HAKUNA MATATA

Beberapa waktu yang lalu, aku dan temanku menyaksikan sebuah film dokumenter karya Harun Yahya yang berjudul “Runtuhnya Teori Evolusi”. Sebuah film yang menarik. Walaupun dulu aku pernah membaca sebuah artikel dengan judul yang sama, ternyata teknologi audio visual bisa memberi otak kita sensasi yang berbeda untuk menu yang sama.

Lalu seperti biasa, setelah selesai menonton, aku dan teman-teman mulai membicarakan film yang baru selesai kami saksikan tadi. Sebenarnya kami bukannya sengaja membuka sebuah forum diskusi ilmiah, hanya saja rasanya tidak enak menikmati sekaleng minuman ringan dan pisang goreng keju kalau hanya sambil membisu dan bertatap-tatapan.

Perbincangan pun berjalan, kami saling berbagi pendapat mengenai evolusi, informasi yang pernah kami dengar atau baca, dan pertanyaan-pertanyaan mulai dari yang paling serius seperti, “Apakah teori Evolusi benar-benar telah menyebabkan holocaust yang membunuh jutaan bangsa Yahudi di Eropa?” sampai yang paling konyol seperti, “Siapa diantara kita yang dari ciri fisiknya masih dekat dengan leluhur kera kita?” Sebuah suasana yang menyenangkan, santai tapi juga serius. Seperti kata pepatah, “Sambil menyelam minum soft drink” atau “Sekali mengayun dayung, dua tiga pisang goreng diembat…”

Lalu tiba-tiba di dalam otakku muncul sebuah pemikiran yang kemudian aku tanyakan kepada forum bedah pisang goreng itu, “Bagaimana kalau ternyata besok terbukti bahwa Teori Penciptaan Harun Yahya ternyata juga salah?”

Salah satu temanku yang agak santri langsung membantah, bahwa sudah terbukti kalau teori Evolusi itu salah dan bertentangan dengan kitab suci yang kita yakini kebenarnya. Maka tidak ada kemungkinan teori Evolusi itu akan berbalik menjadi benar. Tapi beberapa teman lainnya sepertinya berpikiran terbuka dan menyatakan hal itu bisa saja terjadi.

Aku sendiri mempunyai pendirian yang agak berbeda dengan mereka semua, aku tidak serta-merta ikut dengan kesimpulannya Harun Yahya. Ada sebuah tanda tanya yang masih mengganjal di benakku.

Katakanlah bahwa sekarang Teori Evolusi telah gagal mempertahankan kebenarannya. Apakah lantas Teori Penciptaan Harun Yahya akan bisa diterima begitu saja? Sedangkan (menurut pemikiranku yang bodoh) Teori Penciptaan pun belum memiliki dasar yang terlalu kuat untuk berdiri sendiri, kecuali pada ayat-ayat suci yang secara dogmatis tidak boleh dibantah (karena kita menyatakan diri kita sebagai orang-orang beriman). Belum ada cukup bukti secara ilmiah yang menyatakan Teori Penciptaan itu benar sedemikian apa adanya. Bukankah sebuah teori tidak menjadi benar hanya karena teori yang berlawanan dengannya dinyatakan salah?

Menurutku harus ada yang menghubungkan kedua teori itu dengan biajaksana. Karena kedua teori itu sama-sama punya kelebihan dan kekurangannya.

Kelebihan teori Evolusi adalah walaupun salah secara aplikasi karena menihilkan peranan Tuhan dalam kehidupan dunia, teori ini mengajarkan kita bahwa ”seleksi alam” akan mengharuskan kita memilih antara beradaptasi atau mati. Bukankah itu sebuah kebijaksanaan yang diajarkan alam kepada kita. Secara sosial dan ekonomi, saat ini pun sebenarnya kita sedang menghadapi seleksi alam. Yang kuat secara ekonomi akan bertahan, sedangkan yang lemah akan tersingkir dan mati. Maka adaptasi tertentu harus kita lakukan untuk bertahan. Walaupun tingkat adaptasi itu harus juga dibatasi agar kita bisa bertahan hidup dan tetap menjadi manusia, bukannya menjadi ”spesies” baru yang tidak lagi memiliki ”kemanusiaan”.

Sedangkan Teori Penciptaan walaupun benar secara logis-religius, juga tidak dapat menihilkan semua kemungkinan lain yang bertentangan dengannya. Ada banyak fakta-fakta yang harus diberi bantahan secara ilmiah dan bukan hanya dengan ayat-ayat suci.

Bukannya aku menyangsikan kebenaran kitab suci. Tapi sebagai manusia, kita hanya bisa memahami firman Tuhan yang tertuang di Al Quran/Injl/Taurat secara tersurat saja, sedangkan yang mengetahui makna hakikinya, bukankah hanya Tuhan yang Maha Mengetahui?

Bukankah dulu kita umat Islam meyakini bahwa nabi Isa as tidak mati disalib tapi diangkat ke surga berdasarkan keterangan kitab suci Al Quran surah An-Nisaa ayat 157. Namun setelah Ahmad Deedat melakukan penelitian ternyata benar Nabi Isa itu disalib (walaupun tidak sampai mati) dan tidak diangkat ke surga melainkan tetap hidup di dunia ini sampai bertahun-tahun kemudian dia (Nabi Isa as) wafat dan dikubur secara wajar (buku Ahmad Deedat: The Choice).

Lantas apakah ini berarti kitab suci Al Quran salah? Tidak, sekali-kali tidak. Hanya saja kita yang dulu memahaminya secara salah karena tidak memiliki bukti-bukti ilmiah, dan hanya menduga-duga berdasarkan keterangan ayat-ayat suci itu saja.

Lantas hubungannya dengan Teori Evolusi? Begitu juga sama. Kita sekarang yakin bahwa kita diciptakan sebagai keturunan dari Nabi Adam, yang diciptakan oleh Allah dengan ”tangan”-Nya sendiri, dan bahwa Nabi Adam itu adalah makhluk pertama dari spesies yang bernama ”manusia”. Semua fakta itu hanya didapat dari keterangan kitab suci. Apakah tidak mungkin kita memahami ayat-ayat tentang kisah asal-mula Adam itu dengan pemahaman yang salah? Apakah tidak mungkin suatu saat nanti ada seorang yang menemukan fakta yang berbeda namun masih sesuai dengan ayat-ayat Al Quran seperti pada kasus penyaliban Nabi Isa as?

Kebenaran adalah sesuatu yang relatif, hanya kebenaran Tuhan saja yang Mutlak (al-Haqq).
Bukankah dulu seorang pemikir yang pintar menyatakan bahwa bumi ini datar, sampai kemudian seorang yang lebih pintar membantahnya dan membuktikan bahwa bumi itu bundar.

Bukankah dulu manusia yang paling cerdas di muka bumi ini menyatakan bahwa bumi ini adalah pusat tata surya, lalu beberapa waktu kemudian seorang yang lain mengatakan bahwa dia salah dan membuktikan bahwa mataharilah pusat tata surya kita.

Bukankah pula dulu seorang genius meyatakan bahwa materi terkecil di dunia ini adalah atom, sampai kemudian ada seorang lain yang sanggup membelah atom itu menjadi materi yang lebih kecil berupa proton, netron dan elektron?

Lalu bagaimana kita bisa manarik kesimpulan bahwa karena Teori Evolusi salah lantas Teori Penciptaan bisa diterima begitu saja? Selalu ada kemungkinan kebenaran yang ”lebih benar” akan terungkap dan menjadikan kita manusia yang lebih bijaksana.

Agama adalah makanan hati, sedangkan ilmu pengetahuan adalah makanan otak. Kekurangan salah satunya akan menghambat pertumbuhan kita menuju manusia yang sempurna. Kalau kita hanya percaya pada Darwin, hati kita akan menjadi keras, sebaliknya kalau kita menerima Harun Yahya apa adanya, otak kita akan beku. Hati dan otak kita harus selalu terbuka menerima makanan segar untuk diolah dengan baik agar JIWA kita tumbuh dewasa. Karena jiwa (ruh) itulah esensi kita yang akan hidup abadi selama-lamanya. Kalau kita tidak mengkonsumsi ”gizi” yang seimbang untuk hati dan otak kita, maka jiwa kita akan kerdil. Dan jiwa (ruh) yang kerdil tidak akan bisa mencapai kedudukan yang mulia disisi JIWA yang Maha Sempurna (Allah – ArRuh).

Hahahaa…. aneh kan? Gak ada hujan di musim kemarau tahu-tahu aku bikin postingan begini…

Ceritanya ada teman on-line yang tanya, gimana cara yang jitu buat PDKT. Iseng-iseng, aku buat jawaban berdasarkan pengalaman pribadi dan aku kirimkanlah ke dia. Eh setelah aku baca lagi tulisanku tadi. Kupikir, ini lucu juga ya… Kenapa gak dibagi aja sama semua teman lainnya…?

So inilah dia, Tips PDKT a la Gue….(Khusus buat cowok)

1. Intelejen : Cari tahu identitasnya, tinggal dimana, keluarganya gimana, hobinya apa, hangout dimana, suka makan apa, dll. Penting untuk langkah selanjutnya.

2. Penjebakan : coba kerjakan apa yang dia kerjakan, atau hangout ditempat dia nongkrong. Tunjukkan bahwa kamu itu exist (ada).

3. Initial Engagement : Kenalan, tapi buat seperti tidak sengaja. Bisa lewat teman-temannya, atau yang klasik: tabrakan di lorong perpustakaan.

4. Show of Force : Kalau dia sudah kenal kamu, buat dia interest dengan kamu. Caranya, gunakan hasil langkah 1 (data intelejen). Kamu berhasil kalau dia lebih suka memperhatikan kamu daripada majalah favoritnya atau lebih suka nelpon kamu daripada teman karibnya.

5. Head to Head : Ajak kencan, dari yang simple dulu seperti ngopi di kafe, jangan langsung dinner di JW Marriot. (Jaga ritme jangan terlalu “tempo di marcia”, cukup “forte” saja)

6. Imprisonment : Kalau sudah dekat sekali dan kira-kira 75% dia sudah “fall” ke kamu, tembak dengan cara yang romantis dan resmikan cinta kalian. Bisa dengan bunga, tapi JANGAN dengan cincin dulu.

7. Maintenance : Jaga supaya dia tetap simpati dan cinta pada kamu. Boleh mulai tunjukkan sifat burukmu, tapi yang lebih bagus kalau kamu bisa buang semua sifat buruk itu. Tapi untuk yang tidak bisa dibuang, coba membuat negosiasi. Karena diapun pasti punya sifat buruk.

8. Secret Weapons : Kalau cinta mulai mengendur atau dia mulai bosan pada kamu, beri kejutan-kejutan secara periodik, agar cintanya menyala-nyala lagi.

9. Psy War : Akan ada kejutan-kejutan dalam hubungan kalian nanti. Coba selalu tenang dan hadapi dengan baik. Dan selalu berdoa semoga Tuhan memudahkan jalan cintamu…

10. Die as a Hero than live as a coward : Mungkin terjadi hal yang terburuk, dia memutuskan kamu karena alasan apapun. Itu lebih baik daripada kamu tidak mencoba sama sekali…

Membagikan zakat memang wajib dan diganjar pahala. Namun, jika dilakukan serampangan, malah menuai bencana bahkan mendatangkan dosa. Pembagian zakat oleh pengusaha dermawan asal Pasuruan, Haji Syaikhon, Senin 15 September lalu, bisa menjadi pelajaran.

Maksud hati ingin membantu fakir miskin dengan zakat Rp30.000, tapi malah berujung tragedi tewasnya 21 orang, satu kritis, dan 12 orang terluka. Atas keteledoran itu, kini H. Syaikhon, istri, dan tiga anaknya beserta belasan panitia dibawa ke Mapolres Kota Pasuruan. Mereka diamankan dari amarah warga.

Kejadian yang memilukan umat Islam yang sedang menjalani ibadah puasa itu berawal dari keputusan H. Syaikhon untuk kembali menerapkan pola pembagian zakat masal. Pengusaha kulit dan peternak sarang burung walet tersebut mengundang warga ke rumahnya di mulut Gang Pepaya Jalan Wahidin Selatan, Kelurahan Purutrejo, Kecamatan Purworejo, Kota Pasuruan, untuk menerima uang tunai Rp 30 ribu per orang.

Maka berbondong-bondonglah warga ke rumah H. Syaikhon, bukan hanya tetangga sekitar, tapi juga dari daerah pedesaan wilayah Kabupaten Pasuruan yang berjarak sekitar 20 kilometer. Bahkan, ada beberapa yang datang dari luar kota seperti Jember dan Kediri. Ingin mendapat lokasi terdepan, mereka menunggu pembagian zakat di depan rumah Syaikhon sejak usai sahur. Sampai pukul 08.00 kira-kira sudah lebih dari 5000 orang yang semuanya ibu-ibu sudah berjubel di depan rumah H. Syaikhon.

Keluarga Syaikhon sebenarnya sudah mengantisipasi membludaknya massa. Gapura depan Gang Pepaya sejak pagi itu sudah ditutupi dengan (hanya) anyaman bambu. Saat hari makin siang, lama jumlah massa yang datang semakin bertambah.

Memasuki pukul 09.00, hampir sekitar lima puluh orang telah menerima zakat. Usaha mereka berlomba terbilang cukup semangat untuk masuk dan mengambil jatah zakat. Sebab, mereka harus berdesak-desakan dengan sesama penerima. Ada pula massa yang kebingungan dengan anak yang digendongnya.

Lama-kelamaan pun aksi dorong massa semakin brutal. Mereka ingin cepat-cepat mendapatkan santunan zakat. Hingga akhirnya barisan depan yang berada di pintu musala semakin terhimpit. Ada yang menjerit kesakitan dan banyak juga yang menangis histeris. Sekitar pukul 09.30 WIB aksi dorong-dorongan massa semakin hebat. Banyak kumpulan orang yang jatuh tergeletak ke tanah hingga akhirnya terinjak massa yang lain.

Jeritan-jeritan histeris mulai menyeruak, bercampur aduk dengan suara orang mengaduh-aduh. Mereka yang sadar dalam kondisi bahaya, berusaha menyelamatkan diri. Tapi, itu tidak mudah bagi yang sudah berada di tengah kerumunan. Tarik menarik demi penyelamatan diri terjadi. Ada wanita yang sampai bajunya robek di tengah tarik menarik itu.

Suasana semakin tak terkendali. Beberapa orang yang terjepit, terinjak, kehabisan napas, berjatuhan. Bahkan sebagian dari mereka ada yang terlihat digotong ke dalam musala dalam keadaan meninggal dunia….

Begitulah gambaran bangsa kita, kemiskinan sepertinya menjadi teman sejati bagi segaian besar rakyat. Di sisi lain para pemimpin, umara, ulama, orang-orang berpunya hanya bisa berjanji memberi kesejahteraan dan kemakmuran sambil menggunakan rakyat miskin sebagai bahan kampanye.

Mengapa pembagian zakat dan sedekah harus selalu dilakukan secara demonstratif seperti ini? Apakah agar orang lain memuji kedermawanan kita? Bukankah Rasullulah saw mengajarkan kalau kita bersedekah dengan tangan kanan, tangan kiri kita sendiri pun tidak boleh sampai tahu, apa lagi orang lain. Mungkin para aghniya negeri ini perlu belajar lagi tentang keiklashan,

21 nyawa manusia melayang. Nyawa orang-orang miskin yang seharusnya dipelihara oleh kita yang berpunya. Nyawa orang-orang yang dekat dengan Rasullulah. Apakah perbuatan seperti ini akan dicatat sebagai pahala atau dosa di sisi Allah?

Mungkin H. Syaikhon tidak berniat untuk riya dalam amalan solehnya. Tapi perbuatan yang baik pun harus diperhitungkan manfaat dan mudharatnya. Apalagi yang dijadikan obyek adalah rakyat yang miskin yang sedang kelaparan karena berpuasa dan karena memang sudah berbulan-bulan berpuasa. Memang puasa mengajar kita untuk bersabar. Tapi perut yang lapar bisa membuat manusia lupa segalanya. Jangan samakan tingkat keimanan para warga miskin ini sama tingginya dengan H. Syaikhon. Orang miskin bisanya tidak berilmu dan lemah imannya, walaupun tidak semuanya begitu.

Mengapa tidak menggunakan lembaga-lembaga amul zakat yang sudah banyak sekali menjamur di tanah air? Bukankan melalui mereka, zakat, infak dan sedekah kita dapat tersalur dengan baik. Mungkin H. Syaikhon tidak percaya pada lembaga-lembaga itu, khawatir mereka tidak menyalurkannya dengan baik dan benar. Sesungguhnya tidak perlu demikian, karena Allah dan Rasulnya pun mengajarkan kita berzakat melalui amil. Kalau ternyata amil menyalahgunakan zakat kita, hal itu tidak akan mengurangi pahala kita. Karena setiap amal kita tergantung denga niatnya. Dan Allah lebih tahu niat di dalam hati kita.

Semoga peritiwa ini menjadi pelajaran bagi kita untuk menyalurkan zakat dan infak kita dengan cara yang lebih manusiawi dan beradab. Jangan sampai niat kita menolong orang miskin malah menyusahkan mereka. Ingin memberi mereka makan untuk menyambung hidup, kita malah mencabut nyawa mereka. Na’udzubillah…

Peristiwa Monas 1 Juni 2008 yang lalu agaknya berbuntut cukup panjang. Penyerangan Front Pembela Islam (FPI) kepada AKKBB yang mengakibatkan korban luka-luka, telah menguras energi kita, khususnya umat Islam untuk menentukan sikap terhadap peristiwa itu. Sejauh ini sikap umat Islam sudah jelas terlihat. Ada yang mendukung FPI, tapi banyak juga yang sebaliknya, mengutuk dan menuntut pembubaran Front pimpinan Habib Rizieq Shihab itu.

Bagaimana seharusnya kita memandang persoalan ini?

Mencari Masalah Sesungguhnya
Susah untuk bersikap atas sesuatu, apabila kita sendri tidak tahu apa sebenarnya masalah yang terjadi. Mayoritas umat Islam sepakat bahwa aliran Ahmadiyah yang didukung oleh AKKBB adalah aliran yang sesat dan menyimpang dari ‘main stream’ ajaran Islam, khususnya Islam di Indonesia.
Tapi dari sebagian besar umat Islam yang mengklaim Ahmadiyah sesat itu, tidak tahu pasti bagaimana dan dimana kesesatan Ahmadiyah itu. Semua tuduhan kepada Ahmadiyah didasarkan dari informasi yang sangat terbatas. Umumnya kita menerima bahwa Ahmadiyah sesat karena Ahmadiyah mengakui bahwa Mirza Ghulam Ahmad itu adalah nabi yang kembali diutus Allah setelah Muhammad SAW. Dan karena Ahmadiyah meyakini bahwa kitab Tadzkirah adalah kitab suci selain kitab suci Al-Quran.
Masalahnya, kita tidak pernah tahu secara menyeluruh tentang Ahmadiyah yang sesungguhnya. Informasi yang kita jadikan dasar berbagai asumsi kita hanya berdasarkan berita-berita di koran dan televisi yang hanya ditampilkan secara parsial, karena terbatasnya halaman atau air-time. Bahkan beberapa media cetak dan elektronik cenderung menampilkan Ahmadiyah secara tendensius, sesuai kepentingan mereka masing-masing.
Pernahkah kita sholat bersama umat Ahmadiyah di masjid-masjid mereka? Pernahkah kita mengaji bersama di tempat mereka mengaji? Pernahkah kita hidup dan menjalani hari-hari bersama mereka sehingga kita kenal mereka dari dekat? Kalau kita tidak pernah mencoba memahami ajaran Ahmadiyah seperti mereka memahaminya, bagaimana kita bisa menganggap mereka sesat?

Perbedaan adalah suatu keniscayaan. Islam sendiri sudah diprediksi Nabi Muhammad SAW akan berkembang menjadi berpuluh-puluh aliran, lantas bagaiman kita menentukan siapa yang benar dan siapa yang salah. Bukankah yang Maha Benar hanya ALLAH saja. Bila kita menganggap kitalah yang paling benar, maka kita telah mengambil hak Allah. Dan yang terburuk dari sikap itu adalah, kita jadi berhenti mencari kebenaran yang hakiki.

Daya Tahan Umat Islam Lemah
Umat Islam, khususnya di Indonesia selalau terancam dengan berbagai aliran dan paham yang tiba-tiba tumbuh. Sebut saja Ahmad Mussadek atau Lia Eden. Setiap muncul suatu aliran baru, umat Islam selalu merasa terancam dan terganggu. Ini menunjukkan bahwa daya tahan umat Islam, khususnya di Indonesia masih lemah. Bila daya tahan umat Islam kuat, maka munculnya berbagai aliran itu tidak akan menjadi suatu kekhawatiran yang berlebihan.
Para ulama yang seharusnya memperkuat daya tahan umat Islam dengan memberikan pengajaran dan pemahaman Islam ternyata gagal membentuk kepribadian umat Islam yang kuat, sebagian besar umat Islam di Indonesia lemah pemahaman agamanya, sehingga selalu mudah disesatkan oleh berbagai aliran-aliran tersebut.
Apabila daya tahan umat Islam kuat, maka kita tidak akan pernah khawatir mereka disesatkan meskipun ratusan aliran sesat muncul dan berkembang di Indonesia.

Tindakan yang salah
Bukankah Allah mengatakan,”Barangsiapa yang Allah beri dia petunjuk, maka tidak seorangpun yang dapat menyesatkannya, dan barang siapa yang disesatkan Allah, maka tidak seorangpun dapat memberinya petunjuk (ke jalan yang benar).”
Segala usaha yang dilakukan untuk membimbing umat seperti Ahmadiyah kembali ke jalan yang benar, akan sia-sia. Mengapa? Karena mereka meyakini apa yang mereka yakini itu benar. Mereka sesat, karena kita yang menilai mereka sesat, tentunya dengan argumentasi kita. Tapi mereka justru menganggap diri mereka adalah yang mendapat petunjuk.
Lalu apakah karena mereka tidak bisa diselamatkan dari kesesatan mereka, lantas kita mendapat hak untuk menyakiti, mengucilkan atau memusnahkan mereka?

Bagaimana bila dunia terbalik
Coba bayangkan seandainya Indonesia ini adalah negara yang mayoritas penduduknya beragama Ahmadiyah, sedang kita umat Nabi Muhammad hanyalah minoritas. Apakah kita akan menerima jika umat Ahmadiyah yang mayoritas itu memaksa kita untuk menerima Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sebagai pewaris Nabi Muhammad. Bagaimana kita akan bersikap jika mereka mengintimidasi, menyakiti dan berusaha membunuh kita karenanya. Tentunya kita tidak akan menerima, dan akan berjuang kalau perlu sampai mati untuk mempertahankan iman kita bukan?

Jadi
Biarlah… Ahmadiyah akan tetap Ahmadiyah. Mereka akan tetap ada sampai kapan pun. Yang perlu kita lakukan adalah memperkuat keimanan umat Islam yang mayoritas ini agat kita tidak ikut-ikutan tersesat. Bukannya melakukan tindakan-tindakan kekerasan yang justru bertentangan dengan ajaran Islam. Jangan sampai kita yang ingin menyelamatkan umat dari kesesatan, malah membuat umat kita bertanya, ”Siapa sebenarnya yang sesat?”. Bukankah Nabi Muhammad SAW tidak pernah menyakiti orang lain yang tidak sependapat dengnya. Bahkan ketika Nabi Muhammad SAW dilempari batu oleh orang-orang Thaif yang sesat, dia bisa membalasnya dengan bantuan malikat Jibril. Tapi toh Beliau tidak mau, malah mendoakan mereka supaya mendapat petunjuk.
Semoga kita semua diberi petunjuk ke arah kebenaran dan kebijaksanaan untuk menjalankan petunjuk itu dengan cara yang benar.

The recent hanging of Saddam Hussein and his associates has once again brought to the fore the endless debate on whether to retain or abolish the death.

This time however, Western governments who traditionally support the abolition of capital punishment were on the spot. They have for decades lectured the rest of the world on the merits of abolishing the ultimate sanction. But when the moment of their archenemy Saddam Hussein came, Western leaders made some very coy, almost sheepish pronouncements.

George Bush and Tony Blair hid behind the assertion that the sentence is the law of Iraq, which must be respected despite any contrary beliefs prevailing in the West. German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed the guarded sentiment that the death sentence was not appropriate. France made similar mild comments. As for his associates, the US repeated the sentiment that their hanging was purely an Iraq affair.

In the Middle East, Arab leaders cleverly sought to sidestep the whole substantive question of the death sentence. Led by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Arab leaders obsessed themselves with the procedural aspects of the death sentence. They argued that it should not have been carried out on the holy day of Idd. That the hanging should not have been shown to the public. That the guard who illegally took a mobile telephone photograph of the hanging did so without authority.

They also condemned the taunting of Saddam Hussein by his masked guards as inhuman.

IN SUM, without directly admitting it, Arab leaders were saying that but for the procedural lapses, the hanging was justified in substance.

It is the Western world as usual that resorted to its traditional game of political hypocrisy. Western leaders did not suddenly discover that the law of Iraq required the imposition of the death sentence upon a conviction for murder. This fact was known to all Western leaders from the moment Saddam Hussein was arrested and the decision was made to prosecute him in Iraq.

Critics have purveyed the notion that there was an option to prosecute Saddam at The Hague under international law. That is true only in a limited sense. Under international law, the state where a suspect of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide has been arrested has the first option to prosecute the suspect. It is only in cases where the state is found to be unwilling or unable to try the suspect or it voluntarily surrenders its jurisdiction that the UN through the International Criminal Court assumes the responsibility to do so.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, he was arrested in Iraq where the alleged crimes were committed. Iraq quickly asserted its right to prosecute him and it never showed any inability or unwillingness to do so. This effectively usurped the United Nation’s ability to intervene.

BUT THIS is strictly so only in the legal sense. The politics of Saddam Hussein’s arrest and trial are such that it is the United States that presumably called the shots. It is the dominant power in Iraq and it could have used its political muscle to compel Iraq to surrender its right to try Saddam Hussein and hand him over to the United Nations for trial at the International Criminal Court.

By failing to do so, it clearly signalled that it wished to have Saddam Hussein tried in Iraq where for his crimes the death sentence is mandatory and none-commutable.

The US cannot invoke the law of unintended consequences. These consequences were intended. The US must have intended that Saddam Hussein be tried under Iraq law and if found guilty be sentenced to death and be hanged.

However, it is unfair to criticise the US, Iraq and Western countries alone. Arab leaders, African leaders and the UN itself did not voice any objection to Saddam’s trial in Iraq, even though they must have clearly understood the consequences.

So Saddam Hussein is gone and the rest must be left to historians and academics to debate. As for the commercialised West, when the crocodile tears dry, blockbuster books will be written and multibillion dollar movies will be made on his prosecution and execution and it will be business as usual.

The greatest lesson is that we must spare each other moralistic lectures on the merits and demerits of the death sentence. Evidently, the world believes in the death sentence. The difference is that some pretend to abhor it while others openly embrace it. It is puzzling to see Westerners pour millions of dollars and thousands of soldiers into killing thousands of people in the name of wars to support democracy but to flinch and wrinkle their noses at the mere mention of the death sentence.

The British in particular seem never to have recovered from the shock of executing their own King Charles I in the 16th century. Their neighbours the French tasted blood when they executed their King Louis XVI and proceeded in the next 100 years to routinely guillotine their leaders.

The Italians had no compunction whatsoever at the execution of Benito Musolini. This reaction was not the result of barbarism. It was their natural reaction to grave injustices and atrocities visited upon them. We need to understand the proponents of the death sentence from this perspective.

There are some communities in the world who fervently believe that the only way to punish a death is through the death of the offender. This is not barbarism. It is not even meant to be a lesson to others. It is a deeply ingrained moralistic sense of justice. It may have its roots in the biblical “an eye for an eye” doctrine or it may be rooted in long held cultural traditions and beliefs. It is what the British, the French, the Italians and others believed for centuries, till just the other day.

EVENTUALLY, THEY became “civilized” through a process of slow evolution. We must allow others to similarly evolve without admonishing them and imposing enforced international conventions. The new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon supports this view when he asserts that the question of retaining or abolishing the death sentence is a matter for each state of the world to decide.

Perhaps instead the world and the anti death-penalty lobbyists should concentrate on the manner of the execution rather than the sentence itself.

Nzamba Kitonga, Nairobi

I am profoundly disturbed by the recent string of beheadings murdering Americans in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. I oppose the death penalty in general and am intensely disgusted by this particular form of it.

Which is why I was greatly dismayed when it was brought to my attention that this act may be sanctioned by the Quran. Two verses are conspicuous on this issue:

“Recall that your Lord inspired the angels: “I am with you; so support those who believed. I will throw terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved. You may strike them above the necks, and you may strike even every finger.” (8:12)

“If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. Had GOD willed, He could have granted you victory, without war. But He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of GOD, He will never put their sacrifice to waste.” (47:4)

What exactly does it mean to “strike the necks” and fingers of enemies (as opposed to taking them as captives), if not to dismember them? Please understand that this issue has caused me much distress as of late and that it would be difficult for me to accept a religion which encourages torture and intimidating forms of execution.

I would also like to thank Edip and Iconoclast for their kind responses to my previous questions.

Peace,

Peter

——

Dear Peter:

First, we cannot take one verse out of its immediate context and we should also consider the entire context of the Quran. By taking sentences out their context, I can pick plenty statements in any book conveying a meaning not exactly intended by their authors.

Now let’s take notice of the following Quranic principles:

1. Killing a human being without self defense or justice is considered like killing all humanity (5:32).

2. Believers can only fight for self defense; no wars of aggression. No, pre-emptive strike based on speculations and lies (60:8-9).

3. The Quran gives permission to believers to fight against aggressors (22:39-40…). In the past, the wars were done by sword, and sword cuts the head and body organs.

Now let’s assume:

Just because you have different religious and political position, a group of people decides to attack and evict you, your family and friends from your homes. You leave behind everything and seek refuge in another town and hoping to start a fresh life there from zero. These aggressors, however, do not leave you alone and they mobilize gangs against you, your family and friends, and kill your father, several siblings and relatives and friends with their swords. If you experience these events in such a condition, and if you have a sword in your possession, will you hesitate to defend yourself and your loved ones against these murderers? Wouldn’t you try to cut the necks and the hands of those who are viciously trying to kill you and your loved ones? Yes, this is a horror, but you did not start it, and you will not going to escalate it.

Now, let’s reflect another important point.

Yes, indeed beheading of prisoners or the kidnapped is a cruel and profoundly disturbing act.

But, is bombing, burning, maiming, torturing people less than that? The American Inc’s propaganda machine is working again. As if the killing of American Talibans is less painful than the killing of Iraqi or Afgani Talibans. Go see the hospitals and visit the Iraqi children who lost their legs, lost their faces, suffering from severe burnings and their consequences all their lives. Do you think that destroying houses by missiles and causing Iraqi men, women or children getting stock under concrete blocks and causing them to suffer for hours or days before they die is more humane than beheadings?

More than hundred thousands Iraqis were killed and hundreds of thousands more were wounded and we are all targeting our hatred towards a few beheadings.

I condemn beheadings of the captives. Equally, I condemn the bombing, burning, maiming, torturing of Iraqi people; especially by those who waged this war based on lies and dubious motives.

Propaganda machine works this way:

If you I kill by the bullets of my sophisticated machines, by demolishing your house on you by my smart bombs, this is a good killing. Your suffering will be a civilized suffering. But, if the enemy kills with their archaic weapons, it is barbaric.

If we kill children and civilians in our own style they are collateral damage. But, if our enemies kill our soldiers we are terrorized and murdered.

If we arrest fighters and civilians sympathetic to them, and put them in our prisons for unlimited period of time and subjecting them to all kinds of interrogations and tortures, it is civilized; they are prisoners. But, if my enemy does not have tanks, warplanes, prisons, and if they arrest my soldiers, then they are kidnappers and terrorists!

If our soldiers, with the aid of their modern training and weapons, kill and torture people in refugee camps it is justice and retaliation; but if their teenage children blow themselves to kill our people they are terrorists!

Dear Peter:

Like all of us, you are too influenced by this propaganda machine. War is a horrible experience and we should try our best to stop it from happening. If we are going to be appalled, we should be appalled by all atrocities, not the one chosen by one of the aggressing parties.

I recommend you Michel Foucault’s book Discipline and Punish. It will open your eyes. Also, I highly recommend you Noam Chomsky’s Manufactured Consent, and Michael Moore’s recent film, Fahrenheit 9/11.

Regerd,
Edip Yuksel, Turkey

Finally, my first daughter was born safely on December 13, 2006.
This little girl I named Keisha Diva Faradisa Juniardi

Keisha, I took from arabic “Ka Aisha”, which means “Like Aisha (a wife of the Prophet, a mother of the believers)”.
In other language, Keisha means “favorite dauhter” (Afrikan) and also “her life” (Native American)

Diva means “Goddess” (Italian).

Faradisa is taken from “Firdaus” (arabic) or “Paradise” (English) which means “The highest Heaven”.

So, Keisha Diva Faradisa means:

1. Like Aisha, the goddess of the paradise, or

2. Favorite daughter of the goddess of the paradise, or

3. Her life is like Goddess of the paradise.

Beatiful name, isn’t it?

Who is the real killer?
What is Hero and Heroism?

When Saddam was brought to trail for killing hundreds of Kurds in his reighn, he was called a killer.
But when Bush invaded Iraq and killed tens of thousands Iraqis (including women and children), he was called a hero?

Bush promised Iraq will be a better place after Saddam. It’s a total Bush-sh*t!
Saddam is a bad man, but what can we learn from his death penalty?
How can a death be a start of democracy?
And where the hell is Mr Blair? I haven’t heard anything from him on Saddam’s death?
I knew Britain is constitutionally apposite to death penalty, but it seems ok for Saddam.

Saddam was a friend to US when Iran started its ISlamic Revolution, but he then became a foe for attacking Kuwait (and if you read the history well, Saddam had agood reason for that).

If US has an account on the Friendster, that country must be banned. Because US doesn’t know what friendship is. US only knows it’s interest.

Dear George W.,

Welcome to democratic Indonesia.

Many people in this country are opposed to your visit here today because of some of your policies, most notably on Iraq and on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and they have made their feelings known by taking to the streets in recent weeks. But make no mistake that the controversy has all been part of a healthy democratic process that has evolved in this country during the last eight years.

The protesters may have been loud and strong — some call you “a war criminal” — but they have been peaceful and orderly. And the Indonesian government has stuck to its guns and defended your visit in the name of the national interest.

So please, don’t take it personally. Coming from the world’s leading democracy, you must be used to these kinds of protests and criticism. You probably know too that you’re not exactly the most-loved American leader today.

Survey after survey has showed rising anti-American sentiments in many countries around the world — not just in predominantly-Muslim Indonesia — and this is partly due to some of your policies, rather than simply an outright loathing of anything American. Remove these policies and the world will love America, and all it represents, once more.

The majority of Americans have also made their feelings known about your policies by voting against your Republican party in mid-term elections this month. So some changes may be on the way.

At the end of the day, many people in this country share with our government the view that we should not measure the President of the United States of America by one or two of his policies, as controversial, if not loathsome, to some they may be.

At home, you may be a lame-duck president, but to the outside world, you are still the leader of the most powerful country on earth today. And as far as Indonesia’s national interests go, the United States is still one of its most important partners — let’s not call ourselves allies — particularly in economic fields, but also increasingly in politics and security.

Putting aside our differences, like on the question of Iraq and the Middle East, there are many areas where we share common interests and goals. Disagreements in some policy areas should not stop two democracies from talking to one another. They certainly should not prevent us from working together for common goals and mutual benefit.

Both America and Indonesia hate terrorism, but we do not appreciate your effort to teach us how to run our nation. Although we hate your policy over the world, your injustice over the weak countries, your unreasonable position over nuclear weaponry, your unproven accusation and genocide in Iraq, your disrespect to the muslim world, your strange interest to always spoil Israel, your terror on nations in order to destroy terrorism, We never hate you as a human being. Men tend to make mistakes, but the best men are those who realize and repent. We belive you still have a chance. Believe that God is the most merciful to those who repent.

Dear George W.,

We truly appreciate that you have made the time and effort to come here.

This is your second visit to Indonesia as president, the first one being the four-hour stop you made in Bali two years ago. By allocating 10 hours of your precious time today, you are reiterating the importance of Indonesia to America.

Our relations may not be symmetrical, but sometimes we get the feeling that, going by the indifference of the American public and media, Indonesia is not as important a country to the United States as your State Department officials often tell us.

They have repeatedly stated that relations with Indonesia are important chiefly for geopolitical reasons: It is the fourth most populous country in the world, it has the world’s largest Muslim population (hence an important friend in your global war on terror), it is an exporter of many raw materials crucial to global industries, and it controls one of the busiest international shipping lanes.

Your presence here today, reciprocating a visit by our president last year, helps to underline Indonesia’s importance to the United States.

Looking beyond America’s geopolitical interests, however, Indonesia and the United States today are bound by their shared values for peace and democracy.

Ours are two large countries that have come a long way in promoting pluralism (or multiculturalism) in their own respective ways because both societies are diverse in terms of races, ethnicity, religions and even languages. We have a lot more in common than is often acknowledged. We can learn from each other’s experience in promoting democracy in a pluralistic society.

Dear George W.,

Indonesia has gone through a lot of trouble in hosting your visit here today. That’s how important we regard your visit.

The government, working with your security officials, isn’t taking any chances with regard to your safety. The state has stopped at nothing to make sure that your brief stay here is both safe and comfortable.

The majestic Bogor Presidential Palace, the venue of your meeting with SBY (this is how we address our president) today, is a rarely used facility that had been cleaned up and redecorated just for your visit. It’s filled with history so be sure to ask questions to your host.

The police have been deployed in full force, aided by the military, to check against possible terrorist attacks during your stay. We don’t want anything to happen to you while you’re here.

Shop owners, sidewalk traders and transit-van drivers who normally operate around the palace, have been told to take a day off on Monday, losing one-day’s income in the process. Schools in Bogor are also closed today. Roadblocks and diversions have been imposed in and around Bogor to the inconvenience of the local people.

But few in Bogor have been heard to complain. For Bogor residents, it is an honor to have you visit their “City of Rain”. It’s the protesters outside Bogor that are making the noise. We have been raised in a culture where you should respect your guest and make him feel welcome. And that’s exactly what we are doing.

This visit is as important to you as it is to SBY and to Indonesia.

So once again, welcome to Indonesia; we hope you have a pleasant stay and a fruitful exchange with our leaders.

Regards, Tommy Joe

PS: Don’t worry about Ki Gendeng Pamungkas. I believe God will always protect you, because He has planned something much better for you ( and us) than what that crazy man can offer.

Who was St. Paul? Was he a disciple of Jesus or a hypocrite?
Did he curse Jesus or was he cursed by Jesus?

“On the face of it, Paul’s doctrine of Jesus is a daring departure from Judaism. Paul was advocating a doctrine that seemed to have far more in common with pagan myths than with Judaism: that Jesus was a divine-human person who had descended to Earth from the heavens and experienced death for the express purpose of saving mankind.” (The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Hyam Maccoby, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1986, p. 12).

In reality, Paul, or Saul never met Jesus. Before converting to “Christianity”, he was a vicious enemy of Christians. He raided churches and tortured people who converted to Christianity (The Acts 8:3; 22:3-10). By claiming that he met Jesus on his way to Jerusalem and Damascus, he tried to explain his so called conversion. Instead of Jerusalem he went to Arabia (Galatians 1:17). He claimed that he was chosen by Jesus as a minister and as a representative (The Acts 26:16-19). He travelled many places and sent letters in Greek, to preach his version of Christianity. In this way, he distorted and mutilated the original message of Jesus.

He provided ground for the Doctrine of Trinity; he created the story of Jesus’ sacrifice for our redemption; he raised Jesus to his “Father’s right side” for judgment; he nailed the written code to the cross (Colossians 2:14), opposing Jesus (Matthew 19:16-19). He perverted the main message of Jesus, which was to worship God alone.

Thus, Paul had intense arguments with Peter (Cephas) and Barnabas (Acts 15:36-41; Galatians 2:11-14; 4:10-14). The disciples did not trust him and escaped from him (Acts 9:26). They knew that he was a wolf in the midst of sheep.

You may ask “why would Paul choose a life of persecution rather than being the persecutor?” Though we may not be able to identify the exact motive of Paul, we can find many answers to this question in psychology or history books. The history of religions are full of dubious or sincere people with strange missions or delusions.

When Saul became Paul…

To provide some more information on Paul, I want to quote two paragraphs from Hyam Maccoby’s book The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1986, pp. 4, 16:

“We should remember that the New Testament, as we have it, is much more dominated by Paul than appears at first sight. As we read it, we come across the Four Gospels, of which Jesus is the hero, and do not encounter Paul as a character until we embark on the post-Jesus narrative of Acts. Then we finally come into contact with Paul himself, in his letters. But this impression is misleading, for the earliest writings in the New Testament are actually Paul’s letters, which were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until the period AD 70-110. This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and colored their interpretations of Jesus’ activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament. This is of course, not the whole story, for the Gospels are based on traditions and even written sources which go back to a time before the impact of Paul, and these early traditions and sources are not entirely obliterated in the final version and give valuable indications of what the story was like before Paulinist editors pulled it into final shape. However, the dominant outlook and shaping perspective of the Gospels is that of Paul, for the simple reason that it was the Paulinist view of what Jesus’ sojourn on Earth had been about that was triumphant in the Church as it developed in history. Rival interpretations, which at one time had been orthodox, opposed to Paul’s very individual views, now became heretical and were crowded out of the final version of the writings adopted by the Pauline Church as the inspired canon of the New Testament.

“Paul derived this religion from Hellenistic sources, chiefly by a fusion of concepts taken from Gnosticism and concepts taken from the mystery religions, particularly from that of Attis. The combination of these elements with features derived from Judaism, particularly the incorporation of the Jewish scriptures, reinterpreted to provide a background of sacred history for the new myth, was unique; and Paul alone was the creator of this amalgam. Jesus himself had no idea of it, and would have been amazed and shocked at the role assigned him by Paul as a suffering deity.”

The real followers of Jesus

Indeed, “The Mythmaker” provides important information on early followers of Jesus, the Ebionites. This group had earlier been called the Nazarenes and was strongly against Paul and his paganist doctrine. Nazarenes were led by disciples of Jesus, such as James and Peter, who knew Jesus and his message much better than Paul who met Jesus only in dreams and visions.

Unfortunately, when the Romans occupied Jerusalem in 70 AD, they destroyed the Nazarene Church. So, Jerusalem Nazarenes immigrated to Caesarea and even to Alexandria in Egypt. Since that defeat, the Pauline Christian movement did not encounter serious opposition from the true followers of Jesus Christ. Finally, they were declared heretics in about 135 AD, by Pharisee rabbis, since they refused to accept the doctrines of Paul. The descendants of Jerusalem Nazarenes survived about four centuries under the title “Ebionites” (poor men).

Self-appointed disciple changes the name

Disciples and early followers of Jesus were never called Christians; they were called Nazarenes. We find this original name in the New Testament (Acts 24:5). It is interesting that the names “Christians” and “Christianity” were invented decades after Jesus in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Not only did Paul change his own name and identity, he changed the name and identity of Jesus’ message.

Cursed by whom?

According to Paul, the founder of Christianity:

“Christ had redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hanged on a tree.” (Galatians 3:13).

“By whom was Jesus cursed?” Most Christians without hesitation reply “obviously, cursed by people.” But, the one who made that allegation has a different answer.

Paul’s hidden answer

Obviously, Paul is not honest while quoting his reference, ie., Deuteronomy 21:23 “. . . that is hanged is accursed of God; . . . ” He, stealthily, tries to hide “GOD”, just to make it easy for people to accept the connection between the Old Testament’s curse and Jesus. When you accept the connection, you automatically accept Jesus to be cursed by God Almighty, without knowing. Because if you make a sober connection between Deuteronomy 21:23 and Matthew 27:38, Mark 15:27, Luke 23:33, John 19:18 you will end up with a “God cursed by God”!

What could be the reason for Paul insulting Jesus indirectly? What could be the reason for Paul distorting Jesus’ teaching by creating the doctrine of the Trinity? Jesus himself had prophesied the reason with a warning.

The prophecy and warning of Jesus

The Gospels are full of condemnation of and prophetic warning about Pharisees. Here are some examples:

“How is it that you do not understand that I spoke it not to you concerning bread, that you should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” (Matthew 16:11-12).

“But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! . . . Woe unto you, you blind guides, . . . You fools and blind: . . . Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! You serpents, you generation of vipers . . . ” (Matthew 23: 13-33)

“. . . Beware you of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.” (Luke 12:1-2).

Here is the Pharisee!

Paul confirms this prophecy by acknowledging that he was a Pharisee:

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I AM a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee . . . (Acts 23:6)

Please notice, that he does not say “I WAS a Pharisee.”

Here is the hypocrite!

Paul may be the only person in the history of religion that was proud of his hypocrisy. Dictionaries should substitute the word Machiavellian with Pauline, since he preceded Machiavelli. Let us read what this dubious character tells about himself:

“While working with Jews, I live like a Jew in order to win them; and even though I myself am not subject to the Law of Moses, I live as though I were, when working with those who are, in order to win them. In the same way, when with Gentiles I live like a Gentile, outside the Jewish Law, in order to win Gentiles. This does not mean that I don’t obey God’s law; I am really under Christ’s law. Among the weak in faith I become weak like one of them, in order to win them. So I become all things to all men, that I may save some of them by any means possible.” (1. Corinthians 9:20-22).

If a person “becomes all things to all men, in order to win them”, how can you trust that person? It is obvious that he became a Christian with Christians in order to win them. But the real followers of Jesus recognized his evil work and rejected him.

So,

1. Why follow “a hypocrite, a fool and a blind” Pharisee?

2. What was the real reason that the disciples of Jesus escaped from Paul? Were they the most cowardly people among Christians? Why, could the reason not be the warning of Jesus about Pharisees? “. . . Beware you of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. . . .” (Luke 12:1-2) Why don’t you beware of the leaven (doctrine) of a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee?

3. Did Jesus become “all things to all men in order to win them”, like Paul? Did his real disciples become “all things to all men in order to win them”, like Paul? What is the definition of hypocrisy in your dictionary? After all, why do you hesitate to call Paul a hypocrite?

4. Why do you call yourself Christian, since it is a name fabricated by Paul years after Jesus (Acts 11:26)? What were the disciples of Jesus calling themselves in the time of Jesus?