Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Posts tagged ‘oath in the name of allah’


The Supreme Court of India is reported to have dismissed the petition wherein the petitioner had prayed for a declaration that the oath of office taken by the Governor in the name of ALLAH, was to be declared as void. This was an appeal taken by the petitioner from the High Court of Jharkhand. The Supreme Court of India had instead declared the appeal to be MISCHIEVOUS and DIVISIVE.

When the newspapers report such news items- especially the ones relating to sensitive issues like religion- the media should clearly state the JUDICIAL REASONING forwarded by the petitioner and the JUDICIAL REASONING given by the Justices so that such issues are  settled forever. Instead the news item in today’s TIMES OF INDIA (13/12/2011) merely states that the petition was dismissed as MISCHIEVOUS & DIVISIVE. No doubt, if one goes for the intention of the petitioner, such a MOTIVE is ascribable. But since the Supreme Court of India is the last resort for our declarations, the media should give the kernel of the judgement and not merely carry the interconnected opinion expressed by the Justices in the case.

A few weeks back my Muslim friend said that his God’s name was ALLAH. I said that ALLAH meant GOD in Arabic and it was also proven from internet resources that the Christians inhabiting the Gulf (predominantly Islamic population) call their God also as ALLAH. Please refer to WIKIPEDIA:-

Allah (English pronunciation: /ˈælə/ or /ˈɑːlə/; Arabic: الله‎ Allāh, IPA: [ʔɑlˈlɑː] ( listen), [ʔalˤˈlˤɑː]) is a word for God used in the context of Islam.[1] In Arabic, the word means simply “God”.[2][3][4] It is used primarily by Muslims and Bahá’ís, and often, albeit not exclusively, used by Arabic-speaking Eastern Catholic Christians, Maltese Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Mizrahi Jews and Sikhs.[5][6][7] It is related to ʼĔlāhā in Aramaic.

So ALLAH means GOD in Arabic. So some Christians in the Arabic speaking areas have not allowed the name ALLAH to be appropriated by Muslims alone to refer to their idea of God.

Coming back to the Constitution of India, the Schedule prescribes the forms for Oath taking by Constitutional functionaries and the oath is taken in the name of God or through solemn affirmation. So when the Governor of Jharkhand takes the oth in the name of ALLAH, he has merely used the Arabic word for God. In fact one should be appreciative of the Governor having taken the oath in the name of ALLAH, in whom he believes, than in the generic English term GOD or the Hindi term PARAMESHWAR.  If the media had reported the kernel of the judgement and given the JUDICIAL REASONING behind the dismissal of the Appeal, the readers would have stood edified.

The news item further states that the names of INCARNATIONS could be used- i do not understand that. For example if a person were to use the name Jesus or Krishna or Rama would that be okay? I suppose NOT. The Constitution of India envisages the generic name of GOD (of course in any language) than a specific incarnation. Maybe a Thamizhan might take the oath in the name of KADAVUL or AANDAVAN, which are the generic names of God in Thamizh. Why make a fuss if GOD IS ONE? But as readers of NEWS PAPERS we should prefer the Judicial reasoning that went into that DECISION MAKING.


Tag Cloud