Inconsistent, insensitive translations of ‘Allah’?

A response to Prof Dzulkifli by Fr Martin Harun

Source: http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/storydetails.php/A-response-to-Prof-Dzulkifli-by-Fr-Martin-Harun/362-1-3

By: Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (Wed, 11 Mar 2009)
Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak in his article in The Sun on Mar 11, wrote about the Christian Bible and its translation in Bahasa Indonesia (Alkitab). Unfortunately he manifested not only his lack of understanding in the specified field of bible translation but also an inadequate knowledge of basic Christian concepts. Hence we have asked Fr Martin Harun, OFM, a biblical scholar, to respond to his article. Fr Martin is a member of the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia. Please note that we have not altered the original article of Prof Dzulkifli. The response of Fr Martin is in bold beneath those statements that are inaccurate or which do not measure up to good scholarship.

Prof Dzulfikli Abdul Razak: The use of the term ‘Allah’ has captured the attention of the media again. Of late, even a newspaper from down south carried a commentary on the issue. The slant is usually political, and not religious, and does not throw any new light on the issue. It also does not appeal to the intellect; instead, it seems to border more on emotions that further confuse the issue.

[We disagree with the above sentence. In our response to what follows we challenge the subjective views of the author. Our statements are based on historical facts and intellectual objectivity. (Editor’s Note)]

To all Muslims the term ‘Allah’ is laden with the concept of Tauhid — that ‘Allah’ is “the One and Only” as defined in the Quranic language, which happens to be Arabic. ‘Allah’ cannot be understood without this concept of his oneness. Any attempt to do so will amount to a vulgarism of sort, and an affront to Muslims.

Fr Martin Harun: All Christians in the Arabic world and Indonesia and Malaysia who use the word ‘Allah’ for God, confess ‘Allah’ yang Esa. Christian Trinitarian belief is monotheistic, although not in the same sense as Muslim monotheistic belief. Each religion has of course its own specific definitions, as has been acknowledged by Muslims and Christians from the very beginning.

Prof Dzulkifli: Moving forward, let us briefly try and understand the reasons for Muslim misgivings by using the Bahasa Indonesia version which is translated from the English New King James Version and authorised by Konperensi Waligerja Indonesia (Edition, 2004). Let us randomly take The Gospel according to Luke, translated as Injil Lukas, to briefly illustrate the point.

Fr Harun: Alkitab Terjemahan Baru and Alkitab Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari both are translated not from any other modern language like English but from the original Hebrew and Greek text. When translating Elohim and Theos with ‘Allah,’ the translations follow an already long established translation tradition. Since the seventeenth century bible translations in Malay have used the word ‘Allah’ as the best word available in the Malay language to express the monotheistic concept of Elohim and Theos.

Prof Dzulkifli: In Luke, ‘God’ is generally substituted by ‘Allah’, whereas ‘Tuhan’ is commonly used to substitute ‘the Lord". Note the article ‘the’ applies to ‘Tuhan,’ but not to ‘Allah’. Hence, where there is ‘the Lord God’ in the English version, it becomes ‘Tuhan Allah’. ‘The Lord their God’ becomes ‘Tuhan, Allah mereka’. Note the use of a comma!

Fr Harun: Alkitab is not translated from English, but from Hebrew and Greek. ‘Allah’ is not chosen as an Arabic word, but as an already Malay/Indonesian word that best expresses the meaning of Elohim and Theos in the biblical texts, and Tuhan best expresses the meaning of Adonai / Kurios in the biblical language. So every comparison with English and also Arabic is irrelevant and highly confusing.

Prof Dzulkifli: On some occasions though, ‘God’ is also translated as ‘Tuhan’, though ‘God’ in this example does not carry the article ‘the’ as in ‘the Lord’. So does it mean there is a time when ‘God’ is not ‘Allah’? Or that ‘Tuhan’ is ‘Allah’ after all?

Fr Harun: This happens only in the Old Testament, more often in the book of Ezekiel when the Hebrew text says Adonai YHWH (pronounced Adonai Adonai, harfiah Tuhan Tuhan). In many bible translations in many languages, starting from the Latin Vulgate this repetition has been avoided by translating ‘Tuhan Allah’, ‘Dominus Deus’, ‘Lord God’, ‘Herr Gott’, ‘Seigneur Dieu’. The Indonesian Alkitab Terjemahan Baru follows this old use, but could also opt for a different way, e.g. ‘TUHAN Yang Mahatinggi’ (BIS), ‘like Sovereign LORD’ (NIV).

Prof Dzulkifli: Yet, on other occasions, ‘Allah’ is used as substitute for ‘the LESUS.’ But then, ‘the LESUS your God’ is rendered as ‘Tuhan, Allahmu’ — note again the comma!.

Fr Harun: There is no word as ‘the LESUS.’ Prof Dzulkifli may have meant ‘the Christ’ meaning ‘the Lord.’ The word ‘Allah/Theos’ is never used for Jesus in his earthly existence, but some times in liturgical contexts for either the preexistent Logos, Word (John 1:1) or the Christ (John 20:28) as Thomas said to the risen Jesus, “My Lord, My God”, ‘Tuhanku, Allahku’, so always in celebrating his unity with the One God.

Prof Dzulkifli: Just from these few random examples, one can already sense the complexity and confusion in the use of ‘Allah’ in the translated version. To make matters even more confusing, the biblical name ‘Mary’ is rendered as ‘Maria’ — when the Quranic equivalent would have been ‘Maryam’; And ‘John’ as ‘Yohanes’ instead of ‘Yahaya.’ Or for that matter ‘Gabriel’ is not even translated but kept as it is. The Quranic ‘Jibrail’ as an equivalent is not even considered! How about ‘Jesus’ himself? Why is this rendered as ‘Yesus’, rather than ‘Isa’? In the Quran both are the sons of Mary or Maryam.

Fr Harun: Names are a different question. They are not translated, but can be transliterated from the original language in different ways according to the use of the receiving language group. The confusion is 100 per cent created by Prof Dzulkifli himself who keeps on forgetting the Bible is not translated via English or Arabic, but from Hebrew and Greek direct into Malay/Indonesian language. Not knowing Hebrew and Greek Prof Dzulkifli should not judge any translation from those languages, as I myself not knowing Arabic would not dare to judge any Indonesian translation from Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: If the worry is that the use of the word ‘Isa’ in the Quran is limited only to him being the son of man and not of ‘Allah’; unlike what is understood for the biblical ‘Jesus’ — then should not the same consideration and sensitivity for Muslim feeling be shown when ‘Allah’ is used in the translation, without any concern for the Quranic Tauhidic concept. This inconsistency, indifference and arrogance is rather obvious when it comes to the biblical ‘the Son of God’ and the use of ‘Anak Allah’ as an equivalent in the translation — something which is conceptually outright not acceptable to Muslims. In fact, it tantamounts to the denial of the concept of ‘Allah’ as explained in the Quran, Surah Al- Ikhlas 112: 3 that “He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable to Him”.

Fr Martin: In any language the same common word for God is filled with different concepts, since the users of this same language have different religious convictions. These differences are to be respected, without anyone claiming monopoly to the common language. The more so in this case, since the use of the word ‘Allah’ in early Christian circles precedes its use in the Quran.

Inconsistent, insensitive translations of ‘Allah’?

A response to Prof Dzulkifli by Fr Martin Harun

By: Dzulkifli Abdul Razak (Wed, 11 Mar 2009)
Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak in his article in The Sun on Mar 11, wrote about the Christian Bible and its translation in Bahasa Indonesia (Alkitab). Unfortunately he manifested not only his lack of understanding in the specified field of bible translation but also an inadequate knowledge of basic Christian concepts. Hence we have asked Fr Martin Harun, OFM, a biblical scholar, to respond to his article. Fr Martin is a member of the Lembaga Alkitab Indonesia. Please note that we have not altered the original article of Prof Dzulkifli. The response of Fr Martin is in bold beneath those statements that are inaccurate or which do not measure up to good scholarship.

Prof Dzulfikli Abdul Razak: The use of the term ‘Allah’ has captured the attention of the media again. Of late, even a newspaper from down south carried a commentary on the issue. The slant is usually political, and not religious, and does not throw any new light on the issue. It also does not appeal to the intellect; instead, it seems to border more on emotions that further confuse the issue.

[We disagree with the above sentence. In our response to what follows we challenge the subjective views of the author. Our statements are based on historical facts and intellectual objectivity. (Editor’s Note)]

To all Muslims the term ‘Allah’ is laden with the concept of Tauhid — that ‘Allah’ is “the One and Only” as defined in the Quranic language, which happens to be Arabic. ‘Allah’ cannot be understood without this concept of his oneness. Any attempt to do so will amount to a vulgarism of sort, and an affront to Muslims.

Fr Martin Harun: All Christians in the Arabic world and Indonesia and Malaysia who use the word ‘Allah’ for God, confess ‘Allah’ yang Esa. Christian Trinitarian belief is monotheistic, although not in the same sense as Muslim monotheistic belief. Each religion has of course its own specific definitions, as has been acknowledged by Muslims and Christians from the very beginning.

Prof Dzulkifli: Moving forward, let us briefly try and understand the reasons for Muslim misgivings by using the Bahasa Indonesia version which is translated from the English New King James Version and authorised by Konperensi Waligerja Indonesia (Edition, 2004). Let us randomly take The Gospel according to Luke, translated as Injil Lukas, to briefly illustrate the point.

Fr Harun: Alkitab Terjemahan Baru and Alkitab Bahasa Indonesia Sehari-hari both are translated not from any other modern language like English but from the original Hebrew and Greek text. When translating Elohim and Theos with ‘Allah,’ the translations follow an already long established translation tradition. Since the seventeenth century bible translations in Malay have used the word ‘Allah’ as the best word available in the Malay language to express the monotheistic concept of Elohim and Theos.

Prof Dzulkifli: In Luke, ‘God’ is generally substituted by ‘Allah’, whereas ‘Tuhan’ is commonly used to substitute ‘the Lord". Note the article ‘the’ applies to ‘Tuhan,’ but not to ‘Allah’. Hence, where there is ‘the Lord God’ in the English version, it becomes ‘Tuhan Allah’. ‘The Lord their God’ becomes ‘Tuhan, Allah mereka’. Note the use of a comma!

Fr Harun: Alkitab is not translated from English, but from Hebrew and Greek. ‘Allah’ is not chosen as an Arabic word, but as an already Malay/Indonesian word that best expresses the meaning of Elohim and Theos in the biblical texts, and Tuhan best expresses the meaning of Adonai / Kurios in the biblical language. So every comparison with English and also Arabic is irrelevant and highly confusing.

Prof Dzulkifli: On some occasions though, ‘God’ is also translated as ‘Tuhan’, though ‘God’ in this example does not carry the article ‘the’ as in ‘the Lord’. So does it mean there is a time when ‘God’ is not ‘Allah’? Or that ‘Tuhan’ is ‘Allah’ after all?

Fr Harun: This happens only in the Old Testament, more often in the book of Ezekiel when the Hebrew text says Adonai YHWH (pronounced Adonai Adonai, harfiah Tuhan Tuhan). In many bible translations in many languages, starting from the Latin Vulgate this repetition has been avoided by translating ‘Tuhan Allah’, ‘Dominus Deus’, ‘Lord God’, ‘Herr Gott’, ‘Seigneur Dieu’. The Indonesian Alkitab Terjemahan Baru follows this old use, but could also opt for a different way, e.g. ‘TUHAN Yang Mahatinggi’ (BIS), ‘like Sovereign LORD’ (NIV).

Prof Dzulkifli: Yet, on other occasions, ‘Allah’ is used as substitute for ‘the LESUS.’ But then, ‘the LESUS your God’ is rendered as ‘Tuhan, Allahmu’ — note again the comma!.

Fr Harun: There is no word as ‘the LESUS.’ Prof Dzulkifli may have meant ‘the Christ’ meaning ‘the Lord.’ The word ‘Allah/Theos’ is never used for Jesus in his earthly existence, but some times in liturgical contexts for either the preexistent Logos, Word (John 1:1) or the Christ (John 20:28) as Thomas said to the risen Jesus, “My Lord, My God”, ‘Tuhanku, Allahku’, so always in celebrating his unity with the One God.

Prof Dzulkifli: Just from these few random examples, one can already sense the complexity and confusion in the use of ‘Allah’ in the translated version. To make matters even more confusing, the biblical name ‘Mary’ is rendered as ‘Maria’ — when the Quranic equivalent would have been ‘Maryam’; And ‘John’ as ‘Yohanes’ instead of ‘Yahaya.’ Or for that matter ‘Gabriel’ is not even translated but kept as it is. The Quranic ‘Jibrail’ as an equivalent is not even considered! How about ‘Jesus’ himself? Why is this rendered as ‘Yesus’, rather than ‘Isa’? In the Quran both are the sons of Mary or Maryam.

Fr Harun: Names are a different question. They are not translated, but can be transliterated from the original language in different ways according to the use of the receiving language group. The confusion is 100 per cent created by Prof Dzulkifli himself who keeps on forgetting the Bible is not translated via English or Arabic, but from Hebrew and Greek direct into Malay/Indonesian language. Not knowing Hebrew and Greek Prof Dzulkifli should not judge any translation from those languages, as I myself not knowing Arabic would not dare to judge any Indonesian translation from Arabic.

Prof Dzulkifli: If the worry is that the use of the word ‘Isa’ in the Quran is limited only to him being the son of man and not of ‘Allah’; unlike what is understood for the biblical ‘Jesus’ — then should not the same consideration and sensitivity for Muslim feeling be shown when ‘Allah’ is used in the translation, without any concern for the Quranic Tauhidic concept. This inconsistency, indifference and arrogance is rather obvious when it comes to the biblical ‘the Son of God’ and the use of ‘Anak Allah’ as an equivalent in the translation — something which is conceptually outright not acceptable to Muslims. In fact, it tantamounts to the denial of the concept of ‘Allah’ as explained in the Quran, Surah Al- Ikhlas 112: 3 that “He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable to Him”.

Fr Martin: In any language the same common word for God is filled with different concepts, since the users of this same language have different religious convictions. These differences are to be respected, without anyone claiming monopoly to the common language. The more so in this case, since the use of the word ‘Allah’ in early Christian circles precedes its use in the Quran.

BEWARE! ‘Bible’ without “Allah” promoted in Book Fair

Source: http://www.heraldmalaysia.com/news/storydetails.php/‘Bible’-without-“Allah”-promoted-in-Book-Fair/500-1-1

By Fr Lawrence Andrew, SJ
KUALA LUMPUR: A ‘bible’ in Indonesian Malay but without the word “Allah” used in it was promoted during the International Book Fair held recently at the Putra World Trade Centre, Kuala Lumpur. The promoters had the book on display among other Islamic books on the first days of the Book Fair.

They also had leaflets for the whole period of the same Book Fair from April 17 - 26, among other Islamic leaflets, announcing that the “KITAB SUCI” has been printed.

Though they did not have any ‘Kitab Suci’ for sale, they instead suggested that the book be purchased on an online order using the website address they provided We are reminded of an earlier incident when a “Gospel of Barnabas” was on sale in a number of Muslim bookshops but not in any Christian bookshop. That ‘Gospel’, we know, is a false ‘gospel’ written by a Muslim.

On hearing of the publication — “Kitab Suci”, we wrote to the publishers in Indonesia to enquire if this edition of the “Kitab Suci” was approved by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference or the Bible Society of Indonesia (BSI). Our email returned with the tag ‘delivery failure’.

We then wrote to the two Authorities that approve the publication of the Bible in Indonesia. Their reply was in the negative. We were informed by a member of the Indonesian Bible Society that this “Kitab Suci” was done on the basis of J.P. Green’s literal translation. He wrote that “to some extent it differs from the earlier plagiaristic (sic) version.”

What this means is that there was an earlier version in which the word “Allah”, or God, was replaced with “Elohim” and “Tuhan” , or “Lord”, with “Yahweh” in the K. This is crass plagiarism! Faced with this situation, we read the first chapter of the Gospel of St John in English, and took note that there were only two words, namely GOD and LORD used in this chapter.

Then we turned to the ORIGINAL VERSION IN GREEK of the same first chapter of the Gospel according to John and we found that the terms “Elohim” and “Yahweh” were NOT used but instead “Theos” for God and “Kurios” for Lord.

Therefore, how can the publishers of “Kitab Suci” mention in the flyer distributed at PWTC that “it was not to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one but to make a good one better”? It is obvious that the original Greek version did not have ELOHIM and YAHWEH. Are these publishers, who have no authority to publish the Bible, saying that the original Greek version is wrong? What is their evidence for such an assumption?

What is certain, however, is that the publishers have cheated in the first instance by their manipulation of the words ELOHIM and YAHWEH, had second thoughts about their plagiarized version, and therefore have amended the current version of their “Kitab Suci”. This version varies from the earlier plagiaristic version. But the BSI pointed out to us that “anybody familiar with the Indonesian Standard Version (Alkitab Terjemahan Baru, 1974) would be able to detect their more covert plagiarism of the publishers of the “Kitab Suci.”

We as Christians are naturally disturbed by the fact that such a publication has been allowed to be promoted in Malaysia — one which does not have the approval of the authorities that give recognition to the credibility and trustworthiness of the translation of a bible. Are we, through this publication, condoning the stealing of another’s intellectual property without any qualms about this theft? This is outrageous, to say the least.

**************************************************************

BE VERY CAREFUL MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST.

I REALLY SALUTE THESE GUYS!

Bangla Bangers, (later followed by Chop Shop: London Garage), is a reality program on Discovery Channel about an eccentric Bangladeshi car designer (Leepu) and a straight talking Cockney mechanic by the name of Bernie Fineman. In every episode they try to make a supercar out of a car they buy at a wrecking yard.

Leepu, whose real name is Nizamuddin Awlia, converts rusting old cars into Ferrari and Lamborghini styled cars and limousines in his small workshop in Dhaka, Bangladesh. What makes these episodes notable is that the cars are built in a small garage using only basic tools and the bodywork is hand cut and shaped using sheet metal. With the help of the mechanic (Bernie Fineman) the improvements are sometimes remarkable.

******************************************************************************

I've watched that reality program in Astro a few times. I was really amazed, not only by their final and completed work but also by their effort. Well, we don't really know what they have been through behind the scenes but I still love what they have done to those wrecks. After all the yelling and everything, they still managed to show that they were able to create some beautiful cars with only BASIC TOOLS! Imagine what they can come up with if they are given high tech tools and parts.

I wonder why we Bidayuh can't come up with some thing more or less like that. I mean not only creating beautiful cars out of wrecks but also in other fields. I believe that there are so many talented Bidayuh out there that need to come out and show what you can really do. So come on guys! Show your talent. Work hard and smart to show that you also can shine.

INI JAWAPAN SAYA!

Blog saya ini baru sahaja beroperasi tetapi sudah ada suara-suara yang kurang bersetuju dengan apa yang saya paparkan di sini. Ada juga suara yang kononnya bimbang jika ada pihak-pihak yang tidak senang dengan apa yang saya tulis. (Komen-komennya tak sesuai untuk disiarkan!)

Terima kasih di atas segala pandangan, pendapat serta nasihat daripada anda semua. Biar saya jawab kesemuanya dengan sejelas-jelasnya.

Ini adalah blog saya, yang saya bina dengan pengetahuan saya yang cetek tentang dunia IT. Ini tempat saya meluahkan pendapat dan pandangan saya. Satu daripada harapan saya ialah melakukan atau menyumbang sesuatu untuk masyarakat saya. Saya tidak memerlukan pandangan atau pendapat orang lain tentang bagaimana saya harus ‘bercakap’ di dalam blog saya. Jika itu yang berlaku, dan saya menulis mengikut apa yang orang lain mahu, maka blog ini akan menjadi blog orang-orang itu!

Ini bukan blog politik! Saya bukan orang politik dan saya tidak mahu bermimpi untuk jadi orang politik. Mungkin ada yang beranggapan bahawa sebagai seorang guru, saya tidak harus mengkritik orang kerajaan. Saudara-saudari, saya bekerja untuk rakyat! Rakyat yang membayar gaji saya dan saya akan bekerja bersama-sama dengan mana-mana kerajaan pemerintah tidak kira sama ada kerajaan BN atau kerajaan lain yang memerintah negara ini. Saya bukan mengkritik kerajaan tetapi saya hanya akan mengkritik mana-mana individu yang tidak bersungguh-sungguh menjalankan kewajipan dan tanggungjawabnya terhadap bangsanya sendiri!

Saya berusia 38 tahun dan selama tempoh itu, saya membesar sebagai seorang yang miskin dan hina. Saya telah berusaha untuk tidak merungut kerana saya telah memahami dan menerima keadaan diri saya seadanya. Namun, saya masih merasa tidak berpuas hati apabila memerhati keadaan sekeliling dan melihat sebahagian besar anak bangsa saya masih hidup di takuk lama dan punya mentaliti yang jauh ketinggalan dari bangsa-bangsa lain.

Moyang kita dari Tembawang, Indonesia suatu ketika dahulu punya keinginan dan semangat yang kental, sanggup berhijrah beratus-ratus batu jauhnya untuk mencari kehidupan yang jauh lebih baik. Kemudian mereka juga terpaksa berjuang untuk mempertahankan diri mereka daripada semua ancaman. Mengapa kita tidak punya semangat dan mentaliti seperti itu sekarang? Apakah kita patut berpuas hati setakat ini sahaja? Mengapa apabila kita semua kehilangan banyak hak-hak kita ketika ini, kita mula menunding jari dan meletakkan kesalahan pada pihak lain? Mengapa kita tidak mahu menerima hakikat bahawa sikap kita sendiri pada mulanya yang mengakibatkan diri kita kehilangan begitu banyak? Bukankah sikap kita sendiri yang menyebabkan kita tertindas selama ini?

Atas kesedaran inilah saya ingin berusaha untuk menimbulkan kesedaran yang sama di kalangan bangsa kita. Saya tidak mencadangkan agar kita semua pergi berperang menentang sesiapa sahaja. Saya cuma ingin kita semua bersatu semula sebagai satu bangsa, sama-sama berusaha untuk mempertahankan apa yang moyang kita tinggalkan untuk kita, atau cuba mendapatkan kembali apa yang sepatutnya menjadi hakmilik kita. Mana-mana individu atau pihak yang melakukan sesuatu yang bertujuan untuk kepentingan dirinya sendiri harus disingkirkan. Pihak-pihak ini berkeupayaan untuk memporak-perandakan dan membuat kita berperang sesama sendiri. Yang ruginya pula siapa?

Walau sekuat mana pun keinginan saya untuk melihat bangsa kita bersatu-padu, saya hanya seorang manusia kecil yang tidak punya kemampuan besar untuk melaksanakan segala keinginan saya. Namun begitu, kekurangan itu tidak akan mematahkan semangat saya untuk membuat sumbangan dan tanggungjawab saya. Blog ini merupakan salah satu medan untuk saya melakukan sesuatu. Walaupun ianya cuma satu sumbangan kecil, setidak-tidaknya saya sudah mula berusaha melakukan bahagian saya. Saya tidak mahu menjadi seperti mereka-mereka yang hanya tahu ‘cakap besar’ tentang perjuangan mereka untuk bangsa mereka tetapi setelah itu mereka hanya memikirkan tentang berapa banyak untung yang mereka boleh dapat daripada bangsa mereka sendiri! Hipokrit!

Jadi...kepada mereka-mereka yang tak suka dengan apa yang saya buat dan tulis di sini, baik tutup browser anda dan pergi buat kerja lain. Itu lebih baik.