I would like to comment on a commentary titled "Allah is my God. Who is yours?" (The Jakarta Post, March 13, p. 2)

If Christians are forced to throw their holy book in the trash can and adopt a revised version dictated to them by the followers of another religion that is an infringement of freedom of religion and freedom of communication.

But according to the writer, it is only a minor irritation compared to the loss suffered by Muslims, who will miss the chance to learn that translations can be ambiguous!

You prefer the translation "There is no God but God" to "There is no God but Allah". But there is no decisive reason why one should be better than the other.

The question here is whether the label "God" in Islam refers to the same concept as the label "God" in other religions. But again, there is no definite answer. God is an abstract concept, not a material object (although many people tend to speak of God as a "Big Daddy").

But what is God's role in the universe? The answers in scripture are often vague, but we do get some clear ideas. For example "Whosoever obeys the Messenger, thereby obeys God" (the Koran, chapter 4). If this idea were present in two religions, then the idea of "God" would be the same in so far as it required obedience to a messenger.

But the idea of "God" would be different in so far as the "messenger" in one religion might be Moses, while the messenger in another religion might be Mohammed. Since the laws of Moses and the laws of Mohammed are not the same, obeying the "God" of Moses and obeying the "God" of Mohammed are two different things.

The Christian and Islamic insistence on "one God for everybody" is a legacy of their historical origin as adaptations of Jewish tribal monotheism to the needs of people coalescing in multi-tribal societies.

So the obsession of modern Christians and Muslims with the idea of "one God" reflects the Jewish basis of their religion. In this light, we can better understand the nuances of the translation "There is no God but Allah" (Tiada Tuhan selain Allah) versus "There is no God but God".

In "There is no God but Allah", the tribalism is overt. It suggests that "Allah is our only God."

It is an affirmation of loyalty to "Allah", the particular God of Muslims, and a rejection of traditional spirits and other religions' Gods. Christians and others may think that they are worshipping God, but they are deluded.

In "There is no God but God", the tribalism is covert. It suggests that "Our God is the only God." It is an affirmation that God is not tribal, but universal.

In this point of view, the Chinese, the Indians and the "primitive" ancestors and forest dwellers must be worshipping the true God, but in an incorrect way.

There is no belief in this God, that God or the other God, but only different degrees of perfection in understanding the one and only God.

Since Muslims have the best understanding of God, thanks to their faith in Mohammed, who most perfectly expressed God's will, followers of other religions can only ever have an inadequate appreciation of God.

Thus, from a non-Muslim point of view, the idea that "There is no God but God" is no more appealing than "There is no God but Allah."

At least under "There is no God but Allah", everyone can agree to differ. They can recognize that all groups worship their own God in their own way, as long as the dominant group is tolerant enough to share space, media, symbols and language.

But under "There is no God but God", there is less room to be different. Non-Muslims are only inferior worshippers of the one Islamic God.

By implication, they need the guidance of Muslims to lift them above the limited understanding offered by their own religion so that they can appreciate, accept and obey God's true law, as revealed by the Prophet Mohammed.

John Hargreaves

Jakarta

Popular

The greenwashing of destruction: Legal action as Raja Ampat’s last hope

US-Iran nuclear talks in Oman cancelled

Planned MRT extension to South Tangerang to cost $1.25b