What good is a one-dimensional god whose human “name” is restricted by idolaters as followers who are insecure about their god and their future?

As Christians, we worship a sovereign God Who does what and how and when and where He wills. God will save His people from out of every nation, language and tribe.

NO ONE CAN STOP THIS.

And so let it be.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and forever shall be; world without end. Amen.

What if the decided middle path is finally agreed upon by the minority “exclusive Allah” type of Muslims and the main stream churches but actually is not agreed by other parties, say other religions (who happens to have some recalcitrant members throwing stones)? Another middle path then need to be sought to solve the decided disputed “middle path”? This will lead to a infinite progression of threat and the ever-seeking for a middle path.

Let us assume if they decided according to Hedonese’s smart suggestion that the Muslim monopolise the word “Allah” and the non-Muslim monopolise the word “Tuhan”, how is the Malay Muslim going to explain “Allah”? Are they going to say “Allah adalah Allah” or “Allah adalah Tuhan”? But they cannot use “Tuhan” because that word is monopolised by the non-muslim.

Statistic provided here could not be conclusive on which religion is a real threat to the other religions. We all know that the Muslims in Malaysia has all the machinery and the restrictive law against the non-muslim to assist them in the propogation of their religion. That is a fact. However, statistic can also be interpreted that it may be a proof that many want to convert to Islam on the basis that it is a more “beautiful” religion.

I think it all boils down to the arrogant attitude or the self-imposed spiritual supremacy by certain religious people. One have to humble themselves and take cognisance that both Islam and Christianity is a missionary religion. They are commanded to propagate their faith. Any decided middle path that restrict any of them of their mission will cause not only for them to lose their religious identity but to make them “unfaithful” to their Supreme Maker.

Both will have to spread their “beautiful” message through love, deeds and intelligent words that can bring both logic and meaning to the hearers. To intentionally use a word (such as “Allah”) merely to confuse the people so that their religion can be propagated is the stupid thing one can ever imagine. Those who think anyone will intentionally use “Allah” to confuse their members cannot even be generously classified as stupid. The reason is that there are better ways to confuse a person.

For example, the spread of a false philosophy or the control of the media are methods that may confuse soneone’s faith. The hypocrisy of a pastor or an ustaz can be a stumbling block to their members and thus confuse them. How do we “deconfuse” them? Obviously by proper guidance and education, sprinkle with some love and care.

In conclusion, statistic data may cause us to infer something but it cannot be conclusive of why a person wants to convert. Unless we interview all of them, we will never know. However, this statistic presented here does demonstrate that more likely than not, the Islamic religion has more success in its propagation than the Christian’s. In other words, the threat of people converting to Islam is greater than the threat Muslim converting to Christianity. If it is true that there is a real threat from them, should any of their words similar to Christianity or their similar stories of the prophets be banned, since it may also confuse some of the less-informed Christian? Of course not. Likewise, one in this century should not stop the Christians from continuing to refer their God as “Allah”, of which they have been using since many centuries ago.

It is this principle – “to give way is both ways” – that needs to be sincerely and rationally worked out. How? In a spirit of calm, non-emotionalism, goodwill, understanding, mutual acceptance, and public and private inter-faith dialogue.

It must be said that there is nothing wrong to agree to disagree amicably. In fact, it is very human, almost divine, to do so.

In a related note, the eloquent Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi urged readers to “find the middle path” in his articulate discourse in The Star (13.1.10). However, what evidence is there to show that BOTH parties have given way, or is it that almost always one party that is (or must) give way. To use an analogy, road bullies are those who always insist that others must give way to them. Do we like road bullies when we drive?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by sivinkit: just read “Allah and Conversions in Malaysia: The Facts!” http://tinyurl.com/yl8sw93. The numbers are loud and clear….