HF ( Why not use Iban word for 'Allah' in Bible translation? ) wrote "Of all the Iban words available, why in the world did they (the translators) feel the urge to use Arab words?" HF presumes to dictate to the translators which words are most suitable to translate the word 'God'. Audacious!

If, for example, I were a translator, I might not have used the term 'Allah' but I am not an Iban and do not presume to dictate to them which word is most apt. HF suggests that the use of the term 'Allah' is the sole prerogative of Muslims but does he know that, historically, this Arabic term predates Islam and was used in another context previously?

HF claims "an insult to the Muslim community when Christians equate the Muslim Allah to the Christian God(s)". Neither the Christians nor the Iban Bible do anything of the sort; the Christian faith is unique. HF is clearly confused about Christianity in suggesting that Christians believe in a plurality of gods. I suggest HF reads the Bible carefully or, better yet, ask a Christian bible teacher to explain what the Christian 'Trinity' is and what it isn't.

Regarding the use of the term 'Allah', HF claims "Christian missionaries in Malaysia use this 'abuse of terms' to better persuade Muslims (or would-be Muslims, like the Ibans) to embrace Christianity." The Ibans, like any other Malaysian, are no more "would-be Muslims" than they are "would-be Christians", "would-be headhunters" or "would-be" anyone else. I doubt they are as confused between Islam and Christianity as HF purports to be.

It is the human right of every individual to have a free choice to embrace any religion they want without any hindrance such as the banning of the Bible in their language. o­nly would-be dictators would want to impose a religion or religious government o­n a people.