This is an old unpublished article. Since the election already over, I'd like to publish this. Considering my friend is already cooled down and the issues was resolved with the capture of Ahok.
Roughly he said:
"So, more non-Muslim friends feels like they understand more about Islam. We, the Muslims, have to ask our Imam, and [you] need to know that not every imam dare to interpret, [we] even need to ask to imam that have more understanding in religion.. How great you are could interpret it on your own.
If someone get pissed, sorry that's my intention, it's better we deepen our own religion instead, and give what best accordingly."This statement made my blood boiled, at first. There were many things I wanted to say about him. Still, I respected him. Instead of writing those complaints on his wall to potentially shaming him, I wrote those here.
First, he used Bible verse freely in the past and judged us Christians based on his interpretation. Now, he got exactly what he had done in the past. I wish to ask him, how is it like for him when his religion being commented by non-believers? Shouldn't he be a fair dude and let it go?
Second, yes, there are non-Muslim people that know more than him, especially the scholars who might be seeing his religion as an object of study like other religions too. They are well-versed in archaeology and so on. I wish he would take the down to earth approach instead of boasting.
I wish he could remember the few years before.
I wish he could remember that the past him was glorifying Ahmadinejad. At that time, I was the one that pointed out to him that Ahmadinejad is a Shia and he should've not embrace any Shia because he was a Sunni.
Guest what? He rebuked me by saying, "Islam is one religion, Pe! There is no such thing as Shia or Sunni." He further said that I didn't know anything.
Fast forward, he is now in the bandwagon of anti-Shia.
DebunkingDebunking him is easy. But, I don't seems to give in to the idea.
I have read a book debunking Ahmed Deedat since fifth grade. It was a thousand pages long forbidden book. My father would be mad at me for reading such kind of book (and sadly confiscated it). Fortunately, I read few hundreds of pages so that I knew arguments made by him.
My father warned me from making any dialog. He said there was a son of his friend who read the same book at my own age. He was confronted by other children about Jesus' divinity. Then, the child retorted back and was also questioning back about their Prophet.
Such incident made the school in shock. He was forced to transfer to another school because of his arguments. A child who could only fought back from the people who questioned his belief was sentenced when he answered.
There was never a debate in the beginning.
Those "scholars" only pretended to have discussions. And when they faced a person that knew more than they could handle, they used violence. That's why, until this day, I've never actively trying to debunk or attack their faith. Even in my ministries, I have never included any of these to my sermon in any occasion.
All that I could remember using my apologetic was when they crossed the line. It was on my university's days. At that time, they started a debate thread for us in a peaceful Christian forum (rtin, still remember?). In that one and only thread in Christian forum about religion comparison, I unleashed my knowledge and debunked them hard.
It was a hard thing to do. I need to make an argument without bashing back their religion. At that time, Ahmed Deedat was popular in their circular. Suddenly, some of them felt like they knew it all and started a flame war.
Lol, yeah, thinking back of how they were just started to learn about apologetic and I had years of experience in questioning my own religion -- so cute!
I don't care if they compare us in their own forum. In fact, that's good. They can enforce themselves with their own belief system. I respect their thirst for knowledge. But, when they start the thread in a Christian forum or general forum, it's like they put their religion also at the same trial as Christianity.
Fair is fair.
Let their wisdom be their wisdom. I don't think being in confrontation with other religion is what my God wants me to do. So, yeah, in the end, I would prefer not to do apologetic by bashing other religion.
Questioning My Own ReligionWhy could I answered easily?
Beside that book, I also read about "101 difficult questions about Bible". A book written by a pastor about Catholic faith. I read history of many religions. I read some of the Western and East philosophies. In the past, I had access to a website that have picture of original manuscripts.
In those days, Ahmed Deedat was nothing. The most fearsome of all are liberal Christians who dissect Bible and made solid arguments about its flaws. IMHO, Ahmed Deedat and many of Christology Muslim were nothing compared to those liberals.
Dude, they asked about the existence of Jericho wall. They asked about Jesus' divinity. They asked Moses and the thing that was done in splitting the Red Sea.
They asked from solid sources like the original scripts. They asked from philosophical evidences between the Romans, the Judaism, Zoroaster and the Christianity. They asked from archaeological perspective. All of those that had facts and data not just some circular reasoning.
I remember there was even a conference here in Indonesia to talk about men and women before Adam.
There was a period of time when I think of religion only a myth. In the past, I think all religion is the same. They all are only tools used by any governing mob to qualm the masses.
I rediscovered my faith in high school through a miraculous event of the birth of my young cousin. Through that, I understand this:
I have never seen anyone converted to Christianity by losing a debate. All of them converted are usually having miracles happened in their/their loved ones. I can see me as one of them.
[PS: I think I now know why I was like a machine in the past. I have read the wrong books. Should've read Ko Ping Ho instead of those books and Robert Maslow's.]
That's why, I find it funny that people started rehashing Ahmed Deedat these days.
Thanks to his follower, Zakir Naik, that using the same premise. He talked the same thing amateurishly like he was enlightened. He only invited people that have no experiences in debating.
He used intimidating skills to make the opponent lose their coolness so that they couldn't talk their points across well. Every time a sound argument was being made, he cut it before finished and start talking while the crowd clapping in the background.
Yeah, his skill is ad hominem.
That's why, no one take Zakir Naik seriously. We already debunked his master's teaching since long. Since he always avoiding real debaters like David Wood, no one would take him seriously.
No Evaluation?Btw, I think I wasn't among those people that my friend protested. I wrote this because I was agitated by the way he talked. He said words like he knows it all. Such arrogance!
There are things that I don't like about his statement and his condition.
First, although he was trained to question everything, he always share what he believe without checking the fact from alternative resources. Is he even a bachelor degree?
Second, his religion is a high intelligence religion. There was a time when all the philosophy of the modern world was preserved by Islam. The golden era of Islam is the age of think tank.
Third, the first command to their Prophet was to read. Isn't that means his religion embraced deeper thinking? Why he never questioned any of their religious leader? Won't he shamed his Islamic ancestors that made so much discoveries in thinking and made so many wisdom?
Is he too lazy to learn more about his religion and give all the responsibilities to know his own God to other people; and then he just chew instantly whatever they cooked?
Someone Is Using You and Your ReligionFrom Jakarta election, there is none of the candidates that have their commitment from stopping the Jakarta bay reclamation. NONE! And, there was none of the other's candidates feels like could ever attacked the incumbent without splashing their own face.
The only thing to do is to attack him from his religion.
Now, here's the point when you start using religion on politics:
You are like a greenhorn playing mouse and cat. Everybody would play with you. But, the cat would be reluctant to catch you and you would have certain immunity.
They would ignore you because of how insignificant you are. They would smile at some mischief that you have done here and then.
Until at a point where you start to be significant. What you do would turn the side you're in winning. At this point, the opposing team would protest and put you in the equal footing.
That's when the religion as your weapon being countered!
Still Grow UpThis is why I started to have sympathy to my friend. He got dragged because of the use of religion for collapsing a the political opponent. The Jakarta politics included religion as the tools for supremacy and many people with faith dragged with it.
I hate this.
I too hate if Christianity used as political tools. Like Bush Jr. was using state preachers to legitimate Iraqi invasion. Or, politician using biblical quote during elections out of context.
Oh, well, Islam is several hundred years younger than Christianity. We have the dark age and despotism. We survived through the embarrassing moment that led to Christianity reform. We survived through the age of philosophical reform in Renaissance, Industrial Age and Socialism.
I wish people of Islam learn mistakes made by Christianity and not rewind it for themselves.
Oh, well, c'est la vie.