In many ways, this effort by the Malaysian government and certain segments of the Muslim population to claim monopoly over the usage of the word ‘Allah’ (which is acknowledged by all linguists to be the generic Arab word for ‘God’ as opposed to the ‘Muslim God’) is just another example of how the adherents of other religions in Malaysia have been bullied into giving up their constitutionally-protected right of free worship. Applications to build new non-Muslim places of worship are delayed indefinitely or declined.

Existing temples are demolished overnight while widows cannot claim the bodies of their departed spouses on unsubstantiated allegations that their spouses had converted to Islam. There is a systematic pattern to all of this. It also encroaches into the fundamental rights of Christian bumiputeras in Sabah and Sarawak who speak Malay and use the Al-Kitab as their holy book.

Just as the continuation of the NEP insults the economic capabilities and achievements of the bumiputeras to date, any attempt to assume that Muslim Malaysians cannot distinguish between the Al-Quran and the Al-Kitab simply because both use the same Arabic word for God, as the writer proposes, simply insults the intelligence of Muslims in Malaysia.

The term ‘Allah’ is no more foreign to Malaysians (Muslims and non-Muslims alike) than Islam is to Malaysia. Both originated from the same region. Don't forget that Judaism and Christianity also originated from that same region and predates the emergence of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by many centuries. To assume that Islam has subsumed all rights to the word ‘Allah’ is wrong. Even the Muslim Arabs would not presume to do so to their Christian Arab brothers and sisters, who still use the word ‘Allah’ to refer to God despite what the writer claims.

The writer confuses the use of ‘Isa’ which refers to the Arabic version of the name ‘Jesus’ as a substitute for the the word ‘Allah’. Anyone with a basic understanding of the Christian theology will acknowledge that Jesus is only one personification of the triune God. There is also ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Holy Spirit’ which cannot be captured in meaning by the name ‘Isa’ alone.

Then we turn to ‘Tuhan’ - the Malay word for God. What is good for non-Muslims should be good enough for Muslims, no? We can both agree to using the word ‘Tuhan’ but for one group to say what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine smacks of bigotry. To claim that the adherents of Islam have more right to the word ‘Allah’ than Christians is to totally overlook the fact that both religions originate from the same region where the word ‘Allah’ comes from.

How would we feel if the Jews turn around tomorrow to claim sole monopoly on the use of the word ‘Abah’ which is Aramaic for ‘father’? ‘Abah’ is for the Jews only, the Malays can use ‘bapa’ (the Malay word for ‘father’) instead. If you feel hurt by this claim, then you begin to understand how hurt Christians feel when Muslim authorities attempt to bully them into giving up their constitutional right to use the word ‘Allah’. Religious sensitivity, unlike what the writer claims, is not a one-way street.

In many ways, the efforts of the Muslim authorities in curbing the religious freedom of the non- Muslims in Malaysia has striking parallels to Israel's efforts to build a wall deep into Palestinian territory as a buffer so that when a final settlement is reached, it will always be steeped in Israel's favour.