7 HARI

DALAM 7 HARI YANG TELAH LALU DAN MUNGKIN AKAN TERULANG

Hari per-1, tahajudku tetinggal
Dan aku begitu sibuk akan duniaku
Hingga dzuhurku, kuselesaikan saat ashar mulai memanggil
Dan sorenya kulewati saja masjid yang mengumandangkan azan maghrib
Dengan niat kulakukan bersama isya itupun terlaksana setelah acara
tv selesai

Hari ke-2, tahajudku tertinggal lagi
Dan hal yang sama aku lakukan sebagaimana hari pertama

Hari ke-3 aku lalai lagi akan tahujudku
Temanku memberi hadiah novel best seller yang lebih dr 200 hlmn
Dalam waktu tidak 1 hari aku telah selesai membacanya
Tapi... enggan sekali aku membaca Al-qur'an walau cuma 1 juzz
Al-qur'an yang 114 surat, hanya 1,2 surat yang kuhapal itupun dengan
terbata-bata
Tapi... ketika temanku bertanya tentang novel tadi betapa mudah dan
lancarnya aku menceritakan

Hari ke-4 kembali aku lalai lagi akan tahajudku
Sorenya aku datang ke Selatan Jakarta dengan niat mengaji
Tapi kubiarkan ustazdku yang sedang mengajarkan kebaikan
Kubiarkan ustadzku yang sedang  mengajarkan lebih luas tentang agamaku
Aku  lebih suka mencari bahan obrolan dengan teman yg ada disamping
kiri & kananku
Padahal ba’da maghrib tadi betapa sulitnya aku merangkai
Kata-kata untuk kupanjatkan saat berdoa

Hari ke-5 kembali aku lupa akan tahajudku
Kupilih shaf paling belakang dan aku mengeluh saat imam sholat jum'at
kelamaan bacaannya  Padahal betapa dekat jaraknya aku dengan televisi dan
betapa nikmat,
serunya saat perpanjangan waktu sepak bola favoritku tadi malam

Hari ke-6 aku semakin lupa akan tahajudku
Kuhabiskan waktu di mall & bioskop bersama teman2ku
Demi memuaskan nafsu mata & perutku sampai puluhan ribu tak terasa keluar
Aku lupa.. waktu diperempatan lampu merah tadi
Saat wanita tua mengetuk kaca mobilku
Hanya uang dua ratus rupiah kuberikan itupun tanpa menoleh

Hari ke-7 bukan hanya tahajudku tapi shubuhkupun tertinggal
Aku bermalas2an ditempat tidurku menghabiskan waktu
Selang beberapa saat dihari ke-7 itu juga
Aku tersentak kaget mendengar khabar temanku kini
Telah terbungkus kain kafan padahal baru tadi malam aku bersamanya
& ¾ malam tadi dia dengan misscallnya mengingatkan aku tentang tahajud

kematian kenapa aku baru gemetar mendengarnya?
Padahal dari dulu sayap2nya selalu mengelilingiku dan
Dia bisa hinggap kapanpun dia mau

¼ abad lebih aku lalai....
Dari hari ke hari, bulan dan tahun
Yang wajib jarang aku lakukan apalagi yang sunah
Kurang mensyukuri walaupun KAU tak pernah meminta
Berkata kuno akan nasehat ke-2 orang tuaku
Padahal keringat & airmatanya telah terlanjur menetes demi aku

Tuhan andai ini merupakan satu titik hidayah
Walaupun imanku belum seujung kuku hitam
Aku hanya ingin detik ini hingga nafasku yang saat nanti tersisa
Tahajud dan sholatku meninggalkan bekas
Saat aku melipat sajadahku.....
Amin....

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

6 Pertanyaan Imam Ghazali

Suatu hari, Imam Al Ghozali berkumpul dengan murid-muridnya. Lalu Imam  Al Ghozali mengajukan 6 pertanyaan.

Pertama,"Apa yang paling dekat dengan diri kita di dunia ini?".

Murid-muridnya ada yang menjawab orang tua, guru, teman,dan kerabatnya.  Imam Ghozali menjelaskan semua jawaban itu benar. tetapi yang paling  dekat  dengan kita adalah  "MATI". Sebab itu sudah janji Allah SWT bahwa setiap yang bernyawa pasti  akan mati. (Ali Imran 185)

Pertanyaan kedua "Apa yang paling jauh dari diri kita di dunia ini?".

Murid -muridnya ada yang menjawab negara Cina, bulan, matahari, dan  bintang-bintang. Lalu Imam Ghozali menjelaskan bahwa semua jawaban yang  mereka berikan adalah benar. Tapi yang paling benar adalah "MASA LALU".  Bagaimanapun kita, apapun kendaraan kita, tetap kita tidak bisa kembali ke masa lalu. Oleh sebab itu kita harus menjaga hari ini dan hari-hari  yang  akan datang dengan perbuatan yang sesuai dengan ajaran Agama.

Pertanyaan yang ke tiga. "Apa yang paling besar di dunia ini?".

Murid-muridnya ada yang menjawah gunung, bumi,dan matahari. Semua  jawaban  itu benar kata Imam Ghozali.  Tapi yang paling besar dari yang ada di dunia ini adalah "NAFSU" (Al-A'Raf  179).  Maka kita harus hati-hati dengan nafsu kita, jangan sampai nafsu membawa  kita ke neraka.

Pertanyaan ke empat adalah, "Apa yang paling berat di dunia ini?".
Ada yang menjawab baja, besi, dan gajah. Semua jawaban itu benar, kata Imam  Ghozali.  Tapi yang paling berat adalah "memegang AMANAH" (Al Ahzab 72). Tumbuh-tumbuhan, binatang, gunung, dan malaikat semua tidak mampu ketika Allah SWT meminta mereka untuk menjadi kalifah (pemimpin) di dunia ini.Tetapi manusia dengan sombongnya menyanggupi permintaan Allah SWT,sehingga banyak dari manusia masuk ke neraka karena ia tidak bisa memegang  amanahnya.

Pertanyaan yang ke lima adalah, "Apa yang paling ringan di dunia ini?".

Ada yang menjawab kapas, angin, debu, dan daun-daunan. Semua itu benar  kata  Imam Ghozali. Tapi yang paling ringan di dunia ini adalah "MENINGGALKAN  SHOLAT". Gara-gara pekerjaan kita tinggalkan sholat, gara-gara meeting  kita  tinggalkan sholat.
 
Lantas pertanyaan ke enam adalah, "Apakah yang paling tajam di dunia  ini?".

Murid-muridnya menjawab dengan serentak, pedang... Benar kata Imam  Ghozali. Tapi yang paling tajam adalah "LIDAH MANUSIA".  Karena melalui lidah, Manusia dengan gampangnya menyakiti hati dan  melukai perasaan saudaranya sendiri.

 

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

Islam & Modernism

ISLAM AND MODERNISM

Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa' believes that there is only one true Islam. This is proven in Qur'an and Hadith. One hadith shows the straight line as leading to Allah, and branching paths leading off it with a devil at each one calling to it. Also, the umma will break into 73 sects, and the true way is the one who follows Muhammad and his companions. Modernists are differing from Ahl As-Sunna Wal-Jamaa' in:

1) everything in accordance with Qur'an and Sunna is Haq (truth) and what disagrees with it is false (some modernists disagree with this). Also, statements consistent with the Qur'an and Sunna are accepted;
2) Ijmaa (consensus) of the sahaaba (and early generations) is a hujja (proof) for all Muslims. Modernists say sahaaba are men and we are men, and even matters agreed on by them are open to ijtihaad;
3) anything in the Qur'an and Sunna cannot be opposed by 'aql, rational thought, opinion, or qiysas. This is supported in the Qur'an and is not open to discussion or vote. One modernists said the cutting of the hand of the theif is a "Khomeni Islam" and is unethical;
4) there are constants in Islam related to belief, worship, etc. and these are good, sound, proper, and correct for all places and times. This view is accepted by the Ahl Sunna, but not by many of the modernists, saying that all truth is relative and there is no constants. However, these constant principles are basic aspects of the Ahl Sunna and are traced to the Qur'an and Sunna and Sahaaba. They are not questionable or changeable things. In many of these things, modernists say we need ijtihaad and tajdeed.

DANGERS

1) Many are influenced by it and do not know it. Also, their views are unacceptable and should be refuted.

2) Many people do not recognize it as a movement of munkar or bida' and do not evaluate its writings and speeches, so they try to defend it. Many of their writings are from rationalization (which has no end or conclusion), and the effects of this are seen in the Christian church (that is, they now have no relationship to their religion, and it has no practical value or purpose).

3) This group is also playing into the hands of the kuffar. They are happy with is because their effort is to bring the Muslim women out of the home to change them. The last 200 years has been a colonialist and orientalist attack on the position of the woman in Islam (to destroy her and the society).
 

CONCLUSIONS

1) The modernists movement as a whole (what it is based on) is from Bida' (innovation). They have their own principles and ways, which contradicts that of Ahl-Sunna. They say we want ijtihaad in the basic principles of the deen (religion) which are constant.
2) They are very willing to reject and contradict the ijmaa of the sahaaba on clear points (such as stoning of the adulterer and the apostate is to be killed) and hadith are dealt with as if they are not important (women ruler hadith is common).
3) One of the main points of modernism is to change the role of women. They say it is permissible to mix men and women and to not wear hijaab. The modernists are impressed by the West and their conclusions always seem to agree with the views of the West.

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

Modernists Go Astray !!

HOW DO MODERNISTS GO ASTRAY?

The observer can easily point out the following points as the driving force for this trend:

1) Their premises and assumptions are wrong Modernists look to the West and try to reinterpret the "old religion" with modern science and modern times. They assume that:

a) the present situation is advanced or different (i.e. "this is not the Prophet's time!"). However, the idea of progress and that things are better now is Marxian and Hegelian. It is against the hadith, as the Prophet said each generation is getting worse. They must prove that there has been progression (no definition of it given). Islamically the advanced society is the one that comes closer to Allah, and understands and applies Islam better (such as the sahaaba). In fact, the current societies have the things of the old societies (such as homosexuality, etc.) as mentioned in the Qur'an;
b) religion is relative to time and place (i.e. "therefore we need to judge Islam in light of modern science"). Modernists are "people of science" and judge Islam according to modern science. They think that the West is based on science, but they fail to notice that not all science is based on fact. In reality, much of science is only hypothesis (not a fact). Also, every science has its own philosophy, which will lead to its own conclusions;
c) the way of thinking of a society is based on (is a product of) its enviroment. Modernists say most of religion is from the people and their environment and it can be judged by later times, and hadith are related to that time only. However, there is no proof for the modernist hypothesis that religious truth is relative. Allah says the Qur'an is Haq (truth). Modernists are saying (by inference) that if the Qur'an is not true now, then it was never true.

2) The methodology they use is wrong. The methodology of the modernists is the way they mislead people to the wrong conclusions. They claim to be scientific, but they are usually inconsistent or have no proof or foundation for their beliefs. Some of the means and principles they use include:

a) Sunna and Hadith. They claim the Qur'an is authentic and they only follow "authentic" hadith. This implies that they have a way to judge hadith (different from that of the traditional scholars), yet most give no new way to judge hadith, and are using their 'aql (intelligence) to determine this (like the female ruler hadith). Modernists especially dislike hadith which have specific meanings and prefer ones which only have general principles.
b) Use of weak hadith to help their points and arguments (while they are calling for the use of authentic hadith). For example, in the area of women in Islam (the two areas the modernists try to change the most are the sunna and women) they like to quote two stories from the time of Umar: 1) when Umar was giving a Khutbah he tried to restrict the amount of dowry, a woman opposed, and Umar corrected himself and thanked the woman, and 2) Umar appointed Umma Shifaa as a market-regulator (used by modernist to say women can work in the government). However, both of these stories are not authentic.
c) Use vague terms without defining them. Modernists use terms like democracy, freedom, and equality, but they do not define what they mean by them. The danger in using vague terms is that a knowledgeable person will pass over the word or concept, thinking they meant the Islamic or acceptable definition while in fact they did not, while others may believe what they are saying is true.
d) Do not present all of the relevant information that is available on the subject. That is, from Qur'an, sunna, etc. They only present that which will support their views. This tactic is used to avoid unliked beliefs, so they just do not mention them.
e) Force their interpretation onto the text. This is what the Muta'zilla did, when they said 'aql takes precedence over what is from the Prophet. Many modernists say Islam is the "rational" religion. This is true if you mean everything is from Allah and there is no contradiction, but to say that we can study everything in Islam by judging it with only our intellect is unacceptable and there is also no proof for this. To avoid implementing what the Qur'an and sunna says, the modernists say we need to follow the "spirit" of Islam and not worry about the laws specifically. But it is clear from the Qur'an and Sunna that we are to take both. They will argue that the text of the Qur'an only says for women to dress modestly and they do not like to talk about the specific details of hijaab and say we only need to follow the "spirit" of the law.
f) They tend to oppose scholars by saying they meant something else. They say that the door to ijtihaad is open, which is something accepted by the Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa'. However, it is not open to everybody on any subject. Modernists claim that anyone would make ijtihaad until Imam Shaffie narrowed the qualifications (not true), and today anyone can do it. In one magazine, on the question of polygamy and divorce, some said that these two can be restricted by ijtihaad. They often misquote scholars and give their own meanings for what they said.
g) Often follow strange and rejected opinions. They try to revive some of the old opinions because they like it and say that this writer said it in the past. Modernists try to open the door to these opinions and choose what is the most suitable and easy to follow. However, we are supposed to look for the fiqh opinions that are the closest to the truth. They usually bring bad hadith such as "The differences in my Ummah is a mercy" or reject authentic hadith such as the one about the breakup of the Ummah into 73 sects.
h) Follow their desires. They often make rulings and fatawa without permissible daleel (evidence). One said music is permissible because he did not see something wrong with it, so it is halal. But he did not check what the Qur'an and the sunna say about this subject.

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

Modernism Come To Islam

WHAT IS MODERNISM AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM?

We can relate, ideologically, the modernist movement spreading these days to one sect in the past. This sect is called the Muta'zila, which is dated back to the third Islamic century. Although those people accepted the Qur'an and Sunna they made ta'weel (their own interpretation of the Qur'an) and said 'aql (intelligence) takes precedence over naql (guidance of the Prophet). However, this school died out. The modernist movement did not evolve from them, but they are very similar to them.

The modernist movement actually originated in Europe (middle-ages). At the time when the scientific method came about in Spain, it was seen that what the church was teaching was not true. This led to a slow revolt. The basic view of modernism (in all religions)is that: the religion should change according to the circumstances, and that it is not fixed. There is no such thing as absolute truth. The Jewish and Christian modernist responce in Europe tried to explain how the religion was still relevant for the people.

They made innovations to keep people interested in the religion (such as singing in church, introduced only in the 1900's). They tried to say the divine and the human is mixed in the Bible and that the parts that are true must be the ones that are not out of date. Also, the religion is improving over time and there is no absolute truth in the Bible. This is the time in history when many Muslims were looking to Europe. This led to three choices for those Muslims: accept the West; reject the West; or mix the two (reform Islam). Those who followed the third (the modernist) developed in, and focused on: Turkey - because it was under British influence; and Egypt - because Al-Azhar was the seat of Islamic knowledge. The people of this modernist movement judge Islam according to their 'aql. Some of their faults in regards to it are:

1) use it for things which it can't comprehend;
2) refer everything to it: accept what agrees with it, reject what does not;
3) judge the revelation by it. However, Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa' believes that using the sound 'aql should lead one to the conclusion that the Qur'an and the Prophet are true and that their teachings should take precedence over pure 'aql.

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

Missions To Islam

Christian Missions to Islam & Western Culture

As we approach the end of this century, we need a new vision of world missions based on a realistic description of our times. We are living in a new era of world history. In the early days of modern missions, between 1800 and 1950, the West was still more or less Christian, and its culture reflected the impact of the Christian tradition. "The mission fields" in Asia and Africa formed an integral part of the vast colonial empires of Britain, France, The Netherlands and Portugal. Not so today. Now the West is secularized, and those European empires are a thing of the past. Christian missions overseas can never be abstracted from what is going on in the homelands. Hence a need for the "support" group to be identifiably Christian and for the theology of missions to be firmly grounded in the basic tenets of the faith.

Furthermore, the post-world-war II period has ushered in a new Diaspora, which has brought millions of people from the former colonies to live in Western European countries. Due to the change in immigration laws in both Canada and the United States, the North American population is now more diversified than ever before. Such a mega shift in the global situation requires a thorough examination of our mission strategies.

For example, with regard to Christian missions among Muslims, it is tempting to dwell almost exclusively on the difficulties we encounter as we present them the claims of the Gospel. We tend to forget that whether working with Muslims or among the followers of other faiths, we are never on our own, but simply the messengers of Him who presides over the spread of His Good News and the building up of His universal church. We should never forget that the Bible teaches a theocentric view of missions. Our concern should be the faithful proclamation of the Word of God in the language of the people and in harmony with the historic Christian faith as we find it summarized and expounded in the ecumenical Creeds and the Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation.

Unfortunately, rather than basing their approaches on this solid heritage of the past, some missionary strategists have advocated the adoption of new policies which are supposed to make missions easier or more successful. Great stress has been placed on contextualizing the gospel in such a way that it becomes possible for a Muslim to convert to Christianity. Certain advocates of contextualization have espoused radical theories, which conflict with the teachings of the Bible. Their inspiration did not originate from within the Christian tradition but from their fascination with certain secular disciplines. Such approaches have alarmed those missiologists who have remained committed to the Biblical principles of missions. For example, in the fall 1993 issue of Trinity World Forum, Professor Edward Rommen drew attention to the divorce that has taken place between theology and the new discipline of missiology. In an article entitled the De-Theologizing of Missiology, Rommen wrote: "the elevation of pragmatism to the status of a missiological norm has led to an uncritical acceptance of applied social science." It is a very gratifying sign to notice that this professor of Missiology in the School of World Mission at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfiled, IL is calling for "the re-theologization of North American Missiology."

Setting aside all theories, which advocate a radical discontinuity with the work of the pioneer missionaries, let us zero in on the Muslim world. Our approach should be marked by a macro or total vision of the real nature of Islam as a religion and a culture which encompass all areas of life. Even though today the majority of its adherents live in the impoverished third world, yet most Muslims are historically conscious and quite aware of their great past. Their faith in the rightness of their religion is unshaken. God has entrusted them with His final message to all mankind. They have taken it to distant lands and managed to found great empires. They consider their present predicament as transitory, an unfortunate phase which will soon give way to a revival of past glories.

In order to understand what is going on inside the Muslim mind, let us put ourselves in the shoes of a Muslim. Why should he convert to Christianity? He has nothing to gain. If he lives within a Muslim country, his conversion will inevitably lead to death. If he has immigrated to a Western land, he sees no specific benefits that would accrue from his adoption of the Christian faith. According to his worldview which he has not left back home, there is no such thing as a separation between religion and politics, or "church" and state. His culture is deeply religious and his religion has produced an assertive and self-consciously Islamic culture. Based on his experiences, he identifies Christianity with Western culture. He regards it as decadent and hurtling towards disintegration. His faith and fervor are rekindled; in order to survive he must go on the offensive and engage in da'wah, i.e., in missions. He calls Westerners to convert to Islam. This involves both a religious and political change of mind on the part of the converts. I will enlarge on this point by referring to the work and research of two prominent Christian professors, one from the United States and the other from Germany. They both refer to Muslims living in the West, their struggle to survive within a secular culture and their attempt to engage in missions within the host countries.

In the International Bulletin of Missionary Research (October 1993), the noted West African scholar, Lamin Sanneh wrote a thought-provoking article, Can a House Divided Stand? Reflections on Christian-Muslim Encounter in the West. Dr. Sanneh, a convert from Islam and a Professor of Missions and World Christianity at Yale Divinity School, commented in this article on the inevitable confrontation between the "pluralistic tradition of the West" and the demands of Muslim immigrants for implementing practices which stem from their theocratic view of the state. Dr. Sanneh wrote:
"It would be wrong for Westerners to think that they can preserve religious toleration by conceding the extreme Muslim case for territoriality*, because a house constructed on that foundation would have no room in it for the very pluralistic principle that has made the West hospitable to Muslims and others in the first place. The fact that these religious groups have grown and thrived in the West at a time when religious minorities established in Islamic societies have continued to suffer civil disabilities shows how uneven are the two traditions.

"We risk perpetuating such a split-level structure in our relationship, including the risk to the survival of our great public institutions, unless we take moral responsibility for the heritage of the West, including tolerance for religion. Such tolerance for religion cannot rest on the arguments of public utility but rather on the firm religious rock of the absolute moral law with which our Creator and Judge has fashioned us.

"In view of growing signs of Muslim pressure for religious territoriality, often expressed in terms of shari'ah and political power, and in view of the utter inadequacy of the sterile utilitarian ethic of the secular national sate, Westerners must recover responsibility for the Gospel as public truth and must reconstitute by it the original foundations on which the modern West has built its ample view of the world."

Coming from a tradition which considers religion as involving all areas of life, and having witnessed the moral collapse of Western societies, it is quite understandable that Muslims want to offer their faith as a remedy to the deplorable spiritual conditions within the host countries. Their boldness stems from their deep conviction that the West is rapidly entering the twilight of its civilization. Only Islam has the answer. As the theme of a Muslim convention which was held in Chicago in December, 1994, put it: Al-Islam li sa'adat al-bashariyya: Islam is for the happiness of mankind!
From across the Atlantic, a noted German theologian contributed an article in which he touched on the subject of Muslim minorities in the West and their zeal to engage in missionary activities. It appeared in the December 1994, issue of FIRST THINGS under the title: Christianity and the West: Ambiguous Past, Uncertain Future. Wolfhart Pannenberg who is Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Munich, wrote:
"If Western freedom in fact means no more than individual license, others do well to try to defend their communities and spiritual values against the encroachment of Western secularism. Beyond the defensive mode, Islamic missions in Western societies express a strong sense of missionary vocation aimed at liberating Western nations from the materialism and immorality associated with secularism. These Muslims view Christians as having failed in the task of the moral transformation and reconstruction of society. Such criticism is a serious challenge to traditional Christianity and to Western culture. A culture devoid of spiritual and moral values is not equipped to meet that challenge, and is bound for disintegration and decay."

These are very serious words and all Christians should ponder this analysis of a leading European theologian. We are not living in the days of William Carey or Samuel Zwemer. Their work was supported by a home front, which exhibited a Christian culture. Before World War II, the average Muslim in the Middle East thought of Americans as being thoroughly honest. He could trust them more than his fellow Muslims. Why? Because all the Americans he knew were either missionaries or educators who exhibited in their life the higher ethic of an authentic Christian faith! Early United States diplomats in the area were often children or grandchildren of the pioneer missionaries.

As we have noticed above, even after living a long time outside the household of Islam, Muslims still carry with them their own habits of thought. They cannot comprehend the stark reality that Western culture has jettisoned its Christian heritage. They confuse Christianity with Western culture and regard it as exhibiting an inferior ethic. Thus, it is both their responsibility and opportunity to engage in missions among Westerners. It is also a very telling matter that such activity is not rooted in the idea of an organized and official "sending" by some agency. The Islamic view of missions is rooted in the concept of da'wah, i.e., calling people to Islamize. It is a spontaneous activity in which he engages as a Muslim, a person who has submitted to God's revelation in the Quran. His solemn duty is to share his faith by all means, peaceful at times, or through holy war --- jihad, at other times.

When we take these facts into account, we must conclude that it is the responsibility of all Christians to fight tenaciously the steady advance of secularism into the various spheres of their life and communities. The credibility of Christian missionary endeavors, at home within a pluralistic society, and overseas, depends on their distancing themselves from the norms and the lifestyles of the secular society, which surrounds them. They have so much to learn from the history of the first three hundred years of the Christian era when to be a Christian meant both a separation from the corrupt heathen environment and engaging that milieu with the bold Christian word-and-life testimony: Jesus is Lord.

Further pertinent quotes from Professor Pannenberg's article:
"And so, while we can envision a great resurgence of Christianity and Western culture in the third millennium, such a future is by no means certain. Western societies may ignore their need to recover the strength of their religious roots. They may continue headlong on a secularist course, unaware of its certain and dismal outcome. The end of Western culture, however, would not spell the end of Christianity. The Christian religion is not dependent upon the culture to which it gave birth. As it has in the past, the Church can survive and flourish in the context of other cultures.

"The further secularism advances the more urgent it is that Christian faith and Christian life be seen in sharp contrast to the secularist culture. It is quite possible that in the early part of the third millennium only the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, on the one hand, and evangelical Protestantism, on the other, will survive as ecclesial communities. What used to be called the Protestant mainline churches are in acute danger of disappearing. I expect they will disappear if they continue neither to resist the spirit of a progressively secularist culture nor to try to transform it.

"There is no alternative to the Church. The further the secularist dominance of the general culture advances, the more clearly the Church, in clear distinction from that culture, emerges as the reference point of Christian existence."

Taking into account the insights of Lamin Sanneh and Wolfhart Pannenberg, we conclude that at this juncture in world history, global missions should be the concern of every member of the church. We must factor into our strategies the revival of Islam and of the other major world religions. The old distinction between domestic and foreign missions is outdated. All members of the Body of Christ must spontaneously engage in the spread of the message. The Good News of Jesus Christ was never meant to be kept for one group or nation or continent. None of us in the West should have the luxury of sitting back to "enjoy" the fruits of the faith while supporting missions merely in a purely financial way. The beautiful and ever relevant statement of Paul in Romans 10: 13-15 provides us with an agenda for a total involvement in missions.

For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!" (NKJ)
It should be quite obvious that Christian missionaries overseas do not and should not operate on their own. We send them to work in lands where we cannot be physically present. At the home base we must be like the church in Antioch which sent Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13). While busy with missions within our own communities and country, we should ardently support those whom we have sent to distant lands, through our prayers and gifts as well as by a consistently Christian lifestyle. Let us not leave it just to the Muslims to be engaged in calling. We have a great message to share with all mankind: the Good News of Jesus Christ. Should we Western Christians shirk our missionary responsibility, Christians from Africa, Asia and Latin America will accomplish what God had ordained from all eternity, "That in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth --- in Him." (Ephesians 1:10 NKJ)

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

God Never Was !!

        THE GOD THAT "NEVER WAS"?

During 1983 the Islamic Propagation Centre published a booklet entitled The God that Never Was, which had first been published as an article in a local Muslim newspaper Al-Balaagh in 1980, as a response to a reply I had written to certain lectures against the Christian faith by Ahmed Deedat on cassette tapes. The booklet contains a large number of quotations from the Bible, chiefly from the four Gospels, which all relate to the earthly life Jesus lived for thirty-three years in human form. Each one of these quotes is headed by a title in which the name of Jesus is substituted by "God", and comments are made about his humanity which appear to ridicule the Christian belief in his deity. The author of the booklet sets out his purpose in these words:

In our headings and subheadings we have referred to Jesus as "God" in inverted commas in order to show the ABSURDITY of the claim of this man that Jesus is God! (The God that Never Was, pp. 2-3)

A brief selection of passages from the Gospels quoted in the booklet and the headings above them illustrate the manner in which the author has set out to ridicule the deity of Christ:

The Ancestors of "God": "The generations of Jesus Christ, the son for David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1). (p.3)

"God" was Twelve Years Old when His Parents Took Him to Jerusalem: "Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast" (Luke 2:41-42). (p.6)

"God" Was a Tribal Jew: "The Lion of the Tribe of Judah" (Revelation 5:5). (p.9)

As any reader of the booklet can see, the scriptures quoted relate primarily to the humanity of Jesus and his brief life on earth. The thrust of the essay is that Jesus could not have been God because he was a man and was subject to all the natural limitations of the human race (i.e. ancestry, nationality, human emotion, physical weakness, etc.).

The author of this essay, unnamed in the booklet but said to be one Mohammed Seepye in the issue of Al-Balaagh in which it occurs, has casually glossed over and paid no attention to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, but has instead set forth Christian belief in Jesus as God absolutely (that is, to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit and without reference to the office of Jesus as the Son of God). He knew that when Christians say that Jesus is God this means that he shares the divine nature of the Father (a point carefully made by me in the very quotations the article contains from my reply to Deedat's tapes) with the Holy Spirit in a threefold Trinity. But he has subtly reversed this by misrepresenting the Christian doctrine, setting it forth as a belief that God, the subject, is Jesus, and has based his whole argument on this premise.

Muslims rightly claim that Islam is often misunderstood and misrepresented in the West. That is true, but it is equally true to say that Muslims do the same thing with Christian beliefs about Jesus Christ. They either just do not understand of the deity of Christ or consciously misrepresent it to suit their purposes. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine that Jesus is the Son of man as well as the Son of God. There is no validity in any argument against the deity of Jesus which is based exclusively on the human limitations he deliberately assumed during his brief course on earth. It will be a welcome change to discover in Jesus as the Son of God based sincerely on that doctrine exactly as it is set forth in the Bible, and not on a misrepresentation of it such as we find in Seepye's article. There is one passage in the Bible that answers the whole theme of this article very comprehensively:

Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:5-8

The Greek word for "form" used in this passage carries the meaning "essence" or "nature". An appropriate illustration of this meaning is our cliché "an apple to the core", meaning that it is an apple through and through. This is what the word used here for "form" means. The passage thus teaches that the original nature and essence of Jesus was that of deity alone and that, reverently speaking, "through and through". Nevertheless, unlike Adam, the first man, who sought to be like God by eating of the tree of good and evil, Jesus, though he was divine by nature and enjoyed the very same essence as the eternal Father in heaven, did not consider it essential to his glory to hold on to that status in heaven. Instead, in perfect humility, he condescended to become a man and was thus found in human "form" (that is, he became man through and through). As men are by nature servants of God he thus also took the "form" of a servant he was not a servant of God by nature. The point is that he voluntarily put off his divine glory for a season and took human form so that he might redeem men and women and thus bridge the gap between God and man that sin had created. This was the fundamental purpose of his coming to earth in human form.

His perfect humility and condescending grace led him even further than Adam, as a natural servant of God, had ever been required to go. He became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. From the throne of heaven he descended to the lowest places on earth. This, however, was done that sinful men might be raised to the high status of children of God through his redeeming work. In consequence of his plunge to the depths of human wretchedness God has raised him above the heights of the heavens:

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

Before him, in ages to come, in his eternal glory which he has now resumed, all man and all angels shall bow and acknowledge him, whether in praise or in belated deference to his true status.

In the light of the fact that he took human nature and voluntarily chose to subject himself to all the limitations and weaknesses of that nature, one can surely see that no case against his deity based on him humanity (including the ancestry he elected to share, the nationality he assumed, and the human course he adopted) has any substance. In virtually every case where the expression "God" appears in the headings in Seepye's article one can comfortable substitute the expression the Son of man without any inverted commas, and the titles make good sense. (I say in virtually every case deliberately, as some of the headings also misrepresent the meaning of the texts quoted underneath).

Christians do not say that "Allah is Christ, the son of Mary" as the Qur'an alleges they do (innallaaha huwal Masiihubnu Maryam - Sura al-Ma'ida 5:72), that is, that God is Jesus. We believe that God is a Supreme Being in a threefold unity of persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Son alone took human form as the man Christ Jesus.

We do believe that the Son is subject to the authority of the Father (the very titles imply an equality in essence and nature between them on the one hand and the subjection of one to the other on the other hand). We do also believe that the Son was sent into the world according to the Father's purpose and will, as Jesus himself said: "I came not of my own accord but he sent me" (John 8:42). Likewise we accept that he does nothing of his own accord but only what the Father wills and does and, because he is the eternal Son of God, has omnipotent power to put this divine will and activity into effect (John 5:19). These are basic Christian teachings.

The fundamental difference between the Christian and Muslim concepts of Christ is not in their understanding of his subjection to a higher authority, nor in their common conviction that he was a human being in every respect while on earth. With Muslims, we accept that he spoke only as he was commanded to speak (John 12:49) and that there is one greater than he (John 14:28). We differ primarily in our beliefs about his nature for Islam allows him no more than humanity and prophethood, whereas Christianity teaches that God spoke through him, not as a prophet, but as a Son through whom he made all things, who reflects his glory, and who "bears the very stamp of his nature" (Hebrews 1:3).

Booklets like The God that Never Was which represent Jesus in Christian doctrine as God absolutely, with no reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit or to his subjection to the former in authority, misrepresent Christianity altogether. Such publications accordingly serve no useful purpose. If Muslims would only assess this doctrine for what it really is, they would find it not as for removed from their own as they generally suppose, and would perhaps come to a truer and closer knowledge of who Jesus really is - not a "god" who "never was" but the eternal Son from heaven who truly remains the "same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

THE ETERNAL SON

JESUS - THE ETERNAL SON OF THE LIVING GOD

 The latter part of Deedat's booklet contains a relentless and at times uncouth attack on the Christian doctrine and Biblical teaching that Jesus is the Son of God. Nevertheless he is obliged to concede that from at least one point of view, "he is pre-eminently the Son of God" (Christ in Islam, p.29). On page 28 he quotes a number of texts to show that the expression "son of God" is found often in the Bible in contexts where people are being described generally as children of God. He then concludes that when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God he was also only speaking in a metaphorical sense and that Christians err when they say that he was the eternal Son of God.

No one can possibly draw such a conclusion without overlooking a wealth of evidence in the Bible that shows that Jesus was the Son of God in a unique and absolute sense. On numerous occasions he made statements that make this point very clearly. Consider this verse:

"All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." Luke 10:22

As the Jews once testified, "so man ever spoke like this man" (John 7:46). No other prophet used such language to identify himself. All things, said Jesus, had been delivered to him and no one could know the Father unless the Son actually revealed him. Here is a similar quotation which shows that Jesus considered himself the Son of God in an absolute sense, a quote which, like many others, is expediently ignored in Deedat's booklet:

"The Father judges no none but has given all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him." John 5:22-23

If we are all children of God, as Deedat imagines (p.29), why did Jesus say that all men should honour him as the Son of God even as they honour the Father? Indeed throughout the Gospels we find teachings that show that Jesus regarded himself as the unique, eternal Son of God. On one occasion he told a parable about a householder who planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants. When the season for fruit came the owner sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit, but one by one they maltreated them and sent them away empty-handed, beating one and wounding another. The owner of the vineyard then said to himself:

"What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; it may be they will respect him." Luke 20:13

But when the tenants saw him, they promptly rejected him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Jesus then concluded that the owner would destroy those tenants and let the vineyard out to others. Immediately the Jews "perceived that he had told this parable against them" (Luke 20:19). The perception was well-founded and the interpretation of the parable is obvious. God had allowed the Jews to live in a land he had given them as an inheritance, yet they constantly rebelled against him. He sent his servants the prophets but these too they rejected and often maltreated. Eventually after they had cast Jesus out of their midst and killed him, God brought destruction upon them and they were uprooted from the land of Palestine while Jerusalem became a heap of ruins (this was forty years after Jesus had ascended to heaven and occurred under the onslaught of the Roman tribune Titus).

The vital point in the parable is the identification of the last messenger to the tenants as the beloved son of the owner, as distinct from the former messengers who were only servants. Jesus clearly distinguished himself from the former prophets in this parable, showing that whereas they were only God's servants, he was his beloved Son. This was confirmed on at least two occasions when God himself spoke from heaven and said of Jesus:

"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:17

On another occasion Jesus asked his disciples who the people thought he was. They answered that it was generally believed that he was one of the prophets. So he asked them who they thought he was and Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16) to which Jesus answered that he was especially blessed for he had not perceived this through human wisdom but through a revelation from above. It is not possible to honestly conclude, from a genuine study of his teaching, that Jesus ever regarded himself as anything less than the eternal, unique Son of God. These words sum up his teaching:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him may not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

God sent his only Son, a teaching found constantly in the Bible. (For a treatment of the use of the word "begotten" in the King James Version and Deedat's arguments about it, see Nr.3 in this series, The Textual History of the Qur'an and the Bible).

Those who are God's children on earth, his sons and daughters in a lesser sense, are so because God has become their Father and has chosen to treat them as his children. But Jesus was his eternal Son, who came from him into the world so that others might become children of God. The whole distinction between Jesus as the absolute, eternal Son of God, and Christians who have become the sons of God is put exceptionally well in these words:

But when the time had fully come God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might attain adoption as sons. Galatians 4:4

God sent forth his Son so that many others might attain adoption as sons. Jesus taught this quite plainly as well, saying "I proceeded and came forth from God" (John 8:42). Yet another verse makes this abundantly clear:

For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. John 3:17

Jesus was the only Son from the Father (John 1:18) and he regarded himself as such in all his teaching. He never claimed to be the son of God in the sense that all true believers are children of God. Speaking of the day of his return he said that no one knows the day, "not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Matthew 24:36). Here there is a clear progression of authority, viz. men - angels - the Son - the Father. Quite clearly Jesus spoke of himself in only one ultimate context - above the angels as the only Son of the eternal Father. He describes his status in terms that relate to the Divine Being alone.

Deedat goes on to deal with the statement of Jesus, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), saying that its context shows that this does not mean that Jesus was one with his Father in omniscience, nature or omnipotence, but only "one in purpose" (Christ in Islam, p.37). To set the quotation in its context he quotes verses 27-29 before it and says:

How can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending of the last two verses. But spiritual blinkers are more impervious than physical defects. (Christ in Islam, p.37)

One wonders where the blindness really is and who it is whose spiritual eyes are restricted by blinkers, for Deedat casually glosses over a remarkable statement made by Jesus in one of the very verses he is referring to, where Jesus says of those who are his true followers:

"I give unto them eternal life." John 10:28

Who but God alone can give not only life but eternal life? One has to read such statements, not only in their immediate context, but in the whole context of Jesus' overall teaching about himself. At another time he said:

"For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whom he will." John 5:21

This statement shows that the Son indeed possesses the same omnipotence as the Father. At the end of his earthly course Jesus again spoke of the Father giving him "power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him" (John 17:2). The statement "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) made by Jesus, is one which he made no attempt to qualify, and it does not behove any interpreter to restrict its meaning to "one in purpose". At face value it clearly means "one in all things" and Jesus would hardly have made such a striking claim without qualifying it if he had not intended to convey the impression that there was an absolute oneness between the Father and the Son and that he therefore possessed deity. It is no wonder the Jews so understood his claim (John 10:33).

Furthermore it is intriguing to find that Deedat has placed certain words in capitals in the verses referred to earlier, namely the statement of Jesus that no one could pluck his followers from his hand, nor from his Father's hand. How could Jesus make such a claim unless he possessed the same power to preserve his followers that his Father possessed? It is surely clear to those whose eyes are not blinded by their presuppositions against the teaching of Jesus in the Bible, that Jesus did not claim that he was one with his Father in purpose alone but also in the possession of the absolute, eternal power required to execute that purpose to complete effect.

The whole problem with Deedat is that, being a Muslim, he approaches the Bible with the presumption that Jesus is not the eternal Son of God and so could never have claimed to be such. He therefore cannot read the Bible with an open mind and interpret it consistently. When he is met with plain statements that show that Jesus again and again claimed to be the Son of God, he cannot simply accept them. His presumptions oblige him to either overlook and ignore them when he cannot counter them, or misinterpret and pervert them whenever he thinks he can.

Towards the close of his booklet he mentions two incidents in the life of Jesus which prove this point very adequately. He finds an occasion where Jesus taught that to enter life, one must keep the commandments of God (Matthew 19:17) and makes much of this because such teaching seems to coincide with Islamic dogma. Here, however, he falls into the very trap he cautions against elsewhere in his booklet by wrenching this statement out of its context. What follows does not suit his argument so he ignores it. Jesus went on to show the young man he was addressing that no one can keep God's laws perfectly and so enter life in this way. The young man was very rich and Jesus said to him:

"If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." Matthew 19:21

It may be true today that "no one is perfect" but God surely is and he will judge us by his own standards of perfection. A limited attempt to keep his laws is not acceptable to him, and who keeps them perfectly? When Jesus made this young man realise that he could not do so, he showed him another way to life: If you would be perfect...follow me.

The second incident concerns the raising of Lazarus from dead. Because Jesus was moved in his spirit and prayed to his Father about the matter Deedat concludes that he could not have been the eternal Son of God. Once again, however, he casually ignores the context of this prayer and expediently overlooks an outstanding claim made by Jesus at the very time this wonderful miracle was performed:

"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall be live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die." John 11:25

The words in the original Greek introducing this statement are emphatic, meaning, "I, I am the resurrection and the life," or, "I myself am the resurrection and the life." This means that Jesus himself, in a unique and absolute sense, is the resurrection and the life. It is little wonder that he is called the "Author of life" (Acts 3:15) elsewhere in the Bible. No one who did not have an eternal nature could ever have made such a claim. Such words can be spoken by one whose nature is deity alone.

The great mistake that Deedat makes when he reads the Bible is that he does not objectively seek to discover what it says, but approaches it with presumptions about what it should say. Christians read the Bible earnestly desiring to know what Jesus said about himself and throughout history they have universally drawn the conclusion that he taught that he was the eternal Son of God who came in human form to redeem the world. It is a conclusion they draw from an open assessment of the contents of the books they read. But men like Deedat have decided in advance, before they even pick up a Bible, what it should say about Jesus. Because he believes that Jesus was only a prophet and not the Son of God, he approaches the Bible with the presumption that it should support this belief and wherever he can he attempts to pervert or distort its teaching to yield this presumption.

Deedat is thus totally unqualified and unfit to interpret the Bible. How is it that the Christian Church has universally held that Jesus is the eternal Son of God if the Bible does not teach this? Deedat's attempts to disprove this do not arise from a sincere assessment of Biblical teaching but from a presumption that it should not yield such a doctrine. It is quite clear who is reading the book with "blinkers". It is the Islamic propagandist whose ability to read the Bible sincerely and objectively is blinkered by his dogmatic presumption that it should not teach that Jesus is the Son of God.

In conclusion we can only say that he exposes himself in no uncertain terms when he attempts to treat John 1:1 in a supposedly scholarly way on pages 40-41 of his booklet. The whole verse reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

He says that the Greek word for God in the clause "and the Word was with God" is hotheos and that in the latter clause "and the Word was God" the word is tontheos. He relates a discussion between himself and a Reverend Morris in which his apparently exceptional knowledge of Greek allegedly enabled him to confound and silence the reverend completely. We stand absolutely amazed, for the supposed "Muslim scholar of the Bible" has done nothing but expose an appalling ignorance of the Greek text. It is in the first clause that the word is tontheos and in the second it is simply theos, that is, God. On this palpable error Deedat builds an apparently convincing argument in his booklet!

He says, therefore, that tontheos means "a god" and that John 1:1 therefore teaches that "the Word was a god". This supposedly disproves the deity of Jesus Christ. Yet the original Greek reads that ho logos, that is, "the Word", was theos, that is "God". The verse thus correctly reads "The Word was God", a statement comprehensively endorsing the deity of Christ. Thus Deedat's arguments slide completely to the ground through a shocking error of his own making, caused by his ignorance of the Bible. His booklets against the Christian faith constantly reveal two extremes - a bold confidence in his points on the one hand matched only by an obvious lack of substance in them on the other!

Surely little further evidence is needed to show that Deedat has little qualification of pose as a "Muslim scholar of the Bible". His arguments and confident manner might lead unwary Muslims who are ignorant of the Bible into thinking he is a great critic of the book but, as Jesus said, it is wrong and foolish to judge purely by appearances (John 7:24). As this reply to his Christ in Islam shows, a Christian with a sound knowledge of the Bible can disprove his arguments without much difficulty and at times with contemptuous ease. The glaring mistakes he makes and the perversion of Biblical teaching that he practises show conclusively that hi crusade against Christianity is thoroughly unwarranted and that, in his attempts to expose the Bible, he really only succeeds in exposing himself.

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

A Type Of The Christ To Come

 A TYPE OF THE CHRIST TO COME

We proceed to consider Deedat's manner of dealing with the resemblance between Jesus and his forerunner, Melchizedek. He says of the latter that he is "another person greater than Jesus" (Christ in Islam, p.26) and quotes Hebrews 7:3, which says that Melchizedek was without father, mother or descent, and had neither beginning of days nor end of life. After this description three innocuous-looking dots follow in Deedat's booklet (p.26). This is not unusual - the phenomenon occurs in other booklets Deedat has written (see No.1 in this series, The Crucifixion of Christ: A Fact, not Fiction) and in pamphlets published by his Islamic Propagation Centre. These three dots invariably stand for certain words that have been discreetly omitted from the text by Deedat because they refute the very point he is trying to make.

A remarkable phenomenon indeed! We shall quote the whole passage from Hebrew, placing in italics the words of the text casually suppressed by Deedat and replaced by three little dots:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him; and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, and has neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest for ever. Hebrews 7:1-3

The closing words in italics openly refute the point Deedat is labouring to make, that is, that Melchizedek was "greater than Jesus" for they show plainly that he only resembles the Son of God. He was thus only a forerunner, a type, a shadow and limited example of the eternal High Priest to come.

The point made in the passage quoted Hebrews is that the Scriptures do not contain a genealogy of Melchizedek, not that he actually had no genealogy. They simply do not mention his father, mother or genealogy, nor do they tell us when he was born or when he died. He appears in a brief passage in Genesis 14 where he is described as the king of Salem who met Abraham returning from a slaughter of the people who captured his nephew Lot. He is openly described as a "priest of God Most High" (Genesis 14:18) but apart from these notes, no other mention is made of him.

The argument set forth in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that Jesus was not a Levitical priest after the order of Aaron but an eternal high priest after the order of Melchizedek. This means that as the latter's beginning and end are not specifically mentioned in the Bible, so in this respect he prefigures Jesus who was actually from heaven, an eternal being who really has no beginning or end in an absolute sense. Melchizedek only resembled him - the point Deedat subtly obscures - and the brief description of his character as a priest of God to whom Abraham paid tithes serves as an example of the ultimate, true minister of God to come, Jesus Christ.

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

JESUS BIRTH ['consideration']

A CONSIDERATION OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS

Deedat's prejudices against the Christian Bible find further expression in his treatment of the conception and birth of Jesus. He quotes Luke 1:35 which records the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary to the effect that the Holy Spirit would "come upon" her and that the power of the Most High would "overshadow" her. He comments on these words:
The language used here is distasteful - gutter language - you agree!? (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.24)

In his booklet the words "gutter language" are emphasised in bold print. Someone has said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It seems the converse is equally true. Deedat implies that there is something immoral about the Biblical account of the conception of Jesus. He very significantly omits the rest of the verse: "therefore the child to be born of you will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). The whole verse is set in an awesome context of holiness. Because this child was to be conceived, not by the medium of impure flesh, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore the child would not be impure and sinful like all other men, but would be holy, even the Son of God.

How anyone can see anything distasteful in this is beyond understanding. The Qur'an itself teaches that the reason for the conception of Jesus by divine power alone was his unique holiness (Sura Maryam 19:19). These words apply:
To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. Titus 1:15
In Luke's Gospel one often reads of their Holy Spirit coming upon people and in every case the expression implies an anointing of his holy influence. Simeon was a man "righteous and devout" and the "Holy Spirit was upon him" (Luke 2:25) and when Jesus was baptised and was praying, the "Holy Spirit descended upon him" (Luke 3:22). Likewise we read that when the glory of God appeared above Jesus when he was transfigured, "a cloud came and overshadowed them" (Luke 9:34). How can anyone say, when similar expressions are used of the conception of Jesus (i.e. that the Holy Spirit "came upon" Mary and that the power of God "overshadowed" her), that this is "distasteful - gutter language"?

It is quite clear that the words used to describe the manner in which the Christ-child would be conceived are generally used in the Bible to describe any occasion where a very real anointing of the power and holiness of God might come upon a person. We really cannot see what the basis of Deedat's argument is and are once again led to the impression that he must be prejudiced against the Christian faith to make such unwarranted charges against it.

His efforts to compare the Biblical version of the birth of Jesus unfavourably with the Qur'anic version of the same event prove to be equally futile when he says:

For God to create a Jesus, without a human father, He merely has to will it. If he wants to create a million Jesus' without fathers or mothers, He merely has to will them into existence. (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.24)

This begs the obvious question - why did God not create a "million Jesus' without fathers or mothers"? Surely the fact that only one man was conceived in this way shows that it was not the will of God that many should thus be conceived without fathers. On the contrary, it was clearly his express will that only one unique personality was destined to be born in this way. This also demands the probability that there was something very unique about the man Jesus for him to be conceived in this way. All ordinary men have natural fathers and mothers - prophets included. There can be only one reason why Jesus had no human father. Being the Son of the eternal Father it was absolutely essential that he be conceived in human form in an unusual way, without human intervention and by the power of the Spirit of God alone. This is surely quite obvious.

It also does not help Deedat to quote from Yusuf Ali's translation and commentary on the Qur'an in respect of Sura Al Imran 3:59 where the commentator points to the fact that Adam had neither father nor mother and so has a greater right (as Deedat suggests on page 26 of his booklet) to be called the Son of God. Adam was created in a full adult state when it was not possible he be born of human parents. Someone had be created first. But Jesus was born of a woman alone when God's natural order of procreation had been in effect for centuries. It is obvious why Adam had no father or mother.

But what was the reason why God should interrupt the natural order of procreation so that Jesus could be born of a mother only? There is no reasonable alternative to the following explanation given in the Bible which thoroughly contrasts Jesus and Adam:
The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15:47

Adam was just an ordinary, natural man into whom God breathed the breath of life. Jesus, however, was an eternal personality, a life-giving spirit, who came from heaven and whose conception, therefore, had to involve an interruption of the natural, earthly course of the human race. He was the breath of life and those who believe in him receive eternal life and shall be transformed into his heavenly likeness in the course of time.

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

JESUS TITLE

THE EXCLUSIVE TITLE GIVEN TO JESUS

Not only does Deedat show in his statements about the mother of Jesus that he has very little real knowledge of the Bible but this ignorance is once again apparent in his brief consideration of the title given to Jesus in the Bible, namely the Christ. He points out that the original Hebrew word masaha (from which comes mashiah, i.e. the Messiah, or the Christ) was a general word denoting any kind of anointing and that it was used of priests, pillars, tabernacles, etc., which were set apart for worship and duly consecrated for this purpose.

His argument then runs that, whereas Jesus is called the Messiah in the Bible or, as it is in the Greek, Christos, this does not make him unique in any way as "every prophet of God is so anointed or appointed" (Christ in Islam, p.13).

He goes on to state that in Islam certain titles are given to certain prophets which, in a general sense, apply to all prophets. He says that whereas Muhammad is called rasulullah (messenger of Allah) and Moses kalimullah (word of Allah), these titles apply to all prophets, for each was a messenger of God with whom God spoke regularly. His conclusion, therefore, is that the title Christos is in no way unique and that Jesus was accordingly no different to the other messengers of God.

Once again his ignorance is exposed, for the title given to Jesus in the Bible is actually (in the original Greek) ho Christos, that is, "the Christ". The use of the definite article renders the title exclusive in a very real sense and reveals that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, God's Anointed One, in a way that none of the other prophets were. Indeed the same construction appears in the Qur'an where Jesus is called al-Masih, that is, the only one to whom this title applies.

Indeed in the Qur'an Jesus is also called a rasul on at least ten occasions (see, for example, Sura al-Nisa 4:171 where he is expressly called a rasulullah) and in Sura Al Imran 3:45 is called a kalimatim-minhu, that is, a "Word from Him". But the title al-Masih, the Messiah, is applied to Jesus alone in the Qur'an and in the Bible the same title ho Christos likewise can be applied to no one else. Jesus was in a very unique way the Messiah and the title is his alone.

Deedat, of course, aims at reducing Jesus to the level of ordinary prophethood and thus finds this exclusive title the Messiah, (or the Christ), very awkward and a cause of offence. His argument, however, is based entirely on the false presumption that the title was never applied to Jesus in a very unique sense.

The Qur'an, while fittingly calling Jesus al-Masih, makes no attempt to explain the title. What, then, was its true meaning? One needs no Christian efforts here to transmute "baser metals into shining gold" (Christ in Islam, p.13), as Deedat wishfully imagines, to exalt the statues of Messiah above that of ordinary prophethood. For it was the Jews who spoke of a coming climactic figure whom they named the Messiah after an express use of this title in their Scriptures to so describe him (Daniel 9:26). Throughout the Scriptures of the earlier prophets they rightly found constant predictions of the coming of God's Anointed, one who would not be an ordinary prophet but the ultimate Saviour of the whole world. (Examples are Isaiah 7:14;9:6-7;42:1-4; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Micah 5:2-4; and Zechariah 6:12-13). He would establish the kingdom of God forever in justice and righteousness and would rule over the nations. He would at first be humbled (Isaiah 53:1-12) and cut off from the land of the living (Daniel 9:26), but at his return at the end of time he would bring the salvation and judgement of God, ruling in justice and glory over his righteous subjects while bringing his enemies from all over the world into submission at his feet (Psalm 110:1).

The Jews knew that this exalted figure, the Messiah, was coming and when Jesus came they openly speculated whether it might be him (John 7:31,41-43;10:24; Matthew 26:63). On a number of occasions he openly confirmed that he was indeed the Messiah (John 4:26; Matthew 16:17; Mark 14:62) and told the Jews that he would return in a cloud with power and great glory and that they would see him seated at the right hand of God (Matthew 26:64). It requires no supposed Christian "juggling of words" (Christ in Islam, p.13) to exalt Jesus to the status of God's eternal Saviour and Messiah. The Jews themselves knew that the Messiah would not be made of "baser metals" like the other prophets but would, in comparison, indeed be "shining gold" which Jesus surely was!

The Jews tragically rejected their Messiah, the fulfilment of their hopes, and so were cut off very shortly afterwards (AD 70), and to this day their religion has lost all its original meaning and glory. A more ironical tragedy is the attitude of the Muslim world, which in one breath acknowledges that Jesus was indeed the Messiah but in another claims that he was only a prophet. The whole meaning of the title is missed completely in Islam.

Jesus Christ is the exclusive Saviour of the world, the unique Messiah whom God sent for the healing of the nations. The title is his alone and exalts him to the status he alone enjoys among the sons of men - the King of Glory who will rule throughout eternity.

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..

QUR'AN & BIBLE

MARY IN THE QUR'AN AND THE BIBLE

Deedat has much to say, not only about the Qur'anic teaching about Jesus, but also its teaching about his mother Mary. Under the heading "Mary's birth" he says:
The story is that the maternal grandmother of Jesus, Hannah, had hitherto been barren. She poured out her heart to God: if only God will grant her a child, she would surely dedicate such a child for the service of God in the temple. (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.9)

Every Christian child who has attended Sunday school knows about the story of Hannah and how she prayed earnestly to God for a son and promised to deliver him to the service of the Lord all his days if her prayer was answered. The only problem is that the child that was born to her was Samuel who became a prophet and anointed David to be king over Israel about a thousand years before the time of Mary and Jesus! Her prayer is recorded in 1 Samuel 1:11 and later in the same chapter we read:
In due time Hannah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Samuel, for she said, "I have asked him of the Lord." (1 Samuel 1:20)

How, then, did Mr. Deedat, a supposed "Muslim scholar of the Bible" as he describes himself, come to make such a blunder as to confuse the mother of Samuel with the mother of Mary? The reason is that the Qur'an itself confuses the two women and, although it does not name Hannah, nevertheless records the anachronism which confounds the two women (Sura Al Imran 3:35-36). (Some of the works of Hadith openly say that the name of Mary's mother was indeed Hannah and both ancient and modern commentators of the Qur'an accept that this was her real name.)

On the next page of his booklet Deedat says, "This was the story. But where did Muhammad (pbuh) get this knowledge from? He was an Ummi (unlettered). He did not know how to read or write" (Christ in Islam, p.10). As an obvious mistake has been made this is a very good question indeed! Deedat refers to the fact that Muhammad was unlettered as a back-up to the claim that the Qur'an is the Word of God. But, as he has clearly mixed up the two women, surely it is obvious that the fact that Muhammad was unlettered is all the more proof that he was the real composer of the book. If he had been well-read in the Jewish Scriptures he would never have made such mistakes.

In fact the whole story of Mary's birth and dedication in the Qur'an is a strange confusion of various passages of the Bible. Mary herself is clearly confused with Elijah, for a start, for he was the prophet confined to solitude who was fed by ravens that brought him food from above (1 Kings 17:6 - the Qur'an states that Mary, too, was fed from heaven in Sura Al Imran 3:37). Nevertheless it is the name given to Mary's mother, namely Hannah, that really gives us the clue as to where the composers of this story obtained their material. We should perhaps at this stage mention that the original story is first found in an apocryphal work entitled "Proto-evangelium of James the Less" and that it was simply taken over by Muhammad into the Qur'an without him being aware of its mystical origin.

The story arises from a confusion between the record of Hannah's prayer for a son and this passage in the Gospel of Luke:
And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she gave thanks to God, and spoke of him to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem. Luke 2:36-38

One can clearly see how the anachronism came about. Once again we have a woman whose original Hebrew name was Hannah and yet we find that it is this woman who remained in the Temple night and day, significantly worshipping and fasting for a good many years. Mary has clearly been confused, not only with Elijah and Samuel, but with Anna the prophetess as well! It is clear that the two respective Hannahs - the mother of Samuel and the daughter of Phanuel - have been confused with one another and the story in Sura Al Imran 3 in the Qur'an is therefore clearly a peculiar blending of the two totally different stories in the Bible about these two women.

Clearly, therefore, Deedat has committed a major blunder by mixing up the mother of Mary with a woman who lived ten centuries before her. But as if this were not enough he quotes another verse from the Qur'an in his booklet that confuses Mary herself with another woman who lived nearly twenty centuries before her. On page 15 of his Christ in Islam he quotes these words which are addressed to Mary by her neighbours:
Yaa ukhta Haaruuna - "O Sister of Aaron". Sura Maryam 19:28

On the next page he quotes Ali's commentary on this title, "Sister of Aaron", where the translator says, "Mary is reminded of her high lineage and the unexceptionable morals of her father and mother." The problem here is that the only Harun mentioned in the Qur'an (Aaron in English) is the Levitical priest who was the brother of Moses and who lived nearly two thousand years before Jesus! Moses is expressly quoted as speaking of Haaruuna akhi - "Aaron my brother" - in the Qur'an (Sura Ta Ha 20:30). How therefore could Mary, the mother of Jesus, be the sister of Aaron and Moses as well,In this case Muhammad's error cannot be attributed to an apocryphal writing as in the case of Hannah and Samuel. This time the confusion is entirely his own. During his own lifetime he was confronted by Christians with this anachronism and his answer was that the people of old used to give names to their compatriots after the names of apostles and pious persons who had gone before them (Sahih Muslim, Vol.3, p.1169). It is extremely hard to credit this line of reasoning, however, as there is no other instance in the Qur'an where anyone else is so called. Indeed it is also most unlikely that Aaron would be called the brother (akha) of Moses in the Qur'an, as often as he is, in the direct sense if Mary was only called his sister (ukhta) in a figurative sense. Elsewhere in the Qur'an the word ukhtun (a sister) is always applied to an immediate sister (as in Sura al-Nisa 4:12,23,176) and the use of the word in Mary's case can only mean a "blood-sister of Aaron". It cannot sincerely by explained away as meaning one simply named after her ancestor Aaron as Muhammad is said to have suggested.

Even if it was intended to carry this meaning we would still be faced with extreme difficulties, for it leads to untenable suppositions. In those days people were only named as sons or daughters (never brothers or sisters, incidentally) of people from whom they directly descended (e.g. Matthew 1:1 where Jesus is called the "the son of David, the son of Abraham", and Luke 1:5 where Elizabeth is called one of the "daughters of Aaron"). The problem is that Mary was never descended from Aaron at all! Aaron was a Levitical priest, descended with his brother Moses from Levi, one of the sons of Jacob. On the other hand Mary was descended from Judah, one of Jacob's other sons, through the line of David (Luke 1:32). She was not even of the same tribe as Aaron. The only relationship between them was purely national and ethnic, the remotest there could be. It is true Elizabeth is called her "kinswoman" in Luke 1:36, but if there had been any intermarrying between their ancestors in any way, it must have been on Elizabeth's side. One of her ancestors must have married into the tribe of Judah (which is hardly surprising as, after the exiles to Assyria and Babylon, this tribe constituted the overwhelming remnant of Israel that finally returned to the promised land).

On the other hand it is expressly stated in the Bible that Jesus is an eternal high priest after the order of Melchizedek, and he, therefore, could not have been descended in any way from Levi through Aaron. Accordingly his mother Mary could likewise not have had any Levitical blood in her and so was in no way descended from or related to Aaron:

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not according to a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. Hebrews 7:11-16 (my italics)

It is therefore only too obvious that Mary had no connection with Aaron at all and the title given to her in the Qur'an does indeed appear to be entirely inappropriate. How then did this error arise? We have to turn to the Bible and here we read:

Then Miriam, the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand. Exodus 15:20
The woman spoken of here was the real sister of Aaron, who lived centuries before the mother of Jesus, and the confusion has arisen because the names of the two women are the same in Hebrew, namely Miriam (as they are in Arabic, viz. Maryam).

We have seen that ukhta Harun in the Qur'an must mean the blood-sister of Aaron and this is precisely what Miriam was. Muhammad clearly confused Maryam, the mother of Jesus, with this woman. Furthermore the evidence is strongly substantiated by the name given to Mary's father in the Qur'an. In the Bible we read that Jochebed "bore to Amram, Aaron and Moses and Miriam their sister" (Numbers 26:59). So the father of Aaron and Miriam was a man named Amram - and yet this is the very name given to the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Qur'an! He is called Imran, the Arabic form of Amram (as Ibrahim is the Arabic form of Abraham). Mary, accordingly, is expressly called Maryamabnata Imran - "Mary, daughter of Imran" - in the Qur'an (Sura al-Tahrim 66:12). So she is not only called the sister of Aaron but also the daughter of Imran. We therefore have a double-proof of the fact that she has been confused with Miriam, the true sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram.

Furthermore it may well be asked why Mary is called the "sister of Aaron" in the Qur'an if she is not confused with Miriam. We have shown that she was in no way descended from him and no more closely related to him than to any other patriarch or figurehead of Israel. Accordingly, what relevance is there in the appellation? Why was she called after Aaron rather than Moses, Elijah, Solomon, Joseph or some other prophet? Not only can we find no relevance in the title, the passage quoted above from the Book of Hebrews also makes it plain that it is, on the contrary, all-conceived and quite inappropriate.

Not only, therefore, does the Qur'an confuse the two Hannahs but also the Marys as well. Deedat is at pains in his booklet to try to show that the Qur'anic account of Mary's life is superior to that of the Bible, but when it patently contains such anachronisms as those we have considered, surely it is obvious that the Biblical account is the true one.

Three more points made by Deedat about Mary should be treated briefly in conclusion. On one page he quotes Sura Al Imran 3:42 where angels are quoted as saying to Mary that God had "chosen thee above the women of all nations" and comments:

Such an honour is not to be found given to Mary even in the Christian Bible! (Deedat, Christ in Islam, p.8)
This charge is completely unfounded for the Bible makes exactly the same point as that made in the verse quoted from the Qur'an when it quotes Elizabeth as saying to Mary:

"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb." Luke 1:42
In fact it is in this verse that we find out why Mary was preferred above all women of all nations. The statement that she was chosen as such, in both the Qur'an and the Bible, appears solely in the context of the promise that she was to bear a son, the holy child Jesus, the Messiah so long awaited (Sura Al Imran 3:45; Luke 1:31-33). "Blessed is the fruit of your womb," Elizabeth so rightly said. Mary was only the greatest among women, chosen above the women of all nations, because she gave birth to the greatest among men, chosen above the men of all nations as the Saviour of the world, even Jesus Christ.

The second point made by Deedat worth considering is that there is a whole chapter in the Qur'an, Sura Maryam (Sura 19), "named in honour of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ (pbuh)" (Christ in Islam, p.11). He would have done even better to disclose that Mary is the only woman expressly mentioned by name in the Qur'an, and that on many occasions. No other woman is so named. Muhammad did well to give such prominence to her, but surely it is clear that Mary was only worthy of such honour because she was the mother of the most prominent man who ever lived, namely Jesus Christ.

Lastly Deedat, always seeking occasion to find fault with the Bible, criticises the title "woman" used by Jesus when addressing his mother in John 2:4, alleging that Jesus "behaved insolently towards his mother" (Christ in Islam, p.19). He suggests that it would have been more appropriate to have simply called her "mother".

Once again Deedat exposes his ignorance of the Bible and the times in which it was written, for the title "woman" was an endearing title of respect and was so used by Jesus whenever he addressed women. In one passage we read that the Jewish leaders sought to stone a woman caught in adultery and asked Jesus for his verdict in the matter. He replied: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). When they had all walked away he gently said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" (John 8:10). When she said, "No one, Lord", he said "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again" (John 8:11). While compassionately extending to her the hand of mercy he called her "woman". Was this "insolent behaviour"? The title was purely one of honour and respect, like "Madame" in French or "Dame" in Afrikaans.

Jesus also used the title when comforting the woman of Samaria (John 4:21) and once again addressed his mother in this way as he was dying on the cross, and saw her and his beloved disciple John standing next to her. He said to her:
"Woman, behold your son." John 19:26
He then said to John, "behold your mother" and from that hour "the disciple took her into his own home" (John 19:27). Even though he was enduring all the horrors of the cross, he did not forget his mother and tenderly committed her to his closest disciple among the men who followed him. After his resurrection he again used the title "woman" when speaking to Mary Magdalene, his closest disciple among the women who followed him (John 20:15). No one sincerely reading these narratives can possibly draw the conclusion that the title "woman" was anything but a gentle title of respect.

In conclusion we can only say that Deedat has made a sorry mess of his treatment of Mary's life and the titles given to her in the Qur'an and the Bible. There can be little doubt that the Biblical record of Mary's honour, lineage and life is the true one.

»»  baca lanjutannya sob .. ..