Thursday, June 28, 2007

Perdamaian dan Keamanan Dunia Membutuhkan Manusia-manusia yang Bertakwa






Asma Ilahi As-Salâm masih menjadi rangkaian tema utama khotbah jumat dari Imam Jemaat Islam Ahmadiyah Sedunia Hadhrat Amirul Mukminin Mirza Masroor Ahmad—Khalifatul Masih V atba. minggu lalu, Jumat—tanggal 22 Juni 2007. Pemaparan khotbah beliau yang disiarkan langsung dari Mesjid Baitul Futuh London oleh Muslim Television Ahmadiyya (MTA) melalui satelit kali ini, mengetengahkan ajaran-ajaran Islam dalam menegakkan keamanan dan perdamaian di muka bumi. Untuk itu, diperlukan insan-insan yang memiliki ketakwaan yang tinggi. Dengan takwa, seseorang akan mampu memanifestasikan sifat-sifat Allah swt..

Ketakwaan mampu membawa kita kepada taufik Allah swt. untuk melakukan perbuatan baik dan memberikan kekuatan amal saleh. Ketakwaan merupakan azimat bagi manusia sebagai benteng dan penyelamat dari segala macam keburukan. Di luar ketakwaan, yang ada hanya kehancuran dan kebinasaan.

Di awal khotbah, Hudhur atba. menjelaskan bahwa di dunia ini terjadi keresahan akibat tidak adanya rasa aman dan damai dalam masyarakat. Untuk itu, diperlukan syariat atau hukum agama di dunia ini melalui perantaraan Wujud Suci Hadhrat Nabi Besar Muhammad—Rasulullah saw.. Melalui sentuhan dan teladan beliau, keamanan dan perdamaian dapat kita wujudkan.

Orang yang tidak bertakwa, cenderung memiliki pola pikir dan keinginan buruk. Sehingga, rentan terhadap konspirasi dan serangan pihak-pihak penentang Islam. Selama kita mempertahankan ketakwaan, kita pasti bisa meneruskan misi-misi dakwah ilallah terkait rasa aman dan damai yang Islam usung di seluruh dunia. Sehingga, jiwa-jiwa bersih dan saleh akan tertarik dan terus mengikuti kita. Mereka akan menerima Islam dan berkah-berkahnya. Jika ketakwaan memudar, rasa aman maupun damai terenggut dan terkalahkan oleh ketamakan, kebencian serta keburukan. Sehingga, umat Islam akan terus mahrum atau luput dalam meraih berkah-berkah yang telah Allah takdirkan bagi mereka yang bertakwa.

Guna memajukan dan menghidupkan kembali Islam, Allah swt. telah membangkitkan wujud seorang pecinta Hadhrat Rasulullah saw.. Dialah Sang Pendiri Suci Jemaat Ahmadiyah Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad—Imam Mahdi dan Masih Mau’ud (Almasih Yang Dijanjikan) a.s.. Beliau membawa kembali kesejatian ajaran Islam sebagai warisan dan pusaka yang telah lama hilang dan mengembalikan ketakwaan ke dalam hati kita.

Kita harus bertanggung jawab dalam menyebarluaskan amanat dakwah ilallah ini ke seluruh dunia sebagai Islam yang penuh dengan rasa indah, aman, damai dan cinta. Bukan stigma Islam sebagai penyebar terror dan kekerasan.

Setelah Perang Dunia Kedua, negara-negara pemenang perang berusaha menegakkan keamanan dan perdamaian di muka bumi melalui pendirian dewan-dewan dan badan-badan dunia. Namun itu semua, Hudhur atba. nilai, bakal menemui kegagalan. Dewan Keamanan PBB (DK PBB) yang mereka dirikan, tak mampu menyelesaikan berbagai pertikaian. Yang ada hanya diskriminasi dan keresahan.

Melalui Alquran Surah (Ke-49) Al-Ĥujûrât ayat 14, Allah swt. telah mengajarkan langsung bahwa yang terbaik menciptakan keamanan dan perdamaian dunia dalam pandangan-Nya adalah yang bertakwa. Bukan yang memiliki Keanggotaan Tetap dan Keanggotan Tidak Tetap DK PBB. Bukan yang menerapkan dan memiliki Standar Ganda. Gagalnya DK nanti, dikarenakan kurangnya ketakwaan dan rasa takut atau cinta kepada Tuhan. Dengan ketamakan dan kesombongnya, melalui lembaga-lembaga dunia yang mereka dirikan, mereka telah menimbun harta dan memelihara kesengsaraan.

Terdapat ajaran Islam yang indah mengenai kesetaraan dan persaudaraan bahwa siapa pun dia dan darimana berasal, semua manusia sama. Karenanya, menjadi tugas Jemaat untuk menerapkan tatanan elok yang telah Hadhrat Rasulullah saw. cetuskan.

Akhir-akhir ini, banyak reaksi keras yang ditunjukkan kalangan Islam ekstrim dalam menangkal keresahan dan kekacauan akibat jahatnya konspirasi global penentangan Islam. Sampai-sampai, mereka menyatakan perang angkat senjata dan jihad suci. Akan tetapi, reaksi keras itu malah berbalik dan justru memperparah diri mereka sendiri. Memang, akibat konspirasi global tersebut, mereka—apalagi jika sebagai sebuah bangsa—diizinkan memeranginya. Namun, janganlah sampai terjadi aksi ambil untung dan mencari-cari kesempatan dari izin tersebut.

Menilik Alquran Surah ke-60 Al-Mumtaĥinah ayat 9, akan halnya orang atau pihak-pihak yang tidak memerangi, yang tidak menganiaya, yang tidak mengangkat senjata dan yang tidak ingin membunuh kita, maka sudah menjadi kewajiban kita untuk memenuhi segala persyaratan adil, berbuat baik dan berlaku manis kepada mereka. Allah swt. tidak mengizinkan bersahabat dengan mereka yang memerangi kita untuk sementara. Tetapi, terhadap orang-orang yang berubah baik dan yang mencintai keamanan serta perdamaian, kita tidak diizinkan mengusik mereka.

Hudhur atba. sangat menyayangkan aksi ekstrimis Islam dalam memerangi konspirasi global. Mereka meresahkan dan mengacaukan dunia ini. Akibatnya, memberi citra buruk bagi Islam. Padahal, jelas Hudhur atba., tugas pemerintahlah dalam membuat pernyataan perang.

Dalam Surah (ke-6) Al-An’âm ayat 109, Allah swt. mengajarkan etiket dan akhlak agar kita jangan mencaci maki apa yang menjadi keimanan pemeluk keyakinan yang berbeda selain-terhadap-Allah swt.. Karena jika tidak demikian, maka mereka pun akan mencaci balik kita dan kita harus bertanggung jawab untuk hal tersebut. Ini standar sebagai gambaran Islam hakiki yang harus kita kerjakan demi tegaknya keamanan dan perdamaian dunia.

Salman Rushdie


Protes dan demo


Baru-baru ini ada reaksi keras berbagai kalangan Islam maupun ketidaksetujuan publik dan parlemen Inggris sehubungan dengan gelar kebangsawanan yang pihak monarki Inggris berikan kepada Salman Rushdie—seorang penulis novel kontroversial Satanic Verses (Ayat-ayat Setan), Selasa (16/6) lalu.

Mengutip Surah (ke-50) Qaf ayat 25 sampai 27, Hudhur atba. mengomentari, bahwa kita jangan terpancing dengan isu tersebut. Provokasi apa pun, kita jangan mengikuti perbuatan yang dapat menimbulkan keresahan dan rusaknya kedamaian dunia. Karena, pekerjaan apa pun yang telah Rushdie dan pihak-pihak lain yang bermain di belakangnya, sudah menjadi urusan Allah swt. sendiri. Allah swt. yang akan bertindak dan membuat perhitungan dengan mereka. Yang menjadi tugas kita adalah, bahwa kita harus menampilkan akhlak fadhillah Islam kepada dunia. Inilah yang dapat membungkamkan mereka. Sebagai pecinta Hadhrat Rasulullah saw., kita harus banyak-banyak berselawat untuk beliau, lebih keras dari sebelumnya guna meningkatkan kerohanian.

Atas berbagai kritik yang Salman Rushdie utarakan, Mendiang Hadhrat Khalifatul Masih IV r.h. telah memerintahkan Arshad Ahmedi Sahib untuk membalas buku Satanic Verses tersebut. Buku yang Arshad Ahmedi Sahib tulis itu berjudul “Rushdie: Haunted by his unholy ghosts” dalam bahasa Inggris. Hudhur atba. meminta kepada Jemaat untuk menerbitkan ulang buku tersebut. Buku ini harus kita sebarkan kepada orang-orang yang terpelajar.

Allah swt. memperingatkan dalam Surah (ke-5) Al-Mâ'idah ayat 9, agar kita jangan bertindak tidak adil hanya karena kebencian para penentang Islam melalui konspirasi global mereka yang jahat. Keadilan inilah yang akan mendekatkan kita kepada takwa. Standar rasa cinta dan keadilan ini pula yang Hadhrat Rasulullah saw. teladankan saat Fatah Mekkah.

Hudhur atba. berdoa, semoga saat itu segera tiba ketika para pemerintah yang beragama Islam dapat menegakkan hakikinya ajaran Islam di dunia ini. Para penguasa Muslim itu harus muncul dari orang-orang yang beriman dan yang mempercayai Hadhrat Masih Mau’ud a.s. sebagai Sang Pencinta sejati Hadhrat Rasulullah saw.. Mereka harus melaksanakan ajaran Islam, menjadi penolong dan menjadi orang-orang yang bertakwa. Untuk dapat meraih hal tersebut, maka tanggung-jawab seorang Ahmadi sekarang ini adalah: Kita harus menyibukkan diri dalam doa-doa pada setiap sujud-sujud kita.

Semoga Allah swt. menerima dan mengabulkan doa-doa kita, membuat dunia ini menjadi tempat kasih sayang bagi orang-orang yang penuh cinta kasih. Semua orang harus memiliki agama yang mempercayai dan beriman kepada Keesaan Allah swt.. Semoga Allah swt. menakdirkannya demikian. Amin.[] (MTA/Alislam.org/SAL “Serua”/PSi “Jakbar”/ASh “Kby”/LB)

-------oooOooo-------

...Beberapa link berita terkait Salman Rushdie: Di sini.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

CIA FACT BOOK – INFORMASI RINGKAS NEGARA-NEGARA DI DUNIA

Sumber data dan informasi ringkas kondisi Negara-negara di dunia berisi mengenai peta lokasi, populasi, demografi, ekonomi, militer, pendidikan dll.

Untuk memperkirakan misalnya terjadi perang antara IRAN dengan Amrik dan Israel, lihat saja data Militer kedua belah pihak.

Ternyata Budget Militer Iran kecil banget dibandingkan dengan Amrik. IRAN sekitar 5 Milyar Dollar sementara US sekitar 500 Milyar Dollar.

Bandingkan Budget militer antara US dengan IRAQ sebelum perang dulu: IRAQ hanya sekitar 2 Milyar Dollar.

Sampai saat ini (silahkan Check sendiri), Budget militer USA memang wuahhhh gak ada tandingannya di Dunia.

Hua ha ha...

Saya sih Cuma curiga kalau gembar-gembor IRAN mempunyai kekuatan militer besar sebenarnya hanya FAKE PROPAGANDA seperti waktu IRAK mau diserang USA seakan-akan IRAK mempunyai kekuatan Militer besar, tahunya ……..lihat saja di Fact Book tersebut.

Bagi yang suka menelaah aspek lainnya silahkan browsing di web di bawah ini. Untuk ganti Negara, pilih saja negara yang ingin di cari pada bagian kiri atas web tersebut.

INDONESIA
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/id.html

USA
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

IRAN
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html

IRAQ
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

ISRAEL
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth



Any divide between revelation and rationality, religion and logic has to be irrational. If religion and rationality cannot proceed hand in hand, there has to be something deeply wrong with either of the two. Does revelation play any vital role in human affairs? Is not rationality sufficient to guide man in all the problems which confront him? Numerous questions such as these are examined with minute attention.

All major issues which intrigue the modern mind are attempted to be incorporated in this fascinatingly comprehensive statute. Whatever the intellectual or educational background of the reader, this book is bound to offer him something of his interest. It examines a very diverse and wide range of subjects including the concept of revelation in different religions, history of philosophy, cosmology, extraterrestrial life, the future of life on earth, natural selection and its role in evolution. It also elaborately discusses the advent of the Messiah, or other universal reformers, awaited by different religions. Likewise, many other topical issues which have been agitating the human mind since time immemorial are also incorporated.

The main emphasis is on the ability of the Quran to correctly discuss all important events of the past, present and future from the beginning of the universe to its ultimate end. Aided by strong incontrovertible logic and scientific evidence, the Quran does not shy away from presenting itself to the merciless scrutiny of rationality. It will be hard to find a reader whose queries are not satisfactorily answered. We hope that most readers will testify that this will always stand out as a book among books—perhaps the greatest literary achievement of this century.

Shariah Relationship Between Religion and Politics In Islam

SHARIAH RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND POLITICS IN ISLAM

A speech delivered

by

Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad Khalifatul Masih IV

at the Inter‑religious Consults, Suriname,

on 3rd June 1991

1992

ISLAM INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATIONS LTD

Copy Right: 1992 Islam International Publications Ltd.

ISBN 1 85372 478 5

Published by:

Islam International Publications Ltd. Islamabad, Sheephatch Lane, Tilford, Surrey GU10 2AQ, U.K.

Printed by:

Raqeem Press, Islamabad, U.K.


OPENING REMARKS OF THE CHAIRPERSON

WELCOMING HAZRAT MIRZA TAHIR AHMAD TO THE MEETING

It is for me a privilege to welcome you on behalf of IRIS and the community here to this meeting. IRIS stands for 'Inter‑Religiousraat In Suriname' or 'Inter‑Religious Consults in Suriname'.

Welcome to our meeting. You are here already a week and as you have already felt and experienced, you are most welcome here in Suriname, which is called the country of hospitality and laughter.

We have read already something about your person, your education and your formation. Also about your mission: to Suriname and mission to the world. And, as we could understand, your mission is mainly to bring people together. People of several races, various countries and various cultures. And your message is a message of respect of one another, respectful thinking, acceptance and understanding, to bring justice and peace among people.

It is in this context that we invited you this evening to be with us here, with IRIS in this community, to share with you, our views, our insights and our ideas on this topic.

IRIS is a group of Religious leaders in Suriname and it exists for about two or three years. But up till now, we have only focused on working together, instead of dialogue together. Working together for the well‑being of the Suriname people. And in this working together, we have had several projects already.

But now, we want to enter also into dialogue, into sharing our views, our religions with one another. Therefore we plan also to make use of the help of guest speakers. And so, you are the FIRST guest‑speaker in the context of this programme of inter‑religious dialogue between the religions here in Suriname. We thank you for your preparedness to come and share your views with us. And the topic for this evening is THE SHARIAH or THE RELATION BETWEEN RELIGION AND POLITICS IN ISLAM. And that's against the background of the cooperation of various religions in one country.

And second item on the agenda is, the AHMADIYYA question. The deeper background of the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslims.

Once again we thank you for your coming here, and we hope that this evening will be for you and for us all a pleasant dialogue, a brotherly experience and also a fruitful experience for the benefit of a better relation between the various religions here in Suriname and in the world.

May I invite you now to address our community.


--

SPEECH BY HAZRAT MIRZA TAHIR AHMAD

Your Lordship the Bishop,

The General Secretary of this Association and all the distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is indeed a signal honour for me to be invited this evening as the first guest‑speaker of the history of this Association.

It is a historic moment for me, to share this experience with you of free, adult dialogue without excitement, without emotion, just to put our views across like normal human beings, in all decency, to make ourselves better understood by others, and to try to understand others better. That is the purpose of free dialogue, and I am so glad that you have undertaken this noble task, because the world today does need it very much in every sphere of life.

As far as the question on which I am desired to speak, I must apologize first of all, by pointing out that both these subjects are very vast, and perhaps in the limited time at our disposal, it will not be possible to do justice to even a single subject. So I propose that after I have finished on the first aspect, that is Shariah and Politics, The Law of Shariah and imposition of Shariah law in any country, when I have finished speaking if we find more time, then I would turn to the other subject; otherwise we should like to leave it at that, because then it will give you opportunity to contribute your views, and to ask any questions if you so desire.

Anyway I will try to be brief, but also one has to be comprehensive. The Shariah law is now a question which is very hotly debated among Muslim countries.

ENACTMENT OF SHARIA LAW IN PAKISTAN

Recently Pakistan has been the seat of this hot, sometime violent controversy about the Shariah. It is understood generally that if the majority of a country constitute of Muslims, then the Muslims have a right‑ rather, an obligation ‑ to enact Shariah law. It is argued that if they believe in the Holy Quran and if they believe also that the Holy Quran is a comprehensive Book which relates to every area of human activity and directs man as to how he should conduct himself in every sphere of life, then it is hypocrisy to remain con­tented with those claims. They should follow the logical conclusion and enact Shariah law and make it the only law valid for the country.

Now, this is what is being said on the one side. On the other side, many difficulties are pointed out ‑ such as proposed legislative problems ‑ very serious constitutional problems as well as very serious problems in almost all sphere of the enactment of Shariah. So, let me first briefly tell you, why Shariah law cannot be exercised or imposed on a people, who practically, as far their normal way of life is concerned, are the not ideal Muslims, much to the contrary. In those areas where they are free to practice Islam, they fall so much short that one wonders when they willingly cannot exercise Islam, how could they be expected to do it by coercion and by force of law. This and many others are the areas where debate is being carried on and pursued hotly, but I'll now, very briefly enumerate the points to make you understand all the sides of this issue.

Personally, I have also been participating in this debate which was going on in Pakistan and many a scholar who came to London or who wrote to me for guidance, were helped by me. Though I did not entirely dictate notes to them but to a great degree they were helped by me to understand the problem in larger perspective. Thus many an article that have been published in Pakistan did have my opinion also expressed in them.

Shariah is the law and there is no doubt about it; the law of Islam; the law for Muslims. But the question is how far can this law be transformed into legislation for running a political government. On top of that many other issues get involved in it. For instance, if a Muslim country has a right to dictate its law to all its population, then, by the same reasoning and the same logic, every other country with majority of population belonging to other religions would have exactly the same right to enact their laws.

The entire world would become a world of not only political conflict but also of a politico‑religious conflict, whereby all the laws would be attributed to God, yet they would contradict each other diametrically. There would be such a confusion that people would begin to lose faith in a God Who speaks one thing to one people and another thing to another people, and Who tells them to enforce this law on the people or 'they will be untrue to Me'.

As such, you can well imagine what would happen in India for instance, if the law of the Hindu Majority is imposed on the Muslim minority. As a matter of fact a large section of the Indian society is gradually being pushed towards this extremist demand ‑ by way of reaction, I suppose to what is happening in some Islamic count­ries. What would happen to the Muslims and other minorities of India? Moreover this is not a question of India alone. What if Israel enacts the law of Judaism ‑the law of Talmud ‑ I have read it and I know it will be impossible for any other non‑Jew to live there, normally and decently.

In the same manner Christianity has its own rights and so has Buddhism.


--

PARTICIPATION IN LEGISLATION

The next consideration is the very concept of the state: This is the most fundamental issue which has to be resolved and addressed by those who are concerned with politics or international law. The question is that anyone born in a state has a right to participate in its legislation.

In the secular concept of the running of governments and le­gislation, everyone, born in a given country, whatever be his re­ligion or colour or creed acquires the basic fundamental civic rights. And the most important among these rights is the chance at least, to participate in the shaping of the legislation.

Of course, parties come and go; majority parties today may turn into minority parties tomorrow. Everybody's wish is not fulfilled or carried out. But in principle, everybody has a fair chance and an equal chance to make his say heard at least by the opposition, on matters of common principle. But what would happen if one Shariah or one religion is imposed as the law of that country? If Muslim law were imposed in a country, all the rest of the people who are inhabitants of the same land, would have to be considered as second, third or fourth rate citizens of the same country with No say whatsoever in the legislation. But that is not all the problem is further complicated within Islam itself: Because Islam has a Book revealed by God and the Muslim scholars claim that it is their right to interpret the Book.

Legislative body subordinate to Religious Scholars

On issues of differences of opinion, the legislative body stands subordinate to the scholastical opinion of such scholars who spe­cialize in understanding the Holy Quran; or who CLAIM to specialize in understanding the Holy Quran. What would be their mutual relationship. A body is elected to legislate. They legislate and you hear from some scholars of Islam that 'what you have proposed as a law is against the fundamental principles of Islam. Islam has no room for such nonsense'.

Whose voice should be heard? On the one hand, it would appa­rently be God speaking behind those people; but only apparently. On the other side, there will be voice of the majority of the people of the country. So the dilemma becomes almost impossible to be resolved.

All religions split up into sects with time

But that Is not all: Every religion, at the source is one and single and unsplittable, but as you pass along in period of time, the religion begins to diverge and split within and multiply and become more and more in number, so that the same faith which, for instance, at the time of Jesus Christ (peace be on him) was one single Chris­tianity, turned into many hundreds of Christianity. Looked from the vantage point of different sects, the one single source appears to be different in colour. Different‑coloured eye‑glasses are used by vari­ous followers of various sects. The same is true of Islam. It's not just a question of Sunni Islam and Shia Islam and how they interpret the Shariah.

Within Shia Islam there are 34 sects whose interpretation of Shariah differs with each other. Within again, Sunni Islam there are at least 34 sects whose interpretation of Shariah differs with each other. There are issues on which no two ulema of different sects agree. Not superficial issue; even the fundamental ones. You have only to read the Munir Inquiry Report. Justice Munir, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was one of the two judges who were appointed to investigate into the background, reasons and the modus operandi of the anti‑Ahmadiyya riots in 1953. Who was responsible and who was not? How to define a Muslim?

During the course of the inquiry, justice Munir pointedly asked every Muslim scholar who appeared before him if he knew of a definition of Islam which could be acceptable by the other sects as well; which could equally apply to everyone and by the help of which we could define, 'Yes, this is Muslim', and 'That is not Muslim'. In the report justice Munir submits that no two scholars of all the Muslim scholars interrogated, agreed on a single definition of what Islam was.

In the case of one particular scholar, he wanted some more time to think over it, and justice Kayani, who was a partner with justice Munir, had a very peculiar sense of humour. His answer was: 'I cannot give you more time, because you have already taken more than thirteen hundred years to ponder over this question. Is that not enough?

If thirteen centuries, plus some years are not enough for you to be able to define the very fundamentals of Islam ‑ what is a definition? ‑ how much more time would you require?'

So this is a very grave issue. If the Shariah interpretation of one sect is imposed, then it will not just be the non‑Muslims who will be dispossessed of the fundamental right of participation in the country's legislation, but within Islam also there would be many sects who would be deprived of this right.

The Interpretation of which sect is to be imposed on Shariah Law?

Again there are so many other problems: For instance, according to some Shariah concept, the punishment for a crime is so much different from the concept of another sect, that Islam would be practised in the world so differently on the same issue, that it would create a horrible impression on the non‑Muslim world. What sort of faith that is which advises one punishment for the same crime here and another there. And in some other places it is just the very thing to do and it's no crime at all.

These and many such issues make the question of imposition of Shariah almost impossible.

Moreover, the fundamental rights of other sects are also tampered with, or trampled upon, in many possible situations. For instance on the question of drinking of alcohol. Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, alright; but, the very question of whether it is a punishable offence and whether the punishment, if any, is imposed by man in this world, is a fluid issue. It is a controversial issue and has not yet been agreed upon by all the people involved. What is the punishment of drinking? The Holy Quran does NOT mention any punishment. This is a fundamental law, the Book of law and it is inferred from some Tradition, by some scholars, that; that should be the punishment. But that inference is far‑fetched and the Traditions themselves are challenged by others not to be authentic.

So, will a large section of not only Muslim society, but also a large section of non‑Muslim society, be punished for such reasons as in themselves are doubtful. Whether it's valid or not, this is the issue. Yet there are extremists, everywhere and particularly those who go for Shariah to be imposed.

You will find many extremist who are totally intolerant of others opinion. Consequently, such grey areas also will be taken as No Doubt areas by the extremists. They will say, 'Yes, we know; it's our opinion. It's the opinion supported by a medieval scholar or our thinking. And that is law.


--

DIFFICULTIES FACED BY PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT FOR THE ENACTMENT OF SHARIAH LAW

Now this difference resulted in a debate in Pakistan very recently and Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister, had ultimately to decide that Shariah of no one sect will be adopted.

The law passed in Pakistan is that they will accept the supremacy of the Quran, and they will agree that no legislation will be made contrary to the fundamental Quranic teaching. But beyond that they will not adopt any rules and regulations which spring from laws as if they were legislative instructions from God.

So, leaving that alone, what is left with of Shariah is the general principle as enunciated in the Holy Quran, in the light of which an attempt would be made to islamisize the country's laws.

So far so good. I think, the Prime Minister has been able to extricate himself from a very difficult situation, but not for long. The Ulema are already at his throat. Also, they are insisting that a Shariah Court should not only be continued ‑ there is already a Shariah Court ‑ to work, but its power should be enhanced. The final authority about whether the law is according to Islam or not should lodge with the Shariah Supreme Court.

As such, again, the power‑balance will be shifted from the elected members of the country to the extremist Mullahs. So, once you accept something, which is impractical to be imposed, then this will always lead to various troubles and it is impossible for you to carry on without further complications.

THE LIFESTYLE OF TODAYS MUSLIMS NOT TRULY ISLAMIC

That is one area of difficulties. But there is another very important area of difficulty: That is, the life‑style of the Muslims in most countries is not truly and profoundly Muslim.

You see, you do not require a law of Shariah to say your prayers five times. You do not require the law of Shariah to make you behave honestly. You do not require the law of Shariah to be imposed to make you speak the truth and to appear as witness in court ‑ or, wherever you appear as witness ‑ honestly and truthfully. A society where robbery has become the order of the day, where there is disorder, chaos, usurpation of others rights, where the .Courts seldom witness a person who is truthful, where filthy language is a common place mode of expression, where there is no decency left in human behaviour, what would you expect Shariah to do there? How the law of Shariah would genuinely be imposed in such a country, this is the question.


--

SUITABLE ATMOSPHERE REQUIRED FOR THE

IMPOSITION OF SHARIAH LAW

I have given a different form to this question and this was raised of course, and so far, I have not heard of any answer which really could resolve the issue.

The question is that every country has a climate and not all the flora can flourish in that climate. Dates flourish in deserts but not in the chilly north. Similarly, cherries cannot be sown in the desert; they require a special climate. Shariah also requires a special climate. If you have not created that climate, then Shariah cannot be imposed.

Every prophet ‑ not only Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) ‑ every prophet first created that healthy climate for the law of God to be imposed, willingly not compulsorily. And when the society was ready, then the laws were introduced and stiffened further and further, until the whole code was revealed. That society was capable of carrying the burden of the law of religion, whether you call it Shariah law or any other law.

In a society for instance, where theft is common place, where telling falsehood is just an everyday practice, if you enact Shariah law and sever the hands of those who steal, what is going to happen? Is that the purpose of Shariah? It's not just a question of senti­mentality about religion. God's Will be done no doubt, but it will be done in the orderly way as God wishes us to do.


--

SHARIAH LAW USED AS A PRETEXT TO SEIZE POWER

I have suggested to certain political leaders that they should invite all the Muslim scholars to reform one small city of Pakistan first, and then have the Shariah imposed there. For instance, Faisalabad is a small city ‑ or a big town ‑ of mainly traders, famous for its corrupt practices.

I proposed that the Ulema should be invited from all over Pakistan to first reform the society of that single town. When the people of that town have become capable of carrying the burden of Shariah, then Government should be invited to come in and take over the administration of the law of Shariah. But it will not happen. They don't care. They are not concerned. It is not the love of Islam which is urging them on to demand Shariah law. It is just an instrument to reach to power, to capture power and to rule the society in the name of God. Society is already ruled by corrupt people, by cruel people but that is done in the name of human beings; that is tolerable to a degree. But when atrocities are committed in the name of God, it's the worst possible, the ugliest thing that can happen to man.

So as such, we must think many, many times, before we can even begin to ponder over the question whether anywhere in the world, the law of religion can be imposed as a legal tender. Personally, I doubt it.

Now, that is where I rest the case for a while. If you think there is time to turn to the second question, then I will do so. Otherwise, we'll sit and discuss this, what I have already said

After the speech many questions were put to the speaker and following are the answers to some of them. Unfortunately, as will be noticed, some questions were not recorded properly but the answers do indicate what the question was about.

Q. There is a particular confusion in the western world about SHARIAH?

ANS: Thank you for this pointed question. But I thought that such questions are outside the realm of discussion.

What we are discussing is whether it is possible to adopt religious law as the law of the country. By any state or any other religion, for that matter.

I believe it's NOT possible. It's not possible even if you genuinely and fervently so desire, in the name of God, even then it's NOT possible. We have gone so far away from religion. We have become hypocrits. The whole human society has become hypocrite. There is hypocrisy in politics and society everywhere. And hypocrisy does not permit honesty to flourish. It does not permit the word of God to take root. That is the main problem.

Q. 1 feel that we cannot really apply a law that came for older times to the modern times. Please explain?

ANS. I have studied this question in depth. I believe that religion can be permanent and universal; provided its principles are deep-rooted in the human psyche. The human psyche is unchangeable. And that is exactly what the Holy Quran claims. It says it's Deenul‑Fitra: meaning a faith or a law based on human nature. And also 'La tabdeela lekhalkillah' meaning that the creation of God and whatever he has created in you, the dispensation, the dispositions, etc. and the basic propensity to do something or not to do so, all these remain the same.

Consequently, any law which is rooted in human psyche, must be also universal and permanent. But, the Holy Quran does not stop there. It does not monopolise this truth. It goes on to say that all the religions, at their nascent stages and at the stages of their development, were fundamentally the same and they all carried such basic truths as were related to human nature. This is referred to by the Quran as Deenul Qayyema. It says there were THREE fundamental features in every religious teaching:

Firstly, to mend your relations with God, to be honest and devoted to Him:

Secondly, to worship Him. In the Quranic sense, worship does not mean just to pay homage by lip services; but to try to acquire God's attributes.

And thirdly, to do service to mankind and spend in the cause of the needy.

These are the THREE fundamental branches, according to the Holy Quran, which are common to all religions. However, with the passage of the time and through interpolations they were changed later on. So, what is needed is rectification of the change. Not a new faith. And that is what has been happening with the advent of every prophet.

So, it's a highly complex question and also not directly related to the issue we are discussing. I hope this much should suffice.

As far as the question of whether Islamic law, or any other religious law, can be imposed perforce. I say NO. Because it is against the spirit of religions themselves. The Holy Qur'an says:

La Ikraha fiddine

This is a statement of the Holy Qur'an of course; but it is a universal statement which can never be changed. It is an example of how laws can become permanent and universal. It says there is NO coercion in faith or in matters of faith. No coercion is possible and NO coercion is permitted. So, here is the question: If one religion imposes its law on a society where people of other religions and denominations also live, how will this verse stand against your attempt to coerce ? Not only vis-à-vis the people from other religions, but vis-à-vis people from the same religion who are not willing.

So, this is the fundamental question. Therefore the conclusion is that coercion is not an instrument in religion, not a valid instrument in religion.

The only authority in Islam, which was genuinely capable of being given the right to coerce, was the Founder of Islam, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Why? Because he was a living model of Islam and because when enquired about his character, his holy wife, Hazrat Ayesha, said, he was the living Qur'an.

So, the only person who could be genuinely entrusted with the faith of others, and be permitted to use coercion also where he felt that rectification was to be made by force, was the Holy Prophet.

Yet, addressing him, Allah says in the Qur'an, (88:22-23):

Innama ania mozakkir lasta alaihim be mosaitir.

You are just an admonisher. No more. You are given NO authority to coerce. You are not a superintendent of police. Mozakkir is exactly the superintendent of police.

So, that is why I say neither coercion is possible, nor permitted by God. Moreover, what prevents a Muslim from following the Muslim law? Why should he wait for the whole legislation to be changed

Most of Islam and most of Christianity and most of Hinduism can be practised without their being the law of the country. The more so since the general principle accepted by the modern political thinkers is that religion should not be permitted to interfere with politics and politics should not be permitted to interfere with religion.

Interference is what I am talking about, NOT co‑operation. Co‑operation is the second part of the same subject. So, if a society is permitted to live according to their own religious aspirations, why should the religious law concerned be made law of the land?

I quote an example how the Shariah law has already failed in Pakistan. During the late General Zia's regime, Muslim Shariah Courts were also constituted. And the choice was left to the police either to charge a criminal and channel him through the Muslim Shariah Court or to channel him through the ordinary court. Do you know what was the result? Hardly any case was tried by the Muslim Shariah Court because police had raised the price of bribery and they threatened everyone that if they did not pay double the price of ordinary bribe, they would channel their case through the Shariah Court.

That was the net outcome. And you will be surprised to find that out of thousands and thousands of possible choices, hardly two or three were those which were directed through Shariah Court and also because of political pressure. Because some political parties wanted to punish their enemies and they wanted such cases to be tackled by the Shariah Court.

So this is the reality of life. How can we change it?

Q . So what is the reason for the change in laws as new prophets came along?

ANS. First of all let me say that this generalization is rather too bold. Because when you study the history of religion, it is not the case that every prophet came to change the law of the previous prophet's revelation.

Most often than not, prophets came to strengthen the law and rehabilitate the law, rather than to change it.

For instance, if you study the history of Judaism, you'll be surprised to find that even up to Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), no new laws were enacted or introduced.

They were changed or abandoned by the people, and efforts were made by prophets to rehabilitate them, to make people practise and to again interpret them in the light of the original.

So, the history of religion as revealed to us by the study of major religions of the world, tells a completely different story. Turn to China, for instance. Tao came with a teaching. Not a jot of that teaching was changed by Confucius. It was exactly the same teaching which was re‑inforced and re‑interpreted by the latter.

But I agree. The Holy Qur'an also, positively dictates that sometimes, the laws are changed. But the question is are they changed in fundamentals or superficials? And how they are changed? Whether they require further change or not, this is also a very important question and which is a genuine question for me to answer.

Now, I quote three examples from history, of change of law of nature, ending up in the final verdict of Islam.

In Judaism, because of a long history of oppression, by Pharaohs, of the Israelites, the latter had lost that human quality of courage and defiance even when they were in the right. To take their rightful revenge was something beyond their power and strength because they had been far too long trampled upon. This is similar to what happens sometimes to the Kashmiris in India: Those who were cruelly treated started saying after a while, 'All right, we forgive our powerful enemy. But not the weak enemy.'

So, when such distortions appear, then the law has only to be a temporary law to rectify the error done. And that is exactly what happened in regard to the Mosaic law of revenge: Tooth for a tooth; Eye for eye. And, it was emphasized so much, as if there was no room for pardon.

That law was practised for a long period. Then came Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). By that time, the Jews had forgotten the very name of forgiveness. You have only to read Shakespeare's Shylock to know what they had come to. And, if Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) had permitted them also to take revenge, people whose hearts were hardened would never have forgiven. They would have said, 'Revenge is also permissible; why not take revenge?' To appease their own anguish.

So, Jesus took away from them the right of revenge. But that injunction could not be a permanent one.

These are the areas where, sometimes, superficial teachings are revealed, but only for certain periods and for times, for historical epochs and NOT permanently.

Then comes the Holy Qur'an, and the law regarding the matter mentioned in the Holy Qur' an is:

fa man afaa wa aslaha, fa ajrohu alallah (Al-Shoora: 41)

You have a right to take revenge. The whole verse in fact says: 'You have a right to take revenge when you are wronged But NOT beyond the measure to which you are wronged'.

This is one principle. Secondly, you can also forgive, but not unconditionally. You can only forgive if your forgiveness promotes reformation. If it promotes crime, then you cannot forgive.

Now, this is the Qur'anic version which stands on the summit of the development of the same thought. And, I have been meeting some Bahai friends, some other scholars from various part of the world; I have travelled a lot, and I always give the following problem to them: Please try to change this law according to the new dictates of time.

So far, I have not met a single person who could suggest any change in this final law.

So, if the laws are resilient, accommodating and are based on principles and also are rooted in human psyche, I do not think that they need to be changed. But again, this is a discussion outside the main discussion. So please, I hope that would suffice and we'll turn to other guests, for any other question they would like to ask.

Q. Please explain the difference between 'Shariah' and 'Deen'?

ANS. Thank you. You see, Deen is a word applicable to any philosophy, any ism, anything which you adopt as a course of conduct. For instance, according to some Muslim scholars idolators had no 'peen' and they would be abhorred with the idea that they did have a Deen. However the Holy Qur'an, addressing them says:

Lakum deenokum wa leyadeen. (Al-Kafiroon: 7)

'You have your faith and I have mine. When it is said.

(Al-Baqarah: 257)

La Ikraha fiddeen the word Deen encompasses every course which people adopt for their codes of life. It is not just a faith in God. Even a denial of God could be a Deen.

Shariah on other hand is founded on the concept of God. So, where a 'Deen' is founded on the belief that:

(i) There is a God:

(ii) Who also reveals His desires of how man should shape his destiny and

(iii) Where that will is defined in form of certain laws or principles, that is called Shariah. Not necessarily that of Islam. Every faith has its own Shariah.

Now, the question is can Shariah be adopted even though it is not a part of the Law of the Land? We can quote an example from our Community that it is NOT impossible at all.

The fact is that almost every country of the world permits members of its society to resolve their differences mutually through arbitration. And in most countries, to my knowledge, arbitration is respected so much by the law that if, irreversible arbitration is signed by both the parties involved, even then the Supreme Court would not annul that decision.

We have created a Qadha Board and Qadis in Ahmadiyya Community. And all Ahmadis who do not want to go to the common law for resolving their disputes and problems, they come to the Qadah, signing a document that we, with volition and without any coercion, require you to resolve our dispute according to the law of the Qur'an.

And in such cases, no government has ever interfered, no government has ever obstructed its passage and it goes on smoothly.

Similarly, as far as worship is concerned, it's an ongoing process that is carried on everywhere. Everybody is free to worship God as he pleases, or should be free. Except Ahmadis in Pakistan. But that's a different issue. Otherwise, there is absolutely no attempt made by any law to obstruct the passage of worship.

Normally speaking, in most areas of life, Shariah can be practised without it becoming a law.

Q. You have stated in your lecture, that the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharf, has decided that the Shariah shall be the law in Pakistan without rules and regulations but referring to the Holy Qur'an. However, you find that this is NOT a practical way. I have observed that you have studied this subject very thoroughly. So, I want to ask your opinion regarding the type of legislation a country should adopt. Should the Shariah be rejected? Should it be modified ? Should it be the secular type of legislation ? What do you think should be the way out?

ANS. Thank you very much for this question, which I should have touched upon during my address. The fact is that the concept of government in Islam, is a very important issue which must be resolved before we proceed further.

I have studied this issue in depth. I have studied the Muslim scholars of the past century who have spoken on this subject and written a lot on it, and who have NOT been able to resolve the issue properly. If Islam proposes a government which is representative of God, then the issue is to be looked at from a different angle altogether.

If, on the other hand, Islam proposes a system of government which is common to various denominations of religions and different people, then an entirely different outlook would appear.

In my opinion, the first is NOT the case. Because Islam pleads for the secular type of government more than any religion and more than any political system.

Now, this is surprising for some. But I can quote from the Holy Qur'an and prove the point. The very essence of secularism is that absolute justice must be practised regardless of the differences of faith and religion and colour and creed and group.

This, in essence, is the true definition of secularism. And this is exactly what the Holy Qur'an admonishes us to do in matters of state, how things should be done and how the state should be run. The Holy Qur'an says:

Innal laaha ya moro bil adley (Al-Nahl: 91)

Allah orders you to always practise justice. And then it develops the theme by saying:

Wa laa yajremannakoum shanaanou kaumin ala allah taadelou. Ei delou howa akraboulit taqwa (Al-Ma'idah: 9).

No amount of enmity between you and any other people, should permit you to deviate from absolute justice. Be always just that is nearer to righteousness,

When you dispense your responsibility as a government, you must dispense those responsibilities with absolute justice in mind. Now, when absolute justice is established as the central theme of a government, how could Islamic law be imposed upon non Muslim? Because it would be against justice. And so many contradictions would arise.

So, if you study this central core in depth, you will be surprised to find also that the interpretation which I am giving to this or I understand to be the right interpretation, is also the interpretation proved from the practice of the Holy Founder of Islam, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

In Medina, when he moved there after Hijra, he came into contact with the Jewish and other communities who accepted him not as their religious leader, but a political leader. They agreed ‑ and this is called the Charter of Medina ‑to refer to him all disputes and trust his superior judgement to resolve all the contentions between various parties.

Islamic law had already been revealed at that time. Jews came to him for guidance or for decisions. Without fail, every time he enquired from them: 'Would you like your dispute to be settled according to the Jewish law or according to the Islamic law or according to the arbitration?'

Without fail he never imposed Islamic law on a non‑agreeing party, which did not belong to the faith.

This is what I call absolute justice. So, absolute justice has to be employed by a truly Islamic government, if it ever dreams of calling itself 'Islamic government'. And this is in other terms, a secular government.

Q. If you decide to have different legislation; legislation for the Hindus, the Christians and so on, I think it would be very disturbing in the society.

ANS. Exactly, that is what I am saying. I am NOT proposing that every political government should have a paraphernalia of legislation applicable to different religions. It's not possible. It's not practical.


--

CLOSING COMMENTS OF CHAIRPERSON

We are here working together, different religious communities, the Christians, the Hindus, the Muslims and it seems that we are working here on a very good basis, on mutual cooperation without interfering in internal affairs of each other and, on behalf of all organisations. I thank you sincerely and I hope that when you will leave our country Suriname, you will leave it with good thoughts, good sentiments and also, leaving a lot of friends here.

I wish you a very safe journey.

Menolak Istilah Kiai Khas dan Kiai Kampung

http://cayank-ku.blogspot.com/2007/06/info-penting.html


Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Info penting

Menolak Istilah Kiai Khas dan Kiai Kampung

Dulu, kiai-kiai yang sejalan dengan pemikiran dan langkah politik Gus Dur sering disebut-sebut dan dipopulerkan sebagai kiai khas. Meski tidak diketahui persis siapa yang memulai dan memunculkan istilah itu, sebenarnya risi juga mendengar dan menyandang sebutan itu. Sebab, para kiai yang disebut khas tersebut tidak merasa ada yang perlu dilebih-lebihkan menyangkut status atau strata sosial. Meski, keberadaannya mampu dimanfaatkan sebagai justifikasi dan legitimasi kelompok dan kepentingan tertentu.

Belakangan, setelah para kiai itu mengambil sikap dan langkah kritis, dimunculkan istilah kiai kampung. Adalah KH Abdurrahman Wahid yang memulai dan memunculkan istilah tersebut. Dalam tulisannya, Hakikat Kiai Kampung (www.gusdur.net), Gus Dur membagi kiai dalam dua kelompok, kiai sepuh dan kiai kampung. Menurut Gus Dur, kiai sepuh adalah mereka yang menjadi pengasuh pesantren-pesantren besar. Kiai kampung adalah tokoh-tokoh agama di desa-desa yang biasanya menjadi guru ngaji, memiliki surau/langgar/musala, pengurus takmir masjid, atau memiliki pesantren yang kecil.

Sesungguhnya harus dikatakan di sini, bahwa penamaan dan pemilahan kiai khas dan kiai kampung sebagaimana dimaksud adalah sangat tidak mendasar dan terkesan mengada-ada. Boleh jadi, itu hanya dimanfaatkan untuk mencapai tujuan tertentu karena pada hakikatnya, tidak ada istilah kiai khas dan kiai kampung. Jika ada kiai khas, berarti ada kiai awam. Padahal, penyebutan kata khas dan awam itu sebenarnya untuk membedakan antara orang yang pandai (alim) dan orang yang bodoh (awam) dalam hal keagamaan.Kata kiai itu sebenarnya sinonim dari kata sheikh dalam bahasa Arab. Secara terminologi (istilahi), arti kata sheikh itu sebagaimana disebutkan dalam kitab al Bajuri adalah man balagha rutbatal fadli, yaitu orang-orang yang telah sampai pada derajat keutamaan karena selain pandai (alim) dalam masalah agama (sekalipun tidak allamah atau sangat alim), mereka mengamalkan ilmu itu untuk dirinya sendiri dan mengajarkan kepada murid-muridnya. Penyebutan kiai itu berasal dari inisiatif masyarakat, bukan dari dirinya sendiri atau media massa.

Sementara itu, makna kiai atau sheikh dalam pengertian etimologi (lughotan) adalah man balagha sinnal arbain, yaitu orang-orang yang sudah tua umurnya atau orang-orang yang mempunyai kelebihan, misalnya dalam hal berbicara atau mengobati orang (nyuwuk), tapi tidak pandai dalam masalah agama.

Dengan demikian, kalau ada orang yang disebut kiai tapi tidak alim dalam masalah agama atau alim dan pandai berbicara tapi tidak bisa mengamalkan ilmunya, orang itu termasuk kiai dalam pengertian bahasa (lughotan).

Patut dicermati bahwa penyebutan kiai khas yang diidentikkan dengan kiai yang dekat dan mendukung Gus Dur saat itu sangat dimungkinkan sarat dengan kepentingan dalam rangka menjustifikasi langkah-langkahnya yang kontroversi, terutama hal-hal berkaitan dengan ajaran dan nilai-nilai ahlusunah waljamaah, seperti sikapnya terhadap pencabutan TAP MPR tentang paham komunisme, penolakannya terhadap RUU APP, dukungannya terhadap aliran Ahmadiyah, liberalisme, sekularisme dan pluralisme. Terbukti, saat ini begitu mudahnya para kiai itu ditinggalkan Gus Dur setelah mereka bersikap kritis terhadap langkah-langkahnya. Beruntung, para kiai sudah berani mengambil sikap tegas dengan mufaroqoh dari barisan Gus Dur.

Penamaan istilah kiai kampung tersebut juga sarat dengan upaya untuk membenturkan antara para kiai pondok pesantren dan para kiai di desa-desa yang notabene adalah murid kiai pondok pesantren. Padahal, pembenturan itu dapat memudarkan ghirah dan pemahaman para kiai di desa terhadap ajaran-ajaran gurunya di pesantren hanya karena pengultusan terhadap individu. Memang, fanatisme dan kecintaan yang berlebihan cenderung menafikan dan menutupi kesalahan, sebagaimana kebencian itu juga sering mencari-cari keburukan.

(waainurridlaan kulli aibin kalilatun kamaa anna ainas sukhthi tubdil masawiyaa).

Ketika ada sebagian kiai yang terlibat dalam politik praktis, serta-merta banyak orang yang menuduh para kiai itu telah terkontaminasi dan dianggap telah berpaling dari tugas keulamaan. Mereka menuduh para kiai yang terlibat dalam politik tidak lagi mampu mengemban gerak sosial dan keagamaan. Lebih dari itu, para kiai tersebut dianggap menjadi pendorong perpecahan (Muhyiddin Arubusman, Politik Kebangsaan Kiai Kampung, Jawa Pos, 17/2/2007). Bahkan, Gus Dur mengatakan, banyak kiai sepuh yang berkenalan dengan uang, kekuasaan, dan jabatan (Jawa Pos, 15/2/2007).

Sebenarnya, sebagai pewaris para nabi (waratsatul anbiya), keterlibatan kiai dalam dunia politik merupakan sebuah keharusan. Peristiwa hijrah Nabi Muhammad SAW dari Makkah ke Madinah, selain dipahami sebagai peristiwa keagamaan, juga merupakan peristiwa politik dalam rangka membangun masyarakat dan pemerintah kota Madinah yang damai, tenteram, tenang, adil, dan makmur. Peran Nabi Muhammad SAW waktu itu, selain sebagai seorang Nabi, beliau menjadi seorang kepala negara. Selain menjalankan tugas mengajar (talim) para sahabat, sewaktu-waktu beliau terjun ke medan laga untuk memimpin pasukan Islam dalam menumpas musuh-musuhnya. Peran kiai hendaknya juga demikian. Selain menjalankan tugas mengajar (talim) santri-santrinya, suatu saat para kiai harus ikut membantu urusan negara (politik) sesuai dengan kemampuan masing-masing.

Jika para kiai hanya mengurusi pesantrennya dan tidak tahu-menahu soal urusan negara (politik), pada akhirnya pemerintah dikuasai orang-orang yang anti-Islam, antipesantren, dan anti-ajaran ahlusunah waljamaah. Siapa yang harus menanggung akibatnya? Jadi, sebenarnya keterlibatan kiai dalam politik itu bertujuan menyelamatkan peran kiai itu sendiri.

The challenge to the right of faith: Quo vadis?

http://www.thejakartapost.com/Outlook2006/pol06b.asp

Back to Home Page


The challenge to the right of faith: Quo vadis?

Franz Magnis-Suseno SJ

2005 has been a bad year for religious freedom in Indonesia. More regencies introduced regulations based on religious law, thereby disregarding the legislation that stipulates that religious matters are the exclusive prerogative of the central government. The Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) declared the Ahmadiyah organization as a dissenting Islamic movement in July. As a consequence, armed mobs forcefully closed Ahmadiyah's compound with police mostly only looking on.

In the mean time, the closing down of "illegal" places of Christian worship by local Muslim groups, often backed by white-garbed members of the Islam Defenders Front (FPI), has escalated. The Alliance of Anti-Apostasy Movements (AGAP), threatened that they would shut down thousands more churches lacking proper permits.

Most disturbing is the attitude of the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. On the imposition of religious law it keeps its mouth shut. On the attack on the Bogor headquarters of Ahmadiyah the President commented, that anyway Ahmadiyah had already been outlawed long ago. Thus the violence against their properties was their own mistake? Other minorities found no consolation in this cavalier attitude.

In a similar vein, the minister of religious affairs declared that the closure of those churches was a nonissue, since they had no permits and therefore were not churches at all. Later on the government agreed to revise the infamous decree from 1969 which had made the building of churches almost impossible. This decree is the reason why so many congregations have to worship in improvised places. But first drafts of the new decree gives the impression that getting the necessary permits will become even more difficult.

There are two challenges the government cannot endlessly run away from facing: The first is its duty to uphold the law. The second is the protection of one of the central elements of freedom of religion, freedom of worship.

No self-respecting government can indefinitely allow mobs to take the law into their own hands. But this government is doing just this. It has long been recognized that the precondition for the general recovery of Indonesia is the restoration of the sovereignty of the law. But our government does not seem to have the guts to do it. The violence against peaceful Ahmadiyah has brought shame on our present government.

By letting mobs get away with violent behavior the government will only undermine its own authority, weaken the function of the police force and corrupt the judicial order. It also encourages people to become even more intolerant toward minorities. What is the use of cracking down on terrorism, but letting one's own minorities become more and more terrorized?

Freedom of religion features prominently in Indonesia's Constitution. Article 28 states unequivocally that "every person is free to embrace a religion and to worship according to his or her religion...", while Article 29 declares that "the state guarantees the freedom of every individual... to worship according to his or her religion and belief."

These stipulations leave no room for maneuver. Ahmadiyah may deviate from orthodox Islamic teachings, and MUI has the right to say so, but the government has the constitutional duty to guarantee their right to worship.

The same holds for all religious minorities. It is the first duty of the government to uphold the Constitution, thus, in this case, their right to worship. This duty implies the task of educating the people to become tolerant of minority rights. It also implies that in case an official house of worship cannot yet be used, a religious congregation automatically has the right to use other places, of course in a way that is not disruptive to public order. Any new regulation must proceed from the goal of safe-guarding the freedom of worship of every person.

There are wider ramifications. Religious freedom is still respected in today's Indonesia, if not without limitations. Most Indonesians still hold on to the tradition of religious tolerance. All the mainstream religious organizations in Indonesia, including MUI, have repeatedly declared that they do accept the existence of other religions.

But for how long? By appeasing intolerance and sectarianism the government undermines its own authority. It also endangers the ongoing healing process in regions of religious conflict that have been successfully pacified.

Besides, the latest spree of violence raises the question whether what we are facing is purely local. There could be groups that are testing how far they can go in imposing their own law upon society.

The destruction of mosques of Ahmadiyah congregations and the threatening of Christians who have done nothing other than hold a religious service once a week should, of course, not be connected with terrorism. It should be stressed, however, that geographically, the most widespread terrorist outrages up to now in Indonesia were the Christmas bombings in 2000, where, the police failed miserably to persecute the perpetrators.

But there is a subcutaneous connection between violent intolerance and terrorism. Using violence to enforce religious views upon others creates precisely that climate of an intolerant majority that breeds a mind-set that legitimizes violence against others on religious grounds. The transition from suppressing religious minorities to killing people in the name of God is not so difficult to make.

A government that does not have the courage to enforce the Constitution, that allows mob violence to dictate the law in the streets, indirectly supports the spread of attitudes that, in the end, will create a mind-set that falls more easily prey to terrorist ideologies.

Thus what will be the future of religious freedom in Indonesia? Will the government find the courage to oppose street intimidation as resolutely as it now suppresses terrorism? It is high time the government makes clear that Indonesia is and will stay a country based on Pancasila where the freedom of worship is guaranteed as one of the most sacred fundamental rights.

The writer, a Jesuit priest, is a professor at Driyarkara School of Philosophy in Jakarta.



This Website is designed for The Jakarta Post by CNRG ITB.
All contents copyright © of The Jakarta Post.
webmaster@thejakartapost.com

Saturday, June 16, 2007

[LLC] [Interfaith Space] “My Heretics and Yours”



http://www.revdak.com/wordpress/?p=122

"My Heretics and Yours"

The Rev. Tom Goodhue, director of the Long Island Council of Churches, is an old college and seminary friend of mine. LICC is actively engaged in interfaith dialogues through their Long Island Multi-Faith Forum. Over 100 trained speakers from eleven different religious traditions represented on Long Island go to places of worship, schools, hospitals, prisons and more to promote greater interfaith understanding.

In an editorial last month, Tom mused on the challenges of dealing with groups that might be considered "heretical" by others in their tradition. How should one deal with such groups as Messianic Jews (generally not accepted by Jews), Ahmadiyya Muslims (often rejected by both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims), followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, or even Mormons (who are not considered Christians by many other Christian groups)?

Rev. Goodhue proposes no conclusive answers. But he does suggest some approaches that can help in the encounter among religions of whatever persuasion. (What follows is only a summary; you can find his full editorial at the link below).

  1. Be humble.
  2. Remember your roots.
  3. Listen carefully before jumping to conclusions.
  4. Try to remember that heterodoxy is not heresy.
  5. Go visit even if you disagree. Maybe especially if you disagree. Unless your own faith is really weak, observing someone worship in a way different from yours will do you no harm.
  6. Don't pretend an offshoot represents the wider community.
  7. Be honest.
  8. Be honest with yourself. Many who profess conventional theology live as if they were agnostics, and nearly all of us have some beliefs that fall between unusual and downright weird. In fact, every tradition teaches something that seems ludicrous to nearly everybody else.

I encourage you to take a look at the full editorial:

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 14th, 2007 at 5:01 pm and is filed under National, Theory, Traditions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


--


http://www.ncccusa.org/ecmin/licc/prelude_may07.html#tom

From Our Executive Director:
MY HERETICS AND YOURS

Nearly every time friends get divorced, I have noticed, it is hard to preserve your relationship with both of them. This strikes me as sad, unfortunate, but probably almost inevitable, human nature being what it is, otherwise known as sin. One of the greatest challenges in ecumenical and interfaith work is navigating the treacherous waters that surround every denomination or faith community that has undergone any sort of split or schism - and haven't we all? Should you invite those who have just broken away from the Catholic or Episcopal or Lutheran Church to your local clergy association? Should you invite a Mormon to an ecumenical Christian group? An interfaith one?

Ecumenical/interfaith etiquette gets particularly dicey when one or both factions see themselves as the one true faith and their adversaries as heretics. It gets surreal when a religious movement sees itself as guardians of their faith but most others see them as having abandoned it.

  • Many followers of Jesus of Jewish ancestry, for example, call themselves Messianic Jews. They see themselves as Jews, but most Jews say they are Christians, or at least no longer Jews. If "Messianics" are invited to your local clergy association, rabbis probably will not come. And if they are not invited, some Christian clergy will probably leave the group in protest.

  • Members of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, who believe Jesus died in Kashmir seeking the Lost Tribes of Israel and that the Mahdi (Messiah) was born there in the 19th century, call themselves Muslims, but most followers of Islam say they are not. If the Ahmadis are invited to your interfaith group, most Muslims may leave. Many might leave if the Ismailis were invited, too, though opinion about this sect seems to be divided. One local Muslim chaplain observed that "Bahais recognize that they grew out of Islam and became a new religion, but the Ahmadis do not." Jews often make the same distinction between Methodists and Messianics.

  • Followers of the Rev. Sung Moon say they are Christians who believe he is the second coming of Christ (well, sometimes they say this and sometimes they deny they do) but most Christians insist that this puts them among apostates.

  • Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints claim to be Christians, but most Christians think that any denomination that teaches that the Angel Moroni dictated another non-biblical revelation has deviated fundamentally from orthodox Christianity.

I realize that I may have offended many readers by now, but I mean no disrespect to anyone: I am simply trying to describe things as they are. Messianic Jews, Ahmadis, and Mormons may be wonderful people. The Mormons might even be right that Native Americans are a Lost Tribe who spoke ancient Egyptian, though this seems unlikely to me. People have the right to venerate either the Book of Mormon or the Rev. Moon even if I think they are wrong. I am not the Almighty and this is a free country, thank God.

So how should we relate to those who have broken away from another faith community? The LICC Board and the Multi-Faith Forum have both been pondering this lately, and we do not, of course, all see this issue the same way. Some faiths, as Arvind Vora explains, do not automatically see those who have grown out of their religion into something different as having broken away from it. For others, particularly Jews, Christians, and Muslims, it is important to draw boundaries between one community and another. For those of us in the "Abrahamic faiths" (which I think should be called Abraham-Sarah-and-Haggaric faiths), here are some thoughts I hope will be helpful:

  1. Be humble. Nearly every religion urges humility before the Almighty, and it takes more than a little chutzpah to think that we are in a position to say how God will judge anyone else. No group has a monopoly on piety. Muslims, Bahais, Unitarian Universalists and others may love Jesus, too, even though they do not follow him the way I do. Heresy (embracing beliefs opposed to orthodox doctrine) and apostasy (abandoning what you believed) are important theological concepts, but we should be slow to hurl these labels. The Secret Files of the Inquisition, a docudrama that airs on PBS in a few weeks, reminds us that we Christians have often slaughtered those whom we brand as heretics. As my rabbi taught (Matthew 7:1), "Judge not, lest you be judged."

  2. Remember your roots. The Rev. Richard Visconti, the ecumenical officer for the Diocese of Long Island, remarked at our most recent Board meeting that he tries to remain open to those who have broken away from his denomination by recalling that "nearly all of our denominations began in division." So it is in interfaith relations: The children of Israel looked impractical and impious to their neighbors when they refused to worship many gods the way everyone else did; they must have seemed like dangerous supercessionists when a prophet slaughtered the priests of Baal. The followers of Jesus ventured beyond the acceptable limits of Judaism when they insisted that their rebbe was not just a great teacher but also uniquely God in human flesh. Muslims outraged Jews and Christians when they claimed that their later Scripture was more authentic than the Torah and the New Testament. When Bahais embraced a new revelation after Mohammed they abandoned a core belief of Islam.

  3. Listen carefully before jumping to conclusions. More than once in the history of the Church, schism has resulted from misunderstanding. As the Rev. Emmanuel Gratsias explained at our Annual Meeting a few years ago, the centuries of separation between "Eastern Orthodox" and "Oriental Orthodox" Christians turns out to have been largely a matter of mistranslation. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints rejected polygamy in 1890 and repealed the ban on black leadership decades ago, but I regularly hear Mormons condemned as if both were widespread today.

  4. Try to remember that heterodoxy is not heresy. Let's face it: we are all peculiar in some ways—in my case, in quite a few ways. I like jalapeno in my coffee, which is a little odd, though you might like it if you tried it . . . . Vegetarianism, pacifism, and Saturday worship do not make Seventh-Day Adventists a cult. Odd perhaps, but not heretics. They have pretty good arguments for all three of these, in fact. They are a conservative evangelical denomination, not a sect.

  5. Go visit even if you disagree. Maybe especially if you disagree. Unless your own faith is really weak, observing someone worship in a way different from yours will do you no harm. The LICC is a Christian organization, but we offer financial education seminars in congregations that do not belong to the council and in faith communities that are not Christian: we don't want Mormons to be ripped off by predatory lenders any more than we want Methodists to be exploited. The LICC is happy to welcome non-Christian congregations and organizations into the Friends of the LICC. Board members of the Long Island Multi-Faith Forum have visited the Ahmadiyya mosque in Amityville and the Forum has gladly presented its Building Bridges program to the Ethical Humanist Society in Garden City and to secular humanists in Suffolk, even though neither are members of the forum. It is commendable that Ahmadis and Humanists want to understand the beliefs of their neighbors. If the atheists do, too, God bless them!

  6. Don't pretend an offshoot represents the wider community. During the recent dust-up between Presbyterians and Jewish organizations over responsible investing in Israel and Palestine, both sides met with groups that had miniscule followings and then said, "But we have met Jews/Presbyterians who agree with us!" Visiting the Ahmadis is good; pretending that they represent mainstream Islam is not. Some churches claim to be Roman Catholic and offer "Catholic" weddings but never tell people that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't recognize them. As Monsignor Don Beckmann notes, "Truth in advertising," is important in matters of faith as well as commerce.

  7. Be honest. Many people say "we all believe the same thing" or "we all worship the same God" but neither is true. At most, there are similarities among many religions and some of us worship the same deity. It is understandable that we might wish the feuding friends would just stop fighting, but you may recall what happened to Rodney King when he asked, "Can't we just get along?".

  8. Be honest with yourself. Many who profess conventional theology live as if they were agnostics, and nearly all of us have some beliefs that fall between unusual and downright weird. In fact, every tradition teaches something that seems ludicrous to nearly everybody else. And the history of the Church, at least, seems to be that every denomination has its apostates. The Church condemned Marcionism as heresy in the second century, for example, but I keep hearing Christians claim that Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not worship the same God. And surely Docetism, the notion that Jesus of Nazareth was not really human, continues to be the most seductive form of apostasy for otherwise mainstream Christians. As the Apostle Paul put it, "all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) A little honest self-examination might do us all some good.

Shalom/Salaam/Shanti/Pax,
Tom