Get Out, Go back to your own country. You're a terrorist."

When Terry met Killy

Pendeta Dennis Terry dari Gereja Baptis Greenwell Springs, pada saat memperkenalkan kandidat Presiden dari partai Republik, Rick Santorum di Baton Rouge, Louisiana, mengatakan:

Rev. Dennis Terry
"Saya tidak peduli apa yang kaum liberal katakan, Saya tidak peduli apa yang dikatakan para penentang, bangsa ini didirikan sebagai bangsa Kristen... Hanya ada satu Tuhan dan namanya Yesus. Aku sudah bosan dari orang yang memberitahu saya bahwa saya tidak bisa mengatakan kata-kata… Dengarkan aku, Jika Anda tidak mencintai Amerika, jika Anda tidak menyukai cara kami dalam melakukan berbagai hal, saya punya satu hal untuk dikatakan – ENYAHLAH. Kami tidak menyembah Budha, kami tidak menyembah Muhammad, kami tidak menyembah Allah, kami menyembah Tuhan, kami menyembah anak Tuhan Yesus Kristus."

"I don't care what the liberals say, I don't care what the naysayers say, this nation was founded as a Christian nation...There is only one God and his name is Jesus. I'm tired of people telling me that I can't say those words.. Listen to me, If you don't love America, If you don't like the way we do things I have one thing to say - GET OUT. We don't worship Buddha, we don't worship Mohammad, we don't worship Allah, we worship God, we worship God's son Jesus Christ." [youtube . loonwatch . huffingtonpost].

Pembunuh yang memukuli Shaima Alawadi (32) dirumah keluarganya hingga meninggal dunia, meninggalkan catatan yang mengatakan:

"Kembalilah ke negara kamu sendiri. Kamu adalah teroris."

Shaima Alawadi (rhm)
Police say an Iraqi-born woman who was beaten to death may have been the victim of a hate crime. The killer of Shaima Alawadi, 32, left a note reportedly reading: "Go back to your own country. You're a terrorist."

Alawadi, seorang imigran tahun 1990 an, meninggal dunia pada hari Sabtu setelah mendapat serangan pada hari Rabu kemarin. Polisi mengatakan bahwa putrinya yang berusia 17 tahun, Fatima, menemukan dia dalam kondisi tidak sadar di ruang makan rumah keluarganya di Skyview Street, Lemon Avenue, El Cajon, California pada sekitar 11:15 am. Seorang teman keluarga, Surah Alzaidy, mengatakan kepada San Diego Union-Tribune bahwa serangan tampaknya terjadi setelah ayahnya mengantar anak paling muda mereka ke sekolah. Alawadi adalah "respectful modest muhajiba" yang berarti seorang muslimah yang taat dengan berhijab/ mengenakan jilbab.

Alawadi, seorang ibu dari lima anak, dinyatakan meninggal dunia tak lama setelah dilepaskan dari mesin pendukung kehidupan di rumah sakit. Jenazah Alawadi akan diterbangkan ke Irak untuk dimakamkan. Ayah Alawadi adalah seorang ulama Syiah di Irak. [guardian . loonwatchhuffingtonpost . usatoday]. 

  • Semoga saudari Shaima Alawadi diterima Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala disisi-Nya, diampuni dari segala dosanya, dan diampuni dari kekurangtahuannya dengan ke-syiah-annya (asumsi bila cara beragama dia sama dengan cara beragama ayahnya).
  • Bila Pendeta/ Pastor-nya calon Presiden saja menyangka bahwa umat Budha menyembah Sidharta Gautama, umat Islam menyembah Nabi Muhammad (SAW), lantas bagaimana dengan Pendeta atau Pastor pada level dibawahnya, apalagi para jemaatnya? Apakah karena sudah terbiasa menyembah manusia yang dianggap Tuhan dan dianggap bernama Yesus?
  • Bagaimana bila Indian-Amerika, Aboringin-Australia juga mengatakan "Get out from my country?
  • Yang jelas, Get out from Palestine, hai Zionis!

America is Not a Christian Nation
> Americans Don't Know Much About Religion

The Basis of Muslim Belief

About Gary Miller, the author
Gary Miller (Abdul-Ahad Omar) shows how we can establish true faith by setting standards of truth. He illustrates a simple but effective method of finding out the right direction in our search for truth.
Dr. Gary Miller is a mathematician and a theologian. He was active in Christian missionary work at a particular point of his life but he soon began to discover many inconsistencies in the Bible. In 1978, he happened to read the Qur'an expecting that it, too, would contain a mixture of truth and falsehood.
He discovered to his amazement that the message of the Qur'an was precisely the same as the essence of truth that he had distilled from the Bible. He became a Muslim and since then has been active in giving public presentations on Islam including radio and television appearances. He is also the author of several articles and publications about Islam.

Dilemma of Applying Reason

Almost all of us have been faced with the questioning of a child by repeating one word over and over. He can be very frustrating to us as he asks, "WHY?" If you put a knife beyond his reach, he wants to know "WHY?" When you explain it is sharp, he asks "WHY?" And so you explain, "in order to cut fruit," and he asks, "WHY?" And so it goes.

It illustrates the dilemma of applying reason. What we have to do when we apply reason is first set standards of proof. We decide for ourselves, "What will I be satisfied with if I find such and such and so and so that constitutes for me a final proof?" We have to decide on that first.

What happens though, is that on the really important issues, the philosophical matters, thinkers set standards of proof and they take a look at their subjects and eventually they may arrive at their standards. They may arrive at the point which say would constitute a proof. But then they ask for a proof of the proof.

Setting Standards

The key to avoiding this endless dissatisfaction is to satisfy ourselves about the standards first; to satisfy ourselves that such and such are a list of criteria that constitute proof, satisfying proof, and then we test the subjects that we examine. In particular I will apply this to the Qur'an.

Ask a thoughtful Christian why he is a Christian, and he will usually reply, "The miracle of the Resurrection." The basis for his belief being that about two thousand years ago a man died and he was raised from the dead. That is his miracle, his 'touchstone', because all else depends on that.

Ask a Muslim, "Well, what is your miracle? Why are you a Muslim? What is your miracle? Why are you a Muslim? Where is your miracle?" and the Muslim can go over and take his miracle off the shelf and hand it to you because his miracle is still with us today. It is the Qur'an; it is his 'touchstone'

Sign of God

While all the Prophets have their signs, Moses had the competition with the magicians and the Pharaoh, Jesus healed the sick and raised the dead and so on, one Sign was given to the last of the prophets. According to the Muslims, this is the Qur'an. And this one Sign is still with us. Does not that after all seem fair, that if prophethood is to end that the last prophet should bring something that stays with us so that, in fact, a Muslim who takes his religion seriously suffers no disadvantage to Muslims who lived fourteen centuries ago?

Those people who kept company with the Prophet had access to no more of the necessary information than we have today. They had the Qur'an. That was the sign for them. It is still a sign to us today, the same miracle.

Well, let us test the Qur'an. Suppose that if I say to a man, "I know your father." Probably he is going to examine the situation and see if it seems likely that I have met his father. If he is not convinced, he will start asking me questions like: "You know my father, you say, is he a tall man? Does he have curly hair? Does he wear glasses?," and so on. If I keep giving him the right answers to all these questions, pretty soon he is going to be convinced. "Well, I guess this man did meet my father like he said." You see the method.

The Big Bang Theory

Verses in the Qur'an claim that the author of Qur'an was present when the universe first appeared, when life first began billions of years ago.

We have a right to question this claim. We ask the author, "Well tell us something to prove to us that YOU were there when they world began, life began."

In reply to our challenge, the Qur'an contains a dumbfounding statement. It reads, "Have not the disbelievers seen that the Heavens and the Earth were one piece and we parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe?" (21:30)
(in the Qur'an, 'We' is used not to show plurality, that several Gods exist but rather as a sign of respect)

There are 3 key points in (21:30). First of all, it is the disbelievers who are mentioned as being those who would discover that the heavens and the earth were one piece and then parted and it is the DISBELIEVERS (non-Muslims) who will DISCOVER that all life came to be made from water.

Coincidentally, the universally accepted theory of 'the origin of the universe' is now the BIG BANG THEORY. It maintains that at one time ALL OF HEAVENS AND THE EARTH were one piece, the 'monoblock' as it is called. At a particular point in time, this 'monoblock' burst and it continues to expand. This is the origin of the universe we have today.

This is a recent confirmation.

The Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded only a few years ago to those who confirmed the Big Bang Theory origin of the universe. It was only 200 years ago that Leeuwenhoek and others perfected the microscope and discovered for the first time that living cells are composed of 80% water.

The above information which was scientifically confirmed only in the last 2 centuries, can be found in the Qur'an which originated 14 centuries ago! Could it then have been written by an ordinary man or can it only be the work of God? 

The verse above, (21:30) states that disbelievers will scientifically prove the Big Bang Theory and that living cells are made of water -- Those Nobel Prize winners and the Dutchman who invented the microscope were not  muslims. And yet they confirmed the vital statement that at one time, the universe was one piece, that life was made from water, just as verse says, 

"Have not the disbelievers seen that the Heavens and the Earth were one piece and we parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe?" (21:30)
Does this not prove that the author of the Qur'an, has indeed met the challenge, "Was He there when the universe began, when life began."

Taking a Stand

Everyone must be committed to something. You have to put your foot down some place. It is impossible to be neutral at all times. There has been a point of reference in the life of any thinking individual. You have to take a stand somewhere. The question, of course, is to put your foot down in the right place. Since there is no such thing as a proof of a proof and so on, in order to find the right place to put one's foot down, to take a stand, we have to search and find that place and it is by a method that I hope to illustrate here. 

It is a question of finding a point of convergence. You see, we search for truth in many places and we begin to know that we are succeeding in finding the truth if all our different paths start to converge; they start to come together at the same point. 

If we are examining a book, looking for evidence of divine origin, and we are led to Islam, this is one path. If at the same time, we examining the words of all those who were called prophets and we find ourselves led to Islam, we have a firmly grounded basis for belief. We started looking for truth in two different places and found ourselves going down the path headed for the same destination. 

No one ever proves all things. We have to stop at some point being satisfied with our standards as I have mentioned earlier. The point is, in order to take a stand and to be sure it is in the right place, we want to examine all the evidence around us and see where does it lead us and anticipate this point of convergence; to say it looks like all things are pointing to this place. We go to that place and then look at the data around us to see if it fits into place. Does it now make sense? Are we standing in the right place?

The Expanding Heavens
Let me first show more of our examination of the Qur'an, and then an examination of some words of prophets to find this point of convergence. In Chapter 51, verse 47, it is mentioned that the heavens are expanding. As I mentioned earlier, this is in connection with the 'Big Bang' origin of the universe, as it is usually called, and it was in 1973 that the Nobel prize was awarded to three men who were confirming that, after all, the universe is expanding. 

The comments of Muslims over the centuries on this verse which speaks of the heavens doing exactly that is very interesting. The wisest among them stated that the words are very clear, that the heavens are expanding, but they could not imagine how that could be so. But they were content to leave the words as they were, to say: "Allah knows best."

The City of Iram

The Qur'an mentions a city by the name of Iram (89:7). The city of Iram has been unknown to History, so unknown that even Muslim commentators, out of embarrassment or feeling apologetic for their religion, have commented on this mention of the city in the Qur'an as being perhaps figurative, that Iram was possibly a man and not a city. 

In 1973, the excavation in Syria at the site of the ancient city of Eblus uncovered the largest collection of cuneiform writings on clay tablets ever assembled. In fact, the library discovered in Eblus contains more clay tablets that are more than four thousand years old than all the other tablets combined from all other sites.

Interestingly enough, you will find the details in the National Geographic of 1978 which confirms that in those tablets the city of Iram is mentioned. The people of Eblus used to do business with the people of Iram. So here in 1973, comes confirmation of the fact that, after all, there really was an ancient city by that name, wherever it was. How did it find its way into the Qur'an, we might ask? 

Those Muslims who may have offered their comments, trying to explain away this reference that they were uncomfortable with, were outsmarted by the author of the Qur'an. They were those who would attempt to outsmart the author of the Qur'an. Primarily, their activity would involve trying to produce the evidence that the author of this book had a primitive understanding of the world around us.

The Smallest Matter

For example, there is a word which is translated today usually in Arabic as Zarrah. This is usually translated as 'atom' and it is usually thought of in Arabic as being the smallest item available at one time. Perhaps, the Arabs thought it was an ant or a grain of dust. Today, the word is usually translated as 'atom'. 

Those who would outsmart the author of the Qur'an have insisted that, well, the atom is not after all the smallest piece of matter because in this century it has been discovered that even the atom is made of still smaller pieces of matter. Is it them possible to outsmart the author who chose to use this word? Well, there is an interesting verse, in chapter 10, verse 61, which speaks of items the size of a zarrah, (atom) or smaller. There is no possibility that on this subject someone is going to say a new discovery has outdated the words of the Qur'an on the issue of the size of matter or the ultimate particles. The verse talks about items the size of a zarrah (atom) or smaller. [hence, it IS written in the Qur'an that an atom IS NOT the smallest particle!]


Speaking of outsmarting the author of the Qur'an, the Islamic point of view is that when a man embraces Islam, his past is forgiven from the very beginning. This has been the invitation to Islam: come to Islam and all is forgiven from the past. 

But consider this. There is only one enemy of Muhammad, peace be upon him, who is mentioned by name in the Qur'an: one Abu Lahab. In a short chapter of this book, he is condemned to punishment for his sins.

As it happens, the man himself was alive for many years after this revelation. He could therefore have finished Islam very easily. He needed only to go to the Muslims to announce his conversion. They had in their hands the revelation which said that this man is doomed to punishment. He could have gone to Muslims and say: "I accept Islam, am I forgiven or not?" 

He could have confused them so much as to finish this small movement because he would have been pointing out to them that they were now in confusion. The policy was instant forgiveness of the past, but their own revealed scripture announced that he was not forgiven. As it was, Abu Lahab died without accepting Islam.


In fact, the Qur'an confidently predicted a number of things only a few years before they came to pass. The fall of the Persian Empire, for example, was predicted in spite of the fact that it had just suffered a serious military reverse. The evidence was all to the contrary. But in the chapter entitled Rom, the fall of the Persian Empire who were recently victors over the Romans was predicted. 

When all the Muslims in the world could meet in one room, the revelations were already discussing their future successes. In confidence, they were planning for the day when they would be in charge of the city where they were forced at that time to hide for their very lives.

Evidence of Divine Origin

Some people may like to find any number of things in the Qur'an. But an honest method in examining this book, looking for evidence of the Divine origin, is to take things at their value, to look for things that are clear and to look in those places where we are invited to look. Remember the passage that I quoted earlier: "Have not the disbelievers seen..." This a common phrase of the Qur'an: "O Man, Have you not seen." The invitation is to examine the evidence in these places. We are doing the sensible thing if we examine the words used to look for the doubted meaning and to find evidence of the Divine origin. 

Each one of us is an expert on something. One does not have to have a degree in a particular subject to decide that now, "I can take my expertise to the Qur'an and see what I can find." We all now something for some from our own experience and life. 

I heard a story, several years ago in Toronto, of man who was given the Qur'an to read. The man was a member of the merchant marines who spent his life on the sea. When he read a verse in the Qur'an describing the wave on the ocean, "waves within waves and the darkness between," he was surprised because the description was just what he knew the situation to be. When he returned the Qur'an to the man who gave it to him to read, he asked him (because he was completely ignorant of the origins of Islam): "This Muhammad, was he a sailor?" Well, of course, he was quite surprised to know that the man spent his life in the desert. So he had to ask himself: "From where did he get this knowledge of what looks like on a stormy sea?" 

We all know something that we can be confident of and if we can turn to the Qur'an to read what it says about that subject, we are asking for confirmation of our belief in the Divine origin of the book.

The Two Phenomena

A friend of mine from the University of Toronto, had the experience of dealing with a man who was doing his doctorate in psychology. He chose as his subject: 'The Efficiency of Group Discussion'. 

He suggested a number od criteria as to what constitutes an efficient discussion. He graphed the process; that is, he achieved a measure of efficiency of all groups in their discussions according to an index by his system. On his graph he indicated the progress made by the discussion groups of various sizes. 

The interesting thing that happened which he did not expect to find when he began his project was that, while there were some differences between the size of any given group and how well they did in discussions, he was surprised to find that groups of two were completely off his scale! In other words, when people sit down to discuss something, they were so much more efficient than any other size of group that it went completely off his scale of measurement. 

When my friend heard about this, something went on at the back of his mind. My friend, being a Muslim, thought there was something familiar here about this idea. The psychology researcher was not a Muslim. He was debating with himself on changing the topic of his thesis. Should he call it 'The Phenomenon of Two' or 'The Two Phenomena? He was SO surprised at his discovery. 

Meanwhile, my friend found that there is a verse in the Qur'an, and he found it for himself on the same night, which speaks on discussions and the size of groups and how efficient they are. And maybe we should not be surprised to find that it is the groups that are two in numbers that do the best in achieving results. The main verse in the Qur'an reads, concerning discussion groups, that when discussing the Qur'an one should sit alone and reflect on its meaning or discuss it in groups of two.

Use and Mention of Words

For myself, as I said everyone knows something for sure or has an interest and experience in life; my interest is in mathematics and logic. There is a verse in the Qur'an which says:

"This a scripture whose verses are perfected and then expounded." (11:1)

Which tells me that there are no wasted words in the Qur'an; that each verse is perfected and then it is explained. It could not be in a better form. One could not use fewer words to say the same thing or if one uses more words one would only be adding superfluous information. This directed my attention to a particular mathematical subject, a logical subject, and I examined the Qur'an to see if I could find something of what I knew to be the case.

A revolution in logic has occurred in the last one hundred years, primarily over the difference between use and mention of words. A structure of logic seemed to be in danger of collapsing about a hundred years ago because it came to the attention of the people who studied these matters that the structure was not quite sound. The issue involved 'self-reference' and the use and the mention of words which I will explain briefly.

Aristotle's law of the 'excluded middle' was the statement that every statement is either true false. About a hundred years ago, somebody pointed out that the law of the excluded middle is a statement and is therefore not a law after all. It could just as well be false as well as true.

This was a tangled knot for the logicians to untie until they came to understand the difference between the use and the mention of a word.

When we use a word, we consider its meaning. When we mention a word we are discussing the word itself. If I said Toronto is a large city, I mean Toronto, that place, is a large cit. If I say Toronto has seven letters, I am talking about the word 'Toronto'. In the first case I used the word and in the second I mentioned the word. You see distinction.

Jesus and Adam

Connecting these ideas and the idea that the Qur'an composed of verses that are perfected and then expounded for us, consider the verse which says: 

"The likeness of Jesus before Allah is as the likeness of Adam." (3:59) 

It is very clear that what we have in the statement is an equation. This verse goes on to explain how that is true because they both came under unusual circumstances rather than having a mother and a father in the usual human reproductive way. But more than that, I got to consider the use of the mention of words. 

The words are used clearly enough. Jesus is like Adam and by Jesus and Adam, we mean those two men. But what about the mention of the words? Was the author aware of the fact that if we were considering the words as words themselves, this sentence also read that 'Jesus' is something like 'Adam'. Well, they are not spelt with the same letters, how can they be alike in this revelation? The only answer came to me fairly quickly and I took a look at the index of the Qur'an. 

The index of the Qur'an has been made available only since 1945. This book was the result of years of work by a man and his students who assembled a book which lists every word in the Qur'an and where it can be found. 

So, when we look up the word Isa (Jesus), we find it in the Qur'an twenty-five times. When we look up Adam, we find it in the Qur'an twenty-five times. The point is that they are very much alike in this book. They are equated. So, following up on this idea, I continued to examine the index looking for every case where something was set up as an equation, where the likeness of something was said to be the likeness of some other thing. And in every case, it works. You have to example a verse which reads: 

"The likeness of this who reject our signs is as the likeness of the dog." (7:176) 

Well, the phrase is Arabic for 'the people who reject our signs' could be found in the Qur'an exactly five times. And so is the Arabic word for 'the dog' (al-kalb). And there are several instances of exactly the same occurrence. 

It was some months after I found this for myself that a friend of mine, who is continuing this investigation with me, made a suggestion that there are also some places in the Qur'an where one thing is said to be not like another thing. 

As soon as he mentioned this up to me, we both went for the index and had a quick look at several places where on thing is said to be not like another thing and counted their occurrence in the Qur'an. We were surprise and maybe should not have been to find that, after all, they do not match up. But an interesting thing does happen. For example, the Qur'an makes it very clear in the verse that trade is not like interest. The two words will be found six times for on and seven for the other. And so it is in every other case. 

When one thing is said to be not like another, they over for a difference of one time. It would be five of one and four of the other, or seven of one and eight of another.

Good and Evil

There is one interesting verse which, I felt, spoke directly to me from right off the page. It mentions two words in Arabic, al-khabeeth (the evil), and al-taib (the good). The verse reads: 

"Say, the evil and the good are not comparable, even though the abundance of evil will surprise you. So be mindful of your duty to Allah, O Man of understanding, that you may succeed." (5:100) 

When I had a look at those two words in Arabic, the evil and the good, and found it in the Qur'an that they both occur seven times. Yet the verse here is saying that they are not comparable. I should NOT expect to find that they occur the same number of times. BUT what does the rest of this verse say? 

"The evil and the good are not comparable. The abundance of the evil will surprise you" - and it did for there were too many of them. But it continues... 

"So be mindful of your duty to Allah, O Man of understanding, that you may succeed." - So press on. Use your understanding and you will succeed. This is what the verse said to me. Well, I found the answer on one verse further on... 

"Allah separates the evil from the good. The evil He piles one on top of the other, heaping them all together." (8:37) 

Here is the solution to the difficulty. While we have seven occurrences of al-khabeeth (the evil) which matches up with the occurrences of al-taib (the good), according to the principle of the verse, evil is separated from good and is piled one on top of the other and heaped altogether as one. Hence, we do not count them as 7 separate instances.

Occurrence of Words

A favourite difficulty, or supposed difficulty, which critics like to cite concerning the Qur'an is that - the author of this book was ignorant because he advised Muslims to follow the lunar new year instead of the solar year. 

The critics say the author was unaware of the differences in the length of years, that if one follows the twelve lunar months, one loses eleven days every year. However, the author was well aware of the distinction between the length of the solar year and lunar year. 

In Chapter 18, Verse 25:
It mentions 300 years and gives their equivalent as 309 years. As it happens, 300 SOLAR years is equal to 309 LUNAR years. 

The arabic word for 'month', shahar will be found 12 times in the Qur'an. There are 12 months in a year. If we find twelve months, how many days should we expect to find? The word in arabic is yaum, and as it happens you will find that the word occurs 365 in the Qur'an. 

The original issue which had me interested in looking up the occurrence of months and days was this distinction between solar year and the lunar year. Well, for 25 centuries, it has been known that the relative positions of the sun, moon and earth coincide every 19 years. This was discovered by a Greek by the name of Meton, and it is called the 'Metonic' cycle. 

Knowing this, I looked again in the index of the word 'year', sanah and found, sure enough, that is occurs in the Qur'an 19 times.

Perfect balance of Words

Now, what is the point of this perfect balance of words? For myself, it shows the author was well aware of the distinction between using words and mentioning words, a fine logical point. But more than that, it indicates the preservation of this book. 

After giving a lecture on the subject of the Qur'an , I touched on some of these subjects and a questionnaire from the audience afterwards said: "How do we know we still have the original Qur'an. Maybe pieces of it have been lost or extra parts been added?" I pointed out to him that we had pretty well covered that point because since these items, the perfect balance of words in the Qur'an, have come to light only in this generation, anybody who would have lost the portion of this book, hidden some of it, or added some of their own would have been unaware of this carefully hidden code in the book. They would have destroyed this perfect balance. 

It is interesting to note too that, well, such a thing might be possible to organize today by the use of a computer to coordinate all words so that whatever thought you might have as to a meaning of a sentence or however you might construe an equation out of a sentence, you could check for yourself and the book will always have the balance of words. 

If that were possible today, if it were possible fourteen centuries ago, why would it be done and then left hidden and never drawn to the attention of those who first saw this book? Why it would be left with the hope of the author who contrived this, that maybe in many centuries someone will discover it and have a nice surprise? It is a scheme that does not make sense.

Best Explanation

We are told in the Qur'an that no questionnaire will come to the Muslims with the question for which a good answer has not been provided, and the best explanation for whatever his question. This verse says: 

"For everything they say we are given something to go back to them and reply." (25:33) 

We looked again to the index of the Qur'an and we found the word, qalu (they say), is found three hundred and thirty-two times. Now, what would be the natural counterpart? The Arabic word, qul, which is the command 'say' and you will find at the index it also occurs three hundred and thirty-two times.

Origin of the Qur'an

An interesting feature of the Qur'an is that it replies to critics as to its origin. That is, no one has yet come up with suggestion as to where this book came from which is not commented on within the book itself. 

In fact, the new Catholic Encyclopedia, under the heading Qur'an, mentions that over the centuries there has been many theories as to where this book came from. There conclusion: today, no sensible person believes any of these theories. This leaves the Christians in some difficulty. You see, all the theories suggested so far , according to this encyclopedia, are not really acceptable to anyone sensible today. They are too fantastic. 

Where did the book come from? Those who have not really examined the Qur'an usually dismissed it as being, they say, a collection of proverbs or aphorisms, saying that one man used to announce from time to time. They imagined that there was a man who, from time to time during the day, will think of some witty little saying and spit it out and those around him will quickly write it down and eventually these were all collected and became the Qur'an. 

Those who read the Qur'an will find that it is not anything like that at all. The collection of things said by the Prophet is the subject and the content of the Hadith. But the subjects and contents of the Qur'an are all in a form of a composition and explanation. I site as an example the chapter, Yusuf, which is an entire story in great detail about on e particular episode of one portion of the life of one man. It is a composition. 

It is for this reason that virtually all those who have actually examined the Qur'an usually refer to it as being the product of the authorship as attributed to Muhammad and his 'co-adjudicators'. These were supposed to be people who would sit with him and composed the Qur'an. You see they imagined that the Qur'an was composed by a committee. 

They acknowledged that there was too much information and it was too well composed for one man to have assembled. So, they imagined that a committee of men used to meet regularly, brought their various sources of information, composed something and then handed to this man and told him, "Go to the people tomorrow, this is your revelation." In other words, it was a fraud concocted by a group of people. But what do we know about fraud? The Qur'an reminds us as it says: 

"Saw, now the truth has come, and falsehood neither invents anything nor restores anything." (34:49). 

It is hard to translate it into English precisely, but what this verse is telling us is that falsehood is not the source of a new thing. A new and truthful thing cannot come from falsehood and falsehood does not restore, to our minds, the facts. Truth is in agreement with facts. Falsehood is something else. So falsehood is empty. If something is born fraud, it will never bring us new information. It will never endure; it will only collapse over a period of time.


Another interesting verse is a challenge which is addressed to those non-believers. It reads: 

"Have they not considered the Qur'an, if it came, other than Allah, surely they will find in it many inconsistencies." (4:82) 

Here is a challenge to the reader. If you think you have an explanation where this book came from, have another look at the book. Surely you will be able to uncover some inconsistencies to support your case. 

Imagine a student submitting a term paper or a final exam and then writing at the bottom of the page a not to his teacher: "You will find no mistakes in this paper. There are no mistakes on this exam." Can you imagine the teacher letting that rest? The teacher would probably not sleep until uncovering some inconsistency after a challenge like that. It is not the way human beings speak. They do not offer challenges like that. But here we have it in the Qur'an, a direct challenge saying: "If you have a better idea as to where this book came from, here's all you need to do. Find some inconsistencies." 

There are critics who make the attempt, critics who try to say the Qur'an contains inconsistencies. A publication that came to my attention recently suggested that the Qur'an was contradictory on the subject of marriage, because in one place, it says: "don't marry more than one wife unless you can provide for them all," and in another place it says: "Don't marry more than four." They see this as a contradiction. What they have is a counter-distinction. In one case, the qualification for marrying more than one has been given. In the other case a limitation on how many may be married is given. There is no contradiction. 

Critics are too quick to grab hold of something, give it an interpretation, and then offer it as an excuse to escape the reality of this document. 

For critics who would attack the Qur'an and insist it contains mistakes, we can use the same method as in our reply to Christians who claim that Jesus is on record as claiming to be equal to God. Remember the three categories of evidence offered. The evidence offered was insufficient, ambiguous or impossible. 

You see, if someone cites a verse from the Qur'an, trying to show that it is a mistake, we only need to show that the verse cited is insufficient to establish that there is a mistake or we need to show that the verse cited cannot possible have the interpretation which the critic is giving it. It will always fall into one of these three categories.

Attributing it to the Devil

I had experience, on one occasion, describing some of the contents in the Qur'an to a man who did not know the book I was talking about. He sat next to me with the cover turned over. I just told him about the book, what it contained and told him it was not the Bible. His conclusion was, the book was miraculous. This man was a minister in a Christian Church. He said, "Yes, that book could not possible have originated with the man and therefore it must come from the devil, because it's not the Bible." 

The Qur'an comments on this suggestion in chapter twenty-six, verse two-hundred and eleven, as to those who would suggest that the book came from the devil. It points out that it does not quite suit him, does it? Is this how the devil misleads people? He tells them, worship none but God, he insists that they fast, that they practice charity. Is this how the devil misleads people? 

Compare the attitude of someone like this, to the attitude of the Jews who knew Jesus and opposed him until the very end. There is an episode reported in the Bible where Jesus raised a man from the dead, one Lazarus, who had been dead for four days. When Lazarus came out of the tomb, alive again those Jews who were watching, what did they do? Did they suddenly say that this man is a true prophet and become believers? No, the Bible says they immediately discussed among themselves that "since this man is working on his signs soon everyone will believe in him. We've got to find a way to kill him," and they attributed his miraculous powers to the devil. He raised that man by the power of the devil. 

Now, the Christians who read that episode will feel very sorry for those Jews who had clear evidence right before their very eyes and attribute the miracles to the devil. Does it not appear that they may be doing the same thing when we illustrate what we have in the Qur'an and their final excuse is only: "It originated with the devil."

A Different Story

There are those who insist that the Qur'an was copied, that it originated in Christian and Jewish sources. As a matter of fact, a book published in recent years called Worshipping the Wrong God has stated, as though it were a fact, that after the first revelation of the Qur'an came to Muhammad, peace be upon him, that his wife died and so he quickly married a Jew and a Christian, and this is where he drew the rest of his sources for his book. 

Well, they have the facts partly right. It was ten years after the first revelation of the Qur'an that his wife died, and it was another ten years after that when the Qur'an was virtually completed that he married a Jew and a Christian. 

Did he copy from Jewish and Christian sources? In the Qur'an, the ruler of Egypt who opposed Moses is known as Fir'aun, not Pharaoh. The Jews and Christians have always said 'Pharaoh'. It is easy for an Arab to say 'Pharaoh'. But in the Qur'an, it is Fir'aun, with an 'n'. Why? Surely the Jews must have teased them about that and said: "You've got the word wrong. It's 'Pharaoh' and not Fir'aun." But they insisted on it and it continues that way in the Qur'an, Fir'aun. 

As it happens, this historical writings of Herodotus, the Greek historian, exist to this day, and Herodotus comments on the ruler of Egypt, being in his day and in the centuries before him, one man who went by the title of Fir'aun. 

Did the book copy from the Christians sources? The Qur'an insists that Jesus was not crucified, that this was only an illusion, but that the Jews who thought they crucified Jesus were mistaken because it was not really so. Christians would have no part of that. As it happens, the idea that Jesus was not really crucified is really very ancient and can be traced back to the first century. But Christians who believed that were eliminated as heretics within the first two-hundred years after the time of Jesus and they were not teaching this doctrine anywhere around the Arabian Peninsula fourteen centuries ago. 

Could the author of the Qur'an have been copying from Christian sources when he says that Jesus spoke to man as a babe (3:46) and in later life? The Arabic word used indicates that he was still speaking to man and teaching to them in the forties. The Christians have always maintained that Jesus was gone by the time he was thirty-three. It indicates that there could have been no copying. In fact, a man would have to be stubborn and insists on the points as explained in the Qur'an in the face of Christian opposition who would have said: "No! No! I wasn't like that. We tell the story differently."

House Cleaning 

Now we go to the words of the prophets themselves, which represent another path that leads to Islam. In the Persian scriptures, which have been around for thousands of years, we read:

"When the Persians should sink so low in mortality, a man will be born in Arabia whose followers will upset their throne, religion and everything. The mighty stiff-necked ones will be overpowered. The house which was built and in which many idols have been placed will purged of idols and people will say their prayers facing towards it. His followers will capture the towns of the Farsi, Entaus and Balkh, and other big places round about. People will embroil with one another. The wise men of Persia and others will join his followers." (Desature no.14) 

The Muslims recognize this very quickly because the Ka'bah, the building which all Muslims face in prayers everyday, was at one time filled with idols and it was part of the mission of Muhammad , peace be upon him, to purge the house of idols till today. It was in the next generation, after the time of the Prophet that the wise men of Persia and others did join his followers.

A Prophet Like Moses

In the Bible, in Deuteronomy chapter eighteen, we have the words of Moses who reports that God told him that H would raise up a prophet, from among the brothers of the Israelites, like Moses. 

Christians wish to apply this to Jesus, to say he was the prophet like Moses. It is uncomfortable for them to recognize, however that Jesus was not very much like Moses and Jesus had no father, no wife, no children; he did not die of old age, and he did not lead a nation; all these things Moses had or did. But they say, well, Jesus will return; he will return as a victorious person, and so he will be more like Moses. Do they really expect he will return to also acquire a father and a wife and children and then die of old age? Not usually. Moreover, Jesus was an Israelite. The passage of scripture says that this prophet that was foretold would be raised up among the brothers of the Israelites, not from the Israelites. 

In the third chapter of Acts, the disciple Peter speaks to a crowd of people and explains that Jesus has been take up and he is in heaven. He will remain in Heaven and he cannot return until all the things that were promised but God come to pass. So what are we still waiting for, does he tell the crowd? He quotes this very saying of Moses saying: 

"For God will raise up a prophet from among the brothers of the Israelites like Moses..." 

The point is very clear. Christians like to see this prophet as being Jesus. But read carefully Acts chapter three, what it says is that Jesus awaits a return. He cannot return until the fulfillment of this prophecy, that another prophet has to come. Jesus spoke of it himself and the words survived, just barely, but they survived in the bible. Jesus spoke of God sending another 'Paraclete'.


There is a lot of argument over the meaning of this word 'Paraclete'. For now we can leave that aside. What is a 'Paraclete'? It does not matter. The first letter of John shows that Jesus was a 'Paraclete'. He is called a 'Paraclete' and we have Jesus promising another 'Paraclete' is going to be sent. We lose a lot by this word 'another' in English because it is ambiguous. If someone's car breaks down, and it is a Toyota, and I say, '" I'll go get you another car," maybe I mean, "I'll go and get you another Toyota because this one you have is broken," or maybe I mean, "Forget Toyota, they're no good; I'll go and get you a Datsun." It is an ambiguous word. But the Greeks had a word for it. When they meant 'another' of the same kind, they said aloes. When they meant another of a different kind, they said heteroes. The important thing there is that when Jesus, who was himself a Paraclete, said "God will send you another Paraclete" he used the word aloes, not heteroes.

Christians want to say that this other 'Paraclete' that has been sent was different from Jesus. It was not a man, it was a spirit. What Jesus said was: God will send you another one like me, another man." Muslims believe that Muhammad is the fulfillment of this prophecy by Jesus. The Qur'an says that this man is mentioned in the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians (see7:157). 

Christians came to expect that the return of Jesus because of a Jewish misunderstanding. 'Messiah' and 'Son of Man' have been given special significance by the Jews, even though may people were called by this same name as in the Bible. The Jews came to expect a victorious leader. When Jesus did not turn out to be quite what many expected, they hatched the idea that he would return some day and fulfill all these prophecies.

Follower of Jesus

Suppose that someone observed Jesus two-thousand years ago, and he left this planet, or he went to sleep for two-thousand years an returned today to look for the followers of Jesus, who would he find? Who would he recognize? Christians? I conclude with just this food for thought: the Bible says very clearly that Jesus used to fast. Do Christians fast? Muslims fast; it is obligatory on month every year. The Bible says that Jesus prayed by touching his forehead to the ground. Do Christians pray in this manner? Muslims do. It is characteristic of their prayer and no one on earth is probably ignorant of that fact.

According to Jesus, he told his disciples to greet one another with the expression, "Peace be with you." Do the Christians do that? Muslims do, universally, whether they speak Arabic of not. The greeting for one to another is Assalamu'alaikum (peace be with you).

The brother of Jesus in the Book of James, stated that no man should suggest what he is about to do of highlight his plans for the next few days in anyway without adding the phrase "if God wills." Do not say "I will go here and there do this and that" without adding the phrase "if God wills." Do Christians do that? Muslims do, whether they speak Arabic or not. If they so much as suggest they are going downtown to pick up some groceries, they will add Insha-Allah, which in Arabic means, "If God wills."

These conclude my thoughts on this subject. May Allah guide us always closer to the truth. [source: themodernreligion].

Duh, deskripsi Titel Header Blog saya Salah !

Iya, deskripsinya salah nich !

Karena menurut Alkitab, yang disebut Domba oleh Yesus adalah hanya orang dari Ras Yahudi, sedangkan Goyim, bangsa lain diluar Yahudi oleh Yesus disebut (maaf) Anjing (Markus 7:27 dan Matius 15:26).

Dengan demikian, orang Kristen Goyim dapat disebut sebagai Anjing Jinak dan sebaliknya orang Non-Kristen Goyim dapat disebut sebagai Anjing Liar atau Bukan Anjing Jinak :( 

Jadi seharusnya deskripsi titel header blog saya adalah: "Merdeka sebagai hamba dari Sang Pencipta manusia. Bukan Anjing Jinak dari seorang gembala manusia."

Perlu diganti apa tidak yah?

Tapi kalau diganti seperti itu, sungguh saya menjadi seperti orang gila, tidak bermoral, karena berarti menyetujui rasisme Yesus menurut Alkitab. Padahal menganggap sebagai Domba pun sungguh sebuah kehinaan bagi manusia yang normal.

Jadi serba salah deh :(

Benarkah Yesus dengan Sengaja Mau Mati demi Dunia?

Apakah Yesus dari Nazaret menginginkan dirinya sendiri menjadi juruselamat dunia dengan mati secara mengenaskan di kayu salib, sebagai suatu kematian pengganti demi keselamatan umat manusia sedunia di segala zaman dan tempat? Ini adalah sebuah pertanyaan berat dan sangat sensitif bagi perasaan banyak orang Kristen; meskipun demikian, akan diupayakan jawabannya dalam tulisan ini. 

Teks skriptural Perjanjian Lama yang pasti dirujuk orang Kristen untuk mendukung soteriologi salib adalah teks tentang hamba Tuhan yang menderita, antara lain (Deutero) Yesaya 52:13-53:12. Film Mel Gibson, The Passion of The Christ (tentang gugatan penulis (Ioanes) terhadap film ini, klik disini), untuk mendukung dolorisme, dibuka dengan sebuah kutipan teks Yesaya 53:5b, "Ganjaran yang mendatangkan keselamatan bagi kita ditimpakan kepadanya, dan oleh bilur-bilurnya kita menjadi sembuh." Kalimat-kalimat sebelumnya dalam teks Yesaya ini berbunyi demikian, "Tetapi sesungguhnya, penyakit kitalah yang ditanggungnya, dan kesengsaraan kita yang dipikulnya, padahal kita mengira dia kena tulah, dipukul dan ditindas Allah. Tetapi dia tertikam oleh karena pemberontakan kita, dia diremukkan oleh karena kejahatan kita" (Yesaya 53:4-5a). Sosok yang kena tulah dan menanggung azab demi kepentingan orang lain (vicarious sufferings) ini disebut sebagai "hamba" Tuhan, ebed Yahweh (Yesaya 52:13; 53:11b).

Dalam konteks historisnya, figur hamba Tuhan dalam Deutero Yesaya ini tentu saja tidak mengacu pada suatu figur mesianik di masa depan yang jauh, yang belum lahir, yang akan, melalui azab dan kematiannya, menyelamatkan dan menebus umat manusia di segala zaman dan tempat, tetapi pada suatu figur historis tertentu pada zaman ketika Deutero Yesaya ditulis (pada masa Pembuangan di Babel, abad VI SM), entah seorang imam, seorang nabi, atau seorang raja, Yahudi atau non-Yahudi, yang azabnya akan mendatangkan kebaikan, kesembuhan dan kesejahteraan untuk bangsa Israel sendiri, bukan untuk dunia secara universal dalam segala zaman. Tetapi jauh kemudian, pada permulaan abad kedua Masehi, oleh umat Kristen Perjanjian Baru, teks Deutero Yesaya ini dikenakan kepada Yesus, seperti kita baca dalam 1 Petrus 2:22-25; perhatikan khususnya ayat 24 yang memuat kutipan langsung dari teks Deutero Yesaya: "Ia sendiri telah memikul dosa kita di dalam tubuhnya di kayu salib, supaya kita, yang telah mati terhadap dosa, hidup untuk kebenaran. Oleh bilur-bilurnya kamu telah sembuh."

Selain dalam teks PL ini, dokumen Yahudi ekstrakanonik yang ditulis dengan mengambil Pemberontakan Makkabe (167-142 SM) sebagai latar historisnya, yakni 2 Makkabe (ditulis sekitar tahun 125 atau 124 SM) dan 4 Makkabe (bergantung pada 2 Makkabe; ditulis sekitar tahun 50 M), juga memuat gagasan soteriologis Yahudi serupa: kematian seorang Yahudi yang saleh dan benar sebagai syuhadah dalam perlawanan habis-habisan terhadap raja lalim (raja Siria, Antiokhus IV Epifanes), mendatangkan pendamaian dan penebusan untuk bangsa Israel dan menyucikan tanah mereka (2 Makkabe 6:18-17:41; 4 Makkabe 1:11; 5:1-6:27-28; 17:21; 18:4 ), dan yang bersangkutan akan dibangkitkan dan menerima kehidupan kekal (2 Makkabe 7:9; bdk. ayat 11, 14, 23, 29, 36; 4 Makkabe 16:25; bdk. 7:18-19; 13:17). Dalam 4 Makkabe 5:1-6:28 terdapat kisah tentang Eleazar, seorang tua dari keluarga imam. Dikisahkan dengan imajinatif, menjelang ajal sebagai seorang martir di perapian yang panas bernyala-nyala Eleazar berkata, "Ya, Tuhan, Engkau mengetahui bahwa aku dapat luput. Tetapi kini aku sekarat di dalam perapian ini demi Taurat. Berilah rakhmat-Mu pada umat-Mu; semoga kekejaman yang aku alami ini melunasi semua yang harus mereka tanggung. Biarlah darahku menyucikan mereka, ambillah nyawaku sebagai suatu pengganti bagi mereka" (6:27-28).

Kita dapat bertanya, apakah Yesus dari Nazaret, karena suatu ilham, mengambil teks-teks Yahudi ini lalu menerapkannya kepada dirinya sendiri, dan dengan demikian dia memandang dirinya entah sebagai hamba Tuhan yang menderita, sebagai sang mesias yang harus (Yunani: dei) mati tanpa perlawanan, atau pun sebagai seorang syuhadah yang mati dalam perlawanan keras terhadap penguasa lalim demi menyucikan Tanah Israel dan memerdekakan serta menebus bangsanya? Ataukah, gereja perdana (Yahudi dan non-Yahudi), tersirat ataupun tersurat, mengenakan teks-teks Deutero Yesaya (seperti dalam 1 Petrus 2:22-25), 2 dan 4 Makkabe dan teks-teks profetis lainnya kepada Yesus setelah kematiannya di kayu salib untuk menjadi landasan skriptural bagi soteriologi salib yang mereka konstruksi demi mengatasi tekanan jiwa yang begitu besar, yang mereka alami karena sang mesias mereka mati disalibkan di tangan bangsa Romawi, mati sebagai seorang yang (dari kaca mata Yahudi) terkutuk, terkena tulah, tanpa perlawanan apapun dari pihaknya? Pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini, bagaimanapun juga, mengandung masalah-masalah berat yang harus diatasi.

Masalahnya, pertama, pada era kegiatan Yesus di muka umum, era pra-Kristen, era sebelum dokumen-dokumen tertua Perjanjian Baru yang memuat soteriologi penebusan lewat salib Yesus ditulis, dalam tradisi Yahudi pasca-biblis teks-teks skriptural Deutero Yesaya tentang hamba Tuhan yang menderita tidak ditafsir secara mesianik, maksudnya: tidak diterapkan pada suatu figur mesias manapun.

Dalam kepercayaan dan pemikiran religio-politis mesianik Yahudi zaman Yesus, tidak terbuka kemungkinan untuk memandang seorang mesias Yahudi manapun akan menderita, mengalami azab, apalagi menderita dan tewas dengan memalukan, tanpa perlawanan fisik dan militer ketika berhadapan dengan musuh bangsa, negara dan agama. Dalam pandangan Yahudi, sebutan "mesias yang menderita" atau sebutan "mesias yang menempuh jalan sengsara" adalah suatu contradictio in terminis: penderitaan atau jalan sengsara tidak bisa disandingkan dengan gelar agung mesias. Bagi orang Yahudi yang terus-menerus hidup dalam penjajahan bangsa asing silih berganti, jika betul seseorang itu seorang mesias yang diutus Allah, orang itu, sang mesias Yahudi ini, keturunan Raja Daud ini, memikul tugas besar dan agung untuk memerdekakan bangsa Yahudi dari para penindas mereka dengan mengangkat senjata, berperang melawan penjajah-penjajah mereka, dan menyucikan kota Yerusalem dan seluruh Tanah Israel (lihat teks ekstrakanonik Mazmur-mazmur Salomo 17:22). Sang mesias sejati Yahudi didukung rakyat sepenuhnya, duduk di takhta kerajaan Yahudi dengan segala kemuliaannya, dan, melalui gerakan militer, mengalahkan setiap musuh bangsa yang merenggut kemerdekaan mereka. Inilah "teologi kemuliaan" (theologia gloria) dan "teologi perang" (theologia bellum) yang menjadi teologi mesianik zaman Yesus, yang juga dipertahankan para murid perdana Yesus (lihat Markus 10:37; 14:31, 47).

Jadi, kalau Yesus dari Nazaret mengambil teks tentang hamba Tuhan yang menderita dalam Kitab Deutero Yesaya dan menjadikan teks ini sebagai landasan skriptural untuk, karena suatu dorongan dan ilham, membenarkan tindakannya menempuh via dolorosa dengan rela, penuh rasa sakit namun tanpa perlawanan sampai dia mati mengenaskan di kayu salib, jelas Yesus, dengan menghayati "teologi salib" (theologia crucis) ini, bergerak di luar bingkai mesianisme Yahudi yang lazim pada masanya, dan tentu saja dia, karenanya, tidak akan dimengerti dan diterima rakyat Yahudi meskipun dia bisa jadi, langsung atau tak langsung, mengklaim dirinya raja Yahudi. Bahkan seorang murid utama yang dekat dengan Yesus, yakni Petrus, kita tahu, tidak bisa mengerti pandangan, kemauan dan langkah Yesus yang eksentrik, di luar kelaziman, ini: menjadi mesias rajani yang menderita (lihat Markus 8:31-32). Jadi, kalau diukur dari teologi kemuliaan dan teologi perang yang lazim dalam mesianisme Yahudi pada zamannya, jelas tidak akan ada seorang yang seperti Yesus, yang, dengan teologi salibnya, melangkah ke luar jauh dari dunia simbolik Yahudi zamannya!

Tetapi, bukankah Yesus, kita bertanya, bisa saja memang dengan sengaja mau berbeda dari pandangan mesianik umum Yahudi zamannya? Tentu, bisa saja pandangan mesianik Yesus begitu berbeda dari mesianisme Yahudi zamannya. Kalau memang benar demikian, ini memenuhi kriterion "dissimilarity" atau "distinctiveness" yang dipakai para peneliti Yesus sejarah. Menurut kriterion ini, sesuatu itu asli atau orisinil dari Yesus kalau sesuatu yang dikatakan dari Yesus ini (ucapannya atau tindakannya) begitu khas, distinctive atau dissimilar, sehingga berkontras atau berbeda tajam dengan kelaziman dalam dunia Yahudi pada umumnya di zamannya. Jadi, OK-lah, kita bisa saja percaya bahwa Yesus sendiri memang menghayati teologi salib, bukan teologi kemuliaan atau teologi perang, seperti dilaporkan dalam Injil-injil PB (lihat Markus 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; dan par.). OK-lah Yesus menghayati teks tentang hamba Tuhan yang menderita dalam Kitab Deutero Yesaya.

Tetapi, persoalannya adalah via dolorosa yang ditempuh Yesus, dan kematiannya di kayu salib, tidak berakibat soteriologis apapun bagi bangsa Yahudi yang dibelanya di hadapan kekuasaan Romawi. Sedangkan, teks dalam Deutero Yesaya yang sebagian sudah dikutip di atas menyatakan bahwa hamba Tuhan yang menderita itu, menderita demi mendatangkan kesembuhan, kesehatan, keselamatan, pembenaran dan penebusan bagi bangsa Israel. Setelah Yesus mati disalibkan, bahkan sampai berabad-abad sesudahnya, Tanah Israel nyatanya tetap terjajah, tetap tidak merdeka, dan bangsa Israel tetap terluka, sakit, tidak selamat, tidak sejahtera, tidak dibenarkan dan tidak tertebus. Dilihat dari sudut ini, kita harus menyatakan bahwa azab dan kematian Yesus sia-sia saja. Visi kehambaan yang membawanya pada kematian tidak efektif, kosong, dan dia menjadi seorang hamba Tuhan, ebed Yahweh, yang gagal total. Tidak ada keselamatan dari diri Yesus dan kematiannya bagi bangsanya.

Orang Kristen, demi iman mereka, mungkin akan masih mau bertahan dengan menyatakan bahwa jalan sengsara Yesus dan kematiannya memang tidak dimaksudkan Allah untuk manjur secara politis faktual bagi bangsa dan negerinya pada zamannya, melainkan untuk umat manusia secara universal di segala zaman dan tempat. Tetapi posisi iman Kristen semacam ini berpijak pada suatu logika yang salah: Bagaimana mungkin Yesus (atau Allah) memandang azab dan kematiannya (azab dan kematian Yesus) berefek soteriologis global, universal dan abadi, sementara efek soteriologis lokal, nasional dan temporernya bagi Tanah Israel dan bangsa Yahudi dalam zamannya yang sedang terjajah sama sekali tidak ada? Lagi pula, sebagaimana sudah diargumentasikan sebelumnya di blog ini (atau di blog sumber: klik
di sini), azab dan kematian Yesus nyatanya juga tidak manjur untuk secara magis menyelamatkan dan mengubah manusia kapanpun dan di manapun sesudah zaman Yesus, apalagi untuk orang yang hidup dan sudah mati sebelum dia mati disalibkan, misalnya untuk Adam dan Hawa (tentang ini dibahas dalam blog sumber, klik di sini).

Masalah keduanya adalah bahwa kalau Yesus memang benar memakai dan menerapkan teks-teks martir Yahudi dalam 2 dan 4 Makkabe (seperti sebagian sudah dikutip di atas) kepada dirinya sendiri, dia dalam kenyataannya tidak mengalami hal-hal dahsyat yang telah dialami oleh orang-orang yang dikisahkan dalam teks-teks Yahudi ekstrakanonik ini, dan kemartirannya juga sia-sia.

Berbeda dari orang Yahudi pada masa perjuangan dan pemberontakan Makkabe (167-142 SM) yang frontal terbuka dan bersenjata melawan helenisasi yang dilancarkan dengan gencar oleh Raja Antiokhus IV Epifanes terhadap bangsa dan agama Yahudi, Yesus tidak frontal menghadapi Roma dalam suatu perlawanan terbuka bersenjata. Berbeda dari apa yang dilukiskan dialami para pejuang Makkabe yang harus menghadapi siksaan sangat mengerikan bertubi-tubi sampai mereka mati dengan tubuh tidak utuh lagi, dalam Injil-injil PB tidak ada gambaran tentang penyiksaan amat dahsyat dan mengerikan yang dialami Yesus. Tentu Injil-injil PB menuturkan penyiksaan atas Yesus ketika dia diadili dan ketika dia digiring ke Golgota, sampai pada puncaknya dia mati dengan sangat mengenaskan di kayu salib. Tetapi, gambaran azab dan kematian Yesus ini sangat jauh kalah dahsyat dan kalah mengerikan jika dibandingkan dengan gambaran azab dan kesengsaraan serta kematian Eleazar dan tujuh pria bersaudara bersama ibu mereka yang sudah tua dalam 2 Makkabe (5:1-6:28 dan 7:1-42).

Dan, hal yang terpenting adalah kenyataan sejarah bahwa pada akhirnya para pejuang Makkabe melalui pengurbanan diri mereka sampai mati syahid secara mengerikan membuahkan kemerdekaan dan penyucian bagi bangsa Yahudi untuk jangka waktu yang cukup panjang (142-63 SM); hal ini kontras dengan gerakan Yesus yang, seperti sudah dikatakan di atas, tidak menghasilkan kemerdekaan dan penyucian kembali tanah dan bangsa Yahudi. Jadi, menerapkan teks-teks martir dalam 2 dan 4 Makkabe pada Yesus tidak pas. Kalaupun betul Yesus pribadi menghayati teks-teks martir dalam 2 dan 4 Makkabe ini, jalan hidup atau nasibnya membawanya ke arah lain: dia mati dengan sia-sia, dan bangsa Israel tetap terjajah untuk jangka waktu yang panjang berabad-abad ke depan, sesudah perjuangannya yang singkat kandas total. Jadi, kalaupun pemuda Yahudi idealis Yesus dari Nazaret ingin mati syahid demi menyucikan Tanah Israel dan menjadi tebusan bagi bangsanya (menurut Markus 10:45, bagi "banyak orang"), dalam kenyataannya dia, di akhir perjuangannya, gagal telak.

Menurut tiga catatan dalam Injil Markus, Yesus sudah tahu sebelumnya dan meramalkan bahwa dia akan menderita dan pada akhirnya akan mati dibunuh (Markus 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34). Ini berbeda dari sekian mesias Yahudi lainnya, yang tampil sebelum maupun sesudah Yesus, yang tidak menubuatkan sebelumnya bahwa mereka pada akhirnya akan mati dibunuh oleh penguasa asing yang menjajah tanah mereka. Semua mesias Yahudi lainnya ini, misalnya Simon Bar Kokhba, mengharapkan dan memperjuangkan kemenangan melalui pemberontakan dan perang, bukan mengharapkan kekalahan dan kematian.

Nah, apa yang akan kita katakan tentang seseorang yang sudah tahu akan mati tetapi terus saja maju sampai akhirnya orang ini benar-benar mati dibunuh lawan-lawannya? Apakah tindakan ini bukan suatu kenekatan, atau bukankah ini suatu tindakan bunuh diri yang sudah direncanakan sebelumnya? Mungkin sekali Yesus memang nekat karena impiannya atau karena wangsit yang diterimanya bahwa dia akan mati untuk menebus dosa bangsa Israel dan memerdekakan dan menyucikan Tanah Israel. Yesus mengalami keadaan ini mungkin karena dia mengidentikkan dirinya total dengan hamba Tuhan yang menderita seperti dituturkan Deutero Yesaya atau dengan para martir Makkabe. Jika memang demikian keadaannya, dunia patut bersedih sebab, seperti sudah ditulis di atas, sejarah membuktikan bahwa impian atau wangsitnya itu keliru dan tidak terpenuhi.

Pada sisi lain, ya dunia patut beriba hati karena Yesus sendiri sangat frustrasi pada akhirnya ketika dia menemukan Allah tidak berintervensi dalam bentuk apapun, jika penulis Injil Markus memang melaporkan suatu ingatan historis bahwa di kayu salib Yesus berteriak-teriak sangat kecewa (dengan mengutip Mazmur 22:2a) karena dia melihat dan merasakan Allah telah meninggalkannya: "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakhtani?", "Allahku, Allahku, mengapa dikau menelantarkanku?" (Markus 15:34). Jika memang teriakan ini faktual diucapkan Yesus yang sedang kesakitan tersalib, kita harus katakan bahwa akhirnya, meskipun sudah terlambat, Yesus menemukan dirinya tidak bisa tahan menanggung azab, tidak seperti yang digambarkan dalam Deutero Yesaya tentang seorang hamba Tuhan yang kuat menanggung azab dan tidak seperti para martir Makkabe yang tangguh dan heroik. Rasa frustrasi Yesus ini berbeda tajam dengan kedigdayaan Eleazar di perapian panas yang bernyala-nyala, juga dengan kedigdayaan Sokrates yang dengan tenang meminum racun yang diharuskan Negara Atena atas dirinya (tahun 399 SM).

Tetapi, adakah rekonstruksi alternatif daripada mengargumentasikan bahwa Yesus mati bunuh diri dengan direncanakan, dengan memakai tangan-tangan otoritas Yahudi dan otoritas Romawi, karena dia mau mengikuti jejak sang hamba Tuhan dalam Deutero Yesaya atau jejak para martir Makkabe? Saya kira masih ada alternatif untuk menjelaskan persoalan yang kompleks ini.

Hemat saya, Yesus adalah seorang yang optimis, bukan seorang yang fatalistis, yang menyerah pada nasib yang dibayang-bayangkannya sendiri. Dia percaya bahwa apa yang diperjuangkannya adalah sesuatu yang baik, sesuatu yang luhur, bagi bangsa Israel, yaitu memberitakan dan merayakan kehadiran Allah Yahudi di tengah rakyat, Allah yang datang kepada mereka sebagai Raja dan Bapa mereka untuk memberikan kemurahan dan kerahiman-Nya. Ketika Allah Yahudi ini datang melawat umat-Nya, Israel, maka Allah ini, kata Yesus, akan mencari domba-domba yang hilang dari kawanannya, dari antara umat Israel; bahwa Allah ini akan menerima kembali dengan penuh kemurahan dan belas kasih orang-orang yang berpaling kembali kepada-Nya bak seorang ayah yang tulus menerima kembali anaknya yang bungsu yang balik kembali kepadanya setelah menempuh kehidupan yang tidak patut di luar negeri; bahwa Allah ini akan, karena kemurahan-Nya, membebaskan orang-orang yang berhutang karena kemiskinan mereka yang parah dan kepasrahan mereka; bahwa Allah ini akan mendengarkan dan mengabulkan doa dan permintaan rakyat Yahudi yang terus-menerus mengharapkan pertolongan ilahi; bahwa Allah ini akan memelihara dengan setia umat-Nya seperti Dia memelihara dengan telaten bunga bakung di padang dan burung di udara. Ketika Allah ini datang dengan bela rasa-Nya, dengan compassion-Nya, maka, seperti didemonstrasikan Yesus dengan nyata, orang sakit disembuhkan, orang lumpuh dibuat berjalan, orang buta dicelikkan, orang yang kerasukan setan dipulihkan, orang yang terkapar hampir mati di jalan karena luka-lukanya didatangi, ditolong, dirawat dan disembuhkan, orang yang mau dirajam diampuni dan diselamatkan. Yesus yang semacam ini adalah Yesus pencinta dan pemelihara kehidupan. Yesus yang semacam ini yakin betul bahwa Allah, Bapanya, terus menyertainya dan memeliharanya seperti Allah ini terus memelihara bunga bakung di padang dan burung pipit di udara.

Nah, orang yang optimis, ceria, mencintai kehidupan, dekat dengan burung-burung di udara dan dengan bunga bakung di padang, dan dengan anak-anak, suka menolong, giat membangun semangat, memberi pengharapan, mengampuni, menyembuhkan dan penuh dengan bela rasa seperti Yesus ini tidak mungkin membayangkan dirinya akan berumur singkat, akan disiksa oleh orang lain, lalu mati dibunuh dengan penyaliban. Yesus yang semacam ini tentu berharap dirinya akan berumur panjang, akan bisa lama berada di tengah rakyat Yahudi yang sedang menderita karena penjajahan dan kemiskinan untuk memberdaya mereka, dan akan dengan bersemangat terus menghadirkan dan memperagakan kuasa dan bela rasa Allah bagi bangsa Yahudi. Dia tentu, dari sejarah Israel dan dari kenyataan yang dilihatnya setiap hari, dapat kita bayangkan mengetahui kekejaman otoritas Yahudi dan otoritas Romawi yang kerap menyalibkan orang Yahudi. Dia, karena itu, tentu sangat tidak menyukai pembunuhan orang di kayu salib. Dia tentu berusaha keras untuk menghindari benturan dengan para penguasa de jure dan de facto Tanah Israel selama dia masih berkarya di kampung-kampung Galilea.

Jika gambaran positif dan optimis tentang Yesus ini secara historis tepat, dan, seperti baru dikatakan, ada alasan yang cukup untuk kita percaya bahwa gambaran ini memang tepat (minimal 70% tepat!), maka sangat tidak mungkin jika Yesus sendiri menubuatkan berulang-ulang (seperti ditulis Markus) bahwa dirinya akan menempuh via dolorosa yang akan, dalam waktu singkat, bermuara pada pembunuhan dirinya di kayu salib. Bila rekonstruksi historis alternatif ini benar, maka semua ucapan Yesus dalam Injil-injil PB yang menubuatkan kesengsaraan dan kematian dirinya di tangan penguasa Yahudi dan penguasa Romawi bukanlah ucapan asli Yesus, melainkan ucapan dan teologi orang Kristen perdana sesudah Yesus wafat yang harus merasionalisasi fakta sejarah berat bahwa Yesus mati dibunuh dengan cara memalukan dan kejam, di luar perkiraan mereka sebelumnya, seperti sudah diuraikan pada waktu yang lalu (blog sumber: klik di sini). Dengan rasionalisasi inilah mereka akhirnya dapat menerima azab dan kematian Yesus yang mereka tidak sangka-sangka itu sebagai sesuatu yang sudah harus terjadi, bertujuan dan bermakna karena, menurut mereka, Yesus sudah meramalkannya sebelumnya.

Begitu juga, ucapan-ucapan Yesus dalam injil-injil PB yang menyatakan dirinya akan mati untuk menjadi penyelamat dan penebus bangsa Israel bukanlah ucapan-ucapan asli Yesus, melainkan ajaran gereja perdana yang ditempelkan pada mulut dan lidah Yesus, yang disusun oleh gereja perdana berdasarkan, langsung atau tak langsung, teks-teks Deutero Yesaya, 2 dan 4 Makkabe dan teks-teks profetis lainnya. Dengan mengonstruksi soteriologi semacam ini, gereja perdana berhasil mengubah kematian Yesus yang faktualnya sia-sia menjadi kematian yang bertujuan, setidaknya dalam keyakinan mereka. Sedangkan, bagi Yesus yang teosentris keselamatan dan penebusan hanya diberikan oleh Allah, Bapanya, yang rahmani dan rahimi, kepada bangsa Israel, bukan oleh dirinya sebagai anak sang Bapa, yang menundukkan dirinya pada kerahiman ilahi sang Bapa.

Dengan demikian, kesimpulannya adalah bahwa Yesus tidak mau dengan sengaja mati untuk menebus dosa dunia. Soteriologi salib tidak berasal dari Yesus, tetapi sepenuhnya ciptaan gereja perdana sesudah masa kehidupan Yesus.

Pertanyaan yang dengan membandel timbul tentu adalah mengapa atau karena hal apa Yesus pada akhirnya memang mati disalibkan dalam usia muda? Pertanyaan ini sudah dijawab dalam tulisan sebelumnya. Pada kesempatan ini, cukup dengan singkat diulang kembali. Yesus dihukum mati karena beritanya tentang Kerajaan Allah yang sedang datang di tengah rakyat Yahudi ditafsirkan oleh lawan-lawannya sebagai klaim pribadinya bahwa dia adalah raja Yahudi, dan dengan demikian dia dinilai telah melanggar suatu hukum Romawi yang mewajibkan rakyat jajahan untuk tunduk hanya kepada Kaisar Roma sebagai raja Israel. Yesus ditangkap di Yerusalem dan akhirnya dihukum mati karena dia telah melakukan suatu kesalahan fatal berdemonstrasi di Bait Allah pada waktu perayaan Paskah, perayaan untuk memperingati kemerdekaan bangsa Yahudi dari tangan Mesir dalam sejarah nenek moyang Israel. Teologi Yesus yang memandang Allah tanpa perantara apapun memberikan kemurahan-Nya kepada umat Yahudi membuatnya berang dan marah ketika menyaksikan Bait Allah telah difungsikan sebagai lembaga perantara untuk mempertemukan Allah Yahudi dengan umat-Nya. Kemarahannya ini mendorongnya untuk berunjuk rasa di Bait Allah. Seandainya Yesus tidak berdemonstrasi di Bait Allah, mungkin umurnya masih akan panjang dan tidak mati disalibkan sebagai suatu bentuk penghukuman mati Romawi.

Dengan demikian kematian Yesus di kayu salib terjadi bukan karena Allah mengharuskannya demikian, bukan juga karena dia ingin bunuh diri, tetapi karena kebencian lawan-lawannya dan kesalahannya berunjuk rasa di dalam Bait Allah. Kematian ini, jika diketahui lebih dulu oleh Yesus, tentu akan dia hindari sebisa mungkin. Dengan demikian jelaslah bahwa Yesus tidak mau mati dengan sengaja untuk menyelamatkan dunia. Azabnya yang akan segera membawanya kepada kematian dilihat Yesus, ketika dia kesakitan terpaku di kayu salib, sebagai sesuatu yang tidak dia sangka-sangka; karena itu dia, dalam segala sifat kemanusiaannya, sangat kecewa dan merasa Allah telah meninggalkannya. Akhir kehidupan Yesus benar-benar sebuah tragedi, sebuah kecelakaan sejarah. [
Dr. Ioanes Rakhmat].