Muslims, such as Catholics, to use “Allah” when communicating with their believers but it not right to use the same word when trying to preach to Muslims. Personally, I agree with the judge as the Malay speaking Catholics might not have a more apt word…although some have pointed out that the correct Malay word for God is Tuhan as Allah is Arabic. Admittedly, Tuhan is infrequently used and the Arabic speaking Christians in the Middle East have been (and still) using Allah to refer to their God. Furthermore, the Malaysian judge has ruled that “Allah” shouldn’t be used for preaching to Muslims which is adequate and fair in a multi-religious society and protects Muslims from aggressive preaching. (It’s like treating the common man on the street (not only Muslims) as an naïve innocent child and can be easily confused …I mean Malaysians (and Singaporeans) are better than that.) At the end of the day, what speaks of a man who sways easily from one religion to another just with different groups of people using the same word, Allah?!!? And what good is it for the believers which eventually claim ownership over “Allah”?? It strains inter-religious ties more than anything else…

Now the courts have passed a stay on the old ruling, i.e. a ban on the use of “Allah” by non-Muslims, until the case is presented before the Court of Appeals, the country’s highest court. Not surprisingly, the issue is being increasingly politicized and various political camps have begun to take sides. PAS, the conservative Islamic party of Malaysia, has shockingly said that the use of “Allah” by Abrahamic faiths is okay, one would have expected to take the more hardline approach by claiming the use “Allah” for only the Malay-Muslim ground. However, PAS’ move is not as shocking if you consider the fact that their main rival the ruling UMNO government is the plaintiff of this case against the Catholic Church. UMNO, the long-time defender of Malay rights, have lost much of their support as evident in the 2006 Malaysian elections and are now seeking to be purer than pure. Even the Mahathir family is split with Marina Mahathir commenting that Muslims should be confident that they will not be easily confused by a name while her brother, Mukhriz, believes that the “Allah” belongs solely to Muslims in Malaysia. Note that the brother is a senior UMNO member and Deputy Trade Minister while Marina is a known social activist.

The usually combative UMNO Youth Chief, Khairy Jamaluddin, has sensibly called for a dialogue between the Fatwa Council and Catholic Church to solve the quagmire with the obvious vision that an open court battle and inflammatory elements/comments/speeches would do no good for the multi-racial, multi-religious society. It would serve to create more suspicions among the different faiths when bridges are needed more than ever these days. Honestly, in my opinion, what good does it do for the side that wins? Do they appear to be holier in front of their community? Does it prevent their believers from converting to Christianity or vice versa? How much is the issue now cloaked with political mileage with too much stakes embedded? Or is it that people in a multi-ethnic society/geopolitical region have a tendency to claim territory, cultural heritage, words etc?? Like the recent who owns laksa, chilli crab etc mini-saga?? =)

AND HOW COMES NO ONES FIGHTING OVER WHO OWNS “LAH”?? I mean almost every ethnic group uses "lah" in Malaysia and Singapore right? Come lah, challenge lah…according to Wikipedia ‘lah’ might come from Tamil and here we using it like crazy…Tamils should fight back for ‘lah’. Haha. Or we should simply be nice and tolerant and share what we can. Below is from wikepedia:

The "Lah" word
The ubiquitous word lah (/lɑ́/ or /lɑ̂/), used at the end of a sentence, can also be described as a particle that simultaneously asserts a position and entices solidarity.
Note that 'lah' is often written after a comma for clarity, but there is never a pause before it. This is because in the original Malay, 'lah' is appended to the end of the word and is not a separate word by itself.
In Malay, 'lah' is used to change a verb into a command or to soften its tone, particularly when usage of the verb may seem impolite. For example, "to drink" is "minum", but "Here, drink!" is "minumlah". Similarly, 'lah' is frequently used with imperatives in Singlish, such as the command, "Drink, lah!" (Come on, drink!). 'Lah' also occurs frequently with "Yah" and "No" (hence "Yah lah" and "No lah"), resulting in a less brusque sound, thus facilitating the flow of conversation. This form is more used by Chinese in Malaysia.
Most of the Manglish grammar described here is of Chinese origin since Malays do not converse in English daily, while the Indians use a different form of Manglish. The Chinese influence in Manglish, however, can be seen among other races in Malaysia, especially when conversing with Chinese-speaking people. This principle can be generally applied to all forms of non-standard English spoken in Malaysia.
It might have Tamil origin. Lah is still used widely in Southern Tamilnadu (Thirunelveli, Kanyakumari district) in the same manner. Tamil is said to be more pure in this region than northern Tamilnadu and had ancient trade link with south east Asia.